Speaker Seah Kian Peng’s claims of fairness and consistency draw online skepticism

SINGAPORE: Speaker of Parliament Mr Seah Kian Peng’s assertions of his commitment to fairness and consistency in chairing parliamentary proceedings have sparked skepticism among the online community.

Critics argue that Mr Seah’s affiliation with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) casts doubt on his impartiality.

Some have highlighted past instances where parliamentary exchanges were abruptly ended, leaving opposition Members of Parliament without the opportunity to seek further clarification.

In an exclusive interview with state media CNA published on 16 August, Mr Seah, who is also the MP for Marine Parade GRC, expressed his belief that he makes a conscious effort to apply the rules and oversee proceedings impartially.

He also discussed a recent incident where Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai, on a podcast, claimed he was often “one of the last to be called” to speak in Parliament.

Mr. Seah reassured that he has been fair and highlighted the challenges of managing a large number of members in the House.

Despite Mr Leong retracting his comment, Mr Seah criticized him during the 2 July parliamentary sitting, calling the statement a “gross misrepresentation of the proceedings of Parliament.”

In the CNA interview, Mr Seah recalled the difficulty of assuming the role of Speaker during a politically tumultuous period, including debates on the impartiality of the Speaker and high-profile resignations on his first day.

He considered this as a defining moment of his tenure, describing how he was “thrown straight into the deep end” on “rather short notice.”

He admitted that pressures while chairing parliamentary sittings include managing who gets to speak and ensuring timely progress in debates.

He emphasized the challenge of managing time effectively during parliamentary questions, given the 90-minute limit, and ensuring discussions progress efficiently, intervening as necessary, regardless of party affiliation.

With a general election approaching, Mr Seah reminded MPs not to use Parliament for “electioneering,” stating, “If it is against the standing orders, I will call them out.”

Skepticism surrounds impartiality of Speaker from ruling party

Observing comments on CNA’s Facebook post and Reddit, it is evident that many are not convinced Mr Seah can discharge his duties as Speaker with full impartiality, given his affiliation with the ruling party.

Some argue that having a Speaker from the ruling party might undermine fairness, comparing it to having a referee employed by one of the soccer teams.

There is a sentiment that a non-partisan Speaker would be better suited to ensure fairness and impartiality. They believe that the role of Speaker should not be held by a party member to avoid any perception of bias.

Some comments also criticize the efficiency of parliamentary sessions, suggesting that answers to questions are often evasive or lack substance.

Netizens pressed Mr Seah should ensure more direct and substantive responses to make parliamentary proceedings more effective.

However, a comment noted that in many democracies, the Speaker of the House is typically from the ruling party. It suggested that Mr Seah’s impartiality should be evaluated based on his actions and performance as Speaker, rather than solely on his party affiliation.

Past instance of opposition MPs’ queries ended abruptly in Parliament

A comment recalled past instances where Murali Pillai, PAP MP for Bukit Batok SMC made false allegations against NCMP Leong, which were recorded in the Hansard.

During Parliamentary sitting on 3 August last year, Mr Pillai claimed that Leong had proposed “some form of low rent control” When confronted, Mr Murali denied making such an allegation and instead stated that Mr Leong “sought low rents on behalf of SMEs.”

After a few exchanges, Mr Leong asked if the MP for Bukit Batok SMC would apologize to him if the records showed that he had not mentioned seeking low rent.

The discussion later ended abruptly, with Mr Seah stating, “As I’ve said, both Mr murali pillai have clarified, as well as Mr Leong you have also clarified what you have said.”

Another instance occurred on 4 March this year when Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, expressed frustration over being unable to fully respond to queries from Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua regarding NCMP Leong’s POFMA order.

During the sitting, Mr Singh clarified the matter regarding the assistance to a needy elderly couple, which had led to Mr Leong receiving a POFMA correction direction for a statement published on social media.

SPS Eric Chua accused the opposition of politicizing vulnerable individuals’ situations and emphasized the need to avoid using such individuals as “Trojan horses,” pawns, or chess pieces.

When Mr Singh raised his hand to seek further clarification from SPS Chua, Speaker Seah Kian Peng abruptly ended the parliamentary question time and moved on to the Committee of Supply debate.

PAP asserts impartiality of Speaker despite party affiliation

In August last year, PSP filed a motion advocating for an “independent and impartial Speaker” following a hot mic incident involving former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin.

In his speech, NCMP Leong proposed that the Speaker should be “non-partisan” or at least not from the core leadership of the PAP Central Executive Committee (CEC).

However, PAP MP Vikram Nair disagreed, suggesting amendments to the PSP’s motion.

He argued that Speakers do not automatically lack independence in their duties simply because they are members of a party or its leadership.

The Leader of the House, Indranee Rajah, concurred that the Speaker must be independent and impartial but disagreed with Leong’s interpretation of “independent” as meaning “non-partisan”.