REPORT OF THE PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE (Motion)

Mr Deputy Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I support.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves -

(i) that the Report of the Public Petitions Committee (Parl. 3 of 1985) presented on the 16th of October 1985 be rejected; and

(ii) that the Petition which was the subject of the said Report be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting of Parliament, I raised this as being a point of order. I was then told, and the House ruled, that it was not a point of order and that I was not allowed to raise it without having given notice of any motion to this House of my intention to raise it. Of course, I accepted that ruling, and hence I gave notice to raise the motion at this sitting of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hate to say this. But I am convinced that it is a point of order and that it should have been raised at the last sitting. I shall explain why it is a point of order further on when I elaborate on the Standing Orders. But may I say that I have it on no less an authority than Erskine May in his treatise on the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Sir, this particular motion is not brought before this House, let me assure the Members, to save the petitioner from the consequences of any legal proceedings, although it may have that result. But that is not the object of this motion. My object goes much wider than that. It is the whole principle of parliamentary privilege that is at stake.

If you look at the Parliament (Privileges, and Immunities and Powers) Act, you find it enacted that Parliament shall be possessed of several privileges. And, of course, this means Members of the House, and not only Members but persons who take part in parliamentary proceedings are protected. And under the Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities Act, no proceedings in the House shall be questioned outside the House. No one shall be questioned outside the House for anything that he says in this House. And that is important, Sir, because Parliament consists of the representatives of the people. If there is to be frank, full discussion, uninhibited discussion on any matter that concerns the country or its inhabitants, then it is equally vital that that discussion should be protected from any sanction, from any quarter outside the House. That is, may I say, the cornerstone of parliamentary tradition and government. And Parliament has zealously guarded its privileges. It has throughout the ages fought for these privileges and refused to give up any of its privileges.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a Member thought that whatever he said in this House, whatever he said before the Committee, would be questioned outside the House, then there is a clog put on the Member and he will not be able to represent the interests of these for whom he was elected. Equally, I know it does not concern a Member and we are going to be told this does not concern a Member and I see that the Attorney-General falls into that error as well. I shall have something to say about the Attorney-General's opinion. The protection equally applies to any member of the public who takes part in any parliamentary proceedings. Sir, I do not have to spell this out. It must be abundantly clear to Members of the House that if any member of the public is invited to partake in parliamentary proceedings, to give some information to the House, to Parliament, and he does so, then he must be protected from any consequence of having done so that may put him in peril. Otherwise, Parliament will not get the information it needs from members of the public. It is as simple as that. If any member of the public thought, "If I report something to Parliament, I might be faced with a court action or I might be faced with Police action", then he will not report it to Parliament. And Parliament is there for that specific purpose, as the representatives of the people, to consider the people's complaints, the people's interests. So it is important that any member of the public who takes part in parliamentary proceedings is equally protected and he should be assured that he can impart information to Parliament, he can appear before Parliament, before any Committee of Parliament and give evidence without any fear that whatever he said would be questioned outside Parliament. I keep saying "outside Parliament" because Parliament itself may censure any Member for anything he says or does and equally may censure any member of the public if he abuses the privilege accorded to him by Parliament. But it is only for Parliament to decide whether a member of the public has abused this privilege and not for anybody outside. Otherwise, Parliament as an institution cannot flourish. We have already in our statute books the protection accorded to witnesses in court proceedings. Whatever a witness says in court is protected. Likewise, whatever he tells Parliament, Parliament is the high court of Parliament, must be protected.

I mentioned earlier this afternoon about Parliament zealously guarding its powers of taxation. Equally, may I say that we should be zealous of the privileges that Parliament enjoys. Because once you give up those privileges, then the institution of Parliament will decay. The question that arises in this motion is that wide one - not the narrow one of trying to save the petitioner from the legal proceedings to which he has been subjected, but the much wider one - whether we, as Parliament, are zealous of the privileges and rights which are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of Parliament? If we are to uphold the tradition of Parliament, then we must be zealous. We must uphold the right of any citizen in this country to come forward before Parliament and to say, what he wishes to say without fear of any sanction being brought against him. Otherwise, the whole purpose of Parliament is lost.

Now, what is this that this petitioner is complaining? This petitioner was invited, and when I say "was invited", I do not, of course, mean that a special invitation was extended to him, that he was singled out, but he was invited as a member of the public to make representations to the Select Committee on a Bill that was before Parliament. And being a good citizen and being desirous of doing his part, he submitted a representation to the Select Committee on that Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was no doubt that he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings, albeit he was not a Member of Parliament. That, I assure you, is on the authority of cases which go back to the 18th century. He was taking part in parliamentary proceedings. He was invited by the Select Committee as a member of the public to make representations, and he did. So he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings.

After he submitted his memorandum to the Select Committee, the Select Committee concluded its deliberations and published its report and, of course, it included the representation made by this man as an appendix to the report. And he then found that he was faced with legal proceedings in respect of what he said in his memorandum to the Select Committee. So he sought the protection of this House. He asked the House in his petition to declare that it would be wholly wrong to visit him with any sanction because of his having taken part in parliamentary proceedings. That is all he was asking. He was, in fact, saying, "Well, you invited me, honourable Members of Parliament, through your Select Committee, to make representations and I did. And now I am faced with proceedings". And so he asks this House to declare that he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings and that it would be a breach of parliamentary privilege for anyone to question him outside. But what do we do? What did we do to that complaint? It was referred to the Petitions Committee in accordance with Standing Orders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if your look at Standing Order 95(6) which relates to the Public Petitions Committee, you will find what the functions of the Public Petitions Committee are. According to Standing Order 95(6), the functions are:

'It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider all Petitions referred to it under the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 to classify such Petitions, prepare abstracts thereof in such form and manner as shall appear to it best suited to convey to Parliament all requisite information respecting their contents and the signatures attached thereto and to report the same from time to time to Parliament.'

There you have it, the functions and duties of the Public Petitions Committee. It must be apparent to Members from what I have read that the function of the Public Petitions Committee is purely secretarial. They are simply to prepare the petition in such form and manner as shall best convey to Parliament all the information required. In other words, they have got to get information about whatever is said in that petition that is necessary so that Parliament may consider it when it comes to debating the petition. It is not, as I read Standing Order 95(6), for the Public Petitions Committee to decide whether the petition should be considered or not or even to decide on the merits of that petition. It is for Parliament.

But more than that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this petition raises a matter of privilege. And I have it on the authority of Erskine May that if there is a matter of privilege that is raised, then it must be debated by the House. It must be considered by the House and not by a Committee. May I quote from the 19th edition of Erskine May at page 821:

'Petitions affecting privilege. - Although the Standing Orders restrict debate to urgent cases, that restriction does not extend to a petition complaining of a matter affecting the privileges of the House, such a case being governed by the general rule that a question of privilege is always entitled to immediate consideration.'

See how they take the questions of privilege? They take them very seriously.

'Committee on Public Petitions - Formerly, all public petitions, except petitions regarding a personal grievance if dealt with under S. O. No. 101, or matters of privilege, stood referred under Standing Order to the "Committee on Public Petitions," under whose directions they were classified and, when necessary, printed at length.'

The important part of this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that it is only petitions other than Petitions on matters of privilege which stood referred to the Committee on Public Petitions. You have got it there quite clearly. "All public petitions, except petitions regarding a personal grievance ... or matters of privilege,". Except petitions on matters of privilege, other petitions stood referred to the Committee on Public Petitions.

Then Erskine May goes on about the functions of this Public Petitions Committee, and he says later on:

'It had, for instance, no power to investigate or report on the merits of any petition, or to interrogate representatives of government departments or other persons as to possible remedial action.'

That is the 19th edition, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I should inform Members of this House that in the House of Commons, the Public Petitions Committee has been dissolved, and now all petitions go straight to the Minister to be dealt with, except for matters of privilege. The Minister has to report on the petition to the House.

You will find in the 20th edition of Erskine May, Public Petitions, again what has already been dealt with in the 19th edition, the statement that the discussion of petitions relating to present personal grievances, "the petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof". And they give the illustration of a petition that was presented in 1844.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is quite clear that this being a petition raising a matter of privilege should have been considered by the House or should have been referred to the Committee on Privileges. That it is a matter concerning a privilege is even acknowledged by the Public Petitions Committee in its Report, when they set out the head note that the legal proceedings be declared a breach of the privileges of Parliament. How did the Public Petitions Committee go about this? The Public Petitions Committee sought the advice of the Attorney-General on this. The Attorney-General gave his advice. His advice was that Parliament should not do anything about it. I am sorry to have to say this, but the learned Attorney-General is in error. He is abysmally wrong when he states in his advice:

'The privilege of Parliament exists principally for the protection of Members of the House in the performance of their functions. Parliament should not, therefore, readily exercise its jurisdiction over any case involving Parliamentary privilege pending before the court where no Member or officer of Parliament is involved.'

As I have said, parliamentary privilege extends to anybody, a member of the public who takes part in parliamentary proceedings. The Attorney-General would appear to have treated the whole thing as an invitation to Parliament to try and stop the court from hearing the case. That is not the purpose of the petition, and I do not suppose Parliament can just say to the court, "You can't hear this." But that is how the Attorney -General has approached it. That this was perhaps an application to Parliament for a directive to be sent to the court not to entertain the suit. It is a complete misconception on the part of the Attorney-General. And may I say that his advice or report displays, as I have said earlier, abysmal ignorance of Parliamentary practice and procedure. He says:

'Parliament should not, therefore, preclude the court from determining the matter unless it is clear beyond doubt that there has been a breach of one of its recognised and established privileges and that the intervention of Parliament is essential at this stage to prevent obstruction or threat of obstruction to Parliamentary proceedings.'

"Parliament should not preclude the court". The petitioner is not asking Parliament to preclude the court. The petitioner was asking Parliament to declare whether he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings and whether he was within the privilege of Parliament.

The Committee agreed with the Attorney-General's views. As I have said earlier, the Public Petitions Committee had no business to even consider whether the petition should be heard or not. It was not the function of the Public Petitions Committee but, I am sorry to have to say this, they have misconceived their functions and powers and reported in this Report that it would not be proper for Parliament to intervene in the legal proceedings against Mr Sivadas. That Report was tabled, was sent to all Members, but it was never discussed in this House. What is more pertinent is that this petitioner, who presented a petition to this House, was not even given a reply. I understood that until yesterday he had not been given any reply from the representatives of the people to whom he appealed to declare whether he was protected by Parliamentary privilege.

It seems to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is a failing in courtesy on the part of this House, but that is not what I am complaining about. I am complaining about the much wider principle which is at stake, whether we are going to take cognizance of the privileges of Parliament. This being a petition affecting a matter of privilege should be referred to the Committee on Privileges if that is the wish of this House. I am not saying it need necessarily be. It can also be discussed in this House in any debate without reference even to the Committee on Privileges. But in my motion, I have suggested that perhaps we should send the petition now to the Committee on Privileges because it raises privilege. It is important for the powers of this House, for the continuation of the institution of Parliament, that we should show our readiness to extend protection to persons who take part in the proceedings of this House at the express invitation of this House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 7.56 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. Member for Anson.

I would like to refer the House to this Report of the Public Petitions Committee (First Session). This is a very brief Report, comprising of two pages. The Committee comprised seven Members from this House together with Mr Speaker in the Chair. I note that they held only two meetings and out of the two meetings one of the hon. Member was absent. This is to show how interested he was in these proceedings.

The other observation I would like to make is that the whole Report comprised the joint opinions of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. None of the views of any of the seven Members were recorded. I wonder why. Just now I was accused of not having a view. There are seven Members here who have not expressed their views at all, or are they too ashamed to have their views published? I think it is useful for us in Parliament to know what their views are. Having said that, I will refer to the issue at hand, and that is, Parliamentary privilege.

The Attorney-General would appear to agree that any proceedings in this House itself is a privilege, but he is not very sure that when a person presents a representation in one of these Committees whether it is privilege or not, whether it is covered by section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I would say that it is privilege. Why do we need the privilege in all these Committees? Then there would be freedom of speech. Anyone making a representation does not fear that it might end up in a legal suit. He must be protected by Parliament and he must be able to give his representations freely so that these Committees can gather the maximum information so that Parliament can function effectively. That is the rationale behind the privileges.

What does it say in our Standing Order? If you look at Standing Order 104, it says:

'(1) In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(2) In any matter for which these Standing Orders do not provide the said practice shall be followed, but no restriction which the House of Commons has introduced by Standing Order shall be deemed to extend to Parliament or its Members until Parliament has provided by Standing Order for such restriction.'

What I am going to read is that the practice in England is not a restriction. This privilege is a well accepted practice in the House of Commons, in fact, also in the House of Lords. This is Erskine May, 20th edition, at page 88:

'The protection of witnesses etc concerned in proceedings in Parliament. Witnesses, petitioners, counsel and others are protected from molestation, threats or legal proceedings on account of what they may have said or done in either House or a committee thereof. Such persons may be regarded as being participants to that extent in proceedings in Parliament, which, as Article 9 of the Bill of Rights declares, 'ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'. In practice, when such cases of molestation, threats or legal proceedings have been brought to the notice of either House, the procedure adopted for the protection of witnesses and others concerned has been that regularly employed in cases of breach of privilege and contempt.'

So there you are. That is the practice in both Houses of Commons and Lords in England. I will quote further at page 166:

'Legal proceedings against witnesses

Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which he may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a breach of privilege.

The House of Commons resolved on 26 May 1818, [as long ago as that] 'That all witnesses examined before this House, or any committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of this House in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence.'

There are cases cited there which I would not bother the House with. I think the point has been made.

So under our Standing Orders it would appear that Mr Sivadas, when he presented his representation to the Select Committee on the amendments to the Companies Act, does have that privilege and I hope the House will take cognizance of that and vote accordingly for the motion. 8.04 pm

The Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would just like to say a few words before you put the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson as well as the Member for Potong Pasir have spoken at some length on the supremacy of Parliament, especially in relation to the question of privilege, and they have made a general principle on how we ought to jealously safeguard our supremacy in these matters and protect those who appear before Parliament. A general principle is good up to a point but it must be tested against the particulars of the case. So we cannot get away from the particulars of the case before us.

The Member for Anson has, in his usual fashion, made a case on the basis that the legal aspects of this are absolutely clear and that it is an open-and-shut case. This is to be expected, as I think any of us who have had dealings with lawyers would know that lawyers who appear in court are absolutely convinced and speak with great conviction of their case even though they may be defending a client who is guilty. Both the Members are quite entitled to their opinion. But I beg to differ. I would consider it wiser to put my confidence in the views of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the deliberations of the Committee on Public Petitions.

The subject matter of the petition by Mr Sivadas is clearly set out in the Report of the Committee. The crux of the issue is whether Mr Sivadas is protected by parliamentary privilege under either section 4 or section 17 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Mr Sivadas may well be protected. I am not denying that. On the other hand, he may not be. This depends on how the relevant sections in the law I referred to are interpreted. And interpretation of law is not as simple as the two Members would like to make them out to be, and this is precisely the issue which is now before the courts.

The Public Petitions Committee sought the views of the Attorney-General whose view is that the interpretation of the section should be left to the court. The court will consider the arguments presented before it and after deliberations come to a decision on the matter. Parliament can, of course, exercise its powers and make its own interpretation where the case warrants it, for example, where it involves the privileges of a Member of this House. But the Public Petitions Committee has, in my view, quite rightly concluded that the circumstances of this particular case do not warrant pre-emptive action by Parliament and therefore accepted the opinion of the Attorney-General that the court should decide on the matter.

If Mr Sivadas feels that his rights have been violated, he can, I am sure, make a cogent case in the court with the help, if necessary, of the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir in their capacity as lawyers. In the meantime, Members should accept the Report of the Public Petitions Committee and reject the motion by the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If I may say so without being disrespectful to the Leader of the House, I did not expect him to be able to reply to the points that were made. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has completely missed the point probably because he is unable to answer the point that was made and therefore took the easy way out of completely ignoring it and pretending as though the point was not there.

The question is whether it was the prerogative or the function of the Public Peti- tions Committee to decide on the petition. I have pointed out for the information of the Leader of the House that Standing Order No. 95(6) does not give the Public Petitions Committee -

Mr Dhanabalan: That is your view.

Mr Jeyaretnam: - the power to decide. He does not answer that. The Member for Potong Pasir referred the House to Standing Order No. 104 which says that Standing Orders shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - "shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I hope that is plain enough for the Leader and that he understands what that means.

Then I have, so has the Member for Potong Pasir, pointed out that if one looks at the practice in the House of Commons as presented by Erskine May, what does one find? I read this - I do not want to read it again - that if it is a matter of privilege it does not even go to the Public Petitions Committee. It is taken up by the whole House and debated. If the Leader says that the practice of the House of Commons is wrong, then perhaps he should put them right. He should write to the Speaker of the House of Commons and say, "You know, your practice is all wrong. I do not think you should debate matters of privilege. You should send them to the Public Petitions Committee and let the Public Petitions Committee decide that." Would you like to do that and let us know what the reply will be from the Speaker of the House of Commons?

Mr Dhanabalan: Have you finished?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I have not, Mr Leader. Restrain yourself a little bit.

There it is, plain as a pikestaff, that when it comes to matters of privilege, when there is a complaint of a matter of privilege, the House debates it. And it is also provided in our Standing Orders because if it is a matter of privilege it stands referred to the Committee of Privileges. What do you find when you look at the Standing Orders relating to the Committee of Privileges? That is Standing Order 95(7), Committee of Privileges. I do not want to read the whole of that Standing Order but it is paragraph (e) of that Standing Order which is relevant and that is this:

'The Leader of the House shall, upon receiving notice from the Clerk that copies of a report from the Committee have been made available to Members, give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report.'

I hope that is clear to the Leader of the House. What the Standing Order says is that when a matter of privilege has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, and they submit a report,that report on a matter of privilege must be debated in Parliament because the Leader of the House shall, once he receives the report, "give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report." This is why at the last sitting I said I expected the Leader of the House to have given notice of a motion on this petition which affected the privilege of this House. But, of course, he did not. And this is why I tried to raise it on a point of order, and I was told that I was out of order in raising it.

We all know that interpretations of sections are for the courts in proceedings that come before the courts. Here, we have been asked to determine this interpretation. Here is a member of the public who writes to Parliament, to the high court of Parliament, to determine whether there has been a breach of privilege. And it is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to decide that for ourselves whether it is a breach of privilege. The Leader would appear to take refuge or seek refuge behind the Attorney-General and his opinion. But that would be to (again I have to repeat) abdicate the functions of this House. Are we, representatives of the people, not qualified to decide on whether there has been a breach of privilege or not? This Government talks, times without number, about the quality of its Members, "They are all graduates, they are all professional men, top calibre." And now we have the Leader of the House saying we cannot decide on it. We have to accept what the Attorney-General says. It is not for the Attorney-General, Members of the House, to decide on the privileges of this House. It is for the Members of this House to decide the privileges and whether there has been any breach of that privilege. So I am sorry, but the Leader's reply to my motion is no reply. It is a complete evasion and avoidance of the issue raised in this motion and may I say that I find that very regrettable.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I may not be a lawyer but I know where to go if I want legal opinion. I know whose opinion I should accept with confidence. It is up to this House certainly to decide whether they want to exercise their powers and decide on this matter of interpreting the law.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what I asked you to do.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, and this House will decide when it decides on your motion. And as to whether I, as the Leader of the House, should have submitted a report to this House, that depends precisely upon whether the matter was considered by the Committee of Privileges or the Public Petitions Committee. The Member is entitled to his opinion. As I have said, both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the Members of the Petitions Committee, did not come to a decision just in a flash. They also referred to Erskine May. They also referred to cases going back to, I do not know how many centuries.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

Mr Dhanabalan: I am not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Dhanabalan: No. What point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Leader is misleading the House. On a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He says that the Committee -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, could you please resume your seat?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the point I am making is that I have also seen a memorandum running to about 50 pages. It is quite clear that this matter is not as simple as the two Members would like to make it out to be. So it is up to this House to decide whether the particulars of the case require the House to decide immediately what the interpretation should be. And I am saying we should reject the motion and the House should decide that this matter should be left to the courts to decide.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You should not reject the motion?

Mr Dhanabalan: We know we are going by good advice that in this particular case it does not require the House to pre-empt an interpretation by the court. Of course, the two Members would not agree with me. I do not expect them to agree with this. But I expect them to abide by the decision of this House as to whether the House should make a pronouncement immediately or leave it to the court to decide. And in this particular case I say we reject the motion, and leave it to the court to come out with its interpretation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I again (it is already 8.20) -

Mr Dhanabalan: You can put it to the vote.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, no, we are not going to put it to the vote until I have finished because I am the mover of this motion. May we know from the Leader of the House, without any shilly-shallying, without being equivocal in all his answers, whether, first of all, this petition concerns a matter of privilege and, secondly, whether he agrees that the practice in England as set out in Erskine May is for all matters of privilege to be debated by the House? And if he agrees with that, would he tell this House when was this petition debated by this House? He says we can, of course, decide. But this is exactly what -

Mr Dhanabalan: This is exactly for the House to decide.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is exactly what I am saying in this Motion that this House should decide on the complaint. It has not been decided by this House. It should be debated in open Parliament on this quest- ion and then, for the information of the Leader of the House, we will show that there is clearly a breach of privilege. There is abundant authority for it. But I do not want to go into that because this is not the point. I am taking it up purely on a procedural point. The petition has not been dealt with, as required by Standing Orders and by the practice in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is my point, it has not been dealt with. And the poor petitioner has not even been told. But now, of course, he will be told that Parliament has not even dealt with his petition. It was a waste of time writing to Parliament.

Mr Dhanabalan: I think I ought to make two points clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. First of all, whether this matter should be considered by the Public Petitions Committee or the Privileges Committee. I have been advised -

Mr Jeyaretnam: By the Attorney-General.

Mr Dhanabalan: - that the particular clause establishing the Public Petitions Committee of this Parliament is not exactly the same as that in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the question of whether parliamentary privilege in this particular case has been in some way infringed is precisely the point that is before the court. And I say, "Let the court decide."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I heard the Leader of the House say that he has been advised that something is not the same as the practice in England. Would the Leader please repeat that?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member would have us believe that the Public Petitions Committee is no more than a purely secretarial body. And my advice is that it is not so. It has got the right to consider a petition and pronounce on it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Could you please produce the authority for that? Who is this wise man who gave you the advice? Or will you produce chapter and verse from Erskine May?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is the motion* so moved by the Member for Anson.

*The motion reads as follows:

That this House resolves --

(i) that the Report of the Public Petitions Committee (Parl. 3 of 1985) presented on the 16th of October 1985 be rejected; and

(ii) that the Petition which was the subject of the said Report be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I ask for a Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 42; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes (cont.) Chiam See Tong Lee Yiok Seng Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Noes Lim Boon Heng Ng Kah Ting Abbas Abu Amin Othman Haron Eusofe Abdullah Tarmugi Ow Chin Hock Ahmad Mattar Sidek bin Saniff Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Beng Kian Lam, Tan Guan Seng Arthur Teh Cheang Wan Chai Chong Yii Teo Chong Tee Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Vasoo, S. Chin Harn Tong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ch'ng Jit Koon Wong Kan Seng S. Dhanabalan Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Goh Chee Wee Yatiman Yusof Goh Choon Kang Yeo Cheow Tong Heng Chiang Meng Yeo Choo Kok Hu Tsu Tau Yeo Toon Chia Koh Lam Son Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Koh Lip Lin Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Abstention Lau Teik Soon Lee Hsien Loong Tan Soo Khoon Motion accordingly negatived.