NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

8 December 2014

His Excellency Dr. Tony Tan Keng Yam Office of the President of the Republic of Singapore Orchard Road Singapore 238823

Dear President Tony Tan Keng Yam, ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 21(8) OF THE NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES ACT, CAP. 206 1.

We refer to our Letter of Appeal to the President dated 20 October 2014 (“our Appeal”) and to the letter from the President dated 11 November 2014.

2.

In connection with our Appeal, we would like to provide the following additional submissions. We shall use the capitalised words and abbreviations as were defined in our Appeal.

MCI discriminates against opposition parties 3.

In our Appeal, we had highlighted our grievance with MCI for discriminating against Political Associations. MCI requires all CEC members of Political Associations to disclose their personal financial information but does not impose such requirements on members of the governing body of applicants who are not Political Associations. 4. We now wish to provide evidence that MCI not only discriminates against Political Associations, MCI further discriminates against opposition political parties. MCI requires all CEC members of political parties to disclose their personal financial information, but MCI apparently does not impose such requirements on the CEC members of the People’s Action Party (“PAP”).

5.

1

Proof of this discriminatory practice is found in the transcript of the Parliamentary Debates of 22 May 20021.

th

10 Parliament, Session 1, Vol. 74 No. 16, Sitting Date: 22 May 2002 at: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00068413-ZZ¤tPubID=00069910ZZ&topicKey=00069910-ZZ.00068413-ZZ_1%2Bid005_20020522_S0002_T00031-budget%2B

1 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

6.

In Parliament on 22 May 2002, NCMP Mr Steve Chia asked Mr David Lim, Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (“MITA”)2: EXTRACT A Mr Steve Chia: "Can the Minister kindly explain why all the CEC members in a political party that applies for such a printing permit also be required to declare their personal assets? Is this requirement also enforced upon the PAP publication, Petir? And that all the PAP CEC members also have to declare their personal assets to MITA when they apply for this printing permit."

7.

MITA replied Mr Steve Chia as follows: EXTRACT B Mr David Lim: "Mr Steve Chia also asked why it is necessary for the CEC members of political parties to be named as the publishers of party websites and newspapers, and to declare their assets. Sir, in politics, it is only too easy to run down political opponents or to stir up trouble under the cloak of anonymity. This is why it is necessary to remove this cover. It is reasonable and fair to expect CEC members, as the highest decision making body of a party, to stand by their views openly, and to take responsibility for what is published on their website or in the newspapers. Also, requiring CEC members to declare their assets when they apply for a newspaper permit ensures that they are people of substance who have not tried to avoid their responsibilities by appointing proxies to represent them on the CEC, and to be the fall guys should they run into trouble with the law. Mr Chia has also asked if this rule applies to Petir and to the PAP. Yes, it does. But 3 PAP CEC members declare their assets to the Prime Minister and SBA accepts that declaration as fulfilment of this requirement. "

8.

On hearing MITA’s reply, MP Mr Chiam See Tong sought the following clarification from MITA: EXTRACT C Mr Chiam See Tong: "I just want to seek some clarification from the Acting Minister. Just now, he said that the particulars of assets of the members of the CEC of the PAP are handed to the Prime Minister. If I am not mistaken, the PAP is a private political party, just like any other political party in Singapore. I believe also that Petir is a publication of a private organisation. It is not a Government publication. How is the law being complied with when it is required that all the CEC members must submit their assets to SBA, but in this case, it was submitted to the Prime Minister?

2 3

MITA is the predecessor of MDA. Singapore Broadcasting Authority, the predecessor of MDA

2 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

Another clarification. When the details of assets are submitted to the Prime Minister, is it submitted to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, or is it submitted to the Prime Minister as the head of the PAP?

9.

MITA replied Mr Chiam See Tong as follows: EXTRACT D Mr David Lim: "The PAP is not just a private political party. It is the ruling party. It is the Government. It forms the Government. When office-holders declare their assets to the Prime Minister, they declare to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. The purpose of having this rule, as I gave Mr Steve Chia in my reply, was to ensure that the CEC members are people of substance and that they do not put proxies on board the CEC so that these proxies can be the fall guys for them should they run into trouble. This objective is achieved by the declaration that the CEC members make to the Prime Minister in their duties as office -holders."

10.

The above Hansard extracts record MITA’s confirmation that MITA required CEC members of opposition parties to declare their assets to SBA, but did not require PAP CEC members to do the same.

11.

SBA was succeeded by MDA and the role of MITA is now being performed by MCI.

12.

We have not found any information in the public domain of any change in the discriminatory practice described by MITA in Parliament on 22 May 2002. This leads us to conclude that such practice is still being followed by MCI to date.

13.

Thus we conclude that MCI discriminates against opposition politicians in direct violation of the equality principle guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution.

Justifying discriminatory policy on the basis of pure conjecture 14.

During his Parliamentary speech, at the point recorded by Extract B above, MITA provided the rationale for requiring CEC members of political parties to declare their assets. MITA’s rationale is as follows: (a)

CEC members of a political party should take personal responsibility for what is published on their party website or in newspapers;

(b)

Without the rule requiring CEC members to declare their assets, individuals may be tempted to appoint proxies as CEC members to be their fall guys in the event of trouble with the law; and

3 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

(c)

Therefore, requiring CEC members to declare their assets when they apply for a newspaper permit ensures that they are people of substance who have not tried to avoid their responsibilities by appointing proxies to represent them on the CEC, and to be the fall guys should they run into trouble with the law.

15.

When raising the spectre of anonymous individuals hiding behind proxy CEC members to take potshots at political opponents, Mr David Lim speaking as the Acting MITA did not provide any evidence to support his conjecture other than what seems to be his personal opinion that without regulation, “it is only too easy” for such a scenario to materialise.

16.

In particular, MITA did not cite any instance where a CEC member of a political party was found to be a proxy for an individual who had used the party organ to stir trouble.

17.

In the absence of supporting evidence, it must be concluded that the adverse scenario raised by MITA was more imaginary than real. Therefore, MITA had justified an unfair ministerial policy on the footing of an unsubstantiated conjecture.

MCI gives PAP CEC members privilege of financial privacy 18.

19.

As recorded by the transcript in Extract C, Mr Chiam See Tong asked MITA: 

“How is the law being complied with when it is required that all the CEC members must submit their assets to SBA, but in this case, it was submitted to the Prime Minister?”



“When the details of assets are submitted to the Prime Minister, is it submitted to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, or is it submitted to the Prime Minister as the head of the PAP?”

MITA’s reply as recorded by the transcript in Extract D was: “The PAP is not just a private political party. It is the ruling party. It is the Government. When office-holders declare their assets to the Prime Minister, they declare to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister.”

20.

Under MCI’s requirements, the CEC members of a Political Association desiring a newspaper permit for their party organ, must declare their personal financial information to the Registrar of Newspapers (“RON”), a non-partisan civil servant, to be assessed by such civil servant as to whether he is of sufficient financial substance to warrant the grant of the newspaper permit to the Political Association.

4 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

21.

But, as explained by MITA, PAP CEC members do not have to declare their personal financial information to RON to be assessed by such non-partisan civil servant as to whether he is of sufficient financial substance to warrant the grant of the newspaper permit to the PAP party organ, Petir.

22.

Thus, RON is privy to and has records of the personal financial information of CEC members of opposition parties, but has no knowledge or record of the personal financial information of PAP CEC members.

23.

Only the Prime Minister alone knows the personal financial information of PAP CEC members and presumably, the Prime Minister himself decides whether the PAP CEC members have enough financial substance to warrant the grant of the newspaper permit to the PAP.

24.

Hence, PAP CEC members enjoy the privilege of financial privacy, while CEC members of other Political Associations must share their personal financial information with RON and MCI.

25.

That the PAP is “the ruling party” does not justify its exemption from applicable laws and regulations. Other than that, MITA did not provide and MCI has not provided any reason why PAP CEC members should not disclose their personal financial information to RON.

26.

NSP takes the position that the rule of law behoves MCI to require PAP to go through the same application and assessment process as that which MCI requires other Political Associations to undergo. MCI should not permit PAP to have a different application and assessment process.

27.

In any case, it is NSP’s position as stated in our Appeal that CEC members’ personal financial information is not essential nor relevant to RON for the purposes of considering and processing our Application.

Exclusion of MCI from the Cabinet’s deliberation 28.

The NPPA4 prescribes the form of recourse which NSP has to take in regard to its dissatisfaction with MCI’s refusal to process our Permit renewal application.

29.

However, the President is by law obliged to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. The President has no power to decide the outcome of our Appeal in his own discretion. Hence, while the form of recourse is by appeal to the President, in substance it is the Cabinet which will be deciding the outcome of our Appeal.

4

Section 21(8) of the NPPA

5 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

30.

The President has informed us that MCI will not be participating in the deliberation of the Cabinet. We agree that the MCI should be excluded. As MCI is the party against whose decision our Appeal is made, he should not be a part of the body which decides the outcome of our Appeal.

31.

We would point out that not only MCI but the Second Minister for Communications and Information should also be excluded since the latter serves in the same ministry as the former.

32.

That said, NSP contends that excluding MCI (and the Second MCI as well) from the Cabinet's deliberation would not be sufficient to remove the element of bias.

33.

For the reasons explained which we shall below in the foregoing paragraphs, the Cabinet is in a conflict of interest position and as such, the Cabinet should completely recuse itself from arbitrating our Appeal and defer the role of arbiter to a neutral body.

Derogating from the rule against bias - “Nemo iudex in causa sua” 34.

Under the Constitution, the Cabinet is responsible for the general direction and control of the Government.

35.

However, As Mr David Lim had explained: "The PAP is not just a private political party. It is the ruling party. It is the Government." Mr David Lim saw no bright line separating the PAP from the Government.

36.

The present Cabinet comprises 18 Ministers, all of whom are PAP members, and 15 of whom are PAP CEC members5.

37.

NSP is an opposition political party and our Appeal is against the decision of MCI, who is: (a) a PAP member; (b) a PAP CEC member; (c) a Cabinet Minister; and (d) a Government servant.

38.

5

NSP contends that the Cabinet is not an independent or neutral party in respect of our grievance with MCI. There is actual, imputed and apparent bias.

https://www.pap.org.sg/about-pap/whos-who/central-executive-committee accessed on 6 December 2014.

6 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 397 Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007 ROS UEN S87SS0083C

39.

Allowing our Appeal entails the Cabinet conceding that MCI's decision was wrong and that the Cabinet itself has been remiss in carrying out its executive duties. Conversely, defending and upholding the MCI's decision will be a denial of NSP's Appeal.

40.

It is a principle of natural justice that no one can judge a case in which he participates as a party or has an interest in the outcome of the case. An aggrieved party is entitled to be heard and to have his dispute arbitrated by a decision-maker who is neutral, independent and unattached to the outcome of the case. With the Cabinet as the judge, we are denied the benefit of this right.

To appoint an Ombudsman to decide our Appeal 41.

To preserve the integrity of the process and to safeguard natural justice, we call on the Cabinet to recuse itself from deciding our Appeal in favour of a neutral party. We propose that the Cabinet appoints an ad hoc tribunal or ombudsman ("Ombudsman") to deliberate the merits and to decide the outcome of our Appeal. The Ombudsman should comprise a panel of three individuals being one nominated by the Cabinet, one nominated by NSP and the third nominated by the joint decision of the Cabinet's nominee and NSP's nominee.

42.

For the Cabinet to recuse itself as arbiter of our Appeal and to defer our Appeal to an Ombudsman will ensure not only that Justice is done, but that Justice is also seen to be done.

Yours faithfully

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Secretary-General NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY Email: [email protected] Copy to: The Registrar of Newspapers c/o the Media Development Authority of Singapore

7 Additional Submissions for Appeal to the President of Singapore 8 December 2014