Leon Perera apologises for misrepresenting facts in Parliament on Mediacorp editing a Parliament video

WP's Leon Perera apologised in Parliament for misrepresenting facts that Mediacorp edited a Parliament video.

He justified himself with 'failed memory' and continued to give a FALSE impression that the issue was 'resolved amicably' with Mediacorp.

There was nothing for Leon Perera to resolve with Mediscorp because even before he had sent his first email to Mediacorp, Mediacorp had already rectified the video.

When rectification was done even before he had raised the issue with Mediacorp, what was there to resolve?

NCMP Leon Perera joins Sylvia Lim's club

More than 8 months after the debates in Parliament on the presidency in February 2017, WP's NCMP Leon Perera made a serious accusation on Nov 7.

He claimed that Mediacorp had put up the video with “certain bits removed”, and that the broadcaster made a rectification ONLY AFTER he communicated with them.

The TRUTH is that Mediacorp had in fact rectified the clip and put the full exchange online on Feb 18, two days BEFORE Mr Perera had emailed the company on Feb 20.

Mediacorp had explained to Mr Perera on the same day of his email that a technical issue had affected the recording, resulting in a truncated recording.

With this knowledge, he still went to Parliament and deliberately misrepresented the facts of the matter.

Parliamentarians enjoy a special privilege of immunity when they speak in Parliament. They should respect the sacredness of Parliament and the special privilege accorded to them and not belittle the importance of the Chamber in which they stand and speak.

Leon Perera's false allegation

On Tuesday’s Parliament Sitting (Nov 7), Mr Leon Perera alleged that Mediacorp had edited a video from the debate on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in Feb this year, with “certain bits removed”. 

He claimed that after his intervention, #MediaCorp“made a rectification and put up a different clip”.

He was clearly implying that MediaCorp had edited Parliamentary footages in a partisan manner.

This was a serious accusation. But it was false, and unfair to MediaCorp who work very hard to prepare footages after every Parliament Sitting.

I raised this with Mr Perera in Parliament on Tuesday (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/chee-hong-tat-on-video-rec…).

Confronted, he was forced to acknowledge the following facts:

(a) On 20 Feb 2017, Mr Perera emailed MediaCorp to ask why a particular video clip had been truncated.

(b) MediaCorp replied to him on the same day, explaining that a technical glitch had affected the recording, and that it had been rectified and the full clip made available online on 18 Feb – TWO days before Mr Perera’s email query.

So Mr Perera had known this for several months. Yet when I asked him, he at first repeated the false claim. He said, “as a result of that exchange I had with MediaCorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations”.

I had to reiterate the facts and remind him what actually happened, before he grudgingly conceded the point.

It is surprising that Mr Perera remembered the original ‘editing’ and that he had asked MediaCorp, but ‘forgot’ that MediaCorp told him it was an error which had already been rectified.

It is part of debate to criticize and present different views.

But it is unethical and wrong to tell untruths to score political points. This is not what Singaporeans want to see in Parliament.

- SMS Chee Hong Tat

https://www.facebook.com/hongtat.chee/posts/1101168040019616

Staying true to her colours. Sylvia Lim did the 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' again.

In her adjournment motion speech in Parliament, Sylvia Lim quoted the advice of a “prominent” Queens Counsel filed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in Court, that the Art was unconstitutional. 

But she did not disclose that Tan Cheng Bock also withdrew the QC’s advice. 

Clearly the advice had no merit or Tan Cheng Bock would not have withdrawn it. 

By suppressing the fact that Tan Cheng Bock had withdrawn the QC's advice, Sylvia Lim intended to mislead Singaporeans.

In legal language, such behaviour is described as:

"suppressio veri suggestio falsi" - suppressing the truth to suggest something that is false.

In 2015, the High Court judge, Quentin Loh described one of Sylvia Lim’s Parliamentary speeches as an exercise of “suppresio veri, suggestio falsi”.

What Sylvia Lim has succeeded in her adjournment motion is to further discredit her credibility. 

Invited but declined invitation. So who is not upfront?

Was the Government upfront about their intention?

Right from the beginning, minority representation was their concern.

When the Constitutional Commission Committee was set up in February 2016, one of the TERMS OF REFERENCE was to 'consider and recommend what provisions should be made to safeguard minority representation in the Presidency'. 

So why is WP surprised that the reserved election has taken place now rather than later?

DURING THE REVIEW by the Constitutional Commission, over 100 people and organisations submitted their views to the Constitutional Commission Committee, including WP.

The WP were invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission.

But they chose not to do so.

20 contributors were invited to give their views to the Constitutional Commission and the WP was the only one that declined the invitation.

Why did WP choose not to give their views publicly to the Constitutional Commission on a matter that concerned the highest office in the land?

UPFRONT OF NOT?

1. Safeguarding minority representation was one of the terms of reference for the Constitutional Commission during the review.

2. Law Minister Shanmugam said in a townhall dialogue on 15 September 2016 that the reserved election was a policy decision.

3. PM Lee said in Parliament on 8 November 2016 that the GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE how the count would start.

Quote:
When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

Whether in Parliament or outside Parliament, the Government had made clear their intention right from the beginning.

Guess who is misleading people?

POLICY DECISION, said Mr Shanmugam In the first townhall dialogue in September 2016. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

PM LEE indicated the same when he spoke in Parliament in November 2016 during the debate.

PM Lee said:
"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

In other words, it is a GOVERNMENT DECISION when the counting would start.

So who is misleading people?

Sylvia Lim has conveniently chosen to focus people on her own misinterpretation of "we have taken the Attorney-General’s advice" and ignored all that was said by PM Lee just before this.

This isn't the first time she has misled in Parliament. She is the only one with the distinction of being called out by Justice Quentin Loh for misleading Parliament.

Parliament is supreme. Parliament is where policy decisions are made. The role of the AG is to advise the Government on the legal aspects of the decisions they make, the legitimacy of their policy decisions.

As a Parliamentarian and a lawyer by training, Sylvia Lim should know the role of the AG to government.

In her adjournment motion speech, she quoted various 'who said what' EXCEPT from the 68-page judgement delivered by the appeal court.

If Sylvia Lim is a serious seeker of answer she would have read the judgement for therein lies the answer to her question, addressed in great detail.

Instead she chose to mislead in order to insinuate in Parliament.

Chief Jusice Menon, in his judgement, wrote that Constitution mandates that Parliament should decide on how the count would start. He also said that Constitution allows the Government to choose any of the 5 terms preceding 2017 as the first term. (http://bit.ly/2yJ5J33)

Context and meaning: Taking AG's advice

A lesson on context and meaning. No SkillsFuture credit needed. This lesson is free. 😂😂😂

Taking the AG's advice? Meaning is found in the overall context. 

To quote him more fully, this was what PM Lee said in Parliament in November 2016:

"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.
We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."

(1) The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point ...

==> Constitution is clear that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEGISLATE. That is, the Government decides (not AGC).

(2) ... and the Government intends to legislate..

==> PM Lee also made it clear that the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE. That is, the Government intends to decide.

Thus:
The Government intends to legislate, the Government takes a decision. With that decision, the Government takes advice from AG on all the legal aspects involved in making this legislation. Having taken care of all the legal aspects involved in the legislation, PM Lee informs parliament that they will start the count from President Wee Kim Wee.

Easy to understand?