ARTICLE IN TIME MAGAZINE (Explanation)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister if he will explain why the statement in an article in Time Magazine for the 8th September 1986 that the government "... introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would deny the right to counsel for an M.P. cited for contempt." is an error of fact as claimed by his Press Secretary.

The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of the Prime Minister.

The rule that a person who is to be tried by Parliament for contempt has no right to legal represention in Parliament arises from British Parliamentary practice and not from any Singapore constitutional amendment. Section 3(1) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act clearly states that the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and of the Speaker, Members and Committees of Parliament shall be the same as those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom. In UK, there is no automatic right to counsel for an MP cited for contempt. We follow British practice that Parliament is master of its own procedures.

The constitutional amendment, referred to by Time, was purely consequential to our importation of the British practice. It was expressly stated in Parliament that the Bill "is exclusively consequential in nature for it makes amendments to the Constitution which are consequential to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Act, 1986."

Time's statement is certainly an error of fact.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Acting Minister. Does the Minister recognize that the statement, to which offence was taken by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, was a statement in the Time magazine that the Government unexpectedly "introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would deny the right to counsel for an MP cited for contempt."? Is the Minister saying that it is factually wrong that the Government introduced a constitutional amendment? Is that factually wrong?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We do not have to change the Constitution. The amendment made was the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. There was no constitutional change, just changes to the powers and privileges of Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The question, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Acting Minister, I repeat, is it factually wrong for the Time magazine to have said that the government "introduced a constitutional amendment"? Has the Minister not heard of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which was introduced in this House for the first time on the 25th August this year? And does he not accept that it proposed an amendment to the Constitution? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The so-called constitutional amendment was actually the consequential change to the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. It is not unexpected. It is to be expected. It follows the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Minister say whether it was the law in Singapore before the introduction of that Bill that a Member of Parliament committed for contempt may not have the right of counsel as provided in the Constitution? Is the Minister saying that that was the law before the Bill was introduced?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member for Anson was told of the answer this morning. He was told of this in an answer to the same question that he raised on 22nd September when the amendment was made by the Minister. I suggest that he read the transcript to the Minister's speech when he moved the amendment on the 22nd September. The answers are there.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Minister state then what was factually wrong about that statement? Is he now saying the error was to say it was unexpected? Is that what he is saying? Was that the factual error committed by Time magazine?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I have already stated, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the amendment was purely consequential to the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Prof. Jayakumar rose ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have a supplementary question for the Minister again.

Mr Speaker: On the same point, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is going to make some reply. If you will wait for him to reply first.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see the Minister wants to reply on that.

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I step in only to avoid the House wasting more time. The Acting Minister, not being a lawyer, has given a clear reply. The Member for Anson, being a lawyer, fails to appreciate the point. Now, let us first look what Time magazine said. It said:

'The government unexpectedly introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would deny the right to counsel for an MP cited for contempt.'

The impression that this sentence gives is that there had always been a right to counsel in contempt cases in Parliament but this had suddenly been taken away by a constitutional amendment. This is factually and legally not true. The best way of addressing this question, Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, is this. What was the position before the Privileges Act was amended and what was the position after the Privileges Act was amended? Sir, before the Privileges Act was amended, this House always had the power to punish persons cited for contempt. Was there a right to counsel? The position was governed by British practice which we followed, and the British practice as stated in Erskine May is, and I quote:

'Persons accused of breaches of the privileges or other contempts of either House are not as a rule allowed to be defended by a counsel.'

So before we amended the Privileges Act, there was no automatic right to counsel. When we amended the Privileges Act recently to incorporate amongst other things the punishment of expulsion, the power of committal, what did we do about the right to counsel? We just maintained the status quo, which is, to continue the practice so that there will be no automatic right to counsel. And the amendment to the Constitution was purely consequential. So there never was an automatic right to counsel. The Privileges Act continued the position and the amendment to the Constitution was consequential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that puts the matter beyond further dispute.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Mr Speaker: Are you not satisfied yet, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Sir, I am not.

Mr Speaker: All right. One more supplementary question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I have two or three more supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You cannot go on forever. One more supplementary question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am far from satisfied with the answer given by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law. May I ask the Second Minister for Law this question. If he maintains that the law was never changed by this Bill, and that even before the introduction of the Bill, that Members of Parliament committed for contempt had no right to counsel, may I pray what was the reason for the introduction of that Bill? It seems to me to make nonsense of his answers.

Secondly, does he realize that the amendment is to an article of the Constitution which does not merely talk about representation or defence. It talks in the first place of consultation, let alone defence. By this amendment the Member of Parliament who is committed has no right even to consult a lawyer, let alone appoint him to appear before any Tribunal of the House. Is that the British practice - that he could not consult any lawyer?

The Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The Member is making a speech. He is not asking a question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I have asked three questions. May I have the answers?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on the law was conducted and finished on 22nd September. The Member for Anson's question addressed to the Prime Minister and dealt with by the Acting Minister for Community Development was simple: in what way was the Time magazine statement an error of fact? This question has been answered. If he wants now to resurrect the legal argument, it is a separate question which we are fully prepared to defend.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking them now.

Mr Speaker: All right, second Question. Dr Koh.