COP: A Case For a One-Party State?

The Parliament debate on the Committee of Privileges final report reveals PAP’s incessant narrative of its unquestionable absolute grip on power.

On the 80th anniversary of the Fall of Singapore in the Second World War, its Parliament did not hold a vigil but instead, the ruling party of 63 years started a process to halt the evolution of its political landscape. The coincidence is, of course, unfortunate, but many are disappointed with what can be perceived as a stunted growth into a functioning two-party system they anticipated when the Opposition Workers’ Party won an unprecedented 10 seats in the 2020 General Elections. How could they not be, when Singapore’s first official Leader of the Opposition will now be referred to the Public Prosecutor for possible criminal charges and risk losing his seat in Parliament?

The Prime Minister puts the Leader of the Opposition in his place

The appointment of this LO position was referenced by the Prime Minister himself in his speech in Parliament that day, almost in a manner of a school headmaster admonishing the recalcitrant and ungrateful head prefect, sternly reminding him of his solemn duties:

I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation, and I accept that … And it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the WP won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition, and equip him with the resources and support to play his role … But the office of the Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities … and above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque.

PM Lee Hsien Loong mentioned the anticipated evolution of Singapore’s parliamentary democracy and acknowledged that having a proper Leader of the Opposition will “contribute to the maturing of our political system”. But in the same breath, he insinuated that LO Pritam Singh did not live up to the expectations that came with the new office, even asserting that the LO “does not have a blank cheque” — a clear reference to the Workers’ Party mantra of wanting to deny a blank cheque to the PAP government. In fact, PM Lee went even further by unnecessarily evoking LO Pritam Singh’s predecessor:

Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Kiang as Secretary General of the Workers’ Party. Mr Low served for a very long time — 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the WP. He said he hoped the WP could help to build a First-World Parliament for Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done.

It appears that in the eyes of the PAP, a good Opposition leader is a retired one. The way PM Lee described Low Thia Kiang does remind one of the same glowing attributes given to veteran Opposition leader Chiam See Tong only after he has left Parliament. Given PM Lee’s lofty praises, we almost forget that Low Thia Kiang — who refused to be named ‘Leader of the Opposition’ unless it’s an official role — was the one who lambasted PM Lee in Parliament during the 38 Oxley Road saga with his famous words “own siblings cannot sue, but political opponents and critics, sue until your pants drop!”. The mention of the 38 Oxley Road aka Lee Siblings saga here is befitting, since there are already online chatter on that yet-unresolved issue where PM Lee utterly refused to pursue legal proceedings against his siblings. This was a stark contrast to the PM having had no qualms to do the same towards his supposed opponents on various occasions. The irony is noted that PM Lee — the “dishonourable son” of Lee Kuan Yew according to his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling — strongly denounced the actions of the WP leaders as a possible “dishonour” to Parliament, a word he mentioned 3 times in his speech.

PM Lee maintains the narrative of PAP’s own greatness

PM Lee’s speech was expectedly a grandiose declaration of the profound ideals of “democracy”, the dire warnings of Singapore “heading for trouble” and the “values” upon which the nation was founded on — lest the people forget the great contributions of the People’s Action Party. He unabashedly referred to himself as “the longest serving member of this House” and as such “feel a greater responsibility for this than most”. PM Lee mentioned Dr Toh Chin Chye as one of the great men who signed the Separation Agreement. Interestingly, LO Pritam Singh also mentioned Toh Chin Chye in his speech earlier, though in a rather different tack:

… not everyone reacts with loyalty to their Party or their Party leaders when they realised that the curtain is coming down on them or their political careers. How did Toh Chin Chye, former Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the PAP, react when he was pushed to the backbench? He became a vocal critic of PAP policies and famously said: “How can I remain a dumb cow?”

This reveals a clear contention in the narratives expounded by the leaders on the opposing side of the benches. PM Lee might be singing unreserved praises for the founding fathers, but LO Pritam Singh pointedly illustrated that even within the PAP’s first generation leaders, their legacy is not black and white. PM Lee seems to suggest that he was magnanimous in welcoming more Opposition voices but at the same time insinuated that it is not the government’s fault if they are failing in the desired standards; which is, as defined by the incumbent. This inadvertently reflects an underlying fervent belief that a one-party system — i.e. only the PAP — has the legitimate right to govern Singapore. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that PM Lee took note to mention that we “cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in government”. But that statement, more than anything, only served as a warning to Singaporeans that if you vote for WP, this is what you get.

One-Party State in all but name

In line with illustrating the dangers of a non-PAP government, PM Lee made more references to the past, and also mentioned the defunct Barisan Sosialis:

Even after the Barisan Sosialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our Parliamentary democracy and multi-party system. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained, at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state. But he deliberately chose not to, because he knew that without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would over time become complacent and flabby, and that would be disastrous for Singapore.

Come on, which self-respecting aspiring first-world nation would knowingly change its Constitution to establish a one-party state? Barisan Sosialis — in case anyone has forgotten — was formed by defectors of the PAP after an internal split in the party, and was the biggest threat to Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP. The fall of Barisan Sosialis resulted in PAP holding all of the seats in Parliament from 1968 to 1980, effectively turning Singapore into a one-party state. The rare mentioning of Barisan Sosialis runs parallel to the increasing threat the growing Workers’ Party now poses to Lee Hsien Loong’s PAP. Not to mention that at 70 years old, and close to two decades as Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong has yet to even confirm his successor. PM Lee spoke of trust, but this ongoing PAP succession crisis does nothing to inspire confidence in the so-called fourth generation (4G) leaders who are now running the country.

Fixing the Opposition — the legal way

Perhaps on hindsight, it should come as no surprise that the Committee of Privileges would recommend the referral of the WP leaders to the Public Prosecutor for potential criminal charges. PM Lee might lament that WP supporters has labelled this as “political persecution”, but how else are they supposed to see it? Prominent opponents of the PAP government have almost always been referred to the courts. Infamously, former WP leader JB Jeyaretnam was one of them. He was the first elected Opposition member after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia, and the one who broke PAP’s 12-years 100% dominance in Parliament. The way PM Lee and Leader of the House Indranee Rajah kept saying that the WP leaders showed no remorse or contrition is somewhat reminiscent of how JB Jeyaretnam used to be treated. In 1988, the United Kingdom’s Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council (then the highest court of appeal for Singapore) reversed JB Jeyaretnam’s disbarment from practising law, calling it a “grievous injustice”. Despite this, his request for a Presidential Pardon for his convictions was denied because purportedly he showed no remorse for his actions. JB Jeyaretnam previously lost his MP seat in 1986 and later his NCMP seat in 2001.

In her speech, WP Chair Sylvia Lim rightfully pointed out the main difference between convictions in the court of law as opposed to fines by Parliament:

How they (the Public Prosecutor, law enforcement and the courts) approach this matter has serious ramifications; a court conviction may prematurely terminate the service of a Member of Parliament, who has been duly elected by the people. It is provided that Article 45 of the Constitution, that convictions in the court of law, can disqualify an elected MP from Parliament if the fine is $2000 or more. Contrast this with fines meted out by Parliament itself, under the Parliamentary (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which can go up to $50 000, but will not disqualify an MP from continuing to serve in this House.

If indeed Parliament can internally discipline its Honourable Members without the need for them to run the risk of losing their seats after criminal proceedings, then PM Lee’s assertion that the COP has no other alternative choices and that they could have recommended “to administer a token slap on the wrist” is but a strawman argument. Suspending a Member of Parliament or giving them a fine of $50 000 is more than enough to impress upon the point that we take any parliamentary wrongdoings seriously. Must fixing the Opposition always go down the legal route, and down the path of no return?

Leader of the House exposes preference for a one-party Parliament

As a response to LO Pritam Singh’s prelude that it has been about 25 years since the last COP report has been tabled in Parliament, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah unnecessarily felt the need to highlight this with a quip:

Yes indeed, and it is a very shameful thing that we have to have a Committee of Privileges for something like this. For so many years, we were able to do without it, but now, after we have the office of the Leader of the Opposition, we have Worker’s Party coming in, and then we have to deal with this.

The underlying message behind this is quite simple — that only the ruling People’s Action Party is perfectly beyond reproach after all these years of governing Singapore, and any other party who seeks to take its place will surely fall short. The office of the Leader of the Opposition and specifically the Workers’ Party were spoke of in disdain and treated like a thorn in the flesh of an otherwise fully Utopian PAP-dominated Parliament. All of the other PAP MPs who joined the debate also merely echo the same sentiment, without a single one raising any reservations on the motions. Moreover, the supposedly non-aligned Nominated MPs who stood up also did not offer any alternative viewpoints on the matter.

Responding to Ms Sylvia Lim’s questioning of the perceived unbalanced composition of the COP, LH Indranee Rajah gives an interesting explanation. Armed with the Standing Orders of Parliament, she read that “so far as it is possible, the balance between the government benches and the opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee”. This appears to definitively answer why only 1 WP MP sat in the COP. However, the conclusion we can actually derive from this, is that precisely because the Parliament remains PAP-dominated with more than two-thirds majority that it continues to control all of its powers. Thus, to pretend otherwise is pointless.

Of Lawyers and Lawmakers

It was repeated several times throughout the Parliament debate on the COP final report that one of the supposed upside for the WP leaders to be referred to the Public Prosecutor (and thereafter the courts if criminal charges are tended) is that they will be able to employ legal representation to defend their case. This is yet another pointless reasoning that the Leader of the House herself unconsciously revealed it to be so. When answering Ms Sylvia Lim’s question as to why there were no legal representations or external counsels in the COP where previously it has been done before, LH Indranee Rajah merely stated that generally speaking the COP will do the questioning themselves unless for special applications. And here she dropped another golden nugget:

I think the more important point to remember here, is that Mr Singh is a lawyer. And so is Ms Lim. Don’t think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them, which were not particularly difficult, well within their ability to understand and respond to.

This then begs the question, isn’t it? If the COP is not meant as a legalese exercise, and that the likes of LO Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim, LH Indranee Rajah and COP prosecutor-incarnate Mr Edwin Tong are all legally-trained professionals, surely getting the chance to employ legal representation in court does not really mean anything? Even LH Indranee Rajah herself admitted that outside counsels could actually be appointed in the COP via special application when it is deemed necessary to do so. And the point of the matter is, our Honourable Members of Parliament are the nation’s lawmakers, even if not all of them are lawyers, and as such would have been expected to understand the law of the land as it stands.

Conclusion

The case for a one-party state is not something that a dominant ruling party would wittingly present, but its presentation at times are rarely a subtle exercise of power. The Parliament debate on 15 February 2022 on the final Report of the Committee of Privileges for the Complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for Untruth Spoken in Parliament truly reveals the PAP’s incessant narrative of the unquestionability of their political legitimacy in governing Singapore. Now that the motions on the COP recommendations have been passed in Parliament, all that is left now for us to do is to wait for the other independent levers of power to come into play, and see if they will arbitrate the same conclusion on what is the Truth.

References

Transcript of Speech by PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Report of the Committee of Privileges at the Parliament Sitting on 15 February 2022 — Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore

Full speech: Pritam Singh rejects COP’s findings — The Straits Times YouTube channel, 15 Feb 2022

Sylvia Lim on COP report’s findings — CNA YouTube channel, 15 Feb 2022

Indranee Rajah replies to WP MPs on COP report — CNA video, 15 Feb 2022

PAP sues opponents ‘until your pants drop’: Low Thia Khiang — Yahoo News Singapore, 4 July 2017

“He is a dishonourable son.” — Lee Wei Ling, Facebook post, 1 July 2017

History of the Workers’ Party 1981–1986 — Web archive, The Workers’ Party Website

PHOTO CREDITS: TODAY, THE STRAITS TIMES, CNA , PAP.ORG.SG