BARISAN EXPRESS CRITICISES SPEAKER'S RULING

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I wish to draw your attention, Mr Speaker, and the attention of the House to an article which was printed in the Barisan Express dated 12th of June, 1965. The article states briefly that they had intended to move at this sitting of the Assembly a motion which reads as follows:

`That this House resolves that the Government of Singapore should urge the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur to achieve honourable peace in North Borneo and Malaya, including Singapore, on the principles as stated below:'

(1), (2) and so on. And the article goes on to read as follows:

`What the motion propounds is the correct way to settle the Malaysia issue in order to free the people from imperialist rule and realise a peaceful, prosperous, independent and democratic society. However, the day before yesterday, the Assemblyman of our Party [that is, the Barisan Sosialis] received a note from the Clerk of the Assembly stating that the motion was not allowed by the Speaker to be tabled for debate. The reason is, it criticises the resolution of the House on the question of Malaysia and merger, and discusses internal matters which affect other territories outside Singapore.

Before receiving the letter, comrade Assemblyman Chia Thye Poh of our Party [that is, the Barisan Sosialis Party] saw the Speaker to express his views about whether or not the motion should be allowed to be debated. According to comrade Chia, as regards the question of criticising Malaysia and the bogus merger, the fact is that if any constitutional arrangement or any ordinance which is dissatisfactory to the people and has proved to be extremely disadvantageous to the people, the Legislative Assembly should suggest and review revision, repeal such as in the case of the former Rendel Constitution.

As regards the motion which involves the matters of other territories, it is because Malaysia includes North Borneo territories. So it is impossible that what happens in North Borneo will not affect Singapore at all. Such measures as conscription and increased taxation are clear proofs.'

The article goes on to criticise that, because of the Standing Orders, 7 days' notice being required before a motion can be moved in the Assembly, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen complained that they did not have adequate time in which to present any revised version of the motion which they had presented to you.

There are two points, Mr Speaker, arising out of this article. The first point is that it is critical of the Speaker's ruling. Whether this criticism of the Speaker's ruling should be published beforehand, before this Assembly meets, or should be discussed in this Chamber is to be judged a breach of privilege or even a reprimand of the Speaker, I leave it to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the proper procedure, if that is the case, is for a Member from the Government benches or anybody who is complaining to move a motion to that effect, and leave it to me, as Speaker, to decide whether I will allow that motion to be debated without proper notice. I think the Deputy Prime Minister should not go any further than he has actually done. It is possible under our Standing Orders to do that. If the House will bear with me for a minute, I will give them the proper reference.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 10 (1) (s) :

`Motions, with or without notice, complaining of a breach of privilege or affecting the powers and privileges of the Assembly or relating to a report of the Committee of Privileges.'

will come after business motions moved by Ministers. The Leader of the House was drawing your attention to this particular report. Meanwhile, Mr Speaker, Sir, a formal motion is being prepared to be moved immediately after business motions have been moved by Ministers in order that the matter can be properly debated in this House. I think it is important that such criticism of the ruling of the Speaker in an article published in a Barisan journal, the editor of which is a Member of this Assembly, should receive adequate publicity not just in Barisan Express, which is somewhat limited in circulation, but in the more popular channels of public communication.

Mr Speaker: May I direct the attention of the House to the Standing Orders relating to the Committee of Privileges which appear on pages 44, 45 and 46 of the Standing Orders? Now, I should imagine that the circumstances delineated by the Deputy Prime Minister would come under paragraph 92 (7) (d) (ii) :

`Such a motion may be moved without notice if the Speaker is satisfied that the matter raised does, prima facie, affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly and has been raised at the earliest opportunity.'

So that if the motion is moved at the appropriate time and if the mover of the motion satisfies the Speaker that there is a prima facie case and that the matter has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, then the mover of the motion will be allowed to speak on it. No motion will be put to the House, but it will stand adjourned to the Committee of Privileges for determination by this Committee. Is the position made quite clear to Members?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Very well.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: May I carry on, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Dr Toh, provided you do not now touch upon the matters of which you are complaining, you may do so. But if you are going to in any way introduce them, I think it might be somewhat premature. I suggest that we leave it till the proper time when the mover moves the motion.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir. One of my colleagues will move the motion relating to the breach of privilege at the proper time.

But will you permit me to proceed to the second point which I have raised? The second point in the article complains that the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen do not have adequate time to put in any motion at all to the Legislative Assembly for debate because of the existing Standing Orders. Here, I would like very much to clarify to the House, and to the public in general, and to the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen in particular, that if they had any real intention to move or debate any particular motion or to ask any questions in this House, there was adequate time. They complain in this article that this Assembly has not met for the last five months. They had five months in which they could have presented to this House any motion which they thought worth while debating or could have asked any questions. How could they say in this same article, in one and the same breath, that because under Standing Orders seven days' notice at least is required before a private Member can ask questions or move a motion they did not have adequate time? I can only conclude that Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are slow-witted or they have no intention at all to bring up any serious matter for discussion. Therefore, the allegations which they have made in this article are utterly pernicious, false and incomprehensible.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated to the House that there is no right of reply and there is no right to debate on a Ministerial statement. But the Member is at liberty to ask any number of questions he likes provided they arise out of the Ministerial statement. So if the Member will frame his questions, perhaps we might get on with it.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Just now the Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial statement said that an article in the Barisan Sosialis paper made false allegations with regard to some points. Now, which particular points? Can he make any quotations? Is it not true with regard to the notice that seven days' notice is required?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders have been published, copies have been issued to Members of this Assembly, and the public knows what the Standing Orders are all about. If Members of the Barisan Sosialis had any real or serious intention - and if they had their wits about them or they were sufficiently intelligent enough - to move a motion for debate in this House, they had five months in which to do it!

Why do they complain that they do not have adequate time to present a motion? It is true that the Standing Orders say that private Members must give a minimum of seven days' notice. But that did not prevent the Barisan Sosialis from submitting their motions a month ago. What were they doing during the last five months?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, one can see that he has not explained which particular part in the article of the Barisan Sosialis is false. He has tried to give the impression that the article in the Barisan was untrue. But he has not been able to give examples and quotations of the untruths. Is it not a fact that he is deliberately using the privilege in this House to create an impression with the public against the ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I told the Member on the Opposition side that this is a Ministerial statement from the Government Benches and that they may ask questions with no comments on the statement. Any questions relevant to the statement with a view to finding out facts or showing to the Minister that he is mistaken in the Statement are permissible. But no comments on the statement other than those questions, please. Have you finished, Mr Chia Thye Poh? Perhaps you would like to repeat the question? I did not quite follow it myself.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there are certain paragraphs in the Barisan article to the effect that the Assembly have not sat for a few months. Is it not a fact?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, maybe I can be of some assistance to the Member on the other side. I think he may be under some misapprehension that the Standing Orders of this Assembly are like those of the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. I sympathise with the Member for Jurong, because in Kuala Lumpur if his motion does not come up for debate on a particular sitting of Parliament, it disappears from the Order Paper at the next sitting. But I can assure him that in this Assembly, if for any reasons his motion is not reached at this sitting, it will be carried forward on the Order Paper and will receive precedence and pride of place in the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly. Whatever he raises either by way of question or by way of motion, will be debated. It will never lapse into the limbo of unasked questions and unmoved motions as happened to him, with so much of our sympathy with him in Parliament.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not answered my question. Instead he refers to the Parliament in the Central Government. I was asking whether it is not a fact that the Assembly have not sat for half a year.

The Prime Minister: That is the point which my colleagues was trying to make. Had the Member moved a single motion or a single resolution, we would have summoned the Assembly forthwith to debate it. I will give him this offer, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is seriously given now. If he would table any resolution now, today before 4 o'clock, we will meet here this time next week to debate his motion. I give him this categorical assurance. We never run away from our opponents. Maybe in Parliament they are shy of him, but not here. We are not. Table it before four.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the past ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Lim Kim San, next item on the Order Paper, please.