On Wednesday (2 Aug), Singapore’s Parliament convened and addressed the slew of recent controversies that have plagued the Government.
Among the talking points was former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin’s hot mic incident.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah took questions about what transpired and Mr Tan’s subsequent apology.
In response, Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai asked why he never got a formal apology in the House from Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan for the 2021 hot mic incident.
Back in 2021, Mr Vivian Balakrishnan made negative comments to then-Manpower Minister Tan See Leng about Mr Leong’s education history.
The parliamentary hot mic had caught Dr Balakrishnan telling Dr Tan, “Seriously, how did he get into RI (Raffles Institution)? Must have been a lousy school.”
Dr Balakrishnan subsequently apologised to Mr Leong for his private comments in a phone call. Mr Leong had also accepted the apology.
On Wednesday (2 Aug), Leader of the House Indranee Rajah took questions about the recent hot mic incident involving former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.
During a parliamentary session on 17 Apr, Mr Tan had muttered under his breath that Workers’ Party (WP) MP Associate Professor Jamus Lim was a “f–king populist”.
A clip capturing the incident circulated on social media sometime after, and Mr Tan apologised to Assoc Prof Lim.
Clarifying in Parliament, Ms Indranee said that she had expressed to the former Speaker her personal view that he should apologise.
This was in response to a question posed by WP Chair Sylvia Lim on whether the Leader exercised power over the Speaker as the latter had power over the rest of the House.
Source: CNA on YouTube
Ms Indranee explained that she did not exercise authority over Mr Tan. She merely indicated her opinion as Leader that, at minumum, a withdrawal of the comment and an apology should be required.
That was why she took “some pains” to highlight that it was “her view” in her statement, she said. However, she does not have the power to conclude such decisions.
Relating this incident to his, Mr Leong then asked Ms Indranee, “Why the Leader thinks it was not necessary to ask [Mr Balakrishnan] to make a formal apology in this House?”
Ms Indranee replied that, normally, it is the Speaker’s job to make such rulings. It is typically also the person who has the right to complain that will raise such issues.
Source: CNA on YouTube
She highlighted that the Speaker acted when the affected persons complained in prior cases.
“So, actually, in this particular instance that Mr Leong has referred to, if a formal apology was required, it would have been incumbent on Mr Leong to raise the matter as a complainant.”
The Leader added that she thought it was appropriate to address Mr Tan’s incident simply because he held the role of Speaker.
“And of course, he is no longer here in Parliament to deal with it, so somebody has to raise it.”
Mr Leong then requested clarification on two points.
Firstly, he wanted to clarify whether Ms Indranee was implying that Assoc Prof Lim did not make a formal complaint, since she was the one who raised it.
Secondly, he wished to make clear whether she was implying that then-Speaker Tan should have demanded that Mr Balakrishnan formally apologise to him.
Source: CNA on YouTube
“If he had not, then was it a mistake on the part of the Speaker at the time?”
Addressing the second concern first, Ms Indranee said, “That is not something which is really before this House. I do not intend to revisit previous matters that were not decided upon.”
“As far as I’m aware, it was not brought to the Speaker, he did not have to make a ruling.”
Ms Indranee elaborated that in Mr Tan’s case, it involved an expletive. “It had to do with the decorum and propriety of this House. And that is why I felt it was necessary to address it.”
She also pointed out that Mr Leong had accepted the apology that Mr Balakrishnan had extended back then, just as Assoc Prof Lim had accepted Mr Tan’s.
“If Mr Leong wishes to take that matter further, it will be up to him, except that I am not sure whether he still is within time for his matter. But, I’m sure he will take the appropriate advice on the regulations and the rules, and do what is necessary.”
In addition to Ms Lim and Mr Leong’s questions, Ms Indranee responded to questions Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh asked about Mr Tan’s hot mic incident.
Source: CNA on YouTube
Her initial statement noted that Mr Tan’s comments were not audible in Parliament or the official live stream when it happened.
The audio was allegedly only amplified and circulated three months after. That was when the matter was brought to the attention of the public and the Parliament.
As such, Mr Singh questioned Ms Indranee if she minded to refer the case to the police to find out who released the audio.
She said the police investigates offences, and that she was not sure the person who amplified the audio had committed one.
“I’m not entirely sure that making something louder is an offence.”
As such, she admitted that it had not occurred to her to refer the matter to the police as she was not sure there was an offence.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from CNA on YouTube.
The issue was resolved amicably.
Although this particular clip wasn't real, it seems to be a million dollar idea.
"To me, bamboo bee plum means plum shaped like bamboo bees", said the customer.
The passenger claimed they were treated like criminals over a tuna sandwich.
The boy is an only child to the single mum.
Authorities had to use equipment to pry the vehicle open to free the man.