Dismissal of CSJ - Parliamentary Debate (1993) FULL TRANSCRIPT

[CPT (NS) BRANDON]

DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN

1.37 pm

Mr Speaker: Inadequate notice of this motion has been given. The motion, therefore, requires the consent of the Speaker and general assent of Members present under Standing Order No. 33 before it can be proceeded with. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that this motion be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The notice of this motion has not been signed by a supporter. Does the motion gain the support of an hon. Member?

Dr Toh Keng Kiat (Nominated Member): I support.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move,

That this House expresses its concern over the allegation by Dr Chee Soon Juan that his dismissal from NUS for alleged misuse of his research funds amounting to a sum of $226.00 was politically motivated, and seeks clarification from the Minister for Education of the actual facts that caused Dr Chee's dismissal.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and to the House for allowing the motion standing in my name to be debated.

Column: 158



This whole episode, like it or not, has been politicised and Parliament is the best place to debate on the issue. This matter of Dr Chee's dismissal is no longer a personal matter between him and the NUS. It has much wider implications and probably some political repercussions.

Dr Chee Soon Juan, an SDP candidate for the Marine Parade GRC by-election in December, came across to me, at least, as a very clever politician. He projected himself as David taking on the might of Goliath, the PAP. He projected himself as an underdog and even went ahead to compare himself to Cdre Teo Chee Hean, both being new members then. He talked about the promotion that Cdre Teo was to get and the sacrifices that he had to make and probably even the risk of losing his job as a lecturer in NUS.

The Hon. Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had dismissed his fears, saying that NUS would not fire him just because he is an Opposition candidate. Dr Chee had since, what the SDP has termed a sterling performance, been elected Assistant Secretary-General, second probably to Mr Chiam See Tong. Dr Chee had also written several critical letters of the Government to the press, and we read of several exchanges, which include Mr Matthias Yao's replies to his letters. And out of the blue, we suddenly read of Dr Chee's dismissal and then this saga.

Dr Chee made a serious allegation that his dismissal was politically motivated. Everyone can see that he is a rising star on the Opposition camp and Dr Chee's boss was Dr Vasoo, a PAP MP. So his sudden dismissal did cause some concern amongst the public. Dr Chee had said many a time that he has a good brain. So using this good brain of his, he decided, and he said on his own accord, to go on a glucose-coated hunger strike. SDP had declared its 101% support for Dr Chee's honesty and integrity but said it did not influence him to go on a hunger strike.

Sir, personally, I cannot understand the rationale for his action, but, then, I am not a politician. [Interruptions.] I came in by the back-door, so some of us have said.

Column: 159



I thought there must be other better, perhaps, less dramatic, but certainly more effective ways to clear his name, if he is innocent. Maybe he has other reasons. One must always remember that Dr Chee has a good brain. Maybe he believes he can gain politically, shooting to national prominence, leapfrogging the popularity of even Mr Chiam See Tong and, perhaps, even Mr Goh Chok Tong. He had scheduled press conferences and interviews with even foreign press, including the Melbourne Age and probably even the BBC. So maybe he wants to go down in history, at least, in SDP's history book, as a martyr, a sacrificial lamb.

Sir, I do not know his reasons. Maybe he is just simply tired of living and this might be a glamorous way to go. He has not even started the battle. So I wish him well, whatever his reasons are. Good luck to him. But if he wants an advice, I would like to say that dead heroes are no heroes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to know his actual reasons. But what I want to know and, I believe, what the general public wants to know is the truth, simply the truth. Was he, as he claimed, victimised? He gave reasons to support that he did not act dishonestly in expending the $226. He claimed that his wife's thesis was relevant to his work. NUS was originally silent on this. Now, NUS has said that even if the work was relevant, she has no right to the funds. He claimed that Dr Vasoo had approved the expenses and had in fact shown invoices with Dr Vasoo's signatures.

SDP's statement claimed that the issue of the research funds came up only after Dr Chee was questioned about his political motives or activities by Dr Vasoo and the Faculty Dean, Professor Ernest Chew, on 4th March. And there was this illegal taping that we read about and which Dr Vasoo was unhappy.

The other questions floated about are: (1) whether NUS rules on use of research funds are clear; (2) whether it is a practice

Column: 160

of the academia to draw on research funds to send relevant thesis. Is this, even taking that Dr Chee was wrong, a dismissal offence? Were there precedents? And there are many, many more questions which I can leave them to the other hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that we get the true picture to clear all doubts about the dismissal. We should not allow doubts to hang over our system of justice. We have, in fact, in this House just moved several Bills to improve the system.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for lifting the Standing Orders to allow Members to speak up to one hour. I would also like to thank the Nominated MP, Mr Chia Shi Teck, for moving this motion but I thought he was, at times, in his speech a bit sarcastic. I would like to remind him that, as one who has been in Parliament for nearly nine years now, it is not wise to speak in that tone. If he wants the truth, I think that is a very honourable thing to ask for but, at the same time, I do not think he needs to ridicule Dr Chee.

When Dr Chee Soon Juan joined the SDP and took part in the Marine Parade GRC by-elections in December last year, the general public opinion was that his job as a neuropsychology lecturer in NUS was in jeopardy. Many people said that he shall surely be sacked. Public opinion is often self-prophesying. And sure enough, Dr Chee was not only sacked once but was sacked twice within a short space of less than one month.

The Prime Minister, in his walkabout in Punggol last Sunday, had commented on Dr Chee's sacking. He said that it was a disciplinary action taken by an employer against a staff member. I believe the general public do not view it that way. Dr Chee is the first university lecturer in the last 25 years to join an Opposition party and contested in an election, not merely against any PAP Member but against the

Column: 161

Prime Minister and three others in a Group Representation Constituency. After the by-elections, he was featured in the press through his exchange of letters with the PAP and his name was mentioned in and out of Parliament for promoting the politics of envy. Dr Chee was not just an ordinary university lecturer and his abrupt termination of service cannot be viewed as just a straightforward employer-employee matter. The public see more into it than just that.

The Prime Minister also said, and I quote:

'If Dr Chee is unhappy, he could easily ask for arbitration or bring up the matter in the court.' The fact is that it is unwise of Dr Chee to bring the matter to arbitration or to the courts. He shall surely lose his case. The reason is that Dr Chee's services were terminated in the first instance - by the way, he was terminated twice, so I say "in the first instance" - under clause 4(a) of his employment contract. Clause 4(a) is contractual in nature in that there is no element of fault attributed to Dr Chee. Clause 4(a) states that either party can give three months' notice and walk out of the contract. So it is purely contractual or, instead of notice, you could pay money in lieu of notice. So if Dr Chee went for arbitration, or to the courts, his application will not only be thrown out but he will have to suffer heavy costs because he has got no cause of action. It was just purely contractual. The university has the right to terminate him. Dr Chee has the right to walk out with three months' notice.

So we must remember that the university, in terminating Dr Chee under clause 4(a), was exercising its contractual right. There is no dishonesty attached to that under clause 4(a). So in that sense, he cannot arbitrate or take his matter to the court.

The Prime Minister said that it is stupid of Dr Chee to go on a hunger strike to show that he was wrongly dismissed and to get the NUS to retract its allegation of dishonesty against him. May I ask the Prime Minister - he is not here today - in the circumstances, what options has Dr

Column: 162

Chee? There is none. So he went on a hunger strike to highlight his plight. Is that stupid? I do not think so.

The Prime Minister was asked whether the NUS should reveal its past cases of disciplinary action against its staff. But he was reported to be against it. I am afraid that again public opinion is against him on this point. Many people, whom I spoke to, said that the NUS should reveal these facts. I call on the Minister for Education - I do not see him here also - to show whether they were of a similar nature to that of Dr Chee's case, or that they were materially different and could not be rightly equated to Dr Chee's case. The NUS cannot and should not insinuate that just because other lecturers were sacked for improper conduct, the NUS should do likewise to Dr Chee. The facts may be completely different. Until the NUS reveals the full facts, we shall never know. The lecturers who were sacked might have been really bad. Just because there were bad elements in the NUS previously, it cannot be concluded that Dr Chee is also bad. If the NUS takes that position, then it is behaving very irresponsibly and it does not speak well for such a prestigious institution.

I shall state the facts to show that Dr Chee's sacking as a lecturer in neuropsychology was politically motivated. At this point, it must be pointed out that Dr Vaspo, MP of the ruling Party, is also Dr Chee's immediate superior in the NUS. Dr Vasoo, at all material times, was wearing two hats, one as Dr Chee's Head of Department, and the other as a PAP MP. Can he objectively decide on this particular matter? Let the facts speak for itself.

Dr Chee was recruited by NUS on 15th August 1990 for a two-year contract as a Teaching Fellow in the Department of Social Work and Psychology. After the first year, he had no trouble getting a promotion as a lecturer for a three-year term, backdated to the date of the first contract as he was a good lecturer, he did his work very well and was very productive in his research work.

Column: 163



Towards the end of 1990, and in early 1991, Dr Chee wrote on three occasions to the Straits Times, criticising the Singapore Government policy on the early streaming of children in primary schools. Dr Vasoo, as mentioned above, the Head of the Department, who is also an MP, came to Dr Chee's office and, in an apparently friendly manner, advised him not to write such letters. Dr Chee also came to understand that Dr Vasoo spoke to one of his colleagues, Anthony Chen, asking him to get Dr Chee to stop writing. I shall prepare all the letters that were written by Dr Chee to the press and other documents and make them available to Members later. I will hand these documents over to the Librarian to make copies for Members.

Dr Chee did not heed Dr Vasoo's advice. And in 1991, he wrote again to the press criticising aspects of the 'A' level system. That time, Dr Vasoo called Dr Chee into his office and, in a formal manner, informed him, and I quote:

'That every letter Dr Chee wrote would count against him.' Dr Vasoo did not elaborate what he meant. Later in that year, Dr Chee wrote to the press to criticise statements made by Dr Ong Chit Chung, another PAP MP, on a study of Singaporean values. Dr Vasoo again called Dr Chee into his office and asked him why he had written to the media when he could have written instead to Dr Ong directly. Dr Vasoo asked Dr Chee not to continue.

One evening, on or about the later half of 1990, Dr Chee received a lift from Dr Vasoo. During the drive, Dr Chee asked casually what would happen to a NUS lecturer if he joined an Opposition party. Dr Vasoo replied that he would probably be sacked, or asked to resign. In December 1992, Dr Chee took part as one of the SDP's candidates in the Marine Parade GRC by-elections.

Early this year, the Department of Social Work and Psychology carried out its annual review of work done by its members. During the review, which was

Column: 164

conducted by Dr Vasoo, he asked Dr Chee about an interview he gave to The Ridge, a students' magazine published by the NUS, and he expressed his disapproval of Dr Chee's comments. This interview can also be found in the bundle of documents that will be made available to Members.

In February and March of this year, there was a fierce exchange of letters between Dr Chee, writing in the capacity as the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP, on the one part, and Mr Matthias Yao, the Second Organising Secretary of the PAP, on the other part. Before the correspondence between Dr Chee and Mr Matthias Yao could complete, Dr Chee, on 4th March 1993, was summoned to the office of Dr Vasoo, and also present, was Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Science. Instead of talking about the work of Dr Chee, he was asked about the statements he made during the by-election campaign when Dr Chee commented on the absurdity in the Singapore State controlled education system whereby he had not been able to secure a place as an undergraduate at NUS but, several years later, had been appointed to the teaching staff. Dr Chee was also asked about the interview he had given to Asiaweek, a regional weekly, and The Ridge, the students' magazine referred to earlier, and Dr Chee was told that his statements were invidious. All those questions put to Dr Chee had no relevance whatsoever to his university work but were all political in nature.

Dr Vasoo then questioned Dr Chee about the two parcels he had sent in September and November 1992 to Pennsylvania State University. Those parcels had been paid for on Dr Chee's research postage account which was part of the research grant from NUS and contained the PhD dissertation of his wife, Dr Huang Chih-Mei. Dr Vasoo asked Dr Chee to give a written explanation. Dr Chee gave his written explanation on the same day, ie, 4th March 1993. The letter was addressed to Dr Vasoo, the Head of his Department. Despite explaining that he felt justified in using university funds to send his wife's

Column: 165

dissertation because it had relevance to his own research work, Dr Chee was dismissed from his lectureship post.

I will now talk about the letter of dismissal. The letter of dismissal was dated 18th March 1993 and I read it. I felt that it was one of the most biased letters I have read. In the letter, the word "admitted" was used four times when the proper word in the context of the subject matter should be "told", or "said", or "revealed". The word "admitted" is very emotive. It implies that a person has told some untruth and later on he admitted to the fact that he had told an untruth. But in the case of Dr Chee, there is nothing to admit. The word "admitted" was used three times.

An hon. Member: Four times.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Four times, yes. The letter accused Dr Chee of dishonesty or lack of honesty three times. And yet the termination was made under clause 4 of the agreement for service which is contractual in nature. I have already explained this. Either party can give three months' notice to terminate the contract, not based on clause 4(c) where the University can terminate a staff immediately because of misconduct. It was not done under clause 4(c). If the University really thought Dr Chee was guilty of dishonesty, then, as I have mentioned, he should have been terminated forthwith, but it was not done. If the real reason for terminating his service was not for dishonest conduct, then one can only surmise that it was for political reasons.

Perhaps it is useful for me to read this letter to you written by one of the University staff. I will not mention his name. I understand that he is a lawyer by training. I have the letter in front of me. I will just read to you paragraph 5. It states:

`In your letter dated 4th March 1993, you said you wanted the results of your wife's dissertation quickly reviewed, validated and subsequently incorporated into your research. But you suppressed the material fact that you have in fact sent your wife's papers for the purpose of her PhD examination.'

Paragraph 6 states:

Column: 166



`Only at the next meeting on 11th March 1993 when I was present did you admit that you had used University research funds to send your wife's dissertation to Pennsylvania State University for the purpose of her PhD examination. But you nevertheless maintained that this was in order because your wife's dissertation contained materials relevant to your own research.' There are two points there. One is that the writer of this letter accuses Dr Chee of suppressing or not telling him that the materials in the parcels had to do with his wife's PhD examination. But Dr Chee did not suppress or hide anything. In his letter of explanation of 4th March, he came out very forthrightly and said:

`In this instance, I used the funds for the above-mentioned purpose to enhance the chances of getting my research published. To the best of my judgement, I feel that I am justified in using the funds in my research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the university involved so that the results could be quickly reviewed and validated, and subsequently incorporated into my own research.'

Let us look at the word "dissertation" first. Obviously, the University authorities still need English lessons. They do not know what is the meaning of "dissertation". To Dr Chee, it is very clear. "Dissertation" means materials for PhD examination. I looked up the Penguin dictionary, 2nd edition, it states:

`dissertation - discourse or treaties on a particular subject especially one written as a requirement for a university degree.' What else can Dr Chee say? This is like a person telling this University chap, "I am going to send a gun to America in one of your courier service parcels." Then later on when he discovered it was a gun, he says, "How come you never tell me it was a weapon for destruction, for killing people?" It is the same. It is so obvious to the person. A handgun is for killing and for causing grievous hurt. I do not have to tell you that I was sending a weapon, you know, with bullets inside and can kill people. When he says "dissertation", it is understood. It is for examination purposes. But here this writer says that he suppressed materials. I really cannot understand. You see the biased nature of this letter.

The second point he makes is that Dr Chee was dishonest in also not telling

Column: 167

them that the materials that he sent was relevant to his research. Let us look at the reasoning of this writer. Paragraph 7 says:

`First you suppressed information that it was expenditure for examination of your wife's PhD. After you admitted this, you nevertheless claimed it was justified because it was to incorporate into your research. But you had made no arrangement for any persons in Pennsylvania State University who were experts in your own area of research to review the results in your wife's dissertation. The members of the dissertation committee of your wife's PhD had nothing to do with your research. They were not concerned with incorporating your wife's research results into your work. Therefore, this claim that it was for incorporation into your research was not honest.'

This writer, in rejecting Dr Chee's appeal, also wrote these words:

`Your appeal has been considered. Your argument that you are justified to use University funds is convoluted and devious and has no merit whatsoever.' It is a very aggressive way of rejecting an appeal. I do not think even the Judges in court use this type of language to dismiss an appeal. But, nevertheless, he uses the words "convolated and devious".

An hon. Member: Convoluted.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Convoluted. Much obliged. I want to use these same words against the writer in this paragraph. Did you understand what I read just now? I am sure you do not. I have to read it two or three times to understand what he means.

An hon. Member: You are slow.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, you say I am slow. You tell me what is the meaning of that. I am sure you cannot.

Firstly, he wants a panel of experts in Pennsylvania University who understands Dr Chee's research work to examine Mrs Chee's work. That is what he wants. In other words, before Dr Chee could send his parcel to America, he has got to write to Pennsylvania State University, which is a stranger to him as it is not his own university, seek out some people over there, whether they know or are familiar with his work. Then he should get them to examine his wife's research paper to see whether there is any relevance between the two. But Dr Chee has made it clear. He

Column: 168

wanted the material quickly validated and sent back to him. He was anxious to get on with his work.

The other point is a statement of fact. The panel of experts in Pennsylvania University who has something to do with his wife's PhD dissertation, of course, did not know that the wife's work was to be incorporated into Dr Chee's work. That is what he says. From these statements, he concluded that Dr Chee was dishonest. Because of his dishonest conduct, he was accordingly dismissed under clause 4(a).

His reasoning is also twisted. If Dr Chee was really dishonest, then he should have been dismissed under clause 4(c), but instead under clause 4(a) which is contractual in nature. I think if this matter is brought to court, the writer would have difficulty defending his position.

This is the letter that was sent to dismiss Dr Chee. You make up your minds whether or not the dismissal was politically motivated. The crux of the matter is whether or not the wife's research work has any relevance to his own work. He took the trouble to fax letters to his own university, the University of Georgia, to get one of his Professors there to give an opinion. The Minister is not here. I would like to give him a copy. Who will be answering in place of the Minister?

 

[CPT (NS) BRANDON]

DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN - PART II

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, would you like to hand it over to me and I can arrange for copies to be circulated to Members?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. [Copy of letter handed to the Clerk of Parliament.]

This letter is written by George W. Hynd, Research Professor, Director, Center for Clinical & Developmental Neuropsychology, Clinical Professor of Neurology. It says:

`Dear Soon-Juan:

I received your letter of April 8, 1993 and am somewhat surprised that anyone would question the relevance of these two research papers. You may recall that you sent me the reviews and manuscript abstracts (and additional manuscript pages) to read.

First of all, you and I have previously communicated about research along these lines because I have previously published a number of studies addressing the importance of age, racial, sex, and cultural differences in neuropsychological development. These articles have been widely published and cited and as I recall you were going to follow-up with studies of your own there in Singapore. From the two papers you sent me it looks like you did follow-up and investigated supra-modal functioning in different cultural groups. The fact that differences are found supports the growing consensus that cultural effects do impact on evolving neurocognitive and sensory systems in children and these effects may very well manifest temperamentally as well. This is underscored by the second manuscript you sent me. The two papers are highly relevant to each other in this regard.

I view your line of research as very important and cannot understand why there is confusion about the importance of these studies. They clearly provide sound data that can and should be published (I would suggest submitting your research to Developmental Neuropsychology). Your research also provides a solid rationale to continue to examine the effects of culture on neuropsychological test performance as it will lead to a better understanding of the development of brain-behavior relations.

Please keep me updated on your research. Sgd. George W. Hynd'

From this letter, it is conclusive that the wife's work and his work had relevance. Sir, the University has sacked Dr Chee unfairly without even taking the trouble to find out whether there is any connection, any link, between his wife's PhD thesis and his own research work.

I have already commented on the letter of dismissal. Then things developed very fast. On or about 1.45 pm on Saturday, 10th April 1993, the University sent one of its staff to hand a letter to Dr Chee at his home. That letter again sacked Dr Chee on the spot. But, surprisingly, the reasons given in that letter had nothing to do with the alleged dishonest conduct of Dr Chee. The University had shifted its ground and now says that he was behaving improperly because he has made instigation against the University by going on a hunger strike, by urging the SDP to put pressure on the University and probably by his general remarks. So what does it show? It shows that Dr Chee was never dishonest at any time. Now he is dismissed not on the grounds of dishonesty.

In that letter, the University contended that even if Dr Chee's wife's thesis has relevance - now they are slowly admitting it - to Dr Chee's research work, it was still improper to use University fund to send his wife's dissertation to Pennsylvania State University. All this sounds very strange. If it was really improper, they should have punished him on the spot. The first parcel was sent on 8th September 1992, the second parcel was despatched about 9th November 1992, and action was only taken on or about 4th March. So there is a time gap of six months in one case, and four months in the other case. If he was really that dishonest, why did they wait until such a long time later?

There are also comments about the procedure of using University funds. If a lecturer gives a treat to a friend with a University grant, is it proper or not proper? The University will probably say it is not proper. If he were an SDP Member, they will straightaway try to find fault and get him out. But you have to look at the circumstances. The person whom he gave a big dinner treat or a lunch treat may help him in his research. You have to find out the facts first. You cannot just straightaway say, "Well, because it was not used for his own purpose but used for somebody's else, he is dishonest."

I have looked through the documents and what are the rules and regulations governing use of research fund? I have here one document on the University's Terms and Conditions of Grant. I believe paragraph 5 is relevant. It reads:

`Bills and Claims for payments must be certified by the principal investigator and approved by the Head of his Department before they are submitted to the Bursar's Office for payment. The vote chargeable and the item No. must be indicated. Only original copies of the bills are accepted for payment.'

As far as we know, Dr Chee has complied with this condition. His bills comprising delivery notes and invoices were obviously checked by the principal investigator and approved personally by Dr Vasoo himself. Then they were sent to the Bursar. Payments were made. The whole matter was over because it was duly approved by the Head of Department. As far as we know, with regard to the two parcels, the matter was already closed. Suddenly, six months later, we find that people were trying to dig out to find out whether or not those parcels contained relevant materials to his research. We can only ask why. It is quite obvious. The person who dug it out to find out what were inside the parcels was obviously trying to find fault with Dr Chee. There is no other reason. It cannot be for accounting purposes because the Head of Department had already cleared it and it was in order. So once the auditors find that the procedures are in order, they would not go and find out and ask what is inside the parcel. I have made enquiries of accountants and no auditors would do that. So we can only conclude other motives.

Mr Chia has mentioned this procedure with regard to use of research funds. There are no other guidelines and no other detailed procedures to guide Dr Chee. So if there are any gray areas, what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to take the advice of the University authorities in that letter to write to his University or other people's University, get a Committee to find out whether that is relevant and then he can send. But that is not stated anywhere in these procedures. So as far as Dr Chee is concerned, he has complied with the procedure and yet he is in trouble.

Let us look at the invoices. These are also material matters. I am made to understand that when Dr Vasoo signed these materials, two pieces of papers were given to them. One was the invoice and the other was the delivery note. On the invoice itself, the addressee is clearly shown there, the name and the destination are also shown there, and the amount. On the delivery note, written very clearly, anyone who signs this would note that on the left hand side were the details of Dr Chee Soon Juan, and on the right were the names of the persons whom this parcel was to be sent to. Why did Dr Vasoo, as the Head of Department, not make enquiry at that particular point of time? He cleared it despite the fact that he knows all these particulars in the invoices and in the delivery notes. How can you put the blame on Dr Chee? If Dr Chee is dishonest, then I think Dr Vasoo is abetting and aiding the dishonesty. He signed it. He cleared it. These invoices are all similar in nature. So can you say that Dr Chee was dishonest?

Another interesting point is this. At one time when Dr Chee asked for the invoices, you can see for yourself that Dr Vasoo gave this invoice with half the bottom blanked out. If Dr Vasoo is in the House today, we should ask him to explain why? Why does he want to suppress materials on the other half. The most relevant part that was hidden off contained his own signature and notes made there, Dr Chee Soon Juan's RT account No. 92009 - $74.50.

With regard to this matter of using University funds, I think it is incumbent on the University to prove that Dr Chee has in fact breached the rules and regulations in the use of the University Grant.

There is this incident of the tape recorder. I do not know why Dr Vasoo wants to bring up this matter of the tape recorder.

If he is an upright man, as he alleges, then there is nothing to worry. Everything that is in the tape recorder would only prove that he is an upright person. Why should he be so concerned? Dr Chee has already explained. He has already announced that he wanted to take part in the elections and it is only prudent, as a politician, for future records, of any accusation made against him, then he would have proof, and his fears in fact have come true. I do not think it was improper in the circumstances because politics is a serious matter and we do not know what kind of accusations can be made against him. So I would ask Dr Vasoo to in fact release the tape and let the House know what are the contents of the tape. Because I am sure he has got nothing to fear, and let us not insinuate into the matter.

What the University rightly should have done was to appoint an independent committee, people who are knowledgeable on the matter and to examine all the theses and all of Dr Chee's research papers and see whether there is any relevance. He has written many research papers. I can see the whole list of them when I read through the papers. That is what any objective, unbiased person would do. But instead, they just jumped the gun and without any concrete evidence accused him of dishonesty. So I hope the Leader of the House would lift the Whip so that Members could vote from the evidence that they have heard and not be bound by the decision of the Whip.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): May I seek a clarification? On this particular letter from the University of Georgia, could I ask Mr Chiam to give us the letter by Dr Chee to this particular Professor?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. I said I will make available all these papers. Can I sit down and sort out these papers?

Mr Speaker: Yes. I suggest you hand it over to the Clerk of Parliament. Mr Ling.

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker: You will not be speaking. Mr Cheo.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Chee Soon Juan has been dismissed recently and this dismissal has led to his going on a hunger strike. This incident has attracted wide public attention. I do not like to defend any party involved. But in the public interest I feel it is necessary for me to speak on the dismissal of Dr Chee by the University authority.

Dr Chee and the National University of Singapore should know what they are doing. Dr Chee feels that his dismissal by the University is due to his participation in

Column: 174

politics in the Opposition. It is because of political reasons that the University accused him of dishonesty and terminated his contract of employment. We do not want to go into the merit or demerit of the case for the time being. What I am concerned with now is whether the University has any political bias. Are the University staff allowed to take part in politics or not? Can a staff member of the University express his views to the press? Here, I would like to quote what Dr Chee has told me. Just now, Mr Chiam See Tong has made some reference to it. I would like to remind the University authority to ensure its neutrality in politics.

Dr Chee told me that before he joined the Singapore Democratic Party, one evening he took a lift from Dr Vasoo in his car and he asked Dr Vasoo that if a lecturer joined an opposition party what would happen to him. Dr Vasoo said he could either be dismissed or be asked to resign. That was what he said. If Dr Vasoo did say such things to Dr Chee, then we have reason to be worried that the dismissal of Dr Chee was possibly politically motivated. I feel that as the Head of Department, Dr Vasoo should come forward, confirm or explain what he has said. I would also ask the Minister for Education to express his views on this matter.
2.30 pm

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the motion standing in the name of the Nominated Member, Mr Chia Shi Teck, I have the following views to present.

When Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen spoke just now, I thought at first that they would be bringing up some fresh points to defend Dr Chee Soon Juan. However, having heard what they have said, I am beginning to understand why Dr Chee Soon Juan had to spend so much time to consider whether or not he should instruct Mr Chiam See Tong to be his lawyer.

Column: 175



The alleged misuse of NUS research funds and the misconduct of Dr Chee Soon Juan had led to his dismissal by the NUS. My view is that this is a disciplinary action by the employer (NUS) against its employee (Dr Chee Soon Juan). So this is a matter between the employer and the employee. Anyone who is not satisfied can easily settle the dispute through legal means. As the saying goes, "There are national laws in a country and there are house rules in a family." This solemn Parliament should discuss national affairs and issues concerning the life and death of our citizens. This is not a place to settle the dispute between the individual and the organisation, or a place to solve their grievances and petty matters. Unfortunately, Dr Chee Soon Juan's case has been politicised by Mr Chiam See Tong and the SDP, and this has dragged Parliament into this dispute between Dr Chee and the University. The truth will speak for itself!

Let us take a moment and think about the matter. If Dr Chee did not misuse the research funds and had not done any act of dishonesty, then why should the NUS dismiss him? The statement from SDP is indirectly saying that the dismissal is due to Dr Chee's involvement in the Opposition party. If we condone this, then we would be protecting those people who are making use of political means to better themselves.

The SDP has said that this action against Dr Chee Soon Juan was initiated because he joined the Opposition party. Maybe Mr Chiam See Tong believes that someone who has got a PhD and who can write articles in the newspaper would be a great asset to his party. In fact, the articles written by Dr Chee Soon Juan would, at best, be good enough to mislead some Singaporeans. Most of us in Singapore are very clear about the matter and will not be easily fooled by him. The truth will speak for itself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong should review the selection criteria of his

Column: 176

party candidates. Why is he so lenient in his selection process? If the SDP believes that this meagre sum of $226 is only a small amount, then they are wrong. Because the SDP should know that in running a town council, it would involve millions of dollars. If he can be tempted by this small amount of $226, then what about $2.26 million or $22.6 million?

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Peh, are you giving way?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: No. (In Mandarin) Let me finish my speech, then he could speak.

Mr Speaker: Mr Peh is not giving way. Mr Chiam, could you resume your seat?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): If a person is not honest and has no integrity, then how can he not yield to such a great temptation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been a member of the People's Action Party for 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, once the Central Executive Committee of the PAP finds any member to be dishonest, it would immediately sack the member, rather than protecting and supporting him. I do not know why Mr Chiam See Tong has chosen to divert the attention of the people away from Dr Chee Soon Juan's act of dishonesty in order to cover up for his mistakes in selecting a wrong party candidate.

In fact, if Dr Chee Soon Juan is truly innocent, then as the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP, he could instruct the two lawyers in SDP (his Chairman, Mr Ling How Doong, and Secretary-General, Mr Chiam See Tong) to represent him. As Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Ling How Doong are the paramount leaders in the party, they are in the best position to represent Dr Chee Soon Juan. But from the statement issued by SDP, we can see that Mr Chiam See Tong should be very willing to do so. However, until today, neither Dr Chee Soon Juan nor Mr Chiam See Tong has done so. Is it because Dr Chee Soon Juan has no confidence in these two lawyers in the SDP? Mr Chiam See Tong said just now -

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Peh, are you giving way to Mr Chiam?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: No.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, please be seated.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): I hope that Mr Chiam See Tong would be patient. He will have the chance to speak later.

Mr Chiam See Tong said just now that Dr Chee Soon Juan will surely lose his case if legal action is taken. Is it because Dr Chee Soon Juan has realized that he was wrong in the first place, if the matter is brought up to the court and the whole matter is exposed, and it would be even more difficult for him to turn back? Hence, he adopted the naive and ridiculous way of hunger strike to gain public sympathy.

As mentioned in the Forum page of The Straits Times on 7th April 1993, the significance of hunger strike between the late Indian politician Mr Gandhi and that of Dr Chee Soon Juan is entirely different. The hunger strike by Gandhi concerned the nation and the people, whereas Dr Chee Soon Juan is merely trying to hide the truth and to divert the attention of his people to boost his political popularity. The most comical part is that Dr Chee Soon Juan had taken a heavy breakfast before commencing his hunger strike. Then he has been feeding himself on glucose water. From the newspaper report, I see that he has placed a big bed in the comfort of his living room. It looks as though he is enjoying his leave, much to the envy of many people. This naive and ridiculous method of hunger strike is certainly different to the hunger strike of the great Gandhi who sat in an open space before the people. The worst part is that his attitude of stubbornly refusing to admit his mistake has gained the support of Mr Chiam See Tong and the SDP, and has developed the whole incident into a political event to exert pressure on the University.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you please resume your seat?

 

[CPT (NS) BRANDON]

DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN - PART III

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): Mr Chiam has spent a lot of time talking just now. He should be patient.

With the support of Mr Chiam See Tong and SDP, he has exerted pressure on the NUS to withdraw its allegation against him and to develop the whole incident into a political event.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the two SDP Opposition MPs are aware of the full details of Dr Chee Soon Juan's story. Or could it be that they are still in the dark and knowing only half the truth? Otherwise, why have they not represented Dr Chee Soon Juan through legal means to take up a libel suit against the NUS?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the SDP MPs that Parliament is a solemn place to discuss national affairs and matters of life and death of our citizens. This is not a court. Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Ling How Doong are lawyers. They should not lead the members of the legal profession in Singapore to believe that the SDP has ignored the existence of judges and lawyers.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, can I remind you that you have spoken on the motion?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I want a clarification from the Member.

Mr Speaker: All right. I will allow you only to seek a brief clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. I have got several clarifications to get from Mr Peh.

Firstly, does Mr Peh realise that, in the first instance, Dr Chee was dismissed on contractual grounds? Does he know that? I want to ask him, if he is better than a lawyer, whether, if he was dismissed on contractual grounds, he would go to court. I want a clarification from him.

He alleges that Dr Chee has committed a dishonest act. Can he please clarify and name the rule or regulation, or term and condition, of the University in which he has breached to say that he has committed a dishonest act? He says that, again, Dr Chee is ridiculous, going on hunger strike, sleeping on a bed, having glucose drink, and having a big breakfast before he starts. I will put a challenge to him. Any time, if he wants a hunger strike, challenge with Dr Chee! He will take Mr Peh on any time.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will not be so comical as to go on a hunger strike like Dr Chee Soon Juan. I will not be so stupid to make myself a clown in Singapore to gain public sympathy. If I were Dr Chee Soon Juan, I would employ a good lawyer like Mr Chiam See Tong to defend me.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, have you decided to speak?

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes.

Mr Speaker: All right.

An hon. Member: Would you change your mind?

Mr Ling How Doong: No. I would not, because my name has been mentioned. I think I have a right to reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel sorry for Mr Peh. I suppose that is his usual style of speech-reading, instead of speech-making here. From what I have seen, he must have prepared his speech. In a parliamentary debate, when someone has made a speech of facts, you should modify your reply. It would appear he cannot do it. He was just repeating what he has written. We have never raised in this House the question of $226 used by Dr Chee. He has even failed to understand what we have been saying, ie, if Dr Chee has been guilty of dishonesty, why in the letter of dismissal it cited clause 4(a), which is a contractual provision in the contract. Why? He apparently does not even understand simple English, I suppose.

Mr Peh Chin Hua rose ---

Mr Ling How Doong: Sit down! Let me finish first.

Mr Speaker: I must remind you that you are not in a position to ask any Member to sit down. That is for me to decide.

Mr Ling How Doong: I apologise. He has not even got your permission and he starts to interrupt and speak.

Mr Speaker: It is for me to make the ruling.

Mr Ling How Doong: I will bear that in mind, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Before you continue, I would like to say something. I must inform the strangers in the Gallery that they must be on proper behaviour at all times and they are not to indulge in clapping of any form or to interrupt the proceedings of this House. If there are any further interruptions, I shall direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the strangers. You may continue, Mr Ling.

Mr Ling How Doong: Thank you for your indulgence, Sir. Mr Peh spoke after Mr Chiam has given his views. He should direct his answers or his speech to what has been raised in this House. He has been raising something extraneous from what he has read from the newspaper. Is it right for him to do this? And he has unnecessarily dragged me into the whole thing when I have not even spoken at all. It looks to me that he is going to secure cheap publicity here. The point raised by him is not in dispute, as we have never, at any time, said that because the amount is small, the University should overlook it. We have never said this. Our thrust is this. There is no dishonesty. It is immaterial whether it is $200 or $2 million. So what is the point of him saying that "Well, because it is a small amount, we should condone it, bigger amount then, perhaps, action should be taken."

The point here is that the University is not taking action against Dr Chee for dishonesty. They have shifted ground. The first letter of termination stated it was dishonesty by not revealing the fund and how it was being used. We have already made our point here. It is immaterial how the fund was being used. The point here is whether the fund used was relevant to his research. There are no proper guidelines as to how research funds are to be used and, in this particular case, Dr Chee had used it in his own judgement which was not only relevant but also backed up by one professor who said it was very relevant. So therefore the question of misuse of the fund is no more there. I really do not understand why the Member could dig up something and point an accusing finger that we are backing somebody or we have been misled by somebody. He should reply to what has been raised in this House. It is a proper thing for him to do rather than to bark at everybody wrongly.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me clarify this point. This is Parliament. This is not a mass rally. Mr Ling How Doong has even brought his cheer leaders here to applaud him. I am very disappointed.

Mr Ling How Doong: I am objecting to his insinuation that I bring in my cheer leaders here.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, you speak only when I recognise you. Mr Peh, you have already participated in the debate. I can only allow you to respond, but very briefly.

Mr Peh Chin Hua(In Mandarin): Just now, Mr Chiam See Tong has already politicised the whole matter. Since he has politicised the matter, I have to clarify the matter. My colleague, Dr Vasoo, should be telling us the full facts of the matter later, so I think Mr Chiam See Tong should wait for the reply by the Minister for Education. Just now, Mr Ling How Doong remarked about the mention of $226. If he had listened carefully to me in Chinese just now, he would have realized that I used the word "if".

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on this motion in the name of the hon. NMP, Mr Chia Shi Teck.

Listening to what the previous hon. Member has to speak, I find that it is so much easier to follow the points and the logic of my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Peh, than to listen and follow the convoluted logic and questions of the hon. Member for Bukit Gombak. And it seems very surprising to me that Parliament today should be really debating on this issue which, as rightly pointed out by my Parliamentary colleague, pertains to the affairs of an individual involved in an employer-employee contractual problem. But, however, as in the nature of a democracy, any problems can be made political if a party or a person chooses to. It may as well be so that people will be clear about the issues and not let sentiments and emotions get the upper hand of logic and orderly thinking.

The fact is that Dr Chee Soon Juan, a lecturer from the NUS, has been dismissed for alleged misuse of research funds by the employer, the NUS. If the lecturer concerned feels that he has been wronged, then he should take legal redress. I can think of at least two Members here who are qualified and able to represent him. The NUS being the employer is most willing for the employee to seek arbitration and legal redress as provided for in the terms of the contract, if the other party feels it has been wronged.

Yet, it is strange that Dr Chee has not chosen the rightful and the lawful way of rectifying this alleged wrong. His Chairman and Secretary-General in the Party are both lawyers and they have been taking great pains to point out to the House why they cannot represent him in this issue. But I really believe that the matter pertains to arbitration, or to the
court, and not to this House. I am sure they are willing and they are ably qualified to do so, particularly as the dismissal as alleged is supposed to be politically motivated. That would have given the leaders of the SDP the platform and the avenue to clear the matter once and for all for Singapore and the world to see. Yet this sensible avenue was not chosen. Why? Instead, Dr Chee has chosen to go on a half hunger strike with glucose. This is the real politically motivated part.

Being the psychologist he is, he is deliberately politicising the situation so as to impugn the responsibility for his dismissal to some political motivation by some powers that be. Who? He has not specified. This is a clever art done by psychologists all the time, the redirection of feelings, emotions and desires towards another object. It is called transference. Religious fanatics and false prophets also practise the psychological game to influence and control their followers by self-inflicted denials, always in the public light but never in the cloister of one's retreat and never in the loneliness of the desert. The practitioner of this art portrays himself as the one suffering for humanity, the one to bring the new joy and freedom, the one without sin admits all the sinners. Hence, a bed from the bedroom was placed in the sitting room, with a few pillows to bear, and a daily press conference is an essential.

For a politician, Dr Chee is true to his colour. True enough, as identified by our Prime Minister sometime ago, he is playing the politics of envy once again. He is polarising the politics of envy on to himself, invoking on himself as a torch-bearer for the long suffering Singaporeans that he purports to champion. This is a sordid attempt at deluding the people to camouflage the political underhand. By doing so, naturally he hopes to serve his own purpose, which is to cloud the issue of his misconduct, to attract media attention for his own political goal. Naturally, he hopes to build up himself as a political martyr and to turn his problems to political advantage and make political capital out of it.

In fact, the SDP, in its press release, has implicitly admitted that this action of Dr Chee is calculated for political advantage. I quote:

'The SDP would not ask any person to endanger his health or life for any political advantage. (Signed Chiam See Tong)' However, I believe that Singaporeans are not so easily swayed. If they were, more than 70% of Singaporeans would not have voted for the PAP in the last by-election where Dr Chee took part and failed. Yet, if it is necessary, it must be pointed out that these desperate political moves are not something that should be tolerated and Singaporeans should not be fooled and taken for a ride by it.

The contractual agreement between NUS and Dr Chee should properly be respected as dealing between an employer and an employee, and best left to themselves to sort it out. Unfortunately, since the matter has been brought to the House, in the nature of a democracy, Members must have their say, perhaps, this was meant to be so by the person in question.

Let me say a little bit for the NUS in this instance. Sir, I have no interest in the NUS, or the NUS in me. However, as a former research scholar in the University of Singapore who had benefitted from the research awards from the University, I must say that I have a healthy respect for the University. From its antecedent days of the University of Singapore, it has grown into the present National University of Singapore. I dare say one of the best universities in the world. There are hundreds of lecturers with PhDs from all over the world with all sorts of political ideas and beliefs at the NUS. It expends hundreds of millions of dollars annually. We must give some respect to the University administration for its decision-making on how to run the University, or

Column: 185

deal with its staff and how to set the rules. Any person believed to be wrong can naturally seek the proper lawful redress.

Singapore is a very civilised society. Millions of dollars are given out each year from the University for approved research topics. Not all the research money can be guaranteed to be fruitful, but none should be dishonestly spent. This is the basic trust between agencies funding out research grants and recipients. The terms of application are always spelt out. Let the people responsible for it handle and deal with it.

The motion seeks clarification from the Minister for Education. I am sure this will be forthcoming. But we must not play into Dr Chee's hands. It is not the facts he is after. He knows the facts and they are against him. He has already made the choice. It is the emotion that he is after. I urge Singaporeans not to let themselves be drawn into this mini-attempt psycho drama created by Dr Chee to achieve his own narrow political objective. Let the problem Dr Chee has with the University be resolved between themselves, as it lawfully should be, and no one should exploit Dr Chee's problem to political advantage.

I would like to add a little bit on what I know of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Dr Vasoo, the Head of the Social Work and Psychology Department. He is unfortunately the Head of Dr Chee in this Department. I am sure Dr Vasoo will, in good time, furnish information to the House as to what exactly happened. I know Dr Vasoo for many years, more than a decade, even before he and I entered Parliament. He is a highly-principled man, who has always been serving and representing the poor and the underprivileged in society, and I have sat with him for years in the Public Assistance Review Committee which reviews all appeals for public assistance cases brought up by MPs.

I marvel at his tenacity in putting forward the case for the poor and the underprivileged of society. He is the MP

Column: 186

who fights for the poor and pushes for their well-being actively and quietly in numerous committees and meetings and publicly in Parliament on numerous occasions. He is the man who speaks for and serves the poor and the underprivileged, not Dr Chee. He has not just got a good brain, he has got a good heart.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the present motion in the name of the NMP is too ambiguous and I cannot support it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.00 pm until 3.30 pm