Transparency ensures fairness when MPs switch between partisan and non-partisan roles: Indranee
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
This current system of managing such transitions is transparent and fair, and has served Singapore well, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO
SINGAPORE – There should be no obstacle to parliamentarians switching between partisan and non-partisan roles, as long as one steps down first and openly declares the change in status, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
This current system of managing such transitions is transparent and fair, and has served Singapore well, she added during the debate on the Budget in Parliament on Feb 27.
She was rejecting a suggestion from Workers’ Party MP He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) for a compulsory cooling-off period when people move between such roles.
Ms He, the only MP who spoke in Parliament during the Budget debate, said clearer distinctions between such roles were necessary to safeguard Singapore’s politics and parliamentary democracy.
Other WP MPs had previously raised this point over Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi’s resignation as a Nominated MP
Ms He said if she were to quit WP, declare herself non-partisan and apply to be an NMP, she would not be breaking any laws. Yet, Singaporeans should ask if this “passes the ‘smell test’”.
A cooling-off period would allow someone to “meaningfully detach from previous associations”, she said.
“Otherwise, how do we stop ourselves from wondering whether a member is auditioning for another role or a different office each time they rise to speak?” she said.
Ms Indranee, who is also Second Minister for Finance, said there was nothing stopping Ms He from making such a switch.
“You’ve declared to the world that you are no longer partisan. You have taken on a responsibility to be non-partisan, and so long as you carry out that duty properly, there is nothing wrong with that,” she said.
The same principle would apply in the reverse for someone leaving a non-partisan role to join a political party. “It’s transparent, it’s fair, and this is what we have done in our system, and it has served us well,” said Ms Indranee.
Ms He also suggested that such cooling-off periods extend to the presidency, public servants seeking political office, and political appointees and senior public servants leaving office, citing a need for “clear, defensible boundaries against conflicts of interest, perceived or real”.
In response, Ms Indranee said conflicts of interest can also arise when someone has taken a certain position in Parliament on a particular issue and then later sits on a tribunal deciding on the same issue. “Now that would be a conflict of interest too. So we must see how we conduct ourselves appropriately, and much depends on the individual.”
Ms He is said to be on a disciplinary panel
The party has never confirmed the trio’s appointments, but following Ms Indranee’s remark, Ms He responded that she did not want to speak for the panel at this stage.
When Parliament declared Mr Singh unsuitable as Leader of the Opposition
To this, Ms Indranee said the motion did touch on matters the WP disciplinary panel has to look at, adding that this was “self-evident and self-explanatory”.
Ms Indranee also outlined challenges facing democracies globally, including in countries long regarded as leaders. “Once-revered institutions have been rendered ineffective, compromised or even under direct attack,” she said.
Singapore can be thankful its democracy is not in “such a parlous state”, she said, but it is not immune from such dangers.
It has avoided them because successive PAP governments have continued to maintain high standards and important fundamentals, she said.
There must be proper laws, coupled with respect for the rule of law, to safeguard this, said Ms Indranee, and people must observe the letter and the spirit of the rules and follow through, “even though the consequences may be politically inconvenient”.
Parliamentarians must also act honourably and with integrity, she said, noting that laws alone are not enough.
And when things go wrong, they must have the courage and “the sense of shame” to accept accountability for matters within their responsibility and their personal conduct, she said.
Singapore also needs the right people in Parliament – those with competence, commitment and conscience, who will put country before party, she added.
“In government, we need competent people who understand the fundamentals of governance and can master the difficult task of running a country.
“In opposition, we need competent people who understand the issues, ask the right questions, and hold not only the Government but also themselves to the same high standards of integrity and accountability,” she said.
After her suggestion on cooling-off periods, Ms He also questioned the partisanship of grassroots advisers under the People’s Association (PA), but Ms Indranee said this was not meant to be discussed in this section of the Budget debate as PA does not come under Parliament.
The PA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth.
She declined to address Ms He’s point in detail but reiterated that the Government’s position is that the roles of a grassroots adviser and MP are different and separate.
Wrapping up, Ms Indranee cited a 1988 speech made by then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, where he outlined the US, British and Singapore political systems.
The underlying premise of the US system of checks and balances is distrust between different parts of the state, while the British system gives more discretionary powers to the executive.
The Singapore system is more like the British system, except that Singaporeans have gone further and added the ideal of a political leader who is upright and morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust.
“And we believe that leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity committed to the public good,” she said.
