Sylvia Lim like a pit-bull terrier finally had her twenty
minutes in Parliament. But I think it is not going to matter much what she has
to say because Parliament has already declared that it is sovereign and it is
sovereign to decide what it deems is in the best interest of the nation.
Whether it is about a family feud concerning a private
testamentary Will, some personal stuff taken without permission and handed to
NHB, or the counting of the hiatus trigger for the EP, Parliament is still
sovereign and Sylvia should just let dead dogs lie.
But she's feisty and her bite took some hold yesterday
when she questioned the Govt about some smoke and mirror concerning the
Att-Gen's advice and the Govt's decision to take WKW as the first (s)elected
president.
Sylvia said: "the clear impression given was that
the Government based its decision on the advice of the AGC. That must have been
why PM Lee sequenced his sentence in that order."
The order, if you are so minded to know, is how PM Lee
said it on Nov 8: "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will
start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected
president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."
That sequence seems clear enough for the reasonable man
on the street.
But our equally feisty Law minister will have none of
that. His bite is equally tenacious.
He replied: "What Ms Lim is saying is that we are
starting to count from here because of the AGC's advice. I think that was never
suggested." (Mm...I think it is somehow "legalese" or ambiguous
to use "think" and "never" in one sentence?)
Our law minister recalled a time when he said on record
that "the Government can decide...It is a policy decision (not
legal)."
He then added: "We start counting, we are a careful
Government. We make a policy decision but we take advice to see whether there
are any impediments."
He then concluded: "Did anyone say we are going to
decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to
decide? That would make no sense because Parliament is sovereign." Indeed
she is.
I guess the Govt also wanted to ensure that the count was
also legally sound and defensible. You can't fault punctilious cautiousness,
even neurotic ones, right?
All that was how the discussion went in Parliament, and
Sylvia eventually had her twenty minute and the expected rebuttals, and that
should be a restful wrap for the sovereign Parliament of the day.
But it didn't quite end there. PAP will have the last
word, and Shanmugam had to cheekily slip in one to flog the dead "EP"
horse.
He said: "There is only one person in this House
whom the courts have held to be misleading Parliament. And he is not from
PAP."
At first I didn't quite catch that until the papers shed
some light on it in the following paragraphs as reported:-
"(Shanmugam) was referring to a 2015 statement
(Sylvia) made to Parliament on how the AHPETC had made the necessary transfers
to its sinking funds. Justice Quentin Loh subsequently noted that Ms Lim failed
to mention or acknowledge that AHPETC had been making late transfers to its
sinking fund."
That was the last word that cracked the nut with a
sledgehammer-like low undercut.
Well, in politics, what goes around comes around. You may
be holding the whip one day whooping derrière, and on another day, its your
derrière that gets the whooping.
So, the above boomerang metaphor actually cuts both ways
for PAP. Because the last word on misleading and misperception was what some
may call the whitewashing session on 3 July when the party as a collective
whole stood in phenomenal solidarity to vindicate in full their leadership.
To put it bluntly, it was like a roaring cheerleading
session of the finest elitist strata of high society.
Alas, the accusers were not even summoned to Parliament
to defend or advance their case.
My point or lesson? Well, just one, and it is about
taking he high road. And I take my lead from the words of EW Barker, who was
the speaker of the House for nearly 14 years (1968 to 1984).
Barker reminded parliamentarians this:-
"No Member will stray from the straight and narrow
path if he always lets his conscience be his guide."
His "let your conscience be your guide" advice
was the advice most fondly remembered by the old guards.
In a speech in July 2006 to appreciate ministers like EW
Barker, Tan Soo Khoon said:-
"Like the newly elected MPs, we retirees were also
at one time greenhorns in the world of politics but we learned from the
experience of others who came before us. One of the most valuable pieces of
advice imparted to me by my older colleagues when I first came into Parliament
came from the late EW Barker, who said: "Be humble and do not be
overwhelmed by your newly accorded status."
Conscience, abiding by the straight and narrow path, and
humility are the hallmarks of a wise, gracious and effective leader.
As such, I do not think it was necessary for our Law
minister to slip that remark in as the issue was not even about the AHPETC
funds. There is already an on-going investigation/lawsuit on it and we should
just let justice take its course on the issue.
In my view, that remark was a low-blow, and it detracted
from the issue on the perception that the reasonable man on the street may have
concerning what was expressed or implied in the sequential order of PM Lee's statement
- "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting
from the first president..."
Mind you, the words were spoken by PM Lee in Parliament,
recorded as such, broadcast to the public at large, and making headlines in
print.
Mm...isn't Uncle Ben's advice to Peter Parker relevant
here - that is, with great powers (in Parliament) comes great responsibility
(in speech and deed)?
If so, shouldn't our minister in Parliament take the
"straight and narrow path" to admit that there may have been (at
least) some misunderstanding caused by the statement made in Parliament, and
then, allowing one's conscience to lead, to say sorry for the misperception
caused which was unclear but unintended?
Now, I know very well, by now at least, that Parliament
is absolutely sovereign, but it doesn't hurt a smidge to the shining white
armor of her sovereignty to at times demonstrate some humanity, humility and
honor by admitting that mistakes or oversight were made in this case,
especially with the whirlwind kind of speed the reserved election was
implemented, and then proceed to assure the people that they will do better (in
terms of proper warning and preparation) next time as the leaders are only
human?
Alas, generally speaking, the last thing we need is a
fully sovereign Parliament run by one Party with elected ministers who are
"overwhelmed by (their) newly accorded status".
On this, we should always take a leaf off the humane
politics of EW Barker as captured in the words of the late Subhas Anandan:-
"He did it very naturally. He could go to a coffee
shop and sit around the people. He could have his beer there. I don't think any
other minister could do it. I think E.W. Barker was the only person who could
do it."
In the end, surely, we do not
want our ministers to visit a coffeeshop with an entourage, mingle with the
people, order a beer or teh-si, and then pour the same into a Starbuck's cup
when no one is looking, right? Metaphorically speaking, of course. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment