SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Before we deal with the motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, I feel it is my duty to endeavour to put the matter in its proper perspective.

In my view, the motion should on no account be considered as a motion of censure and punishment moved in the interests of the Government or of individuals in the Government, but should be treated as a motion which relates to the dignity and prestige of this Assembly and therefore is a motion in the interests of this Assembly as a whole.

The first part of the motion suggests to this House that an hon. Member has been guilty of dishonourable conduct for which this House is invited to condemn him, and the second part of the motion suggests the punishment which should be meted out in the event of this House being satisfied of the guilt of the hon. Member.

There has been some misunderstanding as to whether these proceedings are tantamount to an endeavour to curtail what is commonly known as "freedom of speech in this Assembly". That, in my view, is not the case. The freedom of speech in relation to this Assembly is the freedom of speech protected under the provisions of section 3 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, which reads as follows:-

`3. No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any person while a member of the Assembly-

(a) in respect of words spoken before the Assembly or a committee thereof; or

(b) in respect of words written in a report to the Assembly or to any committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.'

That section means that an hon. Member of this House is free of any legal restraint in regard to words spoken before this Assembly or written in relation to proceedings in this Assembly. It simply means that he cannot be prosecuted or be sued in any court of law in respect of those words. It does not mean that the Member is free from restraint in so far as this House itself is concerned, that is to say, he must always remain accountable to this House, inter alia, for any words uttered in this House or written in relation to the proceedings in this House. The privilege of freedom of speech given by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, does not mean that hon. Members are granted an unrestrained licence of speech in this Assembly, and because an hon. Member is protected by that privilege of freedom of speech, it does not mean that this House will permit him to abuse that privilege with impunity.

This House possesses an inherent power to do all that is necessary to maintain its own dignity and decorum, and the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council has provided in subsection (1) of section 48 that this Assembly "may from time to time make, amend and revoke Standing Orders for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the despatch of business".

In regard to the Standing Orders, I need only refer to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 56 which reads as follows:-

`(5) Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive the Assembly of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of the Assembly.'

As I see it, therefore, if this House is satisfied that the conduct of the hon. Member for Hong Lim is such as to be an affront to its own dignity and prestige in the sense, inter alia, that that conduct has brought discredit to the House as a whole-not merely to individual Members of the Government Parliamentary Party, or indeed, to any other Member of the House or to persons outside this House-then the House may feel itself justified in condemning or censuring the hon. Member for Hong Lim and thereafter in proceeding to consider what punishment, consonant with its powers, it should mete out to him.

What those powers are is a matter of law on which I am not called upon to pronounce. Suffice it to say that there is an undoubted power inherent in any House, in the interest of the orderly conduct of its business and the preservation of its dignity and prestige, inter alia, to suspend or even expel Members who are, in its opinion, unfit to sit in the House and who would bring discredit upon it. But let me sound a word of warning. Whether this Assembly has those extreme powers unabridged, is a matter this Assembly will have to inquire into with care and, if need be, upon which this Assembly might wish to seek legal advice. I myself feel it my duty as the guardian of the privileges of this House and the custodian of the rights of hon. Members to sound that note of warning having regard to-

Firstly, section 48 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which I have already quoted;

Secondly, the Standing Orders made thereunder;

Thirdly, section 59 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which reads as follows :-

`59. It shall be lawful, by laws enacted under this Order, to determine and regulate the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and its Members; but no such privileges, immunities or powers shall exceed those of the Commons' House of Parliament in the United Kingdom or of the Members thereof.'

and Fourthly, the Legislative Assembly (Powers and

Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, the long title of which reads as follows:-

`An Ordinance to declare and define certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly established under the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, and of the Members of such Legislative Assembly, to regulate the conduct of members and other persons in connection with the proceedings thereof, to give protection to the persons employed in the publication of the reports and other papers of the Legislative Assembly and for purposes incidental to or connected with the matters aforesaid.'

Those provisions of law and of the Standing Orders do give to this Assembly powers to suspend a Member under certain circumstances but, as I have indicated, this Assembly will have to satisfy itself that those provisions of law and of the Standing Orders have not, in fact, abridged the inherent power of this Assembly to suspend a Member more especially in the circumstances which have arisen in this particular matter.

Finally, let me make it quite clear that this motion will and must proceed as a motion which affects the House as a whole and which invites the House in the first instance to say whether its dignity and prestige have not been affronted by the conduct of the hon. Member for Hong Lim. That is the first issue before this House, and when that issue has been disposed of, the House will proceed, if necessary, to the second issue, that is to say, the question of punishment.