Follow-up Statement on Point of Order Raised on 5 July 2023

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.

7.46 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I did say earlier that there were a couple of matters I had to deal with. So, I have dealt with one. There is a second matter.

I do need to update this House on the Point of Order which I had raised yesterday in this Chamber. So, I am coming back to the Chamber to inform the House of what has happened. If I may proceed, Mdm Deputy Speaker?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Members will recall that yesterday, I had referred to a video put up by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and I had asked that the video be taken down and an apology be tendered in a form acceptable to Parliament.

Since that time, what has happened is as follows.

PSP has taken down the original video and the Facebook post has been removed, but they have put up a new one and an edited video. Let me, first, go through the revised Facebook post. And then, I will explain what has happened to the edited video and further inform the House why it is that it is our view that this does not satisfy or comply with the request that was made yesterday and why it is still a breach of Parliamentary rules.

The revised Facebook post states as follows: "In what some online commenters are calling another 'sia suay' moment by NCMP Leong Mun Wai, our NCMP Leong Mun Wai was informed by the Deputy Speaker that Members are allowed to seek clarifications but not debate about the Ministerial Statements concerning the Ridout Road incident. The PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa Koon Koon are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people is heard. This short video is an excerpt taken from the full Parliamentary session and is not to be taken as a representation of the entire discussion that took place in the House on 3 July 2023” and “The livestream of the Parliamentary session on 3 July 2023 can be viewed here." And a link is inserted.

So, that is the new or revised post.

Then, the edited video is an excerpt from the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) livestream. It contains the same excerpt, but it also has captions superimposed on the video. It has text superimposed on the video. And there are three blocks of text.

The first block of text superimposed on the video states this: "Parliament discussed about Ridout Road on 3 July 2023. The discussion lasted over six hours, with two hours dedicated to the Ministerial Statement and almost four hours devoted to clarification."

The second block of text that was superimposed says, "The Deputy Speaker reminded Mr Leong Mun Wai that he should not start a debate during a Ministerial Statement after he urged the Deputy Speaker not to end the debate early because this is an important topic" and then it carries the quote, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate."

The third block of text superimposed on the video states, "This short video is an excerpt taken from the full Parliamentary session and is not to be taken as a representation of the entire discussion that took place in the House on 3 July 2023."

On the face of it, it may appear that some edits have been done to make it seem like it is in compliance with the request, but upon a deeper examination, that is not the case.

Let me deal with the first one, which is less of an issue now, but let me explain it first. This is on the topic of "sia suay". Members will recall that in the original post, what was stated was this: "In what some commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment" and then, it goes on to talk about Mr Leong and Ms Hazel Poa.

Yesterday, Members will recall that Mr Leong said that "sia suay" referred to him, and not to the proceedings. I have some difficulty accepting this, simply because the original caption said, "In what some commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment". They were not referring to a person. They were referring to an event, because it was a moment. So, it is either an event or occasion. And it was also clear that when they referred to that event or occasion, the words that followed were a reference to Mr Leong and Ms Poa. So, it was two people, not just one person.

But Mr Leong has said that it referred to him. I find it odd that it would have referred to him even in the original video because what political party puts up a video referring to its own Secretary General as "sia suay", understanding and knowing the kind of memes and labels that it would generate following that.

But be that as it may, it would appear that PSP and Mr Leong have embraced this label and the new or edited video says that it refers to him. It says that "In what some online commenters are calling another 'sia suay' moment by NCMP Leong Mun Wai."

Since they have embraced the term and appropriated it for themselves and for Mr Leong, it is not for me to gainsay that; and I will leave the matter at that.

But that is not the gravamen of this situation. That is not the key thrust that is a problem. Because what still remains in the revised Facebook post is this statement that "Mr Leong Mun Wai was informed by Deputy Speaker that Members are allowed to seek clarification but not debate about the Ministerial Statements concerning the Ridout Road incident", and then it is followed by a statement saying that they were here to do whatever it takes to raise important issues.

Members of the public are not familiar, necessarily, with the Standing Orders or of our Rules of Procedure. It is quite clear that under our Rules of Procedure, there are two different types of procedures. When you have a Motion, you have a full debate. The speeches are longer. When you have Ministerial Statements, the general rule is that there are clarifications, meaning you ask questions.

There is a clear distinction between the two types of procedures, which Members in this House, most of whom do appreciate the difference; members of the public may not.

Therefore, to suggest that a debate was not allowed, without explaining the context, without clarifying that it was actually incorrect to call for a debate and to thereby suggest that a debate is not allowed, creates a misleading or false impression that issues could not be ventilated and that Deputy Speaker, Mr Christopher de Souza, actually shut down the questions by Mr Leong and other Members on the topic that was of some importance.

You have to ask oneself, why would you do this? Why, out of the 10 other interventions that Mr Leong made, you would highlight this particular section and that particular quote, without giving the context, knowing full well that the public could be misled?

There is only one reasonable conclusion, which is that it was intended to cast aspersions on the manner in which Parliamentary proceedings were conducted and to suggest that the Deputy Speaker was not carrying out his duties neutrally or fairly or in a proper manner.

Thus, it still continues the misleading impression and that is perpetuated in the text superimposed on the video.

I just also want to say a few words, Mdm Deputy Speaker, on how much time and effort it takes to deal with something like this. I had brought to this Parliament what was clearly a problematic video which was not in compliance with the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. We explained what is wrong. We set out what will be necessary to do the right thing and put it right.

What PSP does is it does what it considers is a clever sort of side move, "I will just change some words here. I will leave this part in, which still continues to create a misleading impression, but I can say that I have edited the video and somehow, I have done something about it."

It takes up a lot of time. You would think that other things could be done with that time. You would wish that it would not be necessary to try to perpetrate a wrong impression of Parliament, just to advance one's own party. I really wish that that is not done.

But in any case, that having been done, I have since written to Mr Leong Mun Wai to formally request that he and the PSP remove the revised post and edited video, and post an apology on PSP's Facebook page and all the other social media pages in which the video appear by 10.00 pm this evening, and provide a form of apology which would be acceptable.

I hope that this would be done, because, otherwise, I will have no choice but to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

7.57 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, thank you. I would like to ask some clarifications on what the Leader has said just now.

We noted the Leader's views and requirements, but can I go through, briefly, some of the things that have occurred?

Firstly, the Leader brought up the issue yesterday. But the allegation started with a misunderstanding about who the "sia suay" comment is directed at. We have explained that. That should have taken out a huge part of the concerns she had.

We have never intended to impugn or defame anybody.

In this Parliament, I have accepted section 23 of the Standing Order and my party will also accept that position. If there is a factual inaccuracy, like the amount of time allotted to the Opposition Members of Parliament during the debate, we have corrected that in our amended video yesterday.

So, we are of the view that we are not in contempt of Parliament.

But you raised another, of course, important point that our video has created a misimpression. But we are of the view that this is your guess. I think it is also fair to say that we cannot be perfectly sure how the viewers would view the video.

What you said just now about Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa will do whatever it takes to further the voices of Singaporeans, that part is not in the video. It is in our post. It is not in the video.

So, I would actually say that there may be no new impression created, compared to the longer form video provided by YouTube.

So, we should be entitled to a different view, the way we present some view as a form of expression. We should not be forced to present only the view that you want to present. This is a democratic Parliament, not a rubber stamp Parliament.

Nevertheless, we will take into consideration what you have told us, presented just now. I will take the matter back to the party and we will decide on our appropriate response.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: If I may just respond very briefly to Mr Leong's remarks. He said that "if there was a factual inaccuracy, we have corrected that". They have put in some additional data to say how long the session was. They have mentioned the six hours, four of which were devoted to clarification.

But as I explained, that does not address the real problem of the matter, which is the suggestion that the Deputy Speaker would not allow for issues to be fully ventilated and that, therefore, views or questions were being prevented and a full discussion was being suppressed.

That is the heart of the matter. And it is in both the post as well as the video.

With respect to what Mr Leong said that the first caption or quote was only in the post and not the video, the simple matter is that when you put a post, the text is there and then you have the video underneath. The obvious thing is that you want people to look at both. People will read the text first and then that will prompt them to click on the video. You cannot separate the two. People do not look at Facebook posts and look at either the video or the text. You take in its entirety.

I note what Mr Leong has said, that they will go back and look at it. But let me just say this. I have sent the letter. It has a deadline of 10.00 pm. The matter really is not available for further negotiation.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Madam, can I confirm with the Leader one more thing? As I have said, how people view the video, the impression created is subject to how the individual takes the video. But we take your point.

As I have said just now, it is a different form of expression.

So, can I ask the Leader if it is just a different form of expression and we are prepared to take down the video, is there a need for us to make an apology on that? We are not in contempt of — I mean, we did not state the wrong facts; we did not impugn anybody. It is just a representation, an expression.

So, we can put up an open letter to express our regret on this incident. But I am of the view that there should not be a requirement for us to do an apology. Can you clarify that?

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Deputy Speaker, when a video is put out and when a post is put out, it is obviously intended to communicate something. Very few people actually put out something that means a hundred million different things to a hundred million different people – unless, of course, it is a piece of artwork.

But in this case, a political party putting out a post and a video clearly has political objectives and, therefore, it also has a political narrative. That will be measured by an objective standard and that is the standard that will be applied. I have explained what, on an objective view, that video or the words of the text convey and the impression that it creates.

Two, the fact that PSP has, in fact, made some changes is already an acknowledgement that the original post and video, as it stood, was not acceptable.

Three, on the need to make an apology, the answer is yes and the reason is this. The Parliamentary Privileges, the conduct of Parliament, are important things. They underpin our democracy. Why do we have the rules in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act? Why do we say that you should not falsely represent proceedings in Parliament? Why do we say that you should not mislead the public about what happened in Parliament? Why do we say that you should not misrepresent or falsely defame the Speaker or another Member of Parliament? Why do you think those rules are there?

Those rules are there for a reason. And the reason is that for any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust. And it must function on the basis that the Members of Parliament and their political parties will speak truthfully to people and give accurate representations of what happened in Parliament because that determines the kind of society we are.

And if you are a political party which has misrepresented what has happened in Parliament which is a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, then you should apologise, because it is not the right thing to do. And that is the reason why we still require an apology.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.