人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋

(中英文版)新加坡民主党: 国会听证会引发更多有关李显龙领导国家的能力问题 SDP: Parliamentary hearing raises more questions about LHL’s ability to lead country

留下评论

新加坡民主党:

国会听证会引发更多有关李显龙领导国家的能力问题

201775

新加坡民主党已经就国会于73日后4日举行有关李显龙总理以及张志贤副总理发表的部长声明进行了辩论发表声明。

鉴于李显龙总理在国会回答国会议员的提问时,拒绝把有关(李显龙与李显扬姐弟之间有关李光耀38故居引发的问题)问题到法院进行诉讼或者设立调查委员会,已经引发了李显龙领导国家的能力问题了。

我党认为,他在没有对主动提出对自己就有关所有被指责的问题到法院进行澄清或者设立调查庭的情况下,自言其说地宣称自己已经撇清所有有关的指责。这已经说明,被指责滥用职权李显龙总理是不再胜任其职了。他本身已经无法通过检视自己的情况下,却提出有人质疑政府的诚信将被起诉。这足于说明,作为新加坡国家政府,不论在政策方面和司法行为上,并没有一视同仁和连贯性的对待全体国民。

总理在(73/4日)国会辩论后自我宣称,没有证据显示他个人滥用权力,取得了胜利。这足于在进一步说明,他对国家法治的藐视。这说明了,这是问责实践中的一个明显的障碍。

国会的这场辩论是在李显龙总理于619日就他的弟妹,李伟玲医生和李显扬先生的指责他滥用自己的总理职权,为自身的利益后,发表道歉声明时提出的。他要求国会议员向他提出任何涉及有关这方面的问题,同时,他也让行动党国会议员在解除党鞭制衡的情况下参与这场辩论。

无论如何,在这场辩论会结束后,李显龙总理在发表辩论会的总结声明里宣称,尽管行动党国会议员、工人党国会议员以及管委议员在辩论会期间提出了许多问题后,但是,整个事件已经达到结尾了。

以下是我党声明全文:

正如事先所预见的,国会有关欧思路(Oxley Road 38号住宅事件的辩论的结束是:李显龙利用这个场合为洗清自己所犯下的错误和宣布“有关事件结案。”

实际上,无论如何,核心的问题仍然是未获得任何的答案,那是因为没有人比事实更聪明。这只是有关问题的一面之词。

在自己没有提出把有关事件提交到法院或者设立调查庭的情况下,自我宣布已经洗清(弟妹)指控他滥用职权的一切指责嫌疑,是不配成为一个领导人的。

2015年大选时,李显龙先生在谈到要管理新加坡时,以他的先父李光耀为例,说,“任何人要管理新加坡,都与李光耀分不开。”

他一直拒绝广泛要求设立调查庭。他和弟妹可以在调查庭里彻底地说明清楚有关问题的底细,从中将可以显示总理目前所具有的威信。

李总理在昨天(74日)国会的辩论会上说,“为什么我们需要设立一个特别委员会或者调查庭?……这将是这个问题继续拖延几个月……?特别委员会去调查每一个毫无根据的指控和每一个无稽的谣言?”

李伟玲医生和李显扬先生提出的指控是“毫无根据”和“无稽的谣言”。以73日星期一李显龙在国会的讲话为例,李显扬先生指责李显龙总理在国会发表的讲话是编造具体的谎言。

以上这个最新的例子和过去两个星期以来,一系列严重的指控所听到各种的说法,是不是需要进行调查。

看来,李先生自身是拒绝接受有人质疑政府诚信的指控进行起诉的挑战。李先生的前任,吴作栋先生在1999年说了如下一段话:“假设一名部长被人诽谤,他不敢采取起诉行动对付诽谤者,那么,这名部长必须离开内阁……假设他不敢到法院接受对方律师的盘问的话,那么,其中必然有一些指控是事实的。假设那些指控是没有证据的,那好,为什么(这名部长)不采取法律行动起诉对方呢?”

现在行动党领导人拒绝设立调查庭的态度是反映了,作为新加坡国家政府,不论在政策方面和司法行为上,并没有一视同仁和连贯性的对待全体国民。

总理昨天国会辩论有关问题和,单方面地宣布自己被指控滥用职权的嫌疑已经得到洗清。他宣布,没有确凿证据证明他藐视法律滥用职权。这是问责实践中极其显著的践踏。

确切地说,与其说是厘清问题,倒不如说,国会的辩论和总理拒绝到法院进行诉讼或者设立正式调查庭接受调查,已经引申出他来到这个国家的能力。

在我们国家目前正在面对着不可预测的未来和严峻挑战的时刻,这个问题更显得其重要性。

 

SDP:

Parliamentary hearing raises more questions

about LHL’s ability to lead country

2017/7/5

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has released a statement on the Parliamentary debate that was held on 3 and 4 July over the Ministerial Statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, questioned PM Lee’s ability to lead the country for refusing to go to court or call for a formal inquiry over the allegations against him.

The party states that by declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel, PM Lee is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power. And that he fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued,  reflecting on the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.

It further remarked that the PM’s unilateral claim of victory in the Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law.  Stating that it is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability

The debate was brought about by PM Lee himself after apologising to the country on 19 June over the allegations by his two siblings, Dr Lee Weiling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang for abusing his authority as the Prime Minister of Singapore for his personal agenda. He had asked Members of Parliament to question him on the matter and had the party whip removed, however, by the end of the parliament session, PM Lee declared in his closing statement that the matter has come to a close despite having many of the questions raised by People’s Action Party MPs, Workers’ Party MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament unanswered.

Below is the party’s statement in full

The Parliamentary debate on 38 Oxley Road ended exactly as expected: PM Lee Hsien Loong used the occasion to absolve himself of wrongdoing and announced ‘case closed’.

In reality, however, important questions remain unanswered. This is because when issues are addressed only by one side, no one is the wiser as to the truth.

Declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power.

In the 2015 general elections, Mr Lee Hsien Loong channeled his late father by echoing that “whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”.

That he has resisted widespread calls for him to convene a Commission of Inquiry where he and his siblings can be questioned at length in order to get to the bottom of the matter shows just how little iron the current PM possesses.

Mr Lee said in yesterday’s Parliamentary session: “Why do we need a Select Committee or COI, and drag this out for months?…Select Committees to investigate every unsubstantiated allegation, every wild rumour?”

The allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are hardly “unsubstantiated” and “wild rumour[s]”. To cite but one, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has accused PM Lee of making a specific falsehood in his speech on Monday, 3 July.

This, and other issues raised in the last two weeks or so, are serious charges that merit a thorough hearing and, if necessary, investigations.

As it is, Mr Lee fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued. His predecessor, Mr Goh Chok Tong, made the same claim in 1999: “…if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet…if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?”

That the PAP leader now demurs from such a move reflects abjectly the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.

The PM’s unilateral claim of victory in yesterday’s Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law. It is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability.

Ironically, instead of clearing things up, the Parliamentary hearing and the PM’s refusal to go to court or call for a formal inquiry has further questioned his ability to lead the country.

This is troubling especially in times of such uncertainty and grave challenges for our nation.

 

Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 更改 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 更改 )

Connecting to %s