'Absurd' to require parliament
approval all the time
Straits Times. Jan 15, 1998
Related: Jakarta
'won't default' on loan
REQUIRING the government to get the approval of parliament or
the elected president each time it wants to lend money will create absurd
difficulties, as it means that even loans to civil servants to buy cars
or computers will require similar approval. Attorney General Chan Sek Keong
pointed out this difficulty when he reiterated his stand that the government's
decision to lend US$5 billion (S$8.65 billion) to Indonesia
did not breach the constitution, as neither parliamentary nor presidential
approval was needed to lend money. In a three-page letter to Law Minister
S. Jayakumar, which was released to MPs at yesterday's parliament sitting,
the AG explained that under the constitution, the government was subject
to parliamentary and presidential scrutiny only when it borrowed money.
But this did not mean there was no check on government lending -- when it wanted to draw on past reserves to make a loan, the law required the auditor general and the accountant general to inform the president, who could at his discretion, disapprove the loan.
This explantion was cited by Minister of State (Law) Ho Peng Kee, in his rebuttal of Non-Constituency MP J. B. Jeyaretnam's motion asking the House to signal its regret that the executive, or the government, did not respect the judiciary.
Mr Jeyaretnam, the Workers' Party chief, spent 40 minutes arguing that over the last few years the Government had increasingly been perceived as having flagrantly disregarded the law and the constitution.
The government's loan to Indonesia was one such example, and by refusing to abide by the constitution, the government had "lost its moral authority and credibility to govern Singapore", he said.
The only way for the government to redeem itself, he said, was for it to advise the president to refer the loan to a supreme court tribunal to determine if the government had acted within its powers.
Professor Ho said the motion was "baseless, mischievous and hypocritical" as the government's position had always been clear that the judiciary should be accorded due respect and its integrity defended.
He said if the opposition party was not satisfied that the government's actions were legal, it could bring the matter before the high court and take action against the government.
Urging the House to reject the motion, he said: "The job of government is to govern and we will govern effectively to safeguard Singapore's best interests, domestically, in foreign relations and defence and we will do so in accordance with the law.
"If it requires the president's approval or coming to parliament to pass laws or debate policies, we will do it. But if it requires decisive executive action, as in the case of the loan, where timing was a consideration, then we will take such decisive action."
When put to the vote, Mr Jeyaretnam's motion was rejected with only the two WP MPs voting in favour. Unfazed, the NCMP went on immediately to raise another motion before the almost five-hour parliament sitting was adjourned.
This time he accused the government of ignoring and bypassing parliament when making decisions and urged that a committee be set up to revise parliament's standing orders and increase the number of sittings and lengthen the time allotted to answering questions.
Rebutting him, Prof Ho said parliament had functioned well and fulfilled
its role effectively, so there was no need to change the present system.
Parliament, he said, would meet when there were topics to discuss, Bills
to be pased and laws to be made.
See also:Concern about
loan offer to Indonesia