REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (Case of Sardara Singh)

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. 10 of 1962.

Sir, this Report ---

Mr David Marshall: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr David Marshall: --- whether it is proper, in the light of the motion passed by this Assembly on Friday limiting certain items of business up to Wednesday night, to introduce new items during the course of these sittings, Sir.

Mr Speaker: It is in order under the Standing Orders.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, this Report deals with the matter which the Member for Anson had wanted to raise in this Assembly on the case of Sardara Singh, former Acting Sergeant in the Singapore Police Force. Subsequently it came to my knowledge that the Member for Anson was also a solicitor for the said Sardara Singh, and I drew your attention to the fact that (his could probably be committed to the Committee of Privileges for investigation. The Committee has met and produced this Report. It has been agreed that if the Member for Anson had raised the matter of the case of Sardara Singh in the Assembly and in the manner he proposed he could have come within the mischief indicated in the preceding paragraphs and could have been dealt with accordingly for abuse of privilege or for dishonourable conduct.

However, the Committee investigated also the desirability of framing a general resolution to cover the matters raised but considered that in the light of the above it was not necessary to do so.

Mr Speaker, when a person has acquired three "P.s" to his name - meaning, privilege, profit and power - he is virtually in an unassailable position. During the debate on the amendments to the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, the Member for Anson admitted that an advocate and solicitor was in a special position of privilege and also in a position of profit. Here I would like to add that when an advocate and solicitor also becomes an Assemblyman, particularly if he is on the Opposition Bench where he does not have to bear responsibilities, he also acquires his third P. - meaning that he acquires power.

Now, normally a member of the Bar would be responsible to the body that controls his profession, which is the Bar Committee. The Bar Committee can haul a fellow member over the coals if there has been a breach of etiquette. But if an advocate and solicitor is also a Member of the Assembly, and he is given liberty to speak in this Assembly on matters which probably touch upon his professional work, he would be in a position not only to enlarge his profit from the advertisement he gains in this Assembly but also he would be in a position of power. However, such a person could not be disciplined by the Bar Committee. Under the Powers and Immunities Ordinance of Assemblymen, such an advocate and solicitor cannot be hauled over the coals by his professional body. However, it does not mean that we should allow a person to exercise his power and his privilege in an unrestrained manner. If a professional body is powerless to discipline its member by virtue of the fact that he is also a Member of the Assembly, then it is up to this House itself to discipline its own Members.

Parliamentary democracy can only succeed, Mr Speaker, if Assemblymen exercise restraint and self-discipline. If there is absolute licence of speech and if there is any attempt to get away with the penalties for which he would nominally be guilty of if he were outside the Assembly, it would mean, Mr Speaker, that the reputation of this Assembly would be brought down to a very low level.

Mr David Marshall: Umm ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I hear a grunt from the Member for Anson. But I am quite sure that he in his uprighteousness does want to uphold parliamentary democracy. I know he tries very hard to restrain himself at times, but, as they say, the body is weaker than the spirit. However, the lesson which we wish to draw from this Report is this, Mr Speaker, and that is that Assemblymen, especially those who are professional men, in particular advocates and solicitors, must remember that they are in a position of privilege, profit and power, and commensurate with these special qualities that they have acquired they should also exercise equal responsibility.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, there is an air of unreality in discussing privilege and the dignity of the House in the context of the throes of the struggle for the survival of democracy itself through which we are going today. I shall not be long, Sir, nor shall I seek to contest this ruling particularly in the light of the fact that every minute we are discussing this we are taking away that much time from a much more crucial question which is subject to a guillotine provision.

I would like to draw attention to one or two points, Sir, just for the record. It is inaccurate to suggest that there was anything but a willingness and desire on my part that this matter should be clarified. Having come across some vital information which I considered would affect the view of this House in respect of certain matters concerning the administrative conduct of statutory provisions, I had wished that this House should know of it, after my client had ceased to be my client and he had left this country and the result of whatever took place here could have no effect on him. When I gave that indication, I learned that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House was unhappy as he thought that I might contravene the privilege provisions. If you will remember, Sir, I had indicated that in those circumstances I would wish, rather than speak on it and possibly contravene any privilege provisions, that the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges.

I am delighted that you saw fit to consult the Fourth Clerk at the Table in the House of Commons and I find myself in complete agreement with his stand as indicated in paragraph 10:

'I think that it might be accepted as a broad general principle that a Member would be in contempt (of the House) if his advocacy in Parliament of a matter in which he had been professionally engaged was in any way proved to be due to a desire to show that he was continuing to give value for the fee marked on his brief. If, however, his parliamentary activities were completely divorced from a furtherance of his lay client's interests at law, there would seem to be no objection.'

And in point of fact, Sir, that was my stand.

However, I can understand the unhappy position in which the Committee found itself where it received the memoranda and representations from the Bar Committee. I refer to the Chairman of the Bar Committee who was asked what if a Member of the Bar in the course of his professional duties learned of matters of national importance and thereafter ceased to act and had his client's permission. And he said that it would be objectionable still. One can only believe that that was his view because he is not a national of this State and it had no reality in the context of his representations. But he says in paragraph 16 that the Bar Committee would still take objection:

'I would still take objection because it seems it could be deemed that the lawyer mentioning this matter would be seeking to attract trade by advertisement.'

Sir, my view is very simply this. If it can at any time be shown that a member of the Bar who is an Assemblyman has acted whether within or without this Assembly utilising his position in the Assembly for purposes of furthering his client's interests or for purposes of furthering his personal interests in attracting trade, then he has acted in a grossly improper fashion - whatever name you may call it by - under the Privileges and Immunities Ordinance of this House, Sir. But where it is completely divorced from any ulterior motive of that character, then there can be no question, as the Fourth Clerk at the Table of the House of Commons said. But I do not wish to lengthen this debate. I shall move no amendments, Sir, I merely wish to record that I am happy that no general principle has been enunciated by the Select Committee which could fetter future Assemblies. I take note that the Select Committee went no further than to say that if I had raised it, and had my conduct been of a certain character in the presentation of the Sardara Singh case, I could have been brought up. I shall not bring it up. In the context of the composition of this House, I shall not take that risk.

2.47 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member for Anson at least has accepted in principle the Report of this Committee of Privileges and the assurance that he, for one, opposes any attempt by any advocate and solicitor to utilise his position in this Assembly for further gain and profit outside. I am sure that is a sentiment which Members of this House will agree with, and I have nothing further to say to it.

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. 10 of 1962.