Points of Order Relating to PSP’s Video and Facebook Post, and Unparliamentary Language Used by Former Speaker

12.58 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, if I may, to raise a Point of Order to update Parliament on a matter which arose at the last Sitting, that is, the edited video and Facebook post put up by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP). I also wish to address the comment made by the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, in what is commonly referred to as the “hot mic” incident.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Sir.

On the first matter, Members will recall that at the last Sitting on 6 July 2023, I had requested PSP to take down an edited video and Facebook post which gave a misleading impression of proceedings in Parliament, and to extend an apology in terms acceptable to Parliament by 10.00 pm that evening.

I wish to update the House that PSP did remove the edited video and Facebook post, and also made an apology in the terms requested, within the stipulated time.

That being the case, I do not see a need to take further action on this matter and I respectfully seek Mr Speaker’s concurrence on this.

Mr Speaker: I have no objections to the opinion of the Leader of the House that she will not take further action on this matter.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That concludes the first Point of Order.

Let me now address the second Point of Order.

On or around 11 July 2023, a video circulated on the Internet which captured the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, reacting to a speech by Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP), Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in which Mr Tan was heard using an expletive followed by the word “populist”. This remark was not fully audible on the normal livestream, save for a slight burble of sound at the end and, as far as I am aware, it was not audible to Members in the Chamber at the time the words were uttered. However, that burble of sound on the livestream was obviously noticed. It was amplified and circulated some three months later, which then brought the incident to the attention of Members and the public.

Responding on 11 July, Mr Tan put up a Facebook post explaining that what he had said were his private thoughts, but acknowledging that he should not have said them. He apologised, both publicly and also personally to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who graciously accepted his apology.

Subsequently, arising from other events, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin tendered his resignation as Speaker of Parliament and as a Member of Parliament on 17 July 2023. In his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, he admitted his mistake in uttering words which were rude and unparliamentary, and acknowledged that it was wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very regrettable incident. As Members of Parliament (MPs), it is incumbent upon us to uphold proper standards of conduct, and especially so the Speaker who chairs the proceedings in this House and has the duty of ruling on the conduct of other Members. Rude and unparliamentary language, and expletives, in particular, certainly do not meet the standards expected of all Members and lower the dignity and decorum of the House.

The question is how this should be dealt with. There are precedents on how unparliamentary language in Parliament is dealt with, which on the one hand provide us with a reference point on how to deal with such matters, but on the other hand, show that such incidents happen more often than they should.

There have been several prior incidents of unparliamentary language in this House, but it suffices to highlight two.

First, on 3 November 1995, then-MP Mr Ling How Doong was recorded using certain unparliamentary words in Parliament. When called to order by the Speaker and told to resume his seat, Mr Ling remained standing, asserting “When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him?” He did not apologise during that Sitting.

A formal complaint was filed against Mr Ling. The complaint alleged that Mr Ling had described the speech made by another MP in vulgar terms, called the other MP a word questioning the legitimacy of his birth and referred to him using an anatomical term. Mr Ling, in response, admitted to using certain words but said he could not recall the rest. The then-Speaker called Mr Ling for a meeting in his chambers and informed him that no matter what the provocation, he had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House.

Mr Ling agreed unreservedly to withdraw his unparliamentary remarks and to apologise to the House, and did do so at a subsequent Sitting. He also apologised for disregarding the authority of the Chair when asked to resume his seat. With his apology, that was the end of the matter.

Some 10 years later, in March 2005, a Nominated Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Ong Soh Khim, uttered certain unparliamentary words during a sitting. The words were not captured on Hansard, so we have no official record of what they were. She also interrupted the Chair while Deputy Speaker was speaking. Several complaints were filed against her. The then-Speaker spoke to her at a subsequent Sitting and informed her that she had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House. She agreed unreservedly to apologise to the House for her use of unparliamentary language and did do so. That was the end of the matter.

Other Parliaments have also had such incidents. In December 2022, the then-Prime Minister of New Zealand, Ms Jacinda Ardern, after responding in Parliament to a question from a political opponent, Mr David Seymour, resumed her seat and referred to him using a term commonly understood to refer to a male body part, not realising the microphone was still on. Mr Seymour petitioned the Speaker for a withdrawal of the remark and an apology. The New Zealand Speaker declined because by then, the Prime Minister had left the House and he had not seen if the remark was caught on Hansard. However, Ms Ardern later apologised directly to Mr Seymour, and her apology was accepted by him.

Western Australian Premier Mr Mark McGowan too was caught in a hot mic incident earlier this year when in Parliament, he described certain issues as a “storm in an [expletive] teacup”. He later apologised in Parliament for his language.

Mr Speaker, having regard to these and other examples, the usual approach regarding the use of unparliamentary language in the Chamber is to require a withdrawal of the offending remarks and an apology in order to put the matter right. In my view, that should be the approach also in this case, even though it was the Speaker who uttered the offending words in the Chair.

I have read Mr Tan’s Facebook post and his letter of resignation, and I note that Mr Tan Chuan-Jin had apologised generally to the public at large and directly to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. However, as the incident took place in Parliament, I am of the view that a formal apology and withdrawal of the comment by Mr Tan to this House is necessary, over and above the apologies he has already made. I have communicated this to Mr Tan, who has readily agreed to do so. As he is no longer a Member of this House, he has asked me to read the following apology to Members on his behalf:

"I unreservedly withdraw the comment directed at Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and sincerely apologise to the House for the unparliamentary language that I used, and for not respecting the dignity and decorum of the House."

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Mr Tan has acknowledged his lapse and apologised three times – to the public, to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and now to this House – the necessary steps have been taken to redress this incident. As such, my view is that the specific matter of Mr Tan’s use of unparliamentary language does not require any further action and this regrettable incident can be brought to a close.

I wish to conclude with a reminder to all Members, on the need to maintain proper decorum and to behave in a courteous manner in this House, even as we engage in robust debates on issues of public significance. Not all of us may share the same views on the matters debated, but we can agree to disagree and to do so in a manner that meets the standards of decorum and propriety required of a legislative chamber that is the representative of the people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

1.08 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Leader for the statement. I just have a question on the remarks the Leader made about the video that was circulated on or around – I think it was 7 July, she mentioned, and that it was somewhat modified audibly to hear the expletive former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin uttered. Would the Leader be minded to refer that matter to the Police to investigate and to inquire who released that video? Because as the Leader said, I do not believe anybody in this House picked up that language.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With regard to the question by the Leader of the Opposition, I think he was asking if I am minded to refer to the Police. One refers to the Police matters which are offences because the Police, obviously, investigates offences. I have not considered, but I am not entirely sure that making something louder is an offence. Because if the words were said, which I believe Mr Tan has admitted, the only difference is that on the livestream, it could not be heard. But if the words were actually said, and what the person has done is to make it louder, then you cannot deny that the words were said. I am not sure that amplification per se is an offence, because if that were the case, then, many videos that are put out by many people would be an offence.

So, I have to say, it had not occurred to me, because I was not sure that an offence has been disclosed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I note the Leader's comment on the matter. I think the question here is the duration of time that it took for that video to become public. I am not sure whether the Leader considers that something to be suspicious. There is also the matter of what we came to know later of a long-running affair between Speaker and another MP – whether in total, there are circumstances which the authorities should actually look into.

Ms Indranee Rajah: As I have said, one refers matters which are offences. So, coming back to the first one on this particular hot mic video, again, if something is released subsequently, I do not know that releasing something subsequently, which really did happen, constitutes an offence. I mean, if somebody considers that it does, there is nothing to prevent that person from referring it to the Police.

But at the moment, as matters stand, it is not immediately apparent to me which offence has been disclosed. Perhaps Mr Singh could clarify what offence he has in mind?

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not referring to the offence. In my second clarification, I believe I referred to the total circumstances of the timing of this video coming out. It is not the offence per se. I mean, the Police investigates a number of matters before it can even conclude, sometimes, an offence is disclosed.

I am just asking, in the case of the personality involved, the Speaker of the House, a very senior member of Government, whether there would be some thought placed on the circumstances of how that video came to be circulated in public.

I was not speaking of specific disclosure of an offence but the total circumstances of that query, whether there could be something more to it. I have had some individuals come up to me questioning whether there is a false flag in this; all sorts of issues have come up insofar as the public is concerned. So, it is a matter I am raising to the Leader for her consideration.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I think Mr Singh is aware that one only refers matters for investigation by the Police if an offence has been committed. The Police do not generally investigate things which are not offences. So, I still struggle with what exactly one is to ask them to investigate. Because the release of a video at a later stage is not, per se, an offence.

So, maybe I can just close this matter or the answer to this question by saying that if an offence is disclosed, if there is credible material on which to refer the matter to the Police, then, of course, one should do so. At the moment, it is not apparent to me that there is an offence. But should something further come up which indicates that an offence may have occurred, then the matter can be reconsidered at that time.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader on what she explained to us earlier. She said that she communicated with the former Speaker Mr Tan on her view that whatever he expressed that was caught on the hot mic deserved a formal apology in the House and he has duly given it.

I would like her to clarify whether in doing so, she was purporting to exercise any authority on the matter as the Leader, because he was the Speaker of the House at the time and we do understand that the Speaker is the master of the Chamber, he has the power to punish us, but it is a question mark as to who has the power to punish him, if there is any unparliamentary conduct.

From the brief research that I have done in other countries, if such a thing was to happen, it is backbenchers filing a Motion of regret that is the usual thing done. So, I would like to ask the Leader if her communication with Mr Tan to extract that apology, is she purporting to exercise authority over him or is it using her power of persuasion?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her question. The answer is no, I was not exercising any authority over him. What I wanted to do was to indicate to him that, in my view, as Leader, at the very minimum, withdrawal of the comment and an apology should be required. Which is why I was at some pains, earlier on in my statement, to say that it was my view that the specific matter did not require further action, but I am not saying that I have the power to conclude it.

If any Member thinks otherwise or wishes to do otherwise, it is open to another Member to do so. And I was not, in fact, seeking a ruling either. So, it was a statement that this was my view.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to ask the Leader, in the case between Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and myself on the hot mic, why did the Leader think it was not necessary to ask him to make a formal apology in this House?

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his question. In the normal case, it is the Speaker who has conduct of such matters and makes the ruling. And also, in the normal case, it would be the person who has the right to complain who would raise this.

So, in all the cases which I had referred to earlier, in the case of Mr Ling and Assoc Prof Ong, you will notice that the Speaker acted when a complaint was made. So, actually, in this particular instance that Mr Leong has referred to, if a formal apology was required, it would have been incumbent on Mr Leong to raise the matter as the complainant.

I have raised it here simply because it was the former Speaker who had uttered the words and other Members can raise a complaint if they wish, but I felt that was appropriate that as Leader, I should address it. And of course, he is no longer here in Parliament to deal with it, so somebody has to raise it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, so, can I clarify with the Leader? She mentioned two things: one is that it is incumbent on the person affected to make a complaint, but in the case of Speaker Tan's comments, as far as I know, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did not make a formal complaint. But, of course, Leader can say that: "Well, I am doing this because Speaker Tan is not in the Parliament anymore". So, this one point I want to clarify, Assoc Prof Jamus Lee did not make a former complaint.

Secondly, are you implying that for my case, the Speaker at the time, Mr Tan, should have demanded that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan make a formal apology? So, if he had not, then it was a mistake on the part of the Speaker at a time?

Ms Indranee Rajah: With respect to the second question, whether I think that there was a mistake at that time, that is not something which is really before this House. I do not intend to revisit previous matters that were or were not decided upon. As far as I am aware, it was not brought to the Speaker. He did not have to make a ruling.

In this particular instance, it is not just a rude remark per se. It involved an expletive. It had to do with the decorum and propriety of this House. And that is why I felt it was necessary to address it.

And in the case of the remark by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, I noticed that Mr Leong had accepted the apology; just as in this case, Assoc Prof Lim has accepted the apology. And if Mr Leong wishes to take that matter further, it would be up to him, except that I am not sure whether he still is within the time for his matter, but I am sure he will take the appropriate advice on the regulations and the rules and do what is necessary.

Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Prime Minister.