PARLIAMENT (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

First Reading

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intitled "An Act to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 49 of the Revised Edition)."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Dhanabalan: Now, Sir.

Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, Sir, printed copies of the Bill are with hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in 1962. The existing Act was therefore passed when Singapore was not an independent nation. Certain powers that the UK House of Commons has, such as the power to commit a person to prison or expel a Member from Parliament, were excluded in the Ordinance of 1962. It therefore deprives Parliament of powers that a Parliament of an independent sovereign state should have. This Bill seeks to rectify this inadequacy by amending the present Act to confer on our Parliament the same powers, privileges and immunities as those enjoyed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as at the date of our independence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is the supreme legislative body in our nation. It is obvious that our deliberations, the laws that we, the elected representatives, enact and the decisions we make here, establish the framework for every activity of our people.

It is less obvious that the manner in which this Parliament conducts itself is equally important. Parliament is more than a legislative body. It is the key institution in our political process. It is the centre of the democratic system that we have chosen for ourselves. The kind of people who become Members of this House, how they conduct themselves in the business of the House, what they say, are all as important as the laws that are passed by Parliament. The proceedings in this House, the dignity and decorum maintained by Members in debates and discussions, the arguments they advance in support of their point of view, will all have a perceptible impact on the tone and the orderliness of our political processes. They even help shape the values and tenor of our society as a whole because every Singaporean can now see for himself or herself the proceedings in Parliament through television. The visual images and the actual sound have a far greater impact than the cold print in the newspapers or in the official reports of Parliament.

From 1961 to 1981, for 14 years, the PAP occupied every seat in this House. We shaped Parliament into an institution which approached the task of nation building in a serious and sober manner. There were, of course, differences of views and sharp exchanges. But in all the proceedings, Members always conducted themselves in a manner that did not bring Parliamentary proceedings into disrepute. We did not lose sight of the importance of maintaining the prestige and respect for key institutions, such as Parliament and the Judiciary. Parliament is not a circus or theatre to provide entertainment to the population although we have television here. Nor is it a safe refuge for Members to undermine the confidence in key institutions in our society by making defamatory statements or unsubstantiated allegations.

The conduct of business in Parliament in some countries has degenerated into a raucous, rowdy, disgraceful process. In fact, some Parliaments are deliberately keeping out television coverage of their sittings because they do not want their people to see the disgraceful manner in which they conduct their business. Shouting, ranting, jeering, tripping Members who are walking past, many Members speaking at the same time and the constant shouts of "Order" from the Chair are the norm. Even physical violence is not unknown. Lately, in this House, we have seen some examples of the abuse of Parliamentary privilege and a tendency towards rowdiness. We must not allow our Parliament to degenerate into what it has become in some other countries. This Government has no intention to allow such degeneration.

The present laws allow complete freedom of speech in Parliament. It is a rare privilege. Where there is wrongdoing in government or society, Members must have the freedom to bring it to the attention of the nation through Parliament and they should enjoy protection and immunity from civil proceedings. But rights and privileges must be accompanied by responsibility and duty. Members have a duty not to abuse such privileges or to commit contempt of Parliament. Should we allow Members to abuse this special immunity by defaming the character of innocent third parties who are not only unable to defend themselves but have no redress? Should Members be allowed to abuse the privilege by making totally unfounded allegations which they are not prepared to substantiate? If we allow this, our Parliament will degenerate into a disreputable institution. If we are not to allow this, Parliament must have the full panoply of powers to deal with delinquent Members. This is one of the objects of the Bill before us today.

By bringing our laws in line with that of the United Kingdom, Parliament will have powers to impose the following penalties:-

a) Committal to prison (new power);

b) Expulsion (new power);

c) Suspension (existing power);

d) Fine (existing power); and

e) Reprimand (existing power).

In addition, this Bill seeks to introduce ---

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, before the recess for lunch, I listed the powers that this Parliament will have as a result of bringing our laws in line with that of the United Kngdom.

In addition, this Bill seeks to introduce a new punitive measure that is less severe than suspension but more heavy than a fine or reprimand. Under this new measure, Parliament may allow a Member found guilty of abuse of privilege to continue to sit in the House and participate in all the business of Parliament but the Member's immunity from civil proceedings under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may be suspended for a specified period. Parliament can, by resolution, thus deal with any Member who is wantonly given to reckless and defamatory statements in Parliament against the Government, against other Members of the House or against members of the public. The defamatory statement that leads Parliament to taking action under this provision will itself be immune from civil proceedings. But if a Member makes such statements during the period that his privilege is suspended, the aggrieved parties can seek redress through civil proceedings.

A Member's right to bring any issue before Parliament will not be restricted but a Member who is punished under this section will naturally have to take care during the specified period that he does not say anything that will cause civil proceedings to be taken against him. In this respect, he will be no different from any responsible member of the public or a politician who comments on national issues or even a Member who speaks outside Parliament on such issues.

This Bill is being taken through on a Certificate of Urgency in order to ensure immediately that the debates and proceedings in Parliament and the Committees maintain principles of truth, dignity and decorum.

As Members are aware, the Committee of Privileges will be meeting soon to consider a complaint of abuse of privilege against the Member for Anson for making very serious allegations of executive interference in the Judiciary.

It will be the task of the Committee of Privileges to ascertain the truth in a sober and dignified manner and not allow it to become a forum for another debate, an opportunity for more smears or a platform for histrionics. Decorum must be preserved and proper procedures followed in the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Speaker, as Chairman, must be given full powers to ensure that dignity and orderliness are maintained at all times.

The Bill proposes to give the Speaker summary powers so that all who appear before the Committee will know that they will face severe penalties if they do or say anything that debases the image of Parliament or its proceedings. Parliament has had to consider more instances of abuse of privilege in the last 1(r) years than in the previous 20-odd years. We must put matters right immediately and not allow any further deterioration of standards.

The various new punitive powers of Parliament will not apply to any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt committed before the coming into operation of this Act. It will only apply to conduct in Parliament and Committees after the date on which this Act comes into operation.

I shall now take the main provisions in the Bill. Clause 2 gives the base line of this Parliament's powers, privileges and immunities. It is that of the UK House of Commons as it was on the day Singapore became independent, ie, 9th August 1965. This is the logical date as it is the date when our Parliament became a sovereign legislature like the House of Commons in the UK. The cut-off date is to ensure that, as a sovereign legislature, we are not bound by subsequent changes in the United Kingdom. It is also in conformity with similar provisions in the Commonwealth, like those in Australia and India.

Clause 3. This clause makes it clear that the powers conferred by the other provisions of the Act are in addition to the powers conferred by following the UK model.

Clause 4. Section 11 of the principal Act, that is the Act now in force, states that Parliament shall have no power to commit any person to prison nor to expel any Member from Parliament. This section is now repealed.

The powers to commit or expel a Member are well recognized powers possessed by the UK House of Commons and other independent legislatures.

Clause 5. This clause sets out the punitive powers of Parliament for any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt on the part of a Member or stranger.

The present sections 20 and 21 are repealed and the sections are re-enacted with new provisions.

The re-enacted section 20(1)(a) will give Parliament the power to commit a Member to prison for a term not exceeding the current session of Parliament. In subsection 1(b), the maximum fine is increased from the present $1,000 to $50,000 to bring the maximum fine in line with current incomes and value of money, and to ensure that it is an adequate deterrent. The other subsections of 20(1) are the same as in the existing Act.

Subsection 20(2) introduces the new punitive power which I described earlier. A new provision, which is less drastic than suspension, is made to deal with a Member who abuses privilege in respect of what he says in Parliament by making, for example, defamatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations. In certain cases of such abuse of privilege, committal to prison, expulsion or suspension may be too harsh, while a fine or reprimand may be too lenient. Therefore, this new provision is introduced.

Subsection 20(3) covers Parliament's powers to deal with contempt on the part of strangers. The power to commit to prison is included and the maximum fine that can be imposed is increased to $50,000. The other powers remain the same.

The new sections 21(1) and 21(2) are in substance the same as the present provisions.

Under the new section 21(1)(a), any person who commits any offence mentioned in section 20, ie, dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, in the view of Parliament whether in the precincts or when Parliament is sitting or in any committee, can be dealt with summarily. This is the same as in the present law except that the punitive measures taken against such a person are covered by the expanded provisions of the re-enacted section 20.

The new sections 21(1)(b) and (c) are the same as the existing provisions.

The new section 21(2)(a) makes clear that a Member found guilty can also be expelled from the House in addition to the punishments described in section 20. This power derives from the repeal of section 11 and the re-enactment of section 3 giving Parliament the powers of the UK House of Commons.

The new section 21(2)(b) is the same as the present provision.

Section 21(3) provides new powers to the Speaker or Chairman of any Committee of Parliament. It gives powers to the Speaker or Chairman to deal summarily with any Member or stranger who commits contempt while Parliament or a Committee is meeting. The Speaker or Chairman can inflict any of the punishments listed in section 20. Such decisions by the Speaker or Chairman will take immediate effect but Parliament can annul or vary the decision by resolution. These powers of the Speaker or Chairman are necessary to ensure that all Parliamentary or Committee meetings are conducted with due dignity, order and solemnity.

Section 21(4) enables Parliament or the Speaker to take into account previous contempt by a Member which Parliament or the Speaker may have chosen to overlook in the expectation that it would not be repeated.

Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the procedures of issue of warrant for arrest and imprisonment initiated by Parliament or by the Speaker.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I want to state that there is a need to do a thorough review of the whole of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. If such a review shows that further amendments are required, they will be introduced in due course.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was waiting for Government Ministers to speak. Obviously, they do not propose to speak in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I got the notice of Parliament sitting on the 18th of this month, giving the exact number of days required for the notice that Parliament would sit on the 25th of this month, I wondered what was afoot because it had been my experience that there was always an interval of two months or even more after every sitting of Parliament. But here, Parliament was summoned within three weeks of the previous sitting. So I wondered and, of course, the mystery came to light when I received at my office the Bill that the Government proposes to take through all stages on a Certificate of Urgency. So that was why Parliament was being summoned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I shall not be accused of trying to impugn the President or trying to bring down the President when I question the Certificate of Urgency. It is signed by the President, of course. But the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet.

As was mentioned in the report in the Straits Times, a Certificate of Urgency is usually given for money Bills where Government is in need to immediately raise a tax or for some other fiscal measure. It is also, of course, given in cases of a national crisis or emergency, quite apart from money Bills. But here we have the Government coming to this Parliament with a Certificate of Urgency on a Bill which proposes simply to discipline, it says, Members of Parliament. May I ask: what is the crisis? What is the urgency that requires that this Bill be debated and taken through all stages?

May I say that the Minister spent about 20 minutes on this Bill. This is a very momentous Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it shows the sort of understanding that has been given to what is involved in this Bill by this Government, that the Minister spends only 20 minutes introducing the Bill and half of it is taken up with pedantically pointing out to the Members of the House the changes in the Bill. May I say - and I hope the Minister does not think this an insult and move a motion for committal of me to the Committee of Privileges again - may I say that the Minister shows a complete inability to comprehend what is involved in this Bill. May I say this, again without insulting the other Members of the House. There is one man who does understand what is involved in this Bill, the one man who knows all about parliamentary government, because he was involved in the setting up of parliamentary government way back in 1959. And I see he is not here. Should he not be here? Should he not move this Bill? Or may I ask: is he a trifle ashamed of this Bill that he has decided that it would be better if he stayed away from any discussion on this Bill?

My first question is: what is the great urgency in this Bill without giving Members an opportunity to ponder over its consequences, over its implications. And for the public at large - let us not forget the public at large - to consider and to state their views. It would appear from what has fallen from the lips of the Leader of the House that the great urgency is that it should be made to apply to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges when it considers the complaints against me. Am I to understand then that the intention is that I should be severely limited when I appear before the Committee of Privileges? Is that the sole intention so that I may not be allowed to make my full defence and to state what I wish to state? But that I should be hedged in by these powers and threatened with expulsion or imprisonment or fined if I dared say anything. Is that the intention? Is that why this Bill is being rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency through all stages? May we have an answer to that question? Because one would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we could have waited until the Committee of Privileges had reported on these various complaints and then considered whether there was any justification or not. And then to bring in, if necessary, a Bill to remedy the state of affairs where a Member brings in unjustified allegations. That is not to be the case. It would appear that it is taken without question that all allegations were unsubstantiated, that all statements made were defamatory, that there can be no question about that they are and we have got to bring in this Bill now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in his press briefing and in his speech this afternoon tried to give the impression that the whole purpose of this Bill is to maintain and uphold the decorum of the House. That is what the Government would like to convey through their Government media to the public so that the public may be lulled, may be led into thinking that all that the Government is concerned with is decorum of the House. But may I assure the Leader of the House that the public do not need any more representations. They already know what the purpose of the Bill is. Ever since it came out in the Straits Times or the press on Friday, people in coffee shops, in market places, have stated quite clearly what they thought was the whole purpose of the Bill. And therefore they do not need any more representations by the Government media or the Government-controlled press and the Government TV as to the need.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I only have about 60 minutes. But it is necessary that I, within the time limited to me, strip the Bill of the hypocrisy that surrounds it. And I say it is sheer hypocrisy to say that this Bill is brought in to maintain the dignity and the decorum of the House. It is brought in, as I shall try and show, for one purpose and one purpose alone. It is brought in and rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency to silence the criticism of the Government because the criticism is beginning to hurt. It is beginning to hurt and it must be silenced somehow at whatever cost it may be to the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not in 1962 that we first had a law enacting the privileges and powers of the Legislature. Of course, the PAP thinks that the history of Singapore only began in 1959. Well, they may think that. One has to sympathize with their delusion. But there was in 1955, Mr Speaker, Sir, Ordinance No. 30 of 1955 which dealt with the powers, privileges and immunities of the then Legislative Assembly of Singapore. And from 1955 to 1959, Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Benches. It was the Labour Front government, first under Mr David Marshall and then under Mr Lim Yew Hock, which held the reins of government. And our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Bench. And may I assure Members who may not have read the reports of what took place in the Legislative Assembly from 1955 to 1959 that they were by no means tame proceedings. They were not, as I shall say, family tea parties. The Prime Minister who was then standing where I am now standing and heading the Opposition in Singapore, took the government to task at every turn and corner. And proceedings in the Legislative Assembly then were characterized by sharp criticisms from the present Prime Minister speaking from the Opposition. They were by no means sedate tea party gatherings of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. He needled them, he probed them, he challenged them. And quite rightly, because he knew what was expected of an Opposition Member in Parliament. And he did his work very well with the result that in 1959 he was able to bring his Party to power. So let us not forget that period, 1955 to 1959, what the Prime Minister was doing when he was in the Opposition.

But did the colonial government then consider bringing in a Bill to expel him, to send him to prison or to fine him? Whatever one might say about the British, they have a sense of fair play, and they decided that he must be allowed to have his full say. Because they were all brought up on the whole question of parliamentary tradition. And we were learning in those days the British parliamentary tradition, and so he was allowed full rein in the 1955 to 1959 Legislative Assembly. And then, of course, after the PAP took over the government of this country, except for a short period when Members of the Barisan Sosialis occupied the Opposition Benches, the House was dominated by the People's Action Party. And for 15 years, was it, the House consisted entirely of Members of one political party.

In 1962, the Government introduced a new Bill, which we are now seeking to amend. That was introduced by the PAP Government and that Bill sought to apply in Singapore the privileges, immunities and powers of the Commons House of the United Kingdom Parliament "for the time being"; in other words, this Parliament, Members, were to enjoy the same privileges and powers and immunities that are enjoyed by the British Commons House of Parliament at the relevant time. So I think it was to continue the same powers, privileges and immunities that were enjoyed by the UK Parliament. The operative words were "shall be the same as those for the time being held." So there was a continuous investing in this Parliament of the same privileges and immunities and powers as the British Parliament enjoyed. Why did the Prime Minister then agree to that? Because that brought it into line with the current British practice. But I shall again show very shortly that it is a myth, a fallacy to say that we are now bringing it into line with current British practice. We have not been told why, having introduced that in 1962, it now becomes necessary to drastically change all that, and to limit our powers, privileges and immunities to those enjoyed by the British House of Commons in 1962.

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite plain why after 27 years the Government has decided that they must change. For 27 years they were quite content to follow the UK Parliament. As I said, between 1963 (certainly after 1963) and until 1981, meetings of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament after that (from 1965 onwards) were sedate. They were the PAP family tea parties. And Parliament served the purpose of the Government admirably. Of course, there were Members who questioned Papa about one or two little things. But if Papa said, "No, it is not good for you, children" everybody said, "Yes, Papa, we agree. We will go out and tell the people." So that was what Parliament was - dominated in its entirety by one party without any place for criticism on behalf of those who dared to disagree with what the Government planned. So there was no need for any change.

But in 1981, something happened. The people of Singapore decided that Parliament should no longer be just the PAP family tea parties but that Parliament should begin to serve its true function and purpose that is expected in a parliamentary democracy. So they elected a Member from outside the People's Action Party into Parliament. Then, of course, we immediately saw what our Prime Minister and our leading Ministers thought about all this. They, who had been paying lip service to the idea of parliamentary democracy, immediately decried the presence of an Opposition Member in Parliament. That is the hypocrisy that we have got in this place, and I see the Leader of the House uses the same words as the Prime Minister used, "that Parliament is not a place for theatrics. Parliament is not a place for drama." So the Government, for the first time after 15 years, came up with having to face criticism in Parliament. Of course, they could not take it. Of course, during those 23 years there was perfect decorum in the House, as I said, because everybody bowed and walked out. After 1981 it no longer was a family tea party. There was a stranger in the House who was not a Member of the PAP family, and he was being a bit troublesome, forgetting quite deliberately that Parliament is not a family tea party of one political party but that Parliament is the chamber in which the government is taken to account, that Parliament is the Chamber in which searching questions are asked of the government, of the executive. And so we saw attempts, even before the 1984 Elections, to try and shut me up. Then came the

1984 Elections and the Government got a jolt, a setback, because the public had decided to reduce the percentage of votes that the Government had had enjoyed; and for good measure they sent another Opposition Member into Parliament. Government became more and more embarrassed.

This Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am sorry to have to say this because we will have to strip the hypocrisy that surrounds it - is introduced solely and only for one reason, and that is, because I had come to this House and said that there was public disquiet about transfers of the Subordinate Court Judiciary after they had given decisions unacceptable to the Government. I ask the Government, the Ministers, to be honest about this and say what other reason is there? I will not go into the question about my allegations because they are before the Committee of Privileges. But there we have it, the Government unable to accept the charge. A government that is committed to parliamentary democracy will not do this, introduce a Bill to shut the Member up. It will lay open the whole machinery to satisfy Parliament and the public that there can be no room for disquiet. But not this Government.

The statement that it brings us into line with British practice and with other Commonwealth countries - I have already said that it does not, not with the current UK practice, because after this we shall not be able to look at anything of the changes that have taken place in the UK Parliament after 1962. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to imprison. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to expel, but they are not contained in an Act. These powers have been won by Parliament in its struggle with the Executive over 200 years, 300 years. And Parliament was asserting itself as the supreme body. Parliament was denying to the Courts, to everybody else, any power to question Parliament and of it being the only judge of what was said in Parliament, and therefore, Parliament had to have these powers in those days. But, if one looks at Erskine May, one will find that these powers were exercised in the last century and the century before that. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has made any study of the powers of punishment by the UK Parliament now, whether it has sent anyone to prison and whether it has expelled anybody over the last so many years. Parliament is not a static body. Parliament has to move along with the times.

The other thing is, has this Government made a study of the nature of the abuses of privilege that the UK Parliament has sought to punish? Is it an abuse of privilege - I know this is coming up before the Committee of Privileges, but is it an abuse of privilege to question the Government, to question the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary? These are the basic questions that we have got to answer. What amounts to an abuse of privilege? What amounts to contempt? What amounts to dishonourable conduct? If you are going to label everything - the Leader of the House says "he makes defamatory statements about the Government". He forgets that the Opposition are there, if necessary at times, to make defamatory statements about the Government, to challenge any Government action and to ridicule it. What is the Opposition in Parliament for? Simply to say "Aye, Aye" to whatever the Government says? Is the Opposition here in Parliament simply to accept whatever the Government says? It shows a complete ignorance of what parliamentary government is all about. So I think it is a fallacy to say that we are bringing it into line with the practice in the British Parliament. This is a retrograde step, and while other Parliaments are moving forward we intend to go back and pitch our camp way back in 1962 and say, "That is going to be our position although this happens to be 1986." Opinions have changed, and people have moved on in their thinking about Parliament and what it should do and should not do.

This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an attack, a deliberate attack by this Government at the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. We said, in a press statement that we issued the day after the Bill was published in the papers - and this was not published by the gutter press - we said that the irony is that Parliament itself is made to put the axe to this foundation. We said that this was possible because the PAP has an overwhelming tyrannical majority in Parliament. Because the Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, democracy can, Members, become, if one is not careful, the tyranny of the majority. That can be a sort of sham democracy. Because Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, it is able now through this Bill to cut at the very foundation, to strike down the very foundation of Parliament, through its own institution. The institution is used against its own foundation.

Parliament, of all the democratic institutions, the Courts, the trade union movement, the press and Parliament itself, is the one institution that is calculated or is designed to safeguard the liberties of the people. And this Government soon after it came to power in 1959 went for all these institutions. It went for the trade unions. It did what Hitler did, turned the trade unions upside down, made them stand on their heads. It went for the press. It took over the press completely. But it left Parliament alone because, as I said, there wasn't any need; Parliament was serving the purpose of the Government, an emasculated Parliament. And they were quite happy to let it be, as it was, because it was all Members of the PAP family. But now things have changed for the PAP and they have decided, it would appear, that Parliament itself should be attacked; the foremost of the free institutions, of free people everywhere, should be attacked.

I see in today's papers an article in Petir about me wanting to attack the institutions. I suppose the PAP and the Government, like Goebbels, the German Minister for Propaganda, think that if you repeat something, times without number, some people may come to believe it. Who is destroying our institutions?

Some hon. Members: You!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who is destroying our institutions? Why is the trade union movement what it is today - completely emasculated, serving the Government? Why is it? Why is the press what it is today - not serving its true role in a democratic society? It is all because this Government has deliberately gone about attacking these institutions and pretending, pretending that we still have these institutions. We do not have them. What we have are sham institutions. The trade unions are a sham. The press is a complete sham. And now since 1981, because one Member of Parliament has tried to assert the authority of Parliament, Parliament itself must now be attacked. That is the tragedy of this Bill, of a Government that has paid lip service to parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may go through some of these amendments. As I said, clause 2 of the Bill alters the position drastically and takes it away from the current UK practice.

May I refer to the provision in this Bill which seeks to remove the immunity from a Member of Parliament for anything said in Parliament, and this is the new subsection (2) of section 20 in clause 5. I have said this several times and this is something that has been fought for and won by Parliaments of all free peoples that there must be absolute freedom of speech in Parliament and that there should be no questioning of it outside Parliament. Parliament itself can discipline but there can be no questioning of it outside Parliament.

If one reads British parliamentary history, one will find the struggle Parliament has had with the courts in trying to keep the courts out of questioning any parliamentary proceedings. This Bill intends to allow somebody outside to intimidate a Member of Parliament from discharging his duty by threatening him with civil proceedings or criminal proceedings. That strikes immediately at the very heart of parliamentary freedom.

Why is this Bill introduced? Is it because I have refused or I did not repeat what the Prime Minister said the Chief Justice wanted me to repeat outside? May I say this? When the Prime Minister mentioned that, I asked him, "Tell me what is it you want me to repeat? Tell me what statement it is that you want me to repeat?" I did not get any satisfactory answer from him. May I also say that I consider it very unfortunate that the Chief Justice has been drawn into all this. But I am sure, on sober reflection, the Chief Justice must regret that he allowed himself to be drawn into it. First of all, he sent a note to the Prime Minister. That, by the way, was a personal note and I do not know how the Prime Minister could make it public, in Parliament, when it was a personal note. The Member for Potong Pasir at the last sitting mentioned about the remark of a QC who was asked what the Chief Justice of England would have done if Mrs Thatcher had asked for a note. According to the Member for Potong Pasir, the QC said he would have told Mrs Thatcher to go and jump in the lake. So it is unfortunate that the Chief Justice allowed himself to be drawn into these proceedings.

May I say this. Regardless of that, if the Chief Justice, because the Prime Minister apparently is very anxious, if the Chief Justice wants me to repeat, let him write to me and tell me exactly what is it in the parliamentary proceedings that he wants me to repeat. I will repeat them if he writes to me and tells me exactly what is it that he wants me to repeat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, this is a very serious, momentous, Bill. Before I sit down, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. He is not here, and I am very sorry that he is not here because, as I said, he realizes the implications of this. It is my appeal here that this matter should not just be decided in this House but should be passed for a decision by the people from whom we draw our authority. The people must be asked to decide whether it is outrageous conduct, whether it is contempt for any Member of Parliament to come here and question the Government and even to make allegations against the Government and to ask for an inquiry into these things.

My proposal to the Prime Minister is this. I hope it will be conveyed to him and that he will come and try and answer this, because this is not a small matter, a trifling matter. This is a matter of great importance to parliamentary government. I am proposing to the Prime Minister that I resign from Anson and that he resigns from Tanjong Pagar, resigns his seat, and that writs be issued immediately - I must insist on that - that writs be issued immediately for a by-election in these two constituencies. Then he can offer himself for re-election in Tanjong Pagar, and I certainly will offer myself for re-election in Anson. He can send someone, he can send the whole Cabinet, to Anson to try and persuade the Anson voters that I have been a very naughty boy and that they should not send me back. Likewise, we shall send our member into Tanjong Pagar, and why not wait and see what the results of the decision of the people are on this question, because this is not something that we ourselves should decide.

We are, as I have said before, an institution essentially of the people. We are here because of the people, and we are here to serve them. So is it not right that they should decide this rather than that we should decide whether an Opposition Member of Parliament is wrong when he comes and makes statements which question the Government's sincerity, which question the Government's decisions, in a manner which seems to challenge the entire Executive functioning? As I said, my crime would appear to be that I had said that there was disquiet in the public about the transfers.

So I hope my proposal will be conveyed to the Prime Minister, and that the further progress of this Bill be delayed until the Prime Minister considers my request, so that the decision of the people may be obtained on this. Of course, the best thing would be for a referendum or for general elections, but I will be told that will be too costly. But the cost should be no object because we are now trying to tinker with our democratic institution of Parliament. And the people must have their say in this. If the Prime Minister thinks that it will not be safe for him to resign his seat in Tanjong Pagar, we will understand that. Let him then nominate any other constituency. I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs will only be too anxious to fight the battle for the Government in his constituency. But let it be any constituency and let the issue be taken from this House, be taken from this House to the people where it belongs. The issue belongs to them, not just to this House. It is for them to say what matters can be raised in Parliament and should be raised in Parliament. Will the Prime Minister accept this challenge? I hope he does, and I hope he is here before we pass this Bill because, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have adopted the parliamentary system of government. We chose this deliberately when, in 1958, it was decided that we should get our self-government.

That is the system, the parliamentary democracy, that was accepted, as I said, not by me but by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition. He fought for it. When I mentioned about his performances in the Legislative Assembly - I hope the Prime Minister's speeches in Parliament in the Legislative Assembly between 1955 and 1959 is compulsory reading for all PAP backbenchers - I am not saying something new. He said it then, in 1955 to 1959. He was the champion of parliamentary democracy. And so he persuaded the citizens, our people, to accept parliamentary democracy. But the tragedy is that after he persuaded them to accept parliamentary democracy, he began dismantling them one by one, as I said, the trade unions, the press, and even undermining the independence of our courts. I have mentioned this because the Constitution was amended to enable the Prime Minister to appoint judges for a fixed period. He began undermining the whole system when he abolished the jury trial, because the jury trial is again part of the whole democratic institution of government. As Devlin said, "The jury is a miniature parliament." So now this is the last assault, as it were, by the Government on the remaining institution. And it is too precious for us to let go, and it is too precious for the people to let go. I think the people should be asked to decide.

So I appeal to the Prime Minister. I am sorry to have to say this: he is the one man who will understand what is involved in all this, the momentous nature of this Bill and the violence it is doing to the whole idea of parliamentary democracy. I still hope we will see him and that he will accept my challenge. And may I say this before I sit down: that it is not a private feud between me and the Prime Minister. I am not bringing this because of any private feud or vendetta, as he seemed to imply in his letter to me and I mentioned it. I bear him no ill-will. But I am concerned, and I am sure he is concerned - I must give him credit - I am sure he is concerned with democratic institutions. He must be concerned with the democratic way of life. I hope he is still because he was when he was in the Opposition from 1955 to 1959. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.