I gotta get me one of these!

Indranee to address Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin's 'unparliamentary language' in next House sitting

SINGAPORE — Leader of the House Indranee Rajah will be addressing Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin's use of unparliamentary language in the next parliamentary sitting.

In response to queries from TODAY, Ms Indranee said on Thursday (July 13) night: “As this matter concerns parliamentary conduct, the Leader of the House will address it at the next Parliamentary sitting.”

The date of the next sitting has not been announced yet, but it is expected to be in early August.

Ms Indranee's statement comes after Mr Tan issued an apology on his social media pages on Tuesday following a video of him uttering “f****** populist".

The hot mic incident, where a remark was inadvertently picked up by a live microphone, occurred during a Parliament sitting in April.

Mr Tan had muttered the vulgarity after a speech by Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim of Sengkang Group Representation Constituency.

According to the Standing Orders of Parliament — to which MPs are required to adhere —  questions and speeches should not include unparliamentary language such as vulgarities.

Experts told TODAY that while these rules do apply to the Speaker, this hot mic incident is similar to that of Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's "illiterate" comment made in September 2021, and no action was taken then.

They add that while the matter could also be considered close as Associate Professor Lim has accepted Mr Tan's apology, Mr Tan may regard it as appropriate for him to apologise to the House at its next sitting.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/indranee-address-speaker-tan-chuan-jins-unparliamentary-language-next-house-sitting-2210981

Point of order, Mr Speaker! An embarrassing week for Parliament

It has not been a very good week for the dignity of Parliament.

Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin had to apologise today (Jul 11) after footage of him using profanity to insult fellow MP Jamus Lim in Parliament was uncovered and circulated on social media. This follows a spat between Leader of the House Indranee Rajah and NCMP Leong Mun Wai just last week over the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted and the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker, which resulted in Mr Leong having to apologise. 

DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT

Parliament is a sacred institution that sits at the apex of our political system. It represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the conduct of parliamentarians must comport to the dignity of the institution. Responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker of Parliament, who is charged with presiding over parliamentary sittings and enforcing parliamentary rules, above all in a fair and impartial way. 

Yet the failure of the Speaker to demonstrate basic civility to a Member of an opposing party suggests that he is unsuited to carrying out this important duty. This incident should not be brushed off as just another isolated lapse of judgement. Rather, it is part of a worrying pattern of behaviour, symptomatic of a culture of mean spiritedness that has permeated Parliament of late. This is a culture unworthy of the dignity to which Parliament aspires, and for which the Speaker, as presiding officer, bears ultimate responsibility. 

Politicians are more than capable of holding their opponents to account. What is exponentially more difficult is holding themselves and their allies to the same high standards. Where politicians are unable or unwilling to do so, more independent oversight and greater transparency become necessary to preserve the dignity of Parliament and the credibility of our political system. 

SORRY, OR SORRY HE GOT CAUGHT?

The profanity used by the Speaker at the centre of this deeply embarrassing episode does not bear repeating. Suffice to say, he referred to his colleague as a ‘(expletive) populist’, following a speech made by the latter about poverty. 

This is not acceptable behaviour in any professional setting, much less in Parliament. But what is especially egregious is the fact that this incident took place on 17 April 2023, nearly 3 months ago. In his apology, the Speaker accepted that he ‘should not have expressed (his private thoughts) aloud or in unparliamentary language’. So clearly he knew what he did was wrong. Why then did he not immediately correct himself? Why did he wait until the clip was circulating online to apologise? 

Perhaps he felt it was acceptable to make such comments so long as nobody hears them. He noted that these were ‘private thoughts’ which he had ‘muttered to (himself) and not to anyone’. Of course, there is nothing illegal about holding one’s political opponents in contempt, or to ascribe malicious or even dishonest motives to them in private. But is this the kind of attitude that should be held by the Speaker of Parliament, whose explicit duty it is to be impartial? 

His private thoughts give us a rare glimpse into his attitude towards fellow Members, a factor that no doubt informs his behaviour. Given that leadership sets the culture of any organisation, one seriously wonders what kind of example the Speaker is setting for his Deputy Speakers and junior parliamentary officers behind closed doors, and what impact this has on parliamentary proceedings.

‘THAT’ VIDEO

The Speaker’s apology comes after another incident where the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker was called into question, this time in a video posted by the opposition Progress Singapore Party (PSP). It is not the intention of this article to relitigate that whole affair. Considering the PSP has itself apologised for the video, others can hardly be expected to defend it.  

However, the incident is noteworthy because of Leader of the House Indranee Rajah’s response. Instead of engaging in good faith and considering the possibility that there is a substantive difference between a debate and the asking of clarifications (whatever the merits of that argument may be), she pivoted to attack the motivations of Mr Leong, alleging that the video ‘was intended to cast aspersions on the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted, and to suggest that the Deputy Speaker was not carrying out his duties neutrally or fairly or in a proper manner.’ She did not pause to consider if there were genuine questions about the conduct of the Deputy Speaker, specifically how Mr Leong was the only one chided for referring to proceedings as a debate despite the fact that several other Members including the Prime Minister did so as well. 

While the PSP clearly attempted to frame events to suit a particular narrative, given the lack of explicit falsehoods it is difficult to see how a fair minded person could conclude that the video rises to the level of a ‘perverted report’ as required by the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. 

A PATTERN OF MEAN SPIRITEDNESS 

If this was an isolated occurrence, it would not be so concerning. But it is part of a pattern of personal attacks, partisanship and general mean spiritedness that has come to characterise Parliament. Examples include the now infamous ‘what is the point of the question?’ statement by then Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing in response to a simple request for employment data, and the ‘he’s illiterate’ and ‘lousy school’ comments by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan. 

Such statements are not at all in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, Standing Order 50(6), clearly states that ‘no Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member’, and Standing Order 50(4) states that ‘it shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of Parliament’. 

Even though these rules do not apply to so-called hot mic moments, the fact that some Members felt confident enough to make such statements within earshot of their colleagues, points to a cavalier attitude regarding treating others with respect, and a workplace culture where civility and good sportsmanship are subordinate to partisanship and political expediency. 

CONCLUSION 

It is hard to believe that those who have the privilege of holding high public office speak so crudely and recklessly behind closed doors. But even more worrying than the lack of judgement on display is the fact that the very individual charged with maintaining decorum is the one now responsible for breaching it.  

This is why live streaming parliamentary proceedings was absolutely the right decision. It was only through greater transparency that serious cultural deficiencies could be exposed. Steps must now be taken to restore Parliament to its rightful state. At minimum, this means abolishing the ridiculous rule that allows the Speaker to retain his political affiliation (Mr Tan remains part of the ruling People’s Action Party’s Central Executive Committee) and perhaps even appointing an explicitly non-partisan Speaker as is currently the case with Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). 

If it has not been made clear enough by now, Singaporean politicians are no different from politicians anywhere else in the world. Without proper independent oversight they simply do not have the necessary incentives to regulate their own behaviour.

https://politicalsophistry.wordpress.com/2023/07/11/point-of-order-mr-speaker-an-embarrassing-week-for-parliament/

Looks like Cardboard Tan can add another inglorious stain to his already tainted legacy

www.prolificskins.com

RDU Urges Parliament to Investigate Speaker's Offensive Language

RDU calls on Parliament to investigate Speaker's use of offensive and insulting language

• Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin apologised for using inappropriate language reported as "f****** populist", raising impartiality concerns in Parliament.

• His words were uttered after an opposition MP highlighted the struggles of families with lower-income due to high living costs and the pandemic were highlighted. He urged increased government support programmes for such households and individuals.

• Red Dot United calls for a non-partisan Speaker and a transparent investigation into the matter by Parliament.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker of Parliament, Tan Chuan-Jin, was caught on video during a parliamentary sitting muttering the words "f****** populist" after an opposition member of parliament spoke about the struggles faced by some people in Singapore and called for the government to do more to support the less fortunate, including the suggestion of establishing an official definition of poverty and improving support programmes.

After the video recording surfaced in an online forum, the Speaker apologised for using inappropriate language during a parliamentary session and claimed that it was the result of forming a private view of the speech. 

While his apology has been accepted by the member of parliament that it was referencing, the fact that the Speaker – who ought to be seen as impartial and neutral during every moment of parliamentary proceedings – is unable to maintain his personal views while actively performing his duties as the Speaker, raises doubts about the extent of his impartiality.

Even before this Freudian Slip, there has been some concern that the Speaker is a member of the ruling party's Central Executive Committee (CEC), which raises the risk of unconscious favouritism towards his own party when attempting to act with fairness towards all Members of Parliament. This incident lends weight to this vulnerability as it is now not unthinkable that the Speaker may inadvertently be unable to maintain any personal bias from interfering with his conduct as the Speaker.

Red Dot United (RDU) has always recognised this inherent risk and, soon after the General Election in 2020, we recommended that Parliament should have a non-partisan Speaker as this would eliminate any risk of fairness in parliament being compromised. This is not a novel suggestion as Singapore has had impartial Speakers in the past, such as Sir George Oehlers, A.P. Rajah, and Punch Coomaraswamy, who were not affiliated with any political party.

This incident is particularly disconcerting as Para 50(4) of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Singapore explicitly prohibits the use of offensive and insulting language about Members of Parliament. 

While we appreciate the Mr Tan's prompt apology, RDU calls for a formal parliamentary investigation to address the breach of parliamentary decorum caused by the Speaker's offensive and insulting language. 

This investigation will document the incident and serve as a precedent for future cases. It would also serve to ensure consistency and proportionality of consequence for breaches of the Standing Orders when they occur and be an overt act of upholding the principles that maintain the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.

Ultimately, upholding parliamentary standards is crucial for maintaining public trust and confidence in the institution. Addressing this incident promptly and with transparency will demonstrate Parliament's commitment to accountability and the preservation of parliamentary dignity. 

We encourage Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to maintaining a respectful and constructive environment conducive to robust democratic discussions, by addressing this issue appropriately.

https://reddotunited.sg/latest/f/rdu-urges-parliament-to-investigate-speakers-offensive-language

FUCK TAN CHUAN JIN AND THE PAP!!!!!!!

Foul-mouthed 就 foul-mouthed, 没有办法的 :(

Eh why is he foul-mouthed?