Tan Chuan-Jin & Ong Ye Kung Responded to WP’s Subtle Message That the COP is ‘Bias’

By
George Yang
-

If you’re still not familiar with the Committee of Privileges’ (COP) final report about Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament, you should watch this three-minute summary first:

What started out as a lie by a Member of Parliament (MP) has now affected two other sitting MPs, and the Workers’ Party (WP) in general.

While we as citizens can put forth any opinion during our chit-chat session in a coffee shop, it’s a tad different when it comes to official statements from the relevant parties.

After the COP’s final report was released, the people involved didn’t do a Lim Tean and blame the establishment for everything.

All was quiet…but a day after that, WP released a statement, which opened a can of…responses.

Chair of COP Tan Chuan-Jin: “Attempts to Politicise the Matter Even Before It has Been Debated are Regrettable.”

Here’s their simple response:

And here’s the single sentence that has caused quite a hoo-ha: “Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap will be expressing their views on the COP report in Parliament (which, like the COP, is dominated by MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party).”

If you just skimmed through it, it sounded like just another sentence in the statement.

But read again and you’d see the subtext: it seems like the Workers’ Party is hinting that the decision wasn’t exactly impartial.

It’s fine if you give that opinion to Ah Hock in a coffee shop, but when you’re the one involved in the situation, you’d definitely get a response.

And it didn’t take long for the responses to come.

The chair of the COP, Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, came out with a statement on the same day. He said that the WP’s statement “suggests that the COP’s recommendations are related to the political work of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, as opposition Members of Parliament (MPs). It further suggests that this would affect the building of a democratic society.”

He added that the COP’s findings are “based on objective evidence, which is available to all to see”.

In the Parliament website, you can not only read the final report, but a transcript of every single hearing that has been conducted and all the evidences that the witnesses had provided. But if you really intend to read them all, prepare to free up at least 1,000 hours.

He added, “The motion on the COP’s findings and recommendations will be debated and decided on their merits, in full public view. Attempts to politicise the matter even before it has been debated are regrettable.”

For Mr Singh and Mr Faisal, who could be facing charges, Speaker Tan said that they “will have the full opportunity to defend themselves in a Court of Law” should they be charged.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

Health Minister Ong Ye Kung: Judge is Independent

Health Minister Ong Ye Kung might not be part the COP, but with him being at a public event in Woodlands Health Campus, it’s no surprise that someone posted the question.

He’s more direct, saying that “Workers’ Party statement alluded to the fact that in Parliament, they are outnumbered by PAP members. So any vote they’ll lose; I think that’s what they are trying to drive at.”

However, he said that it was proper and correct for the COP to refer Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor (i.e. get charged), and should there be a trial, they can defend their themselves and clear their names, adding that “issue of being outnumbered by PAP members doesn’t arise in a court of law…The judge is independent, the judge is objective and further, if no wrong is done, there is no fear of the Leader of Opposition (Mr Singh) losing his seat.”

According to Singapore laws, an MP would lose his or her seat if the person “has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon.”

Lest you’re not aware, a judge isn’t part of the government—he or she merely decide what is right and law based on arguments by both sides.

Currently, it’s still unknown when the debate for this would take place. As it will take place in a parliament sitting, you can watch it live on MCI’s YouTube channel.

Read Also:

Featured Image: Facebook (Tan Chuan-Jin & Ong Ye Kung)

Over in TikTok, there’s a drama involving property agents that’s caused by us. Here’s what happened:

Read Also:

Advertisements
 
George Yang
Email: [email protected]