Pritam Singh Questions Government Transparency in Parliament

SINGAPORE: In Parliament on August 2, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh challenged Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Chan Chun Sing regarding the government’s transparency. He asserted that the administration has been “slow to clear the air” and has not been “upfront and forthright with Singaporeans” in dealing with potentially embarrassing issues.

To support his argument, Singh highlighted several incidents. He noted that the public was initially kept in the dark about the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s (CPIB) investigation into the Ridout rentals and criticized the appointment of Senior Minister Teo to determine whether any wrongdoing had occurred without public knowledge that PM Lee had ordered the CPIB investigation. Singh also pointed out that the public was not informed about Transport Minister Iswaran’s arrest when the investigations were first announced.

“In a parallel universe, Sir, there is a perception where if a Singaporean or a Singaporean company took such a cavalier and breezy approach with critical facts under today’s PAP, they could expect a POFMA direction from a PAP minister for perpetuating false statements of facts,” Singh stated. He then questioned whether PM Lee had consulted the CPIB on why it chose a course of action that brought unnecessary scrutiny to its processes and raised concerns about its impartiality.

Singh also referenced the Covid-19 pandemic, mentioning that the public was belatedly informed that TraceTogether data was not used solely for contact tracing, contrary to previous statements. This revelation sparked backlash after it was disclosed in Parliament in early January 2021 that police could access the data for investigations. He noted that Dr. Balakrishnan was aware of this situation in October 2020, only after being prompted by a public inquiry.

Singh described these examples as indicative of a pattern of behavior in which the PAP engages in “half-truths on matters of significant public interest.” He stated that this conduct contributes to the “real disquiet” among Singaporeans regarding trust in the party, particularly when it invokes the legacy of its pioneer leaders. He concluded by inviting PM Lee to consider appointing an ethics advisor.