Tag: Leon Perera

Leon Perera: Abandon Reserved Elected Presidency, Return To Appointed Presidency

We all want a President who can be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans. But we disagree about the best means to achieve that end.

In Parliament on 6 Feb 2017, DPM Teo suggested that in November 2016, I had supported measures to depoliticise Presidential Elections (PEs). In fact all the Workers’ Party MPs and NCMPs, including myself, had argued in Parliament for not having an elected President at all and reverting to appointed Presidents.

DPM Teo alluded to my comments about a PAP MP who suggested political safeguards in PE campaigns. In fact, I said that it was to her credit that she attempted to address the politicisation risk issue, not that I agree with her proposed solution. I had argued earlier that day that Presidential elections inevitably become politicised.

DPM Teo went on to say that because I am “not shy” to speak in debate and since I had not challenged his characterisation of what I said, that means I agree with it. It does not. Nowhere did I say that I supported an elected President with politicisation safeguards. I did not raise my hand a second time to challenge his characterisation of what I said because my colleagues and I had already made our views emphatically clear during the three days of debate – we support an appointed Presidency, not an elected one, safeguards or no.

I reiterated my views in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017. For those who are interested, please scroll down below to read the excerpts, watch the clips and judge for yourself.
—————————————————————————————-

What I had said in Parliament on 9 November 2016 referring to a PAP MP’s speech was:-
“My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times – what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt, that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we have, but there is good reason to believe in future Presidential elections, if let us say there are 10 candidates, and let us say the winner gets 5% of the votes or let us say the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government’s strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.”

This was DPM Teo’s reply to me at the time:
“Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections. The risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

In my earlier speech on the Bill delivered that very same day, I argued for reverting to appointed Presidents. Here is an extract from that speech:-

“Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy General Election…The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission recognised this. They had the courage to do so, and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

Here is the video clip of that speech. It makes clear that I am not calling for rule changes to Presidential Elections but for a reversion to appointed Presidents.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/leon-perera-s…/3275492.html

On 8 November 2016, in responding to PAP MP and MOS Dr Janil Puthucheary, I said:

“Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy General Election, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed…Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship? …Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

Here is the video clip of my exchange with DPM Teo in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017:

https://youtu.be/1Isvb5773MU

Source: Leon Perera

February 9, 2017
Leon Perera: WP Working Within Flawed System To Bring About Democratic Progress

Just finished the debate in Parliament on filling the vacated NCMP seat. Most of the People’s Action Party members of the House were present for this particular debate. Over the past few days, when the House debated national issues and Parliamentary questions, the attendance often dipped to 30 or 40 (or less). Interesting priorities. Please read the text of the PAP’s amendment to our motion. It speaks volumes about their approach to politics and Parliamentary debate.

I was asked me why I accepted the NCMP position if I opposed the NCMP scheme as bad for Singapore in the longer-term. I believe the NCMP scheme serves the PAP’s interests by enabling it to ask voters to vote only for the PAP to entrench the current one party hyper-majority in Parliament. It is fully elected Opposition MPs who assure political balance. But, as Mr Low Thia Khiang explained (amidst occasional laughter from the PAP MPs), we need to work within a flawed system, one that keeps getting changed and “refreshed” by the ruling party.

Why do we do this? To do whatever we can to help build a democratic society. In the 1960s, the Barisan Sosialis left Parliament in protest at what they saw as unjust policies. We choose to stay and work within the system, in spite of its many unfair aspects and challenges. A democratic society has to be fought for, step by step and brick by brick.

Source: Leon Perera

January 30, 2016
PAP-Proposed Amendment To NCMP Bill Tabled By WP Passed, WP Abstained From Voting

Parliament yesterday approved a motion tabled by the Workers’ Party (WP) to transfer its Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seat offered to losing Punggol East candidate Lee Li Lian to Associate Professor Daniel Goh — but not before a heated debate, lasting almost two hours, and with amendments made to the original motion by the Government Whip and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing.

A clause was inserted to the motion to state that Parliament “regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers’ Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters. And that the WP supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its secretary-general criticises NCMPs as just duckweed on the water of the pond”.

The amended motion was passed by Parliament, despite the objections to the additional clause by the eight WP MPs — including its two incumbent NCMPs Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan. All the WP MPs abstained from the final vote on the amended motion.

During the debate on the motion, the PAP and the WP locked horns on the spirit of the NCMP scheme and had strong words for each other.

The PAP MPs — Mr Chan, Punggol East MP Charles Chong and Nee Soon GRC MP Lee Bee Wah — charged that the WP was trying to game the system despite openly criticising the NCMP scheme. They also took aim at WP chief Low Thia Khiang’s comments on Wednesday — in response to changes to the NCMP scheme — where he likened an NCMP to “duckweed” as he or she does not have roots in a constituency, unlike an elected MP.

In response, Mr Low — who was joined in the debate by Mr Perera, Hougang MP Png Eng Huat and Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim — called the ruling party a “hypocrite” for downplaying fundamental differences between elected MPs and NCMPs.

In proposing the amendment, Mr Chan said the motion “must reflect the truth”. “My party (PAP) will support the filling of the last NCMP seat according to the rules … We have recognised that the WP has continued to criticise the system, but yet deliberately made use of it to the hilt for their political advantage,” Mr Chan said.

Referring to comments made by Ms Lee in turning down the NCMP seat — Ms Lee had said she wanted to give this chance to her WP colleagues — Mr Chan said: “The honour and privilege to join this House is for service to our nation. It is not for us to showcase ourselves. It is not for us to showcase our party talents. If we do that, we come in with the wrong end in mind.”

Mr Chong, who edged Ms Lee out in last September’s polls, called for a review of the NCMP scheme to ensure that it is not abused. It is not intended for opposition parties to “pick and choose” which best losers to enter Parliament, he said.

Objecting to the amendment tabled by Mr Chan, Mr Low said there is “no basis” to say the motion was a political manoeuvre. “It is provided under the law that since Lee Li Lian has not taken up the seat, Parliament can decide to fill the seat, and I have moved the motion to allow Parliament to decide.”

All four WP MPs who spoke pointed out that Parliament had moved to fill a vacancy left by WP candidate M P D Nair back in 1984. The seat, which was offered to Mr Tan Chee Kien of the Singapore United Front, was ultimately left vacant after Mr Tan also turned it down.

While the party remains opposed to the NCMP scheme in principle, said Mr Low, it recognises that having one more seat in Parliament can contribute to the debate and “possibly better policy outcomes”. “There is no contradiction, make no mistake about it. That is the spirit of the WP in wanting to work the system by respecting the law,” he said.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said he was surprised by the PAP’s “tactically shrewd” move to let the WP fill the NCMP seat. “What they have done … is they facilitated WP having its complement of three NCMP seats, but they also took the opportunity to show up the WP for their inconsistent stance on and instrumental use of the NCMP scheme,” he said, adding that the WP would be shooting themselves in the foot if they voted against the amended motion.

National University of Singapore political scientist Bilveer Singh noted that historically, the WP has in principle objected to the scheme and yet, it has produced the most number of NCMPs. The amendment sought by the PAP was “to signal to the public that the WP is not upfront on the issue”. However, Associate Professor Singh doubted that the matter will be a major dent on the WP. “Eventually what matters is what the three NCMPs of the WP do in Parliament … as the WP’s pouring of cold water on the scheme is a more-than-30-years-old story,” he said.

Source: www.todayonline.com

January 30, 2016
Walid J. Abdullah: Singapore Must Foster A Culture Of Intolerance Towards Intolerance

Of the recent speeches by our politicians, two in particular stood out for me.

First was the one given by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, in which he said Singaporeans must be tolerant, and the only thing we should be intolerant towards is intolerance.

This is most definitely a welcomed speech; the idea of accepting and tolerating different viewpoints is wonderful. (of course, intolerance needs to be defined properly first.)

In this spirit, i hope more politically diverse opinions will be tolerated. I hope the media will give more coverage to different viewpoints. I hope serious discussions will take place on important issues: for example, the discourse on terrorism has been heavily skewed towards religious ideologies. While religious ideology is undoubtedly a factor, almost every major and serious research on terrorism states that other factors (foreign policy, socio-political conditions, loss of trust in authority etc) matter in radicalization too. Therefore, we must be tolerant of different viewpoints and discuss these issues openly and honestly. I further hope those with different standpoints will be met with reasoned argumentation, rather than the full force of the law.

I truly hope, that we are indeed intolerant towards intolerance; whether it is religious or political.

The second was by WP’s Leon Perrera, where he argued for a culture of diversity of opinions. Again, this would be a fantastic thing to have in our society. I hope WP will put its money where its mouth is: in the last parliament, there were occasions in which WP refused to take a stand on some issues or just ignored discourses that were going on in society, perhaps to not offend anyone and reach out to the median voter. I fail to see how keeping silent in important moments contributes to creating this culture.

Hopefully, WP will truly exemplify the culture of diversity, not only by taking a stance on important matters, but by allowing its own members to take different positions on issues.

If one is familiar with parliamentary speeches throughout the world, one would notice that they are often filled with grandiose plans and bombastic words, but unfortunately, with little outcome. One can only hope, that is not the case with these two promising speeches.

Source: Walid J. Abdullah

January 28, 2016
Devadas Krishnadas: Message To MOH – When Winning Can Be Losing

Message to MOH: When Winning can be Losing

This crisis in our health care system is non-trivial. People have died and several others have had their health seriously compromised. The cause is a mystery but the fact that this is an episode of the utmost seriousness is not.

MOH may think that its extreme defensive posture is championing the health care system. However in effect, it runs the risk of losing credibility as an institution and confidence of the people.

The Worker’s Party (WP) are represented in Parliament and Mr Perera sits in parliament, albeit as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). As such the response to Mr Perera’s proposal should be treated with maturity and and on substantive grounds rather than petulance and predicated on a rather silly premise that the WP are alleging improper conduct of healthcare professionals – which it clearly does not.

This matter is going to play out over sometime. Indeed the question of time and timing is a legitimate point of concentration in the review of how this episode has been managed. The MOH response to Ms Rachel Chang, who first pointing to this in public writing, is the antecedent in temperament of their response to WP.

If the MOH thinks it is somehow winning the campaign on public relations over this episode it may find itself surprised that the result to be the opposite. What it should not be is mystified if that is so. Such a mystery would be easier solved than that concerning the origins of this tragedy.

Source: Devadas Krishnadas

October 27, 2015