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

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you were going to speak?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to join in this debate on a very serious matter.

The Member for Anson has described it as a momentous event. I would add more by saying that, if this Bill were to be passed today, then it would go down as a day of shame in the history of Singapore. The reason is that we are attacking the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. Parliament must have absolute privilege, otherwise how can Members of Parliament do their duty to their constituent without fear? This element of absolute privilege is well-founded in all Western democratic parliaments, in particular, the Parliament of UK. The Parliament of UK, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, has fought jealously for its independence. It has fought and managed to keep itself free from the examination by the courts. And this is the very thing today that we are going to undo.

Under the new section 21(2), this privilege and immunity of Members of Parliament can be lifted and subject them to the scrutiny of the courts. Today what we are doing is destroying the very pillar of parliamentary democracy. And each one of you who votes against this, of course your names will be recorded for posterity.

Why the rush? Why all three Readings in one afternoon? What is the need? What is the urgency for this Bill to be passed so quickly? Is there a national danger? Or is money quickly needed? I cannot see any. Then why the need to rush through such a very important Bill which deals with the very foundation of our concept of parliamentary democracy?

The Member for Anson has pointed out correctly - the people of Singapore must be consulted on this matter, and they are the people who should decide whether we want to dismantle one of the pillars of our system. This Bill purportedly is to uphold dignity and decorum in this House. If this Bill should be passed, I think the damage done to this House is far, far greater than whatever indignities or alleged unsubstantiated allegations made in this House. If there is going to be any punishment, I think those who vote for this Bill should be punished for bringing down one of the pillars of our system. Of course, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, it is obvious. This Bill has got nothing to do with preserving the solemnity or dignity of this House but it is, in fact, just to silence criticisms of the Government. This Government is like a bad tooth, very shaky. No one is allowed to touch that tooth for fear it might fall off.

Members of Parliament here are representatives of their constituencies. If they are going to be punished, then they should be punished in relation to their status as a representative. I think the principle here is that we should not punish the Member personally as a representative of the constituency. It would appear that increasing this fine from $1,000 to $50,000 appears to be in that direction. There is a 50,000 times increase in the fine! [Laughter] 50 times. Well, you can laugh. I do not know whether this is against the dignity and decorum of the House. I think if we are going to pass this Bill, we better have a list of all the so-called indignities that can be committed in this House. And laughing at others I wonder if it is one of them. [Laughter.]

Look at yourselves. Where is the solemnity of this House? It would appear to me that the $50,000 fine is to punish the MP personally and I think this principle should not be allowed. And also, lifting the privilege and immunity means to say that he is liable to be punished in the courts for defamation, if it happens. Of course, the Leader of the House says that this is in between, but sometimes the punishment for defamation, which of course affects the Member personally, can even be higher than this $50,000. I think the Leader of the House should explain as regards the period whereby privilege and immunity is lifted. Is there a minimum or a maximum period? Or is it just at the discretion of the House? I think he should give an idea.

It would appear that this Bill is being rushed through, the urgency is that it would be in time for the hearings of the Committee of Privileges in regard to one of the Members of the House. If that is so, then all the trouble, time, money spent on the Commission of Inquiry was a failure. Obviously, it has not served its purpose. So it only shows that this Government does not really know what it is doing. It is just muddling through, have a Commission, and now we have this Bill rushed through so as to be in time for the hearings of the Committee of Privileges.

This amendment would appear to have threats on would-be Members of Parliament, with all the heavy fines and the lifting of privilege and immunity. But I will tell Members of the Government that the attitude of the people of Singapore has changed. They have no more fear in their hearts as before. That has been proven at the last general elections. They dared to vote in two Members of the Opposition despite the fact that the Prime Minister himself had come forward to canvass for two of their PAP members against the Opposition. So if there is any thought at all behind the minds of the Government to deter or put fear into future MPs from the Opposition, I do not think it will succeed at all.

The point brought up by the Member for Anson about bringing our law to be in line with the UK is definitely not true. I have to say that because ours is only up to 1965 when Singapore became independent. After that, under this Bill, we are not obliged to follow the laws of Parliament in the Commons House in the United Kingdom.

I see that we have got punishment for dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. And the House can deal with a Member summarily. Mr Speaker, Sir, a vote on the Bill should be taken in the House. I think it is only fair to all the Members of the House here that the Leader should give an indication as to what sort of conduct is classed as "dishonourable". Or what is abuse of privilege or a contempt? I think he should, in his answer later on, give us some examples because I can say that in my short experience in this House, I do not think many of the Members, both from the Backbenches and from the Government side, have behaved honourably. I have often been accused of lying and others have called a Member of the Opposition a snake. Are all these dishonourable conduct? I am sure they are. And who is to say that if a Member of the Government or a Backbencher speaks out in this fashion he is going to be punished? When a vote is taken, it is obvious how it will go. Otherwise, the Whip will come into the picture. Whenever there is a vote, we know that the Opposition will be out voted. And so the Government will be the arbiter. They will decide what is dishonourable and what is honourable and I hope you do not have two standards. So I think it is useful perhaps for the Leader of the House to give a guide to Members. If the House is going to take action, it would appear that it is the House which will initiate the prosecution and they will also be the prosecutor and the judge at the same time. There is of course no chance of appeal. At least in the courts, there is this element of appeal.

So if you look at it objectively, this amendment is completely one-sided against the Opposition. Because everytime when there is a vote, there is no chance for the Opposition to win in that voting.

May I just be allowed to make short commentaries on this amendment. We see that the punishment for a stranger is the same as the punishment for a Member. When a Member commits a dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, he is fined up to $50,000. Of course, in the former Act it was $1,000. And for a stranger, in the former Act it was $3,000 and the present amendment is $50,000. So under this amendment, the Government thinks that the status of a Member of Parliament is the same as a stranger.

An hon. Member: Raise the fine!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not asking them to raise the fine. But I think there must be a difference between Members of Parliament and strangers. A Member of Parliament is a representative of the people. I think this Bill shows no respect for representatives of the people.

Finally, may I just ask the Leader of the House to tell us exactly how this new section 20(2) will work? Will it have a retroactive effect? Let us assume that a Member makes an allegation which the House thinks that it is dishonourable, say, at 3.00 o'clock today. Is it possible for the House to specify the period if there is a summary action taken against him and he is found guilty at 4.00 o'clock? Is it possible for the House to suspend the privilege and immunity of that Member, say, from 3.00 o'clock onwards? I think it is useful not only to myself but to other Members of the House to know exactly how this provision works.

I am much obliged to you, Sir. 3.57 pm

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, both Members of the Opposition seem to have asked the same question of the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House, ie, what is the urgency for this Bill? If only both had listened carefully to the Leader of the House when he presented the Certificate of Urgency and laid it on the Table and moved on to make the necessary explanations in detail on the various clauses of this amendment Bill, they would have got all the answers.

On the question of the Member for Potong Pasir just now, I am surprised that he has forgotten what he said only on the 30th of July. He said:

'Does he not realize that Parliament has the power of suspension, of expulsion and even committal?' Sir, at that time, Parliament could not do this. And he said that Parliament had the right and the power. This is section 11 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Chapter 49, and this is to be repealed. I think he did not realize that he had anticipated this. In fact, what I am trying to say is that he did not realize what he was talking.

Sir, I now come to the debate proper on this amendment. This amendment Bill heralds a significant change in parliamentary practice and procedure. It recognizes that the Singapore Parliament is a fully sovereign legislature by according to it all the powers the UK House of Commons has without any qualifications. It also confers additional powers to Parliament, and to the Speaker, which powers are peculiar to us, and of which there are no corresponding powers in the UK House of Commons, and not Commons House. Sir, I therefore welcome the amendment as a timely step in the right direction. It is time for us to evolve our own code of conduct in Parliament to suit the needs and sensitivities of our local climate.

Sir, Parliament is a place where the elected Representatives of the people debate and discuss serious matters. Proceedings must be conducted with decorum and due sobriety. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must reiterate what the Leader of the House just now said. Parliament is not a theatre. It is not a source of entertainment; neither is it just another ordinary television programme to watch. Parliament is the most public of public forums. The public has access to the gallery and also access to the proceedings via the radio, the television and the newspapers. Because of wide media coverage, unscrupulous people can make use of Parliament as a means of manipulating the people to cast aspersions on the integrity of persons, for example, those in public service, and to sow seeds of dissension by twisting words to mislead others and the listeners.

Just as a few well-placed malicious rumours can cripple a thriving business and inflict irreparable damage to its goodwill, so the same can be done in Parliament. And what better place than Parliament, the proceedings of which are a favourite conversational topic in the coffee shops, in taxis, at the office, at the dinner table, at private parties, and, Sir, I would not be at all surprised, in schools as well.

Irresponsible remarks, unsubstantiated allegations, half-truths or, worse still, untruths, dressed up so as to sound like truths, can cause harm and damage to innocent parties, and on a more serious scale, Sir, because they are made in the course of Parliamentary proceedings, can even undermine the political stability and economy of the nation by causing undue and unnecessary alarm to our neighbours, to our trade partners and would-be investors observing and listening to our proceedings.

Sir, the all-important difference between making such allegations or statements in Parliament and outside Parliament is that the maker can be taken to task in respect of what is said outside Parliament. And may I elaborate, Sir. People who suffer damage as a result of such allegations and statements have legal redress against the maker, and if the allegations and statements amount to an offence, the maker may even be charged in the appropriate court of law. But, and this is a crucial "but", when such allegations and statements are made in Parliament, the maker of such allegations and statements is protected from liability in every respect because he is accorded Parliamentary privilege and immunity. This privilege gives complete freedom of speech to a Member of Parliament speaking in Parliament, so that he can utter anything under the sun and whatever that comes into his head and no matter who or what he hurts or causes damage to, to whatever extent, he is completely immune to any criminal and civil proceedings that could be brought against him if he had spoken them outside Parliament.

Why? The word "why" is the natural question to ask. Why is an MP given freedom of speech and is immune from criminal and civil liability? The rationale for this is simply a protection to MPs to enable them to conduct themselves in the affairs of their constituents, their constituencies and the nation without the fear of criminal and civil actions being brought against them hanging like the Sword of Damocles over their heads.

I repeat. It is a protection; a privilege accorded to Members speaking in Parliament. It is not a right to which a Member is entitled. A right cannot be withdrawn. A privilege can. And because it is a privilege it is not to be used as a shield under which to make allegations and statements according to a Member's whims and fancies nor to take pot-shots at persons which could not have been done outside Parliament without the Member having to answer for it in the Courts.

Sir, when such a privilege is accorded, it is expected, it goes without saying, that an MP conducts himself in a manner befitting and worthy of it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Just as you are doing.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes, of course.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is it worthy?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes. Listen. When I give you my ear. Why else, Sir, is an MP given the title "Honourable Member of Parliament"? In accordance with the sobriety and import of the proceedings in Parliament, in recognition of the privilege accorded to him, an MP is expected to conduct himself or herself with decorum, with distinction, honour and integrity. He owes it to the people who elected him to that seat, to be responsible for what he says in Parliament, and to ensure that what he says is credible and can be substantiated.

Sir, in all the years that I have been part of this august House, some 23 years, Sir, come this September, the proceedings have always been conducted with decorum.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, family tea parties.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Aren't you jealous? Not to say that they have been uneventful.

The early and mid-sixties was a tumultuous period, with vigorous and often boisterous opposition from the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party. Of course, the political climate was different then. The Opposition were a hard hitting and bare-knuckled lot. Parliamentary sessions were often stormy, with both sides standing up for what they believed in. But there was not one occasion to give the then Legislative Assembly, and later Parliament, cause to set up its Committee of Privileges to deal with a complaint of breach of privilege. Why? Because decorum prevailed as the Speaker was always heard in silence and with great respect.

Sir, in the late 60s and 70s when Parliament was dominated by the PAP, the Backbenchers had to double-up as the Opposition by making constructive and positive criticisms in and outside Parliament. This was in addition to their role as PAP MPs which was to explain Government policies to the people and to help them adjust to the policies. Sometimes Ministers were even taken to task on certain issues. There was no want of debate on any issue. At times some of us were even branded as being too oppositionistic in our debates and in putting across our views. This dual role was not an easy one. Yet, Sir, for all our enthusiasm in providing the voice of an Opposition, there was always decorum in the House. The Speaker was always and will be accorded due respect by us in the PAP.

Sir, I hope Members will excuse my little excursion into the past. It is to illustrate how disturbed I am at the change in the proceedings in this House since December 1981, with the entry of the Member for Anson. Never before has a Member of this House made so many allegations as he did or uttered defamatory words against persons who were unable to seek redress in a Court of law agaianst him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the Member refer now the House to all the statements uttered by me which amount to defamation of persons outside this House? Would he please refer the House to all the statements before he makes that statement?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a point of order. He just wants me to repeat what he has said. And let me do this in quick time, Sir. (1) Defamatory words about S.R. Nathan. (2) Defamatory words about the Howe family. (3) Words impugning the integrity of---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: You asked me to repeat, I will do it now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You asked him to repeat, what you have said.

An hon. Member: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does he, first of all, understand what defamatory matter is? Secondly, I was not making any defamatory remarks.

An hon. Member: Why don't you repeat it outside?

Mr Jeyaretnam: "Why don't you repeat it outside?" "Why don't you repeat it outside?"

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Mr Jeyaretnam. What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is a threat. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not making any defamatory remarks about Mr Howe Yoon Chong, if that is what the Member is saying. I merely questioned, as you yourself pointed out, the circumstances under which somebody came to have a licence to sell drugs and medicines in the hospital. How does that amount to defamatory remarks about Mr Howe Yoon Chong? It is a complete non sequiter and an inability to understand what defamatory matter is. Secondly, what defamatory matter did I say about Mr S.R. Nathan?

Mr Speaker: He was going to tell you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All that I said was the man was at one time during the Japanese Occupation working with the Japanese police. Why was it defamatory to mention what somebody did during the Japanese Occupation?

Some hon. Members: Why don't you repeat it outside?

Mr Jeyaretnam: "Why don't you repeat it outside"? Well, that is the threat that the Members of this House indulge in.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was asked, I come prepared. I did a little bit of homework. I checked through. In the case of S. R. Nathan, the newspaper report had his statement challenging the Member to repeat them outside without the privilege of this House. He has not done so. I did not say "Howe Yoon Chong", Sir. I said "the Howe family."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Defamatory of whom?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I want to get on with my speech, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You want to get on because you do not know what you are talking about.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Because you are unable to comprehend.

Mr Speaker: Let us have order in the House.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Thank you, Sir. I beg your pardon. I was coming to this point on breach of privilege and abuse. Privilege is the protection and not for abuse. Yes, Sir, the privilege is there but for protection and not for abuse. If there is any integrity and sincerity at all in making such allegations, surely it would not be asking too much of the Member to repeat them outside Parliament. This is all I am asking. When challenged without the immunity afforded by Parliamentary privilege, the parties concerned then would at least have the opportunity to defend themselves or to seek redress if such allegations were totally unsubstantiated and untrue. It is only fair, isn't it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because he is talking nonsense.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes, when the pain hurts. I am therefore with the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House when he explained the need for this Bill to be taken on a Certificate of Urgency. This House must continue to uphold its integrity, dignity and honour. The Amendment Bill will have a sobering effect and I am beginning to feel right down deep in my bones that it has on all present and future Members of Parliament and also on those wishing to offer themselves as candidates in the elections. Members of this House ought to bear in mind that their conduct, both inside and outside Parliament, must be honourable and exemplary. It must be that what they say in this House, they are prepared to repeat outside when challenged to do so or else at least have the courtesy to extend an apology if circumstances are such that it is not possible or unwise to repeat them outside.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that, notwithstanding the additional powers that Parliament will have upon the passage of this Bill, there will be no curtailment or restriction whatsoever on the freedom of speech in Parliament. But this freedom must be tempered with responsibility. Innocent parties must not be dragged in and made to suffer. Their rights must be considered as well.

Sir, this Parliament is now under public scrutiny because, at the flick of a switch, Singaporeans can turn on their television sets and watch what their elected representatives say and do on their behalf in Parliament. They can see their MPs talking, whether they are talking sense or no-sense. But words when twisted can mislead and only upon reflection will the truth be unravelled from the tangle of untruths. The initial impact will stay and, for people who are unable to perceive the truth, they will remain misled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should give its fullest support to the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Bill are, as I said earlier, extremely necessary and very timely. They were not needed earlier because there was always decorum in the House. They are needed now because we have seen several instances of blatant abuse of privilege of late. I am at a loss as to understand how an "honourable" Member can make allegations and then cast the onus of proving those allegations untrue on those against whom they are made. He certainly cannot get away with it in a court of law. In a court, as I understand it, the onus of proof is on the person making the allegations. What he alleges, he must prove that it is true.

As an example, an enormous amount of time and effort, not to mention money and manpower, was wasted in setting up the Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts and the Judiciary. As it turned out, the person who made the allegations refused to substantiate them.

I say that enough is enough. Abuse of Parliamentary privilege is a serious matter. I applaud the powers given to Parliament to suspend the privilege in such a case. It is a right step. If MPs cannot conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the special privilege accorded to them, then I say that Parliament collectively has a right to intervene. After all, Parliament has the right to regulate how its proceedings are to be conducted.

Whilst I give my wholehearted support to this Amendment Bill, I have one last point and question. May I ask of the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House whether he has any proposals to deal with a recalcitrant Member who chooses to defy the Speaker and the House and continues with his unscrupulous abuse of privilege in the House? What I would like to know, Sir, is what can be done, what remedies the House has in such a case?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Member who has just spoken, by way of clarification, since he seems to agree that Parliament is under scrutiny by the public, and very rightly too he has pointed that out, would he support my proposal that the matter should be referred to the public and to the constituents of Anson and Tanjong Pagar to decide?

Mr Dhanabalan: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I understand it, the Standing Orders on clarification are quite clear. If the Member wants to clarify what he has said, he can do so. He is constantly using points of order and clarification to make further speeches and challenges. I think this should not continue, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Well, the Member for Punggol would not reply. 4.25 pm

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to join the debate along with the Member for Punggol in supporting this motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, privilege in Parliament is something we, as Members of this House, cherish. It allows us to speak without fear, to engage in free and open debate on matters of public interest. It should not be used as a passport to cast aspersions on people or systems, especially if such aspersions could not be substantiated. There must therefore be some degree of fairness and responsibility in our utterances, and to ensure this, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must be guided by some rules. Individual Members of this House cannot make up their own rules for debate. We must follow the House rules and if we do not abide by these rules we must answer for it. There must, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, some decorum and dignity in the way we conduct ourselves in this House.

We expect our citizens to follow the rule of law in this country so that others do not suffer from the consequences of bad behaviour. If this be so, surely Members of this House must not be allowed to get away with unsubstantiated utterances that may be injurious to people within this House or outside. The Leader of the House has pointed out that the present ruling in this House is inadequate to deal with this and it is precisely our inadequacy to deal with this that we are debating on this amendment. The degree of punishment for our citizens varies from a fine to a hanging. In other words, it varies with the nature of the offence. Likewise, the degree of penalties in this House must vary with the severity of the offence and this amendment seeks to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present this House can only reprimand, suspend or impose a fine of up to $1,000 on errant MPs. This is a very light form of penalty and will not deter certain Members of this House from continuing to abuse the privilege accorded. There have to be very compelling reasons for Parliaments in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and other Commonwealth countries to impose more severe penalties. We are just keeping up with standard practice in the Commonwealth.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not the standard practice.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never interrupted him when he was speaking.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think what the Member is saying is not true. We are not keeping up with the Commonwealth Parliaments.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Allow me to continue, Mr Speaker. The United Kingdom and Commonwealth option, namely, to suspend, to expel, to commit to prison and/or a fine, has been effective in checking the behaviour of its Members. We have an added option, and that is, the withdrawal of immunity and privilege for a certain period. I think this is a fair move. It gives the recalcitrant MP a chance to remain in this House. He may also speak, though he has to learn to speak with reason and decorum, no more wild allegations and half-truths.

Some of our citizens will react very unfavourably to this amendment. It will be interpreted as Government's action to silence the Opposition in Parliament. It is the wider implications of this amendment that they should think of. We can conduct ourselves in an orderly, fair and responsible way to get things done. Members of Parliament should be able to conduct themselves well, with dignity and decorum. There is no need to yell, cast aspersions, fabricate stories in this House to prove that we are serving the people. People outside this House, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Punggol, addressed us hon. Members as "Honourable". So let us live up to that. There can be no honour, Mr Speaker, Sir, without responsibility. Therefore, I am prepared to go along with this amendment Bill even if privilege, so vital in the conduct of debates, has to be withdrawn temporarily from a Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is fear expressed that this Government may be too quick to refer MPs, especially Opposition MPs, to the Committee of Privileges for sanction. I am sure this will not happen. If this Government or majority party does that without valid reasons, we will be in trouble because we are on television and people are watching us. Moreover, Mr Speaker, Sir, one need not fear to speak out unless the motive is wrong or suspect. Some Singaporeans outside this House sympathize with the Opposition Members because we PAP Members of this House, by our sheer numbers, are perceived to be bullying them. But this Government has a responsibility to the majority of Singaporeans who voted the PAP and this Government has a responsibility to let Singaporeans know the truth. This amendment is to ensure that, to seek the truth, there must be fair and responsible debate, and if an allegation is proved false, the Member must apologize or face censure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the House because I feel that in the interest of the integrity of this House and the honour of our citizens as a whole, we need to make this amendment as it encompasses matters that cover our social life and the administration of our country. It also encompasses the life of an individual in this country. I am sure that, as a former colony, we have inherited many things from the colonialists, not only the bad things but also some good things which are suitable to us. One of them is the democratic system, that is, the parliamentary system, the legislative system. And we should be thankful. And I am thankful that the Government has decided that matters that cannot be resolved in our Court can be referred to the privy council. This should be maintained. We also know that modification should be made to suit the needs of the country. In fact, in Africa itself we have heard that some countries have not succeeded because they have inherited a system that is alien to their cultures. Perhaps there is this one party system, poverty, tribal enmity, maybe corruption. But we also know that there are some African countries which, after making modifications, come to realize that political stability is vital for the prosperity of the country. Therefore, countries like Ivory Coast, Botswana, Senegal, Cameroon, Kenya could defend the system that they have inherited and achieved political stability through a strong central government, pragmatic leadership and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that after these powers have been invested in the Committee of Privileges, an individual like yourself, an individual like Dr Tony Tan, and those who sit on the Committee will make an arbitrary decision because their decision will be studied, will be scrutinized by everyone of us here, by lawyers, judges and the whole of the Singapore community. I say it is impossible to make judgment haphazardly, just like somebody stealing epok epok or curry puff, he should be punished like someone who has robbed a bank. You must have heard that in an Islamic country, even somebody who steals will have his hands cut off. It does not mean that somebody who steals epok-epok will also have his hands cut off. And I am sure that the system that we have inherited, the laws that we have inherited, including laws in Britain today, are being observed especially by judges and lawyers themselves. In present day Britain there exists two viewpoints. We have two kinds of thinking. One feels that any legislation passed can be changed by the judges. Because many still maintain that legislation made here, made by the legislators, tabled or delivered by somebody who is not a lawyer since not all Ministers are lawyers, must come back to this Chamber to be amended or defended by the Government. To do otherwise would be "a naked usurpation of legislative function." But we also know, especially those who are lawyers, that every piece of legislation that we bring up in this august Chamber usually has different interpretations to different persons. However, there is one man, who, I think commands the respect of many lawyers, a Maverick, like Lord Denning. He says that if we wish to give the meaning of a law or rule in a Bill, choose the meaning that accords two important elements, ie, reason and justice. And I quote what he says in his book, The Discipline of Law: "If you have to make a choice, choose the meaning that accords reason and justice." I am confident that every one of our Ministers who tables a Bill in this House bears in mind these two important factors.

We must also be aware that when we argue on something, we must include two or the twin-pillars of justice, and that is, impartiality and the element of fairness. So if there are attempts to strip, to tinker with these two aspects, such people must bring forth cogent reasons. We cannot resort to innuendoes, indulge in jabberings only because if right-minded people attending a court of law go away thinking and saying, "The judge is biased", I think that is the beginning of the end of law and order and of confidence. This is what I have discovered of late, attempts to fault a Bill without advancing valid arguments.

I think no one should fear this Bill because I am sure that Singaporeans, after 25 years, have become more articulated and they are aware of the happenings and, in fact, they fully understand now the pretensions put forth by the Opposition. What needs to be said, I think, is the truth. Do not tell tales. I remember of a freedom fighter who, when asked by journalists what he wanted inserted in the newspapers in order to disseminate his struggles, his objectives, replied, "The truth will do." However, we find that people find it hard to tell the truth. Untruths abound us. I think much glib talks have been flung around. I know of an English saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." What I fear is that "woman" here refers to a widow or widower. It means that a person had at one time been a member of a certain association, subsequently he left the association. Maybe at one time he had worked for the government and is no longer working now. A widow or widower who backchats about her husband or wife, however untrue, there are some people, and here I emphasize "some people" and not all the people, who believe in the story because at one time they had been living together. It is for this reason, I think, that such widows or widowers say more untruths than truths. Like the Chinese say, Pofu ma jie - a woman scolding somebody in the street. So, I think we cannot adopt such a stance because this august House has no room for such talk. We need to be brave to face it.

I do not think the Opposition need fear if they are true leaders, possessing true leadership spirit, because leaders place truth above everything else. If we think that we are right, we need not fear the jail, nor the fines; we need not even fear about our own lives. That then are the qualities of leadership. My dad gave me a simple example. He says, "Sidek, if you want to uphold truth ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Nobody is worried.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Stop interrupting, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: ( In Malay): My father says that if you write the word "right" on a piece of paper and you throw it, dump it into the most dirtiest bin and then you retrieve it, you will find the word "right" unscathed. On the contrary, if you are wrong, you take the word "wrong" and ambulate a temple, a church or a mosque, the word "wrong" will not change to read "right".

So on that note, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first deal with some general points that have been raised, especially by the two Members of the Opposition, before I deal with some of the particular arguments that they have put forward.

Sir, first of all, on clause 2 which now freezes the UK model as it was on the day that Singapore became independent - yes, this is intentional. It is deliberate and it is in line, as I pointed out, with what other Commonwealth countries such as India and Australia have in their constitutions or in their laws applying to Parliament. I think it is quite logical that we should have some model as a starting point. And it is quite logical that we should take the model existing in the UK on the day that we became independent as our starting point. But I think it would be absurd, having become independent and having become a Legislature of an independent sovereign country, to subject ourselves to changes in the UK which may have been caused or prompted by situations, circumstances and reasons, which have nothing to do with Singapore. Why should we be tied to continuing changes in the UK? We are a sovereign nation. We have to use something as a starting point and thereafter we should make our own rules and regulations to govern parliamentary privileges. Surely it cannot be suggested that we here, the elected Members of Parliament, are not capable of making our own rules over time. Yes, as the Member for Anson said, our rules must change with time. But the rules must also take into account the place where the rules apply, the particular conditions of the society. Therefore, I think it is eminently logical and desirable that we should not subject ourselves to changes in the UK after our date of independence. We are quite capable of looking after ourselves.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just have a point of clarification?

Mr Dhanabalan: I would suggest that the Member raises points of clarifications later.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think on this very point, our Standing Orders ---

Mr Speaker: Will you sit down, Mr Chiam? He is not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Dhanabalan: We do follow the UK pattern. But what is made clear now in the Bill before the House is that we freeze, as I said, the UK model as it existed on the day that we became independent. I think we should not deny ourselves the right to do what we want. After all, we represent the people of Singapore, not the UK Parliament. So it is quite logical, as I said, that after independence, we should not subject ourselves to changes in the UK.

The power to commit Members or strangers to prison, the power to expel, were excluded in the 1962 Ordinance and now, as I said, with section 11 being repealed, in that respect we are brought in line with what the practice in the UK today is. But I never said, and I would make this very clear, I never said that in every respect we are the same as the UK. In fact, there are two provisions that I specifically drew attention to which are different. One is the suspension of privilege and the other the powers of the Speaker or Chairman of a Committee.

Sir, the question has been asked, why on a Certificate of Urgency? Why is this Bill being taken through Parliament with all three Readings in one day? I thought I made this clear and I have not tried to hide what the reasons are. I said that the Committee of Privileges will be meeting soon and we want to give the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges all the powers that are needed to ensure that proceedings in the Committee, when they hear the complaint against the Member for Anson, are conducted in such a way that dignity, decorum, orderliness are preserved. It is not intended to limit the Member for Anson. If the Member thinks that the only way he can prove his point or his allegations in the Committee of Privileges is to make further defamatory statements, then obviously he will be restricted. If he does not confine himself to statements that are not defamatory, he will have to face the full penalties set out in the Bill before the House today.

I have made it clear that we want to get at the truth. We have nothing to hide on this matter. We want to get to the bottom. We want the full truth to come out without any distraction so that the people of Singapore will know what is behind all these allegations. We will not allow - and this is the intention of giving the powers to the Chairman - a smokescreen of further smears, innuendoes, insinuations, to distract from arriving at the truth. There will be a very thorough investigation by the Committee.

The Prime Minister has already said that, as head of the Executive, he will give evidence himself and he is prepared to subject himself to cross-examination. The Member for Anson will also have to give evidence and he will also be cross-examined. We want to arrive at the truth and that is the purpose of rushing this Bill through Parliament so that the conduct of the hearing will be such that nothing will distract us from the process of arriving at the truth. And that, I have made it clear, is the main reason why we presented this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency.

The other provisions of the Bill on the suspension of privilege are not meant to silence criticism. By all means, take the Government to task. By all means, examine the Government's actions thoroughly, closely. But this does not mean that Members have to resort to defamatory statements or serious allegations which undermine our key institutions which they are not able to prove.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Dhanabalan: It had better be a very clear point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is a point of order. These allegations are now before the Committee of Privileges. And here is the Leader saying, "makes allegations which he is unable to prove." So he is pre-determining the decision of the Privileges Committee.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a point of order. I am now coming to the general points.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am saying it is a point of order. Is he allowed to refer to matters which are before the Committee of Privileges?

Mr Speaker: But you yourself mentioned the case too. You mentioned it yourself just now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said I did not want to go into that. I said they were before the Committee of Privileges. But the Leader is now saying, unless he says he has not said it, that these allegations are unfounded.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I made a general point. I specifically referred to that clause in the Bill which speaks of the suspension of privileges. I said it is not meant to silence criticism, and I said by all means take the Government to task, examine Government's actions closely, scrutinize Government's actions. But that does not mean that Members have to resort to defamatory statements and allegations which they cannot prove. I think that is a general statement, Sir. I was not referring to any particular occasion.

Sir, the Member for Anson has compared his role in this House with that of the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I leave the Members of this House to come to their own conclusion whether such a comparison is a fair comparison. But, Sir, one point I must stress, yes, the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition hounded the government. He put every action of theirs under close scrutiny but he never made any statement that defamed anybody. He never committed any breach of privilege. He was never referred to a Committee of Privileges. And neither was he unprepared to repeat anything he said in this House outside this House.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, we have nothing to hide. This Government has always conducted itself in such a manner that it is open to examination. We have nothing to hide. And that is why we are most anxious that the Committee of Privileges hearing this particular complaint should come to the truth.

Sir, I must say that apart from the Certificate of Urgency, the provisions of the Bill are also partly prompted by the Member for Anson's conduct in Parliament thus far. But while they have been prompted by his conduct, I must hasten to clarify that the real purpose of this Bill is a wider and more important one. The question that we ought to ask ourselves is: what kind of rules ought we to draw for ourselves that will encourage the right type of people to enter politics, seek to enter Parliament and what kind of political processes should we encourage and support in Singapore? Should we have a system of rules, a code of conduct, that attracts men with ideas, with alternatives? Or should we conduct ourselves in such a way and give the impression to the people at large that the only thing required to run for office or to run for Parliament is to come here and make vague statements insinuating wrongdoing, undermine key institutions in the Government and society? And that this is all that is required to make an appeal to the people of Singapore. The Member for Anson, I must say a little bit to my surprise, just now said that it is the function of the Opposition to make defamatory statements.

Mr Jeyaretnam: About the Government.

Mr Dhanabalan: About the Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, of course, having looked at his record in Parliament, I came to the conclusion long ago that this was his aim, but I had not expected him to come out so openly to say that this was what prompted his statements and his position in this House. We reject this approach completely. We reject it completely. If this is the function of the Opposition ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do you know what the UK practice is? Do you know?

Mr Dhanabalan: I said "we". I am not talking about the UK or anybody else. We set our own standards. We set our own code of conduct. We have to draw for ourselves what will work in Singapore. We reject his proposition completely. Of course, the Member has conducted himself in the House so far by following this principle - that the Opposition is here to defame the Government by making insinuations, innuendoes, allegations which chip away and erode the main pillars of our society, which chip away and erode what we have taken so long and at such great cost to build up. This statement of his is completely in line with the statement that was reported in the newspapers lately - that he wants to bring down the system. Now I think he has made it very clear what his role in Parliament is.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Leader is misquoting what I said at this dinner.

Mr Dhanabalan: What did you say?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What I said was that we intend to change the system, and we intend to change the way things are being run in Singapore. And I was responding ---

An hon. Member: Ask the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, you can ask the Member for Potong Pasir if you like.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way. This is not a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, he is misquoting me completely.

Mr Dhanabalan: We can get the newspaper report.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, get the newspaper. Because what I was doing was responding to a letter in the Straits Times.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, the Member's statement in his speech so surprised his own friend that he had to take his friend to task. I am quoting from the newspaper:

'I and the Workers' Party are determined to change the present system under which the society is managed.'

'If that means bringing down the system, so be it.'

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, I have read from the newspaper. There is no further clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does the Leader have the whole of my speech with him? Does he have it? Because I was responding, Mr Speaker, Sir, to a letter that appeared in the Straits Times that day. I said that "we are determined to change the way things are being run". If that is to be interpreted as bringing down the system, so be it.

Mr Speaker: You asked him to quote from the newspaper, and he has done so.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, when the Member for Anson first came to this House, he started by raising questions casting doubt on the integrity and honesty of the Government.

Sir, it is well-known not only in Singapore but throughout the world that this is one of the few, if not the only government, that is incorruptible, honest. And he knew that this was the strength of the PAP Government and he decided that doubts had to be created about the character of this Government. That was his first line of attack. Then he raised questions which were aimed at casting doubt on the impartiality of law enforcement officers, the Police Force. His theme is that we are a Police State and that various actions that the Police take are politically motivated, that this is a State that is oppressed by law enforcement officers. So bring law and law enforcement into disrepute. Thirdly, he questioned the independence of our Judiciary, starting first with the Subordinate Judiciary, then making remarks about the Chief Justice, and which are matters before the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is all before the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Speaker: All right. Will you stop there.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have to remind the Leader.

Mr Dhanabalan: Just now, Sir, again he made another statement, which I have not referred to the Committee of Privileges. He made a statement that the Prime Minister has undermined the independence of the Judiciary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Refer that to the Committee.

Mr Dhanabalan: I am afraid I missed the part where I think he mentioned about the Jury and that the fact that the Prime Minister could appoint Justices to a fixed term amounts to undermining the independence of the Judicial system.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I maintain that.

Mr Dhanabalan: So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is quite clear, even if the Member had not stated it so baldly just now, what the Member is up to.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is all wrong.

Mr Dhanabalan: And if those who are interested in entering the political process in Singapore (and we want people to participate in politics) if they get the impression, if the idea is pervade to them, that this is what the political process in Opposition is all about, then we will attract people who can only destroy, and not people who can build. What kind of Parliament will we have? What kind of politicians will we have? Sir, there are countries where there is such a significant number of politicians who are charlatans and crooks that public opinion about politicians as a whole is very, very bad. In fact, in a number of opinion polls, politicians ranked among the lowest in terms of trustworthiness. Surely in these countries, the majority of politicians cannot be unworthy of trust, but because they have such a significant number, minority though they may be, who are not trustworthy, all politicians are branded. This makes it even less attractive for good people to come into politics, because they do not want to get involved in an activity, in a profession, which is considered by people as being among the lowest as far as trustworthiness is concerned. Do we want this to happen in Singapore?

Democracy is a very new experience for us. We have to chart our own way. We cannot keep quoting what happened in the United Kingdom. We must chart our own way; we must evolve our own system; we must evolve our own rules. Even older societies which have had more experience than us in democracy have found the process of democracy derailed when the wrong type of people got into politics. We must not allow this to happen in Singapore. The purpose of this Bill is not to stifle democracy, but to enable it to work under our particular circumstance. Both the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson say that this Bill is a blow to democracy.

Sir, it is not uncommon in other countries, and even in Singapore in the 60's, perhaps even today, for those who abuse the democratic process to be the first to cry "Foul" when steps are taken to check them. The Communists, for example, are always in the forefront in the battles in democratic countries when anything is done to curb freedom of speech or action. They want full freedom of speech, full freedom of action. Because they need these freedoms.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What have you done?

Mr Dhanabalan: They need these freedoms to undermine the very society in which they operate. They need the freedoms in order to create chaos, they need the freedom to create disorder, so that the ground will be fertile for them to appeal to the masses. But once they take over, the people can kiss freedoms good-bye. The only democracy that you will find will be the word "democratic" in the name of the country. And we know of many Communist countries that call themselves democratic and the only democracy that they have is in the name.

We do not want to change our democratic system. We only want to ensure that the kind of changes necessary to make it work in our society, in our situation, would be taken. We must not shy from taking such measures. And we have. We have introduced over the years provisions in our law which are quite different from what they are in other countries. And now other countries are beginning to see the wisdom of such laws. Let me just quote one example. We were the first to make the rule that if a Member is elected on a Party ticket and if he resigns from the Party, he vacates his seat in the House. It is something that the British never liked because it was something unheard of for them. I think because of that rule, Singapore has had stable Government. Others have watched this and they are trying to introduce the same rules.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who?

Mr Dhanabalan: Thailand, Sabah, and India would love to introduce it.

Sir, the particular amendment relating to the suspension of privileges has been commented upon in some detail. I really do not know what all the hand-wringing is about. We already have the right to suspend Members. If the Committee of Privileges or any other Committee which has been established to look into the abuse of privilege comes to the conclusion that there has been a serious abuse of privilege, it can, under our existing rules, suspend the Member from Parliament, which means that the Member cannot be found anywhere in the precincts of Parliament. He will have no right to be here. He will have no right to speak.

What we have introduced is admittedly something new, but something that suits our particular circumstance - that a Member who has been found guilty after a certain process, which I will explain, can participate in all the debates in this House. He can vote on proceedings, but he has to watch what he says. What is so wrong with that? Is anybody here claiming that the only way he can make his point and advance his cause is by making defamatory statements? Surely Members can always advance arguments without having to resort to defamatory statements. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, we seriously considered whether we should not suspend privileges for all Members in this House, because we were very confident that in any situation we would be able to make our point to Parliament and to the people without the protection of this provision in the law. But after serious consideration, we thought that that would be a very drastic step because we want to aim this law only on Members who abuse this privilege.

Suspension of privilege as provided for in the Bill is a lesser punishment than total suspension from Parliament. Only those who find that they cannot debate in this House without making defamatory statements will find this a hindrance.

Sir, the defamatory statement made in this House must first be considered by a Committee. And as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Kolam Ayer, (Encik Sidek Saniff) the Members of the Committee of Privileges are Members with responsibility. They are Members who are known to be men of integrity, who have their own mind about matters. They are not going to arrive at a conclusion that, just because a statement has been made by an Opposition Member, therefore it is defamatory unless after examination, after hearing evidence, they come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to back the allegation or statement. Then, having come to the conclusion, they will again have to examine whether the particular misdemeanour requires the punishment of suspension of privilege. This is not something that will be done lightly. But Members of the House must know that if they abuse this privilege, there will be a price to pay. Insofar as the Members of the PAP are concerned, they know that if they abuse this privilege they will have more to pay than just mere suspension of privilege because our own Party rules of conduct in this matter are extremely rigorous.

I have taken note, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Member for Anson's offer to repeat his statement about the Chief Justice outside this House. I would also like to know whether he will repeat every statement that he has made in this House that we list as being defamatory. We, on this side, are prepared to repeat outside everything that we said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of clarification. I think what the Leader of the House omits is that I said if the Chief Justice will write to me, because I do not know what is it that he wants me to repeat, and point out exactly what he wants me to repeat outside, I will repeat it.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said I have taken note of his offer. I have asked a question whether he is also prepared to repeat every other statement that we consider as defamatory. Would he like to answer that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Leader forgets that it is the person aggrieved by the defamatory statement. If the Chief Justice, according to the Prime Minister, wants me to repeat it, let him write to me, I said, and I will then repeat the statement if he points exactly to the statement that I made.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, he is just trying to wriggle out. He has also made the point that the people should be asked to decide on this matter because it is such a momentous change in our laws that it is something that Parliament should not take upon itself to decide. I ask the Member: what are we elected for? This is a law that affects the conduct of Members of Parliament in this House. Surely, we are qualified to make the rules that should govern the way we conduct our proceedings in this House. We are elected Members. We do not have to go back to the people for everything. His idea of a by-election ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way?

Mr Dhanabalan: I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has come out with his dramatic idea that he will resign from his constituency and the Prime Minister will resign from his constituency and that they will contest to prove whether there is support for this Bill. Sir, we know what the issues are before the House. We know that the Member would love dearly to distract the attention of Singapore and this House from what is ahead. The Prime Minister is quite capable of taking care of his interests. He has full confidence in the Members of this House who belong to the PAP to take care of the interests of this House. But if the Member for Anson is so exercised and so keen and anxious to prove that he has the support of the people to oppose this Bill, by all means, resign from Anson. I can give him the assurance that there will be an early by-election and he can prove his point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: My proposal was that the Prime Minister will also resign his seat.

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way?

Mr Dhanabalan: I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you saying that the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept that challenge?

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, do sit down. He is not giving way.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister does not have to prove anything. He is not anxious to prove that he has the support of the people of Singapore. That has been proved again and again. But if the Member for Anson is keen and anxious to show that he still has the support of the people of Singapore, by all means proceed with his proposal and I can assure him that there will be an early by-election. We will not deny him by postponing the by-election. We will have an early by-election and he can prove his point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is not my challenge.

An hon. Member: Chicken out!

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you resign your seat.

Mr Dhanabalan: I do not have to prove anything, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not suffer from any complex that I have to go down and try to prove.

The Member for Potong Pasir asked me to give examples of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt. These are matters that the Committee of Privileges will decide from time to time. But if he wants to have examples, I am sure if he looks up Erskine May in the library there are ample examples for him to look into.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are going to follow British practice, are you?

Mr Dhanabalan: Well, practice before 1965. Certainly, Sir, as I said, there will be no double standards. The standards that we apply will apply to all the Members of this House. As I have made it very clear, Members of the PAP know that they are under a much more rigorous standard than is required under this Act.

The Member for Potong Pasir has asked the question of the magnitude of the fine. Why is it that strangers have the same maximum fine as Members? If during the Committee stage, the Member would like to move that the fine on strangers should be at the maximum of more than $50,000 - to $100,000 or $150,000 - I think we all will support it. If he would like to move, he should move. The Clerk would be able to assist. All he has to do during the Committee stage is, when we come to this particular clause, he can move that the figure "$50,000" be changed to "$100,000" or "$150,000". We will support it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He has not given notice yet.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Reduce the Member's fine.

Mr Dhanabalan: Since this is an urgent Bill, I think it does not require notice, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I can move amendments then. Thank you.

Mr Dhanabalan: The Member for Potong Pasir has also asked for clarification on section 20(2), whether it has a retroactive effect. I think I have made that very clear. If a Member were to commit contempt now or make a defamatory statement which is referred to the Committee of Privileges now, ie, before this Bill is passed, then when the Committee of Privileges meets and hears the complaint and, if the Committee of Privileges comes to the conclusion that the Member is guilty, then he will be subject to the punishment as it stands in the law today, which is the Act as it stands today, ie, without this Bill, because the offence was committed before the Bill was passed. But, of course, if in the course of the hearing of the Committee of Privileges he commits further contempt or makes a defamatory statement then he will come under the new law. So that should be clear enough.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not what he has spoken?

Mr Dhanabalan: Anything that any Member says before this law comes into operation would be subject to the old Bill. Anything that he says after this Bill comes into operation will be subject to the new Act. That is simple.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I have a clarification, Mr Speaker? What has been spoken, if he comes before the Committee of Privileges, the same subject matter will be brought up, isn't it? So, in effect, it is retroactive. If it were a different complaint from before the law was passed, then it will be a different subject matter.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, the Committee of Privileges will be considering a complaint made on an offence committed before the new law comes into operation. But if, in the course of giving evidence, or if in the course of a hearing of the Committee of Privileges, he makes further statements and further smears, then of course it must come under the new Act. But the particular statement or offence committed before the new Act will be subject to the punitive powers in the Act as it stands today.

The Member for Punggol asked whether there is any proposal to deal with recalcitrant Members who continually abuse privilege or commit contempt of Parliament. I think the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to deal with the case. I mentioned in my closing remarks during the Second Reading that we are going to do a thorough review of the Act and compare our provisions with those existing in other countries, especially Commonwealth countries and if, after the study we find that further amendments are needed, we will introduce them in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I by way of clarification ---

Mr Speaker: Some more clarifications? Through the whole day you have been wanting to ask for clarifications. All right, make your point of clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This concerns the proceedings before the Committee of Privileges. I asked the Leader whether the whole purpose, as I said it would appear to be, was to try and seal my mouth before the Committee of Privileges and he said, "No. That is not the intention. But if he makes further statements about other things, then of course this will apply." Does he or does he not accept that that would amount to limiting my defence, putting limitations on my defence? It is like telling an accused person in court, "You may not say anything else. You cannot speak except on this very charge. You cannot bring in anything else." Does he or does he not accept that, and is that the intention so that I can be sealed?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no intention to seal the Member's lips in any way. Unless he claims that the only way he can defend himself is by making more smears and more insinuations and more defamatory statements. He can say what he likes in the Committee of Privileges but if he makes new statements which are defamatory he should be very clear in his own mind that he has evidence to substantiate those statements. That is all that is required.

Mr Speaker: I suggest we leave it to the Committee to decide.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ring the Division bells.

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Ow Chin Hock Abdullah Tarmugi Phua Bah Lee Ahmad Mattar Rajaratnam, S. Ang Kok Peng Sia Khoon Seong Barker, E.W. Sidek bin Saniff Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan Cheng Bock Chai Chong Yii Tan, Dixie Chandra Das, S. Tan, Augustine H.H. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tan Keng Yam, Tony Chew Heng Ching Tan Soo Khoon Chin Harn Tong Tan Tee Yong, Philip Chng Hee Kok Tang Guan Seng Ch'ng Jit Koon Tang See Chim Chua Sian Chin Teh Cheang Wan Dhanabalan, S. Teo Chong Tee Goh Chee Wee Vasoo, S. Goh Chok Tong Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Goh Choon Kang Wan Soon Bee Heng Chiang Meng Wang Kai Yuen Ho Kah Leong Wong Kan Seng Ho Tat Kin Wong Kwei Cheong Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ibrahim Othman Yatiman Yusof Jayakumar, S. Yeo Cheow Tong Jek Yeun Thong Yeo Choo Kok Koh Lam Son Yeo Ning Hong Lai Tha Chai Yeo Toon Chia Lau Ping Sum Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Teik Soon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Noes Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Chiam See Tong Leong Horn Kee Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ng Kah Ting Ong Teng Cheong Yeoh Ghim Seng Othman bin Haron Eusofe

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

Bill considered in Committee. 5.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Chairman, may I seek a direction from you first, and that is this. I understood from the Leader of the House that, since this Bill is being taken through a Certificate of Urgency, the question of giving notice of amendments will be dispensed with and that any Member may move any amendment at the Committee stage without giving notice. If that is so, I propose to move a number of amendments.

The Chairman: You are quite right, Mr Jeyaretnam. Under Standing Order 71(3), you are allowed to move amendmentswithout notice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I give notice that I will be moving amendments to clause 2 and clause 5.

The Chairman: All right.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

The Chairman: You are moving an amendment, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "at the establishment of the Republic of Singapore"

Sir, the purpose of the amendment will become clear if I explain that this clause tries to define what the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament will be. It does not attempt to interfere with the punishment for any abuse of privilege. This clause merely tries to define what the powers, privileges and immunities of the House shall be. And the Leader in moving the Bill said, (I hope I have got him correctly) that we are still at the elementary stage of democracy and it would useful for us to have regard to the usages of the UK Parliament, just as in our judicial system we have recourse to how the law is applied in England. And although they are not binding on us, they are, as the Judges will tell you, of great persuasive authority.

So my plea is that we are not going to suffer anything if we take guidance on the question of what amounts to an abuse of privilege, what amounts to contempt, from the usages, conventions and customs of the UK Parliament. If, after taking such guidance, we find that the Member has committed an abuse of privilege, then the punishments are there and the punishment may be more drastic than the UK Parliament because in the UK Parliament there is no punishment of a fine. But it is important that we should have some guidance as to what amounts to an abuse of privilege.

May I refer, Mr Speaker, to Article 104 of the Standing Orders by which we are guided. It says,

'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.' So it is the practice that is relevant at the time that we are seeking to interpret any orders in our Standing Orders. So my amendment will bring this clause into line with the Standing Order 104(1). Otherwise there is a conflict between Standing Order 104(1) and the amendment proposed in the Bill.

I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, without referring to matters before the Privileges Committee now. I have, in a submission, referred to a change that has come about in the United Kingdom Parliament and the Privileges Committee has got that in front of them. It is that sort of situations on which we should be guided. And I ask the Minister to consider accepting my amendment because it does not do any violence to the question of punishment which is what the Leader of the House and the Government are mostly concerned with - anyone who abuses privilege should be adequately punished. This does not. This amendment simply seeks to give guidance to everyone as to what constitutes abuse of privilege. The Leader himself told my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, "You can look it up in Erskine May." Well, Erskine May does not stop in 1962. Erskine May continues up to the present. And so we should know what the present usage of Parliament is. So I ask that the amendment be accepted.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not have much more to add to what I have already stated just now. We go on a simple principle - what is the pattern or model that we should follow? We think that it is logical to follow the pattern and model of the UK, as it was, on the date when we became independent.

I do not think that this necessarily conflicts with Standing Order 104, "In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice...". Yes, whatever the particular subject that is in doubt ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Relevant today.

Mr Dhanabalan: Relevant practice. It does not say "today".

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, it is today.

Mr Dhanabalan: Well, it will then have to be governed by the law. The law will supersede the Standing Orders. I think it is quite clear that the law takes precedence over the Standing Orders.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask for a Division on this?

An hon. Member: You are wasting time.

The Chairman: On the earlier motion, you already had a Division and you know the results.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division on this.

The Chairman: Again? All right. You want to have a Division, have a Division then. Ring the Division bells.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 64; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes (cont.) Chiam See Tong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Noes Lim Chee Onn Ng Kah Ting Abbas Abu Amin Ong Teng Cheong Abdullah Tarmugi Othman Haron Eusofe Ahmad Mattar Ow Chin Hock Ang Kok Peng Phua Bah Lee Beng Kian Lam, Sia Khoon Seong Arthur Sidek bin Saniff Chai Chong Yii Tan Cheng Bock Chandra Das, S. Tan, Dixie Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tan Soo Khoon Chew Heng Ching Tan Tee Yong, Philip Chin Harn Tong Tan Guan Seng Chng Hee Kok Tang See Chim Ch'ng Jit Koon Teh Cheang Wan Chua Sian Chin Teo Chong Tee Dhanabalan, S. Vasoo, S. Goh Chee Wee Wan Hussin bin Goh Chok Tong Hj Zoohri Goh Choon Kang Wan Soon Bee Heng Chiang Meng Wang Kai Yuen Ho Kah Leong Wong Kan Seng Ho Tat Kin Wong Kwei Cheong Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ibrahim Othman Yatiman Yusof Jayakumar, S Yeo Cheow Tong Jek Yeun Thong Yeo Choo Kok Koh Lam Son Yeo Ning Hong Lai Tha Chai Yeo Toon Chia Lau Ping Sum Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Teik Soon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Abstention Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Yeoh Ghim Seng

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 36 to line 9 in page 3, to leave out subsection (2). There is a consequential amendment. The figure "(2)" should be substituted for the "(3)" in subsection (3), so that the whole of subsection (2) is deleted and subsection (3) becomes subsection (2).

Mr Speaker, Sir, my reasons for moving the amendment are that, as has been explained or pointed out by the Leader of the House, this is something completely new and is a departure from the law in the United Kingdom. As I said, there the United Kingdom Parliament has jealously fought to prevent any other tribunal outside it from inquiring into anything said in its Houses of Parliament. It has arrogated to itself the sole authority to decide on any matter said within it. And there was a good reason for it and the reason is that Members of Parliament may speak without any worry, without any fear, that they may be made subject to civil proceedings or criminal proceedings outside Parliament in respect of anything said by them in Parliament. This is fundamental and it is vital to the whole question of parliamentary government that Parliament alone is the supreme body, and every other institution in the land is subject to Parliament. Parliament is the supreme institution and no other tribunal may question anything said in Parliament.

May I also point out, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the proposed subsection (2) will run counter to section 4 of the present Act. The Bill does not propose to make any amendment to section 4. I should perhaps not be pointing this out but raising it later outside if necessary. But I would be failing in my duty if I do not point out that the draftsman seemed to have overlooked completely section 4 of this Act. Because if you look at section 4 of the present Act, it says:

'There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament.' So there you have a section, very clear in its terms, that anything said in Parliament "shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament." And this Bill now proposes to provide that it shall be questioned where Parliament itself proposes to remove the immunity. But section 4 does not talk about the removal of such immunity by Parliament, by a resolution. So it is clearly, in my view, contrary to section 4 of the Act and is in conflict. And for this reason, I ask that the Minister consider now whether the proposed clause is in conflict; and secondly, for the more important reason, whether he thinks it necessary that we should subject proceedings in Parliament to an institution which, as I said, should be subordinate to Parliament. It derogates from the whole idea of the supremacy of Parliament and proceedings in Parliament.

I beg to move, Sir.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this particular provision in the Bill has been the subject of considerable comment by Members as well as by me during the Second Reading. I know that the Member for Anson is against this provision. He has given his reasons; I have given my reasons.

I really do not have anything more to add except to say this. I am not a lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but as I read it, section 4 of the Act, which the Member for Anson quoted, is not so absolute that you can say anything in Parliament without being liable for what you say. For example, section 30 says, "No person shall ...", and there is a whole list of offences. It is quite clear there, for example, that if in Parliament, or in a Committee of Parliament, false evidence is given, or something false is said, then they are subject to penalties. So obviously section 4 must be modified by other specific exclusions in the Act, and the proposed Bill makes this specific provision that under certain circumstances the privileges accorded by sections 3, 4 and 5 can be suspended.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just reply to that briefly, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am afraid the Leader of the House has misconstrued section 30 of the present Act completely. Section 30 does not refer to anything said in Parliament. It talks about a number of other things, "wilfully failing or refusing to obey any rule or order of Parliament" and "failing to comply with any summons". And so it goes on. Whereas section 4 talks about statements made in Parliament, in the House or in any Committee of the House. So section 30 does not concern itself with statements made by a Member in Parliament, ie, "wilfully make a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry". That is something quite different from making a statement in Parliament on a Bill or in a debate on any matter. It is quite different, in my view. You cannot try and bring it within that.

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, just to supplement the point made by the Leader of the House. First of all, the Leader is quite correct in pointing out that section 30, paragraph (q) already envisages that certain proceedings in Parliament or a Committee thereof may be subject to proceedings in a court. And I quote the whole of paragraph (q):

'whether or not he has been sworn or has made an affirmation, [it is an offence] wilfully to make a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before Parliament or a committee.'

The other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make in response to the Member for Anson when he says there is a possible conflict between section 4 and the proposed clause 2 of section 20, is that there is no conflict. There is no conflict because section 4 of the Act is expressly referred to in the new subsection (2). The new proposed subsection (2) expressly refers to section 4 of the existing Act. So there is no conflict. There might be an argument for conflict if the proposed amendment showed a lapse, shall we say, in terms of drafting. But there is no lapse. It is covered. There is express reference to section 4.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to join in. Before I begin, I would just like to make an observation. At the last amendment, I notice that many Members were out, probably drinking their tea, without hearing the argument as to whether ---

The Chairman: What has that got to do with this particular clause?

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is the same thing here.

The Chairman: Come to the point, Mr Chiam. It is getting late, you know?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, all right. If you look at section 17, it also says:

'Without prejudice to the provisions of section 16 of this Act and subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, no person who gives evidence before Parliament or any committee shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment or damages by reason of anything which he may have said in such evidence.'

Again, I think this provision will be in conflict if section 20 (2) is not deleted. Because subsection (2) says that it gives powers for Parliament to suspend privilege and immunity of a Member. In that case, how does section 17 come in? It is again in conflict.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is getting himself all confused. If what he says is true, then even without this Bill, there is already a conflict between section 17 and section 30, which obviously cannot be so.

Mr Chiam See Tong: In what section you say it cannot be?

Mr Dhanabalan: The point that you bring up has nothing to do with the Bill that we have before the House. It is something quite different. Of course, the point that he has made about section 17 is that there is certain protection, but that protection does not extend to the point of somebody making a false declaration. So there is always a limitation on the protection in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the second point that my colleague made is quite conclusive because the amendment in clause 5, as my colleague has pointed out, quite specifically refers to section 4 of the Act. In other words, it recognizes that section 4 of the Act gives complete freedom but this particular clause that is in the Bill overrides, under certain circumstances, section 4. I think there is no lapse or oversight. It is quite clear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just reply to the Minister for Home Affairs an his clarification? He relies on the words in the new subsection (2) in clause 5, that it says "conferred by sections 3, 4 and 5". Of course, it must refer to the immunity conferred by section 5, by section 4 and by section 3. But where does section 4 say that the immunity is subject to Parliament waiving, or that section 4 shall not apply where Parliament has waived the immunity? Where does section 4 say that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is so absurd that really one ought not to reply. Of course, section 4 of the Act does not refer because this is an amendment which we are asking Parliament to adopt, and that is precisely the answer to his question.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Not again. You are abusing the privilege of this House!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I know you will say that. But they are abusing the privilege of this House.

The Chairman: In what way?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because of the majority they have, they are prepared to rush this Bill through. I think we, in the Opposition, should be allowed to maintain our right.

The Chairman: All right. We shall put it down - 2 Ayes and the rest Noes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, purely out of deference to you, and for no other reason, I will agree.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is a good idea to have a suspension. I propose to suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 6.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 6.10 pm until 6.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 6.40 pm