Hansard, 1995-11-03

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 8th to 13th November and from 7th to 12th December, 1995. Mr Leong Horn Kee - from 16th to 30th November, 1995. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 25th to 29th November, 1995. Mr Lee Kuan Yew - on 3rd November, 1995. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi - from 7th to 22nd November and from 8th to 22nd December, 1995. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [2nd November, 1995], "That this House: (1) notes with regret that the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Dr Chee Soon Juan, with two other SDP members, attended the "alternative panel" discussion organised by Dr George Crane in Williams College on 15 September 1995, and there endorsed Mr Francis Seow's attacks on the judiciary, and (2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive from justice on the independence and integrity of our judiciary and legal system, that ensure the rule of law in Singapore.". - [Dr Ow Chin Hock]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. We had one full day's debate yesterday and the debate continues today. One may ask why is it that so much time in Parliament is being taken up on the subject. One may ask why is it that we, Members of Parliament, take such a strong position when unfounded and baseless attacks on the judiciary are made. I would like to address that question, Sir. Most countries, in fact, have laws which punish scandalous statements made about the judiciary and there are good reasons for this, and the reasons were mentioned yesterday. Firstly, unfounded attacks on the judiciary will undermine confidence in the judiciary and in the entire judicial process. Secondly, if untruths are repeated over a period of time, and these are not rebutted, people may begin to believe in them. Thirdly, as Mr Davinder Singh pointed out, the judges are not able to come out and publicly defend themselves directly. One can say that those reasons are universal and that is why most common law jurisdictions have laws to punish for contempt of court. But, Sir, l would argue that in Singapore these considerations are especially important and I would like to explain why. Firstly, such unfounded and scandalous attacks not only attack on the judiciary but they attack on certain core values of the system which we uphold in Singapore. An attack on the integrity of judges is therefore not an attack only on members of the judiciary but on principles and values which we hold fundamental to Singapore's social and political system - honesty, integrity and incorruptibility. In fact, this is what sets Singapore apart from so many other countries. We do not have agricultural or mineral resources but we have these special attributes which we hold dear to us and which many others outside Singapore place a lot of importance on and they have absolute faith and confidence that we will maintain these values. Therefore, scandalous attacks on the judiciary not only undermine faith in the legal and judicial process but ultimately undermine confidence in the Singapore's system of government. Surely that must be the conclusion. How can one believe that the Government of Singapore is honest, incorruptible if it has a judiciary which does the Government's bidding? An attack on the independence and integrity of Singapore judges is therefore an attack on a central pillar of the entire political and social system that we have in Singapore. Secondly, confidence in an independent judiciary, while important for all countries, is especially important for Singapore considering that we are a young nation and that we are multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Singapore is still a nation in the making and many of our legal institutions and concepts are in fact inherited from the British. To a large part of our population, a concept like the independence of the judiciary was an alien concept. It is not an indigenous concept. We are all Members of Parliament and we have our meet-the-people sessions. How many times have we had experiences when constituents come to us asking us to write letters to the court or the magistrate and they expressed disbelief when we say that we cannot write to the judge or the magistrate. Therefore, an attack on the judiciary serves to reinforce these traditional views among our people, especially the lesser educated, that the courts are simply part of the Government. It is important that people have no doubt that our judges apply the law fairly and equally to all, regardless of status, and that unlike the days in ancient India or China, our judges are not Government servants answerable to the emperor or the king. In order for judges to effectively perform that crucial role, the public must have confidence that they will apply and uphold the law with absolute impartiality and will perform their judicial duties independently without fear or favour. Let us not forget the wide range of decisions which judges have to decide. It may be an ordinary case involving a fine or jail, but it is not ordinary to an ordinary individual. That may be the first time he goes to a court. It may be more serious - lengthier imprisonment, caning or, in extreme, the death penalty. In civil cases, you may have small amounts or amounts in dispute going to millions of dollars and it can have important constitutional questions involving like the one that we had recently on interpretation of the Constitution concerning powers of the President under the Constitution. Whatever the decision, the people must have confidence that the decisions are made by judges on the basis of law, evidence and the merits of the case. Singapore is not a homogenous society. We are a heterogenous society. The plaintiffs, defendants, prosecutors, witnesses, the accused and defence counsel come from different religious, racial, linguistic backgrounds. So too the judges. Therefore, no one should doubt that race, language or religion of the judge or the parties makes any difference in the decisions of our courts. If we allow insidious attacks on the integrity of the judiciary we erode this confidence which is vital for our society. Sir, I was in New York when the verdict in the O J Simpson's case was announced. It sparked off a huge national debate in America. Public opinion on O J Simpson's guilt and the fairness of the trial, as you all know, polarised sharply between black and white Americans. As I watched the television, talk shows and various opinion polls, it struck me what if we reach a situation like that where different ethnic groups have divergent views on the judicial system. The answer is clear. We will be in deep trouble. Of course, in that case, it was the jury's decision which sparked off the debate but the issue is the same - faith and confidence in the entire judicial process as such. Thirdly, confidence in the judiciary and the judicial process has an impact on investment and business climate, as the Senior Minister pointed out yesterday. We have been given very high rankings by the World Competitiveness Report and PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy) and consistently rank very high. Faith and confidence in the legal infrastructure, the judicial system and administration of justice are factors which potential investors and businessmen take into account. They watch very carefully these rankings in making their decisions to invest in any particular country. It is very noteworthy that even Christopher Lingle at Williams College grudgingly conceded that on commercial matters he could not fault our courts. Therefore, if we leave unchallenged such baseless attacks on our judiciary, investment confidence will fall with disastrous results for Singapore. Another reason is that attacks on the judiciary will have an impact on how we are perceived abroad and can affect foreign relations. Look at the kinds of cases that we have had in the past year or two. A Dutch national was charged for drug trafficking and executed. There was the Michael Fay's case involving caning, the Flor Contemplacion case and so on, and there will be many more. Of course, some of our critics abroad do take issue with us, do disagree with us, on some of our laws, the severity of our laws or the policies underpinning the laws. We can have a debate. They have criticised us on the death penalty, corporal punishment and so on. But no one abroad should have any doubt whatsoever about the decisions and the manner in which our judges decide on these cases. They should have no doubt that the judicial process is fair and that the judges decide on the basis of law and evidence. Members will recall the debate we had earlier this year on the Flor Contemplacion case and I said at that time that we regularly receive diplomatic representations from foreign missions on various cases involving their nationals. But what is important is that no foreign government has ever alleged that our courts have not been thorough or impartial. Take the Leeson's case. Leeson had originally challenged our application for his extradition on the grounds that he did not think that he would get a fair trial in Singapore. The German court allowed our application and Leeson appealed. He has since changed his mind and has withdrawn the appeal and has publicly stated that he thinks he will get a fair trial in Singapore and has apologised to Singaporeans for originally suggesting otherwise. Let us remember that we have some 7 million tourists coming to Singapore every year. In addition, we have hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals working and residing in Singapore. It is important that they and their governments must have no doubts that the standard of justice applied to them by our Judges is the same as that for Singaporeans. Therefore, if such unfair attacks are left unchallenged, the image of Singapore, of our system, and of our people, will be unfairly tarnished. They will have an insidious and pernicious effect. Silence in the face of such absolutely ludicrous allegations may be wrongly taken as an admission of guilt that the allegations are valid. Sir, I have sought to spell out some of the important considerations why we should take these attacks seriously. As I have said, they are not just an attack on the judiciary; they are in fact an attack on Singapore. And that is why it is important that we have a clear idea how certain people and political societies, when abroad, respond in the face of these attacks and who stand up for Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was taken aback when I discovered that Parliament is going to move a motion to note "with regret" and to deplore the SDP and the Secretary-General in this respect. We on record have never at any time questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary. In fact, as late as 25th May 1995, when a motion was moved to reaffirm the integrity of the judiciary, we made our stand very, very clear. And at that debate I mentioned not once, but I emphasised on a number of occasions, that we have complete confidence and faith in the judiciary. With that in mind, we move on to the motion that the SDP Secretary-General endorsed the attacks by Francis Seow. If we had not made our stand on the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the Judges very clear, which are two important ingredients of a judiciary, then if anyone had said anything about it, it is our duty to rebut it. But, as I said earlier, we have mentioned this fact. We have already said so that we do not doubt and we affirm the independence and integrity of our judiciary. Therefore, on the question of endorsement, I would say it is a very weak point. So far, the only evidence produced in this debate was the fact that Francis Seow made all those points at the College. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, whatever he said was not published in full. It is true that our Secretary-General mentioned that he agreed with "many" of the things he said. One would easily construe "I agree with many ...", as a clear indication that whatever he said is not all-encompassing, it must say more. So to have a fair decision on this, I think Members of the House should be given a copy of the full text of what he said. It is very simple. For example, he said 20 things. I said I agreed with many of the things he said. It would not necessarily involve those points that he had not touched on. So how would one say that he has endorsed those points? It is not specific. He said many things. But when he said, "I agree with many of the things he said", does it mean that he endorsed those points, which is the subject of this motion in Parliament? Not necessarily so. He has not done so. Mr Speaker, looking at the motion, I would have thought it confines merely to Williams College on 15th September 1995. If you read The New Democrat (Special Edition), page 5, this is what I was given to understand. I cannot confirm because I do not have the text of Francis Seow's speech. I do not have it, but what is stated inside here is more than what Dr Chee needs to reply. A lot is mentioned here. An hon. Member: Marijuana.

Correct. He had answered a few specific points. He went out of the way to bring in more points which were not even raised at the College. This is by way of example. I suppose the only mistake he made is that he did not rebut specifically or direct the point specifically. [Interruption]. Give me a chance to finish my speech. I have not come to the point yet. You are jumping to conclusion. I want to go through the whole thing and then I will make my stand very clear. Nothing to be ashamed of. We made our stand very clear long ago. The position is this. Dr Chee, besides answering some of the points raised by Lingle, as well as Francis Seow, raised this point which is in favour of Singapore. He mentioned that Singapore is not like Myanmar, China or the Soviet Union [Interruption]. Precisely that is the reason why it cannot be, because you must examine the example in its totality. We know this country and I do not have to mention the judicial system or the rest of this country. When we said we are not unlike them, we are better than them. In other words, in its totality, we have a good system, and we have much more. We even went to the extent to mention that we are not like the Iraqi dictator. We are not like them. And on top of that, we also mentioned this fact that we have complete freedom of movement, we can go in and out of Singapore without any harassment by the Government. We also mentioned the fact that, despite the press being controlled, most of our articles are being published in the press. That explains a lot. So one must actually look at the circumstances in which those words were uttered, bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier, our style all along has never been to question the integrity or independence of the judiciary. With that in mind, would you say that silence is an endorsement? Of course, SDP was indirectly brought in, perhaps inertia. We are being linked inside to say that we support. And just to repeat what I have said earlier, we already made our stand very clear as late as May how we view our judiciary, its independence, and the integrity of our Judges. I made it very clear then. And I made this on behalf of the SDP. The next point is - it was raised in Parliament yesterday - the fact that Dr Chee was asked to reply to Dr Ow's letter and another letter by the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister. If you read the SDP's reply, we asked, "would you please state the full text of Francis Seow?" Let us have his full text and we will reply. We will respond point by point - what are the points we agree and what are the points we do not agree. But there you are, you stop there! We were not accorded a complete text of what he said and you must always remember that we have no recording. When we went there, as far as I know, no recording was done. [Interruption]. We do not have a very efficient tape recording machine. We will wait until we have enough money, then perhaps we can have one that can tape 50 miles away. We do not have that. But the Government has got the press, and everything was recorded. It is only fair. You do not expect us to remember everything said by him and under what context those words were spoken. If you have given us the speech and we fail to respond, that is a different matter entirely. Having said that we never question the integrity and independence of the judiciary, it must necessarily follow that whatever was said by Francis Seow, we were not with him. It is as simple as that. If we had remained silent, or all this while we have never mentioned about the judiciary, then perhaps the more reason why we should say either "yes" or "no" to him. But we have made our point very clear, as I said, as late as in May. Do we need, or is it necessary, to re-emphasise? We cannot be saying, "I don't believe in this crook." Then the crook says: "But you steal something ...". "Oh, now it's another act of the crook doing something." We already said he is a crook. Must we again emphasise on every act done by the person concerned? We do not have to. Some hon. Members: Who is the crook?

I am merely citing an example. You can come to your own conclusion. I merely cite an example. So to be fair to Members of Parliament, the full text ought to be given to Members here. Let them judge for themselves how much had been said, bearing in mind the motion here is of endorsement firstly, and secondly, our support. As I said, these two parts are linked together. When one stands, the second one follows. When the first one falls, the second one would follow accordingly. And I have already mentioned the fact why SDP did not respond. It is because following the last letter, we asked: would you please supply the full text of the speech? It was not accorded any response. We stopped there. So I have made it quite clear here, on behalf of SDP. I will tell this House that when the motion comes up for division, we are not able to vote for it, for this very simple reason. If you read the motion, it says, "deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive ...". As I mentioned earlier, we have never, on our part, attacked the independence of the judiciary and we have not supported him and we would like to make our stand very clear here. How could we support that? Because if we support it, I am contradicting what I am saying here. We just cannot be doing that. I have already explained that I cannot be supporting this because it is a clear-cut contradiction that we have never supported the attack. So if I vote in favour, I am saying that I am in support of the attack on the judiciary. It cannot be done. I would have to vote against it. That is why I have to explain because it is a contradiction on my part. But I have already made my stand very clear. What you want to know, I have made it very clear. In fact, I have made it very clear long ago. Long ago, I reiterated SDP's stand that we have complete faith and trust in the independence and integrity of our judiciary. That is all I have to say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard Mr Ling's comments and in it, he mentioned that the Secretary-General of his party, Dr Chee, was not given a copy of the full text of Francis Seow's speech and, therefore, whatever he agreed may not be what he said. But it is irrelevant. I am sure he must have read Francis Seow's book To Catch a Tartar. And in that book, Francis Seow's stand on our judiciary is very clearly stated. His accusations of our judiciary are very clearly stated in that book. And if the SDP, having associated with Francis Seow and having read the book, can come to this House and deny that they did not agree with Francis Seow's speech on that particular day, I think it is not true. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, the Senior Minister gave an in-depth account of the meticulous selection process of finding good Judges and Judicial Commissioners to run the judiciary system. And today, Prof. Jayakumar gives us the reasons why a good judiciary is important for Singapore. Our judiciary is open and transparent and for this very reason, we are not afraid to defend the system, if challenged. There is nothing to hide and we are open to any scrutiny. Thus, what took place at Williams College, namely, Francis Seow and Christopher Lingle's accusations of our judiciary and, unfortunately, agreed by SDP representatives, Dr Chee and two others, will not draw silent response and, thus, this debate. I agree with Dr Ow's response two days ago in the Straits Times to Dr Chee's complaint that it was not right to debate the motion standing in the names of my Parliamentary colleagues, Dr Ow and Mr Davinder Singh, because the SDP representatives in this House were not at Williams College. So were also most of us in this House. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, did not Dr Chee go to Williams College as an SDP member, and not as an individual? As he went as an SDP member, he must have had the blessings of the SDP's Central Executive Council, of which two of their members are in this House. Therefore, the SDP MPs in this House cannot disclaim Dr Chee's action at Williams College, as mentioned by Dr Ow. It is a question of shared responsibility. Can you imagine our Prime Minister disclaiming our Minister for Communications' policy on land transport? It is simply not proper for a responsible man to do such a thing. Did Dr Chee and two SDP members go to Williams College on their own, or on sponsored tickets? Reading The New Democrat, the SDP's newsletter, I learned that Dr Chee was provided with an airline ticket by students of Williams College, through an organisation called Polis. But what hurts me was the headline on the ticket issue in The New Democrat. It reads and I quote: `Economy or First-class Air Ticket? The contempt shown by the highest-paid PM in the world' I think it is a cheap trick. It is deception by distortion. Singaporeans cannot be bluffed to believe what they read. The truth of the matter is that SDP is embarrassed by this. Does it matter whether it is economy or first class? It does not matter at all. The important point is that it is a sponsored ticket and, with it, the implications of a sponsored ticket. Mr Speaker, Sir, when you travel on a sponsored ticket, the sponsor hopes to get something back in return. And in this case, the "anti-Goh" group wanted Dr Chee to help them strengthen their case. And, Sir, the person who accepts the ticket has an obligation to return something back out of gratitude and, again, at Williams College, Dr Chee agreed with many things, though not all of the remarks made by Francis Seow, Christopher Lingle, William Safire and George Crane. Either the SDP is naive in failing to see the hidden agenda, or the leadership is silly to accept it. The embarrassment, Sir, must be quite telling for them to come out with the kind of headlines in this newspaper. The sponsors of the alternative panel discussion wanted Dr Chee to go to Williams College to help them champion a stand they made against the Prime Minister's award. They needed someone from Singapore to gain attention, to provide credibility for their stand and therefore help strengthen their case. Little did the sponsor realise that someone they got from Singapore was not such a big draw for their cause and, as it turned out, it was a failure, and the Prime Minster came out stronger than before. But there is more to this, Mr Speaker, Sir, and this was mentioned by the Senior Minister yesterday. Singaporeans must understand that the Human Rights group in the States, backed by the New York Times and Washington Post, found Singapore a pain in the neck for having taken a position not favourable to their ideals. And this can be traced back to what we said in the United Nations on Human Rights. It is obvious we do not see eye to eye on a number of aspects regarding this issue. This went against their philosophy and, thus, the hostility to Singapore. To make matters worse, many countries adopted similar stance and, thus, add to their frustrations. Human rights activists from Asiawatch and Amnesty International, I am sure, were at Williams College. And I believe they saw the visit by Prime Minister Goh as an opportunity to demonstrate their displeasure. So they roped in Dr Chee, two SDP members, together with Christopher Lingle, William Safire and Francis Seow, to lend support to their cause. They would not say this openly. In fact, they would deny this. But they have a good network. They want to put Singapore on trial. They want to debate Singapore in the United States to shame us for our crimes. On what? On human rights, on press freedom and a compliant judiciary system. And the SDP must have fitted well into their game plan when SDP announced it wanted to go to Williams College to attend the alternative panel discussion. And true enough at Williams College, the press reported Dr Chee agreeing with the utterances of Francis Seow and Christopher Lingle, especially on the subject of debate today in this House, ie, the integrity of our judiciary system. This is a dangerous move for SDP. It would discredit the SDP's leadership because the SDP has positioned itself by allowing outsiders into the Singapore political arena, helping them interfere with our domestic politics. Is this what Singaporeans want of the SDP, a party claiming to provide the alternative to the People's Action Party? Singaporeans must, therefore, judge wisely whether they want such leaders who are prepared to stand side-by-side with foreigners in a foreign land, condemning the Government Singaporeans voted in the last 30 years. Is this the proper and correct behaviour of true Singaporeans? Mr Speaker, Sir, the worst thing is that those people who took strong stance against us had never been to Singapore and depended on hearsay to justify the misguided view of Singapore. And SDP, as I said, was prepared to share their platform at Williams College. If the PAP has really done such hostile things, such horrible things, as described by Safire, how could the PAP have been returned to this House every four to five years at every General Election. And for the SDP to stand on the same platform as these people shows their utter disregard for Singaporeans' democratic choice. Are Singaporeans not intelligent enough to make wise and correct decisions? Mr Speaker, Sir, I read in the Business Times on 20th and 21st September 1995 that SDP wants to start a Singapore chapter of the FDLAP. I am sure Members in this House will know what FDLAP stands for. I did not know until I read it. It is called the Forum of Democratic Leaders in Asia Pacific. But what is its objective? To promote and facilitate the growth of democracy. It sounds very noble. It is based in South Korea and it was started by a Korean politician, named Kim Dae Jung. I follow the Korean political scene and, as you know, there is a huge sum of money being slushed around (you can read all this in the papers), something in the region of US$910 million. Is this the type of democracy we want slushing around in Singapore? SDP may feel comfortable starting such a chapter. But Singaporeans should take heed of what to expect if SDP wants to promote this brand of democracy in Singapore. They are starting a chapter here, so they are prepared to promote that brand of democracy. And this is where I think we must be extremely careful. Singaporeans know that the PAP is not perfect. We have never claimed to be perfect. At times, our policies do irritate the people. But on balance, we are not so bad. We have acted as good custodians, to borrow the words from the Prime Minister. And the people know that. Thus, to have a Singaporean standing on a platform in the United States, shoulder to shoulder with such Singapore critics who have never been here, as I said, never stepped on our soil, and demanding changes to our judiciary and other policies, must be the biggest insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. As MPs, we have gone abroad to international conferences and meetings to explain difficult issues, to explain detention without trial, human rights, press freedom. We will defend our stand. But we have never let ourselves to be used by foreigners for their own ends. Because this is our responsibility to the Singapore people who voted us in. And as responsible leaders, therefore we are extremely cautious whenever seemingly caring foreigners want to offer support. Let me read to you what a political science major, Zachary Cook, said at Williams College. And I quote the Straits Times of 16th September 1995, page 34. He said: `We hope to encourage Dr Chee and others to continue to challenge the People's Action Party. It is important that there is an opposition in Singapore to push and nudge PM Goh and the PAP in the right direction.' Let me go into more details on this. He hoped "to encourage Dr Chee and others to continue to challenge the People's Action Party." I think we cannot challenge that. They can come and oppose us. But I wonder how is he going to encourage them? By what means? Interfere with our politics here? "It is important that there is an opposition in Singapore." Here again, we have no quarrel on that. "... to push and nudge PM Goh and the PAP in the right direction." It appears as if we have been going in the wrong direction for the past 30 years. I think we should invite this gentleman to come here and see for himself what we have achieved in the last 30 years. I think it is ridiculous. The SDP went to Williams College and this is the sort of advice they got. Does the SDP expect Francis Seow to help their cause? Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Francis Seow is so captured by his past history with Lee Kuan Yew, that he is not fighting for the SDP's cause. He is fighting his own private battle. And the SDP has allowed itself to be dragged into this by agreeing to what he said at Williams College. Except for Mr Chiam, who being the wiser, a more matured politician, cleverly stayed away from his Party's stand. And to be fair to Mr Chiam, he cares too much for Singapore to want to allow foreigners to throw mud at us. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not easy for us to stand before this House and defend the integrity of our judiciary system. Sceptics will always say we are praising ourselves and blowing our own trumpet. Therefore, it is always best if others sing praises of our system. Sir, I refer to two surveys mentioned by Dr Ow and also mentioned by the Senior Minister, and later on by Prof. Jayakumar but it is still worth repeating. The first survey was published in the Straits Times. I have got it here. It is titled "Justice System in Asia". It is very well headlined and I will come to this later. The first survey, as you know, is by a Hongkong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy which showed that investors rated the system here the best in the region. They reported foreign investors as saying that the Singapore system was one of the most user friendly legal and judicial systems in Asia. The second survey, and this is by the Swiss-based World Economic Forum, placed Singapore first in Asia. For the information of this House, this is a non-profit foundation founded in 1971 and based in Geneva. It functions under the legal supervision of the Swiss government. Therefore, there is credibility. The two surveys speak for themselves and I do not want to add further to it, except to ask those who criticise our judiciary system to take a look at this Foundation's report on the ranking of the justice system. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the critics of our judiciary are domiciled mainly in the United States, it might be of interest to them that the US ranked 22nd. And the country, Singapore, they condemn so much ranked 9th. Sir, I support the motion standing in the names of Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Davinder Singh.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was listening to the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling How Doong. The impression he gave me was that he was fighting a losing battle. He has been cornered. So he has tried to free himself. His defence is not convincing. He said that he did not have access to the full text of Francis Seow's speech. But my question is: before he came to defend his Secretary-General, did he find out from his Secretary-General? I believe that his Secretary-General is not a forgetful person. In fact, he personally attended the alternative panel in Williams College. On top of that, after Francis Seow had spoken, he offered his comments. So what did Francis Seow say at the College? What was the content of his speech? I am sure he would have no difficulty telling Mr Ling so that Mr Ling could defend him. I would say that his defence is not convincing at all. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said that a picture is worth more than a thousand words. I have here a cartoon. Its caption is "To Add Fuel to Fire". This cartoon has captured what the leaders of SDP have done. Somebody was setting fire and attacking Singapore. They wore helmets and the uniform of the firemen and they were bringing the hose in order to fight the fire. But what came out from the hose is not water but petrol. So this is adding fuel to fire. When people are attacking Singapore, they took the opportunity to aggravate the matter, not once but repeatedly. At first, we had the Flor Contemplacion matter. Then we had the William Safire's matter, and now we have the Williams College incident. On 15th September 1995, Dr Chee Soon Juan made use of the air ticket presented to him by the Americans and went with two of his officials to attend the alternative panel discussion organised by Dr George Crane in Williams College. As we all know, the purpose of this alternative panel was to try to pull our Prime Minister down. George Crane invited Francis Seow and Lingle, two fugitives, and the two of them put on a very animated performance on the stage and threw a lot of criticisms and unreserved attacks on Singapore. Dr Chee Soo Juan did not dare to go on stage but he was supporting them from the floor. When these two fugitives were performing on the stage, he was there adding fuel to fire from the floor. Mr Speaker, Sir, my view is that Dr Chee Soon Juan is putting up a very cunning act. He did not have to say it with his own mouth. He only said one thing. He said, "I must say I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said." So he was actually borrowing a knife to kill others. He was making use of Mr Seow and Dr Lingle to attack the judiciary system and to undermine the image of our judges and the foundation of our judiciary system. I feel that his act had betrayed the interest of our nation. We know that the judiciary is the basis of our legal system in Singapore. It is precisely because of the integrity of the judges that we are able to stand so firmly as a small nation. Once it is shaken, people would lose confidence in our judiciary and our investors would also lose confidence in us. Let us look at the trial of Simpson in the United States. It is a very good example. I have here a press cutting. After the jury had delivered their verdict, there was this article in the newspaper which says "Money talk for Simpson's trial". Is our judiciary the same as this? Sir, all these years our judiciary and our Government have been clean and incorrupt. We have always selected the best to serve the people. There is a high degree of transparency in our Government, and the independence of our judiciary and the integrity of our judges are known to everybody. Just now, my colleague mentioned the reports from various quarters. Our political leaders are clean and our judiciary is independent. This is the reason for our success. Recently, the Fortune magazine conducted a survey and they rated Singapore as the best city to do business in. Therefore, to uphold the integrity of our leaders and the independence of our judiciary is very important. It is not only the responsibility of the Government but the duty of every citizen. If there is a defect in our judicial system, the courts cannot give judgement according to the law, and we are unable to rectify it, then we will be in trouble. But if our courts are fair and just, all our judges are like "Justice Bao", the very fair and just Judge, then if anyone is to attack our judiciary system, everyone of us will have the duty to defend our judiciary system so that the people will not be misled. Although Dr Chee had been using the method of "borrowing a knife to kill others", and he was "wearing a pair of gloves" when he was in Williams College, we could see through his intention. Although he was trying very hard to do it under cover, he has actually shown his true colour. The evidence was overwhelming. He was misleading the readers. When he endorsed Francis Seow's attack on our judiciary system, there was no coverage at all in the SDP's newspaper. So what Dr Chee and the SDP had done is that although they have adopted an indirect approach to attack our judiciary system, this was indeed malicious. They should be exposed and condemned. 1.34 pm

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate in the names of the Members for Leng Kee and Toa Payoh GRC. Listening to the leader of the SDP, Mr Ling, making his rebuttal just now with regard to the motion before Parliament today, I was a little bit disturbed that even at this stage his defence of the action of his political party, which he leads, is of such muddled and twisted logic. He claims that he does not have with him, or he asks of the Minister to let him know of the speech that Mr Francis Seow was supposed to have made at Williams College. I will read to Members what Mr Francis Seow at Williams College said with regard to the independence and integrity of our judiciary. In the course of the speech he mentioned, and I quote: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM LKY [by which he meant Senior Minister LKY] and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Mr Goh Chok Tong, the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent International Herald Tribune libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, a statement such as this, so glaring and so slanderous, cannot escape the notice of the Leader of the Opposition. I will go on from here to read further in the course of the speech what Mr Francis Seow has said with regard to the corrupt judiciary in Singapore, which he claims. `The appointment of judges, including that of Chief Justice, is the prerogative of the PM who selects them from among members of the bar, needless to say those chosen are required to be politically correct. Lee once boasted that the persons he appoints know what is expected of them. He appointed as Chief Justice of Singapore, a banker, who had not practised law for two decades, whose superior claim to this illustrious position was that he was a faithful crony. Thus neither a wink nor a nod is necessary. Reluctant litigants in Singapore can therefore expect short shrift from justice in any legal proceedings involving the Government .... confident that these judges know on which side of the judicial bread is buttered. Lee uses the courts as a legal weapon with which to bankrupt or cripple the Opposition.' Mr Speaker, Sir, such damaging statement made by a fugitive from the law in Singapore, and there we have this illustrious gathering of the SDP with their senior members, and the Chairman of the SDP claims that he does not know what Mr Francis Seow says at this gathering in Williamstown. Mr Ling How Doong rose -

Order. Mr Chay, are you giving way to Mr Ling? Mr Chay Wai Chuen resumed his seat.

Sir, if he had listened carefully to what I said, I merely mentioned the fact that we were not given the full text of his speech. What Mr Chay is insinuating is that I was not even aware of the attack on the judiciary. He is wrong. He must listen carefully before he said it. What I said earlier was that we were not given the full text of the speech. Of course, I know the other charges against him of attacking the independence of the judiciary. That matter was in fact cited in Parliament yesterday. But what he said was that I was not even aware of it. That is not the case.

Sir, I have with me here a copy of the full speech of Mr Francis Seow at Williams College. With your permission, I will tender the speech through Dr Ow who will hand it to Mr Ling.

I think you have replied to what I said out of context. My earlier assertion was that Dr Chee said that he agreed to many of the things he said. In actual fact, he said many things. But the full text was not even before him. For example, he said 20 things. I said I endorse many of the things. It does not follow that I endorse the three or four attacks on the judiciary. Now you give me a copy of the speech. It is of no use.

Sir, my point is that as the Leader of the Opposition party which is represented in this gathering at Williamstown --- Mr Ling How Doong rose ---

Order. Mr Ling, can you resume your seat.

Could I ---

Resume your seat first for Mr Chay to finish his speech.

My point is that as the Leader of the Opposition party who was there at this gathering and who took part in the proceedings, he claims that he does not know what Mr Francis Seow talks about with regard to the judiciary. I suppose he is not even aware what we are talking about today. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---

Mr Chay, would you give way to Dr Tan? Mr Chay Wai Chuen resumed his seat.

I want to ask Mr Ling whether he knows Dr Chee was present at the time when Francis Seow delivered his speech.

Definitely.

In that case, I assume Dr Chee, being an intelligent man, would have got all that he wanted to hear about Francis Seow's comment.

Mr Speaker, I just want to know this. None of us know how long Francis Seow has spoken. An hon. Member: We know.

You know. I do not know. [Interruptions.]

Order.

If a person is present, listening to somebody talking, obviously he must know. That is all I want to say and you are saying he did not know. You said you must get the full text of the speech, then you are able to reply. I think that is ridiculous.

Mr Speaker, may I continue?

Yes. Mr Ling How Doong rose ---

Do you want to give way to Mr Ling, Mr Chay? Mr Chay Wai Chuen resumed his seat.

The request from Dr Chee was: could we be furnished with a copy of the full text of Francis Seow's statement. Some hon. Members: Yes.

It was not done. I made it very clear here. From what I heard from him, we have no recording. We do not know his full text. We asked for the full text. Is there any problem in supplying the full text? Why not supply the full text?

Sir, there is no need for a recording to know. [Interruptions].

Order in the House.

Do you doubt the quotation?

No, of course, not. I do not doubt the quotation.

Sir, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition does not doubt the quotation. I hope he understands the quotation. I am very glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, that at least we have this motion for debate in Parliament today. Just now, Mr Ling himself said that in May he mentioned something in the House that reinforces the stand of the SDP in the justice system of Singapore. At that time, two Nominated Members, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Mr De Payva, moved the motion in Parliament regarding the Flor Contemplacion case. What did Mr Ling say in Parliament? That they wanted the case to be clear, to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Was there any doubt that the justice system in Singapore is fair and transparent and just? Well, maybe not to the SDP. During that period, the Chairman of SDP wrote to the President of the Philippines expressing regret over the situation. If we read the context of the case, are we not justified in thinking that the Leader of the Opposition doubts the justice system in Singapore?

He is distorting facts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Chay is not giving way. Mr Ling How Doong resumed his seat.

He can make his point after I have spoken.

If he does not allow me, good.

Mr Ling, order in the House. Mr Chay, continue, please.

When challenges are made to the independence and the integrity of our judiciary, it must be the duty of Members of Parliament to bring it to Parliament so that this matter could be debated by all Members who after all represent the people of Singapore. For Singapore, as truly in a representative democracy, the legislature, that is, Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary have solemn duties and responsibilities to perform in order for representative government to work, and manifestly seen to work. I have just said that in the Flor Contemplacion case, it was the two Nominated Members of Parliament who tabled the motion. When the Opposition party was decrying that Singapore's machinery of justice was on trial and the leader of the SDP wrote to the head of state of government, at that time the two Opposition parties were busy issuing statements to the press, pouring oil over fire, and what were the Opposition Members doing in Parliament? Majestically silent. I raised the question then: why did the Opposition party members in Parliament, as representatives of their parties and representatives of the electorate, not bring up the serious matter regarding justice system in Singapore for debate? Surely a charge on our justice system merits debate in Parliament. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad that this motion has been tabled for debate. This time, it concerns the independence and integrity of our judiciary. When attacks are made by fugitives from our justice, especially when leaders of a political party which is represented in Parliament, partake in the process where the attacks are made in full public forum and the international media, it is the duty of Parliament to debate the matter. The SDP leaders, especially the ones seated in this House, would be grossly derelict in their duties to Parliament and to Singapore if they do not defend their other party leaders for what they did. They should explain to the House their party's action. And the party leaders of SDP flew all the way to the US for a chance to join in this "alternative panel", paid for by some Americans. I am really surprised that the Secretary-General of the SDP could say that he accepted the paid tickets with honour and pride. If he had gone there to promote Singapore, one can at least understand. What we are seeing here is a leader of an Opposition party, with two other senior party executives, stooping to pick up the tickets and fly 14-16 hours to good old Williamstown to take part in an "alternative panel", together with fugitives from justice in Singapore, and there endorsed the attacks on our judiciary. How can the leaders of the SDP in this House take this sitting down? Luckily, it was our Prime Minister who won the show at Williams, in spite of all the lobbying and the organisation to disrupt the proceedings and embarrass the honoured PM. Dr George Crane was the leader of this lobby group against our Prime Minister. He has never visited Singapore. And as our friend Dr Chee says, that having been there and having spoken to the people there, it was clear that the students in the faculty bore no anti-Singapore sentiments. Was he not disappointed? Surely he had expected otherwise. It is the same old twist and turn of words and face as in the Flor Contemplacion case when having poured oil on burning fire, the same two-faced person turns around and says: Is there anything I can do to help? In a letter to the Straits Times on 27th September, Dr Chee as Secretary-General revealed repeatedly his double faced profile. He says, and I quote - he is speaking in the context of challenging the PAP to debate him: `Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. What we want is a public debate between the Government and the Opposition before a Singapore audience on issues that concern us.' I wish to correct his twisted logic a little. What he meant to say is that the SDP, or he, thinks that Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. What he said is of course not true. If what he said is true, why go all the way to the United States to appear before an alternative panel in the public, in full media coverage? And there when attacks were made on the integrity of our judiciary, all he could say is, "No, you don't get fined for chewing gums", and "no, it is not as bad as the Soviet Union". Beyond all this debate, there are important reasons why I believe it is not true that Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. The US is one of the largest investor countries in Singapore. American businesses and MNCs are a significant factor in investments in the Far East. The US is also a significant military power in the Pacific. The US is a huge market and the US is a technological power. It is because we value what Americans think of us that we are concerned about the half-truths, and the falsehoods and the lies that are perpetrated by the pundits and the fugitives from justice with axes to grind and with their own agendas. Dr Chee knows very well what the Americans think of us matters to us. Hence, he pitched for it. But having found the ground different, with rows and rows of empty chairs, and white patches of turfs dotted by a few half perplexed students, that regard for our PM was high, naturally he must show the other face. Mr Speaker, Sir, following the events at Williams College on TV, I was very much struck by the dissimilarity in character of two Americans. One was Dr George Crane, the lecturer, who Dr Chee found "definitely not vicious" (one should be a little careful coming from Dr Chee). He was so worked up on Singapore, and I read he is an expert on China. He has not even been to Singapore. He has been reading up on the subject lately and I believe a lot from some of the garbage on Internet. I am not sure what he has to say on Deng Xiao Peng. The other was Professor Henry Brutons, who was the teacher of our Prime Minister. He was proud honouring his student, and he was proud of his student. I heard him say so on TV. He has been to Singapore, Malaysia in the 70s. He has worked as economic adviser to developing countries in the past - a man who has been in the thick of development economics in developing countries even in the 70s. The difference between the two scholars struck me. One, Dr Crane has heard many things about a subject which he has not studied. It is not even his field. He has not even seen the country or the people, or their culture, or their way of life, or even appreciated their problems. He has not even talked to the leaders of the country. The other, Professor Brutons, when he was younger, was already in the sun, working as a consultant to struggling economies, teaching them the doctrines, his beliefs and analyses, which were not necessarily received wisdom at that time, and working with the peoples in the countries of his study. One man, the teacher, who knows the student and has contributed much to the field over decades, wants to honour his student; the other not knowing even the subject wants to embarrass him. If one is really interested in scholarship (or liberal arts education, as they say), and one wants to study a subject, do you not have to get some experts who have studied the subject, across the spectrum of views, to give you a good perspective of what you are supposed to be searching for? Was this done at the so-called "alternative panel"? Who were on the panel? Fugitives from the law. At least I know that when the NUS or the NUS Society organises a discussion panel, they are more democratic and more sensible. At least I know Dr Vasoo and Mr Davinder Singh get invited to be on this panel sometimes. And what a spectrum of views do we have in this "alternative panel"? Two fugitives from the law. This alternative panel and the lobby to disrupt the proceedings were organised by someone who was only barely reading up on the subject of Singapore, and the panel of discussion comprises two fugitives from the law. Does that constitute a serious alternative view? The purpose of the alternative panel was of course not scholarship or study but to provide a vehicle for two persons with their own axes to grind and mechanism to undermine the government of a country whose democratic approach to government is not in accord with the civil beliefs of Americans. The end was not scholarship or clarifying democracy in Singapore, but political ploy. It was no alternative, and no panel. And along the way comes the leader of an Opposition party who aspires to be the alternative government. The alternative panel comprising the fugitives from justice attacked the independence and integrity of our judiciary. The SDP leader who aspires to enter Parliament, and you call this party the loyal Opposition, did not even utter a squeal to dissociate the SDP from this castigation on one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state. He was there agreeing with them on many things and presumably in his own telling words - "testing the limits". The pillars of democratic representative government, namely, Parliament, the Government Executive, and the Judiciary must be sacredly guarded and protected. One can at least understand if fugitives from justice attack the pillars of our democratic institutions. They have their own agendas and they have their own scores to settle. But when our own Opposition leaders join in the chorus in search of political capital, Parliament here must draw the line. For if the sacred democratic institutions are being slandered freely, the public here and the overseas investors who have access to all these news and reports through the media, may think that loyal Singaporeans have nothing to say. I must thank the two hon. Members of Parliament for bringing to the House this motion for debate. The SDP members in order to be credible must make their reply more substantive than was said just a moment ago. What the SDP does outside Parliament in endorsing the attacks on our judiciary must also be accounted before Parliament. Otherwise, the rule of law is a sham. Parliament is not a charade. It is supreme. And those who aspire to reach it should have a healthy respect for it. And those who are in it should sacredly guard it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the names of the two Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on, we heard Mr Ling gave us a very enlightening speech but we are still very much in the dark about what he said because he did not shed much light. This is because he was also kept in the dark by his Secretary-General who was present that evening to take part in the alternative panel discussion and his Secretary-General did not tell him what was said, as he had no tape recorder with him at that time. Since Mr Ling does not know what Mr Francis Seow had said and had no full briefing of it from his Secretary-General, and now that Mr Chay Wai Chuen, through Dr Ow, has given him the full text of that speech, I think it is only fair that we give Mr Ling time to study this text, check with his Secretary-General who was there at that time, and who is here today, which part of the speech that he agreed with, which part he did not agree with, and come back and tell us what Dr Chee meant by, "I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said ...". And I hope that this time we will be much more enlightened than the earlier occasion.

Can we have a break?

Yes, of course, we will definitely need a break. We should also give a copy to Mr Low because I think earlier on, during the exchange, Mr Low was not here. May the Clerk make a copy as quickly as possible and give it to Mr Low, so that he could also study the speech, and to other Members of the House, of course. But give it to Mr Low first, so that he will also be aware of what was said by Francis Seow, and he can tell us his position. An hon. Member: Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam, definitely. I would not forget him. So to allow Members enough time to study the transcript of Mr Francis Seow's speech, I would urge Members to agree to have a break. I would also urge Members to give Mr Ling a second chance afterwards to state his position, because under Standing Orders he can only speak once. But I think we could make an exception for him.

Mr Ling, do you want to speak?

I have made my position very clear that we have never questioned the integrity and independence of the judiciary. What does he want? Reiteration or keep on repeating? I want to know what he wants me to speak. The whole motion before this House is the question of the integrity of the judiciary. I have made my stand very clear before the House earlier on. Must I come again and keep on repeating?

Order.

We will be bored to death.

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just clarify?

Order. I think the Leader has made a good suggestion. Would thirty minutes be sufficient for you to read, Mr Ling?

Yes.

I propose to suspend the Sitting and would take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.00 pm until 2.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we suspended the sitting, we said that we would give time to Mr Ling to study the text of Mr Francis Seow's speech. He is still not back here yet. Actually, we are eagerly looking forward to his views. May I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item No. 1 today be exempted from the provision of Standing Order No. 45 in so far as it is necessary to enable hon. Members to speak more than once to any question?

It is an unusual request. But in view of the circumstances, I give my consent. Do Members of the House give their general assent for the Leader to move the motion? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on item (1) on the Order Paper today be exempted from the provision that no Member shall speak more than once to any question laid down in paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 45 - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Sir, while we are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to appear in this House, may I be given leave, Mr Speaker, to join in this debate?

Yes, you may proceed.

Much obliged, Sir. During the break, I have the opportunity to read the speech of Francis Seow, the famous fugitive from Singapore, who has been making headlines of himself in America. This passage that I have looked into has, in fact, already been read by Mr Chay. But I think there is no harm reading it again because of the serious allegations there. It says here: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Goh Chok Tong the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent IHT libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious allegation of our judiciary and of our courts in Singapore. And what astounds me is that the Secretary-General of the SDP was present there. Instead of saying that he agreed to many of the things spoken by Francis Seow, he should immediately, after the speech, stand up and say that the judiciary in Singapore is not at all like that of what has been made out by Francis Seow. That is the position he should have taken. And it also surprises me that the Leader of the Opposition in this House has not come out with the position in regard to the independence and integrity of the judiciary because he has not taken a stand on what Francis Seow had said in Williamstown. It saddens me that the SDP is now run by a megalomaniac. This man wants the centre-stage. He wants the centre-stage all the time. I think it is this character which sends him to Williamstown. He thought he could get centre-stage there and he could get some publicity and score some political points. Mr Speaker, Sir, but what is more important that has happened in Williamstown is that there are certain people there who would like to see Singapore being run down and attacked Singapore. The issue here is not just about people like Chee Soon Juan who come and go in any event but about the survival of Singapore. Singapore's survival is at stake because there is an attack on the basic institution of Singapore and on the system of Singapore. And it is the duty of loyal Opposition to defend Singapore. If I were asked: whether I would attend this alternative panel at Williamstown on 15th September, my answer would certainly be "no". I would not have gone even if I were given a free return air ticket. Why not? If you know the motive, the reasons why they want to hold the alternative panel, no decent Singaporean would attend that meeting. The purpose of that meeting was specifically held to denounce our political system and, in particular, our judiciary. I say that it is not right to attend that meeting. In fact, it is very wrong. Any Singaporean with some sense of decency and good manners will tell you that it is wrong to attend. But some will even dare to say, "Well, Mr Goh Chok Tong went to Williams College on a private visit." People who said that are either completely naive or dishonest. I can tell you that those who aspire to win Parliamentary elections are not that naive. Therefore, the people who said that must be completely dishonest. Would Williams College confer high honours on Mr Goh Chok Tong, if he were not the Prime Minister of Singapore or has not contributed to the economic success of Singapore? I do not think so. But the people at Williams College are no fools. It is precisely that they know Mr Goh Chok Tong, as Prime Minister of Singapore, has in fact contributed to the economic success of Singapore that an honorary doctorate degree was conferred on him. Therefore, it is wrong to say that one can attend and take part in the alternative panel discussion because Goh Chok Tong went there as a private citizen. I have not been consulted by the SDP. If I were consulted, I would have advised them against sending a delegation to attend the alternative panel discussion at Williams College. I give my reasons. One, the SDP does not need such publicity. Two, the fact that the SDP was there, it had already given support to that occasion because the purpose for which the alternative panel discussion was specifically organised was to denounce the honouring of Mr Goh Chok Tong and also to denounce the political system in Singapore which includes, of course, the judiciary. Three, as Singaporeans, we must have human decency, good manners and behave honourably. As Singaporeans, it is really in bad taste to attend a function organised by foreigners to denounce the conferring of high honours on our own Prime Minister. If we, as Singaporeans, do not respect our own Prime Minister, how else do you expect foreigners to respect Singapore's Prime Minister. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

At this juncture, I am not in any way running down the SDP. In fact, that is the party I founded. I am against those who are now in charge of the SDP. They are turning the SDP upside down and making it beyond recognition. When I first started politics in 1976, I said that I would be a constructive, honest and sincere Opposition and I have not, for the last 19 years, deviated from that philosophy. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Some people think that the Opposition's duty is to tear down the system and one of the pillars popularly denounced, especially by people like Francis Seow, is the judiciary. I said "no", we should not do it. The SDP, in particular, should not do that. The present system that has been built up over the past 30 years has served Singapore well and Singaporeans have become prosperous. We have a good thing in hand, and I do not think we should destroy it. Our judiciary system is now under attack. As has been mentioned by Members of the House, it has been voted the best in Asia, endowed with integrity, where people can get their case heard with confidence. This assessment is not by Singaporeans. This assessment is by foreigners. If foreigners, who have no particular interest in Singapore, have said that the standard of integrity in our courts is the highest in Asia and is incorruptible, I think Singaporeans have got absolutely no right to denounce our judiciary. Foreigners say so. It is not us. If Singaporeans say so, people might say that we want to praise our own system. But foreigners have got no particular interest and yet they say Singapore's judiciary is honest and incorruptible. And yet some people still deem fit to attack our judiciary. I myself have no doubt that our judiciary is independent and has the highest standard of integrity. But is the Singapore system perfect? Is Singapore's political system perfect and there is no role for the Opposition? The answer, of course, is no. No political system in the world is perfect. Nobody has found a perfect political system yet. The Russians and the Chinese have tried the Communist system. They think it would build utopias, but what happened. They failed miserably. They have to convert their system from the so-called egalitarian system to the free market system. Singapore has a free market system, but we are still evolving. The Government has commenced its privatisation programme. Singapore society is not static. We are changing all the time, hoping to improve ourselves. We have a good thing now but, of course, Singaporeans hope that we will get a better thing. So I think it is the duty not only of the Opposition but of all Singaporeans to be vigilant, to make sure that a good thing does not turn bad. Why? Because, as you know, human beings are greedy. Look at Japan. It has been prosperous for over 40 years. Then what happens? Politicians there in the LDP, which has been the ruling power for over 40 years, I believe, have become greedy. But luckily, in Japan, there are patriotic and good people in the opposition who are ready to take over power and make sure that things do not get too bad for Japan. If we take the example of Japan, Singapore must also put in its place an Opposition, but not any Opposition. Singapore must have a good, responsible and effective Opposition. That is the aim. I think of all responsible people in the Opposition, it is to make sure that Singapore has a good, honest Opposition. To me, Opposition means that we have to be honourable. On the Opposition, we must be honest and not dishonest. To me, the Opposition must be truthful, and not be liars and cheats. Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear!

To me, above all, in the Opposition, we must be good and patriotic Singaporeans. We must not go around the world denouncing Singapore. Some hon. Members: Yes.

A lot of talk has been made about the free air ticket. Apparently, it was paid for by students. But if I were asked for my view on this air ticket, I would say that they should not have accepted it. It is given by students who are not working. If I have already started work, I should pay for my own ticket. Why get it from the poor students? I think, in principle, it is just not honourable. It is not right to get students who are not working to pay for you when you are working and you have an income. What does it show? It just reflects the character of the man. Whatever he can get, he gets, whether it is $100 or $200! There was also a serious attack on the Chief Justice - a crony of Lee Kuan Yew. If I were there, I would have rebutted and said that there is no such thing. It is a very serious thing to say that the Chief Justice is a crony of the Senior Minister. He cannot just stand there and do nothing. I do not know whether Mr Yong Pung How and Mr Lee Kuan Yew are good friends, because they were students together. But I know for sure that they do have high respect for each other. And they both feel that they have responsibilities towards Singapore and contribute in their own way. The Leader of the Opposition has already given his reasons for the way he would vote. But to me, this is an important issue which the Opposition must take a stand. For me, I will vote for the motion. I will support it. An hon. Member: That is right.

When I vote for the motion, I am not voting against the SDP. I am voting for the long-term interest of the SDP. If the SDP, which is now run by people who do not take a stand on this issue and say categorically that the judiciary is independent and has the highest integrity, then I think the SDP has got no future. What is the SDP trying to achieve? Is it just trying to be one of those irresponsible opposition parties that have come and gone? Or is it really going to contribute to making Singapore a success? I have said many a time that the Opposition must in fact be better than the PAP. We have to contribute as much, if not more than, the PAP in terms of nation building. The Oppositon has got a responsibility. The Government has a duty in nation building. So has the Opposition. And there are many issues in which the Opposition can enter into for the good of the people. I think my stand in the Opposition has been very very clear. But unfortunately, there are others who are very ambitious. They come into politics at 30 years old and they hope to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore at 34. Singapore has a viable system and I do not think that any Opposition should try to sing to the tune of people outside Singapore, whose intentions are in fact questionable in regard to the prosperity and success of Singapore. [Applause].

Mr Ling, you have the floor now.

Sir, this copy of Mr Seow's speech is in small print. In fact, I have sidelined those portions which we agreed. The Minister can take a look, and that is it.

Read out!

Sir, this sidelining of Francis Seow's speech is not my doing. This is SDP quoting and sidelining what is in this text. I think it would be useful for Mr Ling, as the Leader of the Opposition, to take a stand on this and read out the passages that he agreed with or did not agree for the benefit of the whole House. There is no point showing it to me. I would just keep it to my chest. Please read it.

The print is very small. I cannot see very clearly. I am going to read out the passages that we agreed. Take a look at this, it is voluminous. I will just read out the portions that we agreed. At page 1, second paragraph, which says: `Overarching them all is its spectacular promotion to the status of a developed nation by the OECD ... Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, for having attained a gross national product of US$19 thousand ...' I agree with this, up to " ... understandable pride." Let us turn to the next page. An hon. Member: No.

We only agreed with that. As for the rest of the page, we do not agree. We have gone through it. [Interruptions]. An hon. Member: "We" means who?

The SDP. An hon. Member: The whole SDP?

How can it be, because we do not have the CEC here, unless you give us a longer adjournment. We do not have the whole CEC here. When you say "whole", I suppose you mean the CEC. On the next page, in the ninth line, the sentence which reads: `A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ...' and those portions we cancelled out because we are not going to comment about Henry Kamp's observation. We do not know this. Then we go down to "elite are nervous about speaking out." We agree with that.

Order. Mr Ling, can I suggest that you read the words exactly for the purpose of the record, instead of just mentioning in passing the words.

All right. `A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ... the elite are nervous about speaking out.' We have deleted some of them, because I do not think we are in a position to comment. I do not know who is this chap and whether he had made the comments. We are in no position to comment. Then we go further down, somewhere in the middle, which reads: `Thru'out the web of S'pore's history under Lee and his PAP Government one dark thread is always to be seen and that is the long sinister line of arbitrary detention under the ISA which enables Lee to imprison a person indefinitely without trial.' We agree to that. On page 3, in the middle of the first paragraph: `A physics lecturer, an opposition Barisan Socialist MP - his is a classic case of the gross misuse of the ISA which also exemplifies the unparallel vindictiveness of the PM.' Then in the next paragraph: `In 1987 22 young men and women were arrested under the ISA accused of being involved in a dangerous Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government by violence and replace it with a Marxist state. They were no more Marxist than Lee Kuan Yew is a Communist. In any event how 22 young social activists without a single rifle between them let alone an army were going to achieve this violent transformation was never explained.' No more. That is all.

That is all? You repudiate everything?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Francis Seow made an 8-page damning indictment of the Singapore system. Mr Ling How Doong, after some effort, has produced four short passages which he says he agrees with and has repudiated the rest. Dr Chee Soon Juan, at the alternative panel, said, and I quote again: `I must say that I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said and that even as we speak, me and my colleagues that are here this evening are going through some of these difficulties.' I suppose Mr Ling will consider these four items that he has listed "many things". But my first question to him here is: which of these four items he has listed constitute "difficulties" which Dr Chee and his colleagues, who are here this evening, are going through?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is only the speech of Francis Seow. I believe there is also the speech of Dr Lingle.

You want to see that too?

No. My understanding is that his comment, "I agree with many of the things" is not confined to the speech of Francis Seow. It also referred to Dr Lingle. That is what I am given to understand.

Would you like to go through that? [A copy of the speech was handed to Mr Ling How Doong].

This is a 9-page speech. It is even longer than Francis Seow's speech. I cannot go through this speech at this stage. Anyway, in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I am in no position to answer simply because it is a remark passed by Dr Chee. I was not there.

Can I confirm with Mr Ling that he meant what he said just now in his main speech? He said that the only mistake his Secretary-General made in Williams College was to say that "I do agree very much with many of the things Dr Lingle and Mr Francis Seow have said." Can I just confirm that?

Before going through the speech of Dr Lingle, I do not think we are in a position to answer that simply because you are now covering speeches by two persons, not one only.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling must state his position honestly, and I know the dilemma he is in, but let us be honest about this. Mr Chiam has been honest about it. His Secretary-General has taken a position in Williams College which is untenable. He knows it is untenable. He is now saying that he repudiates nearly everything which Francis Seow has said. Maybe something in Christopher Lingle's speech he will find not embarrassing to agree with now, but if he wants, we can give him time. I very much doubt he will find anything. What I want to know is whether he was honest and sincere when he said earlier that the only mistake Dr Chee made in Williams College was to say that he did agree very much with many of the things which Christopher Lingle and Francis Seow said. Did he say that and does he stand by that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is my observation. I believe that is the mistake he made in that he did not specifically refute all the specific points I mentioned. What I said was that he did not specifically rebut those points mentioned by Francis Seow.

Would Mr Ling now say that his Secretary-General should have stood up at the alternative panel and specifically refuted all these points which we have listed down, which we have challenged him on, and which after repeated challenges, the SDP has refused to come clean and say that they repudiate these following specific statements of Francis Seow? You will note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that even now, with the text in front of him, he has preferred to just identify the frivolous items which he agreed with and blandly say, "Well, the rest we have no view." I want to know whether he has no view or whether he repudiates them as false, unjustified, evil and totally wrong.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister asking for my view?

I am asking for the SDP's view, as he is the Chairman of the SDP.

Yes, it is wrong, evil. An hon. Member: And totally wrong!

Yes, I agree with what you have just said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me just take it all the way. Let us read the parts where they scolded us, not the parts where they gave us faint praise. Mr Francis Seow said: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation.' Was this wrong?

It is wrong. I do not think there is any ground or foundation to make such serious charges against the independence of the judiciary.

Do you speak on behalf of the CEC, and particularly of your Secretary-General, or are you expressing a personal view?

As I said earlier, the SDP has never questioned the integrity. With that first remark, I will come to your point. As I mentioned earlier, we have never questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary. This is the view of the CEC.

That is wrong?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I confirm absolutely explicitly, because the SDP has been very general in its statements on this issue. Does the Secretary-General of the SDP, Dr Chee Soon Juan, confirm that the statement that the judiciary is neither independent nor free, compliant, corrupt and so on, is totally wrong, unjustified and in contempt of court, and he personally believes that this is an upright, honest judiciary with integrity and ability and efficiency and which does Singapore proud?

We have generally discussed this among the CEC members and that, I believe, is the reason why The New Democrat never published it because it is defamatory. It is contempt of court of the highest degree. That is why when we printed The New Democrat we never even mentioned this because it is not worthy of publication. We are not prepared to extend the lie of somebody. That is why you questioned us why it was not in our Special Edition. It is simply because we do not believe in it. We do not want to be charged for contempt of court. So we have never published it. An hon. Member: It is wrong.

Of course, it is wrong. If it is not wrong, we will publish it.

Is that also the reason why The New Democrat did not publish the transcript of Dr Chee Soon Juan's remarks at the alternative panel, that it was wrong and that he knew that it was wrong, and he was ashamed of it?

As I mentioned earlier, the speeches of Francis Seow and Dr Lingle were not even in the Special Edition of The New Democrat. If you do not publish the speeches of the speakers, you cannot put in the comments from nowhere. That was why it was also not published. It is because you need to have the speeches first and the comments will follow. Otherwise, people looking at it would wonder what it is all about. It is natural.

Will The New Democrat, in view of the clarifications offered this afternoon, now publish in full Francis Seow's speech, the transcript of what Dr Chee said at the alternative panel following Francis Seow's speech and a further full clarification that the Secretary-General of the SDP and the whole CEC of the SDP are now completely convinced that all these statements were, without reservation, unjustified and defamatory, that the SDP was wrong not to have made this clear at Williams College at the occasion immediately the matter was raised, and that they now clearly state their stand that they have full confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and that they apologise to the judges, the Government and the people of Singapore for what they have done?

First, we have to settle the question of immunity because if we publish it, we can be sued.

Let me address this point. The Straits Times has published all of William Safire's pieces, repeating all the injurious things which William Safire has said about the Singapore judiciary. But because the Straits Times published it in such a way as to make it totally clear that it disagreed with this and that they considered this completely unfounded criticism, what it published did not constitute contempt of court, and therefore the Straits Times has not been sued or cited for contempt of court. There is no reason why The New Democrat should be treated in any different way.

I need your assurance. You give us the assurance that we will not be sued we will publish it.

Will The New Democrat publish it together with a clarification which I ask for, that they consider it totally wrong, they consider it unfortunate, to say the least, that the Secretary-General failed to clarify this and rebut this vigorously and immediately, and that they now do so and make amends? I am quite sure that if you do that, there will be no cause whatsoever for any suit or any citation for contempt.

It is a very simple proposition. Give us the assurance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the basis that the Attorney-General will give an immunity, which is not for us to give, but the Attorney-General to give, but we will put this to the Attorney-General, will you publish it if such an immunity is granted to you?

We will put in a repudiation to say that we have got nothing to do with whatever he said and we are not---

That is not the same.

Perhaps you can elucidate what you want us to do.

If Mr Ling likes, we will draft the apology and the statement and clear it with him.

If I heard you correctly, earlier on I believe one of the reasons you said was that we must apologise for impugning the judge. This, we cannot do, because we have not done so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us be quite clear. I am not asking you to apologise for impugning the judge. I am asking you to state, firstly, that there was no basis whatsoever for any of Francis Seow's scurrilous attacks on the judiciary. Secondly, that the SDP regrets that its Secretary-General and his delegation failed to stand up and make quite clear its stand there and then at the alternative panel. And thirdly, to remedy this fault, the SDP now unreservedly states quite clearly that it has full confidence in the integrity and the competence of the judges and the judiciary in Singapore and that it apologises to the judges, the Government, and the people of Singapore for what it has done.

I, on my part, am quite prepared to do all these things, but bear in mind I am only one official of the CEC.

No.

I am prepared to get the CEC and then ---

You have two CEC members here, and you also have Mr Chiam See Tong who is already of this view. Some hon. Members: Mr Cheo.

Yes, that is right. Mr Cheo is the other CEC member. So, is the SDP prepared to do this over the Secretary-General's signature? In other words, to state all these which I listed out just now, signed: "Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the SDP, on behalf of the SDP".

We need the CEC's approval for all these things. As I said, our party is based on collective leadership. We need the CEC's approval. I cannot just say "yes" or "no". I personally, on my part, will do that. But we have to go through the process of the party. Surely you can wait for a couple of days for these things to be done. Then you can draw your conclusion in any way you want.

We will have to wait to see what the CEC of the SDP decides in the fullness of time in due course. What I want to know is, if the CEC does not do so, will Mr Ling and Mr Cheo have the honour to stand up, as Mr Chiam has done in this House, and state his personal conviction and his disagreement with his party's position?

I do not even have the opportunity to refer to the CEC. If you give me time, I will be back here straightaway.

We will adjourn again.

Yes. Give us 15 minutes of adjournment, and then I will state my view right here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is very important for us to know the SDP's view, in particular, the views of the two SDP Members, since Mr Chiam has already stated his view. We will have a short adjournment, so that he can clarify his mind and his position.

I think it is very wise of Mr Ling to ask for 15 minutes' adjournment and we should accede to his request. I therefore suspend the Sitting again for 15 minutes and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.19 pm until 3.35 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Ling, you have the floor now.

Our party will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous. That is what we are going to do. We will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous.

Can I request the Member to make a statement now and tell us what he means by "unambiguous"? What exactly is he going to say?

I think Members of Parliament will have to wait until a press statement is being issued.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then confirm Mr Ling's personal position once more that he considers it wrong what Francis Seow had said, he considers it wrong what Dr Chee Soon Juan did not say, and if the party does not make this clear, he will make this clear himself?

As I mentioned earlier, I expressed my view that what Mr Francis Seow said was wrong. I also mentioned much earlier that the mistake he made was that he did not rebut there and then. He did not rebut him on those salient points there and then. That is our view.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just be quite clear? Does Mr Ling consider this a forgiveable mistake by Dr Chee or something fundamentally wrong which Dr Chee should not have done?

He was at the College. He was the one who responded. I do not know the circumstances and the situation how he had gone into the whole thing. As I said earlier, the only mistake he made was that he did not rebut.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then request Mr Ling to explain why this mistake was repeated after Dr Chee returned to Singapore, when Dr Ow Chin Hock asked him to clarify his position and, subsequently, when Mr Chan Heng Wing asked him to clarify his position, and he had full opportunity to consult with all the members of the SDP CEC, including Mr Ling and Mr Cheo in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the party replied to the Prime Minister's Press Secretary asking him to produce the full text of the speech. There was no response. If you had supplied the full text of his speech, we would have gone through with you to say whether we agree with this or we do not agree with that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary had already quoted the relevant parts of what Mr Francis Seow had said. Indeed so did Dr Ow. Were these not sufficient in addition to the presence of Dr Chee at the meeting when these words were spoken for the SDP to make its position completely clear?

As I said earlier, he said a lot of things. In fact, the cyclostyled speech clearly clarified the whole thing. There were eight pages. So is it unreasonable to ask for the full text before we respond? If you have supplied us with the full text and we still ignore you, then you can say, "There you are, you are not prepared to come out." You did not supply us the full text. You stopped there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these were not new issues. I do not believe that Mr Ling understands the gravity of his position. These issues were first raised at the beginning of May when we debated them in the context of Flor Contemplacion and the SDP had already equivocated. They claimed that they were taking a neutral position between Singapore and the Philippine critics of Singapore but, nevertheless, had a high opinion of the Singapore judiciary. That was the equivocation which Mr Ling now cites in his defence explaining why Dr Chee did not clarify his position properly in Williams College. At the beginning of August, after Dr Chee got involved with the Goverment's debate against William Safire, Dr Ow Chin Hock cited the items which William Safire wrote against us, talking about the Chief Justice, talking about the Judges, talking about miscarriage of justice and official cover-up in Flor Contemplacion, and asked for the SDP's position. There was no transcript to speak about, because these were William Safire's published columns in the public record reproduced in full in the Straits Times. Why was there no response? Then Dr Chee went to Williams College. Francis Seow repeated the same. Why was there no response? Dr Ow asked him again after he came back. No reply. Mr Chan Heng Wing finally said, "Please give me a transcript of Francis Seow's speech." Your ears are not sufficient?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at any rate, he asked for a full transcript of the speech. Do you not think you should give him the benefit of the doubt? Let him have a look at the whole speech. Let him reply. I thought it is very fair.

Can I ask Mr Ling then what transcript he would request in order to clarify his position on the statements made by Mr William Safire?

I thought we are talking about Francis Seow's speech. Now, suddenly, you switch over to William Safire. I really do not follow you. We are talking about Francis Seow, and the next thing you mentioned William Safire. I am confused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry if Mr Ling is confused. But if he had listened to Dr Ow yesterday, he would probably have been a little bit less confused. The connection is quite simple. All three made calumnious, unjustified, scurrilous attacks on our judiciary. In all three cases, the SDP and Dr Chee Soon Juan failed to rebut them. In the case of Francis Seow, he is now looking for a fig leaf. He says he wants the transcript. He asked for a bikini, we had given him eight pages to cover himself up in his shame. What does he need to cover himself up in the case of Mr William Safire?

Mr Ling, would you like to continue?

Honestly, I did not even read this. I have only browsed through the whole speech. So I am in no position to answer this because I have just browsed through it. An hon. Member: This is your issue.

No, no. It is not my issue. It is the Straits Times of Saturday. I can well understand that Dr Chee attended the Williams College panel. This was not a talk. This was not expounded during the panel in his presence. How do we go around and ask everyone who makes a speech, "Why didn't you rebut this?" "Why didn't you attack this as wrong?" We cannot be doing that. Of course, I understand that he went to Williams College. That is a different matter entirely. He was present there. He had the opportunity to do it. But he was silent, no endorsement. You cannot draw the conclusion that he endorsed it. As I mentioned earlier, the only mistake was that he failed to rebut them. But I do not know about William Safire. Was it a statement made by him in New York? I do not know. An hon. Member: New York Times.

Surely, if someone in the world makes a statement against Singapore and if we do not come out against it, you will say that we have failed in our duty. You do not expect us to do that sort of thing.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Chee specifically made a point when he was in Williams College of rebutting Mr William Safire in graphic detail, explaining specifically what he did not agree with. And also when he was present at the alternative panel, he explained to the alternative panel that he was going to make this very important speech the next day and asked them to listen to him. If you will read what Dr Chee said in the speech which was published in The New Democrat, he went to some considerable length, about 200 words, to explain exactly what he did not agree with in the case of William Safire. He said: `Singapore is not like Burma or China or the erstwhile Soviet Union. ... Although I maybe under surveilance, I travel freely in and out of the country. Although the national newspapers are government-controlled, ... chewing gum ... fine.' Dr Chee said all these things. Mr Ling has it in the The New Democrat in his hand. Why, from this long list of rebuttals of what William Safire said, was there not a single mention of William Safire's mistakes apropos the Singapore judiciary?

Sir, this is a special edition which is supposed to cover whatever happened at Williams College.

Not everything.

Yes. How it started, who were the speakers and all these things. He cannot just pluck from the air and say, "Let me also talk about what Safire said one month ago."

Is Mr Ling aware that Dr Chee is on record as claiming that this speech was written and settled before he left for Williams College?

I suppose he said so. I am in no position to know. I do not know whether he prepared the speech --- An hon. Member: What kind of chairman are you?

--- before he left. I have no idea.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I took the SDP ... [Interruptions].

--- talking cock ---

Order. Resume your seat, Mr Ling. I want to remind the Member that he should refrain from engaging in conversation in the House with others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he was talking of funds. I am not going to tolerate a chap who does that. He should seek your permission first before he speaks to me. When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him? [Interruptions].

I have not heard him. Mr Ling How Doong remained standing.

Order in the House. Mr Ling, I have not heard any remark being made. But I heard you engaging in a conversation with somebody else, and I think this is not the proper way to participate in a debate in the House. You will address the Chair and you will do so when you are asked to do so. Resume your seat, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling is squirming. I feel slightly sorry for him, but not too much. I understand his position. I hope he will be able to sort it out internally. However, I think we should also take this opportunity to clarify the stands of the other Opposition Members in the House. Because it is not a matter where you can hide under the general cloak of the party position. Mr Ling has made quite clear that he disapproves completely of what Mr Francis Seow has said and also considers it a grave mistake, if I do not overstate his case, what Dr Chee did in Williams College. Can I confirm that?

When I used the term "grave mistake", I referred to Francis Seow, not to Dr Chee. As I said, Dr Chee's only mistake was that he failed to rebut. If silence is a grave mistake, I do not know how you interpret it. You interpret for yourself. If silence is a grave mistake, so be it.

I do not know whether silence was a grave mistake for Mr Ling earlier. But I think Mr Cheo should not remain silent and be mistaken as having sided with Dr Chee on this position. I think it is necessary for Mr Cheo to state quite clearly where he stands on this matter, and whether he agrees with Mr Ling that what Francis Seow said was totally wrong and what the SDP did was also completely wrong.

Sir, in fact, I have already explained that I cannot vote for the motion.

I am asking Mr Cheo.

No, no. But you have cited me as if I said that SDP was totally wrong.

You said that.

No. I did not say that the SDP was totally wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I explained earlier that I cannot vote for the motion. If you look at the motion, it is very clear. If we vote for the motion, we are admitting that we are supporting what Francis Seow said. An hon. Member: No.

Let me read it to you. You are going to deplore. It says: `This House ... deplores the SDP's support ...'. So if I vote in favour, I am saying that I support the baseless attack, which is not the case. An hon. Member: No.

Yes. But we have not supported. How can we deplore ourselves for supporting? Let me make it very clear. We have never supported Francis Seow's utterances. We have never supported. How could we support?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I really think it is Mr Cheo's turn to speak.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party has never raised any doubt about the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Therefore, my stand is very clear. That being the case, the SDP and I will not support Francis Seow or anybody who hurls any baseless attack on our judicial system. But we must vote against the motion moved by Dr Ow. Otherwise, it would amount to saying that SDP supports and is in favour of Francis Seow's baseless attacks on our judicial system. That is not the stand of the SDP. We must reiterate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have always been in support of the independence and integrity of the judicial system. There will be no change about that.

Mr Low.

Sir, am I on the list of speakers?

I was given to understand that you would be speaking. That is why I called on you. You may proceed now, Mr Low. You can speak.

Anyway, since I am asked to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, neither I nor my Party is interested in what Francis Seow had to say in the United States. He might have said it, but we never heard him. I do not know. Perhaps the Government should extradite Francis Seow to Singapore and ask him to repeat what he said there and I will comment. I was given a copy of the speech of Francis Seow just now, Mr Speaker. We were given half an hour to read it. I am afraid I have to say that the language used is very flowery and I had difficulty reading even the first few lines. I asked in the Member's Room what "Mr GCT" meant. Then I realised that it was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Then there is a term "op-ed essay". I do not know whether it would be fair to ask for my comments on speeches of people who commented on the Singapore judiciary. But if I am asked to, please give me a translation in Chinese which I will understand better, because I may not understand some of the implications. Just now, the Leader of the House asked me to comment. I do not think I am in a position to comment or specifically to say what I agree or do not agree, because I do not want to end up like the SDP. Perhaps if you want me to do so, then maybe the Leader of the House would like to translate it into Chinese and tell me what are the implications specifically so that I could say whether I do or do not agree. Anyway, from what I understand from the speeches in this House and what Dr Ow had said yesterday, I do not agree, and I do not think Francis Seow has any basis to attack our judiciary. I understand he was part of the judiciary in Singapore. And if he wants to say such things, he should come back and say it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low has said that he does not think there is any basis for Francis Seow to attack the Singapore judiciary. But he has also said that he regrets being unable to read the flowery language which Mr Francis Seow has used. I think we can overcome this difficulty which Mr Low has got if we ignore most of Francis Seow's speech and focus on the operative paragraph on the first page. I will read it carefully in English and Mr Low can listen carefully to the translation which he will receive simultaneously in Mandarin, and then he can tell me whether he agrees with that or whether he totally repudiates that. I do not think it is good enough to make a general statement that he does not think he agrees. I think it is necessary to say whether he accepts this in any part or whether he repudiates it altogether. The operative paragraph is this. I read from the middle of the first page: `The judiciary in S'pore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in S'pore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM LKY and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Mr Goh Chok Tong, the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent International Herald Tribune libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no flowers in that paragraph. It is perfectly clear. It is in simple English. As Mr Seow has said, he is calling a spade a spade. I want to know what Mr Low calls it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will call a spade a spade. I do not agree with what he said. From what I understand, the implication of it is contempt of court. Sir, it is very strange that I am put on a spot in which I have no part in it, neither has my Party a part in it. I make my stand clear that I do not agree with what he says. What else does the Deputy Prime Minister want? This is Parliament. I am objecting to being cross-examined in such a way like an accused person by saying "yes" or "no". I do not think I should answer all the questions he wants.

If Mr Low Thia Khiang wants to be taken seriously, firstly, he should vote for the motion when it is called. Secondly, he should get his Party to issue a statement, just like the SDP, and have it signed by its Secretary-General, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, reaffirming the Workers' Party's confidence in the integrity and standards of the Singapore judiciary. Then we can take it that Mr Low speaks sincerely and with authority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it strange again. A few months ago, when this House discussed the Filipino maid's case, I made my Party's stand clear in this House, I think I was asked by the Minister to make a statement for my Party. On the other hand, it seems to me that the SDP Members are being accused in this House of not representing the SDP because what they say does not represent the SDP. I do not understand what is all this. As regard the motion, it states: `(1) notes with regret that the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Dr Chee Soon Juan, with two other SDP members, attended the "alternative panel" discussion ..., and (2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack ...'. My position on the motion is very simple. I would not support the motion, neither would I be opposing the motion. My party has made it very clear that we do not wish to enter into a debate on this. That will be our stand, Sir.

Sir, I take it that the Member is aware and remembers that Mr Francis Seow was the Workers' Party candidate in the 1988 General Elections and, for all I know, remains a Workers' Party member and therefore makes this statement with the endorsement at least of the Workers' Party, if not before, now after the fact, after you know about it, and you fail to dissociate yourself from it, or to expel him from the Party, that means you endorse him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the string is going to be very long. You are going to tie everyone together. From what I know, Francis Seow is no longer a member of the Party. I read his speech, a copy of which I only receive today. I have not even finished reading it, and I cannot really understand what he says.

Dr Ow, would you like to wind up the debate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members for their contribution to this debate, in particular, the Senior Minister for sharing with Members why and how the Chief Justice and other judges in Singapore were appointed. SM has reminded us that the debate on this motion is not about Dr Chee Soon Juan or even Francis Seow. The crux of the matter is that some American media and human rights groups want Singapore to change and they want us to follow their prescription to be "democratic" like some Asian countries which have heeded their advice. These American media and human rights groups want to use Francis Seow and Dr Chee to attack and undermine the integrity and independence of our judiciary, a key pillar of our political system. By doing so, they hope to cut Singapore down to size, as I said yesterday. The Prime Minister has made similar points about the campaign by some western media and human rights groups against Singapore and the Singapore Government in his National Day Rally Speech on 20th August 1995. I am glad that PAP MPs who spoke have focused their speeches on the crux of the matter, namely, the independence and integrity of our judiciary. It is very clear that my PAP fellow MPs will not allow anyone, Singaporean or foreigner, to attack or question the independence and integrity of our judiciary without being challenged. This will send a clear signal to all Singaporeans and to foreigners alike. We, as Parliamentarians, have the duty to protect and defend our judiciary against any baseless attack and criticism. Mr Davinder Singh is right that Parliament has the responsibility to protect the honour of our judges. I am very touched by Mr Chiam See Tong, although he is still a SDP MP. Mr Chiam has made his stand very clear that he has absolute confidence in our judiciary. I am glad that Mr Chiam has agreed to support my motion. Sir, Mr Chiam has once again proven that he is a truly honest, responsible and patriotic Opposition MP, as he has shown it in the Flor Contemplacion case. Mr Low Thia Khiang was put on the spot, as he said, but he was a little bit evasive. However, he was honest enough to say that he did not want to end up like the SDP. I do not want to say more, but I would remind him that the Workers' Party's Secretary-General did issue a statement saying that the WP does not wish to enter into a debate over "what Dr Chee said or did not say at Williams College". But this was a good opportunity for Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, as a Member of this House, to state his stand. But he has missed the opportunity. Now let me come to Mr Ling How Doong's response. Sir, you may have seen that just now I gave him a copy of Mr Seow's speech, with some highlights, so that he could read it. I have also given him copies of my press cuttings on my exchange with his Secretary-General on this important issue of the judiciary. I reminded the SDP MPs yesterday that "this is a final opportunity for SDP to come clean". Mr Chiam has done so with his passionate speech. Mr Ling and Mr Cheo, in their speeches as SDP MPs, only said that Seow's attack on our judiciary was wrong. But they have still not come clean on the SDP's action and on what SDP's Secretary-General said or did not say at Williams College. SDP is now offered another opportunity by the Deputy Prime Minister to publish in its party organ The New Democrat an article along the line suggested by DPM. Mr Ling said there will be a statement. So until I see the statement or the article, or both, I cannot say that the SDP has come clean before the people of this country. There is one particular point I want to point out to Mr Ling. He asked for the full text of Lingle's speech. In fact, he need not do so. I will just ask him two specific questions: (a) Is Dr Chee Soon Juan deaf? If not, after listening to Seow's and Lingle's speeches, including their attacks on our judiciary, why did Dr Chee not rebut Seow and Lingle? Mr Ling said that was his only mistake, but I say that was a very big mistake because Dr Chee did say that the SDP had its own agenda at Williams College, and his mission was to clear up any misperception that foreigners or Americans have about Singapore. (b) Why did the SDP not respond to William Safire's attacks on our judiciary even before Williams College, at Williams College and after Williams College? All these were published in letters to the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao in September and early October. I have shown Mr Ling copies of these letters. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I promised yesterday, I intend to call for a division at the end of this debate. We have come to the end of this debate. I wish to call for a division.

Will Members who wish to support the division rise in their places? More than five Members rising in their places -

There being more than five Members, the Clerk will ring the Division Bell. The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 2; Abstentions, 2. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Lim Boon Heng Ahmad Mattar Lim Hng Kiang Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Loh Meng See Chandra Das, S Low Seow Chay Chay Wai Chuen Mah Bow Tan Chen, Bernard Mohamad Maidin B P M Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ong Chit Chung Chen Seow Phun, John Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chew Heng Ching Ow Chin Hock Chiam See Tong Peh Chin Hua Chin Harn Tong Shanmugam, K Chng Hee Kok Sidek bin Saniff Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan Cheng Bock Chong, Charles Tan Keng Yam, Tony Choo Wee Khiang Teo Chee Hean Davinder Sinh Teo Chong Tee De Payva, John Umar Abdul Hamid Goh Chee Wee Vasoo, S Goh Chok Tong Wan Soon Bee Goh Choon Kang Wong, Aline K Harun bin A Ghani Wong Kan Seng Heng Chiang Meng Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Kah Leong Yao Chih, Matthias Ho Peng Kee Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ho Tat Kin Yatiman Yusof Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Cheow Tong Jayakumar, S Yeo Yong-Boon, George Ker Sin Tze Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Koh Lip Lin Zulkifli bin Mohammed Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Noes Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Cheo Chai Chen Lee Ching Yen, Stephen Ling How Doong Lee Hsien Loong Lee Tsao Yuan Lee Yiok Seng Abstentions Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Low Thia Khiang Lew Syn Pau Tan Soo Khoon

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House: (1) notes with regret that the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Dr Chee Soon Juan, with two other SDP members, attended the "alternative panel" discussion organised by Dr George Crane in Williams College on 15 September 1995, and there endorsed Mr Francis Seow's attacks on the judiciary, and (2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive from justice on the independence and integrity of our judiciary and legal system, that ensure the rule of law in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come to the end of a very long and important debate. The first two days were on the Family Violence and other Bills, but today's sitting is crucial because we have talked about a very important subject, ie, the independence of our judiciary. I think most speakers are very clear about the stand to take, but some are still bumbling along and at the end, they are still fumbling for a position which they can only take at the end of another umpteenth meetings amongst their CEC members.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.