COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (MR J.B. JEYARETNAM)

The Minister for Law and Leader of the House (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1982, and that Mr Speaker do reprimand Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, Member for Anson, for his dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House and do warn him.

Sir, I am moving this Motion in my capacity as Leader of the House. I am also a Member of the Committee of Privileges whose Report is before the House for its consideration. It is my duty, unpleasant as it is, to ask the House to endorse the recommendation of the Committee that we should pass censure on one of our Members.

Sir, this is the first time that such a Motion has been brought before this House. That is some consolation to those of us who are jealous of the honour of Parliament. That does not, however, make today's task any easier. The circumstances in which this matter arose emerge clearly from the Report of the Committee of Privileges which has been circulated amongst Members.

Briefly, the Member for Anson is a practising advocate and solicitor. As such, he had acted for five persons who had been detained under an Order made by the Director, Central Narcotics Bureau, under the Misuse of Drugs Act. At the Sitting of Parliament on 19th March last he raised in this House matters relating to the detention of drug addicts. He should have disclosed that he had acted as advocate and solicitor in those cases, but he did not. At the time one of these cases was still pending in the High Court.

Sir, the Committee found that it was improper for the Member to have raised the matter in Parliament without first disclosing his interest which was, in the view of your Committee, a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter. As for punishment, the Committee are inclined to take a lenient view as the Member is new and has not been for long in this House. The Committee feel that it will suffice if the Member were to be reprimanded and warned by you, Sir, and so recommend.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Motion.

I do not, Mr Speaker, Sir, wish to reiterate in this House the reasons which I had advanced before the Committee why, in my view, there was no question of my having any direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter on which I spoke in this House. In support of my view, I referred, as the Committee says in its Report, extensively to rulings in the United King- dom House of Commons and I did this, as I said earlier at the last Sitting of this House, only because our own Standing Orders provide that when it comes to the question of construction of the Standing Orders then regard shall be had to the practice in the UK House of Commons.

The Committee nevertheless have expressed the opinion that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. The Committee's opinion would seem to be that the action in court constituted my direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter on which I spoke in this House. The opinion assumes that as a direct result of my raising the matter in Parliament I stood to gain in some way in the action in court. This was how the Minister put his case, Mr Speaker, Sir. Without attempting to be disrespectful to the Committee, may I say it is unfortunate that the Committee's Report does not say what the gain to me is and how it would arise. I confess that I still cannot see how I stood to benefit in the action in court by raising the matter which I raised in this House.

As it appears from paragraph 43 of the Minutes of Evidence before the Committee, the Leader of the House spoke of his intention to recommend to the Committee that the Committee should seek the views of the Law Society on the question before the Committee. I confess that, before the Committee, I did not see the need to seek the views of the Law Society on what I thought was a matter for this House. But on further reflection, I am inclined to think that it might have been a good thing to have sought their views because the question is the interpretation of what is meant by the phrase "a direct personal pecuniary interest" which is, after all, a question of law. I see that in the end the Committee did not seek the views of the Law Society.

Mr Speaker, that is all I wish to say on this question that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. I have said enough and I will accept the decision of this House. It may be said that I have no choice but what I wish to say is that I will accept it gracefully, Mr Speaker, Sir, and bow to the ruling.

But before I sit down, may I touch on two matters of fact. The Committee in its Report observes in paragraph 4 (page ii) that I did not inform the House that I had acted, be it noted, that I had acted for the applicants in Originating Motions Nos, 47 and 48 when I read the affidavits filed in those cases. I would ask Members to believe me when I said that I did not mention that fact because I thought it might amount to advertising myself if I drew attention to my having acted for these men in question. Members will recall that in those applications the men were released by the court.

As for the action for damages still pending when I spoke, as I said in this House when the Minister raised the matter, it had completely escaped my mind at that time that there was that action for damages by this man Subramaniam s/o Marie still pending before the court. It is, believe me, Mr Speaker, Sir, simply not possible for an advocate to ramble all his cases in court. I would again like to assure the Members of this House, if any further assurance were needed, that it was not for the purpose of any pecuniary gain that I raised the matter in the House. The thought of any pecuniary gain was never present. I spoke because of my concern that innocent persons might be wrongly detained and I wished to draw the attention of this House to the danger as I saw it.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the Committee had not considered in its Report the question whether two Members of the Committee should have sat in the deliberations of the Committee on this matter that was referred to the Committee. You may recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I saw you after I had first appeared before the Committee on this matter. It is true that when I appeared before the Committee I did not raise this, but again it was simply because it had escaped my mind that I had acted against two Members in the Committee in my capacity as advocate and solicitor.

That is all I wish to say, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me for a few moments.

The Member for Anson, as he has said, referred extensively to resolutions and reports of the House of Commons. But these resolutions were not entirely in his favour. Nor did he cite a case in the House of Commons where an advocate and solicitor spoke on matters concerning his clients and was brought up for a breach before the Committee of Privileges. It is obvious when you are an advocate and solicitor and you have acted in several cases in the High Court that, if you raise these matters in this House, you would be well advised to declare your interest. If you do not do so, then you are exposing yourself to a breach of privilege. What was there to prevent the hon. Member declaring his interest? We do not want to muzzle him. He is free to speak provided he declares his interest, whether it be a direct personal interest.

He questioned why we did not send these proceedings to the Law Society. In Committee, I asked him whether we should. He replied that we should not because the Law Society or the Committee of the Law Society is more concerned with the etiquette of the Bar rather than a breach of privilege in this House. But if he so desires, there is nothing to prevent this House sending a copy of this Parliamentary Report to the Committee of the Law Society for its comments, if any.

Lastly, he spoke of two Members in the Committee whom he objected to because, he thought, they might be prejudiced against him. Sir, the Members of the Committee of Privileges were appointed soon after the General Elections, long before the Member for Anson took his seat in this House. All I can assure him is that these Members were not prejudiced against him. In fact, the decision of the Committee was a unanimous one. All Members were for this Report and for the recommendation. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Leader of the House for his reply. All I wish to say is that I did not say that it should not be sent to the Law Society. All I said was that I did not see the need for the Law Society to be consulted. But if the Committee wishes to send it, of course, I have nothing to say about it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, perhaps at this stage, would you like to withdraw from the Chamber?

Mr Jeyaretnam withdrew accordingly.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a sad and unfortunate situation. As the Hon. Minister for Law has pointed out, this is the very first time in the history of this House that we have such a Motion moved in this House to censure a Member of this House. It need not have come to this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the hon. Member for Anson, as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court, should have known better. All he had to do was to tell the House that, due to an oversight, he had forgotten the requirements of the Standing Orders relating to the declaration of personal pecuniary interest in any matter raised in this House and to apologize to the House. I am sure hon. Members of this House would have taken a lenient view of it and, due to the fact that he was a new boy, would have just cautioned him and let him off.

But now, listening to the Member for Anson a few minutes ago, it is quite clear that he is recalcitrant. He is not prepared to withdraw or he is not prepared to own up that he might have been at fault. He still stands by what he had said before the Committee of Privileges - that what he had done was not wrong, that he had not derived any personal pecuniary interest in those cases that he had raised in this House - and invited the Committee and also this House to pronounce once again as to whether what he had done was right or wrong or whether what he had said before the Committee was, in fact, true or false. The finding of the Committee unfortunately amounts to this, Mr Speaker, Sir: that he had not told the truth before the Committee. The Motion as it stands lets him off lightly. I think we are treating him with unnecessary leniency but I would support the Motion as it stands.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1982, and that Mr Speaker do reprimand Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, Member for Anson, for his dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House and do warn him.

Ordered,

That Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam do attend in his place forthwith. - [Mr E W Barker].

Mr Speaker then called Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam by name, and Mr Jeyaretnam standing up in his place, Mr Speaker, sitting in his Chair, delivered the following reprimand:

The House has expressed its agreement with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1982 and has decided that you are guilty of dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 49) for having raised a matter in the House in which you had a direct personal pecuniary interest without first disclosing the extent of that interest.

Upon the instructions of Parliament, I reprimand you for your dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House and warn you against committing similar breach of privilege in the future.