Singapore — Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim described the security protocols during Parliament’s Committee of Privileges hearings as “oppressive”. That was on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, her comments prompted a response from the Office of the Clerk of Parliament. It was a misunderstanding, according to the statement.
If anything, the Clerk of Parliament’s explanation may only have drawn even more sympathy for Ms Lim. Not a few netizens showed they were squarely on her side.
Miss Lim spoke during Tuesday’s debate in Parliament over the COP’s recommendations following its probe into the lies told by then WP MP Raeesah Khan last year. The WP chair said that before she was questioned by the COP, she “waited for two days in a guarded room and was denied the use of any communication devices”.
And when she did need to leave the room, she said, she was subjected to restrictive security measures.
“When I needed to visit the bathroom, I was accompanied by security. When I requested to use the disabled toilet to have more space, permission was sought. Doesn’t all this border on oppressive? Our courts of law do not subject witnesses to such treatment.”
It should be noted that Ms Lim qualified as a lawyer and was called to the Bar in Singapore in 1991. She has not only practised as a litigator and taught law at Temasek Polytechnic, but had early in her career,worked for three years in criminal investigation as a Police Inspector in the Singapore Police Force and then as a staff officer in the Crimiinal Investigation Department
So it is not as if Ms Lim was speaking out as an ordinary citizen who had felt out of place and intimidated by official procedure.
In a response published on Parliament’s website, the Office of the Clerk of Parliament wrote on Feb 16 that “All protocols balance witnesses’ well-being with the due process.”
The statement gave the background and context for standard protocols which are applied, it said, to all witnesses.
“To protect them against perceptions of undue influence, all witnesses were advised not to have communication devices and other electronic equipment with them until they have completed their testimonies. They individually waited in assigned rooms where they could be physically reached when it was their turn.”
The statement disagreed with Ms Lim’s account of asking for permission to use the restroom. Witnesses, it said, do not need permission to use the toilet and they can “make their own way there whenever they wanted”.
As for Ms Lim “asking permission” to use the more spacious handicapped toilet, the statement said that the officer with her had merely “verbally informed a supervisor on their movement” just in case Ms Lim happened to be called by the committee at that moment.
“It was unfortunate that Ms Lim had misunderstood the officer’s routine status update,” the statement read, adding that feedback would have been immediately addressed and that it was only during her speech on Feb 15 that her concerns were heard of.
Previous to Parliament’s response to Ms Lim’s remarks, many netizens expressed shock.
Even after the statement from the Clerk of Parliament, several commenters still found the protocols excessive.
/TISG
Read also: Many netizens feel that Raeesah Khan is getting off too lightly