Hansard, 1960-12-19

Before we deal with the motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, I feel it is my duty to endeavour to put the matter in its proper perspective. In my view, the motion should on no account be considered as a motion of censure and punishment moved in the interests of the Government or of individuals in the Government, but should be treated as a motion which relates to the dignity and prestige of this Assembly and therefore is a motion in the interests of this Assembly as a whole. The first part of the motion suggests to this House that an hon. Member has been guilty of dishonourable conduct for which this House is invited to condemn him, and the second part of the motion suggests the punishment which should be meted out in the event of this House being satisfied of the guilt of the hon. Member. There has been some misunderstanding as to whether these proceedings are tantamount to an endeavour to curtail what is commonly known as "freedom of speech in this Assembly". That, in my view, is not the case. The freedom of speech in relation to this Assembly is the freedom of speech protected under the provisions of section 3 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, which reads as follows:- `3. No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any person while a member of the Assembly-

42 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly; that he be suspended from the service of this Assembly until such time as (i) he apologises to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct; (ii) he unreservedly withdraws his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law; and (iii) he assures the Assembly that he will not persist in abusing his privilege in this Assembly by uttering malicious falsehoods, unless he be prepared when challenged to repeat outside the Assembly the charges he makes in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for having discussed with me last Saturday the procedure to be followed today. I understand that you have also similarly discussed this matter with the Opposition. I accept your ruling that the motion should be divided into two parts; firstly, the condemnation of the Member for Hong Lim for his undignified conduct; and, secondly, the punishment arising out of such a breach of privilege as considered by the House. In my speech, I shall confine myself to the first part of the motion which, as you have indicated, is to be disposed of before the second part is considered. Let me assure you, Mr Speaker, that this motion has been placed before the House not light-heartedly but with great gravity, because it involves a serious censure of a Member of this House and, in particular, one who also happens to be a Member of the Opposition. So it is necessary for me to state as clearly and dispassionately why this motion is being brought. It is not being brought in anger or haste, because the Government is well aware that, by doing so, it may be laying itself open to a possible charge that it is an attempt to silence a Member who has, since his expulsion from the Government Benches, been an opponent of the Government. We would like to assure you, Mr Speaker, that this motion is not being brought because of the Member for Hong Lim's criticisms, however unfair, however reckless, or however sustained, of Government policy. To deny that to any Member of this House is to make a mockery of democracy, to repudiate all the things we believe in. The right of any Member to voice criticism, however extreme and unfair, without fear is what the right of privilege seeks to ensure, i.e. the right not to be penalised either politically or in a court of law for the things that may be said in this House. The right of privilege is a shield to protect a `Member in his exercise and discharge of his democratic right to criticise a government as he thinks fit. As I shall show later when I come to enumerate the itemized charges against the Member for Hong Lim, none of these specific charges relate to political criticisms of Government policies. It is most important to bear this in mind, for it is likely this point may be overlooked in the course of discussion inside and outside this House. This motion in no way relates to his political criticisms or even mistaken analysis of Government policies. I should, briefly, like to touch first on the legal position in this matter upon which I have taken the advice of the State Advocate-General. This Assembly has been given the power under section 48 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, to make Standing Orders for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the despatch of business. In exercise of these powers, the Assembly, by resolution on the 29th December, 1959, made the Standing Orders which came into effect from 1st January, 1960. The provisions relating to the "Rules of Order in the Assembly" are contained in Standing Orders 52 to 58. These follow the similar provisions applicable in the House of Commons in England and which give the Speaker summary power to deal with disorderly conduct and disregard of the authority of the Chair. Standing Order 56 (1) sets out the procedure to be followed where a Member commits the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the Assembly. This follows the provision of the Commons' Standing Order 22 (1) . The Commons' Standing Order 22 (6) goes on to provide that "nothing in this Order shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages". This refers to the inherent power of the House of Commons to punish a Member for breach of privilege. The corresponding provision in the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly is Standing Order 56 (5) which provides: `Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive the Assembly of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of the Assembly.'. Thus this Assembly has an inherent right of taking proceedings against any Member for a breach of privilege. We have no local precedent of the exercise of this right, and it is necessary therefore to turn to the precedents built by the House of Commons in England. It is settled in England that the House of Commons has the right, in the case of breach of privilege, to suspend or even to expel a Member of the House. The Legislative Assembly in Singapore has the power to suspend a Member and this power is referred to in Standing Order 6. It has been held, as is stated in Erskine May's "The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament" at page 124, that speeches and writings reflecting on the conduct of Members of the House of Commons may amount to a breach of privilege even when they do not amount to libel at common law. In our case, the complaint goes further since they do amount to libels at common law. In such cases, on a complaint being made, the matter can be raised by a motion. The practice in such cases, where, the matter of complaint is a charge alleged to have been made by one Member against another in a speech, even when outside the House of Commons, and where the Member admits the correctness of the report and states that he is in a position to prove the charge and is willing to attempt to do so, is to give him an opportunity of establishing the charge. In a few instances the matter has been referred to a committee of the House. Where the Member has refused either to withdraw the charges or to substantiate them, the House may adjudge him guilty of a breach of privilege and deal with him accordingly. Where the Member accused has made a proper apology for his offence, the incriminating motion has usually been withdrawn, and if not withdrawn, it may be set aside. Where the Member has made a full and ample apology to the House, the House can, while condemning the Member's conduct as a breach of its privileges, resolve that it would not proceed further in the matter. A Member of the Assembly has undoubtedly the privilege of freedom of speech. But this privilege must not be used as a licence to make offensive imputations on Members of the Assembly. As Sir William Anson, in his classical work on "The Law and Custom of the Constitution", says in page 170: `Speech and action in Parliament may thus be said to be unquestioned and free. But this freedom from external influence or interference does not involve any unrestrained licence of speech within the walls of the House. The House controls the action of its own members, and enforces this control by censure; by suspension from the service of the House; by commitment; by expulsion. Abuse of the forms of debate; irregular or disrespectful use of the King's name; the use of language which is offensive or insulting to either House, or to individual members of either House, or to Parliament collectively, are the offences which may be thus dealt with.'. The power to suspend a Member is at the discretion of the Assembly to be exercised in accordance with a resolution of the Assembly, and the Assembly may provide the period for which a Member is to be suspended. It is a power not to be lightly used, but is nevertheless essential to preserve the dignity, honour and prestige of the Legislative Assembly. To check and to prevent unseemly and disorderly proceedings which destroy confidence and respect for the House of the elected representatives of the people, checks and safeguards have been built up in the House of Commons. Any person, whether a Member of the House or not, who whether inside or outside the House utters any statement which defames a Member of the House, on complaint to the House, will have to either substantiate his allegations or withdraw. In the House of Commons there is a special Select Committee called the Committee of Privileges constituted to stand guard over these matters of privilege. There have been several recent instances of these disciplinary proceedings which we have been able to ascertain by cable from London. Summaries of more important instances have been sent and I list them as follows: Case No. 1-1834. Complaint of public speech by Member as reported in newspaper, accusing another of dishonourable conduct in promoting a Bill in private while opposing it in public. Referred by motion to Committee of Privileges to whom Member apologised. House ordered report of Committee of Privileges to lie upon Table and be printed. No other action. Case No. 2-1844. Complaint of public speech by Member as reported in newspaper, accusing other Members of improper conduct. Member refused to retract or explain statement and challenged jurisdiction of House in the matter. House resolved imputation wholly unfounded and calumnious and did not affect in slightest degree honour and character of Members to whom it applied. Case No. 3-1873. Complaint of statements in book by Member impugning character of certain other Members and threatening further exposures in order to influence their conduct in Parliament. Member apologised and motion withdrawn. Case No. 4-1884. Complaint of circular issued by Member to other Members soliciting support of a Bill for personal reasons. Member apologised and House resolved to proceed to other business. Case No. 5-1887. Complaint of offensive expressions used by one Member to another in lobby of House. Member apologised and motion withdrawn. Case No. 6-1893. Complaint of public speech by Member as reported in newspaper imputing corruption to certain Members. Member claimed report in many respects inaccurate but apologised. Question not put. Case No. 7-1907. Complaint of letter from Member in newspaper suggesting connection between awards of honours and contributions to party funds. Motion that a breach of privilege and that a Select Committee should be set up to inquire into allegations negatived. Case No. 8-1911. Complaint of publication of letter from one Member to another reflecting on conduct of Speaker. Member who sent letter apologised and motion withdrawn. Member who received and published letter suspended for one week, was resolution of House. Case No. 9-1921. Complaint of public speech as reported in newspaper accusing Members of drunkenness in House. Motion that this cross-libel and breach of privilege withdrawn following apology. Case No. 10-1926. Complaint of public speech by Member as reported in newspaper reflecting on conduct of other Members. House resolved speech cross-libel and grave breach of its privileges. Case No. 11-1929. Complaint of newspaper article by Member accusing Chairman of Ways and Means of partisanship. Member expressed regret that statement complained of made outside the House. Motion withdrawn after debate. Case No. 12-1936. Complaint of statements in newspaper article by Member. Member apologised and motion withdrawn. Mr Speaker, Sir, the common form in all of the above is that the Member is present and permitted to make a statement and then directed by the Speaker to withdraw while the debate proceeds. The point was made in one or two cases that questions of breach of privilege must be raised as soon as possible and in Erskine May's authoritative commentary on "Parliamentary Practice (16th Edition)", other instances akin to my complaint are quoted. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to pages 143 and 144? In page 143, I quote: `Where the Member has refused either to withdraw the charges or to substantiate them, the House has sometimes adjudged him guilty of a breach of privilege, and dealt with him accordingly.' In page 144, I quote: `In two instances, however, the House condemned the Member's conduct as a breach of its privileges, but resolved that in consequence of the full and ample apology he had offered to the House, or that having regard to his withdrawal of the expressions complained of, it would not proceed any further in the matter.' In page 104 of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" (Chapter VII), on "Penal Jurisdiction of Each House", may I quote: PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED ON MEMBERS In the case of contempts committed against the House of Commons by Members two other penalties are available, viz., suspension from the service of the House and expulsion. In some cases expulsion has been inflicted in addition to committal. In the Lords, a sentence of expulsion against one of its Members, passed by that House as a court, would rank as a disqualification. SUSPENSION BY THE COMMONS Suspension from the service of the House was a punishment employed by the House of Commons under its power of enforcing discipline among its Members, long before it was prescribed by standing order for particular offences, such as disregard of the authority of the Chair, or obstruction, and it can still be imposed at the discretion of the House, although, of course, not under the summary procedure authorised by that standing order. In 1641, Mr Gervaise Hollis was suspended the House during the Session. In 1643, Sir Norton Knatchbull was suspended the House during the pleasure of the House. For nearly two centuries this form of punishment had been in abeyance, no case of suspension having occurred since 1692. But at the discretion of the House on 25 July, 1877, as a result of persistent obstruction by Members who supported Parnell, Mr Speaker Brand gave the following ruling:- "The House is perfectly well aware that any Member persistently and wilfully obstructing public business without just and reasonable cause is guilty of a contempt of this House, and is liable to punishment whether by censure, suspension from the service of the House, or commitment, according to the judgment of the House." On 20 February, 1911, Mr Ginnell, a Member, was suspended for one week as a punishment for a breach of privilege in publishing a letter reflecting on the Speaker's conduct in the Chair. In February 1880, the procedure for suspending a Member for particular offences was laid down by Standing Order No. 22, and suspensions under this Standing Order are not infrequent.' Again on page 125, are listed the different types of breaches of privileges. Amongst them, I will quote: `Imputations against Members of corruption in the execution of their duties (cases of Carr, CJ. (1667-87) 88, 95; Noble, C.J. (1732-37) 245; Cundy, C.J. (1836) 658, 676; Parl. Deb, (1836) 35, cc. 167, 255; and Knox, C.J. (1893-94) 631: Parl. Deb. (1893-94) 20, c. 112).' I have cited to you, Mr Speaker, the relevant authorities. I need hardly say that for 200 years in the House of Commons, it has not been necessary to suspend a Member for breach of privilege because, when confronted, Members have either withdrawn or substantiated their allegations. It is our hope that this honourable practice of either withdrawing or substantiating should be the guide for this Assembly. This Assembly has borrowed extensively from the rules and practice of the House of Commons. For human nature being what it is all over the world, it is not unlikely that the same human failings which we are encountering, and will continue to encounter, have been experienced in the past in other Assemblies. So it is that this Assembly has been given the powers to discipline a wayward Member. However, because no one, not even you, Mr Speaker, Sir, anticipated that so soon in the life of this Assembly we would be faced with this unpleasant task, no Committee of Privileges has been constituted. And so, if the Member for Hong Lim indicates that he chooses to substantiate his allegations, then, as you have ruled with the concurrence of the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, the whole House will resolve itself into a Committee with you as Chairman to ascertain the truth. And in that event, the Member for Hong Lim will have his wish, expressed in a statement he issued on the 21st October, 1960, in answer to the Prime Minister's challenge to repeat his allegations outside the Chamber, fulfilled. He then stated - I quote the Straits Times, the Nanyang Siang Pau, and the Sin Chew Jit Poh, of the 22nd October, 1960: `Political issues should be debated and answered in the Assembly, and not in a Court of Law.' The charge against the Member for Hong Lim is totally unrelated to his criticisms of Government policy. However violently and unfairly stated, the charge is that we condemn the Member for Hong Lim for dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly. The key words in this motion are "malicious falsehoods", not just malicious criticisms. We are therefore censuring him for using malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure the reputation of people inside and outside the Assembly. We shall show later that what he uttered were malicious falsehoods. Our sole concern is with these malicious falsehoods; nothing more. Sir, there are two reasons why we take such a serious view of these malicious falsehoods as to bring this motion against the Member for Hong Lim. The first is, that resort to malicious falsehoods, will bring into contempt the right of privilege the Member for Hong Lim enjoys. A privilege of this kind must be exercised responsibly. If it is used irresponsibly, as it has been by the Member for Hong Lim, then the right of privilege, instead of becoming a shield for democracy, becomes instead a weapon to destroy. If every Member in this Assembly decides to use his privilege as a cloak to defame others unjustly, then it is clear, Sir, that democracy would be brought into contempt and ridicule. In other words, Mr Speaker, unbridled and reckless abuse of this privilege will ultimately destroy the real worth of this privilege. And this motion seeks to do no more than to check the Member for Hong Lim from continuing to abuse his privilege by the persistent use of malicious falsehoods. The second reason why this motion is being brought is to repair the damage that the Member for Hong Lim has unjustly caused to a number of people through the use of malicious falsehoods by unreservedly withdrawing these malicious falsehoods and apologising to the House for his dishonourable conduct. Perhaps it would be as well, Sir, at this stage to itemise the most recent and specific falsehoods on record. These items, a list of which I shall hand to you, Mr Speaker, do not relate to his political criticisms, Such preposterous views as that the P.A.P. Government has sold out the people, that it is pro-colonial, that it grinds the faces of the poor, and other outlandish and queer views. This motion in no way seeks to prevent the Member for Hong Lim, if he so minds, from repeating such nonsense in the future. These items relate solely to malicious falsehoods uttered inside this Assembly under cover of privilege. Sir, I have here a list of three specific and the most recent allegations made by the Member for Hong Lim. You will permit me, Mr Speaker, to quote from the transcript of proceedings of this House on the 10th December, 1960, and on the 12th December, 1960. These transcripts were issued by your Office. Allegation No. 1: `Unrevised Transcript of Part of the Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 10th December, 1960 Consideration of item (5) of sub-head 1 (Secretary) of Head 27 (City Health), Main Estimates, 1961. Page 1: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: I wonder if this is the way to get away from the P.S.C. in order to give a job to this particular officer who happens to be a brother-in-law of a Minister.' Allegation No. 2: `Unrevised Transcript of Part of the Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 12th December, 1960 Consideration of item (42) of sub-head 1 (Deputy Commissioner) of Head 36 (Inland Revenue), Main Estimates, 1961. Page 2: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things.' Allegation No. 3, in the same Transcript of 12th December, 1960, consideration of the same - item on the Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue; page 3: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: In my opinion, there is nothing, as far as I know, to merit this transfer other than the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister.' Mr Speaker, permit me to hand in a list of these three specific allegations which I have listed. Copy of the list of allegations handed in.

I do not know whether it would be convenient for honourable Members to have copies of these allegations. But I thought the Leader of the House has been warned that copies may be required. I wonder if he has copies available.

I have, Sir.

Will he please hand in the copies? Copies of the list of allegations handed in and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, I shall now deal with these allegations. I will begin with the first allegation which was made by the Member for Hong Lim during the consideration of item (5) of sub-head 1 (Secretary) of Head 27 (City Health), Main Estimates, 1961. "Mr Ong Eng Guan: I wonder if this is the way to get away from the P.S.C. in order to give a job to this particular officer who happens to be a brother-in-law of a Minister.' Sir, this particular officer mentioned is named Mr Michael Romeo Marcus. He first joined the Municipal Service in February 1931. In the course of the years he was promoted from the post of the junior clerk through higher posts until he was finally appointed as an Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat with effect from the 1st August, 1957. The basis of his appointment in 1957 was his previous experience in clerical and secretarial work in the Secretariat. His post was in Class IV of the `Senior Officers' Service in the salary scale of $670x$30A-$880-$920-$965/ efficiency bar/$1,010x$45A-$1,145. Mr M. R. Marcus resigned from the City Council with effect from 2nd June, 1959. No reason was given in his letter of resignation. His brother, L. A. Marcus, had previously resigned on 5th February, 1959. His other brother, P. C. Marcus, was at that time the Chief Administrative Officer, and was involved in the proceedings of the Commission of inquiry. The Prime Minister took over the affairs of the City Council in October 1959, in the early part of 1960, that is, January and February, a number of officers who had resigned from the City Council in the period June 1959 to October 1959 applied or were invited to return to the City Council. A circular letter inviting re-employment was, in fact, issued by the Administrator, City Council, on the Prime Minister's authority on 12th November, 1959. The relevant parts of this circular letter read as follows: `Between June and October when the City Council came under the charge of the Minister, there have been resignations from 30 senior officers, three-quarters of whom are local officers. The number of resignations from the middle and lower ranks, who are all local officers, have been even greater, You are no doubt aware that these resignations were precipitated by unfounded speculations regarding their future prospects, particularly their provident fund retirement benefits. After these unfounded fears were dispelled by the Prime Minister's reference to the P.A.V. Five-Year Programme regarding existing provident fund benefits and his statement that the Government's position was unchanged, I advised the Prime Minister that some 12 of the 30 persons who had tendered their resignations should be given an opportunity to reconsider their position in the light of the Prime Minister's statement, and to withdraw their resignations and continue in service either on the old terms of service or on contract. Amongst the 12 persons are four from the Treasury whom Government indicated should be given this opportunity.' Mr Speaker, a number of officers availed themselves of this opportunity. At the end of April, Mr M. R. Marcus applied to return, and on the 5th of May, action was being taken to consider this matter. As it was considered that Mr M. R. Marcus had resigned, on persuasion, through fear of his position as an employee of the City Council, and as he had not participated in political activities, he was permitted to return to the City Council. However, because the officer had resigned and taken away his provident fund, it was decided that he had to commence afresh at the beginning of the timescale of Assistant Secretary on a temporary basis at an all-in salary of $670 per month, which was less than his basic salary at the time of his resignation, which was $740 per month plus existing allowances. He was posted to the City Council, Health Department, to do administrative and secretarial duties as the Department was short-handed and had recently assumed administrative responsibilities for the City Cleansing Department and the Markets and Hawkers Department. Under the circumstances of the reemployment of Mr Marcus, reference to the Public Service Commission under the Local Government Ordinance was not necessary. Mr L. A. Marcus, brother of Mr M. R. Marcus, who had resigned from the City Council on 5th February, 1959, subsequently obtained employment in the Singapore Harbour Board. When the Prime Minister assumed Ministerial responsibility for the Singapore Harbour Board, he made it clear to the Board that he did not consider that employees of Government or quasi-Government agencies who became embroiled in political activities should enjoy the benefit of employment in Government or Government agencies. The Board gave consideration to this principle and subsequently dismissed Mr Marcus.

Order. As I have understood it up to now, the first charge is in relation to a Mr M. R. Marcus. The Leader of the House now happens to be mentioning another Marcus. Could he indicate how that is relevant to the first charge?

Mr Speaker, I was just relating certain facts in the consideration of re-employment of employees who had previously left the City Council. Mr L. A. Marcus was one of them, and I brought it up incidentally. If you will permit me to continue. I shall now go on to Mr M. R. Marcus. The deciding principle is whether an officer had been politically involved or not involved. The decision did not rest on the blood relationship of the officer to a Minister. I will now deal with allegations Nos. 2 and 3 together. These allegations were made during consideration of item (42) of sub-head 1 (Deputy Commissioner) of Head 36 (Inland Revenue), Main Estimates, 1961. In page 2 of the transcript: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things.' In page 3: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: In my opinion, there is nothing, as far as I know, to merit this transfer other than the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister.' These two allegations of the Member for Hong Lim amount to nothing less than that improper interference had taken place in the appointment to a senior civil service post, even to the extent of prevailing upon a committee, consisting of a Permanent Secretary and four heads of departments, to vary the qualification for that post so as to accommodate the Prime Minister's brother-in-law. Sir, these are serious allegations and, in default of a retraction, the House is entitled to full and detailed evidence in substantiation. Let me set out the bare facts about this appointment. The post in question is that of Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) in the Inland Revenue Department. The duties of the post and the qualifications required of the holder were set out by the Working Party of departmental heads, and headed by the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, which was appointed to consider the integration of the Assessment Department of the City Council into the Inland Revenue Department of the Government, as recommended by the Canadian experts. The Finance Minister has read out the relevant sections of the Working Party's Report on this post during the debate on Head 36 of the Main Estimates on the 12th December. Permit me, Mr Speaker, to quote from the transcript of part of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of 12th December, 1960. Page 1: `Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think I could best elucidate by reading some extracts from the Report of the Working Party on the integration of the City Assessment Office into the Government. This Working Party consisted of the following officers:- The Permanent Secretary (Treasury), as the Chairman; The Comptroller of Income Tax; The Acting City Assessor; The Government Valuer and Assessor, and The head of the Organisations and Methods Branch of the Ministry of Finance. It says here: "It is proposed that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Grade D, should be in charge of two branches. In the Income Tax, Estate and Stamp Duties Branch, he will continue to have a Deputy Commissioner who will be in charge of the Income Tax Office and an Assistant Commissioner to be in charge of both the Estate Duty and the Stamp Office. In the other Valuation Branch, there should also be a Deputy Commissioner, Grade G. This grade is suggested so that there would be parity in the deputyship of the two branches. The duties of this post have been carefully considered by the Committee and it is considered that his requirements should be administrative ability and experience since he would be assisted in technical matters by both the Chief Valuer and the Chief Assessor. While it is desirable that he should have some knowledge relating to valuation and assessment, it is however thought that it would not be necessary to have a professionally qualified man for this purpose. It is considered by the Committee that both the posts of Chief Valuer and Chief Assessor should be on the upper time-scale so as to be in line with their counterparts in the other branch. These posts are technical posts and require a high standard of qualification and experience and on that account there are difficulties envisaged as these officers fetch a special price in the circumstances existing in Singapore. It would therefore be necessary to consider special terms that can be offered to attract suitable candidates to carry on the duties for the next few years.".' Mr Speaker, let me now deal with the present incumbent of the post whose only merit for appointment, in the opinion of the Member for Hong Lim, was that he was the Prime Minister's brother-in-law. This officer was appointed into the Singapore Administrative Service more than ten years ago, on the 12th July, 1950. When the P.A.P. Government took office, he was already holding a Grade G acting appointment as Deputy Commissioner of Lands. The salary was $1,520. The Land Office was, until 1st February, 1960, under the portfolio of the ex-Minister for National Development. This officer served in this capacity under the ex-Minister for National Development. On the 1st February, 1960, the Land Office was transferred to the Prime Minister's Ministry. On the 24th May, 1960, the officer was transferred to the Inland Revenue Department of the Finance Ministry, to act as Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) in consequence of City Council integration. On the 1st of July, applications were invited through departmental circulars and Press advertisement for substantive appointment. The applications received were considered by the Public Service Commission. Under section 81(1) and (2) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, the appointment, promotion, transfer from one Division or Service or from one class or grade to another, is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara acting in accorance with the advice of the Public Service Commission. The promotion of public officers shall, be on the basis of official qualifications, experience and merit. It is clearly seen that the Public Service Commission is the established and impartial authority in deciding upon all appointments to the public service. And it is the authority to decide upon the official qualifications, experience and merit of candidates. The Public Service Commission advised that this officer be appointed. The advice of the Commission was accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and on 1st August, 1960, the officer was substantively appointed to the post. At the time of his appointment, the officer was the most senior administrative officer on the time-scale. It is hardly necessary for one to make the point that if ever the Prime Minister wanted to exercise improper nepotism in civil service appointments, he had his opportunity between 1st February, 1960, and 23rd May, 1960, when his own brother-in-law served in his own Ministry. During this period, instead, four time-scale Administrative Officers were promoted to Superscale G appointments but not the Prime Minister's brother-in-law. In view of my submissions, Sir, I await with interest what the Member for Hong Lim has to say in reply. But let us get from him a clear categorical reply. The charges made by the Member for Hong Lim are extremely grave, and if they cannot be substantiated, I submit, Sir, that he is guilty of gross abuse of the privilege of the Assembly. If he persists in his allegations, he must, in my view, prove with the full weight of evidence both the following propositions:-

Order. In quoting a report from the newspapers, I do not think the Leader of the House would be justified in mentioning words in the report which are recognised in this House to be unparliamentary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall then quote the relevant extracts from the statement and leave out those terms which you have judged to be unparliamentary. `... during this Budget debate, his ... habits have returned. Today in the Assembly in a specific case he had alleged that I am guilty of political corruption and nepotism. I there and then in the Assembly told him what I thought of him: that my life and conduct bear looking into, but his life and conduct cannot bear looking into. I am prepared to repeat what I have said to him in the Assembly publicly outside without the protection of privilege. I then challenged him to repeat his charges against me made in the Assembly. If he again runs away from exposure, then I intend to move in the Assembly a substantive motion on his personal conduct which is debasing the dignity of the Assembly and demeaning the prestige of its members.'. When no reply was forthcoming to this statement by the Prime Minister, a second statement was issued on Tuesday, 13th December, 1960, as follows: and I quote relevant extracts from the Straits Times. These extracts were also published in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh: `"Twenty-four hours have passed and I still want to know whether Mr Ong Eng Guan is prepared to accept my challenge that I repeat what I have said of him in the Assembly and that he repeats what he has said of me. The people of Singapore are anti-yellow culture and if what I have said of Mr Ong Eng Guan is not true, then it is a damaging statement against his good reputation. The people of Singapore are also against nepotism and political corruption. Let him repeat his allegations outside without privilege and give me the chance to show the people that. After all, in today's debate, at 4.45 p.m. he rose to object to the word `lies' being used in the Assembly by the Minister for Culture, as it is not `parliamentary'. Obviously then he is a very sensitive man. So he should be prepared to defend his reputation."'. At 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th December, 1960, the Member for Hong Lim finally issued a statement which was reported in the Straits Times, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew ut Poh as follows: `"In political struggles, the fighting of duels or the character assassination of political opponents, have proved to be of no avail. During the Assembly debates, and even since the P.A.P. crisis and the Hong Lim resolutions, I have tried to bring out, by the method of political debates, the grave political issues facing this country. My belief is that political issues, when mixed up with personal feelings, will only serve to confuse these vital issues. Physical fights or resort to the machineries of the State cannot help to resolve or settle political differences, nor can they decide which of the conflicting political views and ideologies are in the best interests of the country. The people are the best judge of political issues."'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the published reply by the Member for Hong Lim in the Press was neither a substantiation of his allegations nor a withdrawal of what he has said. But it was clear that he had no intention to repeat his allegations without the protection of Assembly privilege. His statement was an equivocation to confuse people that his own honour has not been lost and leave damaged the reputation of those whom he had charged in his allegations in this House. It was because of this evasion by the Member for Hong Lim to either substantiate or withdraw his charges inside the Assembly or outside the Assembly that we are compelled today to bring this motion before the House. It may be asked, Sir, why is the Government taking such a serious view of malicious falsehoods uttered repeatedly by the Member for Hong Lim in this House; what possible harm can be done to a government or individuals who have been victims of obvious falsehoods? Because we believe, Sir, that once the utterance of malicious falsehoods under the cloak of privilege is allowed to become a normal part of strategy of debate in this Assembly, then if a Member of this Assembly is agile enough - quick enough - he can assassinate characters and reputations of people inside and outside this Assembly by simply uttering falsehoods and then withdrawing them as a matter of routine. No individual who has; earned the displeasure of a Member of this House will be free of character assassination, including those inside and outside this Assembly who think that it is wrong to censure and restrain a Member who deliberately uses this Assembly for spreading falsehoods about innocent Members. If that happens, democracy will be brought not only, into contempt but freedom of speech becomes a means for libelling of innocent people, for spreading terror and for smearing reputations. This must be the consequence for democracy if the malicious falsehoods of the Member for Hong Lim are shrugged away in, the name of freedom of speech. It may be contended, Sir, that nobody inside or outside this Assembly, including the Member for Hong Lim, believes these malicious falsehoods. A great many people do not, but by persistently repeating falsehoods in this Chamber, you can create a vague mist of corruption, deceit and moral turpitude around a person or a group of persons. Malicious falsehoods however unfounded, by constant repetition, may be believed by those unacquainted with the rules of privilege of this Assembly to be founded on half-truths. The charge is that the Member for Hong Lim is using this Assembly and the privilege he enjoys to repeat malicious and unfounded falsehoods with a view to getting them printed in the Press and circulated by word of mouth. The issue reduced to its essence is this. Did the Member for Hong Lim use his privilege in this Assembly to propagate falsehoods or did he not? If the Member for Hong Lim believes that the charges he uttered are true, then he should be prepared to repeat them outside without the protection of Assembly privilege. For if he really believes these allegations, then he should not be afraid of repeating them, but he would be afraid of repeating them only if, he knew in his heart of hearts that the charges he made were false and that they would not stand examination before an impartial tribunal. Our charge is that he knows these allegations are completely false and that he dares make them only if he can hide behind the shield of privilege. So the choice of deciding on this motion lies with the Member for Hong Lim. It is up to him to decide either to withdraw or to substantiate his charges. First, if he genuinely believes that these allegations are true, then he should not be afraid to repeat them outside this Assembly without cover of privilege. The moment he does that, he continues to sit in the Assembly. At least, he would show he sincerely believes in these falsehoods and leave the injured parties to prove that he is wrong. Secondly, if he believes-as we think he does - these are falsehoods, the honourable thing for him to do is to acknowledge them and thus put right the grave wrong he has done to innocent people. If he does this, then he still continues to sit in the Assembly and indulge - if he is so minded - in free criticism of Government, however unfair, however improbable. Whatever the course the Member for Hong Lim takes, let there be no confusion about the only and real purpose of this motion, and that - is this: should the Assembly be used as a cover to injure innocent people through deliberate and persistent use of malicious falsehoods? The right of free speech is not involved. What is questioned is the practice of uttering malicious falsehoods under cover of privilege. The Member for Hong Lim can indulge in as much criticism as he likes and continue to remain in the Assembly if he refrains from using his position in this House for the purpose of uttering malicious falsehoods. Sir, in accordance with the basic principle of justice that no man should be the prosecutor in his own case, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law will not be speaking on the motion, but they are ready, if the Member for Hong Lim decides to substantiate, to give evidence on oath as to the truth relating to these matters complained of. Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to remind the House of the role of the Legislative Assembly. A civilised democratic State rests on three pillars. The first pillar is the Legislature. The second pillar is the Executive and the instruments of the Executive, that is, the Government, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, civil service, the Police and other arms of administration. The third pillar is the Judiciary. If any of these three pillars becomes worm-eaten or corroded, the whole structure of the democratic State collapses. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a heavy responsibility and duty of Members of this House, both on the Government side and the Opposition side, to maintain the integrity, dignity and prestige of the Legislature. When the privilege of a Member of the Assembly is misused, the integrity, dignity and prestige of the Legislature are violated. If the Legislative Assembly is degraded, then the people of Singapore who are represented today in this House must also feel degraded. Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past twelve months, we have watched with concern and dismay that the fabric of orderly government in certain States which do not have a traditional legislature or where the legislature has been abused has collapsed. We do not wish to see it happen in Singapore. Our Legislature is very young and it is our bounden duty to nourish this young plant so that it will develop into a healthy and sturdy tree. Mr Speaker, Sir, this then is the crux of the complaint - that the abuse of privilege by the Member for Hong Lim has brought the Legislature into contempt and ridicule. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the complaints I have specified, it is our right to expect the Member for Hong, Lim either to substantiate them or to withdraw them. If he does not substantiate and also refuses to withdraw, then I must ask the Assembly to join us in condemning him for his dishonourable conduct and find him guilty of a breach of privilege of this Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

As it has already been pointed out, the motion is in two distinct parts. The first part seeks to call upon the House to condemn the Member for Hong Lim, and the second part suggests the punishment to be meted out to him. In accordance with parliamentary practice in these matters, I shall now propose the Question on the first part only, and shall deal with the second part after the first part has been disposed of. The Question then is, "That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly;". Also in accordance with parliamentary practice, does the Member for Hong Lim wish to make a statement in explanation or exculpation in regard to the charges made against him? If he so desires, this is the time to make the statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there comes a time in the history of many nations when changes were made to existing political forms. Some of these changes have been brought about by a revolution, others by constitutional means.

The hon. Member for Hong Lim must realise that he is now in the position of a defendant, and all he has to do in these proceedings is to offer a statement in explanation, exculpation or extenuation; or he may simply say he wishes to substantiate these allegations, in which case a certain course may proceed therefrom. I do not think it is proper for the Member for Hong Lim to embark upon a long speech which has nothing to do with the matters I have indicated. He has, of course, other opportunities of doing that.

Mr Speaker, I must have the necessary introduction to explain the points raised just now by the Leader of the House. In the annals of British parliamentary history, both in the House of Commons and in the Dominions of other Commonwealth Legislatures, today's motion is unique. In the past few days I have searched in vain for similar precedents in the history of the House of Commons. I could find none. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House just now quoted twelve breaches of privileges. He could not name which of the twelve instances quoted have I committed a breach. He has also not given us the distinction between an abuse of privilege and a breach of privilege, and he seems to confuse himself between a breach of privilege and an abuse of privilege. Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion, in effect, means that the electorate of Hong Lim shall not be represented in this Assembly if I refuse to apologise, for the lifetime of this Government, which is 3� years. In the British House of Commons, there had been instances of Members of Parliament being suspended, but they had been suspended because they had been charged for disregarding the authority of the Speaker, or had been persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of' Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not being charged with any of these offences. I understand that in the House of Commons, no Member of Parliament has been suspended since 1877, except under the British House of Commons Standing Order 22, which is equivalent to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Standing Order No. 56. This, Sir, is to punish Members for disregarding the authority of the Speaker or for persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the Assembly. Such action of suspending any Member has always been initiated by the Speaker and not by the governing Party. It must be made immediately after the offence. Sir, under today's motion introduced by the Leader of the House, and not by the Speaker, I am not being charged that I have violated Standing Order 56. I am not being charged with disorderly conduct. I am not being charged for persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the Assembly. I am being charged by the majority governing Party for so-called "dishonourable conduct". I am being charged by the majority governing Party-

Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member in such a serious matter as this, but the epithet that he is using, so-called "majority governing Party", has nothing at all to do with the motion. The motion is an invitation to the House as a whole to say that the hon. Member for Hong Lim is guilty of dishonourable conduct. And epithets of that nature used by the Member for Hong Lim, I think, are out of place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make an explanation why I use this? The position in the House of Commons and the position of the party system there is basically different from the party system in the Singapore Legislative Assembly.

Order. That does not make any difference at all to the position in so far as this particular motion is concerned. I thought I made it quite clear when I made the announcement to honourable Members before the business of the day started. That was my view and I hold that view. And I think the hon. Member for Hong Lim should abide by that view.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been charged for making unfounded allegations and uttering malicious falsehoods. There has been no precedent in British parliamentary history that a Member of Parliament has been charged for so-called dishonourable conduct, for making unfounded allegations and for so-called uttering malicious falsehoods. I have searched for precedents, and I cannot find any. In this motion today, I am not charged with any infringement of any of the 103 Standing Orders of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. The motion today has nothing to do with violation of the Standing Orders, which regulate the conduct of this Assembly. It has not been introduced under any Standing Orders. It is being introduced solely on the British legal theory that Parliament is sovereign and can pass any resolution, and can enact any law under the sun, so long as the majority in Parliament assents to it. It is argued that the Singapore Legislative Assembly

Order. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Hong Lim is now questioning whether or not the motion itself as a motion is in order. May I know whether he is questioning that?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Order. In that event, the argument that he is now advancing, I think, would be an argument in another forum. I, as Speaker of this Assembly, have not discarded the notice of motion as being inadmissible. To my mind, the motion, for the reasons I have endeavoured to enunciate, is a proper motion in so far as the Standing Orders are concerned, and therefore must be debated as such.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government in this Assembly has pledged to carry out the traditions of British Parliamentary democracy. May I quote from Sir Ivor Jennings in his chapter on "Parliamentary Democracy", pages 530 to 532 of his book on "Parliament": `British constitutional history is a story of resistance to oppression. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Act of Settlement, and the Habeas Corpus Acts, bear witness to the legal devices that have been made to destroy oppression and maintain freedom. Legal devices are not and cannot be enough. In Great Britain, in particular, they are wholly ineffective as against a Parliament. For, as Lord Burleigh said, "England can never be ruined but by a Parliament"; and when the House of Commons tried to exclude the member for Middlesex Junius wrote: "We can never be really in danger till the forms of Parliament are made use of to destroy the substance of our civil and political liberties: till Parliament itself betrays its trust, by contributing to establish new principles of government; and employing the very weapons committed to it by the collective body to stab the Constitution." In the last resort all legal principles and all constitutional checks depend on the proper exercise of the "transcendent and absolute" power of Parliament. The power of the Opposition itself rests only on sufferance. There is nothing whatever in the constitutional machinery that prevents an Opposition from being suppressed. Nor is there anything effective to prevent the power of the Opposition from being completely destroyed by the destruction of free elections.'

Order. I hesitate quite a lot in rising to intervene in this debate, because the position is that this is a serious matter which affects not only the Member for Hong Lim but also the Members of this Assembly as a whole. The question I would like to pose to the Member for Hong Lim is this - is he denying that this Assembly has the authority to proceed with this motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an opportunity which I think anybody in my position would like to make use of to explain himself. And I beg of you, in the traditions of British Parliaments, to give me a better chance to explain myself.

Order. The hon. Member is aware, and I think all Members in this House are aware, that I endeavour to keep a fair balance on both sides. It is my duty, however distasteful it is, to see that the Standing Orders are followed as closely as may be. And if our Standing Orders do not provide for the situation, then I am impelled to go to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. My ruling has been that this Assembly is competent to hear a motion of this nature in so far, at least anyway, as the first part of the motion is concerned. I have raised, I hope, some doubts in regard to the second part of the motion. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with that ruling, then, of course, be has his remedy under the Standing Orders. His remedy is, I think, under Standing Order 53: `The Speaker in the Assembly or the Chairman in Committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the Assembly and Committee respectively and his decision on any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the Assembly except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 31 (Manner of giving Notices) such a motion shall not require more than two clear days' notice.' My difficulty in this matter is, of course, to try and channel the debate to its proper course. And the proper course, in my view, is the course I have endeavoured to pursue, and that is that the Leader of the House, in moving his motion, makes his charge against the Member for Hong Lim, and the Member for Hong Lim can reply. As a rejoinder from the Member for Hong Lim, he either says that the charges he made, are wrong, and then withdraws them, or he says that the charges are right and he wishes to substantiate them. That is all I think there is before the House at the moment. If, as I say, the hon. Member feels that this House is not competent to carry on with this motion, which I have ruled is a motion which can properly be taken in this House, then, as I have indicated, he is at liberty to give two days' notice of a motion to overrule my ruling. If he chooses to take that course, I would suggest to the House that the debate on this motion should be adjourned in order to enable him to do it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, am not challenging the competence of this House to discuss this motion. I am sure you will remember that just now the Leader of the House in his speech mentioned democaracy, free speech and all the other things which he has brought up in the debate to substantiate his argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, you should also give me a chance to give my views on those points. They will all be relevant to what he has been saying, in order to explain myself.

Order. Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. The Leader of the House, of course, was under a duty to satisfy the House that the proceedings he was taking were proper, and could be properly debated in this House. The hon. Member for Hong Lim is not in the same position. His position, as I see it, is that of a defendant. Therefore, all he is concerned with is the substance of the charges brought against him. That is all he is concerned with at this sitting. If the Member for Hong Lim says that this House is competent to hear these charges, then that is the end of the matter and I cannot allow any argument from the Member to show that the House is not competent. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Hong Lim maintains that the House is not competent, then I have indicated the course he can take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion states, in the first place, that I have been guilty of dishonourable conduct -

Order. Let us clear this point, because I do not wish the hon. Member for Hong Lim to go away with the impression that I have prevented him, or this House has prevented him, from saying anything he wishes to say. If the Member for Hong Lim considers that the point he is making is a point of importance, then I would urge that he take the course I have suggested, so that no person either in this Assembly or outside can say that the hon. Member for Hong Lim has not been given the opportunity of saying all that he wishes to say in this matter. I think it would be convenient to suspend for an hour for tea. I suspend for an hour. I will take this Chair again at twenty-five to six. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.35 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly." 5.36 p.m.

Honourable Members will remember that the Question was proposed on the first part of the motion, that is, "That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly." Honourable Members will know that just before I suspended this sitting, I suggested a certain course of action to the Member for Hong Lim. May I know from the Member for Hong Lim whether he is adopting that suggestion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am adopting the course of action suggested by you.

May I have notice of the motion? Notice of motion handed in.

The notice of motion just handed in by the Member for Hong Lim reads: `That the ruling of the Speaker admitting the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister in regard to the Member for Hong Lim be rescinded and that this Assembly has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised therein.' The Standing Order, as I did indicate, requires two clear days' notice of that motion. That will take us to Friday, the 23rd of December. It is now entirely up to the Leader of the House to decide whether or not the Member for Hong Lim be given the opportunity of moving that motion.

Mr Speaker, it is not the intention of the House to prevent the Member for Hong Lim from speaking in this Chamber; neither is it our intention not to give him time to seek advice on his motion. As he so decides, I will move, Mr Speaker, that this Assembly do now adjourn to Friday, 23rd December.

We have not disposed of the motion. Does the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister wish that the debate on the motion be adjourned, to start off with?

Yes, Mr Speaker. If the House assents, we do wish that the debate on the motion I have introduced today be adjourned.

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order 24, which reads: `At any time before the conclusion of the consideration of any item of business any Member may move "That the debate be now adjourned" ... and if such motion is agreed to the debate shall be adjourned ... The Speaker shall call upon the Member in charge of that item of business to name a later sitting day for its resumption...'. That is the relevant portion of the Standing Order. So the first thing, I think, is for the Leader of the House to just move, "That the debate be now adjourned", and we will deal with that.

I beg to move, That the debate on the motion by the Deputy Prime Minister be now adjourned.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate on the motion by the Deputy Prime Minister be now adjourned.

Debate to be resumed, what day?

Friday, the 23rd December, 1960.

May I have the motion for the adjournment?

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Friday, 23rd December. 1960."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to Friday. 23rd December, 1960.