Murali did not breach parliamentary privilege with ‘rent control’ remark during debate with Leong Mun Wai: Speaker

Murali did not breach parliamentary privilege with 'rent control' remark during debate with Leong Mun Wai: Speaker

In his issue, Mr. Leong made reference to Standing Order 50 and claimed that despite not having said anything of the sort, Mrs. Murali’s statement had implied poor motives on his part.

No part may attribute poor intentions to any other part under Part 6 of Standing Order 50, according to Mr. Seah. & nbsp,

” Irresponsible motives” imply anything unlawful, unscrupulous, or ethically wrong. He continued,” I have read the pertinent statements recorded in Hansard, and I find that the rent power statement does not suggest or assign any poor purpose on Mr. Leong’s piece. & nbsp,

According to Mr. Seah, rent control is a reasonable plan tool that the government can use. & nbsp,

He observed that during the discussion, Mrs. Leong and Murali had conversations in which they clarified and explained the framework of their speeches. & nbsp,

When it came to book power,” Mr. Leong and Mr. Murali had different ideas about what each meant.” But that’s just how political discussions and exchanges work, Mr. Seah said. & nbsp,

MPs occasionally perhaps have divergent viewpoints, and they should be willing to believe, he continued. & nbsp,

Mr. Leong put up his hand to respond in the speaker’s place. The Speaker emphasized that his decision regarding any objection was ultimate and never subject to appeal, but added that he would make an exception and asked Mr. Leong to clarify. & nbsp,

Mr. Seah responded that he was not reopening the conversation when Mr Leong asked if his problem could be directed at Mr Murali. & nbsp,

” Can I understand that you also agree that I never said anything about rent manage?” Mr. Leong enquired of Seah. & nbsp,

Mr. Leong’s query was no immediately addressed by the Speaker. ” As I have stated, I am not reopening the debate ,” he said. I’ve explained the situation in detail and decided based on the issue you filed. I won’t say it again. If you’re asking me to make a individual choice, that is entirely up to me.


Vivian Balakrishnan, a foreign affairs official, had been the target of Mr. Leong’s next complaint, which was made on September 14, 2021, while the mic was hot. & nbsp,

This occurred during a 10-hour political discussion on free trade agreements, overseas labor, jobs, and livelihoods. & nbsp,

Tan See Leng, the Minister of Manpower, responded to Mr. Leong’s problem in a movie of the discussion that was livestreamed on the Ministry of Communications and Information website, claiming that the man is ignorant.

A few minutes later, a voice can be heard asking,” Seriously, how did he get into RI ( Raffles Institution )?” It must have been a terrible class.

Mr. Leong attended Raffles Institution in the 1970s, according to his LinkedIn page. It is commonly acknowledged that it is one of the best universities in Singapore. Social media users at the time shared a lot of the comments’ videos.

The following morning, Dr. Balakrishnan claimed that he had called Mr. Leong to apologize for his” personal remarks to a partner” in Parliament. & nbsp,

He wrote in a Facebook publish,” I disagree with him on the matter, but I should not have said what I said.” My excuse has been accepted by Mr. Leong.