Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of clarification – first, with regard to the standards of the People’s Action Party (PAP) that the Prime Minister spoke of and, second, with regard to the circumstances involving the departure of the former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former MP Cheng Li Hui.
Sir, there has been much public disquiet about the transmission of information surrounding Minister Iswaran’s arrest by the CPIB and, separately, on the affair between former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Member of Parliament Cheng Li Hui. This is particularly with regard to what the Prime Minister knew and what the Prime Minister did about it over a period of almost three years before coming clean on the matter.
Sir, in this term of government, the Government has either been slow to clear the air or been less than upfront and forthright with Singaporeans when it had to deal with potentially embarrassing issues.
I will give three examples that capture this point and my clarifications will be contained therein.
Firstly, in May this year, the public was not informed forthwith that CPIB had been instructed to look into the Ridout Road rentals by two Ministers.
On 23 May, the Prime Minister released the statement stating Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had been appointed to establish whether there had been any wrongdoing in the Rideout Road rentals in order to maintain the highest standards of integrity in government.
What the Prime Minister did not tell the public but was made known by way of a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office written in the third person on 28 June was that the Prime Minister had directed the CPIB to investigate the Ridout Road matter on 17 May – a full six days before his 23 May statement that omitted to mention that he had ordered a CPIB investigation into two of his Ministers.
The public came to know about the CPIB investigation more than a month later when investigations were completed, with CPIB confirming no criminal offence was disclosed.
Second, there is considerable public disquiet about the CPIB releasing a statement on 12 July, which stated that Minister Iswaran was assisting with investigations while omitting to disclose the fact that Minister Iswaran had been arrested a day before.
In a parallel universe, Sir, there is a perception that if a Singaporean or Singaporean company took such a cavalier and breezy approach with critical facts under today’s PAP, they can expect to receive a POFMA direction from a PAP Minister for perpetuating false statements of fact.
Has the Prime Minister inquired with the CPIB why it undertook such a course of action that brought unnecessary attention to the CPIB’s processes and, by extension, even its impartiality, involving the release of statements in the public interest? If he did not, would he consider to do so?
Thirdly, during COVID-19, the public was belatedly informed by a Minister in this House, that his senior Cabinet colleagues were aware by October 2020 that previous Government assurances on TraceTogether being solely used for contact tracing were effectively false statements of fact. Misrepresentations had hitherto been made by various Government Ministers and possibly in this House even, before October 2020, and they stood uncorrected for months. The PAP Government took almost nine months before it disclosed to Singaporeans that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) sought to collect TraceTogether data for an investigation in May 2020, even as the PAP continued to assert right through the rest of the year that TraceTogether was only to be used for contact tracing.
Unlike as represented by the Prime Minister, these are not events that I quote, “are clustered together”, all coming at one go. Instead, they reveal a pattern of behaviour over a period of time of the PAP engaging in half-truths on matters of significant public interest. And this behaviour goes a long way to explain why there is real disquiet among Singaporeans today when the PAP invokes the memory of Pioneer Generation PAP leaders and talks about trust.
Sir, last month the Prime Minister informed this House that he has to set the standards of what is ethical and what is proper and that the PAP Government does not need an ethics advisor. Can I invite the Prime Minister to reconsider his position in view of the PAP’s pattern of behaviour in this term of Government, especially when a potentially embarrassing issue comes up? I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, in view of the complexity of government and governance today, it would not be embarrassing for the Government to consider the appointment of an ethics advisor.
Sir, my clarifications on the former MP Cheng Li Hui and Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin matter are as follows: the Prime Minister said, in comparing the hot mic issue with the inappropriate relationship, I quote, “in comparison, the relationship was the more serious matter as he was the Speaker and she was an MP and there should not be a relationship”.
My question is if the Prime Minister knew of the affair in 2020, why were Speaker Tan and Cheng Li Hui allowed to be on the same Standing Select Committee of Parliament, namely the House Committee, after GE 2020, when the Prime Minister was already aware of the affair? Would not their being on the same Committee have resulted in more interactions between them than necessary or given official reasons to be together? To this end, has the Prime Minister checked, since he knew of the affair in 2020, how many foreign trips have both Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui have been on – at the taxpayers’ expense – and was he not aware of them?
My next question: the Prime Minister stated at the press conference in response to a reporter’s question that, I quote, “as for comparison with Michael Palmer, I think it depends on the situation of the case and I said you’ve got to look at the circumstances, spouses, the family’s condition and how you manage this as sensitively as you can and yet do your duty, and it depends on the person’s response as well as the specifics, so I don’t think it’s possible to make direct comparisons”.
I note the Prime Minister’s reference to such sensitivity, an eminently reasonable approach to take with delicate matters. However, the PAP selectively applies these standards, expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the Opposition seek to make the same point.
When former MP Raeesah Khan revealed to the Workers’ Party leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the Committee of Privileges in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah’s lies to Parliament. And the Prime Minister did not bat an eyelid in giving the Leader of the Opposition a sermon on Confucian ethics, morality and shame, even though at the material time, he would have been aware of the affair between Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Member of Parliament Cheng Li Hui.
Can the Prime Minister please elaborate how the Tan Chuan-Jin affair with a Member of Parliament was different from the circumstances and conditions of former PAP Speaker Michael Palmer’s affair with a People’s Association (PA) member, which Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean then had said, had to be dealt with, I quote, “decisively”.
Finally, why was there a need for so much time to plan for the care of Marine Parade, and specifically Kembangan-Chai Chee residents? In other cases of resignations of PAP MPs, such as Michael Palmer, President Halimah, David Ong and Senior Minister Tharman, nothing close to that length of time was required. Could the Prime Minister detail for us what exact steps were taken between February and July 2023 to arrange for the care of Marine Parade residents? If that was the crux of the issue, then even if the planning for the care of Marine Parade residents was a proper justification for Tan Chuan-Jin to remain a Marine Parade Member of Parliament for five months, why was he not asked to step down as Speaker first and a new Speaker elected? If he had stepped down as Speaker, could he still not have continued as a Marine Parade MP until the arrangements were made?
And before I round off, Mr Speaker, just one additional question. How were Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui counseled immediately after Prime Minister was informed about the affair in 2020? Did he personally counsel them and how often did he check in on the status of the relationship thereafter?
2 August 2023
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=ministerial-statement-2235
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 