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

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.

Please proceed.

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.

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

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.