The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has expressed strong opposition to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s disparaging remarks about Indian parliamentarians, and has raised the issue with Singapore’s High Commissioner in Delhi.
Loong’s remarks, according to the MEA, were ‘uncalled for.’
Loong stated on February 15, 2022 during a debate in the Singapore Parliament that politics around the world are changing and that people’s trust in the political class is dwindling.
Loong used Jawaharlal Nehru to argue how a democracy should work during a debate on the Committee of Privileges’ report on complaints about untruths told by former Workers’ Party lawmaker Raeesah Khan.
However, he also stated that many Indian parliamentarians are currently facing criminal charges.
More news from India’s media. Read here.
—-
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the debate on the Report of the Committee of Privileges in Parliament on 15 February 2022
Full Transcript of Speech by PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Report of the Committee of Privileges at the Parliament Sitting on 15 February 2022. [Source: Prime Minister’s Office Singapore]
Please scroll down for the Chinese translations of the English transcript.
* * * * *
Mr Speaker Sir,
According to the Order Paper, we are debating what actions Parliament should take, having received the report of the Committee of Privileges (CoP).
But as the Leader of the House told us just now, the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in Singapore. What are the institutions, the norms, the values, that are essential for our democratic system to function properly? How do we apply these general principles to specific cases, like the one before us now, so as to protect these institutions, norms, and values? And how can we secure our democracy for the future, so that it can long deliver happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation? These are the three more fundamental questions that I wish to discuss today.
Bedrock of State Institutions
The quality of a country’s democracy hinges on its people’s values: what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, the ideals they embrace. Whichever example you look at, at whatever point in history, you will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day. That is how healthy democratic systems can elect good, incorruptible people with the right values, and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics.
This cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. It is where the most important matters of state are discussed; laws are enacted; supplies of money are voted, with the Government setting the direction and proposing policies, while answering to the public through Parliament, and the Opposition holding the Government to account, while also being a government-in-waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people. To fulfil its vital role, Parliament must be respected, and its members, processes and proceedings must be trusted.
Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protect the dignity and standing of Parliament. The system cannot work if the standing of Parliament is called into question. This is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among Parliamentarians, and guard them carefully. Tell the truth always, and do the right thing by Singapore, even when it is hard or awkward – in fact especially when it is hard or awkward. If something goes wrong, or something wrong has been done, own up and take responsibility – do not hide, dodge, or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib. The right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance’s sake. They have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear.
MPs must be people with integrity at their core, who speak and act in an upright manner, always putting duty before self, and country before party. And our highest duty – our ultimate loyalty – is not to our party, but to Singapore. That is why when taking office, MPs swear “to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore”. In fact, this applies to everyone engaged in Singapore politics, MP or not. As Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying, who was Mr Pritam Singh’s former assistant, told the Committee: “It pains me greatly, but to me, beyond anything else, it’s important to be truthful to my country”. I believe every member of this House will agree with her.
Our democratic system also depends on the people of Singapore –voters – endorsing, insisting on and backing the same norms and values. So, they can discern for themselves – as Ms Loh did – when something is wrong, and hold accountable those in power, or aspiring to power, when their actions fall short of these high standards. That is how a democracy can function properly.
Public Trust
Inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades. It takes unremitting effort and passion, and it does not always succeed.
Most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values. But more often than not, beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation, over decades and generations, gradually things change. Things start off with passionate intensity. The leaders, who fought for and won independence, are often exceptional individuals of great courage, immense culture, and outstanding ability. They came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations. They are the David Ben-Gurions, the Jawaharlal Nehrus, and we have our own too. Imbued with enormous personal prestige, they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world, and shape a new future for their peoples, and for their countries. But beyond that initial fervour, succeeding generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive. They start out as healthy democracies, with idealism and zeal. But over time, the tone of the society changes. All too easily – a slip here, a blind eye there, a fudge, a trim – and gradually things go downhill. The texture of politics changes, respect for politicians declines. After a while, the electorate comes to think this is the norm, and you cannot expect better. So, standards get debased, trust is eroded, and the country declines further.
Many political systems today would be quite unrecognisable to their founding leaders. Ben-Gurion’s Israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government, despite four general elections in two years. Meanwhile, a stream of senior politicians and officials in Israel face a litany of criminal charges, some have gone to jail. While Nehru’s India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder. Though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically motivated.
What is to prevent Singapore from going down the same road? Nothing. We are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries. Modern Singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism.
Our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions. Even after the Barisan Sosialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our Parliamentary democracy and multi-party system. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained, at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state. But he deliberately chose not to, because he knew that without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would over time become complacent and flabby, and that would be disastrous for Singapore.
So the founding fathers took the more robust way. They kept politics contestable. They built up institutions – Parliament, the judiciary, the civil service, the police and armed forces, and later the elected President and the Council of Presidential Advisors – to enable Singapore to operate on a more resilient basis, not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers, pushing all the buttons, making everything work. Still, to operate these institutions you need good people, and they needed to recruit, train and deploy ministers, MPs, judges, civil servants, experts in many fields. People of ability and commitment, with a sense of public service, and above all with honesty and integrity, whom Singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty, put Singapore first, and make this country succeed. And that is how the system we have today came to be.
It is incumbent on all of us – each succeeding generation – to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited. This requires us to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law. If we can do that – consistently, persistently, unflinchingly – then we have a shot at making things work. People can trust our leaders, our systems, and our institutions. Our democracy can mature, deepen and grow more resilient, as both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values. Singapore can continue to flourish. But if we allow ourselves to slacken – loosen standards here, just a bit; overlook a lie there, just this time – the virtuous cycle will stutter and start to fail.
What is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going, that keeps Singapore on the up and not on the down? It is Trust. On his 100th birthday, former US Secretary of State George Shultz reflected on this. This was a year and a bit ago, December 2020, he wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said it one of the most important lessons in his long life, that: “Trust is the coin of the realm”. “When trust was in the room,” he wrote, “good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.”
We saw how this worked in the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others. I have been saying this for two years but recently there was a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, which confirmed this, studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and together with low corruption saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage. Because the people’s trust in government, and their trust in each other, made much more difference to the outcome even more than the resources spent on healthcare, and even whether they had a universal healthcare system or not, what mattered most was ‘did they trust each other? Did they trust their leaders?’ Singapore is fortunate to be one of these high-trust societies. We have tried to build upon it during the pandemic, but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently, assiduously, step-by-step, never allowing it to be eroded, and therefore, having this with us when we go into battle – an enormous asset.
The opposite happened in other countries, for example in the US and the UK. In the US, trust in the political system has all but broken down. Three-quarters of Republican voters have been made to believe the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen, that Mr Biden is not a legitimate President and Mr Trump should be the President today. How do you uphold a system, when a large segment of the population is convinced the elected government is illegitimate? Every issue is politicised; government becomes gridlocked; the country suffers. That is the key reason why many Americans refuse to be vaccinated, or to wear masks; why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe; and why they have suffered so many COVID-19 deaths. Or look at the ongoing uproar in Britain about the “Partygate” scandal, in Westminster, the “Mother of Parliaments”, no less. The scandal has been attributed to “failures of leadership and judgment” in an official government report. By ignoring its own rules, the current UK government has caused a severe breakdown of trust, and lost credibility in its COVID-19 controls.
Singapore may be a high-trust society today, but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one. It is essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards, ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values, call out wrongs when wrongs are done, mete out punishment when punishment is due, preserve the sanctity of our institutions, never take the public trust for granted, and never allow lies, half-truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics.
CoP
That is what is at stake as we deliberate Parliament’s response to the Committee of Privileges report. Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament – twice on 3 Aug last year, and a third time when questioned two months later on 4 Oct. Subsequently, she admitted to lying to Parliament. To deal with this breach of Parliamentary privilege, we convened the CoP. Ms Khan was called up, as were other witnesses. The CoP deliberated extensively, before reaching a reasoned conclusion: that Ms Khan was guilty, and should be fined for each occasion she lied. I hope all Members can agree with these findings and the penalty to be imposed on Ms Khan.
But in the process of the CoP’s deliberations, two other significant issues arose. The CoP has drawn them to Parliament’s attention and suggested to Parliament how to deal with them. First, whether the three WP leaders – Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim – had instructed Ms Khan to continue with her lie in Parliament. If they did, this is surely as serious or more serious a misconduct as Ms Khan speaking an untruth in Parliament. Parliament will need to deal with this, but only after we have cleared the second, even graver matter. This graver matter is, as the Leader explained, whether after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth, the three WP leaders told untruths to the CoP, in order to cover up their instructions to Ms Khan to continue lying. It became clear to the CoP that there were striking contradictions between what the three MPs claimed to the Committee were their honourable intentions, and the hard evidence of what they actually did, or very often, failed to do. And there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the WP leaders.
Being untruthful under oath is no small matter. It means lying, despite solemnly affirming you will tell the truth. In this case, not once, not twice but repeatedly, over many hours of extensive questioning, and on several days. The CoP’s assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors, but deliberate, premeditated acts, done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive. They are not just breaches of Parliamentary privilege, but if proven in court, they amount to perjury – lying under oath. And perjury is a serious criminal offence.
So, there are two distinct problems. One, whether the three MPs instructed Ms Khan to lie; and two, whether the three MPs themselves lied under oath. Both, if established, reflect very badly on the WP leaders, and in particular, on the Leader of the Opposition. Both issues, if not dealt with properly, will dishonour Parliament, and bring this august institution into disrepute.
Some ask: “Wasn’t Ms Raeesah Khan the one who lied? Why are the WP leaders being treated more harshly?”
As the Leader of the House noted just now, if the Committee is right, then Mr Singh and his fellow WP leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the CoP. They lied under oath to protect themselves, to cover up their role, and to push the blame solely onto Ms Khan, claiming that she and other witnesses, like Ms Loh, had lied to the CoP. This is indeed more serious than what Ms Khan did, if it is so. By lying under oath, they sought to frustrate the CoP process. They displayed the same kind of misconduct that the CoP was set up to address. They betrayed the trust reposed in them as MPs – not least Mr Singh, the Leader of the Opposition. This, I hope Members appreciate, if true, is a very grave matter.
So, MPs must decide what Parliament will now do about this. Can we pretend nothing happened? Or if that is too much to stomach, given the strong evidence laid out by the CoP, perhaps we lower our standards just a little, note that untruths were told, but argue that it was after all not so serious a lie, and no harm was done?
If we do either of these things, we too would become complicit in dishonouring and demeaning Parliament. We must take the transgression seriously, and act on it. And I am glad that is the conclusion the CoP has come to and recommended to the House.
What alternative choices did the CoP have? It could have recommended to Parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist. But that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly. Worse, by lowering our norms, we would be telling Singaporeans that it is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie. Alternatively, the CoP could have recommended that Parliament itself metes out an appropriately heavy penalty. This is something that Parliament has the power to do. But had the CoP recommended that, and Parliament decided on the penalty itself, the Opposition would surely have cried foul, and accused the PAP of using its majority to persecute the Opposition. In fact, they are already insinuating this, as a smokescreen to obscure the real issue – that the WP had lied while under solemn oath.
I believe therefore, that what the CoP recommends is thus the best way forward. Since a criminal offence appears to have been committed, let Parliament refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let the Public Prosecutor consider the evidence afresh, let the system work. If charges are filed, Mr Pritam Singh and also Mr Faisal Manap can defend themselves in court. The Court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear.
I commend this course of action to the House. And if I were Mr Singh, I would vote in favour of both motions. Fine Ms Khan, because she is guilty beyond doubt. In fact, Mr Singh’s own party member Mr Dennis Tan, who was on the CoP, thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offence. And if Mr Singh maintains that he and his fellow WP leaders have done nothing wrong, he should also vote in favour of referring his own case, and that of Mr Faisal Manap, to the Public Prosecutor. Indeed, he should demand a court trial, in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself, vindicate his reputation, and clear his name. That is what I would do if I were Mr Singh.
Regrettably, pro-Workers’ Party voices on the social media have taken quite a different tack. Before the matter can be conclusively determined, if necessary in court, they are doing their best to confuse the issues and rouse sympathy. They are asking the public to clear their names of the three MPs, suggesting that referring their case to the Public Prosecutor is political persecution.
What they are really saying is this: Don’t look too carefully at what Mr Singh did, just remember who he is: He is the Opposition that you voted for; He is the Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of his position, he should not be referred to the Public Prosecutor; and any action against him must, by definition, be politically motivated; because who he is is more important than what he has done – even if he may have committed a crime.
Some people may be taken in, and sympathise with this story. They say, why not just let the matter rest? Can’t we find a compromise solution? After all, it would be easier for the government not to have to pursue this matter against the three MPs. We have a full enough agenda. But, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP is the Government, we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this House, and to imbue Singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system, and critical to our success.
Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Kiang as Secretary General of the Workers’ Party. Mr Low served for a very long time – 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the WP. He said he hoped the WP could help to build a First-World Parliament for Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done.
Because what has happened is a betrayal of what WP claimed it stood for. But judging by Mr Low’s public comments, he is confident the party can ride this out. And it need not be a setback for our democracy either, provided we hold Mr Singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonouring the standards of this House, and also for possibly breaking the law.
Future of Singapore’s Democracy
Mr Speaker, we are all engaged in the same project – to build up Singapore’s democracy and create a political system that will serve Singaporeans well for many years to come. And to do that, we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values.
I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation, and I accept that. I expect that this is the way Singapore will go, in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves. And it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the WP won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition, and equip him with the resources and support to play his role. That is the way a responsible Government can help a credible, responsible Opposition to emerge, and contribute to the maturing of our political system. But the office of the Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities – setting the tone for opposition MPs, enforcing standards of conduct on his own party, and above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque.
Mr Speaker, integrity is the linchpin of democracy. The stakes of today’s debate might have been lower if the Opposition were a negligible presence, as they were from 1966 until the 1980s. The PAP was overwhelmingly dominant, the public generally had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians, the tone of the country and its governance was set by the PAP, and the high standards that the PAP imposed on itself. But with Singapore heading towards a more contested landscape, the competence and honesty of the Opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter. The question of “what are the right values and how should we uphold them?” becomes of fundamental importance for both the Opposition and the governing party.
Every election henceforth would be about who wins the mandate to run this country. If the system is working properly, the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest, competent, and trusted. If the governing party falls short, and Singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible, more competent, and more trustworthy, then the governing party should be voted out, and that opposition party should be voted in, to form the next government. We cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in government. Nor can we assume that the WP, or some other opposition party, or any other opposition party, will always stay in the opposition.
I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible. But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain because a small island city-state like Singapore – the only one in the world like this – needs a strong, effective and good Government, whoever leads it.
With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards. There can be no excuses, no double standards, and no pardoning of inexcusable behaviour, just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog.
Mr John Major, the former British Prime Minister recently made a speech, triggered by Partygate, I am sure, lamenting the state of British politics today. It was a cri de coeur, a cry from the heart. Let me read you a few excerpts: “There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are ‘all the same’, and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life.” “But politicians are not ‘all the same’. And lies are just not acceptable.” “To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life, and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead.” “But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.” “If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is … nothing and no-one. And where are we then?” “If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in government will be lost too.”
John Major’s is a Western view, but in Eastern society too, norms and values are crucial, in fact even more than in Western philosophy, because Western philosophy says checks and balances, but Eastern philosophy says your virtues, your moral standing – that is what give you the right to govern. In Confucian thought, there are four social guidelines (四维) that hold a state together: rituals, righteousness, probity, and shame (礼义廉耻). Probity, or desisting from corruption, is about upright behaviour; it is a norm that can be enforced using laws. But shame, a reaction to wrongdoing, is a moral disposition; it is about one’s own sense of right and wrong, whether we know we have done the right thing, or we know we have fallen short, even when nobody said so. That has to come from within ourselves, from our own values, and our own consciences. Absent that sense of shame, people may comply with laws for fear of punishment, but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, and to take responsibility when they have fallen short of the standards expected of them.
What I personally find most disappointing in the WP narrative and in their response, including in this House today, is the complete absence of any admission that the three MPs have done anything wrong. There is no contrition.
Mr Speaker Sir, whether you take a Western or Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly. The public will mistrust not only individual leaders, or particular political parties, but the whole political system. And this has happened too often elsewhere.
If that happens, what do you do? What can you do? How can democracy function when there is no one we can trust to put in charge? How do you put Humpty Dumpty together again? How do you restart from zero? Press reset? A democracy not founded on integrity stands on shaky ground, and will sooner or later totter. If instead of trust being “the coin of the realm”, as George Shultz puts it, lies become “the accepted currency of public life”, as John Major said, all the sound and fury of contestation and debate will signify nothing good for the country.
As Singapore politics grows more competitive, we must make sure that the competition is honest, impartial, and above-board. Where the system runs properly, and our institutions remain sacred and respected by all. Where good people work together constructively to serve Singaporeans, wherever they stand on the political spectrum. And, most basic of all, where Singaporeans can trust those who represent them to conduct themselves honestly and honourably, and act on behalf of the public, and of Singapore.
Closing
Mr Speaker, the CoP report is long and detailed, but the core issues are few and stark. We have scrutinised Ms Khan’s actions, and its rights and wrongs. She has admitted her wrongdoings, and will be punished appropriately for them. We thought the matter could be closed off straightforwardly. But there turned out to be a much larger problem. Online, people call this Raeesah-Gate, after Watergate. And just like in the original Watergate affair, while investigating Ms Khan’s transgressions, the CoP unexpectedly stumbled upon a cover-up by WP leaders, even more serious than the original offence. The CoP did not expect this. But now with the findings before us, it is our responsibility, Parliament’s responsibility, for the MPs to take the necessary and appropriate course of action.
Mr Speaker Sir, trust is crucial for democracy to work well. Being truthful is fundamental to establishing trust. Honesty is non-negotiable. If you tell lies, how can the public trust you? If someone in a position of responsibility tells lies, and visibly gets away with it, how can the public trust the system? And if Parliament condones lying among its own members, how can Singaporeans trust the institution of Parliament? If we let flagrant, egregious transgressions pass, it will erode trust in our leaders, respect for Parliament, and support for our whole political system, and Singapore will be heading for trouble.
As the longest serving Member of this House, I feel a greater responsibility for this than most. When I first entered this House 37 years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr E.W. Barker and Mr Jek Yeun Thong were still Members. Six of the 10 who signed the Separation Agreement on 9 August 1965. I have witnessed first-hand how the founding generation built up this place, handed it to us in good shape. For me, this is a sacred trust. And it should be a sacred trust too, for every MP. We must all never fail to serve Singaporeans to the best of our ability, responsibly and honestly, and uphold this institution of Parliament, as the foundation of a robust and healthy democracy.
I call on all Members in this House, old and new, government and opposition, elected and nominated, to weigh the facts, vote with your conscience, and join me to do your duty to Singapore.
Mr Speaker Sir, I support the motions.
* * * * *
诚信是新加坡民主的基石
李显龙总理针对国会特委会报告 ● 演讲实录
议长先生：
根据今天的议程，我们辩论的是国会收到特权委员会的报告后，应该采取什么行动。
但正如国会领袖刚告诉我们的，我们面对的更大问题，是新加坡的民主应该如何运行。我们的民主制度的良好运作，需要哪些必不可少的机制、规范和价值观？我们如何把这些普遍原则贯彻到具体案例中，比如我们正面对的这一宗，来保护这些机制、规范和价值观？我们要如何为了未来而保障我们的民主，确保民主能带给我们幸福、繁荣与进步？这是三个我今天想讨论的、更本质性的问题。
国家体制的基石
一个国家的民主的品质，系于人民的价值观。人们判别是非黑白、他们认为何事重要、他们拥护什么使命、他们拥抱什么理念。不管你观察什么例子，在历史的任何时刻，你都会发现运行良好的民主都有清晰、有力的规范。这些规范被治理者和被治理者、以及有志成为治理者的人所维护。这是健全的民主制度能选出优良、有正确价值观并不会腐化的人的方法。这会启动一个良性循环，好的民主产生好政府、好政府产生好政策。
这个循环必须由牢固的机制来支撑和延续。国会位处我们的民主制度的塔尖，这里是讨论最重要的国家事务的地方，制定法律的地方，投票表决财政预算案的地方。政府在国会制定方向、提出政策，通过国会向民众负责；反对党在国会监督政府，同时若执政党失去民心，反对党就是候任政府。
为了履行这个关键职务，国会必须被尊敬，其成员、流程和程序必须被信任。
清楚的规范和不可被腐化的价值观，对于保护国会的尊严和威信至关重要。
如果国会的威信被质疑，整个系统就不能运作。这是为何我们须要对国会成员制定该有的规范，并小心维护这些规范。始终说实话，做对新加坡而言正确的事。即使有时这样做是困难或尴尬的，事实上，尤其当这样做是困难或尴尬时更需要如此。如果有事情搞砸了，或犯了错误，就要承认并负起责任，不要躲、藏、闪，或编织更多谎言，来混淆或掩盖原来的小谎言。
正确的规范，只能由有正确价值观的人来维护，因为这些规范不只是人们为了观感而遵守的社会惯例，它们必须是当事人相信与坚持的内在价值观的对外展现。
国会议员必须持心公正，以正直的风范发言和行事，始终将责任放在个人之上，把国家放在政党之上。我们的最高职责，我们终极效忠的对象不是我们的政党，而是新加坡。这是为什么在就职时，国会议员宣誓“对新加坡共和国忠诚并效忠”。事实上，这适用于所有参与新加坡政治的人，不论是不是国会议员。
毕丹星先生的前助理、工人党干部罗佩英告诉委员会：“这深深刺痛我，但对我来说，比任何事都重要的，是对我的国家诚实。”我相信这个国会里的每一个成员，都会同意她的说法。
我们的民主制度也有赖于新加坡人民、选民承认、坚持、支撑同样的这些规范和价值观。这样，他们自己就能辨识—就像罗女士一样——辨识错误发生，并在那些有权势或有志于获得权势的人的行为达不到这些高标准时，向他们追责。民主是以这样的方式来正常运行的。
公共信任
向选民与他们的领袖灌输正确的价值观，是数十年的工作，它需要不懈的努力和热情，而且不总是成功。
有许多国家在崇高的理念和价值上成立，但在多数的情况下，在建国领导人和建国一代之后，经过多年与多代人，事情就慢慢起了变化。事情开始时，都有着强烈的激情，那些奋斗并争取到独立的领导人，往往是有巨大勇气、深厚文化和突出能力的非凡个人。他们通过了火的试炼，成为国家和人民的领袖。他们是大卫·本古里安（David Ben Gurion）们、贾瓦哈拉尔·尼赫鲁（Jawaharlal Nehru）们，我们也有我们自己的建国元勋。
带着巨大的个人声望，他们立志达到人民的高要求，建设一个勇敢的新世界，为他们的人民和国家塑造一个新的未来。然而，在最初的热情之后，接班的世代往往发现很难持续这样的动力和使命。这些国家建国时是理想主义和奋发的健康民主政体，但日子久了，社会的基调就变了。这太容易了：这里一个闪失、那里一个盲点、一处敷衍、一点偷工减料，慢慢事情就走下坡了。政治的质感变了，对政治人物的尊敬减低。再过一阵子，选民就会认为这就是常态：你不能期待有更好的。于是，标准堕落了，信任被侵蚀，国家进一步衰退。
今天的很多政治体系，会让他们的建国领袖们都不太认得了。本古里安的以色列虽然在两年内举行了四次全国大选，却已变形为一个几乎组成不了政府的国家。以色列一批资深政治人物和官员面对连串的犯罪指控，其中一些人已入狱。根据一些媒体报道，在尼赫鲁的印度，人民众议院里有半数议员面对犯罪指控，其中包括强奸和谋杀罪的指控，虽然据说这些指控中有许多是政治原因驱动的。
有什么可以避免新加坡走上同样的道路吗？没有。我们在本质上并不比其他国家更聪明或更贤良。现代新加坡并非天生就有万无一失的机制。
我们的建国者竭尽所能，奠下牢固的基础，建立坚实的机构。就算在当时主要的反对党社阵1966年决定放弃议席，出走国会，把整个场子都留给人民行动党，我们的建国者坚持守护国会的民主和多党的制度。李光耀先生曾经说明，当时，在人民行动党完全主导的情况下，他原本可以修改宪法，让新加坡成为一党专政的国家。但是他刻意不这么做，因为他知道，如果没有竞争和赢得选举的必要，执政党承平日久，会变得自满松弛，而那对新加坡会是灾难性的。
我们的建国元勋因而采用了更为健全的做法。他们让政治保持竞争性。他们建设体制——国会、司法机构、公务员制度、警察部队和武装部队；之后还设立了民选总统和总统顾问理事会——让新加坡的运作更具韧性，而不仅是依靠几个关键人物操控权柄。然而，体制仍然须要合格的人来掌管，得在很多领域选贤与能——部长、议员、法官、公务员、很多领域的专家。他们必须有能力和奉献精神，有心为公共服务，更重要的诚信和正直，让新加坡人能依靠他们执行公务，以新加坡为先，让国家得以成功。这便是我们今天所拥有的制度的由来。
我们须义不容辞——每一代人皆如此——保护并完善我们所继承的制度。这需要我们刚正不阿，贯彻规定且坚持高标准，对所有人一视同仁，确保没有人享有法外特权。如果我们能这么做，且由始至终、一以贯之、毫不动摇地这么做，那我们或许有成功的机会。当被治理者和治理者共同拥抱且践行正确的规范和价值，人民就会信任我们的领袖，我们的制度，以及我们的体制。我们的民主就能够成熟、深化并变得更具韧性。新加坡便可继续茁壮成长。可是如果我们有所松懈，这里稍稍放松一下标准，那里破例对谎言视而不见，这个良性循环就不再顺滑并开始衰败。
是什么关键因素让这个良性循环循环不息，让新加坡蒸蒸日上而不是每况愈下？那就是信任。美国前国务卿乔治·舒尔茨（George Shultz）在庆祝自己百岁诞辰时，对此有所省思。那是在2020年的12月，他在百岁生日时写了一篇报章投函，说自己漫长生命的最重要教训是：“信任是国家的硬通货。”他写道：“如果信任存在，好事就会发生。如果信任荡然无存，好事便不会发生。其他都只是旁枝末节。”
我们在冠病疫情见识了这个道理。一些国家应对得比其他国家好，信任就是关键因素。我重申这点已经两年多了，但英国医学杂志《柳叶刀》最近刊登的一份研究报告证实这点。报告研究了多个国家后发现，那些信任度高且贪污现象低的国家，感染率相对慢，疫苗接种率更高。因为人民相信政府，彼此信任，比投入多少资源于医疗体系，更能产生不一样的效果。相较于国家是否有全民医疗保障，人民是否彼此信任，人民是否相信政府，才是决定性因素。新加坡很幸运，属于这类高信任感的社会。我们在疫情期间继续加强互信，但我们今天所享有的是过去几十年耐心、孜孜不倦、一步一脚印，从不允许任何侵蚀，才有了这个我们赖以投入战斗的巨大资产。在其他国家如美国和英国，相反的情况发生了。在美国，对政治体制的信任几乎瓦解。四分之三的共和党人被说服2020年的总统选举结果遭窃取，拜登先生并非合法的总统，特朗普先生应该是现任总统。当相当一部分的国民相信民选政府是非法的，你又如何支撑整个政治系统？所有议题都政治化了，政府运作陷入僵局，国家蒙受伤害。这也是为何那么多美国人拒绝接种疫苗，拒绝戴口罩，反抗旨在保护他们安全的防疫措施，导致那么多人染疫身亡。或者看看方兴未艾的英国“派对门”丑闻，发生在“议会民主之母”的西敏寺。官方调查报告把丑闻归咎于“领导力和判断力的失误”。由于漠视自己制定的规则，现任英国政府严重挫伤了信任，在防疫上失去了公信力。
新加坡今天或许是高信任度的社会，但没有任何保证我们将继续如此。我们坚定不移地保持高标准，确保我们的领导人体现正确的价值，发生错误时及时指出，该惩罚时严惩不贷，维护我们体制的尊严，不把人民的信任当作理所当然，并永远不允许谎言、不实陈述、谬误成为被接受的政治规范。
特权委员会
这是我们辩论国会对特权委员会报告的立场的存亡攸关所在。辣玉莎女士在国会撒谎，在8月3日撒谎两次，第三次是在两个月后被质问时的10月。随后，她承认对国会撒谎。为了处理这个滥用国会特权事件，我们成立了特权委员会。辣玉莎女士和其他证人被传召供证。委员会在得出几经推敲的结论前，进行了广泛的商议。结论是辣玉莎女士有罪，并须为每一次的撒谎行为罚款。我希望所有议员能同意调查结果以及对辣玉莎女士的惩罚。
但是在委员会的调查过程中，另两个重要的问题浮现了。特权委员会就此提请国会注意并建议国会如何处置。
第一，工人党三名领导人——毕丹星先生、费沙先生和林瑞莲女士——教唆辣玉莎女士继续在国会撒谎。若果真如此，这一不当行为堪比或更甚于辣玉莎女士在国会发表不实陈述。国会必须予以处理，但还必须先厘清第二件性质更为严重的问题。那就是如国会领袖所阐述的，三名工人党领导人在宣誓说真话后，对特权委员会做出不实陈述，以便掩盖他们指示辣玉莎女士继续撒谎。委员会清楚发现，这三名议员对委员会所宣称的高尚意图，以及他们的实际作为，或更多时候是不作为之间，引人注目的自相矛盾铁证。就算在工人党领导人之间，他们的说法也存在严重的不一致。在宣誓后不诚实并非小事。那意味着撒谎，尽管信誓旦旦要说真话。这一次，不是一次，不是两次，而是在连续几天多个小时的质问下反复如此。委员会的评估是这些不实陈述并非意外或偶然失误，而是刻意、有预谋的行为，目的是误导和欺骗。这种行为不仅是违反了国会特权，一旦被法庭确认，就等同于作伪证——在宣誓后撒谎，而作伪证是一种严重罪行。
因此，这里有两个不同的问题。第一，是三位议员指示辣玉莎说谎？第二，是三位议员自己在宣誓后说谎？如果这两者被证实确有其事，会让工人党领袖非常难看，尤其是国会反对党领袖。这两个问题如果没有好好处理，会让国会蒙羞，让这个庄严崇高的机构名誉扫地。
一些人问：“说谎的不是辣玉莎吗？为什么工人党领袖被更严厉地对待？”
就如国会领袖刚才表示注意到的，如果委员会是对的，那就表示毕丹星先生和他的其他工人党领袖撒了谎，向特权委员会做不实的供证。他们誓言所说属实，却为了保护自己，掩饰自己做的错事而撒谎，把错误都推到辣玉莎女士一人身上，声称她和其他证人如罗女士向特权委员会撒谎。若真是这样，这确实比辣玉莎女士的错误更严重。宣誓后撒谎，那是阻扰特权委员会的程序。那他们也展示同样是不当的行为，这正是国会特权委员会所要处理的。他们违背了交托于国会议员的信任——尤其国会反对党领袖毕丹星先生。我希望各位议员了解，这如果是真实的，是非常严重的事。
因此，各位议员必须决定国会现在要怎么处理这件事。我们可以视若无睹，佯装什么都没有发生吗？或者，如果这让人无法接受，从特权委员会提供的强而有力证据来看，或许我们可以稍稍降低要求，表示知道有人撒谎了，辩称这也不是什么大不了的谎言，也没有造成伤害？
如果我们决定采取上述其中一种方式，那么我们也会成为贬低国会，让它蒙羞的同谋。我们必须严正对待违法之举，采取行动。让我欣慰的是，这是特权委员会得出的结论。
国会特权委员会有什么其他选择？它可以向国会建议，拍打犯错者的手腕从轻发落。但是那会显示我们轻率地对待这么严重的事件。更糟的是，我们降低标准，等于在告诉新加坡人，民选领袖撒谎也真没什么大不了的。另一个可能是，特权委员会建议国会自行颁布适当的重惩。国会有权力这么做。但是如果国会特权委员会这么建议，由国会自行决定如何惩罚，反对党肯定会喊冤叫屈，指控人民行动党利用作为多数的优势迫害反对党。事实上，他们已经这样影射，用一个烟幕来模糊真正的问题，那就是工人党供证时庄严发誓，但其实撒谎。
我因此相信，国会特权委员会的建议是我们最好的处理方式。既然现在看起来，似乎有人犯下刑事罪，那么让国会把事情交给检察官。让检察官去重新考虑那些证据，让这个制度去运作。如果检察官决定提控他们，毕丹星先生和费沙先生可以在法庭上为自己辩护。法庭必须是在排除一切合理怀疑后确信他们有罪。而如果他们是清白的，那么他们也无所畏惧。
我表扬向国会建议采取的行动。如果我是毕丹星先生，我会支持这两个动议。对辣玉莎女士罚款，因为她毫无疑问有罪。事实是，毕丹星先生同一政党的议员、也在特权委员会的陈立峰先生，认为应该对她的第二个罪行罚得更重。而如果毕丹星先生坚持他和他的工人党领袖没有做错，他应该投票支持把他的案子，以及费沙先生的案子都交给检察官。事实是，他应该要求法庭审讯，争取能够有机会为自己辩护，还自己清白，恢复名声。如果我是毕丹星先生，我会这么做。
遗憾的是，社交媒体上亲工人党的声音朝的是不同的方向。在这个事件还没有定案前，如果有必要的话得由法庭裁定之前，他们设法混淆视听，博取同情。他们要求公众为三位国会议员洗刷罪名，暗示把他们的案子交给检察官是政治迫害。
他们真正想说的是：不要太仔细地审视毕丹星先生做了什么，只要记得他是谁——他是你投票支持的反对党，他是国会反对党领袖。因为他的地位，他不应该交由总检察署调查；而任何对他采取的行动必然是出于政治目的；因为他是谁，比他做了什么更重要——即便是他可能犯了罪。
有些人可能会相信并支持这样的讲法。他们说，为何不让事情过去呢？难道不能有个折中的解决方案？毕竟政府已经有很多事情要处理，不必对三名国会议员追究此事会更轻松些。然而，议长先生，只要是人民行动党执政，我们就不会回避任何必要的行动来维护国会的正确规范，并向新加坡人和他们的领袖灌输对于维持人民对制度的信任，以及对我们的成功至关重要的价值观。
毕丹星先生接替了刘程强先生担任工人党秘书长。刘先生任职了很长的一段时间——他担任国会议员30年，担任党领袖17年。他（在国会）坐在我对面，就是毕丹星现在坐的位置。刘先生是令人敬畏的政治对手，但他是一位爱国的新加坡人。他为工人党设定了不同的基调。他说他希望工人党可以帮助新加坡建立第一世界国会。他必然对他的接班人所做的感到难过。
因为所发生的事情违背了工人党所宣扬的理念。但从刘先生的公开评论看来，他有信心工人党能够渡过这一关。这也不必成为我国民主的绊脚石，前提是毕丹星先生和他的同僚为他们玷污国会标准，以及可能违法的行为负起责任。
新加坡民主的未来
议长先生，我们都在从事同一个工程——建立新加坡的民主和一个能在未来很多年能很好服务新加坡人的政治体制。要做到这点，我们必须坚持正确的规范，并强化正确的价值观。
我知道新加坡人希望看到更多的政治竞争，我能接受这一点。从长远来看，我也预期这是新加坡应该走的方向。这就是每个议会民主制度的演变方式。正是因为我认识到这一点，所以在2020年的投票之夜，在工人党在盛港赢得第二个集选区后，提出让毕丹星先生担任国会的反对党领袖，以提供他发挥作用所需的资源和支持。这就是负责任的政府，可以如何帮助一个可信、负责任的反对党的出现，进而为我们的政治制度走向成熟做出贡献。
但是反对党领袖的职务也负有一定的责任——为反对党议员定下基调，要求自己的党贯彻一套行为准则，更为重要的，自己也要秉持正直，做到无可非议，反对党领袖得到的并不是一张空白支票。
议长先生，诚信是民主的关键。如果反对党的实力，像从1966年到1980年代那样可以被忽视。那今天这场辩论的厉害关系就会很小。如果人民行动党占据压倒性的主导地位，公众对反对党和反对党人普遍上就不会有过高的期望。国家及其治理的基调，会由人民行动党，以及这个党强加给自己的高标准所确立。但随着新加坡走向一个更具竞争性的环境，反对党的能力和诚信就不是无关紧要了。“什么是正确的价值观以及我们应该如何维护”的问题，对反对党和执政党来说，在根本上变得至关重要。
因此每一次的选举，都将关乎到谁赢得授权以治理这个国家。如果系统正常运行，执政党只要保持诚信，有能力和受到信赖，它就会胜选。如果执政党做不到这些，而新加坡人认为反对党比它更诚实廉洁，更有能力，更值得信赖，那么执政党理应被淘汰，反对党会被选进来，组成下一届政府。我们不能假设人民行动党总是当政，也不能假设工人党或某些反对党将永远在野。
我不知道何时或如何，新加坡会有更换执政党的一天。我作为人民行动党的领袖，职责是确保我们执政时竭尽所能，在尽可能多的选举中，争取到人民的委托。
但作为国家领导人，我的职责也包括最大限度地，确保未来选举无论哪一方胜出，它都将坚持和遵守和人民行动党同样高标准的优良操守和诚信。这样我们的民主制度才能正确运作下去，无论是哪一方接手掌控，都不会前功尽弃。因为像新加坡这样——一个全世界唯一的城邦型小岛国，需要一个强大、有效和善治的政府，无论是谁领导它。
由于成败关系到我们的生活和未来，参与到这个系统里的每个人，都必须遵守相同的标准。哪怕犯错的一方将自己描绘成弱者，也不能把它当借口，执行双重标准，以及为不可原谅的行为寻求开脱。
英国前首相约翰·梅杰先生最近发表了一篇由“派对门”引发的演讲。我肯定，他必定是对英国政治的现状有感而发，是一种发自内心的呐喊。让我给你读一些摘录：“自开天辟地以来，就有对政治的冷嘲热讽。我们被告知政客‘都是一样的’，和这种不真实的情况。选民可以容忍谎言，就好像它们是公共生活中可以被接受的货币一样。”“但政客们并不‘都一样’。谎言是不可接受的。”“做相反的暗示，是在贬损公共生活，诽谤占绝大多数的不会刻意误导选民的从政者。”“但有些人会，而且他们的行为具有腐蚀性。这会玷污政治和国会的声誉，是一个危险的趋势。”“如果谎言变得司空见惯，真相不复存在。那么，我们可以相信什么和相信谁呢？风险是……没有任何事和人可以信了。那么我们将落入什么处境中呢？”“如果失去了对我们国会中领导人的信任——那么对政府的信任也将荡然无存。”
梅杰代表的是西方的观点，但在东方社会，规范和价值观也同样至关重要，事实上甚至比西方哲学更重要，因为西方哲学说制衡，而在东方哲学里，认为是你的美德，你的道德地位，赋予你统治的权利。在儒家思想中，有四个社会准则（四维）把国家维系在一起：即“礼义廉耻”。廉洁奉公，排斥贪污，就是为人正直；这是一个可以用法律来强推的规范。但是羞耻心，对不法行为的感知，是一种道德观，它关乎个人所抱持的是非感，我们是否知道我们做了对的事，还是做得不够好，即使没有人这么说，但我们的价值观和自己的良心会告诉我们。没有羞耻心的人，可能会因为害怕受到法律惩罚而服从，但他们会由于缺乏道德指南，去做正确的事——只因这件事是正确的，并且在无法达到预期的标准时，自我承担责任。
我个人最感到失望的，是工人党在他们的叙述和回应中，包括今天在这个国会上，丝毫没有承认三名议员做错了什么，当中没有任何的忏悔。
议长先生，无论采取西方还是东方的观点，如果缺乏羞耻成为公众可以接受的规范，我们的政治制度将逐渐且不可逆转地崩溃。公众不仅不信任个别领导人，或特定政党，而是整个政治体系。这种情况在很多地方都发生得太频繁了。
如果发生这种情况，你会怎么做？你能做什么？民主能怎么运作，如果已没有任何可以信任的人来负责？破碎了的“矮胖子”（Humpty Dumpty）如何能重新修复？如何从零开始？重新按下启动键？一个不是建立在正直基础上的民主是摇摇欲坠的，也迟早会倒塌。如果信任不是乔治·舒尔茨所说的“国家的硬通货”，谎言则如约翰·梅杰所说，成为“公共生活中可以流通的货币”，所有争吵和辩论的喧嚣都不会带给国家任何的好处。
随着新加坡政治竞争日益激烈，我们必须确保比赛是诚实、公正、光明正大的。我们要的是系统运行正常，机构仍然神圣并受到所有人的尊重。我们要的是优秀的人能建设性地合作，为新加坡人服务，无论他们是站在政治光谱的哪个位置上。而且，最为基本的是，新加坡人可以相信代表他们的人行事正直，有荣耀感，一切作为都是为了公众和新加坡。
总结
议长先生，特权委员会的报告很长、很详细，但只有几个明显的核心问题。我们仔细审查了辣玉莎女士的行为以及其对错。她承认了自己的错误行为，并将为此得到适当的惩罚。我们以为这件事可以直截了当地了结，但结果发现了更大的问题。在网上，有人根据水门事件把它称为“辣玉莎门”。就像水门事件一样，在调查辣玉莎女士的违法行为时，特权委员会意外发现了工人党领导层的掩盖行为，而这比原来的罪行更为严重。这出乎了特权委员会的意料之外。但有了这个调查结果，国会的责任是要让国会议员采取必要和适当的行动。
议长先生，民主体制要能够运作得好，信任至关重要。真诚是建立信任的基础，诚实是没有商量的余地。如果你说谎，公众怎么能够信任你？如果身负重任者撒谎，并且能在众目睽睽之下逃脱罪行，公众怎么信任这个制度？而如果国会纵容它的议员撒谎，新加坡人要怎么相信国会制度？如果我们对明目张胆、极其不该的错误轻易作罢，它将腐蚀人们对领袖的信任、对国会的尊重、对我们整个政治制度的支持，而新加坡将会招惹麻烦。
作为国会中服务时间最长的议员，我感觉自己在这方面的责任比多数人都重。37年前，我第一次进入这个国会，当时李光耀先生、拉惹勒南先生、杜进才博士、王邦文先生、巴克先生、易润堂先生都还是议员。他们是签署1965年8月9日新马分家协定10人中的六人。我亲眼见证创建这个国家的一代如何把这个地方建立起来，完好地移交给我们。对我来说，这当中有一份神圣的信任。我们每一位议员也应该把它看作是一份神圣的信任。我们绝对不能不鞠躬尽瘁、克尽厥职、诚信可靠地为新加坡人服务；维护国会这个机构，作为一个强大、健全的民主基石。
我呼吁所有议员，不论新旧，执政党或是反对党的，民选或者官委的，权衡这些事实，凭着良心投票，与我一同为新加坡履行你们的责任。
议长先生，我支持这两项动议。谢谢。
（文：联合早报）
—-
Featured Image: Screenshot and reworked by ICNA from the official live video. Video Source: Prime Minister’s Office Singapore.
