REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (Complaint by Member for Anson)

2.36 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

*The motion reads as follows:

That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report as contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Report of the Committee of Privileges arises out of a complaint by the Member for Anson that the Minister for Finance was guilty of abuse and breach of privilege in that he made the following statements :-

"(a) 'Sir, we saw during those days how the Member for Anson, when he was Chief Minister, was chased from pillar to post, allowed the administration to collapse, allowed the whole apparatus of State to be regarded with contempt by people who should have been taught a lesson. The result of his feeble, weak, vacillating policies was that ultimately when the Communists mounted the effort against him, he was reduced to a quivering, whimpering, half-demented...'

(b) 'It is quite unnecessary for me to conjure up imaginative events when they are recorded in newspaper accounts, when everyone knew that when the major effort was mounted against him, he fell sick.'

(c) 'And in Singapore, one degree North of Equator, where the temperature is always above 80 degrees, the Member for Anson had to go around in woollen suits, and eventually...'

(d) 'Quite unlike the Member for Anson, Sir, who tries to avoid unpleasant decisions, we stand up to the challenge, Mr Speaker, Sir. We do not scoot like cowards, like the Member for Anson'".

The complaint of breach of privilege by the Member for Anson could not be sustained by the Committee as it is accepted that there should be freedom of speech and debate in the Assembly so long as the rules of debate and order contained in the Standing Orders are observed. And indeed this privilege of speech is empowered in the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Ordinance of 1962. In fact, in the evidence given by the Member for Anson himself on the 26th June, he admitted that there could be no breach of privilege. I quote from page C24 of the Report, col. 23, questions 52 to 54:

'52. Mr Rajah: Now, may I deal with the breach of privilege first, Mr Marshall?

Mr Marshall: No. If I might answer that, Mr Rajah. I am not well aware of, how shall I say it, the law with reference to this but I have since then looked at it and it seems to me that it is an abuse of privilege rather than a breach of ---

53. Mr Rajah: That is what I was trying to get at. If anything is to arise out of this, it is under the head of abuse of privilege and not a breach of privilege?

Mr Marshall: I think that is correct.

54. Mr Rajah: You will accept that?

Mr Marshall: I think so, yes. Because he has a privilege to speak, so there is no breach of privilege there in standing up to speak.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, having dismissed the complaint of breach of privilege, the Committee went on to consider whether the Minister for Finance, had committed an abuse of privilege. The position of Members during a debate in the Assembly has been very succinctly and aptly described by the Member for Farrer Park in the Minutes of Evidence - page C32, col. 40, question 120. This is what the Member for Farrer Park said:

'120. Mr Rajah: There is this one aspect that is worrying me. It seems to me, listening to Mr Marshall, that it is a question of strong language bordering on whatever he feels it is. Now, on that aspect, Mr David Marshall, if I enter a boxing ring, I expect to be hit and hit hard with the gloves; and if I enter the political arena, I expect to be hit hard, I must not be over squeamish. Now I am just wondering, Mr David Marshall, whether, we all being politicians, we hit hard sometimes and if someone hits us equally hard, should we object?'

The real complaint by the Member for Anson can be seen in his reply. He had this to say.

`The answer to that, Sir,...'---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that his duty now is just to present this Report and not to justify it. He presents this Report. This is the Report of the Committee of Privileges. If it is challenged, then, of course, the Leader of the House comes forward to justify it. He is now reopening the whole matter.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I am precisely doing that, presenting the Report to this House. The conclusions have been drawn here, that the Committee has not considered this a breach of privilege and that the Committee has not considered it an abuse of privilege. So I am just seeking to explain to the House why it is not an abuse of privilege and how this Committee arrived at those conclusions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Leader of the House will find all the reasons given in the Report. All these things were considered by the Committee and it has come to certain conclusions. The Leader of the House just presents those conclusions to the House. If the conclusions are challenged, then, of course, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to justify those conclusions.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the motion moved by the Member for Anson referred to a possibility that the Minister for Finance was guilty of abuse of privilege. This Report shows that the Minister for Finance had in fact not committed a breach of privilege. As you wish it, Mr Speaker, I will just read out from the Report the conclusions that the Committee has arrived at. It is at page 3, paragraph 18 onwards:

'18. The statements complained of were uttered in the heat of debate in answer to points raised by Mr David Marshall, as can be clearly seen in the official report, an extract whereof is annexed hereto. Your Committee are therefore satisfied that there is no evidence that the statements were made deliberately or maliciously.

19. Your Committee are further satisfied that the statements complained of contain no more than assessments made by Dr Goh Keng Swee of the political and administrative situation at the time Mr David Marshall was Chief Minister. The statements also contain comments which are critical of and express opinions in regard to the political conduct and activities of Mr David Marshall at that time. The denials made by Mr David Marshall do not, in the view of your Committee, take the matter any further. They merely served to and did excite an exchange of political arguments, a great deal of which was irrelevant to the issue before your Committee. As the contending arguments put forward can be honestly maintained on either side, your Committee consider that it cannot be said that the statements complained of are false.

20. Your Committee, therefore, find that the claim by Mr David Marshall that in making the statements complained of, Dr Goh Keng Swee was guilty of an abuse of privilege cannot be sustained.

21. Your Committee note that the language used by Dr Goh Keng Swee was couched in intemperate terms, but, having regard to the heat of the moment, and the undoubted provocation accorded to Dr Goh Keng Swee as a Member of the Government when Mr David Marshall criticised the Government for the use of military forces "in a highly provocative manner", your Committee make no recommendation in the matter.

22. In the light of the above, your Committee recommend that no action be taken on the complaint of Mr David Marshall.'

Question put, and agreed to.

The Prime Minister: No division?

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter which affects the Assembly. It does not affect any individual.

Resolved.

That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report as contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1962.