REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

4.04 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 1 of 1962.

Sir, the Committee of Privileges has met and considered the resolution which was moved in this Assembly referring to the Committee of Privileges a matter concerning a breach of privilege. Members of this House will remember that on the 29th of November, 1961, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr Lee Khoon Choy, was obstructed from attending a sitting of the Assembly. This matter on resolution has been referred to the Committee of Privileges and the Committee has indeed round that a breach of privilege has been committed by those persons who were guilty of preventing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education from attending a sitting of the Assembly that day. Unfortunately, the police has not been able to trace the culprits and, therefore, punishment cannot be inflicted on these culprits. However, the House has already condemned the conduct of these hooligans at its sitting on the 29th of November. The Committee of Privileges has concluded that this case be now closed.

Question proposed.

4.06 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis agree with the Report that has been submitted to the House, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to one fact, that the Acting Leader of the House at that particular time made a highly exaggerated report to the House about the incident. You will -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is completely out of order. These remarks would be properly passed at the time the incident occurred or at the time the Assembly was debating the resolution proposed by the Acting Leader of the House. The Committee of Privileges merely addressed themselves to the issue whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary was obstructed from and insulted when coming to the Assembly, and found, in fact, that he was obstructed and insulted. If the hon. Member for Queenstown agrees with the Report, then, of course, that is the end of it. But if he does not agree with that finding, then he is at liberty to move that the Report be recommitted to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance. The Committee of Privileges has here in its Report indicated certain aspects of the statement made in the debate on the motion by the Minister for Education. As I understand it, the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis was seeking to draw your attention to other aspects of the statement which we know to be inaccurate and which were made during the debate on the motion to which no reference has been made by the Committee of Privileges, and which, perhaps, it should have taken into consideration and made findings in respect thereof. Is that not an appropriate procedure, Sir?

Mr Speaker: As I have indicated, if any hon. Member considers that that aspect of the matter is relevant to the issue itself, then, of course, he might now argue that the Committee of Privileges might have come to a different conclusion. The Member for Queenstown commenced his speech by saying that he was satisfied with the Report, he agreed with it, and therefore, by saying he agreed with it. I cannot see how his remarks are relevant.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, having perused the Report, I note with regret a complete omission of any consideration of the allegation by the Minister for Culture that there were 300 persons who beleaguered the Parliamentary Secretary, and also a further allegation by the Prime Minister that the Minister for Education was not present because he was beleaguered. Sir, as I understand it, those statements had a very considerable effect in persuading this side of the House to agree to the motion. It seems to me that those aspects should have been made part of the findings. Those aspects which materially affected the gravity of the conduct of the persons who obstructed the Parliamentary Secretary should have been commented on and their accuracy or otherwise considered for purposes of report to this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must make it quite clear that the duty of the Committee of Privileges is to find whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. The remarks passed by the Member for Anson are remarks, as I have indicated to the Member for Queenstown, which could properly have been passed when the motion which was set out in paragraph 2 of the Report was being debated in the House. Now, we have reached a stage where the Committee of Privileges on an issue of breach of privilege has made a finding. If Members do not agree that that finding is correct, then they are at liberty to move reference hack to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, the motion to which you refer on page 1 was in all goad faith passed by this side of the House. We voted in the belief that the statements made by responsible Ministers were correct. We had no information at that stage. What I would like to ascertain now is, would reference back to the Committee of Privileges raise these matters at all, or is it merely an issue of: Was the individual concerned, in fact, obstructed? Because whether he was obstructed was conduct that was really grave conduct - 300 pickets - or whether it was a passing matter, does have a certain effect upon our minds here. The result is the same. It is true, as you say, Sir, the finding will be that he was obstructed, but the circumstances of the obstruction surely are part of the Report which the Committee of Privileges should return.

Mr Speaker: To cut this matter short, the hon. Member for Anson is at liberty to file a notice of motion rescinding the resolution of the House taken as shown in paragraph 2 of the Report. That is the procedure. If hon. Members are not satisfied that the resolution taken by this House was properly arrived at, then the remedy is to move that it be rescinded. But the Report of the Committee of Privileges still remains, that is, on the issue whether or not there was obstruction and whether there was insult. The Committee has found that there was obstruction and there was insult, and, therefore, it was a breach of privilege, and recommends that this House take no further action for the reasons given. No other Member wishing to speak? Dr Toh?

Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated dissent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 1 of 1962.