IT LOOKS like the on-off slugfest between opposition politicians and Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan is getting an airing in Parliament. Among the questions filed for oral answer at tomorrow’s Parliament sitting is one from Non-Constitueny MP Leon Perera who wants to ask the Foreign Minister about guidelines that apply to public statements made by senior officials, including “accredited ambassadors and ambassadors-at-large” in Singapore.
The Workers’ Party MP also wants to know if there is a distinction between statements that reflect the official view or statements made in a private capacity. There is a third limb: how the minister would address situations where such public statements “may negatively affect Singapore’s national interest”.
The answer might well not be make it into question time allotted for Parliament given the number of questions that have been filed for Zika. Health Minister Gan Kim Yong is expected to make a ministerial statement in the House tomorrow.
Mr Perera did not refer to any specific person or public statement. Besides Mr Bilahari, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign ministry, the ambassador-at-large with a significant public profile is Professor Tommy Koh. Both are frequent contributors to MSM’s op-ed pages. Mr Bilahari was also the Institute of Policy Studies’ second S R Nathan Fellow. He is known for his plain speaking ways as well as his disdain for the opposition political parties’ views on foreign affairs.
Among those who have been cut by his sharp tongue are Mr Pritam Singh from the Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan and Paul Tambyah. In a speech in May, Mr Bilahari accused the WP of playing ”fast and loose with foreign policy for partisan purposes” and cited as an example Mr Singh’s question in Parliament about Singapore’s relations with the Middle East countries and its impact on the Malay/Muslim ground here. He also took a swipe at Dr Chee’s articles on free trade agreements and suggested that Dr Tambyah, an infectious diseases specialist should consult a psychiatrist for suggesting that Singapore’s defence budget could be cut because the country is “non-aligned”.
This is not to say that the opposition hasn’t hit back. Mr Singh penned a lengthy reply on why he raised the issue. Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss of the National Solidarity Party (NOTE: Ms Chong-Aruldoss is a member of the Singapore People’s Party. We apologise for the error.) also wrote a piece complaining about Mr Bilahari’s speech at forum in Cambridge in the United Kingdom last October where he “took digs” at historian Thum Ping Tjin who said that the late Lee Kuan Yew’s one enduring legacy was his intolerance for dissent. According to Ms Chong-Aruldoss, he called Dr Thum “a young academic trying to make a name for himself”.
So what’s the line between personal and official view? The Foreign minister might as well expand his answer to do the same for politicians who use social media to talk about policies and give their views. Do their words reflect a G position? Or should there always be this disclaimer: The writer is speaking in his private capacity and his views do not in any way reflect the views of the G?
http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/12/question-parliament-bilahari/
The Workers’ Party MP also wants to know if there is a distinction between statements that reflect the official view or statements made in a private capacity. There is a third limb: how the minister would address situations where such public statements “may negatively affect Singapore’s national interest”.
The answer might well not be make it into question time allotted for Parliament given the number of questions that have been filed for Zika. Health Minister Gan Kim Yong is expected to make a ministerial statement in the House tomorrow.
Mr Perera did not refer to any specific person or public statement. Besides Mr Bilahari, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign ministry, the ambassador-at-large with a significant public profile is Professor Tommy Koh. Both are frequent contributors to MSM’s op-ed pages. Mr Bilahari was also the Institute of Policy Studies’ second S R Nathan Fellow. He is known for his plain speaking ways as well as his disdain for the opposition political parties’ views on foreign affairs.
Among those who have been cut by his sharp tongue are Mr Pritam Singh from the Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan and Paul Tambyah. In a speech in May, Mr Bilahari accused the WP of playing ”fast and loose with foreign policy for partisan purposes” and cited as an example Mr Singh’s question in Parliament about Singapore’s relations with the Middle East countries and its impact on the Malay/Muslim ground here. He also took a swipe at Dr Chee’s articles on free trade agreements and suggested that Dr Tambyah, an infectious diseases specialist should consult a psychiatrist for suggesting that Singapore’s defence budget could be cut because the country is “non-aligned”.
This is not to say that the opposition hasn’t hit back. Mr Singh penned a lengthy reply on why he raised the issue. Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss of the National Solidarity Party (NOTE: Ms Chong-Aruldoss is a member of the Singapore People’s Party. We apologise for the error.) also wrote a piece complaining about Mr Bilahari’s speech at forum in Cambridge in the United Kingdom last October where he “took digs” at historian Thum Ping Tjin who said that the late Lee Kuan Yew’s one enduring legacy was his intolerance for dissent. According to Ms Chong-Aruldoss, he called Dr Thum “a young academic trying to make a name for himself”.
So what’s the line between personal and official view? The Foreign minister might as well expand his answer to do the same for politicians who use social media to talk about policies and give their views. Do their words reflect a G position? Or should there always be this disclaimer: The writer is speaking in his private capacity and his views do not in any way reflect the views of the G?
http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/12/question-parliament-bilahari/
