Consideration of Matters regarding Member of Parliament, and Suspension of Member

4.52 pm

Mr Speaker: In accordance with the decision of the House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches.

Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech. The time limits will apply as if it were a debate on a single Motion. At the end of the debate, I will put the questions on both Motions to a vote, so that the House can express its views on each Motion separately.

As the intent of the Business Motion is for Parliament to debate the two Motions together and vote on them at the end of the debate, I will disallow any amendment that has the effect of substantially qualifying, transposing, contradicting or nullifying the other Motion.

Any Member who disagrees with a Motion can vote against that Motion. Mr Leong Mun Wai.

4.53 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support my colleague Ms Hazel Poa's Motion today.

The Progressive Singapore Party (PSP), tabling this Motion today, that is of historic significance, which is to uphold the zero-tolerance approach that our nation has towards corruption.

For many years, the People's Action Party (PAP) government has been telling Singaporeans we must provide high pay to Ministers and Parliamentarians in order to ensure that the Government maintains its fairness and incorruptibility.

The PSP agrees with paying people well to maintain corruptibility, but we also believe that when a Minister or Parliamentarian is being investigated for corruption and when this investigation or criminal case has not been ended yet, they should be suspended from their duties, or they should stop receiving such high pay for the time being. If the Parliamentarian or Minister were to be decided to be acquitted and to be guilt-free, then the full amount of the pay due to him during the unpaid leave period should be paid back.

The Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah, today also raised a Motion and it requires that Parliament awaits the result of Minister Iswaran's case to be out before we make a decision on this. If Parliament were to choose to agree with that Motion and to reject the Motion from the PSP, then what is, in fact, happening is that we are maintaining the status quo; which means that Minister Iswaran, during this period of investigation when he is on leave, he will continue to receive more than $16,000 every month in terms of Member of Parliament’s (MP) subsidies or allowance until the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has completed the investigation into him.

This means that the annual payout could be up to S$192,500 in terms of MP allowances and it comes from the public coffers, and it is the taxpayers who are actually contributing to the public coffers. The Government has the responsibility to prudently use the taxpayers' money and it has the obligation to prevent taxpayers' money from being abused or misused. To that end, the PSP disagrees with the Motion from the Leader of the House and is unable to agree or accept that arrangement.

The PSP believes that if Minister Iswaran is eventually found to be not guilty of corruption, then taxpayers, due to the restrictions of the current laws, would not be able to recover or claw back the money that has been paid out. But if we do not claw it back, that means that taxpayers, during the period through which a person is being investigated of a corruption have, for no reason, paid a large sum of money to this person under corruption charges. We are talking about a sum of $16,000 per month. That is not a small amount. From the Ministry of Manpower, we can understand that there are so many Singaporeans who are working diligently and contributing their labour and effort, and, despite that, their household income is below that of $16,000.

Of course, the PSP also wants to seriously proclaim that we believe that before Minister Iswaran is proven to be guilty by the Court, he is innocent. Suspending his duties and allowance are but temporary. If he is found to be not guilty eventually, then we should, when the whole investigation is completed, repay him the MP allowance.

The PSP would like to say that for taxpayers and Minister Iswaran, there should be a fair approach. And that is why we are tabling this Motion today to suspend his duties and MP allowance for the time being.

The PSP would also like to urge Parliament to move or agree to the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and myself, and amend the 1962 Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in order to ensure that Parliament has the right to back pay Minister Iswaran while he is absolved and when he resumes his public duties.

The PSP has tabled this Motion for the for the amendment Bill because we truly want to improve our system, and this is valid, reasonable and in accordance with the laws. We hope that all Parliamentarians can understand our intention and provide full support.

(In English): I support the Motion moved by Ms Hazel Poa. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

5.00 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I refer to the Motions filed by the Leader of the House on 14 September, precipitated by the Motion filed by PSP's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Hazel Poa on 7 September calling for the suspension of Mr S Iswaran.

In my view, there are two key issues for Parliament to consider: first, whether it is fair and proper for a duly elected Member of Parliament (MP) to be suspended from responsibilities towards his or her constituents and legislative duties before due process is concluded; second, what Parliament ought to do when an MP has been effectively interdicted from MP duties arising from actions taken by his or her Party leader.

First, let me speak on the issue of fairness.

The hon Member Ms Hazel Poa's case is that a Member should be suspended from Parliament because he has been arrested and is being investigated for the serious offence of corruption. However, the centrality of the rule of law in Singapore renders the hon Member's suggested course of action premature, a point made all the more stark because we do not even know the details of what Mr S Iswaran is accused of. Parliament should be mindful of the dictum of presumption of innocence.

With respect, I would also request PSP colleagues in the House to consider the precedent their Motion would create should a future government decide to fix Opposition MPs by way of politically motivated investigations.

Sir, in some cases, those who have been investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been charged. In a few other cases, accused persons who have been brought to trial have been acquitted or the prosecution applies to withdraw the charges. In yet other cases, those convicted at first instance have seen their convictions overturned on appeal. Any of these scenarios could come to pass in Mr Iswaran's case.

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

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 judgement on him.

This leads me to the second issue on how to deal with an MP who has been put by his party leader on indeterminate leave of absence from Parliament with full MP's allowance. While it may not be appropriate to suspend Mr Iswaran from Parliament, it may well be appropriate to suspend the payment of his MP allowance.

WP MP Mr Dennis Tan raised this matter of Mr Iswaran's MP allowance in Parliament last month.

Mr Speaker, there is disquiet among members of the public because he continues to collect his allowance. As far as I know, Mr Iswaran is neither performing duties in his constituency nor in Parliament and his likeness is not found on Town Council or People's Association banners in West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

The Prime Minister said in this House last month that if Parliament wants to stop an MP's allowance, Parliament has to move to interdict the individual as an MP and Parliament has not done that and, I quote, "What has happened is that the MP has been on a leave of absence and, eventually, when the case is settled in one way or another, then consequences would follow." What needs to be noted, however, is that the Prime Minister's act of interdicting Mr Iswaran as Minister appears to have effectively interdicted him as an MP as well.

For the WP to decide on whether to support the Leader's Motion, there are a few questions I would like to ask the Leader in order that this House can understand the full extent of the restrictions on Mr Iswaran as an MP.

My first question is: can the Leader confirm whether Mr Iswaran's ban on entering Government buildings extends to Parliament House? Does Mr Iswaran have access to the Public Service Division's MP Appeal System and is he rendering assistance or expected to do so to his residents in his capacity as an MP?

My second question addresses the Prime Minister's comment that consequences will follow. It is unclear if those, I quote, "consequences" include a clawback of the MP allowance. I would advance that such a clawback for the period during which he has not performed MP's duties would be a reasonable expectation of the public. So, my second question is this: can the Leader tell us whether a clawback of Mr S Iswaran's MP allowance is within the PAP's contemplation in so far as clause (c) of the Leader's Motion is concerned? For completeness, it is this issue that forms the basis of my Parliamentary Question today and filed on 7 September about the duration Mr Iswaran is expected to be absent from Parliament.

My third question concerns para (c) of the Leader's Motion where it says that this House will consider this matter when the outcome of ongoing investigations is known. This contrasts with what the Prime Minister said during the clarifications of the Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on Mr Iswaran last month. The Prime Minister said and, I quote, "If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever."

My third question is this: can the Leader clarify whether the word "outcome" in para (c) of the Leader's Motion means that this House will consider this matter once investigations are completed and a decision has been made on whether charges would be preferred against Mr Iswaran or if it means that this House will consider this matter only upon conclusion of the entire criminal justice process, including any possible appeal?

The WP's position on the Leader's Motion will turn on the responses to these three specific queries.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

5.07 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I was taken aback when I saw the Motion by the hon NCMP Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai.

In their Motion, they asked that "This House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the Fourteenth Parliament."

In Ms Hazel Poa’s Facebook page, she said that she had filed the Motion so that Mr S Iswaran no longer receives his MP allowance while he has been requested by the Prime Minister to not perform any official duties during his investigation by CPIB.

Sir, it is a fundamental principle of law that any person who is accused of an offence is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law. The burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, and the accused is assumed to be innocent until the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime that he has been charged with. The accused does not even need to prove his innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

This principle is also enshrined in the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At Article 11, it says: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time that the penal offence was committed."

Sir, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Iswaran is currently under investigations by CPIB. He has not been charged for an offence and neither has he been convicted in a Court of law of any offence.

In the statement made by the Prime Minister on 2 August 2023, Prime Minister Lee said that "while investigating a separate matter, CPIB came across some information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. CPIB would need to interview Minister Iswaran to take the investigation further and he sought my concurrence to open a formal investigation. Minister Iswaran was brought in by CPIB and subsequently released on bail. I instructed him to take leave of absence until the investigations were completed."

Sir, to this date, I am not aware of any other facts that have come out and the Prime Minister had said that CPIB investigations are still ongoing. He said, "Details cannot be provided so as not to prejudice the investigations."

Thus, if Ms Hazel Poa of PSP is asking that Parliament suspend Mr S Iswaran simply because they feel that he does not warrant the MP’s allowance, then does this mean that they have already judged that Mr Iswaran had committed a wrongdoing even before the details of the investigations are out? Let me repeat that. They are judging that Mr Iswaran had committed a wrongdoing even before the details of the investigation are out. Surely, Mr Iswaran should be given due process and every opportunity to present his case before the Court of law if ever CPIB decides to charge him. And this is the basic principle behind the rule of law.

So, with the greatest respect, if PSP is advocating this principle, then it is a very dangerous principle. It means that if any member of the public lodges a Police report against Mr Leong or Ms Poa or, for that matter, any other MP and the Police decides to commence investigations against them, this House would similarly have to suspend them from the service of Parliament.

If Ms Poa or Mr Leong feels that an MP ought to be suspended from service merely because he is under investigation, let us seek advice and I think the Leader of the House has said already that this principle would then have to be applicable to all MPs in this House.

In the 2 August Sitting, I asked Mr Leong whether it is his position that the Leader of Opposition, Mr Pritam cannot receive his salary or cannot carry out his duties in Parliament merely because he has been referred to the Police for investigation. Mr Leong then replied that it only pertains to investigation by CPIB. But why only cases involving CPIB? As the Leader of the House said, "Why not for other offences, other serious offences – molest, rape, murder" or is it purely an arbitrary decision made by PSP?

So, allow me to ask Mr Leong again – if an MP is investigated for perjury, for lying under oath, is that not a serious offence, too? It involves an allegation of dishonest conduct, an allegation of lying under oath which means that we cannot trust that person who may lie at any opportunity. Is Ms Poa or Mr Leong saying that these offences are not serious?

Sir, allow me to clarify that I hold the Leader of the Opposition with great respect. While I may not agree with Mr Pritam Singh on some political matters, I will stand to defend his right to sit in Parliament unless he is 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, because not every punishment will result in disqualification as an MP under the Constitution.

So, the fundamental question which I have for the two NCMPs is: what is their basis for asking for Mr Iswaran to be suspended from service when we do not even know what is the case against him? He has been placed on leave of absence and, hence, is not able to attend Parliament. So, I do not understand this rush to suspend him. Why not allow the CPIB time to do its work? Does PSP say that every single Government officer who is under investigation for any offence also be suspended, and the salary docked?

Why would PSP want Parliament to amend an Act of Parliament just simply to push for the suspension of salary of one particular MP? Is it their position that you punish first – suspend, cut his salary – and then reimburse him later if he is found guilty? This goes against the rule of law.

So, for that reason, I cannot support this Motion by Ms Poa and Mr Leong. I firmly believe that once the case against Mr Iswaran is concluded, the Government will do whatever is right to ensure that all parties are treated fairly. Hence, I support the Motion by the Leader of the House that we wait for the outcome of the investigations before considering any other action.

Mr Speaker: I think Mr Lim actually used the wrong word here. The reimbursement should be if the Member is found innocent.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Yes. Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

5.14 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, there are two applicable principles that this House should look at when considering the Motions before us.

The first is the legal principle of the presumption of innocence, which have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Lim. The second is the legal and democratic principle of tenure of office as provided in the Constitution.

The first is a simple, almost universal principle that where a person is being investigated or has been charged with an offence, he is to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. The Government's stated position is equivocal support for this principle.

As the hon Minister for Law said in response to the hon Member Christopher de Souza's Parliamentary Question on this in August 2008, I quote, "Let there not be any doubt on this point. The presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and it is one of the foundations of our criminal justice system. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence as a core principle in our commitment to the rule of law."

The principle is also applied by the Courts in Singapore. In a judgment by then Justice VK Raja, also in 2008, His Honour wrote, "If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, the judge must acquit the accused... it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted."

As it stands, Minister Iswaran is still under investigation. No charges have been brought at this point and no determination has been made by a Court. Therefore, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted.

The second principle is that of tenure of office. Article 46(1) of the Constitution provides that an MP will continue to be an MP from the time of election until the next dissolution of Parliament. The MP's seat would only become vacant under certain circumstances, which are enumerated in article 46(2). These include: (a) resigning; (b) failing to attend Sittings in two consecutive months without obtaining leave from the Speaker; and (c) becoming subject to the disqualifications from being a Member of Parliament like being convicted for an offence by a Court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $10,000.

The principle of tenure of an MP is important. It is a nod to the fact that MPs are elected by the people, who are the highest source of authority in a democracy and that they should therefore not be easily removable by any other authority in the land.

This underlying reason should also apply to suspensions because the suspension is imposed by a body other than the people and prevents an MP from carrying out what he was elected to do. It should therefore not be a lever that is easily available and should only be used under very narrow circumstances.

Suspension is provided for in sections 21(1)C and 21(2) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. The narrow circumstances in which it may be invoked is where the MP has displayed dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. Importantly, these circumstances must be proven.

As regard abuse of privilege, an MP must be first found guilty of abuse of privilege. As regards contempt, the MP must first have had to be found to have committed contempt by a Select Committee or found guilty in a court of law, pursuant to prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, or if an MP was summarily determined by Parliament to be guilty if the alleged offence was committed in the view of Parliament or where it was Sitting.

The Standing Orders (SOs) also provide for suspension of a Member. SO59 provides that Parliament may suspend a Member but specifically so for the commission of the offences of disregarding the authority of the Chair or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament by abusing the rules of Parliament. Such a suspension requires that a vote be put to Parliament to determine whether such an offence had actually been committed.

Ms Poa referred to SO59(5). If I may read that out, "Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive Parliament of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of Parliament." This does not mean that Parliament has the ability or the right to willy nilly decide to pass resolutions and to suspend Members for any reason. These resolutions must be pursuant to one of the provisions that I had mentioned earlier.

So, the common thread through all of these prescribed potential avenues for the suspension of an MP is that it must have been judged or determined in the manner provided that an offence had actually been committed. In the current matter involving Minister Iswaran, the case is still under investigation. No judgment or determination has been arrived at.

I therefore come back to what I started with. In the current matter, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted and any move by Parliament to suspend the Minister as an MP is not only premature but does not have legal legs to stand on. For completeness, there is also no mechanism to suspend merely an MP's salary.

In this regard, I cannot support the Motion by the hon NCMP. I will support the Motion by the hon Minister Indranee Rajah. Her Motion restates the standards that we expect our MPs to have. It affirms that they are to be treated fairly but firmly in the period after investigations are initiated, but before the presumption of innocence is rebutted, and resolves to deal with the matter at hand once the outcomes of investigations are known.

As a final point, Sir, I would like to confess that unlike Mr Lim, who was disturbed by it, when I first saw the Motion, as a graduate in both political science and law, I was quite titillated by this question of the circumstances in which an elected MP could be removed, suspended or otherwise prevented from exercising the mandate given to him by voters. I listened very carefully to Ms Poa's speech to identify the legal leg upon which her Motion would stand – but there was none.

In fact, Ms Poa even glossed over the basic requirement to invoke any of the avenues for suspension, which is that the presumption of innocence must first be rebutted.

The matter involving Minister Iswaran has understandably created anxiousness and some amount of consternation amongst the public. As a polity that prices transparency, fairness and incorruptibility, it is not unexpected that questions on egalitarian treatment or just or unjust remuneration have a reason in relation to this case. These matters invoke emotions in people.

But Parliament operates within the constructs created by the Constitution, by law and by our SOs. Whether it is to do with the suspension of a Member, formalities like Points of Order, apologies or Guillotine Times for Budget Cuts, or larger questions like how to ensure free and fair debate in this Chamber, there are laws, rules and procedures that apply to all of us. If a Member disagrees with these constructs or thinks that there are better ways to do things, then it is open to that Member to propose to amend them and for Parliament to consider these proposed amendments. It is an MP's prerogative.

But as long as these provisions stand, they must be abided by, and Motions, Debates and proposals must be framed within them. This is called the rule of law.

Where there is public concern and emotion on certain matters, it is an indication to our Government to address these matters and to assure the public, which is what the Prime Minister and other Ministers had done in relation to this matter at the last Sitting. It is not a licence to proceed to do something outside the constructs of the law in a knee-jerk reaction.

As much as I can understand public frustration with having to wait while investigations are underway, we must allow due process to run its course. And as difficult as it may be in a public justice system where accused persons are publicly mentioned, we must maintain the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I was titillated by the academic idea of the Motion, I was deeply disappointed in the substance of it. A Motion that calls for the suspension of a Member must necessarily as a basic premise first set out the legal provisions upon which the proposed suspension would stand. There were simply none disclosed in Ms Poa's speech.

For the reasons I had set out in my speech, I will not support the Motion raised by the hon NCMPs, and I will support that raised by Minister Indranee.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

5.24 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah. I also disagree with the Motion standing in the name of Ms Hazel Poa calling for the suspension of Mr Iswaran until the end of this term of Parliament.

Our role as an MP, Mr Speaker, ultimately comes from the mandates at the ballot box. It should therefore not be taken away lightly.

An MP is not an employee but, rather, is self-employed. Being an MP gives a person certain privileges, including the right to attend and speak in Parliament. Related to this, while an MP is self-employed, when an MP is elected on a party platform, that MP is also accountable to the party and the party's rules. Ultimately, the party is also, in turn, accountable to the electorate. So, if a party puts a Member on leave of absence, that party would ultimately be accountable to the electorate to ensure that the electorate continues to be served. These are all mechanisms that includes checks and balances within themselves.

There are clear provisions, Mr Speaker, that allow Member's rights to be suspended. These are set out in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, which I will refer to as PIPPA for short, and the SOs of Parliament.

Section 20 of PIPPA sets out the punitive powers of Parliament. These punitive powers include, under section 20C, the powers to suspend a Member. So, let us be very clear. Suspension is a punitive measure.

These powers can only be exercised where a Member has engaged in: one, dishonourable conduct; two, abused privilege; or three, engaged in contempt of Parliament. I do not think any of these accusations are currently being made in this Motion against Mr Iswaran.

The subsequent sections such as section 21 of PIPPA set out the process for making determinations. I would add that generally, fair process should be accorded to a Member before his privileges are suspended.

Ms Poa seems to agree with this principle and acknowledges that ultimately, this is a matter that will be determined by the investigation process and, if necessary, by a Court thereafter.

Generally, fair process includes the Member being made aware of the allegations against him and being given a chance to answer it. So, if Parliament wishes to exercise punitive powers before investigation is concluded, then that Member should be given a chance to answer those allegations.

Clearly, I would suggest that in this case, that would not be appropriate because Mr Iswaran is being investigated by CPIB. Those investigations are taking place. Other witnesses are being called. It would be a bit of a circus for a second investigation to take place in Parliament over the exact same set of facts.

Where there has been no determination that Mr Iswaran has committed any crimes or engaged in dishonourable conduct, I would suggest that the punitive powers of Parliament should not be exercised yet. In general, a person is presumed to be innocent until he has been convicted, and Mr Iswaran should be accorded the same right as every other person has.

The SOs of Parliament have one provision dealing with the suspension of a Member and this is SO59. I think Ms Poa referred to SO59(5), which says that nothing in this Order will take away the general powers of Parliament to suspend the Member.

What is interesting is SO59 is actually an Order that deals with the powers of the Speaker to propose a suspension of a Member: one, for disregard for the authority of the Chair; or two, persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament. These are the only express grounds in the SOs of Parliament that allow for the suspension of a Member.

While these provisions have been used by Speakers in some other jurisdictions, in Singapore, I am not aware of any case where this power has been used to suspend a Member.

So, I would suggest that if we are going to stray outside of these express provisions that give Parliament the power to suspend the Member, we have to be crystal clear on the principles being applied. It also goes against the principle of retrospective criminality for us to see what has happened and then decide that is wrong. It is important for laws to set out very clearly what is wrong first so that people know what standards they have to abide by.

If you look at this Motion objectively, what is happening here is, if you just look at the facts, I think Ms Poa was Mr Iswaran's opponent in the West Coast Group Representation Constituency and has now put up a Motion calling for his suspension.

If this is set as a precedent, imagine what this power would do on the opposite side, if a ruling party were to decide it wants to suspend a Member without any clear, principled basis. Those Motions would pass if the Party Whip were exercised. Clearly, that would not be a precedent we want to set. So, I would suggest that Members be very, very slow to put forward Motions calling for the suspension of another Member, especially where there has been no clear, principled basis for this.

Related to this, Ms Poa is proposing an amendment to PPIPA, which is legislation. Generally, legislation is meant to address the country at large and is not meant to be targeted at an individual or a particular case. It would actually be quite unprincipled to amend legislation for a single case.

Additionally, if this legislation is meant to apply to Mr Iswaran for conduct he had engaged in prior to the legislation coming into place, this would also be a breach to the principle that legislation should not impose criminal liability retrospectively. For this reason, I also do not agree with the proposed amendments to the legislation.

So, in brief, Mr Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the House that, at this time, we do not have enough information to make a decision to suspend Mr Iswaran and none of the clear provisions for suspension set out in both PPIPA and the SOs apply. I therefore support her Motion.

I also disagree with the Motion put forward by Ms Hazel Poa because I believe that the powers of suspension should be exercised only in accordance with the express requirements of PPIPA and the SOs.

Mr Speaker: I will now call on Leader of the House to make her reply on her Motion on "Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament", followed by Ms Hazel for her reply on her Motion on "Suspension of Member".

Thereafter, I will put the question in respect of each Motion to the House for voting. Leader of the House, you have up to 40 minutes.

5.31 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank all Members who have spoken on this and made their contributions to this very important debate.

I would like now to respond to what has been said by Ms Hazel Poa and the position of PSP, but also to help Members understand the principles and the tenets upon which we should act in such a situation.

Insofar as Ms Poa and PSP's position is concerned, what does concern me greatly, is that her Motion and the move to suspend Minister Iswaran does not appear to come from a place of principle. It is, by her own admission, specifically targeted at Minister Iswaran and not a matter of policy or principle.

In order to decide what we must do for this, it is very important to first understand what the law is. And that is why I asked Ms Poa under which specific provision she was seeking to suspend Mr Iswaran. Because as I understood her argument, which is the same as she has posted on social media, her argument, PSP's argument is that: "I want to cut your pay. And because I want to cut your pay, I want to suspend you." In other words, "this is the result I want, and therefore, I would suspend you."

But that is not the correct approach, because when you look at our rules, you will see that generally, suspension is a punishment. It is punitive in nature, generally. And the cutting of pay is a consequence.

So, we must first ask ourselves: in what scenario do you suspend and has that threshold been met? Where do we start? We start with the PPIPA.

The PPIPA does have specific provisions on suspension. Let me deal first with the part that deals with the allowance because that is where PSP is coming from. Section 29(3) of the PPIPA says, "no salary or allowance payable to such Member for his service as a Member of Parliament shall be paid in respect of any period during which he is suspended from service in Parliament." So, section 29(3) is the provision that says that if you are suspended, then you do not get your pay. But that begs the question: when are you suspended?

Well, there is a specific provision in section 20, which says that "for any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt on the part of a Member, Parliament may" – and then, it has various things – "may suspend him from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of Parliament or for any part thereof."

So, there is one specific provision which has a certain threshold with three requirements: dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. But that does not apply in this case. It has not been made out yet.

If subsequently something arises out of the investigations that you can say constitutes dishonourable conduct or abuse of privilege, then maybe so, but that has to be considered down the road. But, at this point in time, can we say that section 20 has been triggered? I would respectfully say no.

Then, there is the next provision, which is section 19. Section 19 says, "without prejudice to sections 20 and 21, Parliament may, in accordance with its Standing Orders, suspend any Member from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session or for any part thereof". Section 19 tells you to look at the SOs. So, let us look at the SOs. And that is why I asked Ms Poa the question earlier.

The relevant SO is SO59. SO59, subsection (1) has a specific provision on suspension. It states: "Whenever a Member has been named by the Speaker or the Chairman immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament by abusing the rules of Parliament or otherwise, then if the offence has been committed by such Member of Parliament, a motion shall forthwith be proposed by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary present that the Member shall be suspended from the service of Parliament and the Speaker shall forthwith put the question on that motion, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed".

Whatever else one may wish to accuse Mr Iswaran of, we certainly cannot accuse him of the conduct listed out in SO59. There may be others who may have offended that SO, but not Mr Iswaran. So, that does not apply.

That brings us to the provision that Ms Poa referred us to earlier, which is SO59(5). But SO59(5) is a general provision which just basically says that Parliament can move a resolution.

So, if you are relying on that provision, effectively what you are saying is that "because I can pass a Motion to suspend you, I will." That is where the question of principle comes in. Should this House do something just because it can? The question is not, "should we do it because we can" and even then, I have to put a reservation there, because I am not sure that it can be read as broadly as Ms Poa puts it.

But for the sake of argument and just for the sake of argument, if it is as broad as she says, as a Parliament and as a House, we have to act on principle. Because if we do not, it becomes very dangerous. Because, what it then means is that we can pass any resolution that we like without having regard to values, principles or standards and targeted specifically at any Member of this House.

Think about what kind of Parliament that would be. What would be the standards of integrity of such a Parliament? What would be the sense of fairness and how would people regard this House if we did something like that?

So, I would be very, very cautious before we say that we suspend a Member just because we can. It is quite important that we should establish the principles of suspension.

When I asked Ms Poa what are the principles she is advocating, she listed a few. Let me go through them in turn.

First, she said it is because Mr Iswaran is under investigation for corruption and corruption is a serious offence. But then I ask Ms Poa, what about rape? What about murder? If a Member is under investigation for those offences, should the Member be suspended? Ms Poa did not have an answer. She said she had not thought about that, which means that she had not thought about the principle.

This is worrying because it means that when PSP advocates something, they are not acting as a matter of principle, but as a matter of targeting a specific individual and that is my concern.

And anyway, in any event, whilst Mr Iswaran is under investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, firstly, it has not yet been established whether he has done any wrongdoing yet, at this point of time. So, as I mentioned before, the facts are not known, the specific allegations against him are not known. So, on what basis do you suspend?

The next thing Ms Poa said was that we should suspend because Mr Iswaran is on leave of absence. Leave of absence, in and of itself per se, cannot be a reason for suspension. If that were so, then we would have to suspend Mr Faisal Manap. He was on leave of absence because he was ill. But we do not do that, because he was ill. So, in other words, it is not the leave of absence in and of itself. It is the reason why you have to take leave of absence. And in this case, Mr Iswaran was effectively asked to take leave of absence because it is untenable for him to perform his duties as a Minister and it will be very difficult for him to perform his duties as an MP whilst under investigation. So, as a matter of proper, good order, he should be on leave of absence.

Then, the next point that she made was because he was under arrest. Well, yes, when you are under investigation, part of Police procedure is that you are under arrest, but I come back to the same point. This is still at the investigative stage, and you have not actually established whether there was any wrongdoing.

So, then she made the next point that he was not performing his duties. Here, let me just make a very short digression to say that while he has not been able to perform his duties as an MP, his constituents are still being looked after. I wanted to make that point because it is very important that his constituents know that they are still being taken care of and are in good hands.

In fact, Minister Desmond Lee has been doing the Meet-the-People session. He and another MP, I think Miss Rachel Ong, have been doing house visits. The other MPs in West Coast GRC have been covering events on the ground. So, I just wanted the residents of West Coast GRC to know that notwithstanding the fact that Mr Iswaran has to be on leave of absence, they are still being taken care of.

Then, Ms Poa talked about the question that, well, it is taxpayers' money that is being used in the interim period. But the important question is – what is the principle? You do not suspend somebody just because you do not want to pay him. You have to suspend him because there is a principle that has been breached or a threshold has been crossed.

It may well be, depending on the outcome of the investigations, that that threshold may be crossed. I do not know. None of us know at this stage. So, that is why my Motion at this point in time says that we should wait until the outcome of the investigations before deciding what to do, simply because that threshold has not yet been met.

And on this, I note that the Leader of the Opposition had also taken a similar position, for which I do thank him. Because he said Parliament should be very mindful of suspending somebody in the meantime and this would set a precedent should the Government decide to fix anybody. He also talked about the wheels of justice and that we must not do anything precipitously – this is not the Leader of the Opposition's words – but essentially, what he is really saying, which is the same thing as what others have said is, "do not pre-judge the issue".

And that is correct, because the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Faisal Manap are under investigation. They were referred to the Public Prosecutor.

On that, I just also want to say that when you look at the way that we approach that, we did not suspend them because we felt that it was better for the outcome to be heard. In fact, we went further in that case. Because here, in this Motion, I am only asking for us to wait till the outcome of the investigations. In the case of the referral to the Public Prosecutor on the Committee of Privileges Inquiry for Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, we actually said that we would wait till the outcome of the proceedings.

Let me just read from the relevant report, because the Committee of Privileges' recommendations were that "Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor, for further investigations, with the view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the Committee, and that Mr Faisal be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations for his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted".

And what the Committee of Privileges said in their recommendation was this: "Based on the evidence before this Committee, we are satisfied Mr Singh had told untruths to this Committee. Parliament is empowered to summarily decide on the matter and also decide on the appropriate sanctions based on our findings. However, we recommend that Parliament refers Mr Singh's conduct to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to consider the institution of criminal proceedings. We would also recommend that Parliament consider deferring any action to be taken in respect of possible dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament until criminal proceedings, if any, are complete."

The point I want to make is this. The specific offence in that case was dishonourable conduct and contempt. That falls squarely within section 20 of the PPIPA. The Committee of Privileges had made its finding with regard to Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap. Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, of course, dispute that. I understand that. And that was the reason why we said they should go to Public Prosecutor.

But the Committee of Privileges and this House would have been well within its rights to say: "We accept the findings of the COP [Committee of Privileges] and we act immediately under section 20." But we did not. We did not because we felt that, as a matter of fairness, we should wait and see what the outcome of the proceedings were.

And so, the actual resolution which I moved was this: "that Mr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim's and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament, and Ms Lim's or Mr Faisal's stating of untruth to the Committee on oath or affirmation and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings, if any, against Mr Singh." So, in that case, I went further, and I said to wait till not just the conclusion of the investigations but the conclusion of the proceedings.

In this case, I am saying, let us wait until the conclusion or the outcome of the investigations because that would put this House in a better position to know what to do.

Let me just come back to some of the other questions that were asked.

Mr Singh had a question. Mr Singh supports the position that Mr Iswaran should not be suspended at this point in time, I think. His second question, though, was, what should Parliament do in the interim period. And I think his position was that it might be appropriate to suspend his MP allowance. That is what I think Mr Singh said.

The difficulty with that, and this is what Ms Poa was alluding to, is that there is no provision in the PPIPA currently to suspend allowance. It is a binary position: if the person is a sitting MP, he receives the full allowance. If the Member is suspended, then he does not get any allowance. So, the law does not provide for anything in between.

Ms Poa mentioned that she had, in the original Motion, wanted to provide for clawback but was advised by Parliament – which I think is the current position under the law, that there is no provision for a clawback. So, the question is: what do we do?

Currently, right now, given the state of the law and given that we do not know the facts and that we do not know the outcome of the investigation, that is why I have said we should wait till the outcome of the investigation. Then, we have a clearer idea of what to do.

And the next question then is, what should we then do with respect to the monies that are paid with respect to Mr Iswaran.

I think the answer is this. We will look at it again when we know if the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) intends to bring any charges and if so, what the charges are. We will consider a clawback, if justified. If he is charged, the Prime Minister will consider the allegations and accusations against him and decide whether to make him resign and to pay back both salary and allowance without waiting for legal process.

Bear in mind, this is a party discipline matter. It is a party discipline matter. And the Prime Minister would do this on the basis that he has not lived up to the party discipline and standards of conduct, whether or not he has committed offences. And if it is really necessary, then we will consider what to do with respect to legislation.

But there will be issues there. That is the reason why I say, again, that these are issues that should be considered when the outcome of the investigation is known. Because it may very well be that at the end of the investigation, he is also cleared. And if he is cleared, then what we would have done in the meantime, if we accept Ms Poa's Motion, is that we would have suspended him and we would have docked his pay when there was, in fact, no need to.

At the end of the day, it is a question of where is the balance, what is a fair way of dealing with this, given the current state of the law, given the current state of knowledge that we have?

Ms Poa's approach is, really, let us just ignore whether or not he has done anything wrong. Let us just suspend him because it is a matter of money. And then, if need be, we pay it back.

But I think we need to approach it as a matter of principle, which is that, at the current time, when you cannot say clearly that some threshold has been crossed, then we say wait, see what the outcome of the investigations are. And if, depending on the outcome, a threshold has been crossed, then we will certainly look at it as a matter of party discipline. And the Prime Minister has very firm views on standards of integrity and conduct, and he will not let the matter rest if thresholds have been crossed.

I think that assurance I can give, which is that if certain thresholds had been crossed and if warranted and merited, we will do something. As to what exactly we will have to do, we will have to see what happens. But I have said quite plainly that we will certainly consider a claw back and also think how to do it.

So, I hope that sets Members' minds at rest, because if we do not suspend him today, it does not mean that you cannot do so in the future. If you do suspend him today, you are effectively saying that he has done something wrong, when there is no basis at the present time. There may well be later; we do not know. But at the present time, it will be premature and prejudging the issue.

Mr Speaker: I will now invite Ms Hazel Poa to make your reply on your Motion. You have also up to 40 minutes.

Sorry. Okay, there is a clarification? Ms Hazel Poa, hold on for a while. Minister for Law.

5.54 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, as the discussions are going on, I looked at the PPIPA and SOs quickly.

My suggestion to my colleagues, Ms Poa and Mr Leong is that they have gotten it completely wrong. I do not know whether they have taken legal advice or whether they have read the provisions. But sections 19 and 20 of PPIPA set out the grounds for expulsion.

Section 19 refers to the SOs. If you look at the SOs, the only relevant SO is SO59. SO59, subsections (1) to (4) set out the grounds on which there can be expulsion. Subsection (5) is a saving provision. It does not give you a substantive power.

If you are right, then all the carefully drafted provisions in PPIPA setting out when exactly Parliament can suspend an MP are irrelevant. They are otiose.

And the carefully drafted SO59 is also irrelevant. Because whenever Parliament does not like someone, we can pass a resolution by majority and throw the person out or suspend that person.

I do not know if you have understood how the provisions work together.

This is a serious matter. I would suggest you go and read it carefully before Ms Poa concludes. I should have addressed you, Speaker, Sir. My apologies.

Mr Speaker: Let me now call on Ms Hazel Poa to make your reply on your Motion. As I have said, you have also up to 40 minutes.

5.57 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all who have participated in this debate.

All of us share a common desire to maintain high standards of conduct in this House and to treat Members who are under investigation firmly and fairly. These are motherhood statements that few are expected to disagree with. How we apply such standards, however, may not be the same. Such differences will come to the fore when we apply them to specific cases, like in the case of Minister Iswaran.

While PSP feels that it is fair to suspend Minister Iswaran for now and to back pay him when he is cleared of all wrongdoing, the Leader of the House does not think so. That is a judgement call and I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I have also asked for leave to table an amendment Bill to make it possible for Parliament to back pay Minister Iswaran, if necessary.

Under current provisions in the PPIPA, no allowances are to be paid to Members who are suspended from the service of Parliament. We have proposed to amend that provision to allow Parliament to pay such allowances if a resolution is passed. This amendment gives Parliament the flexibility to decide whether suspended Members should be paid their allowance, whether in full or in part. Without this flexibility, Parliament is hampered in taking timely disciplinary actions. If we are unable to back pay and we have to uphold the principle of innocence until proven guilty, it means that we cannot suspend any Member until the entire legal process has been completed. This may be a long period of time.

We are, in fact, being held ransom due to the lack of provision to back pay. Regardless of Parliament's decision on Minister Iswaran, we believe that the amendment should still be passed. There is only an upside, no downsides to this amendment.

Let me now address the issues that have been brought up by various Members.

I think the common theme that runs throughout is the presumption of innocence. All who spoke – Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Vikram Nair – made the same point that by suspending, we are presuming that he is guilty. That is a point that I dispute. I think that argument is a red herring.

If suspension means presumption of guilt, then I am afraid we have been doing that on many, many occasions. Police officers have been suspended from duties and placed on half pay while they are under investigations, as evident in answer to a Parliamentary Question just yesterday and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has also said that is a standard practice for Police officers.

So, the fact of the matter is suspension is not a determination of guilt. It is merely a measure that is commonly used to deal with situations where a person is under investigation. Most of the time the suspension comes in two parts: suspension of duties and an effect on the pay.

In this particular case, the Prime Minister has already made the decision to suspend Minister Iswaran from his Ministerial duties and reduced his pay to $8,500. He has also suspended him from performing his MP duties and have his other colleagues cover for him in his constituency. So, the suspension is already done. All that I am asking for in this House is to suspend the allowance as well.

In addition, Members Raj Joshua Thomas and Vikram Nair also mentioned that MPs have the mandate of the people and, therefore, suspension of duties should not be lightly done. I would like to seek clarification from them. Does this mean they have an issue with the Prime Minister's decision to suspend Minister Iswaran from his duties as an MP?

The Leader of the House said that while section 59(5) says Parliament can suspend a Member, we should not be doing something just because we can. I believe I made it very clear why we are asking for this. It is not just because we can. I have also listed the three reasons why I think we have a good case to suspend Minister Iswaran.

The Leader of the House proceeded to address them one by one, but she does them in isolation. For example, when I said that he is not performing the duties, she quoted the example of medical leave. But the three conditions are meant to be taken together, not individually. For example, when we say that you can vote if you are a Singapore Citizen and aged 21, you do not tackle the criteria one by one, age 21 separate from Singapore Citizen. Both conditions must be satisfied.

PSP feels that adopting a harsher stand against corruption versus other wrongdoing is fair, given the extremely high salaries we are paying Ministers to stay corruption-free. Since we are paying such extraordinarily high salaries, is it not fair for the consequence of corruption and the handling process of its investigation to be correspondingly tougher?

Adopting a light touch approach here will only send the wrong signal. The sanguine approach adopted towards Minister Iswaran's MP allowance stands in stark contrast to the approach adopted towards the public. If Minister Iswaran continues to receive over $20,000 per month while not performing any duties and under investigation for corruption, while ComCare recipients who are permanently unable to work due to old age, illness or disability get $640 per month, what does this say about our values? How is it equitable that Minister Iswaran gets in one month what these ComCare recipients get over three years? If the investigation and prosecution take one year, the amount he continues to receive will be equivalent to what these ComCare recipients get over 38 years.

PSP urges the House to suspend Minister Iswaran and to back pay him if and when he is cleared of all wrongdoing. We have explained why our approach leads to better use of taxpayers' money while making sure that Minister Iswaran is not penalised should he be found innocent. This is in line with our idea of being firm and fair.

We trust that all who have been following this debate are well able to come to their own conclusions. We will leave it at that.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for either Members? Yes, Mr Pritam Singh.

6.05 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Leader on the status of Mr S Iswaran's responsibilities as an MP. I have asked two questions specifically on his access to MPAS, for example, his access to Government buildings, including Parliament. Can the Leader please clarify that situation?

Ms Indranee Rajah: Sorry, I just want to make sure that I have the question correct. One was access to Government buildings and the other was? Can I trouble Mr Singh to repeat the question?

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: The other question was access to the Public Service Division’s (PSD) Member of Parliament Appeal System (MPAS). Essentially, just to confirm whether the Minister is still performing his roles and duties on the ground as an MP looking after his constituents. Because I think the key issue here is, if he is effectively suspended as an MP as well?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification. First, it is important to remember that there is a distinction between Mr Iswaran's role as a Minister and his role as an MP. As a Minister, he was appointed by the Prime Minister. So, he holds that position at the Prime Minister's pleasure. The Prime Minister, therefore, also has the ability to interdict him and to tell him to stop carrying out duties as Minister whilst he is under investigation. That is because his appointment flowed or came from the Prime Minister.

That is as I understand it and if I am incorrect, my colleagues will set out the correct position. But that interdiction includes a direction that he should not be allowed access to all Government buildings. That flows from the Ministerial position; and that is obviously because you are under investigation, and you do not want to prejudice the investigation.

Then, there is the issue of Mr Iswaran's status as an MP. Mr Iswaran's status as an MP was not by appointment, by the Prime Minister or otherwise. He was elected. He was elected by the constituents of West Coast GRC. His mandate comes from them, and you can only suspend or take away his ability to act as an MP in accordance with the PPIPA. And I have taken Members through those provisions.

So, in other words, currently, because he is not suspended, if Mr Iswaran wanted to come today and enter Parliament, he can because he is an MP. But as a matter of party discipline, he has been requested by the Prime Minister to also cease his MP duties because you can imagine how difficult it is to carry out your MP duties when you are under investigation or even to come to Parliament. Imagine if he was sitting here and somebody were to ask him about the investigation, what is he going to say? I mean, the investigative authorities are listening to this. This is a public matter. He might end up jeopardising his own case.

So, as a matter of party discipline and good order, he has been asked to stay away and, at least to his credit, he has complied with that – even though he is entitled to come in as an MP.

That is why I think I should also clarify something which was said earlier by Ms Poa, which I think I have just clarified by my explanation. I think Ms Poa said something to the effect of Mr Iswaran being suspended by the Prime Minister. Did Ms Poa say that? Anyway, the direction to stop work as a Minister – the interdiction – comes from the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister to Mr Iswaran in his capacity as a Minister.

Insofar as not carrying out MP duties and going on leave of absence, that is something which is requested by the Prime Minister as a matter of party discipline. Mr Iswaran could come to Parliament if he wants to, but he has not done so because he has listened to what he has been asked to do.

Leave of absence and not being able to perform MP duties is quite different from suspension. Suspension is as provided for under the Act and certain criterion and thresholds have to be met. That was the clarification I wanted to make.

Mr Speaker: Indeed, if I can add on. When I approve your leave of absence from Parliament, you could still turn up in Parliament. Mr Vikram Nair, did you raise your hand as well?

Mr Vikram Nair: I raised my hand because Ms Poa had asked me a question on what I thought of Mr Iswaran's suspension. But I think the Leader has addressed that.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for either Minister Indranee or Ms Poa? Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel compelled to speak and seek clarification from Ms Hazel Poa as to what is her purpose and intent in comparing this amount of allowance that is still being paid until a verdict has been reached on Minister Iswaran's case, with the payouts from ComCare. Because I believe Ms Poa as an ex-public servant knows very well that these are budgets that are completely separate from each other. And it does not mean that simply because you suspend an MP, that money is going to go to some further ComCare applications. So, I would like to clarify what is her intention in bringing up this analogy?

Ms Hazel Poa: We are talking about Government financial resources. If it is not paid, it will actually be still within Government coffers that can be redirected elsewhere.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Leader. The purpose of PSP raising this Motion is to ensure we are consistent in terms of when we are advocating high salaries for our public office holders. Because we are advocating that high salaries will lead to being corruption-free. So, after we have established that, we also have to ensure that the high salaries go to deserving people.

In this case, I am interested in what the Leader has said towards the end of her closing speech just now. The Leader mentioned about the possibility of clawback and we have also recommended back pay. The problem of our legislation today is that it does not provide for clawback or back pay of the high salaries that we are paying our public office holders.

So, if the Leader can confirm that we are going to have a Bill in the future to ensure that that legislation is also in place, then I think PSP can reconsider many of our positions with regard to this Motion.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his clarification. First, he says that he is concerned about the salaries and, of course, what would happen in the case when somebody is not performing. Well, as I said earlier, if a certain threshold has been met, if it was warranted, then we would consider having a clawback. How that is to be affected remains to be seen. Because as explained today, the law as it currently is, does not allow for it. This does not, however, preclude the Prime Minister from, as a matter of party discipline, requiring it. And if Mr Iswaran acceded to that, then there is actually nothing more to be done, if it warranted it.

So, to ask me now, can I confirm that we will have a Bill or something to amend – 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 party's side – we will do what is right and what is fair, having regard to the circumstances. That assurance, I think, I can give.

6.15 pm

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications from Members?

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put forth the necessary questions to the House for a decision.

We will first deal with the Motion by the Leader of the House on "Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament".

The question is, "That this House: (a) Affirms the need for Members of Parliament to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law; (b) Affirms the need to deal firmly and fairly with any Member of Parliament who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing; and (c) Resolves to consider the matter regarding Member of Parliament S Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him is known."

As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Speaker: Any Member who wishes his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a Division before I declare the result, kindly stand up so we will record that.

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa stood at their seats for their dissent to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. The "Ayes" have it.

Resolved,

"That this House:

(a) Affirms the need for Members of Parliament to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law;

(b) Affirms the need to deal firmly and fairly with any Member of Parliament who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing; and

(c) Resolves to consider the matter regarding Member of Parliament S Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him is known.

6.17 pm

Mr Speaker: We will now deal with Ms Poa's Motion on "Suspension of Member".

The question is, "That this House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament." As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Some hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Hon Members say "No".

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wish for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a Division before I declare the result?

The “Noes” have it.

Question, "That this House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament" put, and negatived.

6.18 pm

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa, I would like to ask whether you wish to proceed with the Bill.

Ms Hazel Poa: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Okay, Ms Hazel Poa, proceed.