Making Parliament a Fairer Arena for All

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his speech and suggestions. I also thank him for providing his speech in advance, a departure from his norm in respect of his more recent Adjournment Motions and Motions, but quite understandable, given his proposal, and well appreciated.

Mr Leong has put forward four proposals. First, to provide additional resources for MPs, NCMPs and NMPs; second, to provide Ministerial speeches in advance and opportunities for Opposition to raise matters; third, more flexibility in time keeping; and fourth, chairmanship of certain Select Committees.

Let me address each of these in turn.

First, on the issue of resources for Members, this is something that we review from time to time. On this, there are two separate points, namely, the difference between the allowances for elected MPs and NCMPs and NMPs; and the quantum of the allowances for hiring Legislative and Secretarial Assistants.

On the first point, NCMPs have the same voting rights as MPs in Parliament, but it is indisputable that their workload is less than that of elected MPs, as they do not have the responsibility for a specific constituency or for dealing with Meet-the-People Session (MPS) cases of residents. As such, in principle, it is reasonable to differentiate between the support the elected MPs and NCMPs receive.

On the second, in terms of the allowances given to elected MPs, whether it be the general allowance or the allowances for hiring a Legislative Assistant and a Secretarial Assistant, we do not differentiate between PAP MPs and Opposition MPs. The amount given to elected PAP MPs and the elected Opposition MPs is exactly the same, which is fair. The PAP backbenchers make do with exactly the same allowances as the elected WP MPs, save for the Leader of the Opposition (LO).

In the case of the LO, having regard to the greater Opposition presence in Parliament after the last General Election and the designation of Mr Singh as "Leader of the Opposition" for this Parliament, it was appropriate to allocate more resources to him, given his expanded duties and responsibilities. I also wish to highlight that the LO gets more resources than the PAP backbenchers and the PAP Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairpersons. However, this is fair, given his role. This is an example of how we review and adjust according to the circumstances.

Mr Leong has called for a research department to support all MPs, costing $1 million for a start. His justification is that, and I quote, "many MPs, from both sides of the House, do not come from a public policy or legal background and may require assistance to do such work".

While many PAP MPs do not come from such backgrounds either, they are not asking for this. They have been able to work within the allowances currently allocated to them. They also often pool their Legislative Assistant allowances to hire full-time Legislative and/or Secretarial Assistants to support two or more MPs. They do not confine themselves to the Legislative Assistant allowance, but often also draw upon their MPs' allowance to top up the sum. It is quite open to Opposition MPs and NCMPs to do the same.

What is of note, however, is that the absence of such research facilities has not, in any way, deterred the PSP from asserting its ability to advance policy positions.

In PSP's 2020 manifesto, they said that the Government's response to the economy was, I quote, "a patchwork of policy tweaks without addressing the fundamental factors affecting Singaporeans" and what was needed was "a paradigm shift" and to "look for workable alternative solutions going forward". They said, and I quote again, "Progress Singapore Party's manifesto offers a better alternative to the current problems that we are facing as a nation" and their manifesto refers to various economic, social and political policies.

Today, though, Mr Leong espouses the view that "The Opposition lacks access to the resources of our excellent Civil Service. Handicapped by this lack of resources, alternative policies created by the Opposition will not have the same breadth and depth of the Government's." That was his statement earlier.

There is a marked contrast between the statements in PSP's manifesto and Mr Leong's statements in Parliament today.

We do have an excellent Civil Service. However, Mr Leong's assertion misses the point. The Civil Service works with the elected government of the day. Ultimately, it is the Ministers who decide on the Government's agenda and set the major direction of policies being implemented. These policies are not presented by the Civil Service fully formed, with all the Ministers having to do is simply read out the policy speech in Parliament. Ministers provide political guidance to the Civil Service to deliver results and the Ministers have to take responsibility for the same. If Mr Leong needs more information, he can obtain those through PQs and during COS cuts; and he has done so.

At the end of the day, the key to better debate in Parliament lies in understanding the main issues at hand, acknowledging our fundamental realities and constraints and taking not just the easy decisions but also the hard ones. It is not through making unending requests for ever more detailed data, which are then used as an alibi for not offering more constructive ideas or better alternative policies during debates.

In reality, we actually provide more data than most countries. During the last session of Parliament, more than 7,000 PQs were filed and most answers would have involved the provision of data in some form or another. Mr Leong says the Government must provide data in whatever format MPs want. I ask Mr Leong and Members to bear in mind that data collation, as well as slicing and dicing it in different ways and the need to check the data thereafter, costs time, money and effort. We will lean forward to provide what is reasonable and practicable, but we cannot fulfil every whim. Minister Tan See Leng explained this at an earlier Sitting.

Next, Mr Leong requests that Ministers provide their speeches to MPs in advance. In exchange, he proposed MPs provide "drafts" only of their speeches beforehand. Mr Leong says this enables substantive debate.

The reality is that the system is designed such that MPs can always engage and debate the Ministers, irrespective of when the Minister's speech is delivered.

The Budget Statement is delivered at least a week before the Budget debate and COS, so, MPs have ample opportunity to think through their speeches and cuts. Bills are introduced during prior Sittings, except in cases of urgency, which are rare. Hence, in general, MPs have about a month to go through the Bill, which forms the basis of the Minister's Second Reading speech.

Ministerial Statements are generally of two kinds. First, those with strong public interest, where multiple PQs have been filed and those addressing important matters which have to be dealt with expeditiously and at short notice or are not suitable to be dealt with under other mechanisms. MPs can seek clarifications from the Minister on the Ministerial Statement. Policy speeches delivered outside of Parliament, which are publicly reported, Members would have enough time to go through these and raise issues in Parliament.

In most of these situations, MPs have more than ample opportunity to engage the Ministers on their speeches through a wide array of mechanisms: PQs, supplementary questions, Motions, Bills, Adjournment Motions, clarifications and COS cuts. In fact, if anything, the advantage is with the MPs, because most of these mechanisms are not time-bound. MPs may deploy these days, weeks, months and sometimes even years after the Minister's speech was delivered, as Mr Leong himself has done, for example, on manpower issues.

Of course, there may be instances where notice is not possible, for example, when the Minister is responding in the course of an ongoing debate or market-sensitive matters, such as tax announcements. But what is possible is to ensure that there is enough time for MPs to digest what has been said, respond and then have an informed substantive debate. This, the Parliamentary procedure allows.

For this same reason, there is no need to have an "Opposition hour". This is because every Sitting is an opportunity for MPs, whether PAP or Opposition, to raise topics of their choice and to hold the Government to account, challenge policies and decisions and propose alternative policies through these mechanisms. They can do this through PQs, moving full Motions for debates, as NMPs are doing at this Sitting, or moving Adjournment Motions, as Mr Leong is doing today. This is already taking place.

Mr Leong's next proposal is, in effect, that there should be unlimited time for PQs and COS cuts. While I can understand why, from his point of view he would like that, this would not be a good idea. It would be the surest way of triggering Parkinson's Law – the adage that work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion.

We have already seen that happen with PQs. The time for PQs has increased considerably, given more Sittings. However, instead of allowing us to deal with more PQs, it has resulted in more, and often repetitive, supplementary questions on the same topic.

Where flexibility is required, Mr Speaker has exercised his discretion to allow it, examples being the extension of time to enable supplementary questions on HDB's Ethnic Integration Policy and on Keppel Offshore & Marine.

Parliament time is finite and questions and debates cannot go on without end. Setting time limits ensures that questions stay focused, answers stay on point and more can be accomplished.

In fact, in the UK Parliament, Question Time is only one hour per Sitting day, inclusive of Prime Minister's Questions and they have 650 MPs!

Finally, Mr Leong has called for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) to be chaired by an Opposition MP, on the basis that doing so will ensure that they are independent, impartial, objective and non-partisan.

Let us reflect for a moment and ask if we really think that would be the case.

The better solution is the one that we already have in place under the rules. The PAC and the PPC are Standing Select Committees. A select committee is a committee of Parliament. The Standing Orders (SOs) provide that the composition of each standing select committee should reflect the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament. And if you think about it for a moment, that is fair – because it reflects the proportion of Government and Opposition MPs.

The SOs provide that the Speaker chairs the PPC, which is, again, fair because he chairs the whole Parliament – a position to which he was elected by Parliament at the beginning of the term. And the Parliament which elected him was, in turn, elected by the people, who also decided the proportion of PAP MPs and Opposition MPs. Speaker appoints the Chair of the PAC, an authority conferred on him by Parliament through the Standing Orders, and that is also fair because it gives flexibility to choose an appropriate Chair having regard to the technical content involved.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will just take half a minute more to complete.

Hence, the chairmanship of the select committees is drawn from the authority of the people and we should respect that. In any case, Opposition Members serve on the select committees and are entitled to ask questions and argue issues fully. There is no reason to think that they have not done their job properly.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the rules afford more than enough opportunity for MPs, Opposition or otherwise, to hold the Government to account, raise queries and debate matters. The real issue is how to do this effectively. The answer lies not in changing the rules, but rather, for MPs to develop the skills of listening, using the existing rules more effectively, to make a contribution to the debate and show that they are deserving of the trust that voters have placed in them.