Further Inquiry into Former Minister S Iswaran's Case Given Outcome of Investigations

Debated in Parliament on 5 Feb 2024.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Members of Parliament asked whether further inquiry or consideration was needed regarding former Minister S Iswaran's case after the completion of investigations and the bringing of charges.
The Prime Minister's Office responded that the specific parliamentary concerns were addressed by Mr Iswaran's resignation, voluntary return of allowances, and the ongoing court proceedings, so no further action by the House was necessary.
It was noted that suspending an MP under investigation would prejudge wrongdoing, and withholding allowances while on leave of absence is not a general rule, as leave does not imply penalty and each case should be assessed on its facts.
A Committee of Inquiry was deemed unnecessary because the CPIB had investigated and the courts were handling the case, with any further steps to be considered after court proceedings conclude.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Full Transcript

Yip Hon Weng

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister whether the Government considers it necessary to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate former Minister S Iswaran’s case at an appropriate juncture, with the paramount objective of affirming the Government’s stance of keeping the system free of corruption.

Kwek Hian Chuan Henry

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister in view of the outcome of the investigations regarding former Member of Parliament S Iswaran, whether it is necessary to consider the matter further as resolved by this House on the motion moved by Leader of the House and agreed to by this House on 19 September 2023.

Speaker

Before I call on all the Ministers to reply to Question Nos 23 to 31, I wish to highlight to Members that the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) may be related to a case before the Courts.

I have allowed the Questions to stand on today's Order Paper because I am satisfied that they do not require answers that venture into legal issues before the Courts nor impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance maintained between this House and the Judiciary.

I would like to, therefore, advise Members to exercise caution in making any statement or asking any supplementary questions discussing or reflecting the details of the case as it could have the potential to concern matters that are sub judice or may prejudice the investigations and the interests of the parties to the matter.

Following Standing Order 21(1)(h), I will rule such statements and supplementary questions out of order. Minister Indranee, please.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister)

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 23 and 24 in the Order Paper together?

Speaker

Yes, please.

Indranee Rajah

Mr Henry Kwek asked whether, in view of the outcome of the investigations regarding Mr Iswaran, it is necessary to further consider the matter as resolved in this House on 19 September 2023.

To provide context, Members will recall that in September last year, Ms Hazel Poa moved a Motion to suspend Mr Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of that Session of the 14th Parliament. Ms Poa's objective in so doing, which she expressly stated at that time, was to stop Mr Iswaran from receiving his Member of Parliament (MP) allowance, as he was on leave of absence and was not carrying out his MP duties.

I had, in parallel, moved the Motion proposing that consideration of the matter be deferred until the outcome of the investigations was known so as not to prejudge the matter. The House agreed and resolved to consider the matter regarding Mr Iswaran when the outcome of the investigations was known.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has since completed its investigations and the Public Prosecutor has brought charges against Mr Iswaran.

Prior to the formal presentation of the charges against him, Mr Iswaran resigned from Cabinet and as an MP. Following his resignation, he also informed the Prime Minister that he would voluntarily return all monies he received by way of Ministerial salary and allowances as an MP that were paid to him since the commencement of the CPIB investigations in July 2023.

In these circumstances, the specific issues regarding Mr Iswaran, which the House was concerned with, had been addressed. There is, hence, no need for any further consideration of steps to be taken against Mr Iswaran by the House.

Members may ask, aside from Mr Iswaran's case, whether there is a need for us to change the current framework with regard to an MP who is under investigation for an offence. In the course of the debate last year, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had called for suspension of an MP under investigation, but, strangely, only if the investigation related to corruption and not any other offence. In addition, Ms Poa had also sought leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 to give Parliament the flexibility to authorise the back payment of the allowance of an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament by resolution.

There are two separate issues involved here. First, whether it should be a rule that an MP, under investigation for an offence, should be suspended. And second, whether an MP, on leave of absence while under investigation, should have his or her allowance withheld, pending the outcome of the investigation or the case. I will deal with them in turn.

On the first issue, it would not, as a matter of principle, be correct to suspend an MP simply because he or she is under investigation. To do so would be to effectively prejudge that the MP has committed a wrongdoing, even before details of the investigation are known. What if the MP is subsequently not charged or is charged but found innocent? We would have wrongly punished the MP in our haste to presume guilt or wrongdoing. Everyone who is alleged to have committed a wrongdoing, including MPs, should be given due process. This is why in most Parliamentary systems, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, there is no general practice of suspending a member against whom investigations are ongoing.

This position was supported by the Workers' Party and Nominated Members of Parliament in the debate last year.

This brings me to the second issue, which is, whether MPs on leave of absence should have their allowance withheld.

On this, it is important to appreciate that there are two material differences between leave of absence and suspension.

First, leave of absence, in and of itself, does not imply any wrongdoing as it does not function as a penalty, unlike suspension, which operates as a sanction or penalty. MPs may apply for leave of absence for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with wrongdoing, for example, due to illness, overseas travel or other exigencies.

Second, unlike suspension, leave of absence is not a matter for the House. In a situation where an MP is under investigation, he or she cannot be put on leave of absence by Parliament. The MP can apply for leave of absence on his or her own accord or be required by the party to take leave of absence. Whether or not the party requires the MP to take leave of absence will depend on the circumstances of each case.

These two material differences have a bearing on how the question of an MP's allowance should be dealt with if the MP is under investigation and is subsequently charged or convicted.

Given that leave of absence is not an indication of wrongdoing or a sanction, it would not, as a general rule, be correct to withhold the Members of Parliament's allowance while he or she is on leave of absence. If the House were to withhold the MP’s pay pending the investigations or the outcome of the case, we would encounter the same problem that arises for suspension. The House would be prejudging the issue. If the MP is placed on leave of absence and is subsequently charged or convicted, it would be the party’s responsibility to ensure that the MP pays back the allowance received during this period, if that is the right thing to do in the circumstances. In the present case Mr Iswaran volunteered to pay back his allowance after he resigned and before his trial, so the question did not arise.

Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and on what is the right and fair thing to do in each situation.

Mr Speaker, I now move on to Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query, as to whether it is necessary to appoint a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate Mr Iswaran’s case at an appropriate juncture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, section 9 of the Inquiries Act sets out the subjects for which a COI may be appointed to inquire into. These include:

(a) accidents involving death, serious injury, or serious property damage;

(b) incidents that may endanger public safety or public health; and

The purpose of a COI is to investigate something with a view to finding out how it happened.

In this case, the CPIB has investigated the matter. Based on their investigations the AGC has taken the view that there is basis for criminal charges to be brought against Mr Iswaran. Determination of criminal offences is a matter for the court, which is currently dealing with the case.

We should wait for the court proceedings to conclude before deciding if anything else needs to be done.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Members of Parliament asked whether further inquiry or consideration was needed regarding former Minister S Iswaran's case after the completion of investigations and the bringing of charges.
The Prime Minister's Office responded that the specific parliamentary concerns were addressed by Mr Iswaran's resignation, voluntary return of allowances, and the ongoing court proceedings, so no further action by the House was necessary.
It was noted that suspending an MP under investigation would prejudge wrongdoing, and withholding allowances while on leave of absence is not a general rule, as leave does not imply penalty and each case should be assessed on its facts.
A Committee of Inquiry was deemed unnecessary because the CPIB had investigated and the courts were handling the case, with any further steps to be considered after court proceedings conclude.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Further Inquiry into Former Minister S Iswaran's Case Given Outcome of Investigations

Debated in Parliament on 5 Feb 2024.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Members of Parliament asked whether further inquiry or consideration was needed regarding former Minister S Iswaran's case after the completion of investigations and the bringing of charges.
The Prime Minister's Office responded that the specific parliamentary concerns were addressed by Mr Iswaran's resignation, voluntary return of allowances, and the ongoing court proceedings, so no further action by the House was necessary.
It was noted that suspending an MP under investigation would prejudge wrongdoing, and withholding allowances while on leave of absence is not a general rule, as leave does not imply penalty and each case should be assessed on its facts.
A Committee of Inquiry was deemed unnecessary because the CPIB had investigated and the courts were handling the case, with any further steps to be considered after court proceedings conclude.