First Complaint by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that on 16 August 2023, I received two written complaints from the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai, regarding certain statements and remarks made by two Members of Parliament.

The first complaint is in respect of certain statements made by the Member for Bukit Batok Mr Murali Pillai during the debate on the second reading of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill on 3 August 2023. I will refer to this as the first complaint.

I directed that a copy of Mr Leong’s first complaint be shared with Mr Murali and asked for his written response. Mr Murali submitted his written response to me on 23 August 2023. Both documents will be distributed to Members at the end of my announcement.

I will now deal with the first complaint. During the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill, Mr Murali had said, and I quote: “The hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai had advocated some form of rent control.”

I will refer to this as the rent control statement. Mr Leong alleges that Mr Murali’s rent control statement had imputed improper motives to him as he had not made any such statement and that Mr Murali had thereby breached Standing Order 50(6).

Standing Order 50(6) provides: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member.”

The words “improper motives” imply something illegal, dishonest or morally wrong. I have perused the relevant speeches recorded in Hansard and I find that the rent control statement does not suggest or impute any improper motive on the part of Mr Leong. Rent control is a legitimate policy tool that can be implemented by the Government – for that matter, any government.

There were exchanges between Mr Leong and Mr Murali in the House, where both parties explained and clarified the context of their speeches made in respect of the subject matter of the Bill on rental structures between landlords and tenants. Mr Leong had asked for my ruling on whether the clarifications by Mr Murali were at odds with his speech.

I do not intend to repeat the details of the exchanges that are fully recorded in Hansard but, looking at them in context and totality, I find that in his clarifications, Mr Murali did not impute any improper motives to Mr Leong.

Both Mr Leong and Mr Murali had differing views of what each meant when they referred to rent control, but that is the nature of Parliamentary exchanges and debates. Each Member sets out his or her position and, if a Member feels that he has been misunderstood, he can seek to clarify or differ with the other Member’s position. Mr Leong and Mr Murali were given full opportunity in Parliament to clarify and explain what they meant. During the exchanges, Mr Murali did not impugn the honesty, integrity or personal character of Mr Leong.

Such exchanges are part and parcel of normal debate in Parliament. Sometimes, Members’ opinions may be irreconcilable and they should agree to disagree. Their speeches, clarifications and explanations are published in Hansard for all to read and discern.

I will now ask the Clerks to distribute copies of Mr Leong’s complaint dated 16 August 2023 and Mr Murali’s response dated 23 August 2023 to Members. I have directed both documents to be published in Hansard. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

I will give some time for the documents to be distributed.

I am of the view that the statements of Mr Murali do not impute any improper motives to Mr Leong under Standing Order 50(6), that there was no misleading impression created and no breach of privilege has been made.

I consider the matter to be now closed.

Mr Leong, did you raise your hand?

Well, first, I should say that under Standing Order 56, my decision on any complaint is final and is not open to appeal. However, for this instance, I will make an exception.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for indulging me. I will respect your decision, your ruling. But I want to have the opportunity to ask hon Member Mr Murali Pillai a question. Is that okay?

Mr Leong, I do no intend to open the debate again. I have stated my position. As you know, under the Standing Orders, no clarification is allowed. But if you do have a clarification for me, you can direct it to me. And I am making this as an exception.

I understand that Mr Speaker, Sir. Can I direct a question to you and the question is for hon Member Mr Murali Pillai.

A clarification. I am not opening a debate.

Yes, yes, a clarification.

A clarification for me.

Yes. Because "rent control" is a very strong word.

Mr Leong, I am making an exception for you. If you have a clarification to my decision, please ask me the clarification. I do not and I will not allow the debate to be opened again. What is your clarification?

Is that your clarification?

Yes.