DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

5.55 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have laid claim to speak on the Motion for Adjournment today on a matter which, I believe, is of considerable importance to the public and which I hope the Cabinet could look into and consider action, if necessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): The matter, Sir, which I am referring to has bearing on the dignity of MPs and their conduct, especially outside this Parliament. With regard to our conduct in this Parliament, I think the Standing Orders determine quite sufficiently how we ought to behave, what we ought to say, what we could and what we could not do. In fact, I am quite highly tempted to pursue the suggestion by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. But I am afraid I have to disappoint him.

Sir, we must accept that the values, the moral beliefs that MPs hold, determine their conduct, whether they be Ministers, whether they be Backbenchers, even Opposition MPs, and this in turn sets the tone of the political life and the quality of political activity in this country. I believe, Sir, we have heard of instances in countries where improper conduct has spelt the demise of governments. Now, while there are clear laws and rules governing who can and who cannot stand for election, there are, I am afraid, no definite guidelines or codes of conduct on how all Members of this House ought to conduct themselves after being elected to Parliament. Their conduct, Sir, is usually based on unwritten assumptions of fair play, moral behaviour and the dignity of their office. But this, Sir, can only be possible if and when each and everyone of us accepts these assumptions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, previously when this House comprised entirely of PAP MPs, control of a Member's behaviour and ensuring the proper conduct of its Members was easy and effective. A high standard of moral conduct was set by the Party leadership and, if I may say so, accepted and generally adhered to by all its Members. However, since the passing of legislation allowing for Non-Constituency MPs and with the entry of Opposition Members to this House, this quality control over MPs' conduct could become increasingly difficult. Now, new MPs like me would therefore be faced with codes of conduct different from what we know. Hence, as one who is new and still learning the rope in politics, I would therefore like to know if there could be some guidelines from Cabinet so that they could serve as common reference for all of us in this House. Sir, I would like to know, so do my new colleagues would like to know too, so do some of my constituents who asked me, they too would like to know.

The need for such guidelines is crucial because virtually everything we do outside this Parliament could be turned to political advantage by an unscrupulous but smooth politician. As an example, it would be entirely absurd for anyone of us to break the law, to get into scandals perhaps, or, even to commit a criminal offence, and then to portray it as a political act or, when convicted of that act, to portray it as political harassment or persecution.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. As I expected, this motion would appear to be directed at ---

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, could the Member for Anson quote the point of order from the Standing Orders?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Leader will only be patient. He has been told he does not know his Standing Orders.

Mr Dhanabalan: Please quote the Standing Orders.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please continue, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may proceed without the Leader interrupting.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Proceed but make your point.

Mr Dhanabalan: What is the point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The point is, as I said, this would appear to be directed at a particular act or conduct on the part of my Party. It is an imputation on my integrity here and, what is more important, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it touches upon matters which are before the courts at the moment. The courts are inquiring into the whole matter at the moment. And here is a Member - I do not know whether he knows what "sub judice" means - who is touching on matters which are strictly sub judice, talking about people convicted, of persons having been convicted in courts. I know what he is driving at and I ask for a ruling. Because if he is allowed to speak on that, then I shall claim the right to speak on the whole facts of the prosecution.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I get your point. Unless reference has been made specifically to a certain case, there is no question of the sub judice rule being applied.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although he did not specifically refer to it, it is quite clear what conviction he is referring to, and that is being dishonest.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Should there be any transgression of the rules, I shall be in a position to rule anybody out of order.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I chose my words carefully when I made the speech.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are being dishonest.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: When I choose examples, I choose external examples. I did not say who they were. I did not mention names. I did not mention MPs. I said, "we", which could mean any one of us here. Unless the Member for Anson is in the business of mind reading and he could read my mind as to what I am imputing, then I suggest he withdraw his objections.

If I may continue, Sir, before I was abruptly interrupted. If acts like these are allowed to go on --

Mr Jeyaretnam: What acts are you talking about?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, if acts like these are allowed to go on, and to continue, there is a real risk of our political process being corrupted. I am sure you have read about these acts in the papers, you have heard from the media. These have happened in other countries.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of clarification. Would the Member be honest and say what acts he is talking about?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the Member giving way?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: No, I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please resume your seat, Mr Jeyaretnam. He is not giving way. Please continue, Mr Tarmugi.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. As I said, things like these have happened in other countries. We have read about them in the papers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Things like what?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: It is examples like these, Sir, which make people view politics as dishonest, as unethical and even as a dirty and immoral activity. Woe betide. Everything, Sir, they say, is fair in love and war. Many would even say of this in politics. But need this be so in Singapore?

Sir, I am well aware of the remarks describing PAP MPs as bland, as uninteresting, as uncolourful, as too prim and proper, as too straight and unbending. In short, a cross between a robot and a priest. It is possible that the codes that we live by make us so. And I concede that perhaps we ought to soften our sharp and rough edges. But I believe, Sir, that we should not compromise our scruples just to further our own political ends, with scant regard for the fate and well-being of our citizens and of our country. This standard, I submit, Sir, could only be maintained if we agree on the fair and proper rules of the game and conduct which all of us in this House, without exception, could adhere to. Therefore, if I could beseech the Cabinet to look into this proper rules of the game, and perhaps respond to my pleas.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Siglap has not got the courage, it would appear, to come quite clean with what he has in mind. That is the sort of conduct we have had from PAP Members in this Parliament. That is the sort of conduct that demeans the dignity of this House. He keeps talking about examples like this and like that. Like what? Why does he not have the courage, if he is a Member of Parliament, to say exactly what he means instead of trying to hide behind mumbo-jumbo?

Sir, I am in full agreement that Members of this House should comport themselves with dignity and decorum, not only in this Chamber but outside it.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ya, ya, ya! Listen. But what demeans the dignity of the Members of this House? Have you considered that? Does it or does it not demean the dignity of the Members of this House when you have Ministers who cannot and will not answer questions directly? Does it or does it not demean the dignity of this House when Ministers do not give even truthful answers to questions asked of them? That is the sort of conduct that demeans the dignity of this House to the people outside?

Secondly, does it or does it not demean the dignity of this House when Members of Parliament do not and will not stand up to be counted according to their conscience? I have seen several instances in this House, since I came in here in 1981, when Members of the Government Party have been strident outside this House, telling their constituents that they are opposed to measures. And they come into this House to try and speak up. But when we put it to the vote, what happens? What happens? I have never had a single Member from the Government Party standing for what he has been voicing outside in protest to his constituents. May I ask whether it is that conduct that demeans the dignity of this House? Or is it the conduct where a Member is seen to be standing up for what he believes to be right, for the principles that he espouses at whatever cost to him? I would ask Members of this House to consider that. Which conduct demeans the dignity of this House? Which conduct demeans or attacks the privilege of this House? We have had someone complaining to this House about his being intimidated when he took part in parliamentary proceedings. Are we not going to uphold the privilege of this House?

So it is these things that demean this House - when Members are frightened to stand up and to be counted for what they believe in or what they profess to believe in outside, when Members sheepishly follow the Party dictate because they are frightened to lose their seats in Parliament because of a loss of monetary gain. Is that not conduct which demeans the dignity of the Members of this House? Or is it conduct where a Member is seen to stand up for the principles that he espouses?

We, on the Opposition Bench, have nothing to be ashamed of. We have stood up time and time again for the principles that we have espoused, and we are prepared to stand up and to be counted. So I would ask Members to think carefully about what conduct demeans the dignity of this House and of themselves as Members.

The Member for Siglap, as I said, was obliquely referring to an appeal that we had made. I could see that that was what he was driving at and that was what the motion was directed at. I am well aware of the Standing Orders that reference must not be made about proceedings in courts. I could speak on it if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will excuse me from the observance of that Standing Order. I could talk about these proceedings. So let us not smugly point an accusing finger without knowing the full facts. If you want to know the full facts about that prosecution, I will be very happy to enlighten you on it. I have tried to do it outside, in the courts. So I would be very happy to do it here, but I am aware of the constraint in this House because these proceedings are still before the courts.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson in his statement was trying to imply that the PAP MPs did not stand up on principles and, because of Party directives, compromised their scruples and allowed themselves to go against their conscience and just voted for the Party's directives. If I understood him correctly, this was what he meant. I think this is the most insulting thing that he has said of the PAP MPs. If he were to refer to the proceedings of this House in the last 10 or 15 years, and if he is honest in his assessment, he will notice that PAP MPs have stood up in this House to challenge Ministers' statements and Government policies on several occasions. They had not flinched when the moments came. But, of course, there were also moments in which they believed in what the Government was trying to do. Of course, the Opposition will never agree with the PAP's ideology and philosophy. And the fact that PAP MPs belong to the PAP must indicate that they believe also in the philosophies and ideologies of the PAP. Therefore, what is wrong for the PAP MPs, on matters of fundamentals which the PAP believes in, to stand with the party? It is perfectly in order.

I think the point behind the motion of the Member for Siglap is this. Let me be very specific so that the Member for Anson cannot say that we are trying to dodge.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sia, you have got half a minute left.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: For example, if the ex-Member for Boon Teck, who had been charged with a criminal offence, turned to soliciting for funds so that he could take up his defence, I think it was not whether he was guilty or not, but I think the very act of soliciting for funds for a criminal charge, whether he was guilty or not guilty is a matter of ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I refuse to give way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is talking about the case.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: No. I am not talking about the merits and demerits of the case. I am talking about ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are talking about the case.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I am talking about the soliciting of funds.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Sia, the time allotted for Backbenchers has ended.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Just give me one minute.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Sia.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Any other Member who did that --

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sia, the time allotted for Backbenchers has ended.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was prepared to give him a few more minutes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Standing Order does not allow that.

Mr Dhanabalan: If there is no objection, I think it is allowed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I on the behalf of the Government respond to the points raised by the Member for Siglap. I agree entirely with the Member that the conduct of Members of Parliament both in the House and, perhaps more so, outside the House sets the tone and character of the whole of our political life and process.

Sir, there are many things that we in Singapore can be proud of. We can be proud of our achievements in providing jobs for our people, homes for our people, education for our people. But I think one aspect that we can be most proud of is our political life and political process. We can be proud without any apology, when there was no Opposition in the House, for the tone and quality that we demanded and set for ourselves as political leaders.

Mr Jeyaretnam: "Yes, Sir. No, Sir."

Mr Dhanabalan: Because what we do, not only determines the political process and the political life but also sets the whole tone of our society.

Mr Jeyaretnam: "Yes, Sir. No, Sir."

Mr Dhanabalan: And there are many, many examples which I can quote of how the whole of society can go to the dogs when the political leaders do not set a high standard for themselves.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do you?

Mr Dhanabalan: I think it was the former First Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Kreta Ayer who said that when PAP MPs enter politics they are taking up holy orders because the standards expected of them, not only in their political life but in their personal life too, are very high indeed. We have also set ourselves very high standards in some of the key institutions that are pillars of our society - our courts, our Parliament, our Cabinet.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Straits Times!

Mr Dhanabalan: These are key institutions of our society. No Singaporean who has the welfare of the citizens and the future of Singapore at heart would do anything to undermine any of these key institutions.

Sir, as long as this House is made up of Members of the PAP, of course, we could set and maintain and impose high standards. And as far as the PAP is concerned, we will continue to maintain these high standards, and we will continue to demand these high standards. I think every PAP member of this House knows the standards demanded of him, and that if he falls short of these standards, he will find himself dropped. Every one of us knows this. HBut for those who are not within the control of the party, I am afraid ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: We cannot say, "Yes, Sir. No, Sir."

Mr Dhanabalan: --- the Cabinet cannot do much. The laws pertaining to the qualification required for candidates for Parliament, the laws relating to the powers and privileges of Parliamentary Members, these only set minimum standards. There is a very wide gap between these minimum standards and the very high standards we set for ourselves in the PAP. We can only look to the good sense of everybody who participates in Singapore political life that we do not narrow these satndards. And apart from setting the example and making the appeal, I am afraid I have to tell the Member fgor Siglap that there is really nothing much we can do. But I think it behoves the Singapore electorate to consider what we have achieved and to always bear in mind that this is one aspect of our life which we have achieved with great cost and which is something that we should not give up easily.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.