choongyong.koh April 24th, 2008
I attended the Parliamentary Sittings on 21 Apr and 22 Apr in the Public Gallery, hoping to be able to listen to the Ministerial Statements by DPM Wong Kan Seng and PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Mas Selemat Escape and the Government’s responsibilities in situations like this.
The COI report did leave some questions to rest, but raised more questions because of the many coincidences and obvious laspes in the whole incident. More confusing, is the way some questions are answered. DPM Wong and PM Lee selectively avoided the crux of certain questions, and sometimes used rhetorical questions to side-step MPs’ questions.
Did MHA conduct regular audits?
One of the key lapses in the report was that the toilet window was without grilles. When asked on Monday “Did MHA conduct regular audits at the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) prior to the escape of Mas Selemat”, I was expecting a simple “Yes” or “No”, followed by some elaboration of why yes and why no.
Instead, the answer was a description of what procedures there were in the WRDC practiced by the ISD and the Gurkha Contingent and that the ratio of guards is more than that in the prison. After beating around the bush for a few minutes, DPM Wong finally admitted: “The only thing ought to have been done better is a regular system check and audit”. The way he presented the answer masks the fact that the big glaring mistake is the fact that MHA did not institutionalise regular security audit in WRDC.
Dispelling ground speculation
Later in the same session, Mr Low Thia Kiang asked the question “Is the DPM aware that there is speculation that Mas Selamat died inside WRDC?”. Granted that this is a speculation, but as it has been brewing in the ground since the escape in late February, it is definitely in the public’s interest to present some concrete evidence (the COI was given full access to WRDC and the necessary information, and CID has performed “extensive interview and forensic examination of the site”) to help dispel the speculation. Instead, what I observed was that DPM Wong was visibly agitated when rising to answer the question, and side-stepped the question by asking Mr Low if he believed that Mas Selamat is daed.
Whether Mr Low believes Mas Selamat is dead should not change the fact that the DPM should, in the interest of the general public, dispel the speculation, if HE believes that Mas Selamat is not dead.
Oversight role of MHA
The first question to be asked in the 22 Apr 2008 session was from Ms Sylvia Lim: what in PM Lee’s view “is the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD”. PM Lee did not explain the kinds of responsibilities MHA has to take should there be any problem in ISD, neither did he specifically say it is a “hands-off” approach. He basically reiterated the duties of ISA and stated that it “reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance”. He continued to state that “MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe”. Nothing in the response answered the question of what is the MHA’s responsibility should anything go wrong with its subordinate department.
Accountability and responsibility
The most interesting rhetorical question comes when Mr Low again raised to ask a question, on how the PM could reconcile the fact that ministers’ salaries are pegged to the corporate world, whereas their accountability and responsibility when something goes wrong is not. From the Public Gallery, I saw the PM stood up and lightly slapped his notepad on to the lectern before saying “I thought that the member would eventually come to this question.” He went on to give reasons why DPM Wong should not resign, gave general statements like “Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper”.
Of the list of reasons, I think the most absurd are arguments like “if any questions showed the DPM … told people not to grille up the window, …didn’t need so much fencing….”.
He capped the descriptions with a question “let me ask the member (Mr Low) whether he thinks the DPM ought to quit because of this”. Mr Low did not answer, and I don’t think he needed to. PM Lee was again side-stepping the question of how to reconcile high wages with apparently no accountability, so why should Mr Low continue his thread of discussion?
No firm stand?
An article in ZaoBao (议员应该有坚定立场, zaobao 2008-04-23) criticized Mr Low for not having a firm stand. I think the reporter was confused by the many side-stepping and rhetorical questions. If the reporter had kept a clear mind and listened to the questions asked by both Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim, it would be very obvious (at least it was very obvious to me) that the firm stand is that there should be accountability and responsibility taken by the MHA (not necessarily the resignation of the Minister, but some form of accountability nevertheless) in this incident. Answering rhetorical question to fuel unnecessary debate (just consider the kinds of debates that will lead to if the rhetorical questions were answered) is not their role.
All Posts