Statement by Leader of the House

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

4.11 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a Point of Order. This is in relation to a video on the Progress Singapore Party (PSP)'s Facebook page and a breach of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Before I put the Point of Order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is necessary for me to explain the facts, the context and the background. Then, I will put the Point of the Order. If I may proceed?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: There is, on the PSP's Facebook page, a video that was uploaded some time around midnight yesterday. The exact time is not indicated.

In the post, the text part of the Facebook post, it says, "In what some online commentators are calling another "sia suay" moment, the PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people is heard."

Then, you have the video and superimposed on top of the video is this text blurb. It says, "During that hour, the Deputy Speaker reminded Mr Leong Mun Wai that he should not start a debate during a Ministerial Statement after he" – that is, Mr Leong Mun Wai – "urged the Deputy Speaker not to end the debate early because this is an important topic."

It was obviously referring to the Ministerial Statements and the subsequent clarifications with respect to the Ridout Road matter.

Then, in the video, there is this dramatic opening. It shows Mr Leong Mun Wai saying, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate."

Then, there is soft music. Then, you have Mr Leong Mun Wai making his clarifications. That is just a straightforward showing of the clarifications that he made. Then, at about 3:31 minutes in, it shows the part where Mr Leong says, "There are still a lot more questions that I am going to ask Deputy Speaker. I think the debate is not going to end at 5.45 pm."

Then, it shows Mr Deputy Speaker replying, where he said, "Mr Leong, I think that the Chair decides at what time the clarifications end. In fact, this is not a debate."

Then, it shows Mr Leong coming back to say, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate."

Then, it shows the Deputy Speaker saying, "Mr Leong, I do not disagree with you that this is a matter of public importance. In fact, Standing Order No 23 makes specific reference that Ministerial Statements be made on matters of public importance."

Mr Leong says, "Yes."

The Deputy Speaker then says, "But the second sentence in Standing Order No 23 also states that there shall be no debate. Clarifications can be asked. So, there is no debate, whether under Standing Order No 23 or Standing Order No 25, which is a Personal Explanation." And the video cuts there. It ends.

On the face of it, you may wonder, what was the problem with this video? The difficulty is this – the video gives a false impression of what occurred in Parliament.

First, it gives a false impression that issues on the Ridout Road matter could not be fully ventilated because Mr Deputy Speaker would not allow a debate, despite a plea by Mr Leong Mun Wai for this to happen.

If you think about it, it starts off with: "In what some online commentators are calling another "sia suay" moment". What is "sia suay"? Embarrassing. So, there has to be something embarrassing. What is this embarrassing thing? It goes on to say that "The PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of people is heard". And then, you have that blurb which suggests that they were being shut down and a debate was not allowed to take place.

So, the first wrong about the post, coupled with the video, is the suggestion that issues could not be fully ventilated and that a debate was not allowed.

What the video does not say and what is the case, is that, procedurally, for Ministerial Statements, Members can ask questions or clarifications but, unlike for Motions, it is not a debate. That may be a technical characterisation but it is something that all Members of Parliament should know. And the video does not continue to point out what happened after that. So, the gravamen of this part is that there is no debate. But, of course, what is not highlighted is that questions are put to Ministers and the Ministers are still held to account; they put themselves up for questioning and that they did answer.

The next thing that it does is it gives the impression that Mr Leong was not allowed to ask questions, which, again, is not true.

If you look at the actual transcript, you will see that Mr Leong actually asked something like 11 questions or clarifications. And if I may just refer to my record of this, the transcript that I have. The video stops where Mr Deputy Speaker explains the distinction between Standing Order No 23 and a debate. What is left out is this part when Mr Leong Mun Wai says, "Yes. What I urge the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to be mindful that this topic has not been properly completely clarified. When it is not completely clarified, please do not end the session."

So, there is an admission there that there is a distinction between clarifications and debate. And Mr Deputy Speaker says, "Mr Leong, I think the response to you is... I would like you to take your seat. The response is we had four Ministerial Statements from 12.30 pm and it is now 5.30 pm. That is about five hours' worth of to-ing and fro-ing. I think this House has ventilated a lot of issues. I would allow about three or four more clarifications from Members and we will then proceed to end the Ministerial Statements."

And then, Mr Deputy Speaker put to Mr Leong that it was not for a Member to dictate to the Chair when business should start or end and said he hoped that Mr Leong could agree. He specifically asked if Mr Leong would agree to that and Mr Leong agreed that, yes, it was not for him to decide when business would start or end.

The video also does not indicate that subsequently, Mr Deputy Speaker gave Mr Leong many opportunities to raise clarifications.

There was a time when Mr Deputy Speaker allowed Ms Poa to go first when he said, "Mr Leong, do not worry, I will come back to you." Subsequently, Ms Hazel Poa was allowed to make a clarification. And, after that, Mr Deputy Speaker said to Mr Leong, "Mr Leong Mun Wai, I am giving you some latitude. So, ask all the questions you have." And Mr Leong then proceeded to ask five questions, and it continued.

And it was only right at the end when Mr Deputy Speaker looked around, there were no further hands, that Mr Deputy Speaker called upon Mr Alex Yam to give the last clarification.

The next thing is that the video says that "during that hour", suggesting that clarifications only occurred for one hour. That, again, is not true. The entire session took about six hours. The Ministerial Statements took up about two hours and the clarifications took almost four hours, or three hours and 48 minutes to be precise. So, there was ample time for questions to be asked, and they were asked and they were answered and the session ended at 6.22 pm.

So, we have here a situation where you have a video from PSP which gives rise to a false, misleading impression of what happened in Parliament and it misrepresents the proceedings. I had actually spoken about this in Parliament and I had reminded Members about the obligations that Members have under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

I had distributed a note at that time, and just to refresh Members' memories, I will ask the Clerk to distribute the Hansard of what I had said at that time and the note. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

The documents that are being circulated comprise three documents. The first is the extract of the Hansard on that occasion. The second is the note that I had circulated to Members, and the third is an excerpt from the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, or PPIPA.

I would like to direct Members to the second document in the bundle. It is titled "Upholding proper conduct in and out of Parliament". This is the note that was circulated to Members. And I would direct Members' attention to paragraph 6.

Paragraph 6 says, "The proceedings of Parliament are public and they are reported and discussed outside of Parliament by Members and the public alike. This is part of public discourse. However, Parliament proceedings should not be distorted, misrepresented or otherwise used improperly. Section 31 of the PPIPA provides that no person" – that means, not just Members of Parliament, but anybody – "no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames or which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in Parliament or anything done or said by him in Parliament", "no person shall publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of Parliament or any speech of a Member of Parliament" and "no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames the proceedings or the character of Parliament."

So, these provisions are concerned with statements reflecting on Members in their Parliamentary roles, statements reflecting on Parliament and false reports of Parliamentary proceedings.

And if Members look at paragraph 8, "Breaches of these provisions constitute a contempt of Parliament that Parliament may punish. There are also offences that Parliament may refer to the Public Prosecutor. These provisions apply to Members and the public alike, with Members expected to lead by example in complying with the law".

And at paragraph 11, I specifically drew to Members' attention that "[o]utside of Parliament, Members, their political parties, and members of the public, as well as those reporting on Parliamentary proceedings, should take note of section 31 of PPIPA and not conduct themselves so as to bring Parliament into disrepute. Examples of conduct that should be avoided include misrepresenting what happened in Parliament, such as by setting out partial (and thereby misleading) versions of what happened in Parliament, casting aspersions and making scandalous or defamatory statements about Parliament and/or its Members. And as stated, these obligations apply not just to Members but to all persons."

So, the point I would wish to raise is this – the video, coupled with the text and blurb, actually does all of these things; misrepresents what happened in Parliament and misrepresents what the Deputy Speaker said or did.

It should be remembered that in Mr Leong's case, Mr Leong himself personally has previously had occasions where he has breached Parliamentary rules and has had to apologise for the same. These occurred on 25 February 2021, 10 May 2021, 8 March 2022 and most recently, 22 March 2023 in respect of the Ministerial Statement on Police disclosure, where he had to apologise for being disrespectful to Speaker, and subsequent to that Sitting, he also withdrew various statements in his Facebook posts, clarified that he had not intended to cast aspersions on Ministers and admitted that he was wrong to make the suggestion that he did in his statement in Parliament.

I had, on 18 April 2023, raised a Point of Order where I said that, although these were breaches, given that he had apologised, there was no need to take further action and I sought Speaker's concurrence, which Speaker gave. And it was on that occasion on 18 April this year that I reminded Members of the responsibilities, and that was when I circulated that note.

So, in light of this, may I, through you Mr Deputy Speaker, ask Mr Leong Mun Wai, who is the Secretary General of the PSP and therefore leads the PSP, may I ask why such a misleading post and video has been put up? That is first. Let me just ask that first and sees how it goes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

4.27 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must say, in response to what the Minister has alleged just now, I am quite surprised that I thought the video put up by my Party was just an expression. In this country, we are still supposed to have free expression.

So, first of all, let me confirm a few things. One, when we put as a title, "another instance of 'sia suay'", who are we referring to? Did the Minister assume that the "sia suay" refers to the Deputy Speaker? We have no intention of saying that at all. The "sia suay" is what people in the public has used to refer to me.

We are just saying that this is another example of "sia suay", but actually, what Leong Mun Wai was trying to do was to ask more questions to get more facts. And that is how he was trying to get to the facts. And, so, the video put up some of the things.

Inside the video, one very important point was about the amount of time being spent.

Although the whole deliberation has lasted six hours, but that does not mean that all the questions had been asked and all the replies that came back had actually clarified all the facts. So, in the process of debate, I was maybe slightly a bit excited and said that I think I need more time to ask those questions. And that was when Deputy Speaker, Sir, came in and said, "You are not supposed to have a debate."

And so, that went on, some exchanges between him and me. But I thought that I have always conducted myself with respect to the Deputy Speaker at that time. I did not say anything in violation of anything, I think. Because I do learn from some of the exchanges that I have had, with the Speaker, for example.

So, I did not say anything, I said that I agreed to what he said, if he said "clarifications", then I said, "Okay, then the clarifications have not yet been completely clarified". You say, "No debate, just clarifications". Okay, I will use "clarification".

But the difference between "debate" and "clarifications", indeed, is a very interesting differentiation – what is meant by "debate" and what is meant by "clarifications" in the context of us discussing in Parliament. So, that is something that we felt was quite interesting. As a result, it was in the video.

What I am trying to say is that I do not think that I had conducted myself disrespectfully at all. By showing this video, now I hear from you about some of the interpretations that you have explained. I think I would request that you would allow me to take this back and let us deliberate inside our party, and then we will come up with a formal response.

If there are any demands that the Government wants us to do right now, you can let us know, and we will immediately consider and respond as soon as possible. So, that is my response to you at the moment.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his response. Let me just address a few things and then I think we can arrive at a partial conclusion of this matter.

First, when Mr Leong says that he had not fully appreciated the difference between "clarification" and "debate", and he had not intended to be disrespectful to Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that we accept. There was a point when it bordered on the disrespectful, but to be fair to Mr Leong, he caught himself at that time.

So, today I am raising this Point of Order not in respect of what Mr Leong said or did in Parliament. We can set that aside and not be concerned about that.

The Point of Order that I am raising is with respect to the video, coupled with the text in the Facebook post – they have to go together. And in this respect, firstly, Mr Leong is the Secretary-General of the party, and this is the party's Facebook page, and that is why I am directing the question to him.

Second, Mr Leong said that this was just an expression and that he thought that there was supposed to be free expression. There is free expression in Singapore, but it has never extended to falsehoods, scandalously defaming somebody or misrepresenting situations or facts or misrepresenting what happened in Parliament.

So, I just wish to make that very clear, freedom of expression does not allow anybody to make false statements or misrepresent things. Because facts are important.

And then, the next thing, did I understand Mr Leong correctly? Did he say that in the Facebook post, the reference to "sia suay" was a reference to him? Because the text says, "In what some online commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment". So, am I to understand that Mr Leong is saying that PSP is saying that Mr Leong and Ms Poa have given rise to another "sia suay" moment? Is the reference to them or is the reference to something else?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In response to what the Minister has asked, as I have said just now, my communications department is specifically using a past example of people calling me "sia suay". So, this statement "sia suay" on this video is also referring to me, as another instance that some people online may think that it is another "sia suay" instance. It is a matter of communication message.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I see. I thank Mr Leong for his clarification and confirmation that the PSP video was, in fact, referring to what it suggests is an embarrassing moment by its Secretary-General. Okay.

That aside, that brings me back to the final point, which is that having now explained how the video comes across and how it would be understood, then I think what would be appropriate is for the video to be taken down and for an apology, in a form acceptable to Parliament.

I do not ask Mr Leong to respond to that today, as he has kindly said, they will go back and consider this. This is what should be considered, and please do let us know tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Yes, in response to the Minister, yes, that is what I am going to do. And thank you.

When we do our debates and discussion in this Parliament, inevitably, if you want to have substantive discussion, there will be times where wrong things are being said. If inappropriate things are being said, then I really appreciate the opportunity to get your feedback and then, we will discuss the actions we need to take.

So, what you have said specifically just now is for us to take down our video. Is that all? And an apology. Okay, I will go back and we will discuss about that within our party and we will respond to the Government as soon as we can. Oh, respond to Parliament. Respond to Parliament as soon as we can.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: The request was to respond to Parliament tomorrow. But just one more response in respect of what Mr Leong just raised in his reply.

I think Mr Leong said that sometimes things are said in the "heat of the moment" or you may make a mistake on the spot. That, I think we understand and that is why the Standing Orders have provisions for Members to come back and give either a Personal Explanations or to correct statements.

But this video came up around midnight, this morning. So, end of Tuesday. The Ministerial Statements and the clarifications took place on Monday. So, there was a space of more than 24 hours between the end of the clarification session and when the video is done. And when a video is done, it is not on the spur of the moment. Clearly, there is a team thinking about how to project it, how to edit it, the narrative it should have and how it should portray its protagonists or the other people that it is talking about.

So, I think, insofar as "the heat of the moment" argument is concerned, it does not really apply here – that the video was put together for a purpose with some deliberation.

That said, I have highlighted our concerns about that and look forward to Mr Leong coming back to us with PSP's response.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If I may, Mr Leong, in fairness, I gave you five times to raise your questions. I had specifically invited you to ask all your questions. And you did, in fact, raise more than 10 questions. I felt that was important to put on record.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.40 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]