MPs across the aisle reject suspension motion, emphasizing due process and the rule of law.
SINGAPORE: Parliament demonstrated rare bipartisan agreement on September 19, as members from the Workers’ Party (WP) and the People’s Action Party (PAP) joined forces to reject the Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) motion to suspend Transport Minister S. Iswaran as a Member of Parliament (MP).
The motion, filed by Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Hazel Poa, sought to suspend Mr. Iswaran for the remainder of Parliament’s current session. Had it passed, Mr. Iswaran would have forfeited his MP’s allowance, which currently stands at approximately $16,000 monthly. This is in addition to his reduced ministerial pay of $8,500, granted while he is on leave of absence amid an ongoing Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) probe.
Balancing Accountability and Presumption of Innocence
Ms. Indranee Rajah, Leader of the House, countered Ms. Poa’s motion with one of her own, proposing to “consider the matter” after the conclusion of investigations. Ms. Indranee argued that insufficient information was available to make an informed decision, a sentiment echoed across party lines.
“In the Workers’ Party view, the wheels of justice must be allowed to fully turn before Parliament decides what to do,” said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, who emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence.
While acknowledging public frustration over Mr. Iswaran’s continued allowance, Mr. Singh urged Parliament to adhere to principles of due process and fairness. He also inquired whether the PAP would consider “clawing back” Mr. Iswaran’s allowance should investigations lead to charges or convictions.
Precedent and Principle
Critics of Ms. Poa’s motion argued that it risked undermining legal principles. Section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act allows for MP suspension only in cases of proven dishonorable conduct, abuse of privilege, or contempt. Merely being under investigation does not meet this threshold.
Ms. Poa’s motion also raised concerns about setting a precedent. If approved, it could have implications for MPs currently under investigation for other matters, such as WP MPs Mr. Singh and Mr. Faisal Manap, who are being examined for their conduct during the Committee of Privileges hearings.
Moreover, targeting Mr. Iswaran alone appeared politically motivated. Suspending additional opposition MPs could weaken the opposition’s voice in Parliament, a move that might backfire on PSP and WP in the long term.
Frustration vs. Fairness
Public discontent over Mr. Iswaran’s sizable allowance is understandable, particularly when juxtaposed with the daily struggles of average Singaporeans. However, using financial frustrations to justify suspending an MP without due process risks eroding fundamental legal principles.
Singaporeans are encouraged to channel their dissatisfaction through the ballot box rather than jeopardize the rule of law. Holding politicians accountable must not come at the cost of compromising justice and fairness.
A Legal and Ethical Balancing Act
While it is crucial to maintain accountability, it is equally important to uphold the presumption of innocence and resist pre-judging investigations. Parliament’s decision to reject the suspension motion reflects a commitment to these principles, ensuring that justice remains above political agendas.
As Singaporeans navigate their frustrations, confidence in the legal system and the integrity of Parliament will remain vital in safeguarding democratic values and the rule of law.
