Connect with us

Politics

Lim Tean expresses outrage over Indranee’s counter-motion on Minister Iswaran’s MP Pay suspension

Indranee Rajah, Leader of the House has filed a distinct motion in response to PSP Hazel Poa’s motion which sought to advocate that Parliament address Minister S Iswaran’s annual S$192,500 MP pay only after the conclusion of the CPIB investigations.

Ms Indranee’s motion calls on the House to resolve to consider the matter concerning Minister Iswaran once the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him becomes known.

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice, vehemently criticized Indranee’s decision, “Do you think if you are being investigated by the CPIB, or you have been charged and you have been suspended by your employer, you will continue getting your pay?”

Published

on

SINGAPORE: On 8 September, Hazel Poa, a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) representing the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), submitted a motion to suspend Singapore’s Transport Minister, S Iswaran, from his parliamentary duties for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament.

The motion is expected to be debated in Parliament on 19 September.

Hazel Poa, who also serves as PSP’s Vice-Chairman, earlier explained that The purpose is to halt his receipt of the MP allowance, which amounts to S$192,500 annually, during the ongoing investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), during which he is not carrying out official duties.

In addition, Ms Poa also introduces a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, which seeks to provide Parliament with the power to back-pay the MP allowance that was withheld from an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament.

The Parliament will vote on whether to give leave for the NCMP to introduce the Bill for First Reading. Following this, the bill can be thoroughly debated during the Second Reading, which is expected to take place in October.

In response to Ms Poa’s motion, Indranee Rajah, Leader of the House, has also submitted a separate motion, calling on the House to resolve to consider the matter concerning Minister S Iswaran once the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him becomes known.

On Monday (18 Sept), Lim Tean, the leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), took to Facebook to express his strong disapproval of Ms Indranee’s decision to submit a separate motion in response to Ms Poa’s motion.

Ms Indranee’s motion suggests that Parliament should only consider suspending Minister Iswaran’s S$192,500 MP pay when the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him is known.

Lim Tean posed a pointed question: “Do you think if you are being investigated by the CPIB or you have been charged and you have been suspended by your employer, you will continue getting your pay?”

He cited an example from his current caseload, where he is representing an individual who was employed by a ministry. This individual was arrested and charged by the CPIB, leading to his suspension without pay.

“No pay. So why is Iswaran so special to merit special treatment? Both of them are public servants, aren’t they?” Lim Tean asked.

He went on to argue that even in the private sector, the same rules should apply.

Lim Tean expressed his disappointment, criticizing what he sees as another example of the PAP having one set of rules for its members and favored individuals, while applying another set of rules to ordinary citizens.

“I think it is ridiculous, especially when it was a choice of the PAP themselves, to tell Iswaran that he was not to conduct any activities as an MP.”

In addition to being an MP, Mr Iswaran continues to serve as a minister, albeit on a leave of absence, and he continues to receive a salary of S$8,500.

Lim Tean asserted that Mr Iswaran is currently receiving a total of S$24,500 per month, including his S$16,000 monthly MP pay, and the S$8,500 ministerial pay.

He emphasized that this is taxpayers’ money and far exceeds the annual earnings of many Singaporeans.

“I think the bigger question is this, should we be paying someone this sum of money when he’s doing absolutely nothing? When he can well afford not to be taking this type of money when he’s clearing his name.”

Iswaran’s MP pay unaffected: Parliamentary motion required for suspension

On 2 August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told Parliament that Mr Iswaran’s monthly salary has been reduced to S$8,500 until further notice as he was relieved of his ministerial duties.

PM Lee revealed that the reduction in Iswaran’s pay aligns with the current civil service practice for such rare incidents involving ministers, as there is no established rule or precedent on how to execute an interdiction on a political office holder.

“The specific details in Minister Iswaran’s case generally align with how the civil service would deal with a senior officer in a similar situation. However, this was my decision as PM, because the political contexts for a minister and a civil servant being investigated and interdicted are different,” he explained.

Notably, ministerial salaries have not seen adjustments since 2012.

At present, the benchmark ministerial monthly salary is set at S$55,000, equating to an annual income of S$1,100,000. Of this sum, S$715,000 is fixed, while the remaining portion is variable.

In response to queries from Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party MP for Hougang SMC, PM Lee reveals that while the ministerial salary for Iswaran was cut to S$8,500, his MP pay remains untouched, as the allowance is not at the discretion of the prime minister, unlike the ministerial salary.

To stop the allowance, Parliament would have to move a motion to suspend the MP from its service.

“An MP’s allowance will be withheld once the MP is suspended from the service of Parliament… A motion would have to be moved in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. His or her allowance would be withheld thereafter,” PM Lee said.

According to the Public Service Division (PSD), the annual allowance for Members of Parliament (MPs) stands at S$192,500 or about S$16,000 monthly.

PM Lee instructed Minister Iswaran to take a leave of absence pending the completion of the investigation. The minister will remain in Singapore during this period and will be denied access to any official resources and government buildings.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Politics

Dr Tan Cheng Bock questions S$335 million Founders’ Memorial cost, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s stance

Dr Tan Cheng Bock has raised concerns over the S$335 million cost of Singapore’s Founders’ Memorial, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s opposition to monuments and suggesting the funds could be better used for healthcare. The memorial, slated for completion by 2028, faces rising costs, with the estimated cost not including operating or land costs.

Published

on

On 14 September, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP and founder of the Progress Singapore Party, publicly expressed concerns over the estimated S$335 million cost for the Founders’ Memorial.

In a detailed Facebook post, he questioned the necessity of such an extravagant expenditure and referred to the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s known opposition to monuments in his honour.

Dr Tan highlighted a poignant moment from Lee Kuan Yew’s eulogy, delivered by his grandson, Li Shengwu, on 29 March 2015.

Li recalled how, when it was once suggested that a monument be built for him, Lee Kuan Yew had responded, “Remember Ozymandias.” This reference was to a sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley about Ramses II, in which a traveler encounters the ruins of a once-grand statue in the desert. The statue bore the inscription: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!” But nothing else remained of the empire.

Li Shengwu reflected that his grandfather’s remark underscored his belief that if Singapore failed, a monument would be useless, and if it thrived, a monument would be unnecessary.

“His legacy is not cold stone, but a living nation. We could no more forget him than we could forget the sky,” Li said, adding that Lee Kuan Yew’s enduring contribution lay in the strong institutions he built, which persist beyond the individual and ensure Singapore’s stability.

In his post, Dr Tan echoed these sentiments, questioning whether spending S$335 million on a memorial aligned with the founding leaders’ values.

He suggested that the funds might be better spent addressing pressing national issues, particularly healthcare, as Singapore’s population continues to age. Dr Tan, who served for decades as a practising doctor, called for investments in a home care system, noting that such a move would reduce the strain on hospitals while improving the well-being of the elderly.

The estimated S$335 million figure was revealed during a Parliamentary session on 9 September 2023, in response to a question posed by Louis Chua, a Workers’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong provided the cost breakdown, explaining that the figure covers construction, the fit-out of exhibition galleries, a viewing gallery, an outdoor amphitheatre, family spaces, amenities, and a five-hectare outdoor garden.

Mr Tong added that the final operating costs for the memorial are still being worked out alongside the development of operational plans.

Notably, Mr Tong’s disclosure did not include land costs.

Lee Hsien Yang, son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, also responded to Dr Tan’s post, pointing out that the five-hectare site in Bay East Garden could significantly increase the overall cost.

He noted that a nearby plot of land at Marina Gardens Crescent, measuring about 1.5 hectares, was tendered earlier in 2023 but rejected for a bid of S$984 per square foot, deemed too low by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Based on this price, the value of the land for the Founders’ Memorial could exceed S$500 million, pushing the overall cost of the project even higher.

The Founders’ Memorial, initially slated for completion in 2025 to coincide with Singapore’s 60th birthday, is now expected to open by the end of 2028. The project was delayed due to extensive infrastructural work at its Bay East Garden location and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The twin two-storey buildings, designed by Kengo Kuma & Associates and Singapore’s K2LD Architects, will house an integrated gallery and public gardens, intended to serve as a space for reflection on Singapore’s past and inspiration for the future.

While Minister Tong emphasized that the memorial aims to capture the spirit of the nation and foster unity, Dr Tan urged that the focus should remain on practical solutions for Singapore’s future. He argued that a simpler, more humble memorial would be more in line with the founding leaders’ values, allowing the remainder of the funds to be redirected toward initiatives that benefit the nation’s aging population.

Continue Reading

Labour

Jamus Lim argues why Jobseeker Support Scheme is the PAP’s version of unemployment insurance

In a Facebook post, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim rejected PAP’s claim that the JSS isn’t unemployment insurance. He explained WP’s redundancy insurance plan, emphasizing shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government. While noting concerns about dependency, he argued these fears are exaggerated, stressing a balanced support approach.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, has offered his take on the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which he describes as the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) equivalent of unemployment insurance.

The JSS, unveiled with more details during Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally speech on 18 August, has sparked comparisons with the Workers’ Party’s own long-standing proposal for redundancy insurance (RI), first introduced in its 2006 manifesto.

In a 12 September Facebook post, Assoc Prof Lim emphasised that the WP had been advocating for a redundancy insurance scheme for almost two decades, providing substantial details on it in their 2016 policy paper.

“We’ve been thinking about the issue for a while now,” Lim stated, adding that the WP’s proposal has been part of global best practices for advanced economies for nearly a century.

Assoc Prof Lim dismissed the PAP’s argument that the JSS is not unemployment insurance.

He pointed out that the differences the PAP cites—such as JSS being tied to job-seeking conditions and funded from general revenue rather than payroll taxes—are inconsequential.

“Tax revenue is fungible, so it all comes from the people anyway,” Assoc Prof Lim explained.

He argued that funding the scheme from general revenue might even make it less equitable, as it could potentially shift the burden onto non-workers to subsidise workers.

The Workers’ Party’s version of redundancy insurance, Assoc Prof Lim highlighted, envisioned a shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government to ensure fairness and sustainability.

“We do believe in tripartism,” he remarked, underscoring that society should bear the responsibility for protecting its workers.

One of the central points in Assoc Prof Lim’s critique was that tying financial support to job-seeking efforts is standard in unemployment schemes globally, including in Singapore.

Assoc Prof Lim Addresses Concerns of Dependency, Calling Them Overblown

He acknowledged concerns that such a scheme might lead to dependency, but deemed these fears exaggerated.

“Most people, even in the West, do find value and meaning in some form of work,” he noted.

In discussing the design of unemployment insurance systems, Assoc Prof Lim pointed to the importance of balancing the duration of support with the amount provided.

While too long a tenure or too large a payout could discourage a return to the workforce and allow skills to erode, too little would leave workers struggling to cover household expenses during critical periods.

The WP’s redundancy insurance proposal included a payout of 40% of the last drawn income for up to six months, which Lim described as a “solid-but-not-excessively-generous” sum.

Although this amount is lower than what is typically found in advanced economies, and the duration is shorter than the OECD average of one year, he highlighted that it reflects Singapore’s shorter unemployment spells of around two months.

Assoc Prof Lim also suggested the introduction of greater flexibility in accessing redundancy insurance funds.

By allowing the unemployed to “front-load” their payouts, households would have more breathing room to adjust their expenses during difficult transitions.

With the JSS set to be debated in Parliament, Assoc Prof Lim reaffirmed the Workers’ Party’s commitment to advocating for expanded safety nets for Singapore’s workers.

“Whether you call it JSS or RI or something else, expanding the safety net for our workers is something that the Workers’ Party will always be fighting for,” he concluded.

Continue Reading

Trending