[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Members of Parliament from the Workers’ Party (MP) had the opportunity to debate suggested amendments to a motion they raised on Singapore’s judicial system in Parliament earlier this week, said on Saturday (Nov 7) House Leader Indranee Rajah.
All MPs were invited to speak on the amendments, but none from the opposition did, Ms Indranee said in a Facebook post.
The motion proposed by WP President Sylvia Lim was approved Wednesday after amendments were made to its wording and to remove a request for review from the system.
The original motion read: “This House affirms that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore’s judicial system, and calls on the Government to recognize and correct its deficiencies in order to improve justice for all, regardless of means. or social status, including facilitating a review of the justice system ”.
After the majority of the speeches were delivered, Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai proposed some amendments “to better reflect the actual course and substance of the debate,” Ms Indranee said.
The motion was eventually amended to read: “This House recognizes that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore’s judicial system and affirms the Government’s continued efforts since independence to build a just and just society, and remedy any deficiency in order to improve justice for all, regardless of their race, language, religion, economic means or social status “.
READ: Motion on Singapore’s justice system passed after amendments, opposed by WP MPs
DID THE PAP CANCEL THE WP MOVEMENT?
Describing the sequence of events in Parliament that led to the amendments, Ms Indranee said in her Facebook post on Saturday: “What actually happened to the amended motion in Parliament on Wednesday night? Does the PAP really canceled the WP motion? Or did something? will more happen? “
The initial motion was triggered by the case of Parti Liyani, a former Indonesian maid employed by former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and her family.
Ms. Parti was convicted in March last year by a lower court of robbing the Liew family, but the High Court overturned her conviction on September 4. The judge outlined various problems with the conviction findings and how the case was handled.
Discussion on the motion followed a ministerial statement by Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam on the case.
Ms Indranee said on Saturday that WP’s call for a review of the justice system in her motion suggested that “the whole system needs a review.”
“This would be necessary if the system as a whole is faulty. However, as the debate progressed, it became clear that there was a bipartisan consensus that our system is not broken, it has served Singapore well, and is improving. But as with any system, it can be improved even more. “
Indranee also said that there was “a lot of common ground” between the Popular Action Party (PAP) and the WP MPs in the debate, as both agreed on the fundamental values that underpin Singapore’s justice system: fairness, access and independence. .
Both sides also took note of the measures taken by the government and the progress over the years, he added.
“The debate was really about what we can do to further improve the system, with suggestions from both the opposition and PAP MPs,” Ms Indranee wrote.
WATCH: Sylvia Lim on the Singapore Court System Review
MORE CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENTS THAN REJECTING THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT
As the discussion drew to a close, Ms Indranee said it became clear that many of the suggestions put forward by the working group were already being actively reviewed by the Government.
“For example, regarding the call to improve access to justice, Minister Shanmugam said that the government is reviewing the possibility of an Office of Public Defenders. Other suggestions could not be implemented so easily due to the high costs and possible disadvantages. “.
For suggestions that the government disagreed with, Ms Indranee said that PAP ministers went to great lengths to explain why this was so.
“It was a positive and totally constructive discussion, and many on my side of the aisle appreciated the contributions of Ms. Lim and her colleagues as much as we did of the PAP backbenchers,” he said.
After nearly all of the speeches were delivered, it became clear that a “broad-based and root-review” of the court system was not necessary, Ms. Indranee said.
As such, Mr. Murali proposed some amendments. This was done in the spirit of wanting to establish common ground with the opposition, Ms. Indranee said.
“This was surely a more constructive course of action than simply rejecting the WP motion entirely,” said Ms. Indranee.
He added that the President of Parliament had invited all MPs to speak on the amendments, but none of the opposition MPs did.
“Even after the motion was amended, as it was unclear whether Ms. Sylvia Lim had wanted to speak about the amendment, I held back from delivering my speech and asked the Speaker to first clarify with Ms. Lim whether he had wanted to talk about the amendment. Ms. Lim said she just wanted to speak to close the debate, ”Ms. Indranee said.
Indranee said opposition MPs did not oppose the first amendment, which he replaced “affirms” with “acknowledges.”
On the second amendment, which affirms the Government’s continued efforts since independence to build a just and equitable society, the opposition MPs voted “no”, despite their agreement that Singapore has a good system that is not broken, Mrs. Indranee said.
Opposition MPs also voted “no” on the third amendment, which affirms the government’s continued efforts to remedy any shortcomings.
“This was puzzling and sad. This amendment was intended to reflect the fact that the system is not flawed as a whole, but can be improved. Certainly, Murali was not saying there were no shortcomings, as he stood up to clarify.
“On the contrary, by including the words ‘any deficiency’, the amendment expressly recognizes that there are indeed deficiencies and that they must be addressed, as we have addressed other deficiencies over the years,” said Ms Indranee.
He added that the amended motion sought to be fair and acknowledge that the Government has continuously tried to improve the system for years.
“But the opposition parliamentarians would not recognize it,” he added.
Opposition MPs did not oppose the fourth amendment, which states “improving justice for all regardless of race, language, religion and economic means,” which adds to the social status proposed in the original motion.
They voted “no” on the fifth amendment, which was done to eliminate the call for a review of the justice system considering that the debate showed that many of the suggestions presented were already being reviewed and there was no need for a complete review of the system. system, Ms. Indranee added.
“The amendments proposed by Mr. Murali were aimed at more accurately reflecting the real debate in the House and establishing common ground with the Opposition. He urged the support of both parties. But that was not the case, ”he said.
“However, the government will continue our efforts to improve our system and improve justice for all,” he added.
