In 2005, then-Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam,
was the guest of honour at a youth and media conference. The key
theme was censorship. “Ask not what you can or cannot do, but do
something to make a difference instead,” Mr Tharman urged the
youths then.
Four years later, Mr Tharman, now Finance Minister, had a golden
opportunity to do just that – to make a difference.
On 18 August, Mr Tharman was repeatedly questioned in Parliament
on Mr Charles Goodyear’s resignation from Temasek Holdings. In
spite of a 25-minute grilling by Members of Parliament, according
to the Straits Times, the Finance Minister flatly refused to
divulge the “strategic reasons” which was offered by Temasek as the
reason for Mr Goodyear’s departure.
The parliamentary sitting was, to my mind, a case of irony.
We had new Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Viswa
Sadasivan, saying, “Accountability requires the government
to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater
democracy, civil liberties and choices”. He
was calling for the House to “[reaffirm] its commitment to the
nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when
debating national policies, especially economic
policies”.
If the Finance Minister’s refusal to answer MPs’ questions on
Goodyear’s resignation is not a travesty of the values espoused in
the Pledge, and of the standing and authority of Parliament, I
don’t know what is! Mr Tharman has given new meaning to the phrase
“lip service” – his lips moved but only to insult Singaporeans, not
to mention the parliamentarians in the chamber as well.
If the Government chooses not to be accountable to
questions in Parliament, citing the reason that it does not serve
any strategic purpose, then I say with great sadness as a
Singaporean, that Parliament is a sham, and our
parliamentarians should be ashamed, that this charade of
non-accountability, non-transparency, continues even after 44 years
of nationhood.
I was aghast at the Finance Minister’s remarks, that whilst he
agreed that it was “a matter of public interest”, he chose not to
answer the questions anyway. If there ever was a blatant disregard
for the public’s interest, this was it.
And as a minister in the service of the people, and as a
guardian of the people’s interests, Mr Tharman’s refusal to answer
the question is totally and utterly unacceptable.
Is he saying that what’s in the Government’s interest
(to not tell) is more important than the public’s
interest?
A Government which puts its own interest above that of
the people is not the people’s Government.
Has every Singaporean student’s daily recitation of our national
pledge “gone down the drain”?
Did we not, just a few days ago, boast about how significant it
was for the entire nation to recite the pledge at 8.22pm on
National Day – as we put our clenched fists to our hearts and spoke
the words which represented what we hold dear? Words such as “a
democratic society”, “based on justice and equality”?
The Prime Minister keeps telling Singaporeans to be
united. But, how can we be united, when Parliament is not
accountable to the people?
Why elect and appoint MPs to represent the people when the
Government can choose at its whim and fancy not to answer questions
and keep important answers to issues secret?
The secrecy surrounding Mr Goodyear’s resignation is not
the only example. There are the issues of Temasek’s investment
failures and losses, the reinstatement of Ms Ho Ching as CEO after
having resigned, the GIC’s huge losses too, the Mas Selamat escape
fiasco, and so on. No government official has been brought to
account for all these.
In the past, at least the Government tried to give all kinds of
reasons and excuses, as to why it was not good for the nation, to
disclose the information asked for.
This time round, the Government did not even attempt to give any
reason at all for not answering!
Maybe it has finally run out of excuses.
In any other democratic country, what happed in Singapore’s
Parliament on Tuesday is unthinkable – there would have been a
national uproar! MPs would resign! NGOs would protest!
As someone who once urged youths to not be afraid, and to “do
something to make a difference”, Mr Tharman certainly did not live
up to his own words. For, as Finance Minister, he had the
opportunity to make a substantial difference to the discourse over
how the two sovereign wealth funds operated – and to lift the veil
of secrecy which shrouds Temasek Holdings and the GIC.
“One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society
without first questioning and pushing the boundaries,” Mr Tharman
said in 2005.
Sadly, in 2009, that very “conviction and commitment” to society
of which he spoke was absent from the man himself.
Does Mr Tharman think that keeping his lips tight would help
enhance Temasek’s – and Singapore’s – international reputation for
transparency and accountability? Does Mr Tharman think that
shrouding Temasek in secrecy helps in its recruitment drive or
builds confidence in Temasek? As Finance Minister, does Mr Tharman
think that his silence helps in S’pore’s ambition to be a financial
hub?
And beyond the damage to Temasek and Singapore’s
international reputation, Mr Tharman’s refusal to provide answers
in Parliament has, to our minds, a more serious consequence – it
undermines the public’s faith and trust in the authority and
integrity of the House. For if the House is a place where
accountability can be dismissed or avoided by mere semantics, it
means the people’s voice and power, in our democratic society, has
little meaning – and Parliament nothing more than an empty shell, a
theatre for superficial debates.
Perhaps these are the public interest and strategic reasons
which Mr Tharman should have considered before he so callously
dismissed MPs’ questions.
Mr Tharman’s pathetic defence for non-disclosure is a mockery of
Parliament.
Indeed, our parliamentarians should all hang their heads in
shame.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/a-mockery-of-parliament/
