Standing Order on Press

Now, Sir, to come to more domestic matters: I have to inform hon. Members, who probably are aware of it from the newspapers, that I have received a telegram from the Commonwealth Press Association, when it held its conference in Canberra, which reads as follows:

"I AM ASKED TO INFORM YOU OF FOLLOWING RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED TODAY BY COMMONWEALTH PRESS CONFERENCE ON MOTION WICKREMESINGHE OF CEYLON SECONDED BY DEVILLIERS SOUTH AFRICA STOP THIS CONFERENCE REPRESENTING NEWSPAPERS FROM ALL PARTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH IS CONCERNED AT THE NEW REGULATION ADOPTED BY SINGAPORE ASSEMBLY UNDER WHICH A REPORTER MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ASSEMBLY IF THE SPEAKER CONSIDERS A REPORT HE HAS WRITTEN TO BE UNFAIR STOP THIS CONFERENCE DOES NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT OF THE ASSEMBLY TO CONTROL ALL WHO FREQUENT ASSEMBLY HOUSE BUT POINTS OUT THAT FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS IS INCAPABLE PRECISE DEFINITION AND URGES THAT THE REGULATION BE REDRAFTED TO CONFORM WITH THE PRACTICE WHICH HAS LONG PROVED SATISFACTORY IN PARLIAMENT OF WESTMINISTER".

It was signed, Sir, by "H. E. Turner, Secretary", to which I replied:

"YOUR TELEGRAM NINTH NOVEMBER RE MOTION WICKREMESINGHE OF CEYLON WHO REFERENCE OUTSTANDING ORDER ADMISSION PRESS IS REPORTED TO HAVE STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A RULING OPERATING IN ANY PARLIAMENT INSIDE THE COMMONWEALTH AND IT WAS MOST UNUSUAL AND UNFAIR TO INVEST THE SPEAKER WITH SUCH RIGHT WOULD INFORM YOU STANDING ORDER 19 (3)OF CEYLON IS SIMILAR NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT MR.WICKREMESINGHE COMPLAINED OF HIS COUNTRY'S LAWS FURTHERMORE FOR THE RECORD STANDING ORDER 61 OF JAMAICA STANDING ORDER 134 OF GOLD COAST STANDING ORDER 73OF NIGERIA STANDING ORDER 69 OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO STANDING ORDER 22 OF MAURITIUS ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER ALSO OUR STANDING ORDER IS NOT NEW BUT HAS BEEN IN FORCE FOR MANY MANY YEARS FINALLY THE STANDING ORDER WAS ADAPTED BY A CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FROM A MODEL CONSTITUTION EVOLVED BY OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS INCORPORATING THE TRADITIONS OF WESTMINSTER STOP YOUR REQUEST BEING REFERRED SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS MEANWHILE I REGRET YOU SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED SINGAPORE WITHOUT CHECKING EASILY ASCERTAINABLE FACTS".

Sir, I have since then received representations from the Singapore Union of Journalists, and with your permission, Sir, since this affects the House, I shall read the memorandum they submitted:

"We have called upon you on behalf of the Journalists of Singapore to ask your good offices in seeking the repeal of the order that confers upon the Speaker the arbitrary right to issue cards for admittance to the Assembly hearings and to withdraw them from individual working journalists for what he judges to be an unfair report. In return we offer the co-operation of this Union in drawing up any clause replacing it to ensure fair reporting.

The Union is non-political. We certainly do not intend to make party capital out of this issue. We are always ready and willing to co-operate freely to our best ability in maintaining the friendly relations between Press and Parliament that are essential in a free Democracy. We would point out that this Union raised the matter in August last when the order was first published and asked Mr Speaker to receive a delegation which he could not see his way to do.

We ask for the repeal of this clause for three reasons.

I. No such powers exist in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster where the Speaker is an elected Member, equivalent to those conferred upon the Speaker here who is not elected by the Assembly. We would point out that the Assemblymen are elected, that the Speaker is their servant but has not been elected. Thus an official who cannot claim to be representative is given arbitrary powers to bar the Press from the democratic assembly. This seems to us worthy of Alice in Wonderland.

II. As framed the clause is in our eyes utterly unfair. The reporter is a servant of his newspaper. What he writes may be and often is altered and presented in a way he cannot control. We strongly urge that if anyone be penalised it should be the editor or publisher and that their remedy is against the reporter as in cases of libel and slander. It might be interpreted in fact as fear to attack the powerful and victimise the weak."

I think, Sir, he meant remedy is against the proprietor.

"III. We find no precedent for such powers of judging what is fair and unfair vested in one man anywhere in the Commonwealth save in its most politically backward dependencies, in fact in territories where there is no Trade Union of Journalists to fight the cause of Freedom of the Press. As to Ceylon we believe that you have been misinformed, Mr Chief Minister. Even were you not we would point out that Ceylon is a country where the working Journalist is deprived of the protection of a Trade Union so that we are the most surprised that it should precisely have been a Ceylon publicist who raised at Melbourne the Issue of Press Freedom on information derived solely and entirely from the organ of a Trade Union of Journalists.

Finally Mr Chief Minister we feel that a joint statement on future intentions from yourself and from this Union be issued to the world and to the local Press to calm the apprehension that has been aroused. We would urge upon you sir the desirability of handling the whole matter through this Union representative of all the newspapers in every language group in Singapore...".

Sir, in view of the suggestion that I was misinformed as to the Standing Orders of Ceylon, I sought the assistance of the Clerk of the Assembly and have obtained, through him, from the Clerk of the Ceylon Parliament a telegram indicating that Standing Order 19 (3) of Ceylon is still operative and has been in force for many, many years. Standing Order 19 (3) of Ceylon reads:

"Mr Speaker may grant a general permission to the representative or representatives of any journal to attend the sitting of the House. Such permission may be revoked it the journal publish a report of the proceedings which Mr Speaker considers unfair".

This, Sir, is very similar to the provisions we have.

I think, in fairness, Sir, we should give a little publicity to the actual facts. These Standing Orders of ours were adapted by a Clerk of the House of Commons from a model constitution evolved by the House of Common authorities, and they were brought into force on the 14th of April by His Excellency the Governor under his powers conferred by the Singapore Colony Order in Council. The Council of Ministers themselves were consulted. We were naturally in a great hurry at that time. We wished to hold an early sitting of this Assembly and, apart from making a few alterations, the Standing Orders were accepted. But, I think the House will remember that on the 29th of June this year, I informed the House that the Standing Orders were not wholly adequate, and on my motion the House appointed a Select Committee to make a comprehensive review of all Standing Orders. In fairness to this Assembly, Sir, it has not had an opportunity yet to examine the Standing Orders, or to take any decisions upon them, because the Select Committee which it has appointed to investigate the matter has not yet made a report.

You, Sir, as in duty bound, if I may respectfully say so, in pursuance of the requirements of Standing Order 75, made Rule 12 about the admission of the Press, and this is a matter which has passed without comment for many decades now, not only in Singapore but in other parts of the world; and it is more than a little unreasonable that there should have been that attack, both upon Singapore and on you, Sir, as a result of Rule 12 which seems to have been misconstrued. But in view of the nature of the representations received, particularly those of the Singapore Union of Journalists, I have sent them to the Select Committee, and I trust that they will be considered against the background of our own inherent powers to refuse admission to strangers, and also our powers and privileges under the Ordinance which has now become law in this country, It may well be found by the Select Committee that Standing Order 75 is really tautologous, but that is a matter which must be left to the Select Committee to report to this House.

One final matter on this, Sir. There was an unfortunate attack on you in a local newspaper, issue of the 11th of November. After consultation with the leaders of all Parties in this Assembly, I spoke to the editor and I am happy to report, Sir, that he saw the point immediately and wrote me a letter which I should like to read out to you. This paper is the Singapore Tiger Standard, dated 17th of November:

"Dear Mr Marshall,

I learnt with regret from you this morning that the Speaker of the Assembly was perturbed by an article appearing in my paper of the 11th of November under the heading "The News As It Strikes Me". I have perused this article in the light of your comments, and I would like to assure you that there was no intention whatsoever of malevolence against the Speaker or your Assembly.

I would like you to express to the Speaker and to the Assembly my sincere regrets and that of my paper if the said article has caused any distress."