LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) BILL Second Reading (cont.)

8.00 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Deputy Prime Minister has said that this Bill was originally intended to be brought up at the last Session, the Prime Minister has admitted, without being asked, that this Bill has been brought up and intended to be passed in a hurry because the Member for Anson and I desire to move a motion in this House regarding political nepotism of the Government. This shows that the tabling of this Bill aims neither at giving more freedom of speech to Members, nor a greater sense of security. It is actually meant to protect the Party in power.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should point out at this juncture that the whole aim of this Bill is to maintain the dignity of the House. I think that any steps taken to protect and maintain the interests of the Members of the Assembly will not be objected to by Members of the Op. position. But the question is whether this Bill, if passed in a hurry, will give some Members the feeling that, instead of protecting their interests, it gives rise to a sense of insecurity. If that is the case, then the Bill will not achieve its object. I feel that such a Bill to protect Members of the House must satisfy every Member so that everyone of us will agree to it.

Here, I would like to say that this artificial method to uphold the dignity of parliamentary democracy is unnecessary, because the original Bill, which was passed in 1955, already provides adequate protection for the interests and dignity of this House. Now, in the spirit of the present Bill, the Assembly is asked to judge Members of the Assembly itself as to whether the speeches they make are restrained or just delivered anyhow and at random. I think that to judge a Member of the House is definitely not in the interests of the dignity of the Member himself. If we think further that the Member has been elected by the people to the Assembly where he can make his speeches, then will he tell lies in this House to smear other people? If he does this, then what will be the impression of the people of his constituency? I say that the electorate themselves will suitably be the judges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that as our Prime Minister is a legal expert, surely he knows all points of law. And if members of his Government make mistakes., then he will try to look for loopholes in the law in order to cover them up. But Members on the Opposition are quite lacking in legal knowledge, because there were no opportunities for them to study law. And so they will not be able to bring evidence, as could the Prime Minister. Therefore, they will not be able to disclose abnormal things. If Members of the House, especially those in the Opposition, can bring up some legitimate doubts, although they cannot find legal evidence, then they should be given the right of freedom of speech to express them, because we are just be ginning to practise parliamentary democracy. We must let Members of this House have more freedom to express their views. If I say, "I have some doubts regarding a Minister and Members of the Government, and I have grounds for these doubts, and I will bring them up in this House", then is it not right that, with the passing of this Bill, everything must have legal standing and be supported by evidence, without which it will be taken as a smear and mud-slinging? And in this case I will be penalised for my doubts and they will be taken as an insult to Members of the House. Therefore, I feel that in the present circumstances when we are practising parliamentary democracy, Members of this House, especially those in the Opposition, should be given more freedom of speech. Apart from this, there is one point which is more important.

As there is not so much freedom of speech outside this Assembly, Members of this House should be given more freedom of speech in the House in order to make up for such a lack of freedom of speech. In short, to depend on this Bill to uphold the dignity of this House is not an ideal way of doing things. The main thing is that the maintenance of dignity of the Parliament should depend on the Government itself, which should find a brighter future for its people. If the Government, on greater policies, sell out the interests of the people and the country itself -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want this debate to go round wandering into the policies of the Government. We are now debating the Privileges Bill which affects Assemblymen. What happens outside, I think, does not come into this Bill at all.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not intend, and did not mean, to discuss in detail the policies of the Government. What I mean to say is that if the policies of the Government do not get on well with the people, then this Bill will not bring dignity to the Assembly. By passing this Bill, the Government hopes to uphold the dignity of this House. But if the people do. not understand the dignity of a nation or country, or uphold such dignity, then the Government should not depend on this Bill alone to uphold the dignity of the Assembly.

I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee for its consideration. I feel that that is a plausible way of doing things on the part of the Prime Minister. I hope that in future the Government will not pass such a Bill right through at one sitting.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill did not give reasons why the Bill should be carried through all its stages at this sitting. But the Hon. the Prime Minister was stirred into rising on his feet and replying to the attacks that have been made by his ex-comrades. He said that the Government was prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. But when he conceded that, I must point out to him the fact that he had said he was prepared to fight according to Queensberry rules or Siamese rules shows that there is already a tension on that side of the House and this side of the House.

Sir, I remember last year, the time when the Member for Hong Lim was indulging in his attacks against the Government. Members of the Barisan Sosialis were on that side of the House. They were then so roused that each and every one of them stood up and attacked the hon. Member for Hong Lim for such conduct which they de scribed then as dishonourable. Sir, all I can say is that people who are on this side and who came from that side might adopt the same kind of training when they now know that the gloves are off - fight to the death. Queensberry rules or Siamese rules - and both sides are waiting to have that fight. But we, Sir, who happen to be on the Front Bench - and you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for whom I have every sympathy because in the days to come these sittings may be very protracted - we are going to be treated to a number of exchanges between ex-comrades on what they did, what they did not do. and for all we know, there might even be pertain confessions from those who left the P.A.P. in reply to the ugly confessions of the Prime Minister in his radio broadcasts. I hope we will not be treated to that kind of confessions which, in a way, are not helpful and beneficial to the interests of the people and do not uphold the dignity of this House.

We support the principle of the Bill. We say that the dignity of the House must be upheld at any price. And we who are proud to be called honourable men and women of this Assembly must impose upon ourselves a certain code of conduct -

An hon. Member: Discipline!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And that code of conduct and discipline is in this Bill. The Member for Queenstown said he supported the Bill in principle. But the other speakers in the Barisan Sosialis seem to think that this Bill is all wrong, that it is an imposition on the freedom of speech. I do not know, but perhaps they do not have the time to consult among themselves as to what they should do and what they should not do. That is all beside the point, Sir.

We were treated to a sad display of conduct that did not bring credit to this House and to each and every one of us who were here last Session. Some of us felt very, very unhappy that hon. Members of the Assembly could forget themselves, particularly those who belong to the same Party, and could go at one another's throats, calling one another names.

Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister has said that the Government will agree to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. That, I hope, will take away the sting of unjust criticism that there was an intention to rush the Bill through all its stages. I can understand why it is necessary that this Bill should be carried through all its stages because of what may happen and what is going to happen in the next few days.

Mr Speaker: I trust the Member is not intimidating the Speaker!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, since the Prime Minister has said that the Govern ment is referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I hope this House will not be treated to a display of rhetoric from ex-comrades who find that this is the time to go to town and hit at the 26 Members who now remain in the P.A.P. camp.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that other Members on this side of the Assembly do not get confused over the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on this Bill, perhaps it would be in order for me here to say that we support the principle of this Bill. But, Sir, it does not mean that if one supports the principle of a certain principle, then all the finer details of that principle must necessarily be agreed to.

Let us look at the Bill, Sir. A very nice Bill. It confers upon all of us here privileges and immunities. Beautiful words in clause 4. But, Sir, let us turn to clause 20 of the Bill, "Punitive powers of Assembly" -

'For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a member ...' -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. Sir, I thought we have already agreed that the Bill should go to Select Committee. If it is not a question of major principle, because the hon. Member has already said he agrees to the principle, but it is a matter of detail he is squabbling about, then by all means let him raise it in Select Committee. It is twenty past eight, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I was just waiting to hear what the Member for Nee Soon was going to say. I would suggest that these matters of detail could be touched upon in Select Committee. In fact, they have already been mentioned by previous speakers and there is a danger of tedious repetition. It is not the speaker being tedious, but the repetition might be tedious. If there are any details which the hon. Member wishes to raise, I take it there will be a Member of the Barisan Sosialis in the Select Committee, and that Member in Select Committee would, I am sure, urge those details.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your decision. I would like to say that it is not a small detail. It is something which I feel concerns the principle of the Bill itself.

The Prime Minister: You oppose the principle?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: No, we do not oppose the principle but certain parts of it. Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have uninterrupted time?

"Dishonourable conduct", Sir, is not defined, and that is very dangerous. If we were to cast our memory back to the days not so long ago, one of the Members over this side of the House was guilty, according to the consensus of opinion of the House then, of dishonourable conduct. Since "dishonourable conduct" had not been defined, it would be defined by the House. And since the Government has a majority in the House, I leave it to you, Sir, to say whether this is a matter of principle or detail. I think it is quite important.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has invited the Speaker to say whe ther it is a matter of principle or detail. I say it is a matter of detail.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Thank you, Sir, for your legal advice. Not being a lawyer, it is not possible for me to understand the niceties of legal interpretation. There are certain parts of the Bill which provide for legal action to be taken. For instance, if a Member tables an untrue document or says something untrue in this Assembly, it might very well be that he might have meant well when he said such things, but it might consequently be found that they were not very true.

If you will bear with me, Sir, the practice of parliamentary democracy, especially with benches on different sides, implies that the Opposition Members must always keep an alert eye on the Government. If at any time a Member of the Opposition should smell a rat in the Government it is up to him to use his very long nose to smell out and to smoke out that rat. Sometimes hints given to him may be true and well-founded but sometimes not necessarily so, because we on this side of the Assembly do not have access to information that is available to Members of the Government. It is, therefore, on this principle that the Bill should be very carefully studied.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I sympathise with the Member for Cairnhill for being in the position where he is now -facing the Opposition, and therefore, knowing very well what is going on. But he is sandwiched in between Members who claim that they do not know what honourable or dishonourable conduct is. The impression is given that this Privileges Bill is designed to curtail freedom of speech. It is only fair that I should at least give an indication of what it really seeks to do. For example - among offences - it says that it will be an offence to threaten or send a threatening letter to the Speaker, or publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise, which falsely or scandalously defames, which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in the Assembly, and so on. The general impression given in some of the speeches made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis is that this Bill seeks to curtail freedom of speech. In fact, as far as I know, since we have been here for a couple of days, not one of the Members in this Assembly has felt constrained to limit what he has to say because of fear that the Government with its powers might curb him or otherwise deal with him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Bill is not passed yet.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Upper Serangoon has suggested that he does not know what honourable or dishonourable conduct is, or what truth or falsehood is. But I think most of us in this Assembly can, by and large, determine what is truth and what is falsehood. Therefore, in passing this Bill, we are only ensuring that the normal standards of honourable conduct, the normal standards of what is true or false are observed in this Assembly. If certain Members feel that they would be somehow curbed or restrained in this respect, I think that is a matter which they can bring up before the Select Committee, where they can define what their standards of honour, truth and falsehood are.

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh, in reply?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, it is an irony that sometime early this year, 13 Members from the Barisan Sosialis were sitting on this side of the House. At that time they knew what was the meaning of dishonourable conduct. In fact, they did agree that the Member for Hong Lim had committed a breach of privilege. Now, the Member for Queenstown has led 12 of his other colleagues to a snake dance, twisting and turning round over to the other side -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think all this is relevant to the Bill itself. Let us get down to brass tacks, shall we?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Let me proceed then, Mr Speaker. Members of the House will remember that the Member for Hong Lim had to face a Commission of Inquiry sometime in June of this year, if my memory is correct. He faced a Judge from the High Court, and the verdict of the Judge was that the Member for Hong Lim had told lies.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am wondering whether this is all relevant to the Bill. I cannot see any relevance at all. This refers to what has happened in the past. We are now legislating, I hope, for the future.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Actually, Mr Speaker, it is because we are legislating for the future that we have to look up precedents in the past. There was one particular point which the Member for Hong Lim brought up and which the Member for Pasir Panjang has also brought up, namely, that one of the punishments for breach of privilege, a fine of $5,000, as stated in this Bill, was too heavy. But I would like to refer Members of the House a case where the former -

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the fact that on this side of the House, Members were speaking in detail. May I take the liberty, Sir, of asking you whether the matter in respect of which the Deputy Premier is now speaking is not in detail? Could we go home at half-past eight?

Mr Speaker: I would suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that the line he is taking is completely unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant to the Bill itself, and that he should proceed on a reply which is as short as possible.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, if you will permit me, I was just going to wind up my argument in answer to the points raised by the other side. It was not a question of detail, but rather a question of principle, as stated by the Member for Nee Soon. And that was the question of the punitive powers which the Assembly has. I was going to refer to a case in which a former Assemblyman, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, was a plaintiff in a libel suit, and he was awarded damages to the extent of $13,000 against a newspaper. That, I think, should answer the doubts raised by Members on the opposite side. However, all I would like to say now, Mr Speaker, is that since we have agreed to refer this Bill for discussion in detail in Select Committee, I would add that, in doing so, it is on the provision that this Bill will be made retrospective from the day it was introduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].