LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) BILL

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to declare and define the privileges, immunities and powers of the Legislative Assembly and of the Speaker, members and committees thereof, to regulate the conduct of members and other persons in connection with the proceedings thereof, to give protection to 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."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of this Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

7.01 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, when it becomes law, will replace the existing Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955. It seeks to declare and define the privileges, immunities and powers of the Legislative Assembly and of its Members.

Section 59 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, provides that:

`It shall be lawful, by law 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.'

Clause 3 of the Bill, therefore, states the general principle upon which it has been drafted. The House of Commons has the right to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings. This right is provided for in section 48, subsection (1) of the Singapore (Constitu tion) Order in Council, 1958, which gives power to the Assembly to make, amend and revoke Standing Orders for the regulation and conduct of its own proceedings and the despatch of business.

Clause 5, sub-clause (2) of the Bill takes the matter further, providing as it .does for exemption of any person from liability for any act done under the authority of the Assembly.

Clause 4 of the Bill also, inter alia, provides that the proceedings in the Assembly shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of the Assembly. The privilege of freedom of speech in the House of Commons is absolute, and any attempt to obstruct or impede any Member in the exercise of this privilege, for example, any intimidation of Members or molestation of Members on account of their conduct in Parliament is a breach of privilege. This privilege is specifically provided for in clause 4 and clause 5, sub-clause (1) of the Bill. At the same time, it is the duty of each Member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys. The privilege of freedom of speech does not confer on any Member unrestrained licence of speech in the House. He remains accountable to the House itself for words spoken in debate.

Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill, therefore, seek to give power to the Assembly to proceed with cases of contempt and punish where contempt, dishonourable conduct and abuse of privilege have been proved.

The House of Commons has the right to punish its own Members for contempt (including a breach of privilege), abuse of privilege (especially an abuse of the privilege of freedom of speech) and dishonourable conduct, as for example, the corrupt acceptance of payment for disclosure of information about matters to be proceeded within the House obtained from other Members under the obligation of secrecy. In the House of Commons, the punishment which may be meted out for breaches of privilege or contempt is commitment, that is, imprisonment, expulsion of Members, suspension of Members, fines and reprimands. However, it is not proposed in this Bill that the power of commitment should be given to the Assembly. If an offender is to be deprived of his liberty, it should be by order of a court of law. Similarly, it is not proposed to give the Assembly power to expel its Members.

Clause 11 of the Bill, therefore, provides that the Assembly shall have no power to commit any person to prison or to expel any Member from the Assembly. However, Part V of the Bill lists out the offences under which the State Advocate-General can institute criminal proceedings.

The power to suspend a Member is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill. Power is also given in clause 22 of the Bill for punishment in one session or in one Assembly of offences which have been committed in another. This clause also provides that where the Assembly considers that an offender has not been punished or not been sufficiently punished in one session or in the Assembly by reason of the early ending of a session, he may again be dealt with in the next session or Assembly until the House is satisfied.

The power to impose fines is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill. It is proposed that the fine imposed be treated as a debt due to the Government, and power is given in clause 23 of the Bill for the State Advocate-General to sue for and recover the fine. The power to reprimand and admonish is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill.

The House of Commons has the power to require the attendance of wit nesses. This is specifically provided for in clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill. Power to secure the attendance of persons on matters of privilege is specifically provided for in clauses 12, 13, 24 and 25 of the Bill.

Finally, the power to order and issue a warrant for the arrest of persons guilty of contempt and breach of privilege is specifically provided for in clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill.

I would like to inform Members of the House that it was the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill in the last session of the Assembly. However, it was to give time to Mr Speaker to study precedents elsewhere and to discuss with the Fourth Clerk of the House of Commons when he was in London for the C.P.A. Conference during the months of September and October that the introduction of this Bill was deferred.

This Bill is a non-political Bill, and that was why you, Mr Speaker, was consulted on this Bill. The provisions of this Bill apply to all Members of the Assembly. It has been drafted not from the view-point of party politics, but from the necessity to define clearly the rights and privileges of Members and of the Assembly as a whole, and to ensure that the proceedings in the House be conducted with orderliness and with dignity. When proceedings in Parliament or in the Assembly are reduced to mud-slinging and a free-for-all affair, then the practice of parliamentary democracy will be in danger.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, for your considerable assistance in the drafting of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard that you have already cast your vigilant eye over this Bill, we feel more satisfied that somebody has checked the possible twists and turns of the P.A.P. We know that the P.A.P. is quite capable of such things, and we are very happy, Sir, that you have discharged your duty in the interests of all of us.

We realised that this Bill is not a political Bill; that the provisions apply to each and every one of us. But on principle, we do not agree to the haste with which the P.A.P. is trying to rush this Bill through. Anything done in haste cannot possibly have the best thinking given to the subject. And we remember, Sir, how the rushing through of Bills during the 1959 and 1960 sessions had led to innumerable amendments which had to be introduced in this Chamber later on. Just on that alone I am sure we would not like to rush this Bill through. Despite this we would not mind allowing this Bill to go through quickly, but for the fact that the P.A.P. has not been doing things in the proper way all these months. Just for instance, Sir, even the Order Paper of this sitting was sent to us only on the last day.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Queenstown perhaps appreciates who prepares the Order Paper and under what Standing Order. The responsibility for issuing an Order Paper lies with the Clerk, and he tries his very best to try and get it out as fast as possible. The delay, I think - I did inquire about the delay in regard to this particular Order Paper - was really in the printing, mainly because 58 questions are being asked. I do not think it is proper to say that it is the P.A.P. or the Government benches that are responsible for the Order Paper.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise. But there are still other things. For example, on the day before the sitting, the Government suddenly pounced two new motions on us.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must stop this line on the Second Reading of this Bill. All that the hon. Member is entitled to do is to protest that this Bill is being taken through all its stages today. But I do not think he is in order if he tries to introduce into his statement alleged breaches by the Government benches on other occasions.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the Government is sincere in asking for constructive criticism from the opposition, and if the Leader of the House is sincere when talking about parliamentary democracy, as he has just mentioned, then surely, Sir, proper time should be given to the Opposition to study the Bill. As it is, I do not think any of us really had sufficient time to go through the Bill properly. Under those circumstances, do you not think, Sir, it would be much better for the Government to send the Bill to Select Committee and make sure that all the possible mistakes are corrected 'and all the best thinking is given to the Bill? In addition, in the Bill itself, there are quite a number of points as regards definitions which are all very vague - words like dishonourable conduct, insult and menace. Why cannot some effort be made at definition? At least we would then know where we would transgress and where we would go wrong. As it is, none of us can be very sure. Under those circumstances, Sir, just on principle alone, we would recommend that the Bill be sent to Select Committee.

7.16 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill is a grand collection of punitive -provisions against Assemblymen who are charged by the Assembly or the Committee of Privileges for having committed certain offences against the Assembly. Sir, the Bill, as it stands now, is a great blow to our democratic system and will henceforth hamper freedom of speech and debate in this Assembly. There are many objectionable provisions in the Bill despite the short time we have been given to study it. The Government has refused the request of many Members of the Opposition to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for careful consideration.

During the past one year, since the suspension moved a year ago, the Government has had a year to draft and study all the implications and ramifications of such a Bill. But the Opposition Members were only given a few days to study such an important Bill.

Sir, despite our request, the Government is determined to steamroller such a Bill which will affect all Members of this Assembly. Sir, it is important that in such a Bill where Assemblymen, members of the public and the Press are involved, time should be given for the parties concerned to make representations to a Select Committee. I cannot see where is the urgency of such a Bill. In my view, there are more pressing problems in the country which require the urgent attention of Government than passing such a Bill.

I agree with the Leader of the House just now that such a Bill should not be a political Bill. Such a Bill, Sir, should not be a controversial Bill. Such a Bill should get the unanimous assent of all Members of this Assembly. Such a Bill will lose the effect of upholding its avowed policy which is, as has been said, to uphold the dignity and prestige of the House. Sir, the Government should give up all attempts to steamroller such a Bill.

It is very well for the Leader of the House to say that we are following the House of Commons, but we know very well that there are certain rules and conventions which bind the conduct of the. House of Commons. If I may say so, we are just like an infant, whereas the House of Commons is like our great-grandfather. The Bill before us has certain provisions which look attractive. For instance, Part IV starts with a very beautiful clause:

`The Assembly shall have no power to commit any person to prison, nor shall the Assembly have power to expel any member from the Assembly.'

But one should read clause 20 - the punitive provisions - where it has been said:

'20.-(1) For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a member, the Assembly may -

(a) impose upon him a fine not exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars;

(b) suspend him from the service of the Assembly for the remainder of the current session of the Assembly or for any part thereof; and

(c) direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place by the Speaker.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am an offending Member, I would honestly say that I would prefer to be expelled from the Assembly rather than pay a fine of $5,000 and be suspended during the remainder of the current session. So I feel that the punitive provisions under clause 20 negate all the beautiful phrases in clause 11.

Sir, likewise the other punitive provisions in the Bill which negate this beautiful clause, i.e. clause 4:

'4. There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in the Assembly, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of the Assembly.'

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would honestly say that if I were an offending Member, having been found guilty of any abuse of privilege or of any of fence laid down in this Bill, then I would prefer to defend myself in a court of law rather than before a Committee of Privileges which comprises Assemblymen trying their fellow Assemblymen; not to say that at least in the courts of law I can have the opportunity to be represented by counsel and where the proceedings are open to the public.

Sir, the punitive provisions of the Bill are very severe. For an offence, a Member can be fined up to a maximum of $5,000. For argument's sake, if a Member happens to commit 10 offences during two days of Question Time, he can be fined up to a maximum. of $50,000. I wish to know whether our insurance companies in Singapore could take insurance policies on the occupational hazards of Assemblymen! Sir, an Assemblyman can also be suspended and at the same time his pay can be stopped. There are many Assemblymen who depend on their allowance to carryon their constituency work.

What is most important, Sir, is that what is spoken in one Session or in one Assembly can be brought up for trial in another Session or in another Assembly. In other words, any Member who is on the Government bench now and happens to be in the Opposition 10 years hence - his speeches will be recorded in Hansard - can be brought up and be tried for any of the offences laid down in the Bill.

Sir, under clause 35 a person may be fined the maximum fine of $5,000 to $10,000 for an offence, and he may be imprisoned at the same time for periods between 2 years and 7 years. I think, Sir, these are harsh sentences normally reserved for kidnappers, bandits and murderers. I am sure they are not for offending Assemblymen.

Sir, all these punitive provisions will be like a sword hanging over our necks. Sir, it has been stressed during my speech that the Opposition have not had much time to study this Bill. In the name of parliamentary democracy, this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for careful and detailed consideration. I am sure all Members of this Assembly are as anxious as we are to uphold the dignity and prestige of the House. I am sure that all will agree that only a Bill which receives the unanimous assent of the House will be able to achieve that purpose.

Sir, may I ask the Government again to consider carefully whether this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee?

7.28 p.m.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we must express our angry and strong feelings and protest against the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister.

After studying this Bill, we have come to know that it is not the motive and intention of this Bill to let Members of the House enjoy freedom of speech. On the contrary, it is the leadership of the P.A.P. that is making use of their power to deprive Opposition Members of their freedom of speech in the Assembly. Therefore, this Bill does not aim at upholding the dignity of parliamentary democracy. On the contrary, it is a great departure from the spirit of democracy. We all know that the system of parliamentary democracy has come from England. Therefore, in England this system of parliamentary democracy has a long standing. The people of England have full confidence in the system of parliamentary democracy, because no matter which Party is in power, the spirit of parliamentary democracy is always maintained and upheld. Whether inside or outside the Parliament, the people have the right to enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of publication, and freedom of assembly. If the people are now satisfied with the policies of the Government, then no matter who they are - whether they are individuals or political parties or organisations of the people - the Party in power invariably allows them to hold mass rallies where they can attack and criticise the policies of the Government and publish their views against the Government in the papers. They have the privilege to enjoy the fruits of the basic principle of democracy. Therefore, the people's representatives in Parliament have greater freedom and they have no restriction whatsoever or run the risk of being prosecuted or suspended. They can freely - and very freely indeed - express the opinions of the people. Therefore,parliamentary democracy has gone through so many years in England. This only goes to prove that the people have the full right to enjoy the fruits of parliamentary democracy.

In the organisation of the Legislative Assembly which is constituted in accordance with the spirit of parliamentary democracy, the representatives of the people should have the right to enjoy democracy. The contents and the meaning of democracy are that the people should have the right to organise themselves, to freedom of speech, freedom of publication, and freedom of assembly.

Now the people of Singapore have no right to such freedom, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. For example, the Barisan Sosialis' application for a mass rally had been turned down. A Branch of the Barisan Sosialis held a meeting and they had been restricted. Our comrades, Dr Lee and Ong Chang Sam, have been charged in court as a result of -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Member let me know how that is relevant to the Bill? We are talking about privileges in the Assembly.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this is relevant to the Bill because I am just quoting an example which is relevant to the contents of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot understand how comrades of the Barisan Sosialis being prosecuted in court has anything to do with this Bill. Let us be relevant.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Where is the freedom of speech? Fur thermore, if the people of Singapore were to go strongly against the Government, then they would be confronted with detention under the P.P.S.O.; but we are not afraid of the P.P.S.O. when we struggle for the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to know how the P.P.S.O. comes into the Privileges Bill. I cannot find any reference there to the P.P.S.O.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): But we know that the Party in power want to make use of this Bill in order to prevent us from disclosing the ins and outs of the P.A.P. Government and expressing the views of the people.

In order to hide their own ugly facts, the P.A.P. Government have to amend this Bill in order to restrict us in our freedom of speech. There is a provision in the Bill - clause 20 - which reads:

'(1) For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a member, the Assembly may -

(a) impose upon him a fine not exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars;

(b) suspend him from the service of the Assembly for the remainder of the current session of the Assembly or for any part thereof;'.

But I am not clear as regards the meaning of this clause. I do not know what is the explanation or the definition of "dishonourable conduct". I do not understand what is meant by "dishonourable conduct" and "contempt" in this Bill. 'May I point out two examples to this House? Firstly, if I say in this House that the Prime Minister has sold out the interests of the people of Singapore, and, secondly, if I say that the Prime Minister is a dictator, does it mean that the two examples I have quoted will amount to dishonourable conduct on the part of the Assembly Member? If so, then I will be running the risk of being fined $5,000 by the Assembly and suspended from the service of the Assembly. Therefore, where is the freedom of speech for the Members of the Assembly in parliamentary democracy?

We are all representatives elected by the people. Certainly we have the right to express different views in this House. If our views are against the opinion and desire of the people, then at the end of the term our fate will be decided by the people themselves. Therefore, this provision regarding "dishonourable conduct" is too wide and there is no clear definition for it. The Party in power in this House may abuse this Bill and take advantage of it against the interests of the Opposition Members. It seems there was such a case in this House last year. But in other countries where parliamentary democracy is practised, there is no such serious provision for the punishment of the representatives of the people. It is only in Africa where the countries are under colonial rule that you can find such provisions being made against the representatives of the people. In this way, the representatives of the people appear to be representatives when, in fact, they are just figure heads in the Assembly.

This Bill is a tool which the colonial rulers can make use of to suppress the freedom of speech of the people's representatives. The representatives of this House are all elected by the people and they have equal rights and equal privileges. It is not up to the Party in power to make use of their extra vote to repress the freedom of speech of the Opposition Members so that they cannot express the views of the people. If that is the intention of the Party in power and it is attempted, then I will call them dictators and enemies of Singapore.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, we are debating the principles of this Bill. I do not see how what has been .said by the Member for Pasir Panjang is relevant to this Bill.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid I was busy doing something else when the Member for Pasir Panjang was speaking his last two sentences. I really do not know what the point of order is. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will let me know what was said.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Member for Pasir Panjang has been rambling about Africa.

Mr Speaker: I think what the Member for Pasir Panjang said was that there was similar legislation in Africa. I may be wrong. But that is the impression I got: that there was similar legislation in Africa and, therefore, because of that, this is a colonial Bill.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, you have already given the answer to his question. Therefore, in order to uphold the system of one man one vote, we had better not pass this Bill in a hurry. In the meantime, for the sake of maintaining parliamentary democracy and the spirit thereof, and to uphold the dignity of the Assembly, I agree with the Member for Queenstown when he suggested that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the survival of democracy as represented in this Chamber depended upon the speakers opposite, I would have given up the ghost a long time ago.

Mr David Marshall: Go ahead!

The Prime Minister: Sir, to hear from them, and in particular the last speaker who rattled out a speech from script, talk about democracy, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, the rights of man, the tyrannical powers of colonial government which no doubt we in this Assembly are aiding and abetting, leaves me with a sour taste. If we are to fight this according to Queensberry rules, according to the quintessence of the rules of debate as you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been able to refine after your sojourn at the C.P.A. Conference in London, your many consultations and your no doubt delightful hours spent pouring over the definitions of words and phrases, is all a mockery because it is colonial, having come from Africa, then I say let us go back to first principles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been introduced on a Certificate of Urgency as a result of an albeit casual conversation between you and me on the occasion of the ceremonial opening of this Assembly. When I mentioned to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that your task in this Session would be somewhat more hectic than in the last, since the warriors of the various Indian tribes have foregathered, the drums are beating and the smoke is -

Mr David Marshall: Yoo-hoo-hoo -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson must realise that behaviour of that nature is grossly disorderly, and I emphasise the word "grossly".

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, my apologies to you, but we were referred to as Indian tribes.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will have no levity in this matter. I have ruled that making unseemly noises of that nature is grossly disorderly, and the hon. Member should just apologise and say nothing more.

The Prime Minister: Sir, -

Mr Speaker: Order. I want an apology.

Mr David Marshall: With apologies, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it was really as a result of this conversation in which you felt that you should have the powers in order fairly to maintain discipline and conduct in this Assembly before the fun and games begin, particularly with more charges of nepotism coming in the future motion to be debated, that we have tabled this Certificate of Urgency.

But on behalf of my colleagues and myself, let me say that having grown up in the somewhat rough and sometimes rugged school of politics, we are quite prepared either for boxing under Queensberry rules or boxing Siamese style. But as I have said to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, being non-Communist does not mean one gets kicked in one's abdomen and succumbs. One often retaliates if for no other reason than sheer self-defence.

I think I have made my intentions quite clear with my opening remark and that of my colleague, namely, that we have no desire to rush this Bill through at all. It was really in order to allow the referee to have sufficient protection for himself, as otherwise in an all-in wrestling bout the referee, being the least powerful of the contestants in the ring, finds himself thrown out of the ring. I would say, therefore, that since the three Members of the Opposition who have spoken have chosen to make it a party political issue - that, in fact, we are trying to shield ourselves and our fair name, unjustly acquired because we have done wicked deeds, by the provisions of this Bill which we intend to steamroller through, I say: let it go to Select Committee.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: Let us hear the Member for Queenstown. Let him spend as many hours, Sir, as you have. Let the poor Member for Pasir Panjang start translating the provisions of the Bill. Let his ghost writer translate some 15 pages of legal erudition for his delectation and suggest improvements. I say: let us be done with all this mock defence of parliamentary democracy by people who would be the first to destroy it. It is as if they are going to spend time trying to understand the mechanics of it. They are out to wreck it. Let us not make any bones about it. You, Mr Speaker, are left with the professional task of trying to make this machine work. We have volunteered to try and help you make it work. I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I say it publicly: if you feel you are inadequately equipped as a result of inadequacies in the last Ordinance and the present Bill, we will, if you suggest, make these provisions retrospective and include a clause on it, because it can go to Select Committee for three months.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: Well, I have the warm support of the Member for Anson who no doubt sees the legal point, and often - although I differ from him on so many things - we see legal points together quite easily. So be it. But in the process of refining, I say to them, particularly my former Parliamentary Secretary, when it comes to debating motion No. 9 on the Order Paper about nepotism, understand that any charge made in this Chamber, notwithstanding the Legislative Assembly Privileges Bill, can be repeated on oath in a Commission of Inquiry and in court. We will face up to any allegation of any kind from anybody. We fear no -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Hon. the Prime Minister has made his point there, and I do not think that is quite relevant to the Bill itself.

The Prime Minister: Strictly, Mr Speaker, Sir, no. But as you know, as a result of our conversation, this is what perhaps you fear might lead to a recrudescence of the unseemly conduct in this Chamber. It was in the hope - now it turns out to be purely pious - of not having charges wildly thrown and unsubstantiated that we had put forward this Bill. But I say: if it is to be Siamese boxing, then so be it. Let this Bill go to Select Committee, and let it be retrospective if you will, Mr Speaker. Let us play Queensberry rules if they wish, Siamese rules if they must.

Mr Speaker: Do I understand then that the Government are willing to agree to the Bill going to Select Committee?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is quite so.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. In that case, that might affect the number of speakers. We have only five minutes.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very happy indeed to receive that assurance from the Prime Minister, and to scrap a speech that I have prepared which was directed specifically to that issue. I can assure the Prime Minister, being an Opposition Party of only one, that in so far as I can assess the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House, there is no real objection in any shape or form to the principle of the Bill.

Many of us feel somewhat strongly, I with them, Sir, that we are seeking far too big a stake. But that is a matter, Sir, which we can well iron out in Select Committee. What has not been noticed, Sir, and perhaps we should recognise it, is this - we have been speaking about the privileges of Members - that there are the public, there is the Press. They are not aware that in this Bill they could be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine for any misdemeanour, for example, disobeying the Speaker's ruling. It is only fair, Sir, that the Press and the public and the people of Singapore who have returned us to this Assembly to discharge our responsibilities should have an opportunity to study this Bill. And I am very glad indeed that the Prime Minister recognises that.

Sir, he has spoken of your difficulties. I seem to be the one in a very short period to have called your wrath upon my head, Sir, and I would say this: that in so far as I am concerned, despite my ebullience which has met with your displeasure, I trust you can always count on my very sincere co-operation and support for maintaining the dignity of this House. I am very happy indeed, Sir, to be able to say that I shall vote without question on the Second Reading of this Bill, reserving my criticisms on detail for the Select Committee.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is now two minutes to eight and I do not know whether hon. Members will assent to this item being disposed of after eight. If that is so, then I need a motion from the Leader of the House - with the assent, of course, of hon. Members - that, notwithstanding Standing Orders, the proceedings of this item of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that that motion be made? Any dissenting voice? No dissenting voice. Dr Toh.