Singapore govt slow to clear the air, less than upfront with potentially embarrassing issues: Pritam

I have two buckets of clarification one with regard to the standards of the pap that prime minister spoke of and second with regard to the circumstances involving the departure of speaker former speaker Anton jinen so there's been much public disquiet about the transmission of information surrounding minister is Warren's arrest by the cpib and separately on the affair between speaker than Cho and Jin and MP Chang Lee 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 so in this term of government the government has either been slow to clear the air or being 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 fought with fought with that cpib had been instructed to look into the Rideout Road rentals by two ministers on the 23rd of May the Prime Minister released a statement stating as MTO chihin had been appointed to establish whether there had been any wrongdoing in the ride out Road rentals in order to maintain the higher 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 the 28th of June was that the Prime Minister had directed The cpib to investigate the writer Road matter on the 17th of May a full six days before his 23rd 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 offense was disclosed second there is considerable public disquiet about the cpib releasing a statement on the 12th of July which stated that Minister iswara was assisting with investigations while omitting to disclose the fact that Minister swaran had been arrested a day before in a parallel universe there is a perception that if a Singaporean or a 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 facts 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 and if he did not and 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 Trace together being solely used for contract tracing will 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 up to collect Trace to get the data for an investigation in May 2020 even as the pap continued to settle right through the rest of the year then Trace together was only to be used for contact tracing unlike as represented by the PM these are not events that I quote are clustered together all coming at one go instead they reveal a pattern of behavior over a period of time of the pap engaging in half truths on matters of significant public interest and this Behavior 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 so last month the P the PM 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 behavior 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 so my clarifications on the Ching Lee Hui and speaker than tranjin matter as follows the Prime Minister said in comparing the hot mic issue with the inappropriate relationship that 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 unquote my question is if the Prime Minister knew of the affair in 2020 why were speaker tan and qinglihui allowed to be on the same standing Select Committee of parliament namely the house committee after G 2020 when the Prime Minister was already aware of the affair wouldn't their being on the same committee have resulted in more interactions between them than necessary or given official reasons to be together and to this end has the Prime Minister checked since he knew of the affair in 2020 how many foreign trips have both speaker tantranjin and chenglihi have been on and the taxpayers expense and was he not aware of them my next question prime minister stated at the press conference in response to a reporter's question that I quote I saw 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 on quote I know the PM's reference to such sensitivity and eminently reasonable approach to take with delicate matters however the SP selectively applies these standards expecting singaporeans to give the pap the full benefit of Doubt when it's MPS follow-up while screaming blue murder when the oppositions seek to make the same point when former wpmp reisar Khan revealed to the wp leaders that she was a rape victim sensitivity was not even considered by the committee of privileges in accounting for the delay in addressing raisa's lies to Parliament and the Prime Minister did not bet 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 tantranjin and MP Chang Lee Hui can the Prime Minister please elaborate how the chantanjin affair with an MP was different from the circumstances and conditions of former Pap speaker Michael Palmer's affair with the people's Association member which senior Minister Tio chihin 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 marine marine and specifically residents in other cases of resignations of Pap MPS such as Michael Palmer president Halima David Ong and cinnamon satarman 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 residence if that was the Crux of the issue then even if the planning for the care of marine parade residence was a proper justification for tantranjin to remain a marine parade MP 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 question one additional question how were tantranjin and qinglihi counseled immediately after PM was informed about the affair 2020 did he personally counsel them and how often did he check in on the status of the relationship thereafter thank you for I asked prime minister to respond I have given leader of the opposition some leeway at this stage we should be asking clarifications and not make speeches and I request members going forward to remember that prime minister Mr Speaker sir let me deal first with a question of transmission of information the leader of the opposition raises three issues one of which has been extensively debated in fact in 2020 2020 during covet and I don't need to go back there again which is the trace together and whether we should have announced earlier when we discovered that the police were using it for their purposes I think that has been completely explained closed that matter is done as for cpib statements the state the cpib doesn't investigate somebody unless there is a very serious reason to do so and the cpib doesn't reveal that investigation generally until it has reason to believe that this investigation has to carry on that it has to go somewhere therefore in general cpib investigations are not in the first instance announced at all if you had listened to minister Chandra chanton Singh you would have heard that explain very clearly why in general the cpib doesn't announce any investigations at all and when I asked the cpib to investigate It's my prerogative I don't have to tell anybody what is important is that I did conduct an investigation and the investigation results were published that is what matters in the case of the 12th July statement the reason why the cpib said exactly what they said if you listen carefully to minister Chan Chun Singh that has been give that explanation has been given which was that they had to say what they felt justified in saying at that point for operational reasons and to be fair to the persons involved and the ministers unless we have strong reason to do otherwise we'll go along and we will not go beyond what the cpib needs and is able to see so I think in terms of transmission of information we are pursuing a red herring we could equally well ask for example when did the lead of opposition know about problems in his com in his party and what did he do about them but those are matters which the workers party will have to decide and will have to account to singaporeans then the pap we establish our own standards and we establish our own practices as for the relationship between Don Juan Jin and Ching Lee Hui and the questions on the house committee and foreign trips I think I will leave that to a leader to answer subsequently on the difference between this case and the case of Michael Palmer and the PA staff I think there are two differences one in Michael Palmer's case it would involved the PA staff who worked in a team which supported Michael Palmer and other gra advisors in um SMC and there is a reporting relationship there secondly I think that the specifics of the extramarital affair matter as I explained just now we have to look at how the families respond what the other circumstances are and that the first in every case and I do not wish to go into specifics of how the EMAs are different but I suffice to say they were different as for Khan that raises many issues and those issues are now have been exhaustively debated in the committee of privileges the matter further problems have uh were recorded and reported by the committee of Privileges and the matter has been referred to the police for investigations so I would leave that to the police to pursue the matter and take it where it may as for the time why it took so long I counseled tantranjin at the beginning I saw to it that Ching Lee Hui was also council at the beginning they both agreed to stop it didn't happen I do not wish to go beyond that and to take Delph into the ins and outs of how it happened but suffice it to say eventually it came to a break point and they didn't stop and they had to go I could have done it sooner I should have done it sooner I've explained that Marine parade was a consideration but all things considered I should have moved earlier but the important thing is we move and we brought it out and we're open about it and if and when I was asked I said yes I knew sometime after G20 which is November 2020. I was open about it if I hadn't said that nobody would know that and therefore we clear the matter and I think we account to singaporeans either of the house Mr Speaker sir let me address the question which the clarification which the leader of the opposition posed on parliamentary trips or official trips since the last general election a former speaker Mr Tanto and Jin had gone on five official overseas trips and three working trips working trips would be for example for the Olympic Games Etc of the five official overseas trips only one was the one where Miss Chang Li was present as well so that was the two that was the asean interparliamentary assembly General Assembly trip to Cambodia in 2022 there were 15 MP delegates in total for this trip I understand that the parliament Secretariat had organized since 2020 over eight had organized 18 overseas parliamentary trips including the hyper gen General Assembly one in August the upcoming one in 2023 and 60 MPS have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. so of the 18 visits Ms Chung Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the IPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022 and she did not attend other overseas trips but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPS with regard to her selection for that trip I understand that the name was put up by the Staffing officer and approved with respect to the house committee there are several standing select committees the names for the composition of the Committees are put forward in the case of the pap representation by myself at after the last general election I had sought leader of the opposition's nominations for the opposition MPS because the rules provide that for standing select committees the proportion of the ratio of majority MPS and opposition MPS should be roughly then the proportion that they're represented in this house do you know the opposition Mr pritam Singh thank you speaker just the first point is a point of order I respect what speaker mentioned about not making extended speeches but I was merely doing exactly what had transpired about one month ago when uh Pap MPS made extended speeches specifically the prime minister in the course of a ministerial statement in response to a question I believe from backbencher Denise pois so I do seek your Indulgence speaker I wasn't going anything beyond what was already carried out by Pap MP in the course of a ministerial statement last month I understand what standing order 23 says I understand that a debate is not to ensue in the course of and they cannot be more than clarifications but nothing special was undertaken by me in the course of me asking questions just now I just want to put that on record in terms of prime minister's replies I think some of them still do not go into the details of matters that singaporeans are actually quite concerned about but I will address some responses which the Prime Minister gave first on Trace together that this has been extensively debated and so forth and not particularly so uh there are methods which are still for which questions still arise I think the Prime Minister made a statement after the well after the trace together issue was debated in Parliament I think this was in March 2001 where he apologized and said let me quote and to be very clear about this matter and this was in an SD article where the this is the 14th of March well after we had discussed the trace together and the Prime Minister came out to say I think we made a mistake the app was designed for contact tracing but under the law the police have powers to ask for information for criminal investigations we should have said so up front we did not and we came out and said so I must say this statement came after the storm of Trace together had passed and that just reinforces the earlier point that I spoke of prime minister spoke about the leader of the opposition what I did what I knew I think I've handled this in the course of my press conference where I took 12 questions when did the affair start what information I had secured from the parties concerned and I believe I answered those fully if the Prime Minister has specific questions for me I will try and address them here uh on the point of Raisa Khan again I was quite careful not to say anything which would get into the investigation per se which is still ongoing but the matter here is about the point the Prime Minister raised about sensitivity the Prime Minister believes that it is appropriate to respond sensitively given the circumstances at hand and the point I was making was we were dealing here with someone who said she had been raped and I did not sense that sensitivity coming from the pap at the time and that's the point I was trying to make on other matters I think there will be further questions from Workers Party MPS I may come in and follow up with more questions in due course

Channel: CNA

Views: 152,690

Keywords: CNA, Channel NewsAsia

Id: dZTdPfz9_zg

Length: 19min 49sec (1189 seconds)

Published: Wed Aug 02 2023