PARLIAMENT on Tuesday (Sep 19) resolved to consider “the matter regarding Member of Parliament S Iswaran” when the outcome of ongoing corruption investigations against him is known, in contrast to an opposition proposal to suspend him.

Following the start of formal investigations against Iswaran on Jul 11, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the erstwhile Transport Minister would take a leave of absence until the end of investigations. Iswaran has also stepped back from his role as an MP for West Coast GRC.

Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency MPs Hazel Poa and Leong Mun Wai had filed a motion for the House to suspend Iswaran for the rest of the current session of the 14th Parliament. This would also mean suspending his MP allowance.

The light-touch approach to Iswaran’s allowance sends “the wrong signal”, said Poa. She added that the motion was “about the prudent use of taxpayers’ money, not a presumption of guilt”.

Objecting to this, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said such a move would raise “some concern as to how this House should exercise its powers”.

She added: “We should make decisions on the basis of generally applicable principles, and not on individual cases in isolation.”

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

In a motion of her own, Indranee called for Parliament to affirm the need for MPs to uphold integrity and act in accordance with the law; to affirm the need to deal “firmly and fairly” with MPs under investigation; and to resolve to consider Iswaran’s case after the investigation outcome is known.

Indranee questioned the principle behind PSP’s call for Iswaran’s suspension. She argued that if the principle is to suspend any MP under investigation, then this should cover Workers’ Party (WP) MPs Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap, who face a probe in relation to actions of former party member Raeesah Khan.

The two WP MPs have not been suspended, with Parliament’s Committee of Privileges recommending that action be taken only after the conclusion of criminal proceedings, she noted.

On Iswaran’s case, she said: “We simply do not have sufficient material to make an informed decision at the present time.” To take action at this stage would be premature and “would be to prejudge the outcome of the investigations”, she added.

Four other MPs spoke on the combined debate on both motions. Leader of the Opposition Singh noted that the PSP’s motion could create a precedent for the future government to “fix” opposition MPs through politically motivated investigations.

Responding to Singh’s question on whether Iswaran’s interdiction as minister also means he has been interdicted as an MP, Indranee clarified that he has not been suspended as an MP, but has been asked to cease those duties “as a matter of party discipline”.

As for whether Iswaran’s MP allowance would be clawed back, and when exactly his case would be considered by Parliament, Indranee said this was a matter of party discipline.

“If he’s charged, the prime minister will consider the allegations, the accusations against him, and decide whether to make him resign and to pay back both salary and allowance without waiting for legal process,” she said.

In the debate, MPs emphasised the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, saying that Iswaran’s case should be given due process and highlighting the rule of law.

Sembawang GRC MP Vikram Nair noted that suspension is a punitive measure, which can only be exercised if a member has engaged in dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt of Parliament.

Singh suggested that while it may not be appropriate to suspend Iswaran as MP, “it may well be appropriate to suspend the payment of his MP allowance”.

To that, however, Nominated MP Raj Joshua Thomas noted that there is no legal mechanism to suspend an MP’s salary without also suspending them from their MP position.

At the end of the debate, the House voted in favour of Indranee’s motion and against the PSP one.

In Tuesday’s sitting, Poa also wanted Parliament’s permission to introduce a private member’s bill, which would allow the House to back pay an MP’s allowance, if required.

“Parliament is hampered in taking timely disciplinary actions if we’re unable to back pay and we have to hold the principle of innocent until proven guilty,” she said. “It means that we cannot suspend any MP until the entire legal process has been completed.”

But her motion, seeking leave to introduce such a bill, was voted down.