LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY(PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

5.44 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

I am happy to report that Members of the Select Committee have reached the largest measure of agreement possible on the controversial clauses of this Bill, and in a spirit of give and take on both sides, improvements have been made to the Bill designed to ensure that there are appropriate sanctions available to the House in cases where abuse of privileges is committed by a Member or a stranger. It is hoped that armed with these new powers, the Legislative Assembly will be able to carry out its functions in a dignified and sober manner. I have no doubt, Sir, that hon. Members with their usual ingenuity will be able in time to develop a skill in debate which will enable them to sail close to the shoals and rocks of abuse without foundering and without attracting undue notice from you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Question proposed.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree entirely with what the Minister for Law said when moving the Second Reading of this Bill and I hope that the occasion will not arise when the provisions of this Bill will be used against any Assemblyman. But I would like to express my regret at certain stipulations in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that about ten months ago, the Government intended to pass this Bill through its three stages at one sitting. At that time, all of us in the Opposition on this side of the House expressed our opposition to such a move because the provisions in this Bill would have affected us very much as they would limit our freedom to a great extent. Later on, we asked the Government to refer the Bill to Select Committee for consideration. We are glad to note that the Government accepted the constructive suggestions from the Opposition side. Although the Report before us shows that the Government have accepted some ten amendments, there is one clause on which we have to express our opinion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 provides penalties for dishonourable conduct. If my memory is not wrong, on 17th November, 1961, Opposition Members condemned the definition of the term "dishonourable conduct" because the Government did not give a clear definition of this term. As Members of the Opposition we are rather worried because our freedom of expression in this Assembly can be restricted by this term "dishonourable conduct" which is not clearly defined. Our freedom of expression would therefore be limited by law. Although the so-called dishonourable conduct of any Member is to be decided by the Assembly as a whole, we are rather worried, from experience in the past. If criticisms came from the Opposition side, the Government would very likely term such criticisms as "dishonourable conduct". Therefore, we are of the opinion that without a clear definition of the term "dishonourable conduct", the freedom of expression of Opposition Members would be greatly restricted. The Report of the Select Committee on this Bill discloses that the most important question discussed in Select Committee was the proper `definition of the term "dishonourable conduct". The reduction of the fine from $5,000 to $1,000 in the event of an Assemblyman being found guilty of dishonourable conduct is not very important. What is more important is that there should be a very clear definition as to what constitutes dishonourable conduct.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that the Government can truly carry out its duties in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. From now on, it should not try to make use of any loophole in the law to deal with Opposition Members. We sincerely hope that, when faced with possible criticisms from the Opposition side, the Government will not light-heartedly resort to the provisions in this Bill, especially the provisions in clause 20, to restrict the freedom of expression in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we also hope that the Minister concerned will assure us that the use of the term "dishonourable conduct" will not be applied to Opposition Members because we will exercise self-discipline. As representatives of the people, we will be responsible for what we say to the people. I believe that the speeches of Assemblymen are made with a sense of responsibility. They are made from a national point of view with a sense of good will and good intention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was glad to hear what the Minister said just now, that this Bill would not be applied to Members of the Assembly and members of the public and that there would be no occasion to apply the provisions of the Bill. If anything should go amiss by misusing the provisions of the Bill, then I say I would be pessimistic as to the future of parliamentary democracy. That is why I hope the Government will not lightly make use of this term "dishonourable conduct" to deal with Opposition Members.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recall the alarm on the part of the Government Front Benches when we suggested that the Bill should be sent to Select Committee. What they enquired was, "What is the Assembly to do in the face of the wild men on the Opposition Benches without a Privileges Ordinance in order to protect them?". I trust they will digest the lesson of the valuable cooperation in Select Committee in seeking to bring about a provision which was acceptable to all Parties and also a recognition of the sense of responsibility displayed by Members on this side of the House and the complete absence of any foundation for the hysterical alarm they displayed during the Second Reading. I do not know if it is appropriate, but I would like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation for the Chairman of the Select Committee who helped a great deal in bringing about fruitful cooperation in respect of a Bill which now receives the support of all Members.

A certain amount of anxiety has been indicated by the previous speaker with reference to the phrase "dishonourable conduct". As you are aware, Mr Speaker, except in respect of mathematical terms, it is almost humanly impossible to define any phrase with absolute accuracy. The phrase "dishonourable conduct" has, in fact, been left undefined by the Select Committee because it was considered best that the matter should be left to the good sense of successive Committees of Privileges representing the ideas and feelings of their time and who, in the context of their own decency and their own integrity, will judge of their fellow Members or of strangers alleged transgressions. It is true that the majority on every Select Committee is quite properly the Government majority, and in this context, in respect of the immediate future, it is a P.A.P. majority. But I say. Sir, that whatever our views may be with reference to the gentlemen on the Government Front Benches, it is a fear with little foundation and that in practice we have found that though phrases may be wide and undefined, the ultimate result is rarely unjust.

I for one, Mr Speaker, have no hesitation in giving my complete support to this Third Reading.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I rise to support. I myself was a Member of the Select Committee. So it is needless for me to say that I support the Third Reading of this Bill. But I would like to take this opportunity of answering the Member for Choa Chu Kang on one or two matters which seem to be exercising his mind.

Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang is worried that because "dishonourable conduct" in clause 20 of the Bill as agreed to by the Select Committee has not been defined, conditions may arise in the Assembly which might place certain Members in the Opposition at a disadvantage. Sir, may I refer the Member for Choa Chu Kang to clause 3 (1) of the Bill which reads as follows:

`Save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, and in this Ordinance, the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and of the Speaker, members and committees shall be the same as those for the time being held, enjoyed or exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Speaker, members or committees thereof.'

When a Member of the Select Committee moved discussion on the words "dishonourable conduct", if my recollection is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out to him, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, that to define "dishonourable conduct" is a practically impossible task because honour varies from time to time and from place to place. But it was pointed out to the Member who moved discussion of the words "dishonourable conduct", that there was available, as a result of clause 3 of the Bill, a set of decisions which the House of Commons has adopted with regard to the phrase "dishonourable conduct". By virtue of clause 3 of this Bill, all those decisions in the House of Commons on what is or what is not "dishonourable conduct" would be available to this House for consideration as to what "dishonourable conduct" is in the circumstances in which that conduct was committed. So I would suggest to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that possibly his fears are misplaced.

The other point which I would like to stress here is that this Bill, when it becomes law, is not going to be entrusted to the Minister to administer, but it will be entirely administered by the House itself and not by the Ministerial Benches.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that published with the record of the proceedings of the Select Committee is a paper which you prepared on breaches of privilege and contempts in the House of Commons as Paper B in Appendix IV. In this paper, Mr Speaker, Sir, you have referred to one case of dishonourable conduct which appears in May at page 116. The precedent that you cited as an instance of dishonourable conduct was a case of corrupt acceptance of payment for disclosure of a secret matter. Now, if the Member for Choa Chu Kang is interested in going further into this matter, I suggest that he look up May at that page and he can get all the information that he wants, all the precedents of cases of dishonourable conduct.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.