COMPLAINT ON MATTER OF PRIVILEGE AFFECTING MEMBER

3.36 p.m.

The Minister for Culture and Acting Leader of the House (Mr S. Rajaratnam) rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes. It is a point of order affecting the privilege of a Member of this House.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister make his complaint?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to raise a question of privilege of this House and its Members. The Government Whip, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, has been prevented by picketers from attending today's Legislative Assembly sitting.

At 2.15 p.m. today, when he was leaving the Ministry of Education at Kay Siang Road to attend this sitting, some 300 picketers, who were ostensibly there for the purpose of preventing students from going into the schools to take the examination, stopped him at the junction of Kay Siang Road. They surrounded him and abused him and refused to let him through to attend this sitting, despite the fact that he explained to them that he was on his way to attend this Assembly sitting.

The Parliamentary Secretary was already aware that at the T.T.C. earlier this morning, rowdy picketers, who wanted to intimidate students from taking the examinations, had resorted to violence and hooliganism. Stones and bottles were thrown at the candidates.

Therefore, Sir, not wishing, under the circumstances, to force his way through and thereby cause an incident in which the police would have to interfere and would then be falsely accused of manhandling students, the Member for Bukit Panjang did not force his way through. He is now beleaguered in the Ministry of Education.

Mr Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir. Sir, there may be an impression outside among these picketers, who are now turning to hooliganism, that some Members of the Assembly support their pickets and these acts of hooliganism. I would ask you, therefore, 'Sir, to clarify the rights of Members of this House. In particular, Sir, I would request you to ask all Members of this House to endorse the motion that no Member of this House should be prevented from standing or leaving sittings of this Assembly under any circumstances whatsoever. I seek your guidance, Sir, on enforcing the motion which was formally moved by the leader of the House on 20th of November and approved by this House, which reads as follows:

'That this Assembly orders that the Com missioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in the passages leading to this House. and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid.'

Sir, I ask, therefore, that the Members of this House approve this motion, that no Member should be obstructed or intimidated from doing his duty as a representative of the people.

Mr Speaker: I do not suppose the Minister is really moving a motion. This is not the time to move a motion. I understood the Minister to say "motion"?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was seeking your guidance on this matter.

Mr Speaker: Of course, I must be satisfied - I am, in fact, satisfied - that the matter complained of does prima facie affect the privileges of the Assembly, and that the complaint alleging a breach of privilege has suddenly arisen. Therefore, under our Standing Orders, the matter must be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and it is accordingly so referred. But I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that we have a Privileges Bill which the Government had intended to put through all three stages on a Certificate of Urgency, perhaps anticipating that trouble of this nature would arise and that Bill has now been referred to a Select Committee. It will, of course, take some time before it is passed. Under that Bill, if, in fact, the police had arrested any stranger who had prevented the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to the Assembly, that stranger could have been brought before this Assembly and could have been dealt with at once. But we are now operating under the old Privileges Ordinance, and section 15 of that Ordinance is the relevant section. It reads

'Any stranger in respect of the Assembly who -

(a) hinders or obstructs any member of the Assembly coming to, going from or being within the Chamber or the precincts thereof;',

and then there are other offences which are not relevant,

'shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.'

And under section 32:

'No prosecution shall be instituted for an offence under this Ordinance except with the written sanction of the State Advocate-General.'

So, in so far as the incident complained of is concerned, I have no doubt that if the culprits or the strangers are apprehended, they will be prosecuted under a fiat from the State Advocate-General under section 15 of the present Privileges Ordinance.

On the other point, the conduct of Members, I might as well read the relevant section which is applicable now - section 20 of the same Privileges Ordinance:

'(1) Any member of the Assembly who -

(b) assaults or obstructs a member of the Assembly within the Chamber or precincts of the Assembly; ...

shall be guilty of contempt of the Assembly.'

That has not arisen at the moment. For contempt in this Assembly, it is, of course, this Assembly which can deal with the culprit. That covers the point, Mr Minister?

3.45 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points arising. I mentioned one whets I raised this question. Though I concede the point that the Committee of Privileges has not come into being, there is an impression outside among the picketers that some Members of this Assembly are not with this House in condemning them, and are also perhaps with them in their attempt now to prevent Assemblymen from coming to this Assembly. A member of this Assembly who wanted to come to this Assembly informed the picketers that he wanted to attend a sitting of this Assembly, but he was prevented. Therefore, one way would be for this House to make it quite clear to the picketers that any attempt by any picketer to obstruct Members of the Assembly from performing their duties will not be condoned by any single Member of this Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajaratnam: That is the first point which I think will greatly assist Members in being able to perform their duties. If it is made quite clear outside that any attempt by any outsider to interfere with the right of Members to attend this Assembly would at least be condemned by this Assembly, then it would certainly have a salutary effect.

On the other point, I would ask for your guidance on a practical issue. There is a Member of the Assembly who has been intimidated into staying in the Ministry of Education. How do you propose to help him out of a situation which as you yourself indicated earlier, has been brought about because, rightly or wrongly, there were objections to the rushing through of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill? Therefore, we are now put in a situation where a contingency has arisen, where one of our Members is de liberately prevented by picketers from coming to this Assembly. Therefore, I am seeking your guidance on the second end more practical issue of how to ensure the attendance of the Member for Bukit Panjang here. I also understand that the Minister for Education may be in a similar predicament.

There are two points. First, Members of the House will make it quite clear that any picketers who interfere with the rights and privileges of the Assembly will meet with public disapproval, and secondly, your guidance on the more practical matter of how to deal with this situation.

Mr Speaker: On the first point, it is up to Members either in this Assembly or outside the Assembly to make definite pronouncements on the matter. I cannot, of course, ask them to do so. But they as Members of the Assembly would, I take it, wholeheartedly approve any action which might punish any stranger who is guilty of a breach of the privileges of this Assembly. On the face of it, it is clear that a breach of privilege has been committed.

On the second point as to what can be done, all that comes to my mind is that, prima facie, an offence has been committed by a stranger or strangers and, therefore, we must rely on the police to bring that stranger or those strangers to book. I suppose by that means the Parliamentary Secretary - and the Minister for Education if he is being hindered - would be released and perhaps escorted to this Assembly House. As far as the Assembly is concerned, nothing further can be done.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am sorry if it is really true that this Assembly is reduced to a state of impotence as a result of our not having passed the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill. But surely, whilst we may not have executive powers, it is our duty as a Legislature to express the collective will of the people so that all can know which side this House is on - for law and order according to the rules laid down by the representatives of the people, or according to the rough-house of stones and bottles and mobs and hooligans. Since you have so expressed yourself as discharging your functions as Speaker in drawing the attention of Members to relevant sections of the Ordinance, and more or less indicating that perhaps the police should act, may I say that it is not a question of the police being unable to act but of the Ministers restraining them from going into a situation in which it would be said subsequently that innocent young students were manhandled by burly bullying policemen. For this reason, the Minister for Education, who is not here today because, as I understand it, he is beleaguered, has not allowed the police to intervene in any of the incidents relating to the intimidation to enforce the boycott.

If you would allow us now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest, as a matter of urgency, to move a motion first, that we condemn this conduct, and second, that we as representatives of the people call upon the police - not the Government calling upon the police - to ensure that those sections of the present Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance are enforced.

Mr David Marshall: Perhaps you would permit a suggestion? I would like to suggest that since this seems to be a matter of urgency - if we are to accept the Government's statement - that you authorise the Serjeant at Arms together with leaders of the Opposition Parties here to proceed to the place where this gentleman is supposed to be beleaguered. I am offering myself.

Mr Speaker: Order. All that I can do is to say that the matter will have to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges. It might be too late but it has to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, proper evidence taken, and a decision arrived at. What effect a motion of the nature proposed by the Prime Minister will have, I cannot say. It is up to Members to indicate what effect that motion will have. I myself will give my consent to a motion of that nature being moved, and it is up to hon. Members of this House to express assent whether or not they wish a motion of that nature to be moved. Could I have the terms of that motion, to start off with?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest perhaps the Acting Leader of the House should move,

That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Acting Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and dis charging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Mr Speaker: A motion of that nature, of course, would require notice under Standing Order 32 which reads:

'Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present.'

I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: There is no dissentient voice. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I formally move,

That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Acting Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Motion handed in.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member should be described as "the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang".

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking now from memory, but may I suggest that the question of privilege is not the privilege attaching to him as Parliamentary Secretary but to him as a Member of this Assembly?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that can he brought out in the debate. I am just trying to decipher somebody's handwriting which seems to be as bad as mine!

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated the circumstances which have induced me to raise this matter, but it is a bit more pertinent that a motion of this kind should be endorsed by the House in view of our failure to pass the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill, we are powerless. So a motion of this kind would at least indicate that if anybody at any time, not only now but in the future, prevents any Member of this Assembly from discharging his duties, we would have the approval of the whole House in any method we might resort to to ensure that the rights and privileges of an Assemblyman are safeguarded, even to the extent of calling on the police to ensure that his rights are safeguarded. Therefore, it is not only a matter affecting the present case, because if there is any wavering now, any equivocation, then it is quite clear, Sir, that this is the green light for hooligans of any sort to beleaguer Assemblymen, intimidate them and prevent them from discharging their duties as Assemblymen. Especially, Sir, in view of the fact that until such time as the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill comes into being, obviously any hooligan, any thug, any gangster can, with impunity, prevent Assemblymen from attending to their duties in this Assembly. Therefore, it is, I think, quite clear that no single Member of this Assembly should have any doubt as to what his attitude should be on this motion.

Mr Speaker: The Question is as proposed by the Minister. I am having that motion typed, but Members are at liberty now to speak on the motion.

4.03 p.m.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House feel that a motion such as the one moved by the Leader of the House should, in fact, have the support of the full House. We agree with him. But what we are still a little uneasy about is that a complaint has been made, and that there is no investigation into the complaint, and we are not assured whether the fact that the Member for Bukit Panjang has not been in this House is that he was obstructed, or that he has wilfully decided not to come, thereby bringing this matter into the forefront.

We would be very happy to associate .ourselves with the motion, Sir. If it is only a motion of principle which says, "That this House condemns in the strongest terms any people or any group of people who wilfully obstruct a Member of this House, a representative of the people, from entering this House to fulfil the functions to which he has been elected into this House", then we feel that the words used by the Acting Leader of the House are not quite becoming of the spirit in which this motion should be moved. This motion, Sir, should have no political implications nor should it be politic. It should merely express the feeling of the Members in this House that any Member who is privileged to sit in this House should not be obstructed from coming into this House. And if the Government is prepared to amend this motion so that political implications are taken out of it, and presumptions and assumptions are taken out of the motion, then we are quite prepared - we are, in fact, fully prepared - to support the motion, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Member then seeking to move an amendment?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, what we seek to move is more than an amendment. We seek to ask the Government to rephrase or reword the motion, so that words like "hooliganism" and all those things are taken out, and so that it becomes only a motion expressing the principle to which we are all committed, that is, any Member of this House should not be obstructed from entering this House to perform his functions.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to ask the Government to rephrase a motion. If he is not satisfied with the motion, then he moves an amendment and the amendment then could be debated.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, perhaps I might be permitted to go just a little bit beyond that? In view of the fact that the Acting Leader of the House has asked for a unanimous vote on this motion we are asking the Government whether they are prepared to rephrase the motion so as to express only the principle of it, in which case he may very well get the unanimous support of the whole House. I think, Sir, we are more concerned with the principle behind it and not the politics behind it.

Mr Speaker: So the hon. Member is not moving an amendment? I just want to be quite certain about that. If the hon. Member wishes to move an amendment, then this is the time, unless he wishes to move it later on.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, if the Government is prepared to rephrase the motion, we -

Mr Speaker: Order. I thought I made myself very clear. The motion is a motion by the Government. And if it is to be altered, it has to be altered by an amendment.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: We will move an amendment, Sir.

The Prime Minister: May I just make the point clear, Sir? We are not interested in abstract principles -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will have the opportunity to debate the amendment when it is moved.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I suggest that we adjourn this sitting to allow us to make an amendment?

The Prime Minister: It is a waste of time.

Mr Speaker: Order. The motion is being typed. It will be ready in about ten minutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that we suspend for a short time?

The Prime Minister: Sir, whilst the motion is being typed, perhaps you will allow me to make an elucidation of the Government's attitude to this, because the Member for Nee Soon was extremely anxious that he should not move an amendment but that the Government should be asked to rephrase it. And I would like to clarify that position, although you have very kindly indicated that the proper way is for him to move an amendment. But, nevertheless, the public impression is, of course, that he has made a request for rephrasing to which the Government must respond.

Mr Speaker: Is the Government prepared to respond to that? Did I understand that to be the case?

The Prime Minister: I must respond at least in indicating the Government's view to it. The Member for Nee Soon was extremely reluctant to move an amendment for various reasons of his own, although he does not alike the word "hooligans" and perhaps one or two other words. And he has asked us to rephrase. You have pointed out to him that that is not the proper way. He must amend if he wishes it to be removed. Sir, no doubt the debate will go on to its logical conclusion where if there is no unanimity, sides are taken to the discomfiture of the people who take the wrong side.

I am concerned that there should be no misimpression on the Members, the Stranger's Gallery, the Press and the general public outside, that what we are debating now is not a question of abstract principle but two Members of this Assembly who are at present beleaguered. And, therefore, I would like to say that no matter how the thing is phrased or rephrased, as it stands it assumes nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir. It only assumes that this House endorses the principle that the law should be enforced against these people, be they students or whoever else.

Mr Speaker: Order. That, I think, is what the Member for Nee Soon doubts. And that is why he wishes to make an amendment. I have a copy of the motion; I shall check it first.

Now, in case hon. Members have not heard the exact terms of the motion, these are the exact terms of the motion - copies are being made

'That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.'

I might, for the guidance of the Member for Nee Soon, indicate that any amendment which seeks to enlarge upon this motion will be wrong. Any amendment which seeks to lessen the effect of the motion will be correct.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Then I am afraid the Member will have to wait.

Members conferring:

Mr Speaker: It would appear that it will be convenient that I suspend for fifteen minutes.

I will take this Chair again at 4.30 p.m. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.13 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Minister wishes to rise on a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: I have a further report to make.

Mr Speaker: I will take the motion first. The motion before the House is, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance."

The Member for Nee Soon has the floor, but a further statement, of some importance I take it, has been received by the Minister. Is there any objection that he should add this to his statement?

Hon. Members indicated none.

Mr Speaker: Mr Minister.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, since the motion was put before the House and during the adjournment we have received information that when the Minister for Education and the Parliamentary Secretary decided to come down and break through, the picketers, for some mysterious reason, this time agreed to allow them to come here. It is a very odd coincidence, Sir. But, anyway, that only reinforces the need for future protection of Members. This motion should be passed with the assent of the full House today.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Nee Soon.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: The Member for Queenstown will move the amendment, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The motion at the moment is before the House. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we heard that explanation just in time. We knew that things like that would happen, Sir. These were all conjured up. We get strip-tease politics, strip-tease revelations, the whole idea being that they could surprise us with new moves every second. This is not the proper way for the Government to deal with important matters, Sir,If there are important things, let them be known to the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. The matter has been raised as a matter of privilege, and the Committee of Privileges will have to sit on it. This motion is an interim motion referring to a particular incident. Is the Member for Queentown alleging then that the information is false?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would, of course, warn the Member for Queenstown that if he makes that allegation without any substantiation, then he might be before the Committee of Privileges.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let me explain, Sir. You yourself heard of the Tommy Koh incident yesterday. It is right before our eyes, Sir. How do we know that this time they have got their facts correct?

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir, before the Member commits himself further.

Mr Speaker: If the Member gives way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir.

An Hon. Member: Coward.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member does not give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Knowing how the Government always twists and turns, Sir, and having the clear precedent of Tommy Koh's case right before our eyes, you cannot blame us for having doubts on Government statements. Under those circumstances, we cannot possibly accept this motion and we wish to make an amendment.

I move, Sir,

In line 3, to leave out "who", and to insert therein "if in fact such hooligans",

and also, Sir,

In line 7, to leave out "the police" and therein to insert "all party leaders to proceed to such scene at any time necessary and to report back to the House for further action".

Mr Speaker: To leave out from "upon" to the end in line 7, is that right?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: From "upon" to the end.

Mr Speaker: May I have the amendment?

Amendment handed in.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged, Sir,I understood the Acting Leader of the House to ask approval of police action because of the persons being beleaguered and consequently they would have to be rescued. But in the circumstances now that they are freed, and in the light of the exact provisions of our Privileges and Immunities Ordinance, it seems to me that that part is now tautologous. I would ask whether the Acting Leader of the House would consider that aspect.

Mr Speaker: Would the Acting Leader of the House like to reply to that point of clarification?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir. It is quite clear, Sir, that within a few minutes of a motion of this kind having to be debated, there is a lot of agitation. It is not for me to mention that outside the Chamber a lot of phone calls were made, and they had a salutary effect. But it is essential, Sir, that this business about beleaguering people in schools will not end today, it would -

Mr Speaker: Order. It is only a point of clarification. The Member for Anson wishes to know whether the Minister wishes to retain these words in relation to police action in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Education are no longer beleaguered. That is the only question. The answer is "yes" or "no".

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir.

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification, Sir. I understand the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: Order. We had better wait for the amendment. I would like to read it very carefully first before I decide whether it is in order. Could I have the last part of the amendment, please? To leave out from "upon" to the end in line 7, and therein to insert -?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And then to insert therein "all party leaders to proceed to such scene at any time necessary and to report back to the House for further decision".

Mr Speaker: "Such scene", meaning the Ministry of Education, does it not? I just cannot understand it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This one, at the present moment, is consequent on the report that came to us a little while ago, and does not apply any more, Sir. Therefore, I am talking on general principle.

The Prime Minister: That is what I understood.

Mr Speaker: I did indicate before the adjournment that the effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question. Now the motion itself relates to a specific incident, and in so far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, that is in order, when the Member seeks to leave out the word "who" in line 3, and to insert "if in fact such hooligans". The second part of the amendment seeks to open out a matter of principle which, of course, enlarges the present motion which confines itself to a specific incident. The second part of the motion calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits in this particular instance are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Therefore, as the Minister has indicated that he does not wish to withdraw that part of the motion, the motion is still a motion with specific relation to a specific incident, and therefore the amendment which seeks to open out a larger matter of principle is out of order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Under those circumstances, Sir, I withdraw the second part .

4.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker: The question is,

"That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally pre vented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance."

Since which an amendment has been moved.

In line 3, to leave out "who" and there to insert "if in fact such hooligans".

The Question is, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Rajaratnam: We accept the amendment.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

At this juncture the Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin) walked into the Chamber [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I am just trying to see whether the amendment makes sense. Does it make sense, Mr Minister?

Mr Rajaratnam: I assume the first amendment, not the second - "the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Minister for Education,".

Mr Speaker: Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr David Marshall: Sir, I am very happy to see this collaboration on a matter vital to the House. One cannot but take a serious view of conduct of the character alleged on the part of school children. But I would -

Mr Speaker: Order. We are on the amendment now, which is the addition of the words, "if in fact such hooligans".

Amendment agreed to.

Original Question as amended proposed, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance".

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand. At the time the motion was first moved, the second part of the motion, calling upon the police was logical in the light of the probable need to force an entry to rescue the Member. But now that he is free, I find myself at a loss to understand what steps it is expected that the police should take. As I understand our Privileges Ordinance, Sir, the only steps that would be available and that would make sense would be to replace the word "police" with the words "State Advocate-General", because it is he who issues the fiat for the purposes of prosecution, and not the police. I am not seeking to be obstructive in any way, Sir,I am happy that the amendment is accepted and I completely agree with the principle of the motion. But I would ask you and the Hon. Members on the Front Bench to direct their minds to that aspect. What is it that is intended by the words "calls upon the police to ensure", and whether what is intended is that there should be a fiat for the prosecution?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is aware of the provisions of the Constitution in which it is clearly laid down -

Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the Member for Anson moved an amendment to change the words "the police" to "the State Advocate-General".

Mr David Marshall: No. I suggested it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: I beg your pardon.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that the Member for Anson, being a practising lawyer, is aware of the provisions of the Constitution in which it is provided that the State Advocate-General is the sole arbiter to decide whether a prosecution should be brought or not. This House has no authority whatsoever, Mr Speaker, Sir, to direct the State Advocate-General to adopt any course of action.

Mr Speaker: Any other Member wishes to speak on the amended motion?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion by the Government is a sad reflection of the state of affairs to which this Government has led Singapore. As a matter of fact, the people of Singapore, as individuals have the right to freedom of movement, and it is up to the Government to bear the responsibility to see that every individual, including Assemblymen, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers and Prime Ministers, have the right of movement. The instrument to enforce this freedom and right of movement rests with the Government, i.e., the police. Why should the Government ask the House to call on the police to ensure that the citizen of a State has the freedom of movement? In other words, the Government is abdicating its powers.

Sir, I have not had time to go through the sections of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, but I see that what this Assembly can do under this Ordinance is to ask these so-called culprits to come before the Committee of Privileges and explain themselves, and not to call upon the police to ensure that our Parliamentary Secretaries have got freedom of movement.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I have the section which the hon. Member is referring to, that this Assembly has power to call upon these culprits to come before the Committee of Privileges under our present law? Could the Member give me the section?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, this being a surprise motion, we did not have the time to go through the Ordinance and I am not sure whether the Assembly has or has not the power to call up the culprits.

Mr Speaker: I might as well explain the position again. I think I have explained it at length. The position now is that we are working under the old Privileges Ordinance, section 15 of which says that:

'Any stranger in respect of the Assembly who -

(a) hinders or obstructs any member of the Assembly coming to, going from or being within the Chamber or the precincts thereof; ...

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.'

An offence is committed, and there is nothing in the Privileges Ordinance to enable the Assembly to bring any culprits under that section before the Assembly.

And section 32 says:

'No prosecution shall be instituted for an offence under this Ordinance except with the written sanction of the State Advocate-General.'

The position, as I see it, is that if an offence has been committed under the Privileges Ordinance, the police act by arresting the culprits and then it is up to the State Advocate-General to decide whether or not a prosecution would follow.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if this is a matter of general principle, we would support it, but if this is only just to ensure that the Government does not want to bear its responsibility of governing the country and throwing the responsibility of governing on to this Assembly, then we say we have to reject it.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I disagree wholeheartedly with the Member for Hong Lim. Sir, this is not a matter which concerns the Government. This is a matter which concerns the privilege of this House. Now, this is most unlikely, but it could happen, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Minister for Law disapproves of the conduct of the Members of the Alliance, and for some reason decides to send one of his detectives to incarcerate the whole lot of us and does in fact incarcerate us, and if one of us should be so fortunate as to escape the clutches of the Minister for Law and come running to this Assembly and lay a complaint before you, Mr Speaker, Sir; and the House, what does the House do? Is the Member for Hong Lim going to say that this is a matter for the Government? It is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter which concerns each one of us here - the 52 Members of this House -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, please.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am faced with that situation, before I enter the gate of this Assembly, I will see the police. If I am cornered in that position after I have entered the gate, I will see you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, in this one instance, I take pride that I, as a representative of the people, am above the police and my privileges are entrusted to the custody of this House, and I will come to this House and appeal to it for my protection and not to the police.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now that is the position. If the Leader of the House has misinformed the House of the facts, the remedy is with us. If on subsequent investigation we find that the Leader of the House has misled the House into its accepting this motion, then I think the Leader of the House is up for contempt. But in a system of democratic government, Mr Speaker, Sir, especially parliamentary democracy, we reach a point of time when we must trust somebody. And when the Leader of the House in a parliamentary democracy gets up and makes a statement in all earnestness and all seriousness, the House must accept it and not reject it. We entirely support this motion.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been sitting here for the last 8 days, I believe, debating an amendment to the merger motion moved by the Minister for Labour, which is going to affect the lives of all our people. I have no doubt, Sir, that the Ministers on the Government Front Bench are fully aware that public attention is focused on this House and the debate on the motion. But, unfortunately, in the last couple of days, we have had urgent statements made by Ministers.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I, as Speaker and guardian of the privileges of this House, must bring this debate into proper focus. A matter of privilege has been reported to this House. I have referred it to the Committee of Privileges. By leave of the House, a motion has been moved relating to the very incident which has now been referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is irrelevant whether Members are prepared to believe the Minister or not at this stage. The position is clearly that a statement has been made by a responsible Minister and - as the Member for Farrer Park has rightly said - if subsequently it is found that the Minister has misled this House, then he will be prima facie guilty of an abuse of privilege and he will find himself, I take it, before the Committee of Privileges.

All I want now is a debate on the motion as it stands. Mr Bani.

Mr Bani: Sir, in so far as the principle of this motion goes, we have made our stand clear. We are all in favour of Members having free and direct access to this Assembly to perform their functions. What, in fact, I wanted to ask just now was whether the intention of the Government is to contribute to the maintenance of respectability and decorum of this House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I shall not allow that. This motion is based on the principle which has been accepted by the Opposition Members. Let us stick to that aspect of the motion.

Mr Bani: I shall just say this, Sir. After the motion was moved and the adjournment, the Minister informed us that whoever were preventing the Minister for Education from coming here were not preventing him any more. All that I want to point out here is this. Members of this House do not know, in the first place, whether in fact the Minister for Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education were detained. Secondly, we do not know whether they were in fact detained by hooligans. Thirdly, now that we are told that the picketers have dispersed, I do not know whether in fact they have done so. But as far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we agree wholeheartedly with the Government that no Member of this Assembly should be illegally prevented by anybody from entering these premises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that in so far as this particular incident is concerned, the place in which it took place is outside the vicinity of this House, and I do not understand why the Government should have thought it necessary to raise this matter here, ask Members of this House to express their views, and to state their stand. I am quite certain that the fact that we have the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and the fact that there is a police force are sufficient provisions to safeguard the rights of any individual - be he an ordinary citizen or a Member of this House. But however, Sir, since this has been brought up here, I want to say, in conclusion, in quite categorical terms, that in so far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we fully agree with the spirit of this motion that no Member of this House shall be illegally prevented from coming to sittings of this Assembly and from performing his duties as an elected representative.

The Prime Minister: And if they do, they should -

Mr Speaker: Order.

5.06 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House is something very dear to those who really want to see parliamentary democracy at work -

An hon. Member: What do you know of -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: - and not made a mockery of. Perhaps I should inform this House of a little event which took place this morning when I went to work in the Ministry of Education.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to confine the debate to this particular incident and to the particular motion, otherwise we will never finish. If there are other incidents, perhaps tomorrow will be a very apt opportunity for a Ministerial statement. Mr Yong.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: There is, I think, an Order Paper for tomorrow in respect of which as Minister for Education I would have to present the University of Singapore Bill for Second and Third Reading. I was preparing this with my Personal Assistant at around two o'clock this afternoon when my Parliamentary Secretary came into my room and I indicated to him that I doubted that I would be able to come to the Assembly at 2.30 p.m. and that I would have to finish my work first before coming here. He told me that he did not have his transport. So I told him that he could use my car to come to the Assembly. He was accompanied by two security officers and my driver. The car is SS 6103. I believe my Parliamentary Secretary left the office at about 2.15 this afternoon and I decided to walk right across to the other side of the building where I could at least have a look at the group of people who had been picketing Kay Siang Road since early morning. What I could see was my car gradually approaching this nest of young students - boys and girls - numbering between 50 and 60. They were chanting. I remember having gone to Bali to see what is called a "ketjak" dance, where a group of people would sing songs in this manner "ketjak, ketjak, ketjak". I could see from a distance that my car was not permitted to leave and that it had to get into reverse gear to return. They were jumping with joy at their victory to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to this Assembly to perform his duties both as an Assemblyman and as the Whip of this Government.

That, Sir, is what I personally saw. There were witnesses to this. I am sure there were many people in the Ministry of Education who were watching.

5.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very fortunate to have got myself free and to reach this Assembly.

Events developed in this way. This morning at about 9 I went to my office at Kay Siang by way of Kay Siang Road. I saw a group of students blocking the road. I came out of my car and told them that I wanted to go to my office for duty. I asked them to let me go on, but they shouted a slogan, "Lee Khoon Choy, go into the coffin!" They shouted "Lee Khoon, khoon Choy" I asked them why they did not want to take the Government examinations and they replied, "Your Government want to destroy Chinese education." I told them, "Let us not talk about this. Will you please let me go to my office for duty?" They replied, "No, you cannot do that. You must accede to our request." Then I said, "This is something which I cannot do. So will you please let me go in?" But they surrounded me. I found the situation was not right because they were sitting on the road with their buttocks facing me. I found the situation not very pleasant. So I proceeded to my office by way of another path. There was also another group of students who were not perhaps well organised, and they were shouting slogans. Later on, at 2.15 in the afternoon I borrowed a car from the Minister, because my car was under repair, - I had told my mechanic to take away my car at about 11 o'clock in the morning - to leave the office by Kay Siang Road. This group of students saw me and they blocked me again. There were about seven or eight of them and they pressed against the car. Some of them surrounded me. I told them that I was on my way to come to this House for a sitting but they would not listen. 'They continued to shout that slogan and they would not listen to what I said. As I found the situation was not right and as I did not want to see any incident, I had to turn back. When they saw this, they put up their hands shouting, "We have won! We are victorious!" These are the events which took place.

I have forgotten to mention another point. When I went out, there was a member of a radio car following me. If you do not believe what I have told you here, we can let you know the kind of slogans they shouted. Some of them were abusive and I was called bad names.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education this question. He speaks of a quarter past two. What happened between a quarter past two and the time this House received the motion about 4 o'clock? What happened in the interim period?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): After my return to the Ministry of Education, I saw a group of students. And since they were still there, I thought it was useless to force my way out. And my staff reported to me that all of a sudden those students dispersed. They had disappeared.

Mr David Marshall: What time was it?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): This came as a surprise to me because at that time it was round about 4.10 or 4.15, and the time for office hours to be over is half-past four. They told me, "If you want to leave, you can leave because the students have dispersed." But I was wondering whether the students could disperse so easily and so early. And where could the students get the information? Could it perhaps come from this Assembly? I was wondering. Now I have come to this House.

5.17 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have moved an amendment. The principle is the safeguarding of all Assemblymen so that they can move freely in the vicinity of this House. This is without question. We quite agree. But from what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has reported to us, this shows that there is some motive in suddenly moving this motion today. The point is whether there was anyone who had telephoned the students from here about the Assembly discussing this matter, and the students therefore dispersed.

We support the motion safeguarding the rights of Assemblymen. But from the motion as it stands, we have ample reasons to believe that the Government is making use of this motion to hint that we have connections with the students.

The second reason is that the Government, while debating on a very important question affecting the future of the people of Singapore, were aware that they were at a disadvantage, that there were no reasons or grounds to support -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is completely irrelevant. Come back to the motion.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, we, in fact, had no need to pass this motion in this Assembly. According to him, the hooligans were only about the ages of 15 and 16, and they were not trying to hurt him or put him in a coffin. There was no such intention. But if he, as an educationist, could not persuade these youngsters and youths, then he should go back and ask the staff of the Education Ministry to persuade the students. But since the Parliamentary Secretary felt that it was a great danger to him and that he needed the whole Assembly to protect him, then, of course, we sympathise with him. But if what he has told us is a fact, then in principle, as our Party Chairman has said, we have moved the amendment. And I hope that after the amendment is passed, the Parliamentary Secretary will feel safe to go to his office. Psychologically he will feel safe. This will give him a sense of security perhaps.

The Prime Minister: It is a very simple motion, Sir. I think it was useful that we moved and debated it in this Assembly.

Sir, we are passing through an extremely delicate situation -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Last days!

The Prime Minister: Yes, the last days for adventurers who wander off into the unknown, guided by wrong Barisan stars.

Mr Speaker: Order. He must try and keep strictly to the motion. None of these jibes and counter-jibes.

The Prime Minister: The position, as we see it, is quite simple. There is absolute calm and reasonable serenity in the City. And a desperate group of people want to provoke an incident somewhere, some place, to cause resentment, chaos, confusion. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: And nothing better, Sir, than the traditional usage of young, little school children. They are young, usually innocent, sometimes misinformed. And if they get injured in a collision with the police, sympathy must naturally go to them. The Member for Anson went through it, Sir, at tremendous cost to his own peace of mind, as he tried very hard through the years 1955-56 to get a semblance of order, decency and fair play. And he went through a lot of stresses and strains.

Mr Bani rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Bani: Point of order, Sir. I wonder if this is relevant to the motion.

Mr Speaker: I have indicated that we are now debating a specific incident and, therefore, we must stick to it. A peroration is all right, but it should not become too lengthy or go into too much details.

The Prime Minister: I am not particularly fond of perorations, but I have an aversion to riots where students are concerned.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: His successor, the Member for Cairnhill, went through an, even more difficult and trying phase.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Prime Minister, but we are now debating a particular incident. And if the Prime Minister is allowed to go on in that strain, then, of course, it will open up the whole debate as to who are hooligans, why are the students acting in this way, and so on and so forth. I cannot allow it. We are now asking the House, having taken cognisance of the complaint, to condemn the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to this House. And the House is asked to call upon the Police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with. That is all.

The Prime Minister: And that is a great deal, Mr Speaker, Sir, because had we not debated this motion and had we tried to enforce the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, there would have been a riot. That is the point I wish to, make, a very simple one, and obvious to the Member for Thomson. He has been through this drill before, and he is not such an innocent man. We wanted to ask them here in this Assembly this. First, whether an Assemblyman should be prevented from coming to this House, on principle. And second, if he is prevented,, whether the police should enforce the law according to the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Because if we had not asked them first, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst we are debating the proceedings and hearing dreary repetitions which you yourself, I understand, have indicated to Party leaders and the Whip are getting drearier and drearier and more and more repetitious, then the police would have had to intervene - the Parliamentary Secretary wants to get out, the students push the car back, somebody is injured in the scuffle, the police come in, and students would have been browbeaten, battered by the police. Resentment mounts, temper goes up, confusion, wild allegations, rumours [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: So we adopted a very simple procedure and a very constitutional one - to ask all Members in this Chamber to state where they stand. And when they were asked to state where they stood, fortuitously, Mr Speaker, Sir, the kids decided to go home. Cannot we at least congratulate ourselves on the forbearance, the patience - I know you must find it a bit trying, so do we on this side of the House - which had saved us a great deal of trouble?

But it is not going to end here. Let us face it. The Member for Queenstown has suggested that Party leaders should visit the scene, on principle. And you have ruled it out of order because - obviously such a situation will arise again in the future - he suggested that Party leaders, after a man had been beleaguered, should go there and explain.

Mr Speaker: Order. That has been ruled out of order, and I do not think the Prime Minister will be in order to refer it.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I was only supporting your ruling.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think I need any support!

The Prime Minister: Perhaps that is a wrong choice of words. May I express my deep admiration for the ruling?

What is this? This is not the end. And I think the Leader of the House is going to suggest that those who do not support this kind of act, which is bound at least to be provocative - at some stage or the other, a fuss, a bloody nose, a broken arm, the police brought in -

Mr Bani: You will be safe!

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: - I suggest to those Party leaders who do not like this, let them tomorrow join hands with the parents and stop this hooliganism.

Mr Speaker: Mr Rajaratnam, in reply?

5.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether this motion is necessary because the power to deal with people who hinder Assemblymen coming to Assembly sitting is already contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance.

Mr Speaker: I have tried to explain it two or three times. I do not know whether the Member for Hong Lim is deliberately misunderstanding the Chair. The Chair has just pointed out that there has been an allegation that an Assemblyman has been prevented from coming into the House. The law says that anybody who does that is guilty of an offence. That person can be arrested and then prosecuted in court under a sanction of the State Advocate-General. In so far as the motion is concerned, it asks the House to condemn such conduct and asks the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law. That is all.

Mr Rajaratnam, in reply?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I do not propose to spend a great deal of words over this, except to say that this motion is being passed purely because, as has been indicated, Sir, since the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance has not come into force, we are left helpless. But let us not use the word "helpless", because we have not been helpless. The fact that we are able to bring a motion like this and have it debated has had a salutary effect. We have been able to deal with the situation without having to call in the police. All Members of this House have indicated plainly and categorically that any group of individuals, whether today or in the future, who attempt to prevent any Assemblyman, whether on this side of the House or on that side of the House, from coming here to discharge his duties would not only meet with the condemnation of Members of the House but any action taken to enforce the will of this House would have the approval of the Members of this House. That is the point of this motion, and it is on that basis that we have brought it forward and have persisted in asking the House to declare its stand on this motion.

Question put, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance".

Some hon. Members: Division.

The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members -

Upon the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing (who was absent) being called -

Mr K. M. Byrne: Absconded!

Mr Speaker: Order. There must not be any interjection during a division, especially a division of this nature.

The voting was as follows:- Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Lingam S. V. Haji Jumat. Ng Teng Kian. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Eng Guan. Mohammad Akib. Bani, S. T. Absent. Buang bin Ahmad bin Omar Junid. Ibrahim. Byrne, K. M. Chan Sun Wing. Chan Chee Seng. Sahorah binte Chan Choy Siong, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Chor Yeok Eng. Toh Chin Chye. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Koh C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lin You Eng. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Marshall, David. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Mr Speaker: There are 43 Ayes; 3 Noes; 5 Absent.

Motion as amended accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Mr Speaker: I propose to suspend now until a quarter past six. I will take the Chair again at a quarter past six. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.44 p.m. until 6.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.15 p.m.