Impartial Speaker of Parliament

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Sir, I thank the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) for raising the Motion. I will not be able to support the Motion as introduced by the NCMPs. While I agree that the Speaker of Parliament should be impartial and that Parliament should be a fair arena for debate, I cannot agree with the original Motion's call for the Speaker to be independent.

The term "independent" in the context of Parliament or in politics has a particular definition. In his speech, Mr Leong appears to conflated the words "independent" and "impartial", but the fact that they both appear in the Motion suggests that they are intended to mean different things. When applied to a Member of Parliament (MP), the term "independent" would generally mean that that MP is not affiliated with a political party. This definition is used not only in Singapore, but in most, if not all, Parliamentary democracies.

Article 40(2) of the Constitution provides that the Speaker of Parliament may be elected from amongst MPs who are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or from amongst persons who are not MPs. The Constitution does not require that a Speaker, whether drawn from MPs or non-MPs, to be independent.

Furthermore, article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution also provides that an MP's seat will fall vacant if he ceases to be a member of, is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election. Therefore, it is a non sequitur argument to expect that an MP elected as Speaker should resign from the party, he had been elected to Parliament with, as he would lose that seat. As such, this Motion, as it was originally crafted, would be envisioning a situation where only non-MP MPs who stood in the elections as independents and won, or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) could be considered for the position of Speaker.

Let me deal first with independent MPs. First, there have never been independent MPs elected to the Singapore Parliament since Independence. So, this option can be dispensed with immediately. Second, I have read media reports suggesting that NMPs be considered. But, Sir, we are, quite honestly, hardly a proper source, given that our term is only half of a Parliament's full term – although some of us may serve two terms, which is not usual – but we are not senior, nonetheless, to backbenchers with sufficient experience to chair the House and to carry out all the other roles of the Speaker. We would not want a revolving door of inexperienced Speakers. In any event, given that Speakers do not take part in debates, it would be contrary to the objectives of having NMPs, which is to provide for alternative voices in Parliament.

As regard to a non-MP serving as Speaker, there have been two such Speakers, as mentioned by hon Member Vikram Nair. The first was Mr AP Rajah, who was the first Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore. He was the holdover Speaker from the previous Legislative Assembly of Singapore. Mr Rajah had at one time been a member of the Legislative Assembly and was an eminent lawyer. He later became an ambassador and a High Court Judge.

The second Speaker of Parliament, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy was also a non-MP. Mr Coomaraswamy was also an eminent lawyer and later also served as an ambassador and a High Court Judge. All Speakers since then, as mentioned by both Mr Leong and Mr Nair, have been elected MPs from the ruling party. I do not know the exact reason why the first two Speakers were non-MPs, but I can fathom that it may well be because Parliament was young at that time and wanted to have eminent local lawyers who would be familiar with formal procedure to chair the House in its early years. Once MPs had sufficient experience, they were called upon to serve as Speakers and have done so until today. They have done a good job and their fairness has largely not been questioned by Members on both sides of the House.

Furthermore, even a cursory survey of current elected MPs would throw up many names who have the knowledge, experience, temperament and wisdom to serve as Speaker. It is only if we cannot find one within that we should look without. And we can find many elected MPs to take up the role.

As mentioned by hon Member Nair, our Singapore system is different from the UK system, where the Speaker, upon his election, severs ties with his former political party so that he is, in all aspects of the job, a completely non-partisan figure. This independent character of the Speaker was attained over a long, gradual and uneven process over 300 years, and it evolved in response to the particular political situation in the UK.

Members may know the origins of the position of the Speaker in the UK. The Speaker is called the Speaker because he was the person appointed to speak to the King on behalf of the House of Commons. The Speaker was expected to provide the King with the politically unvarnished views of the House. It was considered a dangerous position as Speakers were from time to time subject to the guillotine if the King was not happy with what the Speaker spoke. Thankfully, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is no longer a hazard of that office or of your office. And it is in this regard that I will also take this opportunity to congratulate you in your elevation to the Chair.

The role of the Speaker in the UK has evolved with its independent nature solidified in both procedure and custom in the 19th century. Such custom includes, for example, that an incumbent Speaker runs in the general elections not under a political party ticket but as Mdm or Mr Speaker in elections, and it is generally unopposed. The UK Parliament also abides by what is known as the "continuity principle", where an incumbent Speaker after being re-elected in a general election, would be re-elected as Speaker even if there was a change of the party forming the government. This custom is not something that is present in our system.

Most other jurisdictions that have a Westminster-type parliament also do not have an independent Speaker. India and Canada flirted with the idea, but both came to the conclusion that an MP who was elected as Speaker could be impartial without having to be independent.

The Canadian parliament rejected the notion that impartiality required independence and considered it a non sequitur argument – it was not considered an unreasonable expectation of the Speaker to separate his party allegiances with his duty to parliament. It also determined that it did not possess the customary nor procedural history that the UK had to support an independent Speaker – an argument I similarly make in relation to our House.

In India, the committee considering this question came to similar conclusions as the Canadian parliament. In addition, the Indian Supreme Court had also opined on this matter and its pronouncement is worth mentioning because it sets out the underlying rational as to why a party-affiliated Speaker could still be impartial.

In the case Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon Speaker of Karnataka, the court was faced with the petitions of five members of the Karnataka State parliament against the Speaker of that house, who had refused to accept their resignations. The court said: "The speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions. The constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed, the court made it clear that his political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication." The court continued that if the Speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence.

In other words, the court was saying that it is incumbent then on that house to invoke the relevant procedures to correct or, if necessary, to remove the Speaker.

All this having been said, I come back to first principles – that is, that our Constitution does not require that our Speaker be independent. Procedurally, I do not think that this House can affirm a Motion that is inconsistent with the Constitution or that would purport to constrain the provisions of the Constitution.

I will, however, support the Motion as amended by hon Member Nair as it addresses my concerns that we do not inadvertently affirm that a Speaker be politically independent, meaning not being part of a political party, but instead, that he should discharge his duties independently and impartially which is indeed what we should expect of the Speaker. It may seem a small change but Mr Nair's amendment changes the meaning of the Motion and removes doubt as to what exactly Parliament is affirming.

Thank you for your good wishes and also that of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Vikram Nair. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, if I may also extend my congratulations on your election to the post of Speaker.

Sir, one of the duties of the Speaker of Parliament is to preside over the Sitting of Parliament and to enforce the rules prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament. This is to ensure the orderly conduct of Parliamentary business.

Sir, I want to stress the importance of Standing Orders because without Standing Orders, Parliament could descend into chaos as there will be no need for accountability. Members of Parliament (MPs) can be arguing, quarrelling with one another. We note that in some countries, members of parliament fight in parliament. MPs can be criticising another person in public or in parliament, without giving them a fair chance of reply. This will be in breach of natural justice.

Time limits are set in Standing Orders because MPs can drag their speeches and, in the US, this is called filibuster. Some of the older Members may remember Mr Lee Siew Choh who spoke seven hours in 1961 in the Singapore Legislative Assembly, and you then keep everyone occupied because you just want to extend the length of your speech and extend the time. So, many Parliaments, not just Singapore, set time limits on the length of speeches. So, I stress again, Mr Speaker, Standing Orders are important for the conduct of Parliamentary business.

Sir, in carrying out the duties in the House, the Speaker must remain impartial and fair to all MPs. This part, I agree with that part of the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai. This is also clearly stated in the website of the Singapore Parliament. The Speaker regulates and enforces the rule of debate. He decides who has the right to speak and puts the question for the House to debate on and to vote on. The Speaker does not take part in the debates of the House but can abstain, vote for or against the Motion as if he has the original vote as an elected Member.

Sir, I was elected as a Deputy Speaker from 2015 to 2020. During my five-year term, I was the Deputy Speaker to Speaker Mdm Halimah, now the President, and subsequently, I was Deputy Speaker to former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I am required to preside over Parliament or to chair a Committee, I am always mindful of this need to ensure that I remain fair and impartial to all the Members in the House. So, I make sure that Members, whether they are from the ruling PAP party, the Opposition party or the NMPs, they are all given the chance to raise clarifications and to hold the Government to account. So, I am mindful that Parliament is a place for debate on policies and a good debate will allow better ideas to prevail and this would benefit all of Singapore. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I hear speeches made by MPs from the PAP, MPs from the Workers' Party, I, too, form my opinion on the contents of the speech, but I keep my views to myself. And as a Deputy Speaker, I know that I should not express my own view or even mutter my view under my breath.

So, Sir, I want to add that the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, has made known his stand to me and the other Deputy Speaker Mr Charles Chong that we have to be fair to all MPs, including members of the Workers' Party (WP), the NCMPs and the NMPs. Over the past many years that I have been an MP, I have not heard of any MP within the House suggest that our Speaker has not been impartial.

Sir, let me refer the House to a Point of Order which was raised by the Leader of the House in April 2023. In April 2023, the Leader of the House raised the point that Mr Leong Mun Wai had made several statements in and out of Chamber which were wrong and not proper. She said that Mr Leong had addressed Speaker in a manner that was disrespectful, disregarded the authority of the Chair, and that drew a caution from her on the need to maintain proper demeanour in Parliament.

She said Mr Leong apologised to the Speaker in Chambers very shortly and clarified he had not intended to cast aspersions on the Ministers and admitted he was wrong to make the suggestions in his statement. The Leader of the House then said there was no need to take further action on this matter and she sought Mr Speaker's concurrence on this matter, in particular to the fact of disregarding the authority of the Chair is a matter for the Speaker, and then Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, as Speaker, said he concurred.

So, Sir, this is evidence that our Speaker is impartial in his conduct. He could have taken action against Mr Leong Mun Wai for behaving in a manner that was disrespectful and had disregarded authority. But he treated everyone fairly and he accepted the apology of Mr Leong and said that he concurred with the Leader's recommendation not to take further action on the matter. So, Mr Leong apologised, Speaker accepted it, and the matter was closed. I would want to submit, Mr Speaker, that suggests very strongly that our Speaker has always been impartial.

Next, going to the point of Mr Leong's Motion that the Speaker must be independent, I am not sure how Mr Leong measures the term "independent". If he suggests that "independent" means not being a member of a political party, then perhaps I can remind him of the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr John Bercow.

Mr John Bercow was a member of the UK Conservative Party before he resigned when he assumed the role of Speaker. However, even though he was not a member of the political party at the time, he was accused of not being impartial when he was Speaker. In fact, it was said he was refused a place in the House of Lords because he was not seen to be politically neutral. He was alleged to be biased against Brexit. Thus, Mr Speaker, impartiality really depends on the person who is the Speaker and not his political affiliation.

In many other Commonwealth countries, many Speakers are active members of their political parties. Australian Speaker Mr Milton Dick is a member of the Labour Party, the Canadian Speaker is a member of the Liberal Party and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha India is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

So, even if we appoint a person who is without any political affiliation, whether the person is a judge or otherwise, I am quite certain that the person would have his or her own views of the speeches made by Members in the House. In fact, I would submit it is impossible for anyone, except a robot, not to form their own views as to whether a speech is populist or not.

So, for that reason, I cannot support the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai and I would support the amended Motion as moved by Mr Vikram Nair.

Thank you, Mr Lim, for your good wishes. Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Ms Indranee Rajah.

I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification.

So, let me move on to the first point about the need for the Speaker to be fair and impartial. The major Commonwealth democracies all recognise the need for the person holding the role of Speaker to act in an impartial manner when discharging his or her duties, and Singapore is no different. Speakers must behave in an impartial manner in the discharge of their duties and successive Speakers of our Parliament have acknowledged this. The question is – how is this to be achieved?

The underlying assumption or presupposition put forward by PSP is that you can only achieve this if the Speaker is independent of any political party. That is their underlying premise. The premise is that the Speaker should not have any political association, so he or she can be perceived to be completely neutral.

Well, what does our law provide? The Constitution sets out the eligibility requirements for the Speaker. MPs, except those who are Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, are eligible. And non-MPs are also eligible, but the Constitution requires that such persons must be persons who are qualified for election as an MP, such as being a Singapore Citizen above the age of 21 and a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years in aggregate.

So, our Constitution also recognises that MPs can be the Speaker, that is, members of a political party. Thus, under our law, any person who meets these eligibility requirements can be elected as the Speaker. So, PSP's proposal to require a Speaker to be independent in the sense of not being a member of a political party or not being an MP is actually not in accordance with and much more limiting than the Constitutional requirements. That is the first point.

The second point is: what is the practice and the reality around the world? Actually, you will find that in most of the major Westminster-style democracies like ours, the Speaker comes from the majority party. And this is true of the current Speakers of the Australian House of Representatives, the Canadian House of Commons and the New Zealand House of Representatives, all of whom are from the majority party in those Parliaments.

In the US, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also usually from the majority party in that House. The identity of the Speaker is typically determined by the party members at the organising caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected. So, in short, the Speaker is somebody who can receive the support from the majority of the House and that will very often be somebody from the majority party. And this arrangement reflects the reality that the person has to receive a majority of the votes in Parliament to be appointed Speaker. And it is quite natural for a candidate from the majority party to be in a position to receive the majority of votes.

It is also important to bear in mind that the majority party would have derived its majority from the voters. You do not get to be a majority party without the majority of votes. It is the electorate; it is the voters who put the PAP in Parliament as a majority. So, you have to bear in mind that the mandate of the majority party is drawn directly from the people. And the person put up for election as the Speaker, if he or she has the confidence of the majority, then he or she gets appointed as the Speaker.

And it is not always a given that a nominee from the majority party will always be able to command the support of the majority of the MPs or that the nominee may necessarily be from the majority party. For example, the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives was appointed as Speaker only after 15 ballots were taken, despite receiving his party's nomination for Speaker earlier. So, for the first 14 ballots, he did not manage to obtain a majority of the votes.

This is not the only system in practice. There are different ways of doing it and our practice is in sync with other major democracies.

Each country has to decide what works best for them. More importantly, the Parliaments have to choose the right individuals. So, just having someone who is non-partisan or not a member of any political party does not guarantee you the outcome that you would like.

The UK, for example, has a convention where the Speaker resigns from his or her political party upon being appointed as Speaker. So, ostensibly neutral, ostensibly bipartisan. The convention also extends to the Speaker's seat not being contested by the major political parties and the Speaker not campaigning on political issues.

But even though the UK has taken these steps, that does not guarantee the desired outcomes. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan highlighted earlier, the UK system did not prevent one of their former Speakers from being put in a position where he was accused of bias. The former Speaker was mired in controversy by accepting certain procedural amendments and rulings. I do not need to go into details, but in short, he was alleged of bias on issues, that is, of not supporting Brexit as opposed to remaining. So, you can have bias on issues or alleged bias on issues.

And also, he had separately had complaints levelled against him for bullying. This does not have to do with his rulings in the Chamber, but he was the subject matter of an Independent Expert Panel. And they found that his behaviour "fell very far below that which the public had a right to expect from any Member of Parliament", and it was so serious that, "had he still been a Member of Parliament" – because the Committee's rulings came out after he stepped down – the Committee said, "we would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it is, we recommend that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate."

So, having somebody who is non-partisan, not a member of a political party, does not guarantee you the results that you want. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the individual holding the office of Speaker conducts himself or herself, and it is very important that the Speaker is mindful of the duties and obligations that come with the office.

But equally, it is important for the MPs to be mindful of the duties and obligations that come with their office – whether they be Ministers or backbenchers – and to not make it difficult for the Speaker, because in making it difficult for the Speaker, you also force the Speaker to have to make rulings. It is incumbent upon MPs to not disregard the authority of the Chair, to be familiar with the Standing Orders, to know what the Standing Orders mean and, if referring to articles or principles or sections, to actually know which articles and sections they are referring to, and to not misrepresent proceedings in Parliament and essentially, comply with the Standing Orders.

So, it works both ways for Parliament of function effectively, properly and importantly, to gain the respect of people. The Speaker has to do his job, but equally, all MPs and Ministers have to do their jobs.

In conclusion, what I would like to do is to just highlight some quotes in respect of previous Speakers, which really illustrate the point that I am making, which is at the end of the day, it is about the individuals. It is about how the individual in the Speaker's Chair conducts himself or herself. Previous Speakers of Parliament in Singapore have earned praise and respect from both sides of the House, even though they were a member of a political party.

So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as Members know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Then, in 1989, Mr Chiam See Tong had this to say of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, who was Speaker and also a PAP MP – and not a lawyer. Mr Chiam said, "Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just allow me a moment also to convey my congratulations on your elevation to the Speakership. Sir, I think it would not be complete if it is just the Leader of the House conveying his congratulations to you. This is to make it complete. You have the approval of the whole House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the previous Speaker who had a very good rapport with the Opposition."

And also, speaking when Mr Tan Soo Khoon ended his appointment as Speaker in 2002 after 13 years in that role, Mr Low Thia Khiang from the WP rose to record his views as follows, "Mr Tan Soo Khoon, as Speaker of the House, has won my respect for being fair most of the time, if not all the time" and that "Being a non-PAP Member, I have not felt discriminated and I think this is important as he was the Speaker."

So, that Mr Speaker, concludes the essential premise, which I am making – which is at the end of the day, it is about the individual how he or she conducts themselves and about making sure that all of us do our part in Parliament.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members Vikram Nair, Member Raj Joshua Thomas, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Member Lim Biow Chuan and the Minister for their contributions to this debate that I have raised together with my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa. It has allowed us to cover a little bit more ground than in the clarifications after a Ministerial Statement.

I will not rebut individually the points raised by some of the Members, but I would like to condense the thing in two points.

One, we are here today – just now with the Ministerial Statement and now with this Motion – because something has happened. And that something is a very well-meaning speech and policy proposal put up by the Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that was just written-off in this House, in a very dismissive manner – although it is just a quiet comment. But nevertheless, it is an indication that we need to remind ourselves on what is the impartiality of the Speaker. Without that, we would not be debating today.

The second point I would like to make is, some of the Members who have spoken have talked about our Parliament, that we have an untainted record, track record of the Speaker being impartial, but here is an example that we have to remind ourselves that we need to reaffirm the impartiality of the Speaker.

As a result of that, PSP had decided to put forward this Motion to suggest a gradual process whereby we can enhance the independence and impartiality of the Speaker, that this House would remember that in May this year, I actually have spoken about the rules and procedures of this House already, in my Adjournment Motion to make Parliament a fairer arena for all. At that time, I did not take up the issue of the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. But today, the situation is different.

So, the Motion is meant to propose a gradual process. As a result, we brought out the historical examples. And at the same time, we had just proposed that for the time being, Government, please ensure that the Speaker does not belong to the central committee of the ruling party. That is a small step. Of course, as our democracy develops and more and more members from different parties come into Parliament, then we can think of reverting to a situation whereby we have a totally independent Speaker. That is an ideal idea that PSP is trying to put forward with this Motion.

Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. For it to function properly, the Members, processes and proceedings must all work towards promoting an environment where open, substantive and thorough debates can take place.

Well, I do not wish to go too much into Speaker Tan's case, actually, but just now I think what we have seen is that there are certain rules that this House has that has just prevented this Motion to be debated in a more open, substantive and thorough debate because of a technical point – that the Motion statement was not done in the way that allows me to have a more thorough debate. I accept that. That is the current Standing Orders of the Singapore Parliament.

In order to promote the debate, as I have said, more debate, I have put up seven recommendations in my Adjournment Motion making Parliament a fairer arena for all at the May Sitting this year, including bigger research budgets for MPs from alternative parties, more flexible timekeeping during clarifications and debates, and appointing MPs from alternative parties to chair the Public Accounts and Public Petitions Committees. These are all just incremental changes, and the Government can actually consider this and allow our Parliament to move closer to a fairer arena for all.

Hence, my Motion is meant to be a first step towards an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fairer arena for all.

The amended Motion on the other hand is re-affirming the status quo and just sticking to what is more of the same. And I have been debating in this House for the last three years that we cannot be just having the status quo. We have to move on. Times have changed; the environment in the world has changed. So, why are we just sticking to the old rules, in many aspects of our Government?

So, I view the two Motions as one. My Motion as a Motion with a dream, an objective that in the future, we can have a have a better Parliament. So, I hope this House will support my Motion.

Ultimately, the best solution to making our Parliament a fairer arena for all is to have at least one-third or 33% alternative MPs in this House, commensurate with the percentage of votes that alternative parties have already won among Singaporeans.

The PAP Government does not need a super majority of about 90% to govern effectively, but such a super majority prevents the views and opinions of tens of thousands of loyal Singaporeans from being adequately represented in this House.

Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Dear fellow Singaporeans, today, we concluded the debate on the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial.

This is a very important Motion, because Parliament sits at the apex of our democratic system, and the Speaker should be independent when presiding over Parliament proceedings and enforcing the Standing Orders to ensure that debates are carried out orderly. In carrying out his duties, he must be impartial and treat Members of Parliament (MPs) from different parties equally. He must be like a judge and be fair in executing Parliamentary procedures.

We should learn from the recent incidents and find ways to plug the gaps, perfect the system and grow in the future.

When we review the role of the Speaker over the years, we noticed that, compared to pre-Independence days, the impartiality and independence of the Speaker had changed quietly. Since the People's Action Party (PAP) dominated Parliament, the office of Speaker has evolved from being occupied by a non-partisan person to a senior PAP member.

Before 1970, all Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession. Except for a brief period between 1963 and 1964 when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were non-partisan.

However, in 1970, when Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, a PAP member and non-lawyer, became the Speaker, this convention changed. I want to point out that this happened incidentally after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 election.

Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessor had also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, although they held a politically neutral position, they were also at the power centre of the ruling party.

The evolution, from having a non-partisan Speaker to a backbencher Speaker to Speakers who were ex-office holders or members of the PAP’s CEC, has caused many Singaporeans to question the independence and impartiality of the Speaker’s office over the past 50 plus years.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that being simultaneously the Speaker and a CEC member of the ruling party is contradictory. Hence, we urge that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. We are glad to see that the new Speaker is not a PAP CEC member.

As Singapore's democracy matures and the number of opposition MPs increases, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again like before. This will reflect progress in our democratic system and reverse the retrogressive practice of the PAP when appointing the Speaker over the past 50 plus years.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, under your leadership, we look forward to this House being a fairer arena for all.

We have spent much Parliamentary time debating the issues and concerns of Singaporeans. They have arisen from the recent spate of unfortunate events. It is my hope that in the coming months, there will be no more such events and this House can refocus our attention to the more important issues faced by Singaporeans, such as the rising cost of living, price and availability of public housing, economic uncertainty and job insecurity.

Are there any clarifications for Mr Leong? I do not see any.

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put the questions to the House for decision. We have three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair. We will deal with the amendments first.

The first amendment is: "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'."

Question, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'", put and agreed to.

Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we register our dissent.

Alright, we will have it recorded that Mr Leong and Ms Hazel Poa want their dissent recorded.

The second amendment is: "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'."

Question, "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'", put and agreed to.

Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Please, Sir.

Thank you, we will have that recorded – Mr Leong and Ms Poa.

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.'"

Question, "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'", put and agreed to.

Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

The amendments have been agreed to, the Original Motion as amended is now before the House.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House reaffirms its commitment (a) to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962."

Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded.

Okay, Mr Leong and Ms Poa, we will have your dissent recorded. Deputy Leader of the House.