Impartial Speaker of Parliament

Order. I wish to draw Members' attention to the Standing Orders before the Motion is proceeded with.

The subject matter of the Motion is on the general desirability for an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fair arena. This Motion is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. Members are hence reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject of the Motion to be discussed.

In their speeches, Members should not impute improper motives to any other Member and, most specifically, rulings made by the former Speaker on any point of order cannot be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive Motion directly addressing those specific Points of Order.

Any aspersions on the conduct of the former Speaker or allegations that he was thereby not independent and impartial will hence be out of order. Members are to abide by these Standing Orders and I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all."

*The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa.

Before I begin my speech, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of Parliament. We are sure that your years of experience as Deputy Speaker will put you in good stead for the role that has now been entrusted to you and we trust that you will do your best to restore public confidence in the office of the Speaker of Parliament.

The events that led us to debate this Motion today has been truly regrettable. Even though Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin has resigned and apologised for his comment for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech on the President's Address during the Parliamentary Sitting on 17 April 2023, the PSP believes that the conduct of the former Speaker has brought Parliament into disrepute and is a matter that deserves a full debate in this House.

Sir, the Speaker of Parliament is responsible for presiding over Parliamentary Sittings and enforcing the rules of debate that have been laid down in the Standing Orders of Parliament to ensure that Parliamentary business is conducted in an orderly manner.

In carrying out these important duties, the Speaker must remain impartial to all Members of Parliament (MPs), regardless of their political affiliation. He must be seen as a fair referee, just like a Judge.

Mr EW Barker, the first Law Minister of Independent Singapore, pointed out the similarities between the Speaker of Parliament and a Judge during a speech in this House in January 1970. Mr Barker said, and I quote, "There is a great deal of similarity between the Judge and the Speaker. The impartiality both are expected to maintain between contending and contentious factions has to be, it is generally believed, judicial."

Indeed, all Speakers of Parliament prior to 1970 had been members of the legal profession, a fact that was also pointed out by Mr Barker in his speech.

It is paramount that a Speaker must be impartial and be seen by the public as impartial in discharging his duties in this House.

Speaker Tan's comment during the 17 April Sitting already damaged the public perception of its impartiality, even before the revelation of his inappropriate relation with a fellow PAP Member of Parliament (MP).

Let us consider the context of Speaker Tan's comments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just concluded a speech on poverty, titled "Hard Living in Singapore". Among other things, he called for the implementation of a poverty line and to make the approval process for ComCare less onerous and intrusive. After Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had taken a seat, Speaker Tan muttered a comment under his breath which I will not repeat, out of respect for the Standing Orders.

Speaker Tan's comments were highly contentious for two reasons. First, unparliamentary profanities were used in the comment. Secondly, which is the more serious reason, the comment itself revealed Speaker Tan's views of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as a person or the contents of his speech or both.

The Speaker of Parliament is, of course, entitled to form his own private opinions on any Member of this House or any speeches made here. However, as an impartial referee that enforces Parliamentary rules and procedures, the Speaker must not publicly express those opinions. This is no different from judges and heads of states in the Westminster system. We do not expect or, indeed, allow judges to express their opinions publicly or heads of states to express a different view from the government on public policy.

The issue here is that not being neutral and impartial leads to consequences of negative public perception that lower public trust in public institutions.

While Speaker Tan may not have expected that his comment will be picked up publicly, he was on duty and discharging his responsibilities as Speaker of the House. It was, therefore, a serious error to have even made that comment.

Furthermore, the tone and content of the comment make it clear that Speaker Tan objected to the contents of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech. This is especially problematic because the Speaker is expected to ensure that Parliament is a fair arena for all MPs, regardless of their political affiliation and he was objecting to the speech made by a Member of a different political party.

Mr Leong, if I can just remind you what I mentioned at the start, before you spoke, that we should not be comment – this is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.

Yes, Speaker, I understand that. But the recent event is, sort of, the ingredient for bringing out the principle, right? So, it is part and parcel of —

Yes, so stick to your Motion. But not to comment on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.

Yes, yes, that is right.

Thank you.

Sorry, I will carry on. Speaker Tan's comment thus did great damage to public perception of his impartiality as well as the impartiality of the office of the Speaker. He acknowledged this in his resignation letter to Prime Minister Lee when he said that his mistake raised "broader questions over my neutrality and impartiality as Speaker."

Speaker Tan's inappropriate comments —

Mr Leong, Mr Leong. I thought you understood what I said earlier?

Yes, but this is part and parcel of —

So, you can talk about your Motion, which is about the neutrality of the Speaker, but you do not need to make references to the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. I hope you understand that?

Well, I will get the exact Standing Order to you, but here, this Motion, I would like to repeat myself, in my opening remarks, it is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. So, it is not about his conduct. It is about – let me read your Motion, "That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all." That is your Motion. Thank you.

Okay. Speaker Tan's comments are a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, as a result we are —

No, no, no, I understand that.

Hence, we are disappointed with the Prime Minister's confirmation during the Ministerial Statement just now that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign for his inappropriate comment. We think the Speaker should be held to a higher standard than an MP. This is an issue that should be debated further in this House.

For any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust. How can the public trust Parliament when its presiding officer had compromised his ability to be independent and impartial?

Mr Speaker, historically, even without recent events, the actions of the PAP Government over the years could arguably be perceived by the public to have eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years. As I mentioned earlier, prior to 1970, all the Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession, either judges or lawyers. Except for the brief period between 1963 and 1964, when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were also non-partisan. When Mr Barker was elected as Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye explained that this was a temporary stop-gap measure until the consent of the Malaysian government, which was responsible for Singapore's judiciary at the time, when we were part of the Federation of Malaysia, could be solved, for a judge to be elected as Speaker. And indeed, this was followed through when AP Rajah was elected as Speaker in November 1964.

However, this convention changed after 1970, following the election of PAP backbencher and non-lawyer, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, as Speaker. I would like to add that this happened, incidentally, after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 General Election.

Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessors have also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, at the power centre of the ruling party. This evolution from having a non-partisan Speaker, a backbencher Speaker, to Speakers who are ex-office holders or members of the PAP's CEC could be perceived as having eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years.

PSP believes that it is problematic for the Speaker to uphold his impartiality and independence while simultaneously being at the power centre of the ruling party and being privy to the ruling party's political strategy alongside members of the Government.

It is also difficult for the public, especially those who do not support the ruling party, to be fully convinced that a core member of the ruling party can be an impartial presiding officer of the Parliament. We are of the view that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. Hence, we supported the elevation of Mr Speaker from the backbenches to the Speaker's office this time round.

We hope that the Speaker of Parliament, who is not closely linked to the core of the PAP, will be able to restore public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the office of the Speaker of Parliament. The PSP trusts, that you, Mr Speaker, will make every effort to do this for the rest of this term of Parliament.

As our democracy develops and the number of alternative and opposition MPs, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again in the future, just like AP Rajah in 1964.

Sir, since I cannot quote many of the examples that I have prepared here, I shall conclude by recounting an event in English history which has a bearing on how Speakers in Commonwealth jurisdictions conduct ourselves.

In 1642, King Charles I of England entered the English House of Commons and attempted to arrest five MPs. He demanded that the Speaker of Commons, William Lenthall, identify these five Members for arrest. Lenthall famously replied to the King, "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, except as the House, whose servant I am, directs of me." This incident underlines the principle that the Speaker should not be subordinate to the Government but an independent servant of the House. The Speaker has a duty to this House and this House alone. He is also not at liberty to express his opinions beyond defending the interests of this House.

The comments of a Speaker, therefore, must continue to build on the confidence that the public has in the office of the Speaker and he must always be independent and impartial. There is much work to be done by this House and our new Speaker to restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the office of Speaker, which has taken a body blow by recent events.

I call on Members to support the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and I, and unanimously reaffirm our commitment for the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial, and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.

Thank you for your good wishes, Mr Leong, and I appreciate your trust and confidence.

Question proposed.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as well. The position of the Speaker of Parliament exists in almost all modern parliamentary systems. The Speaker is a generally a Member of the House that is selected by fellow Members with a majority of the vote. While Singapore’s Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of Parliament (MP), the general practice has been for the Speaker to be an elected Member.

In most countries, the result of these two practices, namely (a) the Speaker being an MP and (b) the Speaker being elected by the majority of the House is often that the Speaker is an MP from the ruling party. There are times when non-ruling party MPs get elected as Speaker, and in Singapore's case, when non-MPs also get elected as Speakers, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

PSP's proposal does not seem to be suggesting we do away with this completely, but just seems to suggest within certain parameters around which the person should be selected, namely that the individual should not have been a part of the core leadership team of the ruling party.

I do not think there is the need for this additional limitation and I will explain this in my speech.

The most important point is the Speaker has to command the support of the majority in Parliament. Why is this important? The Speaker has the duty to preside over the elected representatives in the Chamber and he must in turn have their mandate to do so. Otherwise, you will have the anomalous situation of an unelected person potentially controlling the proceedings of the elected officials.

I think while my colleague Mr Leong highlighted some similarities between the role of a Judge and the role of a Speaker, there are also some important differences. One of the most important differences is that a Judge makes decisions on the facts before them and their decisions bind all parties on those facts. The Speaker, on the other hand, presides over Parliamentary proceedings, and while the Speaker may make decisions on procedural issues, the substantive decisions are made by the legislative chamber itself. Bills can only be passed by elected representatives. The Speaker does not have the power to force a Bill through.

Before Singapore’s independence, when we had a Legislative Assembly under British Rule, the first Speaker, Sir George Oehlers, was appointed by the Governor-General, who was the representative of the Crown, and this was in 1955.

Since Independence though, Singapore, like the UK and all other Commonwealth countries, had its own Parliament and the Speaker was one who was voted in by the majority of legislators in Parliament. As a matter of practice, the Speaker was nominated by the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister is the individual who commands the support of the majority in the House.

The Speaker in Singapore does not have to be from the ruling party, but usually is. After Sir George Oehlers, our next Speaker was Mr EW Barker in 1963 and he was also a very successful lawyer. But he was a member of the ruling party. The next Speakers after him, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, were not members of the ruling party but they were nominated by the Prime Minister and endorsed by the majority of the House.

Following that, from 1970, we had three of our longest serving Speakers: Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. The three of them took us all the way from 1970 to 2011. All three were members of the PAP. In Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's case, he was a member of the Cabinet, so, he was a part of the core leadership team before becoming a Speaker. They were appointed the same way as their predecessors, namely, nominated by the Prime Minister and elected by the House.

The fact that the Speaker is from the ruling party is not something that should take away from the discharge of their duties. The Speaker is still required to discharge their duties independently and impartially.

The Motion talks about Parliament being a fair arena. However, the fairness of Parliament is not just dependent on the individual who is the Speaker. The Speaker himself, like all Members, is bound by Parliament's Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Parliament's Standing Orders give Members who wish to speak a wide range of opportunities to do so. They may file Parliamentary Questions for written or oral answer, which Ministers will have to address publicly. They may speak on any Bills put forward by the Government, meaning, they have a say on any and every piece of legislation that passes this House. They may file Adjournment Motions if they need more time to speak on a specific issue and, again, the relevant Ministry will be required to address the issues raised. Finally, if they wish to speak at length on a topic, they may file a Motion, which Mr Leong is doing today.

The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act sets out additional protections for MPs, including freedom of speech such that anything that is said in Parliament is generally protected from proceedings in Court or any other forum, other than Parliament itself, which is why the Parliament is the first port of call if Members were to breach the Standing Orders.

All these matters provided for in Parliament's Standing Orders give every Member, whether from the ruling party or the opposition, the opportunity to raise and discuss matters they feel are important.

In keeping Parliament a fair arena, it is therefore also important for all Members to respect and comply with these rules.

The substance of keeping Parliament a fair arena is, I would respectfully say, largely captured in these rules and the law. The Speaker has the duty to ensure observance of the Standing Orders by Members in Parliamentary proceedings and must be independent and impartial in doing so.

If, indeed, there is any allegation that the Speaker has not acted independently and impartially in his decisions, this should be the subject of a specific Motion. No such Motion has been put forward.

Our process also has its checks on the Speaker's conduct should the Speaker fail to discharge his duties properly. The first is the Speaker's own party, if it feels the Speaker has not acted properly in any way. The second is Parliament itself, where Members are free to raise any objections they may wish to or even file the necessary Motion. Third, the ultimate check on a Member of the legislature is the ballot box. As Parliamentary debates are public, every action that the Speaker may take is up for public scrutiny. If there is any allegation that he has been unfair or impartial in the discharge of his duties, that is something the voters may take into account, both against him and even the party he is from, if the party endorses that conduct.

I think Mr Leong has made some references to the UK and the Speaker there. I would say different countries may have different practices in selecting the Speaker. The UK has a practice of the Speaker resigning from his political party upon nomination and actually being "dragged", supposedly unwillingly, from this chair to take the seat of the Speaker. This is because of the history of the Speaker sometimes having to deliver uncomfortable news to the Crown and for which he may face the consequences.

However, even though the Speaker may resign from his party upon nomination, it is clear that he still has the support of the party that commands the majority in Parliament and, in most cases, was a former member of that party. That would suggest his personal beliefs are likely to be aligned with the party he was a member of. Notwithstanding that, in the discharge of his duties, he is expected to be independent and impartial.

There are other peculiarities in the UK's approach, including that the Speaker's seat is generally uncontested by other parties and he campaigns as Speaker. He is thus likely to get re-elected unchallenged if campaigning as a Speaker.

This means that, unlike the Singapore system, where people vote for all legislators, including the Speaker, in the UK, the Speaker would not be subject to a challenge at the ballot box. So, his accountability in that sense is only to the Parliament itself, should the majority nominate him again. Whereas under our system, as I mentioned, the Speaker has three sets of checks: the party he is from, the Parliament itself, and third, the ballot box.

This is a different approach, but I do not think it is necessarily superior to the one we have.

There are other Commonwealth Countries, such as Australia, which have a system very similar to ours. There, the Speaker remains a member of a political party and will have to campaign for re-election like any other Member. The Speaker needs to get the support from the majority in Parliament. In practice, most of the Speakers have been from the ruling party, although there, too, were a few notable exceptions – just like in Singapore.

The Speaker in the Australian Parliament has often had to exercise a much firmer hand than the Speaker in Singapore on Points of Order and breaches of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Yet, despite the Speaker being from a political party and exercising these powers, nobody has seriously suggested the Australian Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.

I therefore do not think that the fact that the Speaker happens to be from a political party or from its leadership automatically means that he lacks independence in the performance of his duties as Speaker.

Finally, I believe this obligation to keep Parliament a fair arena for all is not just for the Speaker, but also one in which every Member has a part. It is important for Members to respect the Standing Orders so that other Members would also have opportunities to speak and raise the points they need to speak. It is thus important for all Members to honour and comply with their obligations as set out in the Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Against this backdrop, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion?

Can I have a copy of your amendment?

Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]

The amendment is in order. Are copies available for other Members?

Yes.

Please move your amendments. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

I will just wait for Members to get the copies.

Yes, let us give it another minute. Mr Vikram Nair, you can move your amendment.

Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the following amendments:

One, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'".

Two, "In line 2, to delete the words 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'; and

Three, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'".

The amendments have been marked up in the handout for Members' reference.

I agree with the PSP that the Speaker must act independently in the discharge of his duties. The first amendment reflects this. This is being suggested so that the Motion is not misinterpreted to mean that the Speaker cannot be from a political party in order to be independent. The amendment therefore focuses on the independence in the discharge of his duties, which is the standard Speakers in all Parliamentary systems are held to. The Speakers in many Commonwealth Parliamentary systems come from the ruling party and this has never been a basis to say Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.

The second part of the amendment is, I think, equally important. As I had explained earlier, many of the rules that ensure Parliament is a fair arena, including the rights and obligations that Members have, are all actually in the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. These are rules that every Member should be committed to in our shared obligation to ensure Parliament is a fair arena.

I therefore beg to move the Motion as amended, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

There are three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair to the Motion.

First, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'."

Second, "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'."

And the third amendment is, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'".

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have the hon Members' agreement to this?

Question put, and agreed to.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, I will follow the precedent set by my fellow Members and likewise extend my congratulations on your recent election.

I am also keenly aware that possibly, one of the catalysts for this Motion – on the need for an independent and impartial Speaker – was because of an off-the-cuff remark made by the former Speaker on a speech that I had delivered in response to the President's Address to begin this House's second session.

While any call for censure of the former Speaker would appear to have been overtaken by events, I would like to offer some thoughts on two matters: first, on the reaction to the speech, and second, on the role of debate in policymaking in a modern democracy.

The former Speaker had characterised the proposals I offered on policies targeted at alleviating the plight of the poor as populist. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I do not fault him for having his own views on the matter. That said, I will only add that populist policies are those designed to appeal to the broad populace – hence, the name – who feel aggrieved by the establishment. Populism is about arousing the raw sentiment, with a perception of an uncaring elite.

To be clear, my intention was anything but. Rather, I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. I would have hoped that it should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.

Mr Speaker, I now move on to my second point and that is policymaking in a modern democracy is made better when there is active debate, even when we happen to disagree.

When we were a developing nation, the sorts of optimal policies we should pursue – the pursuit of an economy open to international trade and investment flows, coupled with an orientation toward export promotion, for instance, or a keen respect for the rule of law and property rights, along with the importance of governance, more generally, and socio-political stability, undergirded by meritocratic principles and respect for the equality of different races and religions – were well understood, even if non-trivial to accomplish.

Thanks to the pioneering generation of Singapore's leaders, however, we were able to build a foundation of economic openness, institutional quality and social capital, which we as subsequent generations have been able to draw on and enjoy.

These were the ingredients for Singapore's economic success, and it has made us into one of the richest economies in the world.

While we should never allow the legacy of these hard-won policies and institutions to erode, the reality of a modern economy and society is that the way forward is no longer as certain. While many of the challenges of development were about getting these fundamentals right, the issues faced by a developed nation do not present as clear-cut a solution.

Think about matters that now occupy much of our political and Parliamentary time. Issues like the need for greater social protection through the institution of a minimum wage, official poverty line or unemployment insurance. Or a more vibrant intellectual environment that will allow our highly trained workforce the room to be creative and innovative. Or greater equality in sharing the fruits of our economic success via more progressive income and wealth taxation. Or tricky matters of individual liberty and socio-cultural norms, such as the debate over the repeal of 377A and the relative freedom of the media to publish their opinions. These examples are all fundamentally ones that involve trade-offs and redistribution, rather than efficiency and optimisation.

When that is the case, I believe it is impossible to successfully identify the right way forward for the society, unless there is genuine, passionate, and, dare I say, animated debate, with proper respect for Parliamentary decorum, of course.

This is because I sincerely believe that we will only arrive at a balance that society as a whole can accept when there is some degree of agitation toward a solution, and even if some may do so somewhat more grudgingly.

This brings me back to our former Speaker's original remark. This can only happen in a Parliamentary setting where such differences of opinion are not only acquiesced to, but actually welcomed. Do we deride what we disagree with and dismiss it with a convenient label or seek to score political points with ad hominem rebuttals or do we at least seek to understand the premise of the other's argument, giving them the benefit of the doubt even if we may ultimately disagree with them? Can this occur anywhere, but in a Chamber where Members feel that the freedom to air these alternative views, with an adjudicator that they feel is independent and impartial?

More generally, I am hopeful that this Government will not casually dismiss alternative, evidence-based policy proposals, put up in good faith, but offer equally evidence-based counterarguments when rejecting any given policy proposal. This comes down to a competition in ideas and I do not believe any single person in this House will always have the best ones.

Academics, of which I am, are taught early on in their training to respect ideas, regardless of their origin. That is why we subject our work to seminars and conferences, to peer-reviewed journals and to public scrutiny, where they are challenged and, more frequently than we like, rejected. As much as nobody enjoys having their ideas shot down, the process of defending, refining and revising our ideas is what makes them more robust and ultimately, far more valuable. In the end, only the best ideas survive, and these are the ones that have the potential to go on and make a difference for both society and for the world at large.

For the same reason, I believe we need greater competition in the politics, policies and ideas that will bring Singapore forward into the next century. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Deputy Leader Zaqy Mohamad.