AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS (Paper Parl. 4 of 1988)

12.01 pm

Mr Speaker: As insufficient notice of the Motion has been given, the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present are required before the Motion may be moved. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the Motion be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Sir, three amendments are proposed to the Standing Orders. The first amendment refers to Standing Order No. 1, paragraph (3), where it is proposed that the Speaker be given flexibility and discretion to appoint a time other than 11.00 am for the commencement of a sitting. There may be occasions when Parliament wishes to sit at a time other than 11.00 am. But the current Standing Order does not permit a change of time unless a resolution is moved in the House during a parliamentary sitting. But when Parliament does not sit and it wishes to convene at a time other than 11.00 am, there is no discretion for you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to fix a time other than 11.00 am. Hence this amendment.

The second amendment is needed because of the recent amendment to the Constitution which provides for two Deputy Speakers. So consequential amendments are therefore required to the relevant paragraphs of Standing Order Nos. 8, 16, 51 and 95, arising from the provision of two Deputy Speakers in the Constitution.

Sir, the third amendment is on Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which presently states in the first line that:

'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.'

This Standing Order will pose difficulty to Members from GRCs which will be formed after the next general elections. The GRC will have three Members of Parliament. But if the Standing Order remains, it will be difficult for Members to distinguish one Member of the GRC from another. Hence it is proposed that Members of GRC be allowed to be called by name. And to be consistent, it is also proposed that Members from single-member constituencies also be allowed to be addressed by name.

Sir, we know that the present Standing Order of not allowing Members to be referred to by name is to guard against personal references or any appearance of personality in a debate. I submit that while this is a good tradition originating from Westminster, we need not rigidly follow it as we need to change Standing Orders according to changing circumstances. Standing Orders are meant to serve the needs of the House and not meant to restrict our actions unnecessarily. Therefore, it is proposed that Members who are returned to Parliament after the next general elections be allowed to refer to other Members by name. Of course, Sir, when this liberty is given, all Members are expected to observe proper decorum and not abuse this practice by making fun of a Member's name. If the situation gets out of hand and the debate becomes personal, Sir, I am sure you will most likely restrain the Member concerned.

Here, if I may also suggest that when referring to a Member by name, it will be indeed polite to prefix it with the word "Mr" or "hon Mr" before the name. For example, when referring to the Member for Toa Payoh, we could refer to him as "Mr Eric Cheong" or "the hon. Mr Eric Cheong".

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to speak on the amendment to Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which says:

'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.'

This is to be amended to:

'A Member, other than a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, shall be referred to by the Constituency he represents or the name he was returned to Parliament.'

Sir, I believe this amendment has come four years late. If you remember, in 1984, there was already an amendment to the Constitution to introduce non-constituency Members of Parliament. If one was appointed in 1984, how else would we address him in Parliament other than by his name? Therefore, I think in the Remarks, it is necessary to say that this amendment applies not only to Group Representation Constituency Members but also to non-constituency Members of Parliament.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Are you supporting?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am not supporting this amendment. I regret that there is such an amendment although I admit that there is a need for it. Because this is consequent on the amendment to the Constitution to introduce Group Representation Constituencies. This shows that when you amended the law or the Constitution, you have forgotten the consequences of that amendment. And this amendment to the Standing Orders is one of the unforeseen consequences. So I do not believe that Members of the House intended to amend this Standing Order, but as it is we have to do it.

Therefore, I beg to differ with the Leader of the House that Westminster has this practice of calling a Member by reference to his constituency and not his name. That is the reason that he gave. And also it is not because one Member can make fun of the name of another Member. I think there is a more important reason. The essence of democracy is, of course, representation. All of us are here by virtue of our representation of a group of people comprising one or more constituencies. So we are not here by virtue of our own individual self. That is the reason why Members are addressed as representatives of their constituencies, for example, the Member for Kaki Bukit, the Member for Chong Boon, or whatever. He is here by virtue of the fact that he has been elected by the majority of the people in his constituency to be in Parliament. That is the reason why we address a Member of Parliament not by his personal name but by the name of his constituency, as a Member of Parliament for that constituency. So if we are amend- ing this Standing Order for the reasons given, we would have eroded a very important tradition, an important practice. When we address MPs by their individual name, it would appear that we are here by virtue of our own individual self. There would be no indication that we are here as a result of our election as representatives from a particular constituencies. I would really regret that. I think we should find a way out to indicate that we are representatives of certain constituencies and not by virtue of our own individual self. The Leader has indicated how we should address another Member. I think this is important. I would suggest that in addition to just addressing "Mr", we should also use the additional prefix "honourable", such as the hon. Mr Chandra Das, or whatever.

If we set a precedent here, then members of the public would know how to address Members of Parliament. Because in correspondence and in other forms of communication, there is a standard form of address. I am not saying that I wish to be addressed as "honourable". It is not so much the status that I am concerned, but I think that as we are representatives of the people, the form of address given is to show the respect given. We are not here by virtue of our own individual self, so I think the honour should be given to our voters. Our voters voted us and I think they respected us. I think they want us to have a proper form of address. So perhaps I would urge the House to agree that we call each other, (other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries) by using the additional prefix of "the honourable Mr So-and-So".

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I shall have the pleasure of addressing the Member for Potong Pasir as the honourable Mr Chiam See Tong in the near future.

Sir, we are not honourable Members just because we address one another as "honourable". We must earn that designation for the hard work that we put in for our constituents, for the respect that we gain in pursuit of our work as Members of Parliament.

But I have a question for clarification by the Member for Potong Pasir. As I listened to his speech, I was drawn to the conclusion that he is now a supporter of the provisions for non-constituency MPs and for GRCs. Am I correct, Sir?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is typical of the hon. Member for Whampoa. I think he loves to pick on me. Sir, he is completely out of order. We are debating on the amendment to the Standing Orders. I do not think we are touching on the issue of non-constituency MPs. Maybe at another time I will answer him.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought he drew the House's attention to the fact that had there been non-constituency MPs admitted to this House after the 1984 general elections, we would have had to introduce such an amendment earlier. But you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the fault lay with the Member for Potong Pasir. He would not let us have one non-constituency MP from his party.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I do not have much to add other than to thank Members for their contribution. And to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, I think if he would like to continue, if he has the opportunity, to be called "the hon. Member for Potong Pasir", he still could, because under the amendment for a single constituency Member he could, still be called by the name of the Constituency to which he was returned. Of course, if other Members would like to be addressed by their names, it could also be done. I have said in my speech that it is only polite to prefix it with "Mr" or "Honourable Minister" or "Honourable Mr" depending on the choice of Members individually.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe the Leader of the House has addressed the point that I brought up. I think we should get an indication from the House now. I think this is the opportune time to find out whether or not Members themselves, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, want to be addressed as "Honourable Mr", or do they just want "Mr", or they do not mind being called "Honourable Mr" or "Mr". I think if we have an indication, it would serve as a guide to members of the public in future when they address Members of Parliament.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, this is not provided for in the Standing Orders and let this evolve in practice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.