ARTICLE BY MR CHERIAN GEORGE IN STRAITS TIMES

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, may I have your permission and beg your indulgence to make a statement?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I wish to draw the attention of Members to an article entitled "Hold the guillotine when issues are of public concern" by Mr Cherian George, published in the column "From the Gallery" in the Straits Times on 10th March 1994, and I would like to quote parts of the article. I quote:

'Chairman Tan Soo Khoon and his Deputy Eugene Yap cut off exchanges with ruthless efficiency, keeping the Committee of Supply moving strictly according to the time-table on the first day.

But the speed came at a cost. Some discussions that deserved more of a public airing had to be aborted, leaving many in the gallery feeling somewhat shortchanged.

The strict time keeping is probably a reaction to the days when the Budget Debate lasted 14 days or more, and some MPs luxuriated in the time to make speeches that added little of substance.

But one wonders whether if Parliament is in danger of swinging to the opposite extreme, such that issues of public concern do not receive adequate time. And this in a period of increasing public desire for accountable Government - which is of course what Parliament is all about.

Clearly a balance has to be found between what Parliamentary authority Erskine May calls "the claims of business and the rights of debate".

If the former takes precedence too often over the latter, this may result in public disillusionment with the country's principal democratic institution.

Yes, on paper, the Committee of Supply certainly made progress yesterday, despatching the budgets of three government departments and three ministries by the 6 pm adjournment deadline.

But in Parliament, efficiency cannot be measured only by the clock; the product must satisfy the quality control of an increasingly critical and demanding public.'

Sir, Mr George's article thus criticised the Speaker and Deputy Speaker for curtailing the rights of Members of Parliament to air and discuss issues of public concern, by exercising the guillotine "with ruthless efficiency". The innuendo was that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker had stifled debate and were not using the "guillotine" procedure in a fair and proper manner. This was an unjust reflection on the conduct of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the discharge of their duties. It thus constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament.

However, we should give Mr George the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his criticism is born of ignorance rather than malice. Although Mr George quotes Erskine May on "the claims of business and the rights of debate" in his article, he makes factual errors. For example, in Singapore, the Budget Debate has never lasted 14 days or more.

Sir, I am only raising this matter in this House today because I wanted to take some time to consider carefully how to respond to Mr George's article, to set the record straight without being too severe in our reaction. Instead of referring Mr George immediately to the Committee of Privileges, I am taking this opportunity to explain the Parliamentary procedures which apply to the Committee of Supply, and when Members wish to raise issues for debate. I expect this explanation to come to Mr George's notice and hope that it will correct Mr George's misapprehension.

The Committee of Supply has to be conducted according to a set schedule in order to complete discussion of the budgets of Government Ministries within the seven days set aside for this purpose, so that Parliament can pass the Budget Resolution in time for the start of the new financial year on 1st April. Many Members have submitted cuts on Ministries' budgets. To accommodate them, the Speaker has extended the debate on the Budget by one day. The sitting time of the debate has also been extended by 30 minutes each day.

Despite this, it is necessary to regulate the time the Committee spends on individual Ministries. The "guillotine" is the standard Parliamentary device for doing so, not only in Singapore but also in other Commonwealth countries with Parliamentary systems. If the Speaker allows some Members to prolong the debate beyond the "guillotine" times, then less time will be left for subsequent and equally important items of discussion.

Sir, the Committee of Supply is not the only occasion on which MPs can raise issues and hold the Government to account. Under Parliament's Standing Orders, Members who want to raise issues of public concern can file a Question for Oral Answer, or move a Motion of Adjournment when he can speak for 20 minutes, or move a substantive motion for a general debate when he can speak for two hours. If, even after speaking for two hours in a general debate, the Member still feels that the issue has not been fully discussed, he can seek the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of the House to suspend the Standing Orders, so that he can continue with the debate.

Any Member not satisfied with a Minister's reply in the Committee of Supply may raise the matter for further discussion at any time, using any of these provisions in the Standing Orders. Hence the Speaker's and the Deputy Speaker's enforcement of the time-table for debate in the Committee of Supply will not and cannot prevent issues of public concern from being thoroughly discussed and answered.

Mr George's criticisms of the proceedings of the Committee of Supply are therefore totally unfounded. I hope that Mr George, after reading this clarification, will withdraw unconditionally his criticisms of the proceedings, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, and publish this retraction in the same "From the Gallery" column in the Straits Times. After I have read his response to my statement, I will decide whether it is necessary to make a formal complaint to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I seek clarification from the Leader of the House?

Mr Speaker: I do not propose to have a debate on this matter, Mr Low. I have taken note of what the Leader of the House has stated and I suggest that we leave the matter over till next week.