PSP calls for Iswaran to be suspended as MP, gets rejected by PAP and WP

SINGAPORE - People’s Action Party and Workers’ Party MPs rejected a motion on Tuesday to suspend Transport Minister S. Iswaran as an MP, agreeing that there is no basis to do so.

This is as the outcome of investigations is not yet known, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

For the House to take any action on Mr Iswaran at this stage is premature and would prejudge the outcome of his case, she said during a debate on whether to suspend Mr Iswaran for the remaining term of Parliament.

The motion was filed by Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) Non-Constituency MP Hazel Poa.

Ms Indranee filed a separate motion that called on the House to be firm and fair with any MPs being investigated for possible wrongdoing, and to consider Mr Iswaran’s case when the outcome of the investigations against him is known.

This was passed by Parliament after about two hours of discussion on both motions.

Ms Indranee said Parliament, which has the power to suspend an MP, should make decisions based on generally applicable principles, and not on individual cases in isolation.

“The suspension of an MP is a serious matter. If done, it must be done in accordance with the law and on the right principles,” she added.

Mr Iswaran, who is an MP for West Coast GRC, was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) on July 11 and is out on bail. He has been placed on a leave of absence and had his monthly pay reduced to $8,500 until further notice, though he continues to draw his MP allowance.

Ms Poa said the PSP’s position is that an MP or minister who is under investigation for corruption and suspended from official duties should be put on no-pay leave until the investigation or criminal case is concluded, and receive back pay only if they are subsequently cleared by the investigation.

Her motion was therefore about the prudent use of taxpayers’ money, and not making a presumption of guilt, a point echoed by her fellow PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai.

Nine MPs joined the debate: Ms Indranee, Ms Poa, Mr Leong, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr K. Shanmugam and Ms Carrie Tan.

Most of the MPs who spoke, including Mr Singh (Aljunied GRC), stressed the importance of the legal principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Leader of the Opposition added that the PSP’s motion could set a precedent, should a future government decide to fix opposition MPs by way of politically motivated investigations.

“In the Workers’ Party’s (WP) view, the wheels of justice must be allowed to fully turn before Parliament decides what to do,” said the WP chief.

“The WP cannot agree to the motion filed by the PSP: it would not just be unfair and premature, but significantly, this House would be seeking to overturn the electoral mandate given to Mr Iswaran by the people through the ballot box, by prematurely passing judgment on him.”

Clear rules on when an MP can be suspended

In her speech, Ms Poa said she was calling for Mr Iswaran to be suspended for three reasons: he is under investigation for corruption; he had been arrested; and he had been put on a leave of absence by the Prime Minister.

She added that corruption is a crime that Singapore has always maintained it has zero tolerance for, and the current case “merits a strong statement that reflects our values”.

Ms Indranee said suspension according to Parliament’s rules is punitive in nature, and the cutting of pay is a consequence. Ms Poa’s motion to suspend Mr Iswaran was solely meant to cut off his MP allowance, she added.

Noting that Ms Poa had identified corruption as a basis but did not consider other offences such as rape or murder, Ms Indranee said: “This is worrying because it means that when PSP advocates something, they’re not acting as a matter of principle, but it’s a matter of targeting a specific individual.”

The question that first has to be answered is whether the threshold to suspend is met, she said.

Section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (PPIPA) states that Parliament may suspend an MP for the remainder of the current session of Parliament or any part thereof if the MP had been found to have displayed dishonourable conduct, abused privilege or acted in contempt.

But it has not been made out that Mr Iswaran’s case constitutes any of these behaviours, said Ms Indranee.

Mr Shanmugam, who is Law Minister, said Ms Poa and Mr Leong’s reading of the law – that there is any provision to suspend an MP outside of these specific reasons – was “completely wrong”.

“If you are right, then all the carefully drafted provisions in PPIPA setting out when exactly Parliament can suspend an MP are irrelevant, they’re otiose... I don’t know if you’ve understood how the provisions work together,” he said.

Proposal should be by principle, and not individual cases

Ms Indranee said the House should be realistic and recognise there will be occasions where Members may be investigated for possible wrongdoing.

In such cases, it should act in a firm but fair manner.

She said Ms Poa’s proposal should then cover all MPs being investigated – including Mr Singh and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap, whose cases have been referred to the public prosecutor following the Committee of Privileges’ report on former WP MP Raeesah Khan.

She questioned if Ms Poa was also calling for their suspension.

Mr Lim (Mountbatten) said the PSP’s proposal was dangerous, as any member of the public could lodge a police report against an MP, and if the police decided to commence investigations, the House would similarly have to suspend them from Parliament.

“While I may not agree with Mr Pritam on some political matters, I will stand to defend his right to sit in Parliament unless he’s convicted of an offence, and even then the punishment levied must be such that it will disqualify him from serving as an MP under the Constitution,” said Mr Lim.

Ms Poa said the PSP was not advocating that any MP under investigation should be suspended, as it would set the bar too low.

But it is unclear how long investigations will take as, from past examples, it could be years before a corruption case is concluded.

If so, it would be “a most unsatisfactory situation” if Mr Iswaran continued to receive his MP allowance in the interim, she said.

Difference between being a minister and an MP

Mr Singh sought to clarify if Mr Iswaran was still performing his MP duties, and if he had effectively been suspended as an MP.

Ms Indranee outlined the differences between Mr Iswaran’s role as a minister appointed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and his role as an MP elected by voters of West Coast GRC.

PM Lee could interdict Mr Iswaran in his capacity as a minister and tell him to stop carrying out official duties while under investigation.

The reason is so Mr Iswaran does not prejudice the ongoing investigation, she said.

Ms Poa argued that PM Lee had effectively suspended Mr Iswaran from being an MP as well, and had his colleagues cover for him in his constituency. 

“The suspension is already done. All that I’m asking for in this House is to suspend the allowance as well,” she said.

But Ms Indranee said the two things are quite different, as only Parliament can suspend Mr Iswaran as an MP.

“If Mr Iswaran wanted to come today and enter Parliament, he can because he is a Member of Parliament, but as a matter of party discipline, he has been requested by the Prime Minister to also cease his MP duties,” said Ms Indranee.

Potential for clawback as a party discipline matter

To a question raised by Mr Singh on whether the PAP was contemplating a clawback of Mr Iswaran’s MP allowance, Ms Indranee said the party will relook the issue when it knows if the Attorney-General’s Chambers intends to bring any criminal charges, and if so, what the charges are.

“If he is charged, the Prime Minister will consider the allegations, the accusations against him and decide whether to make him resign and to pay back both salary and allowance without waiting for legal process,” she said.

She stressed that this is a party discipline matter: PM Lee would do this on the basis that Mr Iswaran had not lived up to party discipline and standards of conduct, whether or not he had committed offences.

 “If it’s really necessary, then we will consider what to do with respect to legislation,” she said.

Mr Leong then asked Ms Indranee if the Government was considering future legislation to claw back MP allowance, and if so, the PSP would reconsider its position.

Ms Indranee said: “My answer is wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is, because such a Bill may not be necessary.

“What I can assure Members of is that at least on our side – the (PAP’s) side – we will do what is right and what is fair.”

ALSO READ: PM Lee instructs Iswaran to go on leave of absence as latter assists in CPIB investigation

This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.