Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

WP questions Govt’s motives for changes, sparking sharp exchange

SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) yesterday locked horns with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) over the legislative changes to the Presidential Elections Act, with WP chairman Sylvia Lim questioning the Government’s “motives” and prompting Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing to dismiss her suggestion that it was trying to achieve “a desired outcome”.

Workers' Party Chairman Sylvia Lim. TODAY file photo

Workers' Party Chairman Sylvia Lim. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) yesterday locked horns with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) over the legislative changes to the Presidential Elections Act, with WP chairman Sylvia Lim questioning the Government’s “motives” and prompting Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing to dismiss her suggestion that it was trying to achieve “a desired outcome”.

Eight MPs rose to speak during the debate on the Bill, which also saw Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean clashing with WP Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Leon Perera over his position on the Elected Presidency.

While Mr Perera insisted that he did not support the Elected Presidency at all, Mr Teo pointed to Mr Perera’s comments in a previous parliamentary sitting — where, among other things, he asked how the Government would mitigate the risks of Presidential Election (PE) campaigns being politicised — to suggest that the NCMP accepted the scheme.

The Bill was passed with 10 Members of Parliament (MP) — all nine WP MPs and NCMPs, as well as Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun — recording their dissent.

Referring to the hotly contested 2011 PE — which was won by Dr Tony Tan, a former PAP Minister — Ms Lim called Dr Tan “the Government’s preferred choice” who “scraped through to victory”.

She said, “After the last PE ... Singaporeans are right to be sceptical about the Government’s motives now.”

She questioned why the Government included former President Wee Kim Wee’s second and final term in office in its calculations for the hiatus-triggered reserved election mechanism, given that Mr Wee was not elected to the office.

“Why not count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong? Is it because if President Ong was the first one to be counted, we would have to go through this year’s election as an open election, and risk the contest by Chinese and Indian candidates who may not be to the Government’s liking? Isn’t (this) an arbitrary and deliberate decision of the Government to achieve a desired outcome?” she said.

But Mr Chan — who wrongly referred to Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob as “Madam President” twice before correcting himself the second time, drawing laughs — rejected Ms Lim’s accusations. “Can I put it to you, that this is not the style of this Government?”

Mr Chan added in response, “We are here to build for the long haul … We are but stewards entrusted with the responsibility to bring Singapore forward.”

He stressed that the changes are “significant” in preventing sensitive issues from arising in future, such as those involving race, language and religion.

“The day we face a problem, we may not have a chance to discuss this calmly as we do now,” he said.

During the three-hour debate, other MPs posed questions on issues such as the criteria used by the Community Committee in assessing community declarations, and whether the reasons for not granting a certificate can be made known.

A few MPs, including WP MP Pritam Singh, urged the committee to take into consideration factors such as the candidate’s competency in the community’s language, the spouse’s community identification, and whether the candidate was born in Singapore.

Mr Chan said the respective sub-committees will assess eligible candidates “holistically and not look at only one factor”. There is no need to “overly prescribe” a criteria, he said.

Towards the end of the debate, Mr Teo took issue with Mr Perera’s assertion that he, along with his party colleagues, opposed the Elected Presidency.

Mr Chan had said that based on the previous debate in November last year on the constitutional amendments, there was clear support from both PAP and WP on the need to depoliticise PE campaigning.

But Mr Perera said: “I and my colleagues argued, and we still maintain, that if you have an election, the risk of politicising (the President’s office) will emerge …Whatever procedural changes you make, you will not eliminate that political risk.”

This prompted Mr Teo to read out the Hansard record of what Mr Perera had previously said.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.