PRESS PUBLICATION COMPLAINT BY MEMBER FOR HONG LIM

Mr Speaker: On the 23rd day of December, 1960, the then hon. Member for Hong Lim drew my attention to that day's Straits Times containing what he described as an account of that day's proceedings, that is to say, the proceedings in the matter of the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to that Member.

The article in question was captioned. "Ong must cite law to back his motion". The Member referred to two paragraphs therein and invited my opinion as to whether - to quote his words - "any of the passages referred to is a matter which is sub judice".

I then expressed the opinion that there was no matter which could be considered sub judice at that moment, the expression "sub judice" being used with reference to a court of law. Hon. Members will of course know, for example, that under Standing Order No. 19 relating to the contents of questions, no question may be asked which reflects on the decision of a court of law and no question shall be asked on any matter which is sub judice; and again under Standing Order No. 46 relating to the contents of speeches, reference cannot be made to any matter which is sub judice except by means of or in the course of consideration of a Bill when reference may be made, but only in such a way as will not, in the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman, prejudice the interests of parties thereto. I might add that in the application of those Standing Orders the term "sub judice" has been construed to have reference to matters pending in a court of law and in a Commission of Inquiry.

The then Member for Hong Lim, however, in response to my enquiry, stated that he wished to raise his point as a matter of privilege, drawing my attention to the fact that the report was contained not only in the Straits Times but also in other newspapers. I do not think that the fact that the same report or article is contained in more than one newspaper could make any difference to a ruling as to whether there has been any breach of privilege.

The passages quoted by the then Member for Hong Lim as being in breach of privilege of this Assembly are-

Firstly:

"This right has been admitted in the case of the House of Commons and in all Legislatures patterned after it."

The right referred to has reference to the right mentioned in the article in the two passages immediately preceding the passage quoted. These two passages read as follows:-

"Mr Ong's motion not only asks the House to rescind the Speaker's ruling but also claims that the Assembly has no powers either to condemn him or seek his suspension if he does not apologise or repeat outside the Assembly the "malicious falsehoods" he is accused of having made in the Assembly.

It, in effect, challenges the constitutional principle that the Legislature has the inherent right, as stated in Standing Order 56, of "proceeding against any member according to any resolution of the Assembly."

Secondly, that is to say, the second passage quoted by the then Member for Hong Lim is as follows:-

"Last Monday, the Speaker ruled that under Standing Orders the Assembly had powers to discuss the motion and, if the evidence warranted it, to find the member guilty of `dishonourable conduct'.

He also said that the Assembly had inherent powers, should a member be found guilty, to suspend or even expel him."

In regard to the first passage, it is apparent that it merely purported to be an analysis of the legal position which in fact had been urged by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech delivered when he moved the motion, as is apparent in the next passage in the article in question which reads as follows:-

"Dr Toh, in his speech on Monday, had cited cases to show that the Singapore Assembly had these rights too."

In regard to the second passage, it appears to be a paraphrase of what I myself said, albeit not exactly a complete or accurate paraphrase. The passage has been taken out of context and must be considered in the light of the following paragraph which reads:-

"However, he expressed doubts as to what extent the extreme powers of expulsion and suspension could be exercised by the Assembly."

If the then Member for Hong Lim in drawing my attention to the passages quoted by him and by using the term "sub judice" sought to infer that the passages are in the nature of comment calculated to prejudice the proceedings pending on the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister, then I am bound to say that I disagree; I take the view that there is nothing in those passages, more especially when not read out of context, which can be said to have that effect.

This must not be taken to mean that I am ruling that any person who publishes any matter which is prejudicial to proceedings pending in the Assembly must necessarily be in breach of the privileges of the Assembly. Such a publication must, to my mind, first fall within the mischief of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, which in section 24 specifically makes the publication of certain statements and writings an offence.

In the event, therefore, I cannot say that there has been prima facie any breach of privilege in relation to the matters raised by the then Member for Hong Lim and do not therefore propose to take any further action in the matter.