Debated in Parliament on 8 May 2017.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee (Paper Parl 6 of 2017) be hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament".
Mdm Speaker, in March this year, Parliament directed the Standing Orders Committee to consider and make recommendations on amendments to the Standing Orders. The Committee was asked to look at (a) amendments arising from the constitutional amendments that we passed last year; and (b) updates to the Standing Orders more generally. In the process, the Committee considered submissions made by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun and accepted them where appropriate.
The Committee, comprising both Government and Opposition Members of Parliament, has completed its deliberations and unanimously agreed on a report. The report has been presented to Parliament. I thank the Members of the Committee for their work. I would also like to thank you, Mdm Speaker, for presiding over the Committee's deliberations with your usual fairness and efficiency. The Government agrees with the recommendations of the Committee and commends them to the House.
In my speech today, I will first take the House through the key recommendations made by the Committee; and, second, respond to some of the issues that were raised to the Committee.
First, recommendations related to the Elected Presidency. The Committee made two key recommendations arising from the constitutional amendments that we passed last year.
The first recommendation is for Parliament to be kept informed if the President fails to exercise his custodial powers on a measure passed by Parliament within the time limits prescribed by the Constitution. Such measures include Supply Bills and resolutions on certain guarantees and loans. The recommendation is for the Clerk to publish a notice in the Hansard and the Gazette if the President does not signify his decision on such measures within the prescribed time limit. Under the Constitution, if the President fails to make a decision within the prescribed time limit, he is deemed to have agreed with the proposed measure.
The second recommendation concerns Parliament's power to overrule the President if he exercises a veto contrary to the recommendation of the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA). The Committee has recommended that procedural machinery be put in place for this purpose. The procedures will provide that (a) the President's grounds and the CPA's recommendation must be made available two clear days before a Motion to overrule the President can be moved; (b) the Speaker must be satisfied that the President's veto was, in fact, contrary to the CPA's recommendation, as required by the Constitution; and (c) there is to be a standard form of words for Motions to overrule the President.
The Committee also made a number of recommendations relating to Bill procedure.
First, notice of amendments should be increased from two clear days to four clear days. A clear day is basically a full working day. The increased notice applies to both Government and backbench amendments and will give Members more time to consider amendments.
Second, the minimum interval between the First and Second Reading of a Bill should be increased from seven clear days to 10 clear days. In effect, this means at least two weeks must pass between the First and Second Reading of a Bill. The increased interval would avoid situations where Bills come up for Second Reading too quickly because the House is sitting for an extended period, for example, during the Budget Debates. In practice, the interval between First and Second Readings would generally be longer − Bills introduced are generally debated only at the next month's Sitting.
Third, the Second Reading of Supply Bills can be taken immediately after the end of Committee of Supply (COS) proceedings, even if the usual interval between the First and Second Reading have not elapsed. The heads of expenditure in a Supply Bill would have been fully debated by the House during the COS proceedings, and it makes more sense for the House to go to the Second Reading immediately after COS proceedings are completed, instead of diverting to some other business, or adjourning the Sitting and coming back to the Supply Bill later.
On petitions, the Committee recommended that Parliament should be able to consider a Petition together with a Motion or Bill. This would avoid a situation where a Petition on a Bill or Motion is still being considered by the Public Petitions Committee even though the Bill or Motion has already been dealt with by Parliament.
The Committee also made a number of miscellaneous recommendations to improve Parliamentary procedure. I outline the key recommendations.
First, a Member whose question has not been answered during Question Time should indicate within one hour after Question Time whether he wishes to postpone his question. This is to facilitate the work of the Clerks, who have to circulate written answers to Members who choose not to postpone their questions.
Second, a Member should be able to record an abstention in a voice vote. Currently, the Standing Orders only permit dissents to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Third, there should be a procedure for officeholders to correct any factual errors they make in a Parliamentary speech. The correction would be made by a written statement circulated to Members and published in the Hansard. The Speaker's leave must be sought within 72 hours after the draft Hansard is circulated. This procedure would ensure that factual errors on important policies and legislation in a speech are swiftly corrected, instead of having to wait until the next available Sitting to make an explanation.
Fourth, the Speaker should be able to order reprints of the Standing Orders. The powers she would have in this regard are similar to those exercised by the Law Revision Commissioners for statute law. Many parts of the Standing Orders are drafted in very archaic styles and would benefit from some revision. Of course, a reprint cannot make substantive changes to the Standing Orders. Such changes would still have to be approved by Parliament.
The Committee also received feedback and suggestions from Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun. I thank the two Members for their suggestions, which raise important issues. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the Committee's response, and add some observations of my own.
It was suggested that Government Bills should be introduced together with Ministerial Statements providing key information on the Bill. On this specific suggestion, the Committee did not think it was necessary. If a Bill is introduced with a Ministerial Statement, any clarifications that may be sought by Members on the Ministerial Statement and the Minister's subsequent responses may pre-empt the Second Reading debate. It is better that all the speeches and arguments be kept to the Second Reading debate.
But I appreciate the broader point that Members need information on Bills. May I suggest some ways in which Members can get the necessary information.
Every Bill comes with an Explanatory Statement, which will provide information on what the provisions do and the broad purposes of the Bill. To some extent, the statement is technical in nature, because it has to explain the legal provisions accurately. But as far as possible, the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) will draft the statement in plain English and in an accessible way. I encourage Members to read the statement for more information on the Bill.
For amendment Bills, I would like to inform the House that the law drafters at AGC will commence on a project in July to make available tracked amendments against the main Act. A soft copy of the tracked changes will be made available on the Members' portal. The authoritative version of the Bill will still be in today's format, but the tracked changes should make things simpler for Members who wish to go into the legislative detail. AGC will review the usefulness of this facility before making it a permanent arrangement.
Beyond the Bill itself, the general practice of Ministries is to release a press statement or fact sheet, which will contain more information about the policy background to the Bill.
And, at the end of the day, if a Member needs more information on a Bill that has been introduced, he or she can approach the relevant officeholder, before the Second Reading debate. I know my colleagues on the front bench will be happy to engage any Member before the debate to hear their concerns.
The Standing Orders Committee was also asked to consider having Standing Select Committees to consider specific issues.
Mdm Speaker, the Standing Orders already provide a number of avenues for Members to take the initiative in raising issues for Parliament's consideration. These avenues are accessible to Government, Opposition and Nominated Members alike. So, instead of looking at having new procedures and formats, I would suggest that Members make full use of the existing procedures. If Members need any advice on the procedures, they can approach the Clerks.
Finally, the Committee was also asked if Question Time could be increased. We increased Question Time back in 2004, from one hour to one and a half hours. At times, the one and a half hours are sufficient to finish all the Questions for Oral Answer. At other times, I recognise we were not able to do so. But there are only so many hours in a Sitting day, and we need to strike a balance between Question Time and the other demands on Parliamentary time. There are already instances where the House has to sit late into the night to give Members time to debate Bills and Motions. So, at this point, I do not think it is right to have a permanent increase in the length of Question Time stipulated in the Standing Orders.
What the Government will do is to ask the House to increase Question Time on an ad hoc basis if the volume of business permits. Members will recall that Parliament increased Question Time to two and a half hours last July and last October on my Motion. The Government is prepared to continue to take this approach, having regard to the number of questions and the other demands on Parliamentary time. In appropriate cases, Ministers will also make statements to the House on important issues outside of Question Time, and Members can seek clarifications on these issues. This was done, for example, during the Zika outbreak last year.
I should also remind Members that, if a Member's question is not reached by the end of Question Time, he can choose to postpone his question and request for an Oral Answer to be given at the next Sitting. Otherwise, the Member will still receive a written answer to his question. All questions filed by Members will be answered by the relevant Ministries either in oral or written form.
By way of conclusion, I should like to touch on time management in the House. I asked the Clerk to collate some statistics. We are now sitting longer hours for each Sitting. For the 11th Parliament, we sat for an average of five hours and eight minutes per Sitting day. The average for the 12th Parliament was five hours and 40 minutes. The average for this Parliament, up to April, is six hours and 23 minutes. Last month, Members would recall that we sat until 10.00 pm on 4 April.
These increases and the absolute numbers are not, in themselves, a matter of serious concern. We have more Members now, and more complex issues facing the country. It is natural that we have been sitting longer.
To some extent, we can sit longer if need be and, in fact, I would tell the House that the length of Sittings is likely to continue to increase. But in overall terms, I would prefer to have a focused, meaningful Sitting for a few days every month. I think this would be more beneficial for the quality of debate in the House. So, I urge all Members − participate vigorously in debates by all means, but keep your speeches short, sharp and to the point. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mdm Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the Standing Orders Committee for its work.
I seek some clarity on Standing Order No 54(4) which is to be deleted by way of these amendments. I would like to enquire about the original reason for this Standing Order which requires the presence of at least 25 Members who are supportive of a Motion when a debate is to be closed. It would appear that the spirit of this Standing Order is not just to ensure no infringement of the rights of the minority or an abuse of the rules of Parliament, but to ensure that there is a significant enough number of Members of Parliament who are present in the House to see through any debate and at the close of debate.
However, what these amendments could considerably do is to create a public impression that the deletion of Standing Order No 54(4) supports the presence of fewer Members of Parliament in the House when the relevant question is put, bearing in mind that the deleted Standing Order does not call for a quorum of 25 Members but the presence of at least 25 Members who were in support of the Motion, a higher requirement necessitating a sufficiently robust number of Members of Parliament in the House.
So, for example, if these amendments are approved and Standing Order 54(4) is deleted, it would permit a hypothetical Motion to pass should the matter be decided with 17 "ayes" and 9 "nos", as it would have met the constitutional quorum requirement of at least 26 Members. Even though the Constitution in Article 57(1) is silent on the specific number of majority votes required, in effect, the deletion of this Standing Order supports the presence of fewer Members in the House at the closure of debate when the question is put to Members. Going back to the illustrated example, should Standing Order 54(4) remain, the same Motion would require at least eight more Members in the House, and that is assuming they intend to vote in favour of the Motion.
To this end, some members of the public may draw an adverse inference on these amendments and there may be some risk that it will reduce public trust in the institution of Parliament as Singaporeans would expect most legislators to be present in the House at any point in time. This is notwithstanding the fact that Article 56 of the Constitution requires a quorum of one-quarter of Members to be present when the House is in session, failing which, Parliament shall be adjourned. It would be helpful if the Leader can revisit the spirit and purpose of the deleted Standing Order 54(4) in the first place and why it is this Standing Order was drafted in the first place, so as to pre-empt any adverse public opinion on this matter.
The registration of my concerns notwithstanding, I support the amendments.
I would like to make a second point, which is in reference to the Leader's speech just now with regard to questions which are postponed by Members and essentially go beyond the one and a half hours that are allotted by Parliament.
Can I get some understanding from the Leader as to whether those questions will be accorded some degree of priority in the subsequent session of Parliament, because my experience in the second half of last year was that a question on the Competition of Commissioner of Singapore and lifts, with regard to lifts that are maintained by or managed by EM Services, was repeatedly postponed month after month. So, I would like to get some assurance from the Leader that that ought not to happen in future, provided the list of questions the Government has can be reordered somewhat.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mdm Speaker, while I am prepared to support the Motion, I would like to place on record my concern about one of the proposed amendments. This relates to the change of Standing Order 18 on petitions. In gist, my concern is that the new power to be given to the House must be used with great care and should never be seen to curtail the public petition process.
Let me explain. The proposal by the Standing Orders Committee is to amend Standing Order 18 to provide an option for the House to decide that a petition need not be referred to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC). This might be done if the Speaker is of the view that the subject matter of the petition relates to a matter being already before the House, by a way of a Bill or Motion, in which case, the petition can be considered at the same time. The Committee's report states that this is to avoid the situation where the Bill or Motion has already disposed of the matter before the PPC considers the petition, making the petition moot.
Under the current Standing Orders, all petitions initiated by the public must be brought to this House through a Member who is not a signatory to the petition. In other words, the Member is not necessarily a person who shares the concerns of the petitioners but is merely a necessary conduit through which a petition may be presented to Parliament. The Standing Order provides that every such petition must be referred to the PPC, except in very limited circumstances. I am concerned that this new power, if used routinely, would result in petitions not being given their due hearing, or send a signal that petitions are not important.
Some may ask what difference a reference to the PPC will make, since the contents of the petition can be read by Members during a debate on a related Bill or Motion. The difference to me is very significant. The PPC is a Standing Select Committee whose procedures are governed by Standing Order 103. PPC is empowered to call for witnesses, papers and records and can independently report its opinion and its observations to Parliament. Compared with the procedures of the whole House, the PPC would have more time to fully investigate the grievances of the petitioners and hear them out personally if needed, and call for relevant documents, including documents from the Government.
The public petition procedure is provided for by the Standing Orders, and it is a vital link between Parliament and the members of the public. There is a due process that should be granted to petitioners. If the petition is not referred to the PPC but is considered by the whole House during a debate of the Motion or Bill, the burden would naturally shift to the Member presenting the petition to fully convey the petitioners' concerns and grievances, which is probably expecting too much of the Member.
Madam, the recent debate on the administration of Justice Protection Bill provides a window as to what could potentially be problematic in the future. A petition of the Bill was presented through Nominated Member Kok Heng Leun but it was dealt with summarily during the debate of the Bill.
In that case, the wording of the Bill was not made public until after it was presented in Parliament for First Reading. So, it could well be said that the petitioners could not have initiated their petition any earlier. In that debate, Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun indicated his consent to have the petition heard together with the Bill and his view that this was appropriate, should be given due weight.
However, the House should be mindful that in future cases, we should endeavour to ensure that all petitions are granted their due process and hearing by PPC. The House should bear in mind that it may be in the public interest instead to do the opposite to defer the Motion or Bill, unless there is urgency, until the petition has been considered by PPC and its report sent to Parliament. Parliament might well benefit from a fuller understanding of the issue from the aggrieved or concerned persons before considering the Bill or Motion.
In summary, Madam, while the new power under Standing Order 18 is a useful power to have, my view is that it should be used most judiciously, bearing in mind the importance of the public petitions process.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mdm Speaker, first, I would like to thank you for your guidance and leadership both as the Speaker of this House and as the chairperson for the Standing Orders Committee. With your leadership, our Parliament proceedings are smooth and efficient, and Members can debate productively and robustly while adhering to strict time limits.
This report proposes several enhancements to various aspects of the Parliamentary proceedings and conduct. There are several issues which I would like to raise. First, the proposed amendments on the Elected Presidency, which are consequential to the constitutional amendments proposed last year. One of the proposals states that if the President goes against the advice of the majority of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and exercises his veto power, Parliament can override such a veto with a two-thirds majority. For this to happen, the President's grounds and Council's recommendation should be made available at least two days before a Motion is moved to overrule the President. I would like to clarify what is the legal position if the Clerk fails to publish the notification that the President did not exercise his custodial powers within the constitutional time limit?
Second, on the Bill procedures, I welcome the proposal to increase the minimum interval from seven to 10 clear days as this will give more time for further deliberation on Bills. I also welcome the increase in the notice period for amendments from two clear days to four clear days as this will strike an appropriate balance between passing legislation in a timely way, while allowing Parliament adequate time for legislative scrutiny. I look forward to the proposed tracking of changes to amendment Bills as this will help Members while going through the various versions of the amendments and keep track of the evolution process of the Bill.
On the issue of petitions, I agree that it will be beneficial for the Parliament to have the option of considering a petition together with a related Bill or a Motion, instead of sending the petition to the Public Petitions Committee. This is so that Parliament can have the benefit of considering the petition while debating the Bill or Motion. Members can then scrutinise the issues raised in the petition and a full debate can occur. Public interest will, hence, not be compromised.
When it comes to Question Time, I speak on behalf of backbenchers that we would naturally prefer more time rather than less. However, it also means that if Question Time is increased, the time spent on other matters. such as debating Bills and Motions, will have to moderate. I recognise that the Government is meeting backbenchers midway by increasing Question Time on an ad hoc basis and I hope that this can be done whenever the volume of business permits or an issue is of broad public interest. I also hope that Ministers will continue and perhaps also expand on the practice of making Ministerial Statements on significant issues of broad public interest to the House, in the spirit of accountability to Parliament. This will also give Members another avenue to ask questions on important issues and engage the Ministers on these issues.
Finally, on time management, I welcome the Leader's indication that the Government is prepared to sit longer hours to deal with increased Parliamentary business. This shows that the Government respects the important role that Members play in scrutinising and debating Government policy and proposed legislation. I understand that there are now no limits on how long Members can speak on each item of business and how long each item can be debated but, at the same time, it would not be prudent to prolong debates just because we can. It is ultimately the quality, rather than the length of the debate that matters.
A search online showed that the longest Parliament session in a single Sitting was in 1881 in the United Kingdom which lasted for 41.5 hours. Just last year, the Australian Senate sat for 28 hours before passing a Voting Reform Bill. This is one record that we might do well to avoid. For us to achieve a balanced state where important matters are sufficiently debated, I hope all sides of the House will practice self-discipline, including myself, and keep our speeches short and succinct. Madam, I support the Motion.
Mdm Speaker: Leader of the House Grace Fu.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the speeches by hon Members Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and Desmond Choo.
First, I would like to make three broad points. The debate today is not about the Constitutional amendments to the Elected President (EP). The amendment process is complete. We had hearings and the report by the Constitutional Commission, a White Paper in Parliament, and a full debate in Parliament last November. The Opposition made its points and the Government responded. The amendments were passed by Parliament and came into force last month. So far as the EP is concerned, there are only two narrow procedural issues − the procedural machinery for an overruling Motion and a notification where the President does not signify his decision on a measure passed by Parliament.
Second, in amending the Standing Orders, we are refining a system that has worked well for Parliament, amended and adjusted over time to keep its relevance and effectiveness.
Third, the amendments we are debating today were unanimously agreed by the Standing Orders Committee, with both Government and Opposition Members on it. Members were also invited to make submissions to the Committee and had one month to do so. The Committee gave a considered response to the submissions by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun.
First, I would like to refer to Mr Pritam Singh who raised the issue about sequence of Parliamentary Questions. There is no rocket science involved in the sequencing. If there are a lot of questions on the topic, they get put in front. If a question concerns a topical issue, it gets put in front. A balance is struck between questions from all sides of the House. The sequence of the questions on the Order Paper is decided by the Speaker. I give my views as the Leader of the House, but the Speaker has the final say.
On Mr Pritam Singh's other issue about removing the 25-Member majority for closure of debate, I would just like to reiterate what the Committee has reported, that this requirement for a 25-Member majority is not consistent with Article 57(1) which provides that all questions proposed for a discussion in Parliament shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the Members present and voting. The requirement was laid down in colonial times. I asked the same question but we could not trace the real background. So, it must have been around for a long time and this is really a housekeeping amendment. The Government has no present intention to invoke that procedure to close debates. In any case, the Standing Order on quorum still stands and that is fixed at 25% of the total Members in the House. And that, by percentage, a quarter is more flexible. It reflects the changing number of Members in the House and, therefore, would be more relevant going forward.
Ms Sylvia Lim raised some concerns about the move to include in the Standing Order a Motion to consider petitions together with its related Bill or Motion. This amendment is a procedural one. If it is carried, the petition is considered by the House. Otherwise, the petition goes to the Public Petitions Committee. Either way, the petition will be considered. It is simply a question of how. So, there is no need for a separate debate.
In any case, I take Ms Sylvia Lim's point that as much as possible − and I am sure I speak for all my frontbench colleagues − we would like to consider all viewpoints brought to the attention of Parliament. But as Members can appreciate, there are two parallel processes that are going on. Any petition could come in on the very day that we are having a debate on a Motion or Bill and it would be advantageous if we would have the ability to consider that petition together with the Motion or Bill, as what we have done with Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun's petition. This would allow us the flexibility of including the facts and the views presented in the petition while not delaying the process that has already been ongoing for the Bill or Motion. If the House feels strongly that a petition has to be considered separately by the Petitions Committee, they can always say no to this procedural Motion.
May I just wrap up by stepping back, Madam, and looking at the big picture. First, it is important to the Government that we spend time in the House to explain the laws and policies that we propose. The cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate inform the public on the important issues of the day. Accounting to Parliament is something that the Government takes seriously. The Prime Minister's open letter to Government Members of Parliament after the 2015 General Election underscored this.
Second, within the House, it is important that we strike a good balance between the different demands on Parliamentary time. Time spent on one item of business means time lost to another. Good time management means we do not have to cut off debate. Good time management means we have time to debate backbenchers' Motions like we did last month. Good time management means we can have more Question Time if need be. Good time management does not mean that Members should pull their punches or mute their criticisms of Government policy. But it does require Members to focus and deliver their key points succinctly and sharply. If anything, a succinct point is more likely to be more impactful and newsworthy than a meandering speech.
Third, we also need to balance the other demands on Members' time. Members know full well that a good debate in the House needs hours of preparation and homework outside. Members also need to remain in touch with different segments of society so that their arguments in the House are grounded in reality. Elected Members need to hear the concerns of the constituents. Ministers need to run their Ministries and formulate policies. If we sit in the House day in and day out, not only will we run out of meaningful things to say, we risk neglecting our work outside Parliament. At the end of the day, after everything is said, we must make a decision and carry on. Robust debate must culminate in decisive action. In the US, a Senator has actually gone to the extent of reading bedtime stories in the Senate to filibuster proceedings. I do not wish to see this House moving towards that state.
In this regard, I agree with Mr Desmond Choo's point that this is something that requires Members on all sides of the House to do their part. On policy and politics, we may well disagree and disagree sharply. After all, the very purpose of this House is to be an arena for a contest of hearts and minds. But as Members of Parliament, we also share a common duty to maintain the standing of Parliament as an effective and efficient institution. I hope that this is something that all Members will support fully. Madam, I beg to move.
Any clarifications? Ms Sylvia Lim.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. A clarification for the Leader of the House. I appreciate very much her confirmation that when the House and, indeed, the Government debates any issue, it is important to look at all relevant viewpoints. My exhortation was actually to the House as a whole, that there may be a real scenario in the future where it may be more in the public interest actually to defer a Bill or Motion because an important public petition has been presented. I would like the Leader of the House's confirmation that it is conceivable in the future that this might have to happen.
Mdm Speaker, I would repeat that I think I represent my frontbench colleagues that, indeed, if there is an important petition to be considered or, indeed, if the Public Petitions Committee has yet to submit its report, for example, I am sure we will adjust our schedule for the Motion in order to take in the relevant submissions.
Mr Louis Ng.
Madam, just one clarification. The Leader mentioned earlier that depending on the number of Questions and the amount of business for the day, these are the criteria used to extend Question Time. Could the Leader be more specific? Say, if there are more than 80 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) or less than three Bills, then Question Time will be extended? Can she maybe clarify the procedures?
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. Unfortunately, I think when it comes to sequencing Question Time, it is probably more art than science primarily because, very often, we are unable to determine beforehand the length of speeches that Members will make. We run the risk at times, as we have seen in the last Sitting on 4 April, the Sitting had had to be extended to 10.00 pm. So, it is not something that we could envisage in advance or with some scientific formula. But let us put it this way. If we find that there are Questions being piled up and if the rest of the agenda allows us to do so, we will definitely extend the Question Time, as I have done so twice last year.
*Resolved,*
*That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee (Paper Parl 6 of 2017) be hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. (proc text)]
PAPERCUTS