LEONG Wai Mun is one of two non-constituency members of parliament of Singapore.

On August 3, he participated in the debate on the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill where he said the bill was a step in the right direction and commended the government for it.

After another MP spoke, Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai stood and delivered his speech, at the end of which Leong stood. What followed was an exchange between Leong and Murali, with the speaker between them.

The Hansard recorded the exchange as follows:

Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, you have a clarification for Mr Murali?

Leong: Thank you, sir. Perhaps member Murali is too happy with this bill. If I hear correctly, he mentioned that I recommended rent control in my speech. Is that what you mean? I did not say that.

Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Murali: I thank the hon non-constituency member of parliament Mr Leong for seeking a clarification from me. I did not assert that the hon member Mr Leong sought rent control.

What I said in my speech was that he sought lower rents on behalf of SMEs and, as a result of that, it triggered memories of the Rent Control Act. I was in legal practice long enough to remember the Rent Control Act, which was subsequently abolished.

And I recall that where Rent Control Act applies, buildings become dilapidated because landlords have no incentive to invest in these buildings and making it tenantable. And in the end, Singaporeans suffer, because there is no utility that arises from the use of land. I hope that clarifies.

Speaker: Mr Leong, another clarification.

Leong: Thank you, sir. Can I ask the member again? What you have said is actually a very dangerous inference into what I say. I think I would ask you to retract what you have said.

Because I have actually agreed with this bill. And the direction that the government has taken in this bill, I totally agree with. It is something that is quite rare, actually, that I agree with the direction of the government. But for this bill, I also agree. I am also very happy with you.

But I did not say I am asking for lower rents. I am just saying that, in general, we should not encourage too much property speculation and we should not encourage a rent-seeking economy or society.

So, you should not bring what I said in my speech to that conclusion. It is very unfair for the inference that you have made. Can you clarify that?

Leong was visibly emotional in the exchange with Murali, hitting the rostrum a few times.

After further exchange between the two, the speaker said: “Mr Murali Pillai has clarified, as well as Mr Leong, you have also clarified what you have said.”

The speaker had earlier rebuked Leong for hitting the rostrum.

“By all means speak with passion, speak with conviction, please do that. But there is no need – I again remind people – there’s no need to bang on the rostrum, or things of that sort.

“So I hope people are reminded. I’d hate to give reminders every now and then,” said the speaker.

The exchange lasted for a good 10 minutes.

Two weeks later and after checking the Hansard, Leong sent a letter of complaint to the speaker in which he claimed that Murali’s statement “imputed improper motives to him” as the latter was alleged to have claimed Leong was “advocating for rent control” when he “had not made any such statement”.

Leong further stated in his complaint that Murali’s clarifications during the exchange also “confused the public and created the misleading impression” that he was “accusing” Murali.

Leong said despite Murali “expressly” saying he was advocating “low-rent control”, the Hansard showed that Murali contradicted himself three times during clarifications claiming that he did not.

Leong said he would like to “formally request that Mr Speaker make a ruling as to whether Mr Murali did make the statement, whether the statement was at odds with my speech, and whether Mr Murali’s statement and clarifications are in contravention of Standing Order 50(6)”.

Standing Order 50(6) states that no member “shall impute improper motives to any other member”.

On Monday – a month after the complaint – the speaker ruled that Murali did not “impute any improper motives” to Leong.

The Dewan Rakyat Standing Order 36(6) is similarly worded – no member shall impute improper motives to any other member.

On Tuesday, it was raised as a point of order by Putrajaya MP Mohd Radzi Md Jidin.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was explaining the discretion of the attorney-general under article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution when, perhaps seeing that Radzi was laughing at him, said: “You can laugh, you laugh Putrajaya, because you did it before.”

Radzi immediately stood up to defend himself and demanded the prime minister withdraw the allegation.

What ensued was a shouting match that lasted over 40 minutes, despite the speaker’s early attempt to make a ruling on the point of order.

The Hansard recorded as follows:

Speaker: Saya akan buat keputusan sekarang. [Dewan riuh] Baik, duduk-duduk. Saya akan buat keputusan sekarang.

Radzi: Tarik balik! [Dewan riuh]

Speaker: Baik.

Radzi: 36(6) Tarik balik!

Speaker: Baik. Kalau semua bercakap, saya hendak buat keputusan macam mana? Kalau semua bercakap… [Dewan riuh] Semua duduk! [Dewan riuh]

Radzi: Saya tidak duduk selagi tidak tarik Tuan Yang di-Pertua. [Dewan riuh]

Speaker: You suruh…

Radzi: Ini maruah saya Tuan Yang di-Pertua!

Speaker: Dengar dahulu! Dengar dahulu! Saya akan buat keputusan. Dengar dahulu!

Radzi: Saya tidak duduk selagi tidak ada keputusan. [Dewan riuh]

It led to Radzi being ejected from the Dewan Rakyat. The MP had insisted that the prime minister withdraw his statement because it concerned his dignity (maruah).

But what about the dignity of the country and people?

Radzi could have allowed the speaker to rule on the point of order. If dissatisfied, he could have filed a complaint with the speaker, as Leong did.

The country and people deserve better from the MPs. – September 21, 2023.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.