BREACH OF PRIVILEGE OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BY CHEN SIEN PAO

3.27 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 92 (7) relating to the Committee of Privileges, I beg to move,

That an article in the Chinese language published in the issue of the Barisan newspaper (Chen Sien Pao) of the 12th June. 1965, criticising the ruling of Mr Speaker made on or about the 10th day of June, 1965, in respect of a motion filed, in this Assembly on the 7th day of June, 1965, by the Member for Jurong and supported by the Member for Tampines, constitutes a breach of privilege of the Assembly committed by the publishers, printers and the editor of the said newspaper and the author of the said article.

Mr Speaker: May I have a copy of that motion?

(Copy of motion handed in.)

Mr Speaker: Mr Deputy Prime Minister, have you also the original publication and the translation available here?

(Copies of the original publication and translation handed in.)

Mr Speaker: Mr Deputy Prime Minister, I am looking for the portion which criticises the Speaker's ruling.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It is on page 3, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Page 3 of the translation, is it?

Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: On the first part of the sub-clause whether there is a prima facie case, I am satisfied that there is a prima fade case casting aspersions on the ruling of the Speaker. But the second point on which I wish to be satisfied is that the matter is raised with due diligence. When did it first come to the mover's notice?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I obtained a copy of the said newspaper only this morning, Mr Speaker, and I had it translated straightaway. The translation reached my hands only a few minutes ago in the Chamber. So this was taken up at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Speaker: In view of what the mover of the motion has said, I am satisfied that, prima facie, it seems to affect a matter of privilege. This, of course, is merely a prima facie ruling, it may well turn out not to be so. The mover of the motion has satisfied me that he has raised the matter at the earliest possible opportunity, he having only read it this morning. That being the case. Mr Deputy Prime Minister, you may move your motion and speak on it, but it will not be put to the House and it will stand referred to the Committee of Privileges. The mover need not speak on it, but if he wants to, he may. I am just acquainting him with his rights under the Standing Order.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I want to add anything more to what has been said, but I would like to say this, for the purposes of clarifying this point. The Speaker is not above the law, and if any Member of this House is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Speaker, it is open to him to move a substantive motion to criticise and reverse such a ruling. That is the proper procedure. And it is open to the Member for Jurong. We are not trying to stifle debate or argument, Mr Speaker, Sir, which is the imputation of the whole tenor of that article. The proper procedure in any debating Chamber where the Speaker's ruling is not considered satisfactory or in accordance with the Standing Orders on Parliamentary practice is for a substantive motion to be moved against such ruling.

Mr Speaker: I take it, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, that you do not wish to speak on the motion?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No.

Mr Speaker: The motion will then, under the Standing Orders, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.