STANDING ORDERS (Amendment)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

*The motion reads as follows:

That this Assembly resolves that the amendments, as recommended in paragraph 5 of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A 12 of 1961, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

The purpose of this motion is to amend the Standing Orders of the Assembly in order that a Committee of Privileges can be formed. The concept for a Committee of Privileges is not really a new one. It has been the practice in Legislatures elsewhere to have a Standing Committee of Privileges. The purpose of such a Committee is to assist the Speaker in upholding the dignity, self-respect and honour of the legislating body and to prevent the Legislature from degenerating into a bawdy House during debates. We in this House have a duly in maintaining the confidence and faith of the people in the Assembly as an honourable and respectable legislating body; otherwise we will also go the same way as other bodies in those countries where there is despair in the possibility of working a democratic parliamentary system. If ever we should reach that stage, the least that can happen to us in this House is that we will disappear. But the greater consideration is the uncertain future of the country, the people and the people's children. For this consideration, and this consideration alone, we, who are responsible to the people, have the obligation and the responsibility to nip in the bud any deliberate or intentional action that can only have as its consequence the undermining of the dignity and respectability of the Assembly.

On looking back, I must say I am a little astonished that the Assembly has had to wait for six years to provide for a Committee of Privileges in its Standing Orders, when it has been the practice of legislating parliaments in other countries to have a Standing Committee of Privileges. It is my hope, as Leader of the House, that it will not be frequent that matters in this Assembly will be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We accept that Members of the House have the liberty of speech, but at the same time we as responsible Members must distinguish between liberty of speech and licence of speech.

It will be the function of this Committee of Privileges to keep a watching brief over what is uttered in this House. The parliamentary system is young in Singapore and, because of its youth, we have yet to develop our own system of a traditional institution. It is one thing making clever and artful speeches, but another thing being wise. It is one thing being rash and foolhardy and another thing being brave. But then the virtues of wisdom and maturity can only be acquired through the painful experience of trial and error. The Assembly has had its trials and it has noted its errors. I hope the House is a little wiser for that.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.36 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support in principle the formation of such a Committee of Privileges, but it is important that accusations of breaches of privileges must not be provided as a cloak to crush Opposition Members. With the fear of such an event happening, my views are that the Committee of Privileges should compose of you, Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chairman, and a Member of the Government and a Member of the Opposition to be the only two Members in the Committee, instead of the present proposal which gives the majority Party in power an overwhelming vote in the Committee of Privileges. It is also my view that such a Committee should have delegated powers instead of having to refer back their findings to this Assembly, because otherwise what would happen is that any person who is faced with a complaint of a breach of privilege may find himself faced with persons who are the jury and, at the same time, the judges, witnesses and perhaps, at the same time, the accusers.

I feel that with the result of the Hong Lim by-election, what happened in this Assembly five months ago has not been approved by the people in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us not go off the rails. We are now dealing with a specific amendment to the Standing Orders, and I do not think what happened in the Hong Lim by-election has any relevance here at all. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support in principle the recommendations made by the Standing Orders Committee, and I have given my views on paragraph (7) (a) (i) about the composition of the Committee. I feel strongly against this, because I have had the experience of what is meant by a complaint of a breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh, in reply?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, perhaps Members are aware that Standing Committees of the Assembly are so constituted as to represent both sides of the House in proportion. Whatever conclusion a Committee arrives at, whatever Report it draws up must eventually be tabled in the House. No Committee of the Assembly has an absolute judicial power. Ultimately, it is responsible to the Assembly and, therefore, any findings of the Committee of Privileges must be tabled, as, in fact, this Report of the Standing Orders Committee has been tabled, for debate. The ideal thing, of course, would be to have all complaints concerning breaches of privilege referred to a Judge. In fact, at the beginning of the year, we found that because of the absence of a Committee of Privileges, Members of this House had to refer allegations made by the Member for Hong Lim to a Judge of the High Court to be adjudicated upon. The Judge in this Commission of Inquiry proved the allegations-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that could be relevant to this motion. Details of that nature cannot be relevant.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I was only attempting, Mr Speaker, to dispel any idea or any insinuation that a Committee of Privileges as being moved to be established under this motion will be Judge, jury, prosecutor, all lumped into one. I have said earlier that as privileged Members of the House it is the bounden duty of each and everyone of us to maintain a certain degree of dignity, truth, decorum, and self-respect in this House.

We are bound by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and therefore, we, more than any other people, have a greater degree of liberty of speech. But, having been given this privilege, it is up to us to see that no Member abuses it. If such an abuse has been committed, surely it should be referred to the House; and if it is referred to the House, the correct procedure, as is done in Parliaments elsewhere, is to refer it to the Committees of Privileges which are so constituted as to represent proportionately both sides of the House. In fact, Mr Speaker, as you yourself are aware, in the Standing Orders Committee I made a certain suggestion that provision should be so made that there must always be Members of the Opposition in the Committee of Privileges because an occasion may arise when, let us say, you have only two Members of the Opposition on this Committee and these two Members themselves are the involved parties, and then the Government Members who are left in this Committee of Privileges would be placed in an invidious position of having to deliberate in the absence of any Member from the opposite side. We have, therefore, provided under this motion that it Members in the Committee of Privileges are the parties involved in any accusation of a breach of privilege, then their places would be filled by the appropriate substitutes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the amendments, as recommended in paragraph S of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1961, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.