Mr Speaker, Sir, I was waiting for Government Ministers to speak. Obviously, they do not propose to speak in support of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I got the notice of Parliament sitting on the 18th of this month, giving the exact number of days required for the notice that Parliament would sit on the 25th of this month, I wondered what was afoot because it had been my experience that there was always an interval of two months or even more after every sitting of Parliament. But here, Parliament was summoned within three weeks of the previous sitting. So I wondered and, of course, the mystery came to light when I received at my office the Bill that the Government proposes to take through all stages on a Certificate of Urgency. So that was why Parliament was being summoned. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I shall not be accused of trying to impugn the President or trying to bring down the President when I question the Certificate of Urgency. It is signed by the President, of course. But the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. As was mentioned in the report in the Straits Times, a Certificate of Urgency is usually given for money Bills where Government is in need to immediately raise a tax or for some other fiscal measure. It is also, of course, given in cases of a national crisis or emergency, quite apart from money Bills. But here we have the Government coming to this Parliament with a Certificate of Urgency on a Bill which proposes simply to discipline, it says, Members of Parliament. May I ask: what is the crisis? What is the urgency that requires that this Bill be debated and taken through all stages? May I say that the Minister spent about 20 minutes on this Bill. This is a very momentous Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it shows the sort of understanding that has been given to what is involved in this Bill by this Government, that the Minister spends only 20 minutes introducing the Bill and half of it is taken up with pedantically pointing out to the Members of the House the changes in the Bill. May I say - and I hope the Minister does not think this an insult and move a motion for committal of me to the Committee of Privileges again - may I say that the Minister shows a complete inability to comprehend what is involved in this Bill. May I say this, again without insulting the other Members of the House. There is one man who does understand what is involved in this Bill, the one man who knows all about parliamentary government, because he was involved in the setting up of parliamentary government way back in 1959. And I see he is not here. Should he not be here? Should he not move this Bill? Or may I ask: is he a trifle ashamed of this Bill that he has decided that it would be better if he stayed away from any discussion on this Bill? My first question is: what is the great urgency in this Bill without giving Members an opportunity to ponder over its consequences, over its implications. And for the public at large - let us not forget the public at large - to consider and to state their views. It would appear from what has fallen from the lips of the Leader of the House that the great urgency is that it should be made to apply to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges when it considers the complaints against me. Am I to understand then that the intention is that I should be severely limited when I appear before the Committee of Privileges? Is that the sole intention so that I may not be allowed to make my full defence and to state what I wish to state? But that I should be hedged in by these powers and threatened with expulsion or imprisonment or fined if I dared say anything. Is that the intention? Is that why this Bill is being rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency through all stages? May we have an answer to that question? Because one would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we could have waited until the Committee of Privileges had reported on these various complaints and then considered whether there was any justification or not. And then to bring in, if necessary, a Bill to remedy the state of affairs where a Member brings in unjustified allegations. That is not to be the case. It would appear that it is taken without question that all allegations were unsubstantiated, that all statements made were defamatory, that there can be no question about that they are and we have got to bring in this Bill now. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in his press briefing and in his speech this afternoon tried to give the impression that the whole purpose of this Bill is to maintain and uphold the decorum of the House. That is what the Government would like to convey through their Government media to the public so that the public may be lulled, may be led into thinking that all that the Government is concerned with is decorum of the House. But may I assure the Leader of the House that the public do not need any more representations. They already know what the purpose of the Bill is. Ever since it came out in the Straits Times or the press on Friday, people in coffee shops, in market places, have stated quite clearly what they thought was the whole purpose of the Bill. And therefore they do not need any more representations by the Government media or the Government-controlled press and the Government TV as to the need. Mr Speaker, Sir, I only have about 60 minutes. But it is necessary that I, within the time limited to me, strip the Bill of the hypocrisy that surrounds it. And I say it is sheer hypocrisy to say that this Bill is brought in to maintain the dignity and the decorum of the House. It is brought in, as I shall try and show, for one purpose and one purpose alone. It is brought in and rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency to silence the criticism of the Government because the criticism is beginning to hurt. It is beginning to hurt and it must be silenced somehow at whatever cost it may be to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not in 1962 that we first had a law enacting the privileges and powers of the Legislature. Of course, the PAP thinks that the history of Singapore only began in 1959. Well, they may think that. One has to sympathize with their delusion. But there was in 1955, Mr Speaker, Sir, Ordinance No. 30 of 1955 which dealt with the powers, privileges and immunities of the then Legislative Assembly of Singapore. And from 1955 to 1959, Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Benches. It was the Labour Front government, first under Mr David Marshall and then under Mr Lim Yew Hock, which held the reins of government. And our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Bench. And may I assure Members who may not have read the reports of what took place in the Legislative Assembly from 1955 to 1959 that they were by no means tame proceedings. They were not, as I shall say, family tea parties. The Prime Minister who was then standing where I am now standing and heading the Opposition in Singapore, took the government to task at every turn and corner. And proceedings in the Legislative Assembly then were characterized by sharp criticisms from the present Prime Minister speaking from the Opposition. They were by no means sedate tea party gatherings of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. He needled them, he probed them, he challenged them. And quite rightly, because he knew what was expected of an Opposition Member in Parliament. And he did his work very well with the result that in 1959 he was able to bring his Party to power. So let us not forget that period, 1955 to 1959, what the Prime Minister was doing when he was in the Opposition. But did the colonial government then consider bringing in a Bill to expel him, to send him to prison or to fine him? Whatever one might say about the British, they have a sense of fair play, and they decided that he must be allowed to have his full say. Because they were all brought up on the whole question of parliamentary tradition. And we were learning in those days the British parliamentary tradition, and so he was allowed full rein in the 1955 to 1959 Legislative Assembly. And then, of course, after the PAP took over the government of this country, except for a short period when Members of the Barisan Sosialis occupied the Opposition Benches, the House was dominated by the People's Action Party. And for 15 years, was it, the House consisted entirely of Members of one political party. In 1962, the Government introduced a new Bill, which we are now seeking to amend. That was introduced by the PAP Government and that Bill sought to apply in Singapore the privileges, immunities and powers of the Commons House of the United Kingdom Parliament "for the time being"; in other words, this Parliament, Members, were to enjoy the same privileges and powers and immunities that are enjoyed by the British Commons House of Parliament at the relevant time. So I think it was to continue the same powers, privileges and immunities that were enjoyed by the UK Parliament. The operative words were "shall be the same as those for the time being held." So there was a continuous investing in this Parliament of the same privileges and immunities and powers as the British Parliament enjoyed. Why did the Prime Minister then agree to that? Because that brought it into line with the current British practice. But I shall again show very shortly that it is a myth, a fallacy to say that we are now bringing it into line with current British practice. We have not been told why, having introduced that in 1962, it now becomes necessary to drastically change all that, and to limit our powers, privileges and immunities to those enjoyed by the British House of Commons in 1962. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite plain why after 27 years the Government has decided that they must change. For 27 years they were quite content to follow the UK Parliament. As I said, between 1963 (certainly after 1963) and until 1981, meetings of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament after that (from 1965 onwards) were sedate. They were the PAP family tea parties. And Parliament served the purpose of the Government admirably. Of course, there were Members who questioned Papa about one or two little things. But if Papa said, "No, it is not good for you, children" everybody said, "Yes, Papa, we agree. We will go out and tell the people." So that was what Parliament was - dominated in its entirety by one party without any place for criticism on behalf of those who dared to disagree with what the Government planned. So there was no need for any change. But in 1981, something happened. The people of Singapore decided that Parliament should no longer be just the PAP family tea parties but that Parliament should begin to serve its true function and purpose that is expected in a parliamentary democracy. So they elected a Member from outside the People's Action Party into Parliament. Then, of course, we immediately saw what our Prime Minister and our leading Ministers thought about all this. They, who had been paying lip service to the idea of parliamentary democracy, immediately decried the presence of an Opposition Member in Parliament. That is the hypocrisy that we have got in this place, and I see the Leader of the House uses the same words as the Prime Minister used, "that Parliament is not a place for theatrics. Parliament is not a place for drama." So the Government, for the first time after 15 years, came up with having to face criticism in Parliament. Of course, they could not take it. Of course, during those 23 years there was perfect decorum in the House, as I said, because everybody bowed and walked out. After 1981 it no longer was a family tea party. There was a stranger in the House who was not a Member of the PAP family, and he was being a bit troublesome, forgetting quite deliberately that Parliament is not a family tea party of one political party but that Parliament is the chamber in which the government is taken to account, that Parliament is the Chamber in which searching questions are asked of the government, of the executive. And so we saw attempts, even before the 1984 Elections, to try and shut me up. Then came the 1984 Elections and the Government got a jolt, a setback, because the public had decided to reduce the percentage of votes that the Government had had enjoyed; and for good measure they sent another Opposition Member into Parliament. Government became more and more embarrassed. This Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am sorry to have to say this because we will have to strip the hypocrisy that surrounds it - is introduced solely and only for one reason, and that is, because I had come to this House and said that there was public disquiet about transfers of the Subordinate Court Judiciary after they had given decisions unacceptable to the Government. I ask the Government, the Ministers, to be honest about this and say what other reason is there? I will not go into the question about my allegations because they are before the Committee of Privileges. But there we have it, the Government unable to accept the charge. A government that is committed to parliamentary democracy will not do this, introduce a Bill to shut the Member up. It will lay open the whole machinery to satisfy Parliament and the public that there can be no room for disquiet. But not this Government. The statement that it brings us into line with British practice and with other Commonwealth countries - I have already said that it does not, not with the current UK practice, because after this we shall not be able to look at anything of the changes that have taken place in the UK Parliament after 1962. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to imprison. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to expel, but they are not contained in an Act. These powers have been won by Parliament in its struggle with the Executive over 200 years, 300 years. And Parliament was asserting itself as the supreme body. Parliament was denying to the Courts, to everybody else, any power to question Parliament and of it being the only judge of what was said in Parliament, and therefore, Parliament had to have these powers in those days. But, if one looks at Erskine May, one will find that these powers were exercised in the last century and the century before that. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has made any study of the powers of punishment by the UK Parliament now, whether it has sent anyone to prison and whether it has expelled anybody over the last so many years. Parliament is not a static body. Parliament has to move along with the times. The other thing is, has this Government made a study of the nature of the abuses of privilege that the UK Parliament has sought to punish? Is it an abuse of privilege - I know this is coming up before the Committee of Privileges, but is it an abuse of privilege to question the Government, to question the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary? These are the basic questions that we have got to answer. What amounts to an abuse of privilege? What amounts to contempt? What amounts to dishonourable conduct? If you are going to label everything - the Leader of the House says "he makes defamatory statements about the Government". He forgets that the Opposition are there, if necessary at times, to make defamatory statements about the Government, to challenge any Government action and to ridicule it. What is the Opposition in Parliament for? Simply to say "Aye, Aye" to whatever the Government says? Is the Opposition here in Parliament simply to accept whatever the Government says? It shows a complete ignorance of what parliamentary government is all about. So I think it is a fallacy to say that we are bringing it into line with the practice in the British Parliament. This is a retrograde step, and while other Parliaments are moving forward we intend to go back and pitch our camp way back in 1962 and say, "That is going to be our position although this happens to be 1986." Opinions have changed, and people have moved on in their thinking about Parliament and what it should do and should not do. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an attack, a deliberate attack by this Government at the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. We said, in a press statement that we issued the day after the Bill was published in the papers - and this was not published by the gutter press - we said that the irony is that Parliament itself is made to put the axe to this foundation. We said that this was possible because the PAP has an overwhelming tyrannical majority in Parliament. Because the Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, democracy can, Members, become, if one is not careful, the tyranny of the majority. That can be a sort of sham democracy. Because Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, it is able now through this Bill to cut at the very foundation, to strike down the very foundation of Parliament, through its own institution. The institution is used against its own foundation. Parliament, of all the democratic institutions, the Courts, the trade union movement, the press and Parliament itself, is the one institution that is calculated or is designed to safeguard the liberties of the people. And this Government soon after it came to power in 1959 went for all these institutions. It went for the trade unions. It did what Hitler did, turned the trade unions upside down, made them stand on their heads. It went for the press. It took over the press completely. But it left Parliament alone because, as I said, there wasn't any need; Parliament was serving the purpose of the Government, an emasculated Parliament. And they were quite happy to let it be, as it was, because it was all Members of the PAP family. But now things have changed for the PAP and they have decided, it would appear, that Parliament itself should be attacked; the foremost of the free institutions, of free people everywhere, should be attacked. I see in today's papers an article in Petir about me wanting to attack the institutions. I suppose the PAP and the Government, like Goebbels, the German Minister for Propaganda, think that if you repeat something, times without number, some people may come to believe it. Who is destroying our institutions? Some hon. Members: You!