Hansard, 1996-12-11

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:- Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur _ from 4th to 5th December, 1996. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay - from 4th to 7th December, 1996. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 5th to 10th December, 1996. Dr Ong Chit Chung - on 6th and 11th December and from 17th to 18th December ,1996. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 7th to 11rh December, 1996. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 10th to 11th December and on 16th December, 1996. Mr Ling How Doong - from 10th to 16th December, 1996. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong - from 11th to 13th December, 1996. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan - on 11th December, 1996. Mr Chng Hee Kok - on 11th December, 1996. Mr Cheo Chai Chen - from 11th to 17th December, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 12th to 17th December, 1996. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 12th to 13th December, 1996. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 16th to 21st December, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Law (a) how many bankrupts remain undischarged, giving a breakdown of how long they have been bankrupt, and (b) what steps have been or will be taken to return such persons to productive employment or business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st October 1996, 12,853 bankrupts remain undischarged. Of these, 1,007 are persons who cannot be traced. Of the remaining 11,846 bankrupts, 5,106 (43%) have been bankrupts for less than five years, 3,797 (32%) for between five and 10 years, and the rest for more than 10 years. Since the successful implementation of the new Bankruptcy Act, which came into force on 15th July last year, far more persons are being discharged from bankruptcy each month than are being made bankrupt. The number of persons discharged from bankruptcy has also risen from 554 in 1994 to 1,926 in 1995. So we can see the effect of the new regime. The Official Assignee encourages bankrupts to obtain gainful employment to expedite their discharge from bankruptcy. In fact, the Official Assignee urges unemployed bankrupts to register with the Ministry of Labour to seek assistance in finding a job. The Official Assignee will continue to provide such counselling to bankrupts to help them find work. Indeed, a large number of bankrupts are working and actively contributing towards settling their debts. In addition, the Official Assignee will be setting up a Special Project Team ("SPOT") in early 1997 to re-examine the cases of all undischarged bankrupts and advise them of the steps they ought to take to expedite their discharge from bankruptcy.

asked the Minister for Education, following the overwhelming demand for primary one places in Changkat Primary School for 1997, whether his Ministry will now consider building another primary school in Simei Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Simei Estate falls within the Tampines Development Guide Plan (DGP) zone which has 11 primary schools. According to our projections, the 11 schools will have sufficient school places to serve the entire DGP up to the year 2000. Under the 5th Primary School Building Programme, the Ministry will build an additional primary school at Tampines Street 33 to cater to demand for primary school places beyond the year 2000. It will be ready by the year 2000. At this year's Primary 1 Registration Exercise, there were 189 Primary 1 vacancies in Qiaonan Primary School after completion of registration. The school is less than 1 km from Changkat Primary.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State for Education whether he is aware that there is a growing population in Simei Estate, in particular, and there are a lot of young children who are now in our PCF kindergarten education centres? So we see a need for a primary school to be built within the Simei Housing Estate. May I request the Senior Minister of State to look further into this matter?

Sir, the Ministry is aware of the growing number of school-going children and that is why we are building an additional school at Tampines Street 33. When the time comes, I am quite sure we will consider the request if there is a necessity. For instance, the Member has asked about Changkat Primary School which is nearest to his constituency. My officers have tried their best by increasing the number of places from 400 to 405 next year, though not many, to ensure convenience.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will provide details of the proposed 6.4-km MRT extension line to Changi Airport.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Authority is currently working on the design, alignment and station locations of the MRT extension to Changi Airport. It will extend from the existing East-West MRT line at Tanah Merah Station to Changi Airport. It will have an intermediate station at Somapah to serve the Mega Exhibition Centre and the Changi Business Park and an underground terminal station at Changi Airport, between Terminals 2 and 3. The extension is expected to be completed in the year 2001. The service to the airport will operate from Outram Park Station at a frequency of 15 minutes based on an initial projected ridership of 36,000 per day. The airport service will be operated by SMRT as an integral part of the existing MRT system.

Having heard the Minister of State's reply, I have got a supplementary question. Why is the extension line not planned to go beyond the passenger terminals to the airline cargo complexes and engineering complexes where there are several thousand workers who are also dependent on public transport?

Sir, there is currently no plan to extend the MRT line to the cargo and engineering complexes. Any extension will have to be justified in terms of cost and ridership. We should also consider the fact that the cargo and engineering complexes in Changi are housed in a sprawling area and I believe they cover 70 hectares. It is therefore not feasible to build a station to serve all the employees in the complex.

Sir, as you are aware, it took me nine years to convince the Ministers and the relevant transport authority to bring the MRT line to Changi Airport and I hope that it will not be another nine years for the Land Transport Authority or the MRTC to consider extending the line further to the cargo complexes and engineering complexes. May I also request the Minister to keep this in mind for future planning and I hope that he will not take nine years.

Sir, I think I have already explained why there is no current plan to extend the MRT line to the cargo complex.

Sir, may I be allowed to express my heartfelt thanks to the Ministers for Communications, especially Dr Yeo Ning Hong and Mr Mah Bow Tan, and all the various transport authorities, for finally agreeing to bring the MRT extension line to Changi Airport after nine long years. [Applause]. I want to thank them and give them credit and I am very appreciative, and I think all my constituents and Singaporeans in general will be appreciative, of what is being provided for them in the future.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

12.40 pm

Estimates containing a Vote on Account for expenditure for part of the financial year 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998, contained in Cmd. No. 18 of 1996. No notice of amendments has been received. Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure which appear in the third column of the Schedule on page 3 of Cmd. 18 of 1996 stand part of the Main Estimates", put and agreed to. Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure which appear in the fourth column of the Schedule on page 3 of Cmd. 18 of 1996 stand part of the 968Development Estimates", put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $11,399,401,000 shall be supplied to the Government on account under the heads of expenditure for the public services specified in the Estimates contained in Cmd. 18 of 1996", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $11,399,401,000 shall be supplied to the Government on account under the heads of expenditure for the public services specified in the Estimates contained in Cmd. 18 of 1996".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. (*The decision of the President was circulated to hon. Members on 13th December 1996 and is reproduced in Annex 1 (Cols. 1031 - 1032).) Resolution accordingly agreed to. Annex 1 (Cols. 1031 - 1032)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 1996 seeks to amend the Property Tax Act to provide for the following: i) To allow the Valuation List to be prepared and kept in such medium and authenticated in the manner as determined by the Chief Assessor; ii) To empower the Valuation Review Board (VRB) to award costs; iii) To empower the Comptroller of Property Tax to appoint agents for the recovery of property tax; iv) To provide for the payment of tax notwithstanding any objection to the notices issued by the Chief Assessor and the Comptroller; v) To enhance the penalties of offences under the Act; vi) To control building and estate names in addition to street names; vii) To exclude GST from the calculation of annual value of properties; and viii) To make other minor changes to facilitate the administration of the Act. Electronic Valuation List Currently, the Property Tax Act requires that a Valuation List be prepared and updated each year. This list is printed from the electronic database of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) to enable the public to determine the owner, address and Annual Value (AV) of any property in Singapore. The printed list is voluminous, comprising 99,000 pages in 335 volumes and requires substantial effort to update. IRAS has since February 1992 implemented an Electronic Valuation List (EVL). The EVL uses the same database from which the printed list is obtained. The public can view the Valuation List from computer screens at the IRAS or from their own premises through Teleview. The Act therefore needs to be amended to make legal provisions for: i) the validity of the EVL; ii) public inspection of EVL through computer terminals; iii) the authentication of EVL when updated; and iv) the admissibility of any information extracted from the EVL in court as primary evidence. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill provide for this. Valuation Review Board The Valuation Review Board is established under the Property Tax Act to hear public appeals against property values or property tax. The Board is currently empowered to award costs incurred in processing such appeals up to a limit of $250 against appellants whose appeals are vexatious or frivolous. These powers are too restrictive. VRB should have the discretion to award such costs against a party other than the appellant, for reasons which could include unwarranted delay in responses, and for sums higher than $250. Clause 12 amends the Act to give the VRB the discretion to award the costs of an appeal to any party or refer the case to the Supreme Court for the awarding of costs according to its prescribed scale. This is in line with powers accorded to the Income Tax Board of Review. With regard to the tenure of the members of the VRB, clause 11 amends the Act to allow for flexible periods of appointment for VRB members instead of a fixed term of three years. This is similar to provisions in the Income Tax Act. Appointment of Agents to Recover Property Tax At present, the Comptroller of Property Tax has powers under the Property Tax Act to auction off properties to recover due tax. However, this is a drastic measure which preferably need not be taken. To facilitate the recovery of property tax, clause 13 empowers the Comptroller of Property Tax to appoint agents to retain money in bank accounts (whether individual or joint accounts), and proceeds of sale of any immovable property owned by one or more persons as joint owners, and to pay the tax due from such amount to the Comptroller. This provision is consistent with that in the Income Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act. Tax Payable Notwithstanding Objection Lodged Currently, tax is not payable for properties which are included for the first time in the Valuation List if an objection has been lodged. Such properties include new properties and properties which are leased from the State for more than three years. To discourage frivolous objections which are lodged for the sole purpose of deferring property tax payment, clauses 8 and 10 amend the Act to allow for the collection of property tax payable, notwithstanding the fact that an objection has been lodged. This is in line with provisions in the Income Tax Act. Enhancement of Penalties The current fines in the Act have not been revised since the 1960s. Clauses 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 revise the fines to bring them closer to those imposed for similar offences in the Vandalism Act and the GST Act. Clause 20 also inserts a new section to make the provision of false information an offence. This is also provided for in other tax legislation. Power to Regulate the Naming of Buildings and Estates Currently, the Property Tax Act only controls the naming of streets and the numbering of houses. The control over the naming of buildings and estates is currently done administratively. Clause 15 amends the Act to authorise the Minister for Finance to approve the names of all buildings and estates. In relation to this, clause 16 provides for the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. Exclusion of GST in the Computation of Annual Value Clause 2 amends the Act to exclude GST from the calculation of annual value to ensure that owners are not unduly assessed for GST charged on the rental of the premises. The exclusion of GST from the value to be taxed is also provided for under the Stamp Duties Act, the Customs Act and the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act. Amendments made to facilitate the administration of the Act Clause 3 amends the Act to provide for a specific date for the submission of claims for refund of unoccupied properties. Currently, owners claiming refund of property tax on their vacant properties are required to submit their claims on prescribed forms as soon as the vacancy period ends or not later than a month after each half year period. The processing of such vacancy claims is done on an ad hoc basis throughout the year. Clause 3 amends the Act to set a specific date, that is, 15th November each year, whereby claims for refund of tax on vacant properties are to be submitted. Such claims will cover a period of 12 months. This will give IRAS time to process the claims in the remaining one and a half months of the year. Property owners will be notified of the outcome of their claims in January of the next year. Finally, clause 21 inserts a new section in the Act to allow summonses to be served by registered mail similar to that provided for in the Housing and Development Act, the Road Traffic Act, the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act. Clause 21 also specifies that documents will be served only to one owner in the case of a jointly owned property, but documents can be served to all parties in a joint ownership upon request. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act. The proposed amendment to section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act is to address an anomaly arising from payment of compensation under the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations. Under the SAF (Pensions) Regulations, an SAF serviceman will be provided a compensation by the Government (as a workman would similarly be compensated under the Workmen's Compensation Act), if he is injured in any one of the following circumstances: (a) in connection with the service; (b) as a result of performing his duty; or (c) when on his way to work or on his way home after work. When compensation is paid to the injured serviceman in the first two circumstances, that is, in connection with his service or as a result of performing his duty, the present Government Proceedings Act prevents the injured serviceman from further suing the Government and obtaining compensation a second time. However, in the third situation, when compensation is paid to the serviceman who is injured while on his way to work or on his way home after work, the present Government Proceedings Act does not prevent him from further suing the Government and obtaining double compensation. The reason is that the present Government Proceedings Act, as drafted, only applies to the first two circumstances. This has been so decided by the High Court of Singapore in 1986. In that particular case, an SAF serviceman was injured by a Government vehicle while he was on his way home from camp. He first received compensation from the Singapore Armed Forces. Subsequently, he went on to sue the Government. The High Court decided that the serviceman could still sue the Government, although he had already received compensation, because the Government Proceedings Act, as drafted, did not apply to a serviceman who was injured while on his way to work or on his way home after work. With this amendment, the anomaly will be addressed. A serviceman who has been compensated when injured on his way to work, or on his way home after work, cannot further sue the Government and obtain compensation a second time. Section 14 of the present Government Proceedings Act also applies to members of the Singapore Police Force. A member of the Singapore Police Force who is injured while on his way to work or on his way home after work is also paid compensation under the Pensions Act. This amendment to the Government Proceedings Act will also remove this anomaly as regards the Police Force. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

12.55 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves --

that Parliament impose on Mr Wong Hong Toy a fine of

that Parliament impose on Mr S. Kunalen a fine of $8,000; and (4) that Parliament impose on Mr Kwan Yue Keng a fine of

for their contempt of Parliament. The last occasion when I rose before this House to ask Members to accept the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges (COP) was on 20th May 1987. On that day, Parliament considered and accepted the 3rd, 4th and 5th Reports of the Committee of Privileges recommendations concerning the breaches of privileges by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, a former Member. In fact, J.B. Jeyaretnam made Parliamentary history when he was cited for and found guilty of contempt of Parliament on six separate occasions during his very brief sojourn in this House. I thought that after 20th May 1987, when that former Member was disciplined three times in one day in this House, the Committee of Privileges would not need to meet again. But alas, that was not to be. On 27th August 1996, Mr Speaker, Sir, you informed this House that you had received a letter from the Minister for Health complaining against four representors of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for acting in contempt of Parliament by fabricating data, presenting false or untrue documents in their written submission of 12th April 1996 with intent to deceive the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals. These four representors had committed further contempt when they gave oral evidence before the Select Committee by lying, committing perjury, prevaricating and misconducting themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the person cited for contempt of Parliament is a Member or a stranger, Parliament derives no pleasure in having to convene the Committee of Privileges. This is because whenever the Committee of Privileges are called to do their job, it means that somebody has violated the dignity of Parliament and breached its privileges. The Committee of Privileges have to look into the complaint because it is our duty to uphold the dignity and authority of Parliament. Indeed, when Parliament debated the Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy on 28th October 1996, some Members stressed the need to protect the honour and integrity of this House. Sir, we have been entrusted by the people of Singapore to look after their interests. This is a heavy responsibility which demands high standards of personal integrity and complete honesty from each Member of this House, and from all those who aspire to serve in it. We must carry out the business of this House seriously and solemnly. Only then can we retain the trust and confidence of Singaporeans. Unless we exercise the greatest care and seriousness in examining all matters of public interest and insist that only accurate information be used in the conduct of business in this House, we would be misplacing the trust and the confidence reposed on us by the people. There can be no compromise here. This House must embody, in the persons of its Members, the soundness of values, morals and ethics, which not only permeates the work that we do, but also inspires and motivates all Singaporeans. Sir, since Singapore became independent 31 years ago, the Committee of Privileges have sat only six times; once in 1982 and five times from 1986 to 1987. On all these occasions, the hearings were called primarily because of the misdemeanour of a past Member of this House, J B Jeyaretnam. Some may argue that the PAP uses the Committee of Privileges as a political weapon against its opponents. These people should note the fact that the Member for Potong Pasir, who has been in this House for more than a decade, has never been the subject of a Committee of Privileges hearing. It is a person's conduct, not his or her political affiliation, which determines whether he or she appears before the Committee of Privileges. Sir, some others may also argue that strangers, ie, non-MPs, should be given more leeway in saying what they please or writing what they want to the Select Committee. After all, they could say that these people do not have any parliamentary experience. But the lack of parliamentary experience is no excuse for abusing the privileges of and acting in contempt of Parliament. The rules of Parliament and its Committees' proceedings, the expected decorum and the conduct of persons appearing before Parliament and its Committees are there for them to note. All Singaporeans are entitled to give their views to Select Committees whenever such views are sought. It is their right as citizens. But when they write to or appear before a Select Committee, they are duty bound to be truthful in their written submissions and oral evidence. There should be no abuse of this right. Many individuals have come before Parliament's Select Committees over the years to give oral evidence. They have not been the subject of Committee of Privileges hearings. Sad to say, the four SDP representors - Chee Soon Juan, Wong Hong Toy, S Kunalen and Kwan Yue Keng - disgracefully misconducted themselves during the Select Committee hearings on Health Care Subsidies. The proceedings in the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges have exposed the true character of these SDP members whom, I believe, also aspire to become Members of this Chamber. In fact, all, except Kunalen, have contested in elections before and lost. Kunalen too would want to try his luck in the coming elections. How could these aspirants mock the proceedings of the Select Committee and yet eagerly want to be Members of this august Chamber? How did Chee Soon Juan and the other SDP research team members show contempt of Parliament? The Committee of Privileges Report sets out clearly how the four SDP representors are guilty of contempt of Parliament, how they have perjured themselves, how they have lied, how they have prevaricated and misconducted themselves before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges. Sir, let me briefly highlight some of these misdeeds. First, Chee Soon Juan deliberately fabricated data and combined figures from different sources to present false pictures of Singapore's national and Government health expenditures with intent to deceive the Select Committee. Second, when questioned about these inconsistencies during the Select Committee hearing, neither Chee nor any of the other SDP members admitted their errors, nor did they tell the truth, even though they all affirmed to speak the truth. Instead, they told half-truths, gave evasive answers and misconducted themselves. Two of them even committed perjury before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges. During the Committee of Privileges hearings, such evasion and prevarication continued. Chee Soon Juan Let me talk about Chee Soon Juan. Chee Soon Juan's behaviour was most illustrative. When pressed on the obvious contradictions between the SDP team's statements during the Select Committee hearing, and its written defence for the Committee of Privileges hearing, Chee Soon Juan based his "explanations" on a strangely convenient coincidence of typographical errors, confusion and selective amnesia. Or he simply stubbornly stood his ground even though he was wrong, and his answers contradicted themselves. Let me cite you an example. At the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy hearing on 12th August, BG George Yeo asked Chee Soon Juan: `I would like to ask Dr Chee whether he knows the difference between a time series in current dollars and a time series in 1985 dollars.' Chee Soon Juan's answer was, "Yes." (This is in paragraph 1489 of the Minutes of Evidence.) Then on 24th October this year, at the Committee of Privileges hearing, Mr Davinder Singh asked Chee: `Dr Chee, you know the difference between a time series in current dollars and a time series in 1985 dollars?' His answer this time was, "No, I do not." (This is in paragraph 674 of the Minutes of Evidence.) When Mr Davinder Singh pointed out to him that he gave inconsistent answers to the same question asked on two separate occasions, he denied that the answers were inconsistent! With such direct evidence staring in his face, he continued to lie. In fact, it is a perjury before the Committee of Privileges since he was under oath. So even when he was caught lying, committing perjury, he would flatly deny it. We can understand why a naughty and naive 4-year old boy would deny that he was stealing candy from a candy jar, even though he was caught red-handed by his mother with his hand still in the jar. In fact, if Members remember, and I think Dr Vasoo certainly remembers, when Chee Soon Juan was caught secretly taping a conversation he was having with Dr Vasoo, he flatly denied it, claiming that the tape recording was for his class, even though the tape recorder was still running and this part of the exchange was captured on tape. I managed to get a copy of that transcript from Dr Vasoo. Let me read this out. This was a conversation, I believe, which took place in 1992 before Dr Chee put himself up as a candidate of the SDP. I think he went to tell Dr Vasoo that he was going to be a candidate. So he held a tape recorder in his hand, probably outside the room, and said "testing, testing" to make sure that it worked. Then he went into the room and the process of telling Dr Vasoo what he wanted to do and Dr Vasoo's advice to him. And this is how it goes from the start of the conversation: `Dr Chee: I've to give you my, I apply for visit passport. I was hoping, lah, see if I can apply or not. (Pause) No, I tell you Vasoo, I tell you, I came in basically because I hope. No, no, you listen to me, OK? Vasoo. Dr Vasoo: You're taping that? Dr Chee: What? Dr Vasoo: Taping. Dr Chee: Taping what? Dr Vasoo: You're recording, is it? Dr Chee: This is for my own, class one ah, what. Seriously, what a hell eh. No, I can tell you. OK, I'm sorry, I don't. Right now, there's no problem. I need to, I just basically want to say I don't want to. Dr Vasoo: No, no, you see, it's turning or not. Dr Chee: What? Dr Vasoo: Recording. Dr Chee: This is for my class one. What is that? No, no, wait, wait, wait, this is for my class one, listen, listen, Vasoo.' I think we all find it very funny, but here is a man who really has no honour, no sense of decency, who went to have a conversation with his Head of Department. He secretly taped the conversation, either hoping to use it against him or for whatever reason. And yet when caught that he was tape recording the conversation, he completely denied it. But remember my story of the 4-year old boy. Dr Chee is not a naughty 4-year old boy. He is a grown man of 34 years old. He has a PhD. He claims to be a trained neuro-psychologist who treats patients and helps them with their brain and behavioural problems. Sir, Dr Chee Soon Juan's propensity to speak the untruth knows no bounds. He does not seem to be a man of principle, honour or courage. You remember, in 1992, he also said, "I have a good brain and a strong heart" and that was what he wanted Singaporeans to believe him to be. A courageous man is not afraid of admitting his mistakes. It is no wonder that even his own SDP members and collaborators have been disappointed by his behaviour. Towards the end of his session with the Committee of Privileges, Kwan Yue Keng, the SDP Assistant Secretary-General, admitted that he felt "let down" when he realised that errors had been made in the submission to the Select Committee, and that Chee Soon Juan had chosen to explain them away, rather than acknowledging them. Similarly, S Kunalen also said that there was no justification to perpetuate a wrong method in calculating the "25%", even if Chee had cited someone else's study. I would say to Kwan Yue Keng and the other SDP leaders that Chee Soon Juan's behaviour should not be surprising. Indeed, Chee Soon Juan's whole performance and conduct during the Committee of Privileges hearings merely exposed his true character. Sir, what lies behind the facade of this "Dr Chee"? We see a man who is prepared to use whatever data just to make his point, even though the data are false or fabricated. At the heart of the matter is the question of Chee Soon Juan's basic honesty, his integrity, his trustworthiness and his sense of right and wrong. For example, Chee Soon Juan had stated in the SDP's written submission that the Singapore Government's share of total health expenditure had fallen from 40% in 1970 to just 5% in 1990. When pressed to explain how he derived this figure, he claimed that when he calculated the original figure of "25%" for his book called Dare to Change, somehow a "typo error" had resulted in the number "2" being dropped from the text, which consequently showed Government's health spending as a mere "5%". This "5%" "typo error" formed the basis for a chart in Dare to Change which was drawn by a person whom Chee Soon Juan cannot remember. And somehow, according to Chee Soon Juan, the "5%" typo error was carried over into the written submission, which subsequently formed the centre piece of his thesis presented to the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidies. After reviewing all the evidence, the Committee of Privileges came to the conclusion that Chee Soon Juan did not make any calculation for "1990" or "the 1990s" when he wrote Dare to Change, but made up the figure of "5%". Chee Soon Juan had selected "5%" for the written submission knowing full well that it was a fabricated figure. The objective of this whole exercise is to make the Government look very bad in the eyes of the readers of Dare To Change, so that the people will despise the Government for not spending enough money on health care. This misdeed shows up two facets of Chee Soon Juan: (a) as a researcher and scholar, he lacks intellectual honesty; (b) as a politician, he is unscrupulous and would let his end justify his means. Sir, the same written submission from the SDP had another chart showing the expenditure on health care as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for various countries as follows: 13% for the United States of America, 9% for the OECD countries and 7% for Japan. Chee Soon Juan had picked these figures knowing that they showed total health spending (which means the Government and private sector) as a percentage of GDP. By contrast, he cited the Singapore's figure to be only "0.8%", which refers to only Government expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP. If Chee Soon Juan had wanted a true and accurate comparison of national health expenditure, he would have to use the figure of "3.1%". But then this figure would not show the "dramatic" difference between Singapore and other countries' health care expenditure. So he deliberately chose 0.8% instead. When these discrepancies were highlighted to Chee Soon Juan, he initially dismissed them as differences in interpretation (by courtesy of Dr Soin), but later he changed his story to say that there was a "misunderstanding of the figures" and the confusion arising from reading the source materials. But Chee Soon Juan has a PhD, which most people do not have. He also has a good command of the English language. The Committee of Privileges therefore do not believe that he misunderstood his source materials. We can draw no conclusion other than that Chee Soon Juan had knowingly combined two different sets of figures to make the comparison look worse for Singapore. Both these two incidents show the work of a devious and manipulative mind, as he jolly well knows how to arouse the strong emotions of the people against the Government, since he has some training in psychology. Whenever Chee Soon Juan found that his stratagem failed him and the questions from the Committee of Privileges came too close to uncovering the truth, he conveniently hid behind the skirt of "human error". He said he is only human. Yes, so are we all. But decent and honest human beings do not behave like him. We all admit mistakes when we are wrong. What more lies behind this facade of this Chee Soon Juan? His chameleon-like ability to change his position, to the extent that all the positions that he has taken are not genuine or truthful, is truly remarkable. When the Committee of Privileges examined Chee Soon Juan's second book, Singapore, My Home Too, he was asked how he could have cited M Ramesh's article as the source for his figure of 0.9% for Singapore's national health spending when the figure of 0.9% was never in Ramesh's text. Of course, we know his objective that if he cites a scholar, it gives him a bit more credibility. That is his purpose. But Chee Soon Juan tried to do the impossible by explaining away the non-existent at the Committee of Privileges hearing. He began with "... as I was going through the article ... there was confusion" (paragraph 369 of the Minutes of Evidence); then a few minutes later he said, "I read a couple of articles and the confusion arose from there" (paragraph 379). This is not enough. A few minutes later, he said, "... everything was dragged in and confusion arose from there" (paragraph 391). And finally, when all else failed, he said, "I cannot remember what was the confusion." (paragraph 437). You see, he shifts his position whenever he was pressed and cornered. His convenient excuse was "confusion". And when he was pinned down, what beats the cake, his most astonishing answer was "I cannot remember what was the confusion"!! It would seem that Chee Soon Juan cannot remember many things, even simple matters. But I think he finds it painful to speak the truth. Let me cite another example when he lied again. During the Committee of Privileges hearing, I asked Chee Soon Juan how many charts he had in his PhD thesis and whether he drew the charts himself. His answer was, predictably, "I cannot remember". When I asked him if it required a good memory to answer questions from the oral examiner when he was examined on his PhD thesis, he claimed that he cannot remember his entire dissertation "especially if it runs into a couple of hundred pages". His entire PhD thesis runs into a couple of hundred pages! This is a lie. I looked up his PhD thesis. His PhD thesis is called "The Effect of D-Amphetamine on the Electro-physiological Activity of the Superior Colliculus in the Rat" which, in simple term, means he studied the effects of a drug called Amphetamine, like pep-pills, on the brain activities of rats. That is his expertise - rat brain. The thesis proper is not "a couple of hundred pages". It is only 86 pages in length! In fact, more than half of these 86 pages, 45 pages to be exact, comprise figures, graphs, tables, references and appendices. The text is only 41 pages! It did not run into a couple of hundred pages. A starker instance of Chee Soon Juan's linguistic agility in shifting positions can be seen in his regard for his own book called Dare To Change which he wrote. Members may remember that after Dare To Change was launched in May 1994, the SDP formally adopted it in July 1994as the Party's manifesto and its "vision" for a better Singapore. According to a Business Times report, 1st July 1994, the SDP had even planned to lead a delegation to Hong Kong to launch this manifesto, contained in this book Dare To Change. But in the course of the Committee of Privileges hearing, Chee Soon Juan dismissed it as "actually a book written more as a popular reading", which therefore could not be expected to be accurate in its content. A Party Manifesto reduced to a book for popular reading. This is certainly a significant revelation and speaks volumes of the SDP. After all the hype about the book being the SDP's manifesto which proclaimed its vision for Singapore, it has been reduced to nothing but fiction! I understand that some bookshops placed Dare To Change on the shelves under the "Singapore Collection". Perhaps, after Chee Soon Juan's remarkable revelation, these bookshops should reconsider reshelving this book under another category, "Fiction". But to his eternal credit, Chee Soon Juan has lived up to the title of his book, Dare To Change, and he surpassed it. He has dared to change, not once but again, and again. And again. Those who bought his book thinking that it is a serious work would no doubt now feel short-changed. Maybe he should rename the book at its next reprint. Some people have suggested to me that the book could perhaps be entitled Dare To Short-Change or Dare to Change Data or even Dare To Cheat. Sir, this House has to ask this question: With this changeability of Chee Soon Juan, just what does he stand for? Does he stand by some principles, or is he ethically variable? If we look at his readiness to belittle even his own prized publication, his much-touted vision for Singapore, Dare To Change, are we not right to conclude that Chee Soon Juan has no ethical or moral anchor? Wong Hong Toy Now I come to Wong Hong Toy. After Chee Soon Juan, the next most culpable of the SDP team is the current SDP Vice-Chairman, Wong Hong Toy. Wong Hong Toy looks like the kind of loyal assistant some people would be glad to have by their side. Not only was Wong Hong Toy Chee's main assistant in preparing the written submission, the Committee of Privileges are satisfied that Wong Hong Toy agreed to perjure himself at his boss' behest. He claimed to have calculated the figures for 1990 when the written submission was being prepared, but we doubt that he even knew how to make those calculations. He chose to prevaricate when he knew that a truthful answer would expose the lies of his boss, Chee Soon Juan. When asked several times if he noticed that the chart on the Government health expenditure had shown a plunge in 1990, he claimed not to notice anything even though he had looked at the chart on more than one occasion. Mind you, Wong Hong Toy is not a political novice who is easily swayed or duped. On the contrary, he is a veteran opposition figure, having served in the Workers' Party as Chairman in the 1970s and 1980s. While he was in the Workers' Party, he was also considered to be a close aide of J. B. Jeyaretnam. They were charged in court together for false declaration, and fined $5,000 and imprisoned for a month. However, the two men fell out in 1987, when Wong Hong Toy joined the SDP in 1988. I wonder whether J. B. Jeyaretnam felt any sense of loss when such an assistant left him at that time. There is also another interesting coincidence concerning Wong Hong Toy. When he was the Workers' Party Chairman, he had appeared before the Committee of Privileges in April 1987 over a complaint against the Editor, Publisher and Printer of "The Hammer". Now, as Vice-Chairman of the SDP, he appeared yet again before the Committee of Privileges. Two appearances in two different political parties in the same position! Could he be a kind of talisman that the local Opposition parties would like to have? S Kunalen On S Kunalen, as the head of the SDP research team, and as a lawyer who knew full well the seriousness of making submissions to Parliament, Kunalen was shockingly derelict in his duties. He claimed not to have been involved in the preparation of the written submission. He chose not to verify or question its contents. Indeed, Kunalen did not even understand the distinction between national and Government health expenditure, or the significance of the "0.8%" when referring to Government's health expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Kunalen runs his own law tuition school. He boasted to Mr Lim Boon Heng at the Cost Review Committee meeting that Singaporeans know him because his name was in the newspapers way back in 1983. Yes, indeed, he was one of the five students among the 236 candidates who scored a distinction in the Masters in law examination. Impressive, one would think. But what makes Kunalen look pathetic is that he should support a written submission which he claimed he did not quite understand. It is even more pathetic to see Kunalen, who has such a distinctive academic achievement, signed a written joint defence stating that there was "a misunderstanding" over Singapore's health expenditure as a percentage of GDP when he feigned ignorance in comprehending the subject! One aspect of Kunalen's performance during the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges hearings which astounded us was his amazing ability to evade direct answers to simple questions. At one point during the Select Committee hearing, BG George Yeo asked him a direct question whether he thought health care in Singapore was subsidised. Kunalen proceeded to engage George Yeo in an exchange lasting 15 questions without answering the Minister's first original question. 15 questions, and in 15 different answers, including attempts to introduce irrelevant comments about what the British common man thinks! His conduct was unacceptable. Kwan Yue Keng As for Kwan Yue Keng, the Committee of Privileges think he had the smallest role to play in the whole matter. He was forthcoming during both the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges hearings, and accepted responsibility for the contents of the written submission. What struck the Committee most was that of the four SDP representors, Kwan Yue Keng was the only one who claimed to understand the concept of honour. Indeed, Kwan Yue Keng stated that he felt, to quote him, "honour bound" to accept responsibility despite his relatively minor role in the preparation of the submission, as well as to admit an error as soon as it came to his attention. The Committee of Privileges were initially inclined to show leniency to Kwan Yue Keng as he seemed to have shown contrition, and admitted that he would have acted differently from Chee if he had had direct responsibility for the submission. However, the day following the Committee of Privileges hearing, after the press had reported Kwan Yue Keng saying that he felt let down by Chee Soon Juan, Kwan Yue Keng issued a press statement re-affirming his full confidence in the SDP research unit "under the leadership of Dr Chee Soon Juan". (Lianhe Zaobao, 26 October 1996) In other words, Kwan Yue Keng made a 180-degree about turn in his position barely 24 hours after appearing before the Committee of Privileges. What are we to make of the behaviour of this so-called self-proclaimed "honourable" man? What could have made such an honourable man commit such a dishonourable act? Was he acting on his own free will, and hence admitting that he actually has no honour? Or was he forced by others like his Secretary-General to act so dishonourably? Only Kwan Yue Keng knows, and if he is as honourable as he claims to be, then he should clarify this. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has cautioned that there is the real danger of "cancerous cells" being planted in Parliament, when candidates of dubious integrity and loyalty to Singapore enter this House. We have done the necessary biopsy. We have looked behind the facade of Chee Soon Juan and seen the real Chee Soon Juan. He is not the knight in shining armour, trying to save Singaporeans from years of PAP rule. He is, indeed, the knave, smiling in his business suit, trying to fool Singaporeans with his supposedly scholarly research and glib talk. We have seen him fabricate data and falsify documents with the sole purpose to mislead the Select Committee. In maintaining his deception, Chee Soon Juan has tried to argue that shoddy research, inaccurate and unverified data, and typo errors in the conduct of Parliamentary business were acceptable, or at the very least excusable, because he is "only human". He has no qualms about telling any tale to suit his objectives, and resorting to lies, half-truths and excuses of "human error" and selective lapses of memory rather than admitting his own mistakes even when he was confronted with them. Indeed, judging by the words and behaviour of the other three SDP members of the research team during the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidies and the Committee of Privileges hearings, Chee Soon Juan has even persuaded his SDP team to lie or prevaricate to cover up for him. Mr Chiam See Tong was spot on when he promised Singaporeans in July 1992 that they would be, I quote him, "amazed" at the quality of his candidates for the Marine Parade by-election. Indeed we are. And I am sure Mr Chiam is also amazed although that word had a different meaning to him at that time compared to now. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fortunate that Singapore body politic is healthy, for now. For the years ahead, Singaporeans will have to think hard about the quality and character of the MPs whom they want in Parliament. Singaporeans will have to think hard about whether they can entrust their welfare and their interests to men who cheat and lie, and who fabricate and present false data to Parliament, and then lie on oath and tell half-truths to cover up their misdeeds. And Singaporeans will have to think hard about whether they can entrust their future to men who lack ethics, integrity and honour. Indeed, Sir, in the coming General Elections, residents in Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central will have to think hard whether they want people like Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen to represent them in Parliament since they do not seem to take their parliamentary responsibilities seriously by being absent from today's sitting. Last week, I urged them to attend today's sitting and they immediately applied for leave from the Speaker after reading my comment in the newspapers. Mr Speaker then asked them if they could postpone their leave for today, but they refused. What are they afraid of? Do they not have anything to say in defence of the deplorable behaviour of their SDP colleagues? By their absence today, are we not justified in concluding that they condone the contempt of Parliament committed by their fellow travellers? Or is their absence today of their own volition? Or have they been told by their Secretary-General not to come because their Secretary-General has no faith in their ability to speak up for him? Or are we to conclude that both of them could not refute the Committee of Privileges Report? Whatever is the reason or are the reasons for the absence of Mr Ling and Mr Cheo, Singaporeans now know what kind of leaders the SDP has. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee of Privileges have sat, deliberated, and concluded that Chee Soon Juan and his team have, through their perjury and prevarication, misconducted themselves and displayed total disregard for the dignity and solemnity of Parliament's Select Committee. The Committee of Privileges Report is comprehensive, and its recommendations carefully thought through. I urge Members to endorse the Report and accept the recommendations. The endorsement of this Report will be the most powerful signal that this House can send that its honour and integrity cannot and must not be compromised, and that people like Chee Soon Juan and his ilk are not fit to be Members of this House. Sir, what is at stake is not a mere Chee Soon Juan or S. Kunalen or Kwan Yue Keng or Wong Hong Tong. What is at stake is whether Parliament will continue to remain firmly rooted in values based on the highest moral and ethical principles that will inspire and motivate the people of Singapore into the 21st century. Question proposed. 1.40 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. There are two main issues which this House has to address. The first is Members must determine whether to accept the findings and the reasoning of the Committee of Privileges; and secondly, whether the penalties which have been recommended are suitable, having regard to those findings. Chee and his fellow representors made a number of claims. One was that the Government health expenditure as a percentage of total health expenditure had fallen from 40% in 1970 to 5% in 1990. A chart was submitted to the Select Committee which plotted the dramatic plunge to 5%. The other claim was that Government spending on health care as a percentage of GDP had fallen to less than 1% in comparison to 7% for Japan, 13% for the US and an average of 9% for the OECD countries. A chart was produced which graphically depicted the difference in expenditure between Singapore and the other countries. There is no dispute that some of the figures presented by the SDP are inaccurate. The question that Members must ask themselves is whether the errors were innocent or deliberate. The fairest way of resolving this issue is to test the defences put up by the SDP team against undisputed facts and then determine whether, in the light of these facts, the reasons advanced by the SDP for the errors are plausible. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a case where this House, or the public, only hears one side of the argument. It is a case where the record is available to everyone who is willing and interested to read it. The record is in the Select Committee Report and the Report of the Committee of Privileges where there is a verbatim transcript of the proceedings both before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges. And the fairest approach to the issue must be this - to discern from the two Reports what on any view must be the undisputed facts, without taking a view one way or the other about where the merits are, select the objective facts and then in relation to each of these facts test the explanations that were advanced by the SDP for the inaccuracies that were contained or found in their submission. Clearly, if there is some reasonable doubt that those errors could be innocent, having regard to those facts, then I think the benefit of the doubt must be given to them. But if this House, having regard to the explanation and contrasting it with the objective facts, comes to the view that on no view can those errors be innocent, then this House must come to only one conclusion and it is this: that the errors were deliberate. Let us examine the two claims. The first major claim made by the SDP was that between 1970 and 1990, the Government share of total health expenditure fell from 40% to 5%. Chee explained to the Select Committee that the 5% for the year 1990 was a typographical error. He said that when he wrote Dare to Change in 1994, he did the calculation for 1990, and came to the figure 25%. But when he typed it, the "2" dropped, with the result that the figure became 5% for 1990 in Dare to Change. Chee continued to maintain this defence when he appeared before the Committee of Privileges. The question which the Committee of Privileges had to decide was whether there was any factual basis to that defence. It is undisputed that the 5% is incorrect. It is also undisputed that in the written submission and the chart which accompanied it, the 5% was related to the year 1990. Could there have been a typographical error in Dare to Change and if so, could it have been inadvertently carried over from Dare to Change into the written submission? Consider these circumstances. If, as Chee claimed, there was a typographical error in Dare to Change in relation to the figure for 1990, one would have expected when reading Dare to Change to have found the figure 5% with reference to 1990 in the text of that book. But there was no such reference in the text of Dare to Change. How is it possible then for anyone to have borrowed the 5% from Dare to Change when the 5% in the text of Dare to Change did not refer to 1990 but to a different set of years, the 1990s? Members should also test the veracity of Chee's explanation against his conduct. In 1994, when he wrote Dare to Change he claimed that the percentage of government health expenditure over total health expenditure for the 1990s was 5%. Yet, one year later, when he wrote Singapore, My Home Too, he claimed that it was 0.9% for 1990. Then one year later, in 1996 when he put up the written submission, the figure went back to 5% for 1990. And all these three figures are incorrect. Surely, when preparing Singapore, My Home Too, Chee would have realised that just one year ago when he wrote Dare to Change the figure that he claimed to have had in mind was 25% or the figure that he erroneously put in was 5% for 1990. But yet he selected 0.9% for Singapore, My Home Too, ignoring the 5% or the 25%. Then one year later when he wrote the written submission, surely it must have occurred to him that now he had two sets of inconsistent figures - one, 5% in Dare to Change, another 0.9% in Singapore, My Home Too. But inexplicably he forgot the 0.9% and picked the 5% from Dare to Change, as he claimed, and put it into his written submission. All this was done without any explanation as to how it could have occurred. First, there was this inexplicable change from 25%, which is also incorrect for 1990, to 5%, then 5% to 0.9%, and 0.9% back to 5%. And when he was asked to explain, he could not. This House must then ask itself: Is it plausible that this could have been an innocent error when he had before him all the materials which he personally read? If one claims that an innocent error has taken place, one has to explain away why it is that that so-called innocent error was not detected. Consider these circumstances. The written submission, where the so-called innocent error appeared, was prepared some time in April 1996. It was prepared for submission to the Select Committee. It was prepared by Chee. It was discussed by Chee, two other representors and perhaps others whom he could not identify. At that discussion, surely it would have been apparent to Chee, if not to the others, that an error had occurred. It would have been plain on the face of the submission as well as in the graph that accompanied it that there was this dramatic plunge to 5% for 1990. But Chee could not explain why it is that he did not pick up the error, if indeed it was an innocent error. Members may wish to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who has little training in research, preparation of statistics and persons who do not author articles and books. But here, we have a person with a PhD, who has written two books, researched and written a number of articles. His research work involved having to draw charts and graphs, and he claimed that he took his research work seriously. In fact, and this is interesting, if you contrast Chee's conduct with the conduct of his fellow representors, Mr Kunalen and Mr Kwan, you will find that the answer becomes quite obvious. Mr Kunalen and Mr Kwan, on the version given by all the four representors, were not directly involved in the preparation of the written submission or the chart. Yet, both of them agreed that the 5% drop struck them as being very odd. These are two people not involved in the preparation, not involved in writing Singapore, My Home Too or in Dare to Change, did not do the calculations, but instinctively thought that the 5% is not quite right. But if you have regard to that evidence, can you accept the evidence of the person who prepared the written submission, who was involved in the preparation of the charts, who wrote Singapore My Home Too, who wrote Dare to Change? Can you accept his evidence to the effect that he did not pick up the error, that it was a typographical error and yet it eluded him? The second main claim made by the SDP was that the amount of Government spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has been falling to the level of less than 1% compared to 7% for Japan, 13% for the US and an average of 9% for the OECD countries, and a chart accompanied this particular claim. Chee admitted that at least the figure for Singapore is incorrect. His defence, and he made this defence for the first time only at the Committee of Privileges hearing, was that there was a misunderstanding of the figures. Members must ask themselves whether, again, in the light of the undisputed objective facts, there is any substance to this defence of a misunderstanding. If someone claims to have a misunderstanding, the first thing the person would be able to say is my original understanding was X, but now I have realised, because of A, B, C, that that original understanding is wrong and, therefore, it was a misunderstanding. And I think an honourable person would go further and say, "Forgive me if I have misled you. I didn't mean to." But Chee, despite taking the defence that there was a misunderstanding, was unable, despite repeated requests, to say how that misunderstanding arose or indeed even before that, what the misunderstanding was. A few things were settled. We were all able to identify the materials which he claimed to have read in preparing the written submission. Those materials were brought to the Committee of Privileges hearing because we wanted to make sure that if there was any possibility of a misunderstanding because of any vagueness in what the authors of these materials had written, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. So we took him through each of these materials and asked him to explain where it was or what it was in those materials he could not understand. He understood them perfectly. He knew what the materials said. He understood the concepts. He had no difficulty following the concepts. In fact, he addressed those very concepts in his books Dare to Change and Singapore, My Home Too, two years and one year before the written submission was put up. So he was familiar with the terms. He could follow what the authors were saying and that put him in a dilemma. Because he could do that, he was unable to say what the misunderstanding was. And in truth, there could not have been a misunderstanding because had there been a misunderstanding, he would have easily been able to point it out, but he could not. But the most telling piece of evidence, I think, is this. The second claim that I am now talking about was contained both in the text of the written submission as well as the chart. The claim in the written submission conveyed the distinct impression that the figures in the chart which accompanied it were all figures on Government health expenditure. In other words, the impression given in the written submission was that we are comparing expenditures by Governments on health and the chart would bear this out or would give you a graphic description of it. But the chart contained figures on national health expenditure. Again, another dilemma for Chee. Because he could not explain first why he told the Select Committee (I think it was on 15th July) that in the chart, he was comparing "apples with apples", when clearly he was not. The second thing he could not explain was why is it that in the written submission, the impression conveyed was that the comparison was of Government health expenditure when three of the four figures in the chart were on national health expenditure. The facts really speak for themselves. There is really only one conclusion. The SDP submission contained figures which Chee knew were false. Try as you like, it is impossible, without straining credulity, to accept Chee's explanations. And the extraordinary thing is this. Three of the other representors also affirmed the same defence that Chee advanced that there was a misunderstanding. But they could not explain what the misunderstanding was. I am somewhat disappointed that Mr Ling and Mr Cheo are not here today. I was looking forward to having their version of what the proper inferences are to be drawn from the facts. This is the perfect forum. In fact, the entire process enables Members to stand up, look at the record, look at the findings and challenge those findings, impugn them if the findings are not satisfactory. Mr Ling and Mr Cheo would have had the opportunity of going through the facts and explain to Members that, having regard to those facts, the findings of the Committee of Privileges cannot be sound, cannot be supported because other inferences can be drawn which are entirely reasonable. But their absence, I think, entitles this House to draw the inference that Mr Ling and Mr Cheo who must be familiar with the Report of the Committee of Privileges are unable to find fault with it. The second issue, Mr Speaker, Sir, is whether the penalties recommended are suitable. And in some ways, it is a larger issue. The question of the penalties to be imposed is inextricably tied up with the question whether Singaporeans should accept such conduct in our political process. Some people might think that too much is being made of some errors. But we are not here dealing with simple mistakes. That is why I prefaced the issue when I started with the question of whether these are innocent errors or deliberate errors. If you accept the findings of the Committee of Privileges, then we are dealing not with errors or exaggerations, but with dishonesty. It is perfectly all right to stand up to the Government and challenge it. Any Singaporean is entitled to question the Government and engage it on a debate on its figures. But there must be one indispensable condition and that is the debate must be conducted honestly. There is nothing wrong in making an error. The process is not designed to punish or embarrass anyone for an innocent error. But fabrication of data, if left unchecked, will destroy the integrity of the entire system. If either the Government, and I think this cuts both ways, or a representor is allowed to make false claims, and gets away with it, people will not know who to trust. In this case, the subject of the debate was health care. It is an extremely sensitive subject with Singaporeans. It affects all of us. People have strong views on health care and the issue of subsidies. If the Government had been shown to be untruthful, the consequences would have been extremely grave. Politically, it would have had to pay a very heavy price. The Government would have lost a great deal of its moral authority. All other claims made by it would become suspect. And those in Government responsible for misleading Parliament would have been hauled up before the Committee of Privileges. They would have been severely punished by this House. The same standard must apply to anyone who wishes to influence public opinion. All the more so when, in this case, Chee was aware of the ground rules. The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act expressly prohibits misconduct and the presentation of false documents. Chee accepted that he knew that a submission to Parliament is a serious matter, and that it is imperative to put up correct figures so as not to mislead anybody. Despite this, he misled the Select Committee. We must be prepared to unequivocally affirm that such conduct has no place in our political process. There can be no room for ambivalence. I support the motion, Sir.

Sir, this is perhaps my last speech as MP for Leng Kee. Allow me to participate in this debate as a Member of this House and as an ex-academic. I support the motion. In my opinion, the Committee of Privileges has conducted a full and thorough investigation of the complaint for contempt of Parliament against the four SDP representors. The views of the Committee are objective and fair and its findings, convincing. On objectivity, the Committee has made a distinction between Chee Soon Juan who prepared the written submission to the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy, and the other three, namely, S Kunalen, Wong Hong Toy and Kwan Yue Keng, who were not involved in the preparation. On a specific complaint, the Committee has given Chee Soon Juan the benefit of the doubt on whether he had a copy of Ramesh's article with him during the hearing of the Select Committee on 15th July 1996 (paragraphs 79 to 82 of the Report). The Committee has also decided that the complaint against Kunalen that he prevaricated when he said that Chee had told him that "somebody had made a typographical error" has not been made out (paragraph 113). The Committee has been fair to Kwan Yue Keng. It has concluded that "Kwan appeared to have had the smallest role in the whole affair" (paragraph 136), and observed that he was forthright and candid in giving answers to the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges (paragraph 138). On the other hand, the Committee has found that Wong Hong Toy committed perjury to cover up for Chee, apart from having prevaricated and misconducted himself in giving evidence (paragraph 78). The Committee's findings are convincing. On the first key statement 1 and chart 1 in the SDP's written submission, the Committee's findings have established beyond any doubt that the figure of 25%, supposedly the Singapore Government's share of total national health expenditure, could not have become 5%, simply because of a typographical error, as claimed by Dr Chee. Similarly, on the second key statement 2 and chart 3, the Committee's findings have also clearly shown that the comparison of Singapore Government's spending on health care as a percentage of GDP with the percentage of national health care expenditure as a proportion of GDP of other countries, ie, Japan, the United States and the OECD countries, by Dr Chee cannot be due to "a misunderstanding of the figures", as claimed by Dr Chee. In both the statements and the relevant charts, Dr Chee had deliberately fabricated or misused the data to deceive the Select Committee. It is significant that the Committee's views and findings are supported and endorsed by all Committee Members, including Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party. Mr Low had moved some minor amendments, one of which he subsequently withdrew. His two amendments to paragraphs 28 and 101 were not substantive in nature. These are in page D 5 of the Report. The only major amendment by Mr Low was that he proposed to reduce the recommended quantum of fines imposed on each of the representors. Whether the SDP appreciates Mr Low's attempt is not relevant here. What is important is that by attempting to do so, Mr Low confirms that he agrees with the Committee: that the four SDP representors had committed one or more of the following contempts: perjury, wilfully giving false answers, prevaricating and misconducting themselves. In the 1993 Cost Review Committee, I remember that Mr Low voiced his objections and aired his views whenever he disagreed, and he finally even decided to publish his own version of the CRC report in 1993. If Mr Low did not agree with the Committee that the four SDP representors had committed contempt of Parliament, he would have voiced his views and raised strong objections. But this appears not to be so from the Minutes of Evidence (pages C 1 to C 176 of the Report). It is sad and disturbing that Chee Soon Juan, who has a PhD in Psychology and published two books and several articles and has claimed to take his research work very seriously, has gone against the basic objective of research, and has violated the fundamental rules of research in calculating data, using statistical methods, and quoting from source materials. The objective of his so-called research on health care in both his books and the written submission to the Select Committee is not to establish the truth but, on the contrary, to deceive and mislead the public and Parliament. He has resorted to fabrication of data, misrepresentation of researchers' findings, abusing statistical methods and deliberately confusing different concepts. Let me just quote a few examples here: On the misuse of data, Dr Chee invented the now infamous 5% which he claimed to be the Singapore Government's share of total health care expenditure for the year 1990. The 5% was not even carried over from his first book Dare to Change, as he claimed. There is no such figure for the year 1990 in his book. The 5% turned out to be produced out of "a typographical error". Another figure used by Chee Soon Juan was the 40% for the year 1970, which he claimed was based on interpolation from Ramesh's figures of 39% for 1960 and 37.4% for 1985. This is not just extraordinary, but it is absurd. Anyone with some arithmetic knowledge would know that the interpolated figure, even if Chee did do it, could not have been 40%, but the interpolated figure should be somewhere between 37.4% and 39%. In quoting from source materials, Chee conflated the two separate points from Mukul Asher's article, "Planning for the Future: Welfare System in the New Plan Development". Chee Soon Juan dishonestly truncated and compressed Asher's two separate points into one false statement that "the total health expenditure has been reduced from 40.1% in 1970 to just 0.9% in the 1990." This statement is in page 145 of his second book. The 0.9% referred to by Asher related to "government health expenditure as a proportion of GDP between 1980 and 1989" but Chee Soon Juan misrepresented it to be government health expenditure as a percentage of total national health expenditure in the year 1990, and then compared the 0.9% with 40.1% which was the government's share of total national health expenditure in the year 1970. Chee's whole purpose of doing so is to create a false impression that the Government is shifting its burden of medical expenses to the private individuals in Singapore. On the use or abuse of statistical methods, Dr Chee purposely chose to compare apples with oranges, putting Singapore Government's spending on health care as a percentage of GDP alongside with the national or total health expenditure as a percentage of GDP for Japan, the US and the average for the OECD countries. His attempt to compare the incomparable was intended "to make Singapore look worse". He also deliberately mixed apples with pineapples by using both the constant price (1985) time series data on private consumption expenditure together with the current price time series data on Government health expenditure to calculate the 25%. When queried, he claimed that he wanted to extrapolate the figures from Ramesh's figures based on the same methodology, which was obviously wrong. It is amazing that Chee could have used two different figures on the Government's share of national health expenditure in his two books: 5% for the 1990s in his first book, but 0.9% for 1990 in his second book! He has no compunction in misguiding the readers of his books. It is equally amazing that he even misled his own SDP comrades in the hearings on two issues, the typographical error of 5% (paragraph 56 of the Report) and on the verification of the contents of the SDP's written submission (paragraph 59). Dr Chee would have continued to carry on with his dissemination of misinformation, misinterpretation and manipulation of data, if he had not decided to submit the written submission and to give evidence to the Select Committee. When confronted with facts and figures, his self-defence was "he cannot remember", "misunderstanding of figures" and "someone else had made a typo error". During the hearings at the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges, Chee had shown his true colour: he committed perjury, prevaricated, wilfully gave false answers and misconducted himself. While Chee has massaged statistical data to mislead, he has projected his own way of doing things onto others, and believes that others would do the same as he does. He has earlier accused the Department of Statistics, MTI, of massaging statistical data in calculating the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the SDP-PKMS' Cost of Living report. Chee and his team who appeared in the hearing of the 1996 Cost Review Committee (CRC) were uncooperative and evasive in answering the questions posed by the CRC members. The two and a half hour session turned out to be fruitless. The CRC has since shown in its report that the 76% increase in household expenditure between 1988 and 1993 was mainly due to the changes of lifestyle and family structure and other factors, and only 14 percentage points of the increase in expenditure could be attributed to price increase. But the SDP-PKMS team continued to maintain their stand that the 76% increase in household expenditure was caused solely by price rise. This is another evidence showing the length Chee would go to manipulate the truth for his own political mileage, rather than discussing "an important national issue" and "get to the bottom of the figure". Singaporeans have the right to know what kind of character Chee is, especially he is the Secretary-General of the largest opposition party, SDP, and that he has proclaimed to have "an alternative vision for Singapore". The Committee has recommended to Parliament to impose fines on Chee and the other three SDP representors of varying amounts. In my view, the recommended fines are fair. The recommended penalties are not meant to deter any Singapore citizen from presenting his point of view to any Parliament's Select Committee. As pointed out by the Leader of the House just now, every Singaporean has the right to do so; but the right carries with it a corresponding responsibility to be truthful and honest in presenting his views and opinions. The House cannot tolerate dishonesty, and it must zealously guard against any act of contempt which might cause the authority of Parliament to be undermined. Parliament is the supreme law-making body in this land. Any Member of this House, present or future, and regardless of his party affiliation, must uphold the moral authority and dignity of our Parliament. Finally, Sir, although Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen are not here, may I ask them a few questions. First, were Mr Ling How Doong, Chairman of SDP, and Mr Cheo Chai Chen, an Exco member of SDP, involved in any way in the preparation of the written submission to the Select Committee? Were they aware of the contents and had they approved it before the submission? Second, do Mr Ling and Mr Cheo, having read the Report of the Committee of Privileges, agree or disagree with the Committee's views and findings? If they agree, would they apologise to Parliament on behalf of SDP for the contempt of Parliament committed by their four SDP comrades? If they do not, would they clearly state why they disagree or object to any particular or specific views and findings? Third, why did they choose to be absent from today's debate? Singaporeans and their constituents have the right to know their answers and their stand on the Committee's Report.

Mr Chiam, would you like to speak?

Sir, I am not speaking.

Sir, as I left the office today to come here, the sky opened up and it began to drizzle. As I drove, the rain got heavier and heavier, and it became a downpour. I do not know what it really means, but in a way it helped me to realise that today marks another sad day in the history of our Parliament. Not just because we have to discuss Chee Soon Juan yet again, but more because it is becoming abundantly clear that the Secretary-General of SDP is out to demean the meaning of politics in Singapore. And in order to understand him and to talk in this House today, I have gone back to newspaper cuttings of the last five years and even tried to find out about him even before that. I could not help but notice, along the way, some articles by local journalists who sounded somewhat jubilant that there was this new brave man who came forward to join the politics in Singapore. I believe today, many of them, if my feedback is right, do not have the same opinion of this man. Anyway, Sir, the things I found, among others, showed that Chee Soon Juan invariably disrupts and destabilises the organisations which have welcomed him into their ranks. And we see this most clearly in the fracturing of the SDP's leadership after June 1993. Mr Chiam had led the SDP for about 13 years, since 1980, with no serious leadership crisis. But then maybe number 13, ie, 13 years, proves unlucky to Mr Chiam. For a long period, Chee Soon Juan, at that time, a political unknown, who joined the SDP team in the 1992 Marine Parade by-election, was praised by Mr Chiam at that time "as the most courageous person in Singapore today and that Singapore would be amazed at the quality of the slate", and this was published in the newspapers. Sir, who would have thought then that within six months the courageous protege would turn on his mentor? In Malay, we call this lawan towkay. Sir, the SDP, however, is not the only organisation which Chee Soon Juan has caused problems to when he joined it. What is perhaps not so widely known is that Chee had also sown discord within the Singapore Psychological Society when he was editor of the Society's newsletter in 1991/92. Chee had joined the Society soon after returning to Singapore with his doctoral degree. In addition to being the editor of the Society's newsletter, he was also the Treasurer. However, shortly after being in these influential positions, he began attacking the past leadership of the Society. In his January 1982 editorial he lambasted the previous councils for lacking in commitment, vision, initiative and leadership. He alleged that the Society had failed and failed utterly in contributing its services to the nation. He also accused the past councils for failing to build up and promote the profession. Chee criticized the clinical psychological practice in Singapore alleging, among other things, that there was a lack of trained clinical psychologists and testing apparatus. These allegations were rebutted by Mr Long Foo Yee, who was then head of the Department of Psychology, Woodbridge Hospital, Ministry of Health, and Dr John Elliot of the NUS Department of Social Work and Psychology in their replies which were published in the Singapore Psychological Society Newsletter in March 1992. Mr Long, who has 28 years of experience in clinical psychology, pointed out that it was, and I quote, "preposterous for anyone who had little or no clinical working experience in multi-racial, multi-cultural Singapore to pontificate on how clinical psychology should be practised." Yet we hear that Chee Soon Juan now claims that he had seen patients as a neuro-psychologist. Following that, in 1992, Chee was introduced supposedly as a political star with a "good brain". I suppose much was expected of him. However, he has not lived up to expectations. The brand of politics he is trying to introduce in Singapore is not only disappointing but dangerous. I refer specifically to the cheating, lying, prevaricating and falsification of data. His words and actions have enabled us to understand what he really means by Dare To Change. All this is being done cleverly in the name of democracy and freedom of speech, although I suspect what he really meant was freedom to cheat and lie. He should realise that Singaporeans are not stupid. They could see him through and were fearful about the politics of cheating and lying that he is introducing here. More people these days refer to him as "Dr Cheat". I think there must be a reason for that. Some people, be they in the PAP or responsible members of the public, have tried to discourage or stop him from promoting his brand of politics. But the PAP was branded a bully and the public naive. I would not be surprised that he would refer to the outcome of this motion as another attempt to bully him. There are many examples to show that Chee has been shabbily trying to perfect his art of lying. He could say "Yes" and later "No" to exactly the same question and then explained why both his answers were right. Anyone who does not believe him is either stupid or doing so purely to score political points. Sir, he could give a hand signal about a stack of files, indicating it was there, but later say that what he really meant was that they were at home, by showing a different hand signal. Two completely different hand signals, one to the front and one to the back, were supposedly to mean exactly the same. I tried to understand the logic why this and this mean exactly the same. I cannot. Because it makes no sense to any sensible person. But Chee believes strongly that he can never be wrong in this case and in many others. Maybe this can be called "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic". Sir, I am not attempting to coin a new term, but if asked to define, I will say that "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic" can only mean this, and I quote what I have here in my note. "I lie. That is the first statement. But when others find out, I cover it up with another lie and if necessary even more lies. In doing so in front of the camera, whether it is Cost Review Committee or the Select Committee, I should put up a face that looks a little sad and confused so as to gain public sympathy. Make it look as if I am being bullied or grilled unfairly. I am sure, at the very least, the public will give me the benefit of the doubt." "I will even pretend that I cannot remember the many things I have said, done and researched, although I could remember them clearly not that long ago, even minutes earlier. And no matter what, do not admit to anything. Why should I admit that I lied? If I do so, nobody will trust me again and the people will not vote me into Parliament." "Always find a way to make the lies sound reasonable, better still acceptable. One way to achieve this is to prevaricate. Distract the panel and the public from the core issues. Most important of all, in doing all these, always project yourself as if you are an innocent and honest guy. Some people are bound to fall for it. If Dr Vasoo and Mr Chiam fell for it, the public would be chicken feed." "Also, use as many figures and charts as you can. They make you look well-prepared. Use some actual figures to make it believable. Ensure the charts follow suit. Where it matters most to the public, just change the figures so that the Government will look bad." "If you are exposed, just blame some articles or speeches. If they find out that these were also not true, pause for a while and think. Do not rush into it. Pretend that you are thinking carefully. Show the public that you are a serious person. If you can no longer hide, there is always the typo or human error to blame." "Finally, do not do it alone. Get some professionals to go along. They can make the team look respectable. Make sure they are hungry for some cheap publicity first. That will make it easy for you to fool them into believing your basic points. Do not let them know you also falsify here and there." "They will defend you, regardless how hollow the defence is. They would even lie for you. After all, they have their reputation to protect too. In protecting and defending themselves, they will help to protect and defend you at the same time." This is "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic." He has been doing it over and over again. This is an example of the political culture and values that Dr Chee is promoting in words and deeds. I fail to understand why the SDP MPs and members continue to keep him in the party and, worse still, support him as their Secretary-General. The SDP research team even abetted him, in their submissions to the Cost Review Committee and the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy. Have they all fallen for his tricks? I suggest they take another look at him and do something before it is too late. Mr Chiam used to trust him so much. By the time he realised it, it was too late. Now the PKMS has aligned itself to the SDP and therefore become a tool for Chee to propagate his beliefs. Some people argue that the PKMS is only being used by Dr Chee to get a place for his regular meetings and to get free drinks and meals. But I say this to PKMS: if you are not careful, Chee may throw you out of your own building in a similar manner he handled Mr Chiam. And we all know, he is extremely good at it. Sir, there are many more examples to describe this "good brain" that offered himself to become the leader of our people. But what alternative is he offering us? This is an important question, Sir. To cheat, lie, prevaricate and falsify his way through? This is what he is offering to replace a system of clean, honest and transparent government that the PAP and the people of Singapore have carefully built up over more than three decades. If Chee is allowed to get away with it this time, he may take some stopping. He will believe that his brand of politics is beginning to take root. Which is why, Sir, I must say that I am a little disappointed that the Committee of Privileges has decided to be very kind and gentle to him by proposing only a $25,000 fine and an even lesser amount for his team mates. Since Chee has done his "job" so well and his feat in cheating, lying, prevaricating and falsifying of data is unlikely to be equalled, I think the full amount of $50,000 fine would be more appropriate. Sir, he has committed perjury - wilfully uttering false statements while on oath. What do you make of a man who lied while on oath? Imagine what he is capable of doing and saying while not on oath. As for his team mates who aided him, abetted him, defended him, and lied to cover his lies and pretended to be foolish when cornered, among them, including one lawyer, they deserve half the amount of $50,000, ie, $25,000, because they have all successfully given clear impressions that they are too clever by half. Sir, the only reason I am not moving to amend the proposed motion regarding the fines is the clear position taken by Mr Low Thia Khiang who is a Member of the Committee of Privileges. He has not argued against the findings of the Committee, although he has tried to ask for a lesser fine. I think this is an important position he has taken. In other words, Mr Low has no doubt about their guilt. But, I think as an Opposition MP, he tried to be kinder to them. I hope the House will have the opportunity to hear from the Workers' Party MP himself as to why he found it a sensible and responsible decision to fine the SDP's "Gang of Four" and in doing so distanced himself from the kind of politics propagated by Chee and his team. Sir, the Report of the Committee of Privileges was published in the front pages of the local newspapers on Saturday, 23rd November 1996. And on the same day, in the same front page, The Straits Times carried a response from Chee entitled "Decision a heavy financial blow: SDP". Yet this supposedly serious financial blow to the party, according to Chee himself, "will not deter our will and resolve...". In fact, he added, I quote: "We will stomach this blow and struggle on." Sir, the question is: has he repented? No indication at all. Instead, he countered by saying that the fines "will not deter our will and resolve ..." and that they will "struggle on". In other words, Chee and his gang will continue to cheat, lie, prevaricate and falsify data. This, Sir, clearly indicates that the proposed fines are not really hurting them, despite what they said. In the same statement issued by the SDP on that day, he said, and I quote: "With the support of Singaporeans, we will continue to play our role as the opposition loyal to our nation." Sir, this part of his statement claimed that Singaporeans are supporting them in all their wrong-doings and with Singaporeans' support, they will continue to do so. I do not think anyone will buy his claim that SDP is playing a role as "the opposition loyal to our nation", not after Flor Contemplacion, Williams College and lately as the mouthpiece of Australia's Special Broadcasting Station accusing Singapore of colluding with Myanmar's drug lords. They are bold enough to get some free publicity but not bold enough to ask for a Commission of Inquiry. But Chee made clear that he and the SDP will not change. They will not change for the better as long as Singaporeans support them, and this is in their statement. This is the issue before us now. Very soon, elections will be held. Singaporeans must decide if they support Chee and his politics or show him clearly that we are all against it. For the sake of our future and that of our children, Sir, I think Singaporeans must strongly reject Chee and even the SDP since the SDP has completely adopted Chee's brand of politics. No less than a strong and clear rejection is necessary to ensure that such a destructive political approach will be completely demolished and never ever emulated by aspiring politicians and political parties in our country. If we do not send him and his gang a clear signal, not only will he "struggle on", as he said, but if he is successful, it will start a cancerous growth in our political development. By the time we realise it, it may be too late to do anything, let alone cure. In any case, prevention is better than cure. And I think the way to prevent this cancer is to reject Chee. Sir, despite my reservation on the amount of fines proposed, which I think is a bit low, I support the motion as I feel that Chee and his team deserve to be fined.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5 minutes to 3 o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.35 pm until 2.55 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a democratic representative government, Parliament is the highest forum. And when Parliament invites its citizens or persons to make representations to its Committees in Parliament, it is the duty of such people, whether they are from the Opposition or just citizens, to appear before the Committees and answer any queries which Parliament may be anxious to know, such that the facts may be established in order for Government rule to be always guided by facts and policies pursued for the larger interest of the people. Anyone from the humblest servant to the highest paid professional or the Permanent Secretary, when testifying before Parliament, is valued for the truth he speaks, not the side he is on or the party he represents. If the Government is only interested in its own partisan position, then there is no need to refer matters to Select Committees and to seek views from the public. Its majority will always ensure its partisan position to prevail and its views to be carried at all times. Hence, to be invited by Parliament for submission of views and to offer to give views for submission to Parliament constitute both a duty and a responsibility not to be taken lightly. When Parliament, by its Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals, invites views, it is the responsibility of the parties presenting the views to be truthful. It is also possible that genuine mistakes can be made in the submission of papers. However, when pointed out or realised at a subsequent stage, it is always the duty of those concerned, in honesty and truthfulness, to admit the mistakes and the errors of their position, because we all know that to err is human. Reading the news reports and the verbatim committee reports of what went on in the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy and subsequently in the Committee of Privileges, I am rather saddened that what was very obvious was the twist and turn in argument by the Secretary-General of the SDP in justifying figures he and his team had submitted, drawn from their own so-called research and book references to justify their own position that health care expenditure as a percentage of total health care expenditure in Singapore has been so dismal, at 5%. When pointed out repeatedly that his figures and data were not accurate, Dr Chee finally admitted to a typographical error. A dummy 25% was invented in order to allow the figure "2" to be lopped off to explain the presence of a figure "5" due to a typographical error, when in fact we all know that the true figure was not "5" or "25", but actually 23.6%, from the Yearbook of Statistics. The Report of the Committee of Privileges dwelt into the various situations and my parliamentary colleagues have also explained at length why 5% was not a typographical error. For someone who has spent some years doing economic research, I find the 5% typographical error explanation completely baffling. Any researcher studying statistics or figures to form judgment or to make inference statements about changing situations or trends must look for certain exceptions in data which cannot escape his attention. And any researcher worth his salt will not fail to ask why he sees a figure plunge from the 20s to 5%. In any event, he would have to check and it would be very clear even to the most blind that the figure may be suspect. But, of course, there are none so blind as those who will not see or as those with their own agenda. The figure, namely, the share of Government health expenditure in total health expenditure is not such an esoteric figure or such an advanced ratio figure that it is so difficult to grasp or to imagine. It cannot even pull wool over the eyes of our junior college students. Why did Dr Chee then keep on arguing that the figure was 5% in his paper or his books, as revealed by his research? He only gave up and admitted this figure was wrong after several years when it was clear that Parliament was subjecting his argument and position to scrutiny. When he realised that this lie was to be exposed and then in typical character, he invented another lie, the typo error. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament must not allow those who trifle with it with lies and double speak to go unpunished. It insults the honour of this House and its honourable Members who have spent so much of public money and their own precious time to attend to someone who has built up, in typical character, a long list of affronts to Parliament and country. We have to be aware that Dr Chee is not interested in the truth or the correct figure. If he is, there were so many opportunities for him to admit that error. We are confronting one who calls the truth by many names and his motive is purely to engage in theatre for exploiting the public disaffection of the Government and its policies in order to get some political mileage for himself. He exploited the same situation during the Flor Contemplacion case and we know he was trying to make political capital at Williams College. In the last Cost Review Committee, which was convened to find out the basis of the allegation of the SDP-PKMS cost of living report, Dr Chee and his team were uncooperative in providing direct answers to questions. They were not interested to find out the basis of their accusation that our statistical data had been systematically massaged. His aim is to muck up the ground by all sorts of allegations for the governing party to clean up. And he appears on TV and the newspaper as the guy who takes the Government and the PAP on. The time has come for Parliament to make a clear stand that it will not tolerate being trifled with. Sir, we all make mistakes. But there is a big difference between genuinely making a mistake and admitting it when realised, and lying about the figures and making them up to fool ordinary Singaporeans by painting the Government in bad light. Dr Chee and his team were aware that the health issue was a sensitive issue and they were stoking the issue. When challenged on the data, they fudged and they lied that their data was wrong due to a typo error and they hoped to walk away with this. Unless we take the initiative to exercise the due rights of Parliament, Parliament will be mocked by this man. And if he succeeds by trifling with Parliament, it will be a sad day for honest, transparent and moral government for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to give an example, just now highlighted by the Leader of the House, that we are dealing with someone who has no compunction to twist and turn arguments to suit his objective. At the hearing of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy on 12th August, he was asked by the Minister for Health whether he knew the difference between a time series in current dollars and a time series data in 1985 dollars. He answered, yes. On 24th October 1996, at the Committee of Privileges hearing, he was asked by Mr Davinder Singh whether he knew the difference between the time series in current dollars and the time series in 1985 dollars, his answer was, "No, I do not.". While it was pointed out to him that he gave inconsistent answers to the same question on separate occasions, he denied that the answers were inconsistent. To any man of common decency, such contradiction to simple questions, if not inconsistent, must be a lie. Yet, our friend did it with a straight face. And barely a month later, the Straits Times reported on 21st November, quoting him as saying, "The Bible teaches that in whatever you say, let your yes be a yes and a no be a no." I would say it is not necessary to invoke the Bible when all decent and honest men know what we mean when we say "yes" or "no" to simple questions. I am left to wonder whether Dr Chee thinks that if he affirmed his evidence at the hearings of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy and the Committee of Privileges that a "yes" can also mean a "no" and a "no" is also a "yes", perhaps the Leader of the SDP, with such a good brain and strong heart, to him "yes" and "no" can mean the same thing. To the hon. Members here, "yes" and "no" are not the same answers to the same question. Otherwise, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have a very difficult time to interpret the decision of the House. Sir, I will vote yes to the motion in the name of the Leader of the House and I am sure you understand what I mean.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. I am somewhat disappointed that Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen have chosen to absent themselves from today's sitting of Parliament. At the public hearing of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy, Dr Chee Soon Juan fabricated facts and figures, and gave wrong information to mislead the Committee. He acted in contempt of Parliament. This is indeed regrettable and sad for politics in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the feelings of Mr Chiam See Tong, the founder and former Secretary-General of SDP. He groomed up Chee Soon Juan as a likely successor of opposition politics in Singapore. But Chee Soon Juan turns out to be a very cunning perpetrator of sophistry, and one who enjoys stealing the limelight. He is fond of playing to the gallery and, unfortunately, over the past two years, Mr Ling How Doong, the Chairman of the SDP, has, to a large extent, appeared to be influenced by Chee Soon Juan. Time and again, he has also resorted to this kind of sophistry in Parliament. The attitude of Chee Soon Juan towards Mr Chiam See Tong leads one to feel that he is power-crazy and very ungrateful to cast aside his mentor. This act of kicking down the ladder by one who aspires to be a Member of Parliament, is indeed very regrettable. I cannot condone such a conduct when it is blatantly clear that he is out to cheat and lie. How can Parliament treat this act of contempt lightly? If we do that, we can only do more harm to the reputation and dignity of Parliament. As a leader of the opposition, when he was challenged in the hearing, his pet tactic was to say, "I do not know" or "I cannot remember". He can say "I do not know" to everything - a Mr Do-Not-Know! Just imagine if one day this Mr Do-Not-Know should become the Prime Minister of Singapore and Singapore will have a Do-Not-Know Prime Minister. He will evade his responsibility. To everything, he will say, "I do not know. I cannot remember." What will happen to the future of Singapore? What will happen to the livelihood of the three million people of Singapore? Who will take responsibility for it? As such, we simply cannot afford to be lenient to him in so far as this contempt proceeding is concerned. Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP has frequently gone overseas to make speeches. He went to Bangkok, Australia and the United States to make speeches. As Singaporeans, we have the right to know where he got the money from to go overseas. On this occasion, if we decide to accept the Committee's recommendation to fine him, how is he going to get the money to pay the fine? If the money does not come from his own pocket, but from the party or from some anonymous supporters, then is it in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Party? Further, there is this litigation between Chiam See Tong and the Executive Committee of the SDP which may well result in heavy damages being awarded to the plaintiff, Mr Chiam See Tong. Where will the money come from? Is the money going to come from the Party or from some people outside the party or from the money raised by Mr Chiam See Tong for the Party when he was in charge? I think someone should look into the matter and find out whether they are guilty of tax evasion or whether they have any "back-door" foreign aid. It is the fundamental right and responsibility of every citizen to defend and protect his own country. Every Singaporean has the responsibility to protect the interest of Singapore. If there is any group from outside Singapore which is out to undermine our national interest, we must deal with them severely. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to a report in the Lianhe Zaobao on 17th November 1996. It reported that the SDP had originally intended to host the Conference of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats Executive Committee in Singapore, but because of the impending General Election, this plan was shelved. The original decision of the SDP apparently was to try and create some trouble and exert pressure on Singapore at the time of the convention of the WTO Ministerial Conference here. Or is it the intention of the SDP to use this time to cast aspersions on Singapore? May I ask where will they get the money to host such a large conference? I would also like to ask the Publications Division of MITA to look into the books written by Chee Soon Juan, Singapore, My Home Too and Dare to Change. Because in these two books, there are a lot of wrong figures and wrong facts to mislead the readers. If a writer is irresponsible and the publisher is equally irresponsible to publish wrong facts and figures to mislead the people, then the authorities ought to order the author to amend his facts and figures to the correct ones so that the readers, both local and foreign, will not be misled. I feel that when Parliament debates this motion, the other factors which I have mentioned should be taken into consideration. Contempt of Parliament is a very serious offence. We should not take it lightly. As a responsible Government, we should look into the financial sources of Chee Soon Juan and the SDP. The people have the right to know. I fully support this motion. 3.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, if there are sceptics who want to question why the Privileges Committee's Report was released close to the General Election, they have forgotten that it was the SDP which started it all. They tried to sow seeds of hatred and anger in the people by first telling them in Chee Soon Juan's book Dare to Change, that health care cost has risen beyond their means. When Chee Soon Juan realised that nobody reads his book, he raised it in The New Democrat, the press and other forums. When lies are spread like wild fire, the Government has a duty to debunk these lies. So the Government called for a Health Cost Review Committee to examine the allegations. Chee Soon Juan and the SDP will have to face the natural consequences of their own actions and choice. That they have again brought shame to themselves deserves no pity. Sir, releasing the findings and recommendations of the Report of the Privileges Committee now, just before the General Election, is indeed timely, so that Singaporeans will be given a fair chance to assess the true character of Chee Soon Juan before they decide whether or not to vote for him at the coming election. To release the Report after the General Election may be doing a disservice to Singaporeans. Many people may blame the Privileges Committee or Parliament for withholding important information about Chee Soon Juan. Worse, if he is penalised after being elected, then the people may think that the Government is out to fix him. Sir, the Privileges Committee cannot be said to be partisan or biased. We have an honourable Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, from the Opposition in the Committee. We have seen him going to the rescue of the SDP MPs in Parliament many a time in this House. But this time, Mr Low cannot, in good conscience, disagree with the findings of the Committee. There is no doubt that Chee Soon Juan and his SDP colleagues are guilty to the hilt of the offences of giving false statements and prevaricating. Mr Low only asked that the fines be lower. The allegations made by the SDP members were indeed very serious. They are matters close to the heart of the people. If believed, it could disenchant and divide the people. It could incite the people to hate the Government and its policies. If such rumours are not nipped in the bud and the perpetrators brought to book, then the people may believe that they are true. I think the fine is too lenient in view of the time and taxpayers' money involved. I am told it costs the Government some few hundred thousand dollars just to convene the Health Care Cost Review Committee. Sir, the penalty has to be sufficiently deterrent to be effective. Otherwise, anyone could frivolously stir up emotions, and when the Government had to hold an inquiry to establish the truth of the allegations, they would appear before Parliament and utter nonsense as freely as they would do in the market place. The dignity of Parliament would be ruined. And taxpayers' money would go down the drain again and again. Sir, we all know that the General Election will be held soon. Chee Soon Juan and his team will soon peddle the roads to sell their antics. By all means, laugh and be entertained by them. But before believing them, Singaporeans should ask what manner of a man is this Chee Soon Juan. We look at what he can do and had done. He was a lecturer in the University but was sacked because he used university research funds for his wife's postage. After he was sacked from the University, instead of reflecting on his misdemeanour, he went on a hunger strike, but secretly drank glucose at the same time. Very smart indeed, trying to evoke sympathy while sustaining himself out of hunger. Sir, Chee Soon Juan then tried again to cheat with numbers, as you have heard in the House earlier. He has a doctorate degree. He is adept at doing research work. He must have checked through figures and numbers many times, and by the time he was ready to write a book, he would have formed an impression as to the actual state of affairs. Even if it was a typo error in the first instance, he would have discovered the mistake at proof reading, because the figure does not jive with what he has read. And yet he cunningly put the figure as 5%, hoping that if it is not corrected, his ploy would succeed and, if caught, he could give the excuse that the figure "2" has slipped out. Indeed, a very slippery man! Sir, I read in the Report of the Privileges Committee that Mr Kwan Yue Keng conceded that Chee Soon Juan had done wrong, and indeed tried to distance himself. This was even reported in the press. But soon after that, the SDP released an undated press statement signed by Mr Kwan himself that he had complete faith in Chee Soon Juan's leadership. Could Mr Kwan have told the truth, and then being forced to say otherwise? Mr Kwan, in his clear conscience, would tell you the answer. But I think you could guess it quite correctly, going by what Chee Soon Juan is capable of doing. Chee likes to seek audience with the foreign press for only one reason: to run Singapore or Singaporeans down. He did that again recently when he told the Bangkok Post that Singaporeans lacked conscience, lacked morals. Chee Soon Juan should indeed look at himself hard in the mirror, search his own conscience and see whether he himself has the minimum standard of morals. Sir, Chee Soon Juan has been found guilty of an offence personal to himself. He will be fined by this House. He has let his party down. He has brought disgrace to his SDP members through his behaviour. And yet I read in the Sunday Times of 24th November 1996 that the decision of the Committee of Privileges posed a serious financial setback for the SDP. Does it mean that Chee Soon Juan is asking his party to pay for his fine? If so, where is his conscience? Has he a moral? Could a director of a company, for example, fined for his own misdeeds, ask his company to pay for his fine? This is certainly unheard of and wrong, morally and legally. Sir, I am aware that clause X(f) of the SDP's Constitution allows for Party funds to be used to compensate the loss by a member as a result of activity for the Party. Unless giving false statements and prevaricating are condoned by the Party membership as SDP's activities, then SDP members themselves, like shareholders of a company, should question whether Party funds should be used to help pay for Chee Soon Juan's fine, since he is doing a great disservice to the Party. He has shamed the SDP! I would like to urge Singaporeans to vote carefully at the coming General Election. We cannot afford to admit a cheat, a liar, into this Parliament. Look at Taiwan where fist fights are part of their parliamentary proceedings. Members of this House are honourable men and women of character and integrity, with high moral standards and conscience. They are highly respected in our society. Many serve as role models for our younger Singaporeans. We must preserve and uphold the respectability of Parliament and its members. We cannot compromise the standard of parliamentary representation. Otherwise, the electorate will suffer. Singapore will suffer. I think we do not dislike the Opposition, as Mr Chiam and Mr Low would know, but we certainly loathe dishonest, crafty and dubious Opposition. Parliament has no place for such people. Sir, I endorse the Report of the Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the findings of the Committee of Privileges show how the SDP key leadership had made false representation and later, when confronted, they had tried to cover up their dishonest mistakes. What they had displayed in the recent public hearings make them unworthy politicians. The Committee of Privileges was right to recommend the appropriate penalty. At this point, I feel it is pertinent for me to share my frank and objective assessment of SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan's behaviour and stances, as he was the key player in the SDP's representation in the public hearings. I know this man very well. I had been with him for three years. He can hoodwink people very easily. Apparently, he did research on "hooded" rats. So he is likely to hood people too! The thing is this. I know this man very well. I studied him very closely. He presents himself very well in front of people. He is able to sell. But what is important is for us to know this man intimately. And I have known this man very intimately and I can give you my frank and very objective opinion. Chee was my subordinate in NUS and I had the opportunity to appraise him very closely. I assessed him yearly. In fact, I was very supportive and I helped him. I did what I could to help this man. But one important thing is that he would let you down ultimately.

He bites the hand that feeds him!

He bites the hand that feeds him and he was not trustworthy. I will tell you later of what I found about this man. Sir, Chee's doing and SDP's stand have become public issues and Singaporeans must be aware so that they could judge him and the SDP leadership better. I think this is very important because Singaporeans must be able to discern honest men from dishonest men, and that is very important. I am very confident that Singaporeans will be able to discern honest people as it will be good for Singapore in the long term, because we will have progress and stability. Sir, Chee has been trying to draw public attention with his usual rhetorics. This is what he is good for rhetorics. Since he was sacked from NUS for dishonest conduct, he had tried each time to cook up new answers to support his case. But each time he is cornered, he finds new answers. So it is not very new. He started doing this very early, since I knew him. Chee, together with SDP leaders, attacked our key social institutions. In the Flor Contemplacion saga and Williams College affair, they had done Singapore in by siding with outsiders. When cornered each time on flawed opinions, Chee and the SDP would cover up by giving various excuses. This is quite an old story. He will continue to do so all the time. Chee has also not learned since he was caught by me for misuse of university research funds. He turned and twisted in the past when I had exposed him. He had demonstrated the same behaviour in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. How could he have changed public perception of himself by the series of exchanges in the press and public hearings? It is not his political acrobatics but the personal integrity that matters. I think this is a very important issue that Singaporeans will have to introspect, appreciate and understand this man, in terms of his character and his integrity. Singaporeans would agree that it is not just words that count. It is the person's deeds that are most important. In the final analysis, it is the person's personal integrity and honesty that counts most. Sir, allow me to recall some of the past misdeeds which have relevance to his behaviour in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. This will enable Singaporeans to become more aware of his character in order that they can judge him when he makes his stand from time to time on public institutions or when he seeks election to public office. I think he is going to do so and we will have to watch out and be able to appraise this man in terms of what he has done. First, he secretly tape recorded his private conversation with me and denied itwhen I caught him red-handed. I caught him red-handed and I showed him, "Look, this is not right." He said, "No, no, I am not taping you. I am not doing it." I said, "Look, the tape is running. The light is on. How is that you are not taping? It is not right for you to do so." He said, "No, no, it is for my classes. Honestly, it is for my classes, and I am not doing this." A man you caught red-handed and he is not honourable enough to admit that he has taped you. You caught him red-handed and he can deny it. What kind of a person is he? Any honourable man caught in the act would admit, but he did not. So one should question how honourable this man is. From then on, after having caught him and he denied such a thing, I then had no trust in him. Because how can a man do such a thing and having been caught, he can still deny the fact. You can cry until you are blue, he still says that he is not doing it. So you can assess how honourable this man is. I lost trust in this man. I asked myself, how can a man whom I have helped so much do such a misdeed, and was not man enough to admit taping the conversation. He lied when he said that he was not taping, which he did. This made me feel that he was an untrustworthy person. I was disappointed with his behaviour. Having done so much for him, argued and represented him, made a case for him, he then did this dishonourable act, which is unbecoming and untrustworthy. So how could a man who cannot admit such a misdeed be expected to lead Singaporeans? This is a very important question Singaporeans should ask. Recently, in the episode with Australia and the drug baron, he pointed his finger at Singaporeans and said that they lacked moral conscience. He should first examine himself and see whether he has moral conscience. Any decent honourable human being, when caught, would admit and at least say, "I am sorry. I did not mean it." But he never did. He argued till the cows come home and he still said no. So you can imagine what kind of a person we are dealing with. Second, he misused the university research fund to send his wife's PhD dissertation and he lied when confronted about the matter by Prof. Ernest Chew and me. I knew that this fellow cannot be trusted. You need somebody there to vouch for it. So I brought in Prof. Ernest Chew. I said, "Dean, you better examine this. You better be around in case he says that I am a PAP parliamentarian and therefore I am trying to fix him." But I am a decent man and people know this. He shifted his positions when the matter was investigated. It was a similar stance that he took when he was confronted by Members of the Committee of Privileges on his misrepresentation of data on health care. He claimed it was a typographical error and various other things. He could not read. He was confused. But he was not really confused. When cornered, he always tries to find some ways to come out of it. Third, I had pointed out that he made excessive transport claims from the NUS and when he was challenged on the matter, he cooked up answers. Let me give you something new which I had not brought up. I thought that at an opportune time I should bring it up. Today is quite an opportune time. So I might as well bring it up. This is something for Members to look at. Sir, I do not want to sound petty, by bringing up this issue of transport claims again. Because by looking at a transport claim, we can tell the character of a person. After a while, we can study the person. I feel that this is an important issue to highlight to the public. If Members recall, I pointed out that he made excessive transport claims between NUS and First Toa Payoh Primary School, among many other claims that he made. But I am specially picking this up because there is something interesting to highlight. The period was from 30th September 1991 to 16th October 1991. As Members know, 1st October is Children's Day and it is a school holiday. On 1st October 1991, there were no children in First Toa Payoh Primary School for someone to do research. He made a claim for 1st October 1991. Let me look at the transport claim. He made claims from 30th September to 16th October 1991. It was $12 a trip, which is reasonable but not that cheap. But at that time, $12 was quite a trip. 1st October is Children's Day. Can he explain why he made the transport claim for Children's Day when it was a school holiday? As Members know, and I think the Minister for Education can vouch, it was Children's Day and the school was closed. There were no programmes. So why did he make this claim? I am sure he would come back and say, "Well, Dr Vasoo, you do not know what I was doing." But I think it is an interesting point. I am bringing this up to show that this is the type of person that we are dealing with. When I began to discover that he is not a trustworthy person, I had to go back to look at things and the more I discovered, the more I became convinced that I am not dealing with an ordinary and honest person, but I am dealing with somebody who is really dishonest and untrustworthy. The more you dig, the more dirt comes up. This is what has happened over the past few years. I feel that personal integrity and honesty are basic requirements for any aspiring and incumbent politician. Based on his past record, the public should judge whether he is someone we would like to entrust our future to. Sir, why I brought up Chee's misdeeds is not because I would like to do so. You know that I am a friendly person. I am very supportive. I am not a nasty person. I had helped him so much. I just want to point out to the House and the public that his past misdeeds show in his character. He cannot cover them up as I have proofs of his misdeeds. His political sideshows will continue with his political rhetorics in order to get attention. It is therefore important for Singaporeans to take cognizance of Chee's character as he is leading the SDP. Based on Chee's past record, Singaporeans should carefully judge whether he is someone we would like to entrust our future to. I would like to recall that I spoke to Mr Chiam after the Chee affair which we debated in April 1993. I think Mr Chiam would vouch for it that I told him, "Be careful with Chee and you should watch out for him. He is someone that can do you in." I did not use those words but I said that he is someone that you got to watch out. He is someone you got to be careful with. Otherwise, you may find that you may not be able to manage and deal with him. This is what I told Mr Chiam frankly. See what has happened to Mr Chiam. He has been turfed out. I am sure today Mr Chiam would concur with me. On hindsight, looking at what I had said, an honest appraisal of this man, he would agree with me wholeheartedly today that we are not dealing with a very simple person. We are dealing with someone who does not have honesty and integrity. Sir, Singaporeans must know of the dangers of the resurgence of anti-Singapore groups. This is very important and we should all be aware of. These groups have not gone away. They will surface under different guise to find inroads into vulnerable political groups and use them to disrupt Singapore's socio-political harmony and economic progress. I think there is always this resurgence of various groups trying to capitalise and find opportunities. We should all watch out for this. We must always be alert to deal with such potential dangers. Sir, I am recalling the various events so that Singaporeans will have an added dimension to evaluate Chee's character. Knowing him, I can tell you that he will continue to deny all his wrongdoings. I therefore would like to endorse the decision of this House to impose a penalty on him and other SDP members for their misrepresentations and false report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. I was a Member of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy and I sat through one of the longest Select Committee sessions I have ever attended. I came out feeling sad and disappointed that a person like Chee, with a doctorate, could act and behave in such a manner, unbecoming of a man of his standing as a lecturer and researcher. Sir, from the very start, if you will remember, without seeking your permission, he took it upon himself the task of rearranging the seating arrangement laid out by Parliament. And this prompted you, Mr Speaker, to reprimand him and ordered him to refrain from such actions unless the Chair's permission is sought. But this behaviour reflected the arrogant attitude of the representor. Throughout the many sessions, there were attempts after attempts to show data, figures and charts that were obviously incorrect or not substantiated. It is not necessary to go through all these as they were brought up by the Select Committee and previous speakers have already spoken on this subject, and the public is well aware of the obvious discrepancies and data presentation, especially the 5% typographical error. However, it is the indifferent attitude of the chief representor that caught many people's attention. He chose to ignore what is correct. The sad thing is that he sees no wrong in himself and he used a case or two of wrongful billing by the hospital to cast doubts on the hospital's policy of hospital charges. He insisted that the hospitals had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the bills, based on the case of Sunny Kow. He attempts to accuse others of doing the very thing he did. This projection behaviour pattern comes out clearly in the above case of Sunny Kow. Although the Minister had told the Committee that the hospital had indeed made an error in the bill presentation and that Mr Sunny Kow need not have to pay more than what he needs to pay, the SDP chief representor refused to accept and insisted that the hospital had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the hospital bill. Yet he failed to see his own errors in the many charts, figures and data that were presented. He projected this type of behaviour to detract the Committee but, unfortunately, he was not successful. Sir, in passing judgment on the four SDP representors, we face a section of Singaporeans who think that we are trying to do the Opposition in. It is not a question of whether these four people are Opposition members or not. It is clearly a question of what must be done to a group of people who swear to tell the truth in Parliament but clearly did not. We in Parliament must do what is right and correct, or this House would be taken too lightly by those who wish to present their case before Select Committees. In other words, we are dealing with the conduct of the representors, not their political affiliations. Sir, my comments on Opposition MPs' behaviour carries less weight than those coming from independent non-PAP sources. On 20th July 1996, I read in the Berita Harian an article which clearly tells you the character of Dr Chee. It was headlined Kecewa dengan sikap dan cara Dr Chee semasa perbahasan. Translated it means, "Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate." I will quote the translated version. It is very short: `Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate - by Noraini Hamzah. I recorded Monday, July 15, as an important date in my diary because representatives of the Singapore Democratic Party were scheduled to speak in front of the Select Committee to study Government subsidies for hospitals and polyclinics. It gives the SDP's General Secretary, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and his colleagues the opportunity to explain their stand. I imagine the meeting to be serious as the SDP's allegations were grave. Were the allegations founded? The day I had been waiting for came, but I was disappointed. In following the 8-hour discussion on television in the reporters' room at Parliament House, I observed that Members of the Select Committee panel were obviously very serious in presenting their questions, views and statements. Nonetheless, I cannot say the same for Dr Chee who became the lone voice of the 4 SDP representatives there. My observation of Dr Chee was that he twisted his answers. He often deviated from the matters discussed, blamed others. He was dishonest in his answers and he did not observe the Select Committee proceedings. He often condemned the panel members. In short, he appeared to be playing politics through his answers. His conduct made it necessary for the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, to warn him on several occasions.' She went on to discuss about the proceedings and she concluded, and I quote: `The hearing went beyond 11 pm. Some people might consider Dr Chee a hero for being firm in his position, but I was quite fed up with Dr Chee's arrogance and his stubbornness in not admitting the mistakes in his figures. I was not the only one. My colleague who had all along respected Dr Chee stated, "I lost my respect for Dr Chee from today onwards." Was the SDP sincere in bringing up the issue of health care subsidies? I doubt it. As a former university lecturer, Dr Chee must have realised that an undergraduate would fail in his examinations if he distorted his answers or deviated from the questions asked.' This is how she concluded: `As a mother, can I tell my children that it is not wrong to be disrespectful and to distort answers? Certainly not.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this was the observation of a newspaper reporter, not by the PAP. The comment reflected the feelings of someone who was present at the hearing. Yet, the latest paper of the SDP, The New Democrat, sees a repetition of all the points brought up by the SDP representors. They obviously do not care and do not intend to hear the truth. This is not the correct way to change things. Change will come not with making political statements, but with sound alternatives that will win the hearts and minds of all educated Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is the highest institution in the land. It passes laws that affect every Singaporean. Therefore, it must be respected and obeyed. If politicians choose not to do so, then he or she must be reprimanded and appropriate punishment meted out. Politicians fight hard at every election to enter this Chamber and our behaviour and conduct in this House sets the tone for other Singaporeans. If we misbehave, then Singaporeans will not be proud of us and this country will suffer. Thus, if you remember, Sir, I chose not to speak at the last debate on the Select Committee's findings because you made a ruling that our speeches should not contain materials that will prejudice the findings of the Committee of Privileges. Mr Speaker, it is my respect for you and your ruling in Parliament that I choose to speak today instead. Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of this motion. I also sympathise with Mr Chiam for being drawn into today's debate, even though he chose not to speak. And by the silence of Mr Low Thia Khiang, we heard him loudly. As pointed out by Dr Ow, the only amendments that Mr Low made in the Committee of Privileges Report were minor and that he proposed to lower the fines, although the Committee did not agree. In fact, he did tell the Committee that he agreed fully with the logic and the conclusion of the Committee of Privileges Report. There is nothing more for me to add. I just urge the House to accept the motion.

The Question is, "That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves -

To the contrary, say "No".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to abstain from the voting.

So be it. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Sir, it is very strange that Mr Low abstained from the voting, although it is perfectly within his right to do so. During the Committee of Privileges hearing, he did tell the whole Committee that he agreed with the logic and the conclusion of the Report. Resolved, "That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves -

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Annex 1 (Cols. 1031 - 1032)