S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 33.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see how a policy of self-reliance contradicts a policy of cooperation with our neighbours. I have made it very clear that where the security and stability of our ASEAN neighbours are concerned, we are very mindful and that we will never allow Singapore to be used by anybody to undermine the security and stability of Malaysia or any of our ASEAN neighbours. Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, may I be allowed to ask another supplementary question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there have been press reports, the most recent of which was the editorial that the Member referred to, ie, the editorial in the Straits Times of 6th December, stating that we have not opened an embassy in Israel because Indonesia and Malaysia objected. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is completely untrue. When we want to establish an embassy in a country, we do not consult or discuss with third countries. It is purely a matter between Singapore and the country in which we want to establish the embassy. We have not established an embassy in Israel because we must allocate our limited manpower resources to those countries where we have substantial economic and political relations. Our relations with Israel do not warrant the opening of an embassy in Israel.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated why we invited the Israeli President. I have also stated what our anticipated reaction on the part of Malaysia was. As a sovereign country, I am sure the Member for Potong Pasir must agree, we have the right to invite the leaders of countries with which we have diplomatic relations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, both Thailand and the Philippines, in addition to Singapore, have diplomatic relations with Israel. Thailand established diplomatic relations in 1954 and the Philippines in 1957.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we were aware that Malaysia did not have diplomatic relations with Israel. We did not expect them to be happy about the visit. But we expected that they would treat the visit as a purely internal, ie, Singapore, matter. It has always been recognized that while members of ASEAN have similar approaches to many regional and international problems and subjects, there are differences in nuances and even differences in substance on some subjects. A good example is the difference among ASEAN countries in their relations with the People's Republic of China. Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the second part of the question, whether this visit will in any way change our position on the Palestinian problem, the answer is no. Our position has been clearly stated and we will stand by it.”
“We will not allow Singapore to be used to undermine the security and stability of Malaysia or any other ASEAN neighbour. An example of this policy is our consistent policy of cooperation with Malaysia in combatting communist subversion. Singaporeans who visit Johore on business or pleasure must have read with relief that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, had asked the Johore People's Action Committee to stop its protests against the Israeli President's visit to Singapore. ASEAN has been a success because all members have observed the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of any member. We hope that this principle of non-interference will continue to be upheld.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1969. Israel rendered us special assistance in building up the SAF when we gained independence in 1965. It is accepted diplomatic practice to receive visitors or visits by leaders of states with which a country has diplomatic relations. Only the dates of the visit are the subject of consideration. In December 1984, the Israeli Embassy requested a visit by their President and we agreed to invite him. The visit was to have been made in May 1985, but was postponed by Israel. In April this year, we agreed to a visit from 18th to 20th November 1986. This was to fit in with the Israeli President's visits to Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga and the Philippines. There was no special significance to the visit. Although they conceded that it is our sovereign right to invite anyone, some of our ASEAN neighbours have expressed their regrets at the visit. There were also protests and demonstrations by various groups in Malaysia. As a sovereign country, Singapore has the right to invite and to receive any representative of any country it has relations with. Other countries, even close and friendly neighbours, cannot expect us to view the world as they do. An invitation to the Israeli President does not mean that we accept or endorse Israeli policies. The President at the banquet in honour of the Israeli President stated Singapore's position on the Palestinian problem. Our views on this problem do not differ from those of our ASEAN neighbours. How these views are advanced must be left to each country. The visit has not in any way affected the national security or the national interests of any of our neighbours. The security and stability of our ASEAN neighbours are important to Singapore.”
“In view of the complexity of the Bill, the Select Committee needed time to make a careful study of both the legal and policy implications of these proposals. Furthermore, the Select Committee had also to arrange its meetings to accommodate the requests of representatives coming from abroad. I am glad to say that the Select Committee has now completed hearings of all the representors who were invited. It will finalize its work on December 15th and its report to Parliament should therefore be ready shortly thereafter. The Bill should therefore be enacted as law in January 1987. VACANT LOT NEXT TO DARUL AMAN MOSQUE (Development plans) 3. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri asked the Minister for National Development what are the development plans for the vacant lot adjacent to Darul Aman Mosque bounded by Sims Avenue and Jalan Eunos. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Lee Yiok Seng) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. The site bounded by Sims Avenue and Jalan Eunos is adjacent to the Eunos MRT Station and is reserved for future development. Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate what this future development is?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing more to add. The people of Anson elected Mr Jeyaretnam. He has been convicted of a criminal offence and fined and sent to jail. They have to learn to live with the consequences of their choice. COPYRIGHT BILL (Date of enactment) 2. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam asked the Minister for Law whether he expects the Copyright Bill to become law before the end of 1986. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was the Government's intention that the Copyright Bill should be enacted as law before the end of 1986. This intention was publicly announced both in Singapore and abroad. An undertaking to this effect had also been given to the United States Government when the Prime Minister met the US Secretary of State Mr George Shultz in Singapore in June this year. However, for several reasons, the Select Committee has taken longer than expected to complete its work. First, it received 34 written representations, which I am told, is the largest number that any Select Com- mittee has received in our Parliament's history. These were from a wide range of organizations and individuals in Singapore and abroad representing copyright owners and users of copyright materials, and included representations from the United States Government and United Kingdom Government. Fourteen representors comprising a cross-section of the representations were invited for oral representation before the Select Committee. They included representatives of both local interests and American and British interests. Secondly, Sir, the representations proposed major amendments to the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Potong Pasir must know that whatever happens in any bye -election in Anson will not in the slightest way affect the performance of this Government because we have such an overwhelming majority here. So that is certainly not the consideration. I take it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Potong Pasir is so anxious to have a bye-election in Anson because his Party will contest the bye-election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made it very clear that we are under no obligation to have a bye-election. There is no requirement under the law. There never was a requirement. It is entirely up to the Government to choose the time that it feels is appropriate to have a bye-election, and we are not obliged to give any reasons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time we have debated the question of whether there should be a bye-election. In 1983 when the late Mr Hon Sui Sen passed away and his seat in Havelock fell vacant we had a fairly lengthy debate in this House. There is nothing in the law that even requires a bye-election to be held. I am speaking on the basis of an Opinion from the Attorney-General. If the Member for Potong Pasir feels very strongly that the law requires that we hold a bye-election within a reasonable time, which he puts as "three months", I think he is aware of the legal recourses that he has to force the Government to have a bye-election.”
“The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 13 March 1986 calling for the immediate release of Chia Thye Poh. The resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament to the Singapore representative to the European Communities, in a letter dated 27 March 1986. The Government does not have to justify its decision on Chia Thye Poh to anyone other than the people of Singapore. Our representative explained to the European Parliament that Chia Thye Poh has been told that he will be released if he gives a simple undertaking to renounce the use of force to overthrow the Government. Alternatively he can go to any country willing to accept him. Any country in the European Community can offer to receive him. The issue has not been raised since then. GRATUITY PAYMENT TO MRT EXPATRIATE STAFF 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether his Ministry was consulted before the decision by the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation to pay expatriate staff the loss in their salaries as a result of the reduction in the employers' contribution to the Central Provident Fund from 25% to 10%; (b) what categories of staff are being paid this loss; and (c) does the Ministry justify the decision and, if so, what reasons are there to justify the distinction between expatriate staff and local staff.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. ISSUES ARISING FROM PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT WORK IN THE BUKIT TIMAH CONSTITUENCY 3.32 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order has been made. Can we have your ruling, please?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The Member is making a speech. He is not asking a question.”
“The point that you bring up has nothing to do with the Bill that we have before the House. It is something quite different. Of course, the point that he has made about section 17 is that there is certain protection, but that protection does not extend to the point of somebody making a false declaration. So there is always a limitation on the protection in Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the second point that my colleague made is quite conclusive because the amendment in clause 5, as my colleague has pointed out, quite specifically refers to section 4 of the Act. In other words, it recognizes that section 4 of the Act gives complete freedom but this particular clause that is in the Bill overrides, under certain circumstances, section 4. I think there is no lapse or oversight. It is quite clear.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is getting himself all confused. If what he says is true, then even without this Bill, there is already a conflict between section 17 and section 30, which obviously cannot be so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this particular provision in the Bill has been the subject of considerable comment by Members as well as by me during the Second Reading. I know that the Member for Anson is against this provision. He has given his reasons; I have given my reasons. I really do not have anything more to add except to say this. I am not a lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but as I read it, section 4 of the Act, which the Member for Anson quoted, is not so absolute that you can say anything in Parliament without being liable for what you say. For example, section 30 says, "No person shall ...", and there is a whole list of offences. It is quite clear there, for example, that if in Parliament, or in a Committee of Parliament, false evidence is given, or something false is said, then they are subject to penalties. So obviously section 4 must be modified by other specific exclusions in the Act, and the proposed Bill makes this specific provision that under certain circumstances the privileges accorded by sections 3, 4 and 5 can be suspended.”
“Well, it will then have to be governed by the law. The law will supersede the Standing Orders. I think it is quite clear that the law takes precedence over the Standing Orders. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."”
“Relevant practice. It does not say "today".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not have much more to add to what I have already stated just now. We go on a simple principle - what is the pattern or model that we should follow? We think that it is logical to follow the pattern and model of the UK, as it was, on the date when we became independent. I do not think that this necessarily conflicts with Standing Order 104, "In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice...". Yes, whatever the particular subject that is in doubt ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, the Committee of Privileges will be considering a complaint made on an offence committed before the new law comes into operation. But if, in the course of giving evidence, or if in the course of a hearing of the Committee of Privileges, he makes further statements and further smears, then of course it must come under the new Act. But the particular statement or offence committed before the new Act will be subject to the punitive powers in the Act as it stands today. The Member for Punggol asked whether there is any proposal to deal with recalcitrant Members who continually abuse privilege or commit contempt of Parliament. I think the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to deal with the case. I mentioned in my closing remarks during the Second Reading that we are going to do a thorough review of the Act and compare our provisions with those existing in other countries, especially Commonwealth countries and if, after the study we find that further amendments are needed, we will introduce them in this House.”
“Anything that any Member says before this law comes into operation would be subject to the old Bill. Anything that he says after this Bill comes into operation will be subject to the new Act. That is simple.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir has also asked for clarification on section 20(2), whether it has a retroactive effect. I think I have made that very clear. If a Member were to commit contempt now or make a defamatory statement which is referred to the Committee of Privileges now, ie, before this Bill is passed, then when the Committee of Privileges meets and hears the complaint and, if the Committee of Privileges comes to the conclusion that the Member is guilty, then he will be subject to the punishment as it stands in the law today, which is the Act as it stands today, ie, without this Bill, because the offence was committed before the Bill was passed. But, of course, if in the course of the hearing of the Committee of Privileges he commits further contempt or makes a defamatory statement then he will come under the new law. So that should be clear enough.”
“Since this is an urgent Bill, I think it does not require notice, Sir.”
“Well, practice before 1965. Certainly, Sir, as I said, there will be no double standards. The standards that we apply will apply to all the Members of this House. As I have made it very clear, Members of the PAP know that they are under a much more rigorous standard than is required under this Act. The Member for Potong Pasir has asked the question of the magnitude of the fine. Why is it that strangers have the same maximum fine as Members? If during the Committee stage, the Member would like to move that the fine on strangers should be at the maximum of more than $50,000 - to $100,000 or $150,000 - I think we all will support it. If he would like to move, he should move. The Clerk would be able to assist. All he has to do during the Committee stage is, when we come to this particular clause, he can move that the figure "$50,000" be changed to "$100,000" or "$150,000". We will support it.”
“I do not have to prove anything, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not suffer from any complex that I have to go down and try to prove. The Member for Potong Pasir asked me to give examples of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt. These are matters that the Committee of Privileges will decide from time to time. But if he wants to have examples, I am sure if he looks up Erskine May in the library there are ample examples for him to look into.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister does not have to prove anything. He is not anxious to prove that he has the support of the people of Singapore. That has been proved again and again. But if the Member for Anson is keen and anxious to show that he still has the support of the people of Singapore, by all means proceed with his proposal and I can assure him that there will be an early by-election. We will not deny him by postponing the by-election. We will have an early by-election and he can prove his point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he has come out with his dramatic idea that he will resign from his constituency and the Prime Minister will resign from his constituency and that they will contest to prove whether there is support for this Bill. Sir, we know what the issues are before the House. We know that the Member would love dearly to distract the attention of Singapore and this House from what is ahead. The Prime Minister is quite capable of taking care of his interests. He has full confidence in the Members of this House who belong to the PAP to take care of the interests of this House. But if the Member for Anson is so exercised and so keen and anxious to prove that he has the support of the people to oppose this Bill, by all means, resign from Anson. I can give him the assurance that there will be an early by-election and he can prove his point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he is just trying to wriggle out. He has also made the point that the people should be asked to decide on this matter because it is such a momentous change in our laws that it is something that Parliament should not take upon itself to decide. I ask the Member: what are we elected for? This is a law that affects the conduct of Members of Parliament in this House. Surely, we are qualified to make the rules that should govern the way we conduct our proceedings in this House. We are elected Members. We do not have to go back to the people for everything. His idea of a by-election ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I said I have taken note of his offer. I have asked a question whether he is also prepared to repeat every other statement that we consider as defamatory. Would he like to answer that?”
“Suspension of privilege as provided for in the Bill is a lesser punishment than total suspension from Parliament. Only those who find that they cannot debate in this House without making defamatory statements will find this a hindrance. Sir, the defamatory statement made in this House must first be considered by a Committee. And as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Kolam Ayer, (Encik Sidek Saniff) the Members of the Committee of Privileges are Members with responsibility. They are Members who are known to be men of integrity, who have their own mind about matters. They are not going to arrive at a conclusion that, just because a statement has been made by an Opposition Member, therefore it is defamatory unless after examination, after hearing evidence, they come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to back the allegation or statement. Then, having come to the conclusion, they will again have to examine whether the particular misdemeanour requires the punishment of suspension of privilege. This is not something that will be done lightly. But Members of the House must know that if they abuse this privilege, there will be a price to pay. Insofar as the Members of the PAP are concerned, they know that if they abuse this privilege they will have more to pay than just mere suspension of privilege because our own Party rules of conduct in this matter are extremely rigorous. I have taken note, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Member for Anson's offer to repeat his statement about the Chief Justice outside this House. I would also like to know whether he will repeat every statement that he has made in this House that we list as being defamatory. We, on this side, are prepared to repeat outside everything that we said.”
“Thailand, Sabah, and India would love to introduce it. Sir, the particular amendment relating to the suspension of privileges has been commented upon in some detail. I really do not know what all the hand-wringing is about. We already have the right to suspend Members. If the Committee of Privileges or any other Committee which has been established to look into the abuse of privilege comes to the conclusion that there has been a serious abuse of privilege, it can, under our existing rules, suspend the Member from Parliament, which means that the Member cannot be found anywhere in the precincts of Parliament. He will have no right to be here. He will have no right to speak. What we have introduced is admittedly something new, but something that suits our particular circumstance - that a Member who has been found guilty after a certain process, which I will explain, can participate in all the debates in this House. He can vote on proceedings, but he has to watch what he says. What is so wrong with that? Is anybody here claiming that the only way he can make his point and advance his cause is by making defamatory statements? Surely Members can always advance arguments without having to resort to defamatory statements. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, we seriously considered whether we should not suspend privileges for all Members in this House, because we were very confident that in any situation we would be able to make our point to Parliament and to the people without the protection of this provision in the law. But after serious consideration, we thought that that would be a very drastic step because we want to aim this law only on Members who abuse this privilege.”
“They need these freedoms to undermine the very society in which they operate. They need the freedoms in order to create chaos, they need the freedom to create disorder, so that the ground will be fertile for them to appeal to the masses. But once they take over, the people can kiss freedoms good-bye. The only democracy that you will find will be the word "democratic" in the name of the country. And we know of many Communist countries that call themselves democratic and the only democracy that they have is in the name. We do not want to change our democratic system. We only want to ensure that the kind of changes necessary to make it work in our society, in our situation, would be taken. We must not shy from taking such measures. And we have. We have introduced over the years provisions in our law which are quite different from what they are in other countries. And now other countries are beginning to see the wisdom of such laws. Let me just quote one example. We were the first to make the rule that if a Member is elected on a Party ticket and if he resigns from the Party, he vacates his seat in the House. It is something that the British never liked because it was something unheard of for them. I think because of that rule, Singapore has had stable Government. Others have watched this and they are trying to introduce the same rules.”
“Both the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson say that this Bill is a blow to democracy. Sir, it is not uncommon in other countries, and even in Singapore in the 60's, perhaps even today, for those who abuse the democratic process to be the first to cry "Foul" when steps are taken to check them. The Communists, for example, are always in the forefront in the battles in democratic countries when anything is done to curb freedom of speech or action. They want full freedom of speech, full freedom of action. Because they need these freedoms.”
“And if those who are interested in entering the political process in Singapore (and we want people to participate in politics) if they get the impression, if the idea is pervade to them, that this is what the political process in Opposition is all about, then we will attract people who can only destroy, and not people who can build. What kind of Parliament will we have? What kind of politicians will we have? Sir, there are countries where there is such a significant number of politicians who are charlatans and crooks that public opinion about politicians as a whole is very, very bad. In fact, in a number of opinion polls, politicians ranked among the lowest in terms of trustworthiness. Surely in these countries, the majority of politicians cannot be unworthy of trust, but because they have such a significant number, minority though they may be, who are not trustworthy, all politicians are branded. This makes it even less attractive for good people to come into politics, because they do not want to get involved in an activity, in a profession, which is considered by people as being among the lowest as far as trustworthiness is concerned. Do we want this to happen in Singapore? Democracy is a very new experience for us. We have to chart our own way. We cannot keep quoting what happened in the United Kingdom. We must chart our own way; we must evolve our own system; we must evolve our own rules. Even older societies which have had more experience than us in democracy have found the process of democracy derailed when the wrong type of people got into politics. We must not allow this to happen in Singapore. The purpose of this Bill is not to stifle democracy, but to enable it to work under our particular circumstance.”
“So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is quite clear, even if the Member had not stated it so baldly just now, what the Member is up to.”
“I am afraid I missed the part where I think he mentioned about the Jury and that the fact that the Prime Minister could appoint Justices to a fixed term amounts to undermining the independence of the Judicial system. Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I maintain that.”
“Just now, Sir, again he made another statement, which I have not referred to the Committee of Privileges. He made a statement that the Prime Minister has undermined the independence of the Judiciary.”
“Sir, when the Member for Anson first came to this House, he started by raising questions casting doubt on the integrity and honesty of the Government. Sir, it is well-known not only in Singapore but throughout the world that this is one of the few, if not the only government, that is incorruptible, honest. And he knew that this was the strength of the PAP Government and he decided that doubts had to be created about the character of this Government. That was his first line of attack. Then he raised questions which were aimed at casting doubt on the impartiality of law enforcement officers, the Police Force. His theme is that we are a Police State and that various actions that the Police take are politically motivated, that this is a State that is oppressed by law enforcement officers. So bring law and law enforcement into disrepute. Thirdly, he questioned the independence of our Judiciary, starting first with the Subordinate Judiciary, then making remarks about the Chief Justice, and which are matters before the Committee of Privileges.”
“Mr Speaker, I have read from the newspaper. There is no further clarification.”
“Sir, the Member's statement in his speech so surprised his own friend that he had to take his friend to task. I am quoting from the newspaper: 'I and the Workers' Party are determined to change the present system under which the society is managed.' 'If that means bringing down the system, so be it.' Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way. This is not a point of order.”
“I said "we". I am not talking about the UK or anybody else. We set our own standards. We set our own code of conduct. We have to draw for ourselves what will work in Singapore. We reject his proposition completely. Of course, the Member has conducted himself in the House so far by following this principle - that the Opposition is here to defame the Government by making insinuations, innuendoes, allegations which chip away and erode the main pillars of our society, which chip away and erode what we have taken so long and at such great cost to build up. This statement of his is completely in line with the statement that was reported in the newspapers lately - that he wants to bring down the system. Now I think he has made it very clear what his role in Parliament is.”
“Sir, of course, having looked at his record in Parliament, I came to the conclusion long ago that this was his aim, but I had not expected him to come out so openly to say that this was what prompted his statements and his position in this House. We reject this approach completely. We reject it completely. If this is the function of the Opposition ---”
“Sir, we have nothing to hide. This Government has always conducted itself in such a manner that it is open to examination. We have nothing to hide. And that is why we are most anxious that the Committee of Privileges hearing this particular complaint should come to the truth. Sir, I must say that apart from the Certificate of Urgency, the provisions of the Bill are also partly prompted by the Member for Anson's conduct in Parliament thus far. But while they have been prompted by his conduct, I must hasten to clarify that the real purpose of this Bill is a wider and more important one. The question that we ought to ask ourselves is: what kind of rules ought we to draw for ourselves that will encourage the right type of people to enter politics, seek to enter Parliament and what kind of political processes should we encourage and support in Singapore? Should we have a system of rules, a code of conduct, that attracts men with ideas, with alternatives? Or should we conduct ourselves in such a way and give the impression to the people at large that the only thing required to run for office or to run for Parliament is to come here and make vague statements insinuating wrongdoing, undermine key institutions in the Government and society? And that this is all that is required to make an appeal to the people of Singapore. The Member for Anson, I must say a little bit to my surprise, just now said that it is the function of the Opposition to make defamatory statements.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I made a general point. I specifically referred to that clause in the Bill which speaks of the suspension of privileges. I said it is not meant to silence criticism, and I said by all means take the Government to task, examine Government's actions closely, scrutinize Government's actions. But that does not mean that Members have to resort to defamatory statements and allegations which they cannot prove. I think that is a general statement, Sir. I was not referring to any particular occasion. Sir, the Member for Anson has compared his role in this House with that of the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I leave the Members of this House to come to their own conclusion whether such a comparison is a fair comparison. But, Sir, one point I must stress, yes, the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition hounded the government. He put every action of theirs under close scrutiny but he never made any statement that defamed anybody. He never committed any breach of privilege. He was never referred to a Committee of Privileges. And neither was he unprepared to repeat anything he said in this House outside this House. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a point of order. I am now coming to the general points.”
“It had better be a very clear point of order.”