By Andrew Loh
People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament, Mr Inderjit Singh, made an impassioned speech in Parliament against the population White Paper on 5 February 2013. [See here.]
It was, and quite characteristic of the Ang Mo Kio GRC MP, a strongly-worded speech. “Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we can take the next step,” he told the House. He used words and phrases such as “too steep” to describe Singapore’s population increase the last decade. He lambasted the government for having “failed to achieve the goal” of a promised Swiss standard of living for Singaporeans. Mr Singh said he has “a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens” in our midst currently, that “it is just too much”, and how “things [had] started to fall apart” from this influx. Adding more people to the island “will be disastrous”, the MP warned. “We missed the mark in the last 10 years, and we are already paying a heavy price for that mistake… We already have too many of them,” Mr Singh said, referring to the number of permanent residents (PRs) here. Children of PRs who do not do National Service (NS) should be punished, he implored. “Send them to jail if we can.”
He called on the government to take a breather on population growth and to address existing problems first. “[We] cannot afford to make Singaporeans’ lives more difficult as a result,” he said. “I rather err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for any planning misjudgements in this area.”
Strong words expressing strong sentiments indeed.
Mr Singh’s speech resonated with many Singaporeans who felt that he had echoed what they felt in their hearts. However, what has transpired since his speech has led to criticisms of Mr Singh instead, that he didn’t put his money where his mouth was in failing to vote against the White Paper in Parliament.
Mr Singh was absent from the House when the vote was called. He was one of eight MPs who did not cast their votes on the White Paper. When asked by the media if he had absented himself from the vote on purpose, Mr Singh declined to elaborate or explain if he indeed did.
The Straits Times reported that “he was in Parliament earlier on the day the vote was taken, but did not want to say if he had intentionally left the chamber before the vote.”
3 days after his speech on 9 February, Mr Singh posted a note on his Facebook page in what some saw as an about-turn from the fiery criticisms he made in Parliament. Now, his online post lauded the “many excellent plans” contained in the White Paper, and Mr Singh urged Singaporeans to “give the government that time” to carry out these plans.
“I felt that many of the things I asked for in my speech did get through to the government and let's hope the actions which will follow will also reflect this openness the government has demonstrated during the debate,” he wrote. “I am confident this will happen.”
However, on 3 March, Mr Singh was again in the news, this time apparently calling on his party to lift its party whip when Parliament votes on “major policies”. [See here.]
“More MPs from the ruling party might have joined in last month's debate on the Population White Paper if this had happened,” the Straits Times reported him as having said. However, Mr Singh said that “[even] if the whip was lifted, he felt the amended motion… would still have been passed.”
Referring to earlier criticisms of his being absent from the vote and not registering his dissent through it, he said, "I feel that this is an unreasonable criticism. Just because I didn't do so, they say I say one thing but do another. Moreover, the party whip wasn't removed, so everyone should know the outcome of the vote."
In other words, Mr Singh seems to say that as long as the party whip is not lifted, what the party leadership decides will hold, especially in a Parliament where the ruling party has such an overwhelming majority of the seats.
Mr Singh is right, of course.
But is having a Whip in place necessarily a bad thing?
When asked (before the debate on the White Paper) if the whip would be lifted for the debate, PAP Whip Gan Kim Yong said, “We would only do so if the subject of debate is a matter of conscience.”
The last 2 times the Whip was lifted was in 2007 (when Parliament voted on the so-called “gay law”, S377A) and in 2010 (on the Maintenance of Parents Bill amendments).
There are several reasons why the practice of the Whip is in place. For example, it is to instil party discipline – that party members toe the party line. It is also to prevent MPs from crossing party lines and voting with other parties with impunity, holding their party leadership ransom, so to speak. The Whip ensures that the message the party (and the government) sends out to the public (and its own party, in fact) on any particular matter or policy is a clear one, and that when all is said and done, everyone (public, party, government) knows the direction in which we will be moving, or in the case of the opposition parties, what the parties’ position is on any particular issue. The PAP has also spoken of its belief in “collective responsibility” when it comes to policy decisions. An example is how it goes about implementing the (mandatory) death penalty where it is not one person who holds the onerous responsibility but the entire Cabinet.
It is for these same reasons that the opposition Workers’ Party decided to appoint its own party Whip – Mr Low Thia Khiang – in 2011, after the WP won 6 seats and had another 2 Non-constituency MPs in Parliament.
Mr Singh’s call for the party Whip to be lifted for voting on “major policies” is a curious one. Contrary to what he suggests, one would think that it is precisely because of “major policies” that the government would want an unequivocal or unambiguous message to be sent out. The party Whip serves this important purpose. Imagine a public confused by what the government’s (or ruling party’s) position on a particular issue is because there is no clarity in the votes cast by its own members.
This is not to say that MPs like Mr Singh, who incidentally was a fomer party deputy Whip himself, are helpless. There are certain things he can do (privately or publicly) to effect changes he wishes to see, or to voice his unhappiness or disapproval over certain things.
Internally, within his party, he could lobby his colleagues in voting out party leaders whom he feels are not adequate, or to seek private dialogues with party leaders (which I am sure Mr Singh does, given that the leader of his GRC team in Ang Mo Kio is also the prime minister). He may also initiate debate within his party on how or when the party Whip should be imposed.
Ultimately, however, if MPs like Mr Singh truly feel that they cannot live with a policy or a decision made by their party or government, then there is always the option of stepping down or stepping out of the party and resign.
While one can appreciate that with the Whip in place, Mr Singh had really no choice – as far as casting his parliamentary vote was concerned, and that absenting himself was the “best option” for him – one would however also question if he should not have the gumption to resign his position if he felt so strongly (as indeed he did, from the strong words he used in his speech) about the White paper. Resignation would be a last resort, one would imagine. But it is nonetheless an option open to Mr Singh.
Since Mr Singh has now lauded the White Paper’s “many excellent plans”, has called on Singaporeans to give the government time, and seems happy about how his views were heard and even accepted by the government, one wonders why he is calling for the Whip to be lifted on occasions.
In short, Mr Singh’s seemingly shifting position on the matter does not reflect well on his conviction, in fact.
“The government listened and decided to amend the 6.9m number,” he said on his Facebook note. “The government agreed to take the views of many MPs and Singaporeans who contributed to the debate. I am glad the government showed flexibility this time round. I know the prime minister will deliver and I am fully behind him on this. I want to thank the Prime Minister for showing this flexibility and we should all give him the full support so that he can work on the plans with his team.”
Why then the need to lift the Whip?
What would it have achieved in this case, given that Mr Singh also said, “People must accept there's party discipline and rules on such matters”?
Perhaps what Mr Singh is saying is that the PAP’s internal communication and feedback process needs improving. Or perhaps Mr Singh is saying that PAP MPs are not consulted enough before policy decisions are made, and they have to express their disagreements or disapproval in Parliament.
Or perhaps what Mr Singh wants is reassurance that voting what he feels is right will not attract reprisals for him and MPs like him from his party. One of the consequences of not toeing the party line is, of course, dismissal from the party – and along with it one’s parliamentary seat and all the benefits of it, including a not ungenerous salary. But such reassurances, if indeed these are what Mr Singh seeks, is a different matter for him and his party to discuss.
What Singaporeans want to see are MPs who can speak their minds, and who have the courage to put their money where their mouths are. At the same time, however, Singaporeans also understand that a government – as a collective - must send a clear signal on where it stands on any matters.
MPs who disagree with their party positions have options, one of which is to resign. It may seem a drastic thing to do but if a policy decision inspires such strong words and sentiments (as Mr Singh expressed in Parliament), then such an action is reasonable.
Would Mr Singh be asking for the Whip to be lifted if Parliament was not also so overwhelmingly filled with PAP MPs?
More importantly, instead of asking for his party Whip to be lifted when voting for “major policies”, Mr Singh should instead ask if he is convicted enough to stand his ground when it comes to the crunch, instead of pointing fingers after the fact.
Some say Mr Singh should have stayed and cast his vote against the White Paper – and accept the consequences from his party – if he truly felt so strongly against the Paper.
I am not inclined to disagree with such a view.
Mr Singh might disagree and say, as he now has, that his views were taken into consideration by the government and PM Lee Hsien Loong and he is satisfied with this, and thus there is no need to resign from the party in protest. But PM Lee made his speech after Mr Singh had spoken, both in Parliament - before the vote.
Referring to the parliamentary debate, Mr Singh wrote online that “it ended quite surprisingly by the prime minister agreeing to change course on the 6.9m population by reducing the government expectation of a future population to something significantly lower than the 6.9m.”
“I am glad the government showed flexibility this time round. I know the prime minister will deliver and I am fully behind him on this. I want to thank the Prime Minister for showing this flexibility and we should all give him the full support so that he can work on the plans with his team.”
So, why didn’t Mr Singh stay in the House and vote in favour of the White Paper, instead of absenting himself, especially after the PM’s explanation which seemed to have assuaged Mr Singh’s concerns and gained Mr Singh’s emphatic approval?
It is rather curious, these twists and turns. Their ends don't meet.