AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

Column: 950

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS:

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 2004 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Column: 951

Sir, under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee has proposed amendments to the Standing Orders (SOs). These amendments have been grouped under four categories, namely:

(a) New amendments;

(b) Substantive amendments;

(c) Amendments to procedures and current practices; and

(d) Other amendments.

The rationale for proposing the amendments under the above four categories is stated in the "Remarks" column in Appendix I and there is no need for me to elaborate on them. However, I shall highlight the key and substantive amendments made to the current rules and procedures so as to facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business and improve the efficiency of the House.

_

New Amendments: _

Residuary powers of the Speaker

Firstly, we have included a new provision to allow the Speaker to rule on all matters of practice and procedure. Currently, Standing Order (SO) No. 105 provides that in cases of doubt the Standing Orders shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the UK House of Commons. With the amendment, the Speaker can decide and rule on the interpretation and application of the Standing Orders but he will be guided by previous Speakers' rulings and established practices of Parliament. However, this does not prevent the Speaker from adopting the relevant practices of Commonwealth Parliaments so far as they may be applicable to us.

Column: 952

_Interpretation of "clear days"
_

In view of the introduction of five-day work week in the public sector, we have defined "clear days" to exclude Saturday for the purpose of calculating the number of days. This is provided for in the Interpretation section in Amendment No. 1.

_Effect of prorogation on Bills
_

Another new amendment relates to the effect of prorogation on Bills (Amendment No. 6). At present, all Bills which have not been passed or obtained the Presidential assent shall lapse upon prorogation of Parliament. The amendment provides that a Bill shall not lapse upon the prorogation of Parliament and all business and proceedings connected therewith shall automatically be carried over to the next session of the same Parliament. As Parliament is elected for a term of five years, there is no compelling reason for the business not to continue from one session to the next within the term of that Parliament.

The amendment also allows a Bill which has been passed by Parliament before prorogation to be presented, after prorogation, to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights for consideration and to the President for his assent.

Similarly, the business before any Select Committee shall not lapse upon the prorogation of Parliament and shall be carried over to the next session of the same Parliament and continue from the stage that it had reached in the preceding session. However, when Parliament is dissolved, all Bills will still lapse.

_Term of a Standing Select Committee
_

The Standing Orders Committee has similarly proposed that the term of

Column: 953

Sessional Select Committees, for example, the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, be for the duration of a Parliament and that the business and proceedings before such a Committee shall not lapse by reason of a prorogation. As the term of these Committees will no longer be for a session, they shall henceforth be known as Standing Select Committees.

_

Substantive Amendments: _

Oaths of Allegiance

Under the category of "Substantive Amendments", Amendment No. 9 gives the Speaker the flexibility of determining the manner of taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance at a place other than at the Table. For instance, Members may, in future, take their oaths from their seats or in groups.

_Questions for oral/written answer
_

The next amendment under this category (Amendment No. 10) makes provision for the number of questions that a Member can ask for oral and written answer. Currently, Standing Orders allow for a maximum of three questions for oral answer per sitting. They are silent on the total number of questions, including those for written answer. The Committee has considered the provisions in other parliaments. For example, in Lok Sabha (India), a Member can ask not more than five questions per sitting, one of which can be for oral answer. In Canada, a Member is allowed to ask four questions per sitting, three of which can be for oral answer. In Malaysia, a Member can ask not more than three questions for oral answer per sitting and in one session (there are three sessions per year) a Member can ask not more than 10 questions for oral answer and five questions for written answer.

Column: 954

Having considered the practices in other parliaments, the Committee has proposed that a Member may have up to five questions on the Order Paper at any one time and not more than three of these questions shall be for oral answer, which is the present practice. Though the amendment may place a cap on the number of questions for answer, I hasten to assure Members that it is not the intention of the Committee to prevent Members from asking questions. It is the legitimate right and duty of an MP to ask questions in Parliament. Ministries, on their part, welcome them as an opportunity to explain and clarify Government policies or programmes. However, there must be a reasonable limit to the number of questions that are filed for answer, as has been done in other parliaments.

That is why the Committee is proposing that we have some restriction on the number of questions asked. Based on Parliament's records, a total of 657 questions for oral and written answers were filed by Members during the last two years. This works out to an average of two questions per Member whose questions appeared on the Order Paper. So the limit of five questions per Member per sitting should not pose a problem for Members.

Amendment No. 11 inserts an additional rule governing the contents of questions. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that questions are not excessively long and do not range so wide as to detract from its focus. The present practice of allowing multiple parts to a question is unaffected by this rule so long as the question does not cover a plethora of issues. In framing their questions, Members should try to be succinct and concise and should exclude preambles, contexts and background information on matters which are already public knowledge.

Column: 955

Motion to debate on a specific matter/Ministerial Statement

Currently, in all cases, when Parliament wishes to debate on a matter under Standing Order No. 42, the term of the motion is, "That Parliament do now adjourn." To be more specific on the matter to be debated, Amendment No. 12 provides for the subject matter to be expressed in direct terms. For example, if it is intended to allow for debate on a Ministerial Statement such as "Retuning the CPF", a motion can be moved "That the statement on "Retuning the CPF" be considered by Parliament.". Whereas, under the existing provision, the term of the motion will be, "That Parliament do now adjourn." Incidentally, although Standing Order No. 10 lists "Ministerial Statements" as one of the items of business, no substantive provision has been made for it in the Standing Orders. Hence, Amendment No. 3, which is a new amendment, provides for such a provision in the Standing Orders. Members can continue to ask for clarifications on a Ministerial Statement.

_Amendments in Committee of Supply
_

The last amendment (Amendment No. 13) under this category relates to the debate in the Committee of Supply. Currently, Standing Order No. 89 provides that Members wishing to move amendments in the Committee of Supply can file their amendments on matters of policy or details, in other words, either a $100 cut or a $10 cut. In fact, over the past five years, we have found that most of the amendments filed (more than 90%) were on matters of policy rather than on details of implementation. The Standing Orders Committee has therefore proposed to remove the distinction between $100 and $10 cuts, in other words, on matters of policy and detail, and confine amendments in the Committee of Supply

Column: 956

to just $100 cuts. Hence, the amendment to Standing Order No. 89 provides for this change.

_

Amendments to Procedures and Current Practices: _

Question Time/conversion of questions

The amendments under the next category "Amendments to Procedures and Current Practices" are to formalise the sitting time of Parliament and to make consequential changes to the times of business specified in the Standing Orders. In April 2003, Mr Speaker announced in Parliament that the commencement time of sittings of Parliament would be changed from 12.30 pm to 1.30 pm with effect from 25th April 2003. Consequent upon the change of the commencement time, Mr Speaker also revised such other times specified in the Standing Orders. These revisions are now incorporated in the proposed amendments (Amendment Nos. 14(d), (e), 16 and 20). Amendment No. 19 also formalises the extension of Question Time from one hour to one-and-a-half hours as resolved by Parliament on 2nd April 2002. Amendment No. 18 allows a Member to convert a question for written answer to a question for oral answer, or vice versa. However, the requisite notice period for such a request must be given.

Members will also be given more time to indicate their intention when they want to postpone or withdraw their questions for oral answer, if they have not been dealt with by the end of Question Time. They can inform the Clerk of their intention at any time prior to the termination of the sitting. Currently, they must do so by the end of Question Time.

_Introduction of Bills and moving of business motions before Supply business commences
_

Amendment No. 36(b) formalises the practice of allowing the introduction of

Column: 957

Government Bills and business motions to be moved before the business of Supply commences. In such an event, the proceedings on the business of Supply shall be postponed until after the Bill or motion is disposed of. Opportunity is also taken to update certain Standing Orders to reflect the current practice, such as sending and receiving notices by electronic means, as well as to rephrase some Standing Orders to avoid ambiguity.

_Moment of interruption
_

The Committee has recommended that the moment of interruption be shifted from 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm since our sittings usually go beyond 6.00 pm; sometimes they go beyond 7.00 pm. However, if Parliament decides to adjourn earlier during the debate in the Committee of Supply or during the debate on the President's Address, a motion can be moved to suspend Standing Orders.

** _Other Amendments
_ **

The last group of amendments are mainly drafting amendments to standardise certain terms and update the terminology used in the Standing Orders. Some of the amendments are also consequential amendments.

Sir, the amendments proposed would facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business and ensure that Parliament functions more effectively and efficiently. I therefore commend Members to adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Members of the House would probably agree with me when I say that if there is anybody else in this House who is all for making sure that

Column: 958

our proceedings in this House are done in a very efficient way, that would be me.

Sir, I agree that there is a need to update our Standing Orders in order to keep up with changing needs. While the recommendations of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee appear routine enough, and I would agree with most of the changes, I think there are some areas which, on closer scrutiny, give rise to some discomfort on my part. Sir, one of the objectives of Standing Orders is to ensure that the proceedings of the House are carried out in a smooth and orderly manner. However, nothing must be done to inhibit the rights of Members, particularly those on this side of the House, on the Backbench, in carrying out their tasks of querying, probing and even criticising the Government because that is what we have been elected to do.

It therefore puzzles me as to why the Standing Orders Committee is recommending that there should now be a limitation of five questions that a Member can ask at each sitting. Effectively, this means that if a Member files three questions for oral answer, he is left with only two questions for written answer. Whereas all this time, for many years, there has been no limit on the number of questions for written answer that a Member can file. I ask: has there been a torrent of questions for written answer that the Government has been flooded with that it cannot cope? The record shows that in 2003, and I have a list here, there were just 32 questions which were answered in a written format. And for this year, so far, until the last sitting in September, there were only 49 written answers that were given by the Frontbench. Are these numbers too great for Ministers to handle or, for that matter, for our civil servants to provide the facts and figures that are needed?

In fact, Sir, what is a written answer? A written answer is a piece of paper

Column: 959

containing an answer. It does not consume the time of the House, as it is an answer that is circulated to Members and, today, it is done by electronic means, but it provides a wealth of useful information that Members of the House and the public would like to know and are entitled to know. In fact, it puzzles me that, at the last sitting - and I want to sidetrack a bit - there was a question filed by Mr Chiam See Tong for written answer regarding the recruitment of pilots by Singapore Airlines, and it was an answer which was not dealt with, it was not answered adequately. Mr Chiam had asked for the percentage of pilots who are foreigners and the number of Singapore pilots whose application to work for SIA had been rejected. Sir, the written reply that we all got was that Mr Chiam should write to SIA for that information because this is a public company.

Sir, I beg to differ. The people, through the Government, and, in turn, through Temasek Holdings, own shares in Singapore Airlines. And since the issue of the pilots has in fact been made one of public interest, Mr Chiam's question deserved a proper answer. Sir, it was not the first time that a question on Singapore Airlines had been asked in the House. In fact, there had been numerous questions in the past years, and I think the Speaker correctly should have directed the Minister concerned to give a more adequate answer to the House.

The Deputy Leader of the House, earlier on, gave examples of the limitations to such questions - he quoted the examples in the Lok Sabha of India, the Parliaments of Malaysia and Canada - but, I think, he conveniently left out the fact that the Lok Sabha has 545 Members, that the Malaysian Parliament has 193 Members and that the Canadian Parliament has 301 Members. What are we? We are 94 Members and we do not

Column: 960

sit as often as all these other Parliaments. So why do we want to tell ourselves that we do not have the time, or we do not have the resources to deal with too many questions?

Sir, it is this obsession with trying to make ourselves too efficient in this House to the extent that our rights to be heard are sacrificed, that worries me. Sir, if these proposals are to go through, it would appear that the Standing Orders Committee or, in fact, the Government is coming across as being too impatient. Even the ringing of the Division Bells has been shortened from two minutes to one minute, without taking into cognisance of the fact that we are now in a much bigger building. And if you happen to be at one end of the building, Sir, try to run to this Chamber to cast your vote within one minute!

Members will, in future - this is another example of how impatient we can become - face the prospect of not having their Oaths of Allegiance taken individually at this Table but, instead possibly, as the Deputy Leader has said, in groups or as one whole group in a manner to be determined by the Speaker. Yes, Sir, the current Oath-taking procedure is time consuming. But it takes something like 90 or 100 minutes of our time in five years. Is that too much to ask?

Sir, for Members of the House, most of us, particularly new Members of the House, the Oath-taking ceremony is a matter of pride. It is a matter of pride to be able to stand here at this Table individually and to take their Oath or Affirmation. And what are we going to have in future, Sir? It reminds me of a big wedding party where the happy families of the bride and bridegroom decide that perhaps it is too much to go round greeting all the guests and everybody then goes on to the stage, shout three yam sengs and then the job has been done.

Column: 961

Sir, while on one hand, the Committee is concerned that the time of the House be more efficiently spent, it appears to me very strange that it proposes that in debate in the Committee of Supply - and this, I think, was left out in the speech by the Deputy Leader - a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary would now be entitled to speak without any time limit. With due respect to some of the Ministers, we all know that they have a lot to say. But, sometimes, we also know that their answers can be rather long and winding ones, even irrelevant. But surely, it is stretching the patience of those of us on this side of the House to understand from this recommendation that the Frontbench would now be given carte blanche as far as time is concerned in the Committee of Supply. How does this contribute to the efficiency of debates in the COS ? What about the Backbenchers? Already, in recent years, the time given to MPs to raise their topics has been curtailed. In this year's debate, MPs were given something like two minutes to make their speeches. As anyone, and surely the Ministers, would know, these two minutes would hardly be enough for one to make a proper speech. In many instances, there is just about enough time to make an introduction to what you are going to say. So where is the fairness in this? So why is the House now asked to give unlimited time to the Frontbench whereas nothing is being said in this Report about the inadequate time given to Backbenchers?

Sir, I have now one last point to raise and which I feel that the Standing Orders Committee has overlooked in its review of the Standing Orders. Sir, this concerns the issue of Members who address the House by video. Last year, during the midst of the fight against SARS, we had four Members addressing us from another room in Parliament - Dr Balaji, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Dr Ng Eng Hen and Mr Khaw Boon Wan - and another Member,

Column: 962

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, addressed us from his home through a video link. These Members were not physically present in the Chamber. But Hansard records them as being present in the House. I raise this as an important matter because one never knows that this might happen again in future. And the question I want to pose is this. Is the Member who is not physically present in the House but speaks to the House via a video link really present in the House? This is significant when you need to take an important vote. If he is deemed to be present, can he then be allowed to cast a vote via video? I highlight this because, some day in the future, this may have deep repercussions for us.

And I want to bring the House back to that crucial day in July 1961, to be exact, 21st of July 1961. The Government tabled a motion in this House, a motion for the House to express confidence in it. If that motion had fallen, Singapore would have been in a chaotic situation and the history of the country might have been different. What happened on that day was that the Government had to arrange for a Member of the then Legislative Assembly, a Mdm Sahorah bte Ahmat, who was in hospital, to be carried by ambulance to the old Parliament building. She was brought up in a stretcher to the second level where she had to rest in her room and after a few minutes, she had to be helped into the Chamber to cast that important vote. As it turned out, the Government won the day, but it was by a very narrow margin. In a House of 51 Members, the Government obtained 27 votes, as opposed to the 24 Members who either voted against the motion of confidence or who abstained. So the Government won the day. And it was very clear then that a Member had to be physically present in the House. Imagine if we have a similar situation some day down the road, can the Member who cannot be around to cast a crucial vote,

Column: 963

one that might perhaps also determine the survival of the government of the day, claim his right to do so via video, because the precedent had already been set last year that physical presence is not necessary for your attendance in the House to be recorded? Sir, I therefore would like to urge the Standing Orders Committee to address this very important issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am all for making changes to keep up with changing circumstances. But I must say that I am very disturbed if the changes do not make the playing field more level for both sides of the House and, particularly, if they are being made under the guise of making the House more efficient.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support what the hon. former Speaker, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, has said. If a former Speaker who is also a member of the PAP can feel that this is not a fair or level playing field, how would the Opposition feel?

I wonder why the hon. Member, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, was not appointed as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. I looked through the list of members. Besides the Chairman of the Committee, there are five Ministers. So, I suppose the outcome of the report, as what Mr Tan said, is tilted towards or is in favour of the Frontbench, which is not a surprise to me. Although the amendment in respect of the number of questions allowed may not seem too much of an issue to me, I do agree with Mr Tan's comment as to what the justification is and why there is a real need to limit the number of questions for written answer which could be sought for public knowledge and information.

I also share the same feelings of Mr Tan that some questions which are

Column: 964

legitimate questions, whether written or oral, being asked as supplementary oral questions, were not allowed to proceed by the Speaker.

I also wonder why the Ministers and the Ministers of State should be given such leeway in the Committee of Supply. Yes, we want the answer. But, I think, to be fair to Members who wish to raise certain issues, sufficient time must be given. All this while, when Mr Tan Soo Khoon was the Speaker, he had exercised very good time control, in which he allowed some debates in the House which, I think, made the Committee of Supply sittings more interesting. But with the amendment, I foresee that most of the time it would be the Ministers and the Ministers of State answering, and Backbench Members, especially the Opposition, would be left with very little time in terms of counter queries, clarifications, etc.

I think the Government is very obsessed with efficiency and time management. Time and efficiency are important, but I think it is also equally important that Parliament should be allowed to play its role and Members are allowed to have sufficient time to ask questions and have at least a greater chance to say their piece, rather than the Ministers and the Frontbench saying their piece all the time.

I urge the Standing Orders Committee Members to look into these concerns and share our feelings. I do not know, maybe just myself and Mr Tan have the same feeling. As for the PAP Backbenchers, is this not a concern to them? Anyway, I have said my piece.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have always listened to Mr Tan Soon Khoon's speeches in Parliament with great interest and a lot of respect for several reasons, which I think Mr Low Thia Khiang has mentioned.

Column: 965

One, as a former Speaker of Parliament, he speaks with great authority and he has a very deep knowledge of the subject, particularly Standing Orders.

Two, as a very senior Member of this House, he has a great store of knowledge, wisdom and experience.

For these reasons, his speeches have always been hard-hitting and to the point. Sometimes, I may not agree with it, but I think every Member in Parliament has a right to say what he or she feels. In that regard, being a senior Member not just of this House but also a former Speaker of Parliament, he must know that it is not the intention of the Government or of Parliament to restrict the Members' right to speak. Indeed, I think he has himself on many occasions had had to stop Members from speaking. Why? Because there are certain rules that are in place in Parliament. This is not a free-for-all. This is not the coliseum, a Roman arena where people do whatever they like. There are rules in Parliament, and this is what Standing Orders is all about.

Sir, the question before this House is: what kind of rules do we put in place to make sure not just that there is fairness, efficiency and equity, but that everybody has a chance to say what he or she feels, Members of the Government as well as Members of the Opposition, and Members of the Frontbench and Backbenchers? This is a very basic tenet of parliamentary democracy. Surely, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, and Mr Low Thia Khiang who has also agreed with Mr Tan, must know that we in Parliament have never faced any sense that we are not allowed to speak. And I have made this point very clear in my speech also. As I said, I hasten to assure Members that it is not the intention of the Committee to prevent Members from asking questions.

Sir, what was a fairly simple exercise in trying to update the rules of Parliament,

Column: 966

to update the Standing Orders to bring it in line with what other parliaments and jurisdictions are doing, has been viewed with much suspicion. All I can say to Mr Tan and Mr Low is that there is no such intention. We are not doing something that is beyond the curve. We are not doing something extraordinary. We are doing something which other reputable parliaments are also practising. I mentioned a few of them. I did not mention many others as well. Mauritius has a limit. Trinidad and Tobago have a limit but, if I use those examples, I guess comments will be made as to whether we should be comparing ourselves with those parliaments, but they are respectable parliaments too. However, I thought it only sufficed if I mentioned Malaysia, Canada and India, because these are parliaments which we are familiar with.

So, first of all, should we have a limit? Is it wrong to have a limit? We already have a limit for oral questions. There is nothing unusual about that. Now we are saying, "Let us have a maximum for total number of questions, including written ones." Is that unreasonable? Other parliaments do it, why not us? Why are they doing it? It must be for the same reason that we are trying to do this, ie, to make sure that there is no situation that one day perhaps somebody will come along and say, "Look, here are 1,000 questions for written answer", or somebody putting on the Internet and saying, "Look, anybody who has any questions, please submit them to me and I will file them in Parliament next week." Surely this is not something that we want.

So, the question is: if it is not unreasonable to have a limit, then what is the limit? Again, here I must admit that the Committee has been rather arbitrary. Why five? If we look at the other parliaments, India has five in total, ie, one oral, four written. Yes, India has many,

Column: 967

many more Members than us. Canada has four in total, ie, three oral, one written. Malaysia has three oral questions but, in a session, they can have 10 and five, which means if we compare it per session, it will probably be three oral and two written, ie, five in total. So, we decided a reasonable figure, more than some of the others perhaps, but just about the same ballpark, let us keep the limit at five, but let us keep the oral questions at three and the written ones at two. Is this onerous? So, we went back to the records and we checked. We looked at what Members had asked over the last two years and we discovered that each Member, on the average, asked two questions per sitting.

So, are Members being gagged as a result of this new rule? Have they been gagged in the past? The answer is no. And, as Mr Tan himself mentioned, over the last few years, Members have not really been asking that many questions, so why the rule? As I have explained, this is in order to make sure that we do not have a runaway situation in future. And the total number of questions that are asked is, by the way, per sitting. In other words, if we have two sitting days, it is actually double that figure. So, I think that Members would be reassured that there is more than sufficient room for questions to be asked.

What about questions that have been asked but have not been answered? This is really left to the prerogative of the Speaker to answer and I will not comment on that. But suffice it to say that I am aware that there are rules and guidelines as to what questions can and cannot be asked. Whether it is Erskine May or Standing Orders, there are, again, certain rules in place, and I think Mr Tan himself is aware of those rules.

Column: 968

Next, as to the accusation that we are over-zealous in making Parliament too efficient, that we are sacrificing Members' rights, here I must confess that I am all for making sure that we do not go overboard, that in trying to make Parliament extremely efficient we forget about some of the practices or rituals of Parliament. I think we should keep the rituals of Parliament as far as possible. It is important for us to maintain the dignity of Parliament. But it does not necessarily mean that in doing so we do not change anything, that we maintain the status quo. We have actually made changes. In fact, some of the changes were made when Mr Tan was the Speaker. I remember very clearly that, in the past, when we took divisions, we had to go around, the Clerk would call each name, and then there would be a vote taken. Subsequently, one day, we had an electronic system whereby, instead of having your name called one by one, you pressed the button and you indicated your vote and your vote appeared on the scoreboard. Does that demean Parliament? I do not think so. It is just a more efficient way of doing things, making use of technology that is available.

So, it is probably jumping the gun, if I give Mr Tan the benefit of the doubt in saying that. There is really no cause for alarm. We are not seeking to make Parliament so efficient and so technical and mechanical that it loses its meaning. So, why do we make changes? Why are the Standing Orders changed, for example, to allow Oaths of Allegiance to be taken from his place? It may happen one day that, in certain circumstances, you may want to do something like that. It may well be that, at some stage in future, Members, whether it is Nominated Members or any other Members, may want to do that. We are making provisions for a possibility some time down the road. But it does not follow

Column: 969

that such changes in the Standing Orders automatically imply that there will be consequential changes made without reference to the dignity of Parliament.

As for lifting the restriction on the time that Ministers can speak, it has always been the practice that the Frontbenchers will get more time to speak because, presumably, the House wants to hear what they say. Whether it is in the Committee of Supply or whether it is in a debate, Frontbenchers should have more time to speak in order to allow them to elaborate on policies, to respond to suggestions or to rebut certain allegations. Again, this is not something that is uncommon for our Parliament. It is something that all parliaments practise. I agree with Members that this should not be at the expense of the Members' right or ability to say what they want to say. Here, I want to assure Mr Low. In fact, at the end of Mr Low's speech just now, he said, "I have said my piece", and he sat down. Basically, he has said what he wanted to say and he made his point and he sat down. He has done so many, many times in this Parliament. Nobody has stopped him. If he has been stopped or guillotined, it is the same guillotine that has been exercised on PAP Members. He has not been treated any differently. So again, I do not see where, how or when Members feel their rights to speak have been curtailed.

Finally, on the point that Mr Tan brought up about whether a Member who addresses this House by video is deemed to be present in the House. I think this is a good point that the Standing Orders

Column: 970

Committee has not addressed. This is a point that we should address because, as he has explained, on that historic occasion in 1961, it was literally a matter of life and death for the Government. Therefore, we should look at it. I will recommend to the Committee that we look at this, and at an opportune time, address this question fully.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I come back to the same point that this was an exercise in trying to update the rules and the Standing Orders, take the opportunity, even if we do not need to do anything at the moment, update the rules so that they are in keeping with the times and that they will allow us to be a more efficient and a more effective House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would commend to Members that we adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 2004 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.