Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Chairman, I beg to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100.”
In our country’s governance, Parliament is where the authority of the Government stems. It is also the body which the Government is ultimately accountable to. However, while Singapore has a strong reputation for strong Government, can we equally say that we have a strong Parliament? In Singapore, we talk a lot a lot about the executive but Parliamentary work is the reason why voters put Members in this House.
I would like to share some thoughts on entrenching the Office of the Speaker and its key principle of impartiality before looking at the importance of ensuring that Parliament is relevant and accessible to the wider citizenry through the principle of openness.
The Interparliamentary Union, of which our Parliament is a member states that parliaments must be representative, open and transparent, accessible, accountable and effective. It notes that, “Parliaments are constantly evolving in order to meet new challenges and expectations and crucially that parliaments can always improve, like democracy itself.”
Thus, the Speaker presides over the sittings of the House and enforces rules prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament and during sittings, is responsible for regulating and enforcing the rules of debate. In order to do so, it is imperative that the Speaker is and is seen to be impartial at all times. This is the reason why the speaker does not take part in debates and thus the saying that the Speaker may do anything except speak.
Many jurisdictions enshrined the principle of the speakers and partiality in their rules. Some ways in which jurisdictions have approached this, include having the Speaker not take part in votes in the House, as is the case of Germany’s Bundestag retaining party membership, but no longer participating in National Party caucuses; in the case of the Speaker of the House of Commons in Canada; or even a system of rotation and the election of a Speaker or amongst their deputies between major parties like we see in countries like Austria.
The Speaker as presiding officer is also responsible for ensuring that standing orders are followed to ensure that public business is conducted in a decent and orderly manner, balancing the government of the day’s need to get its business through Parliament and the oppositions’ responsibility to debate and scrutinise that business. The speaker may thus be called upon to make rulings and decisions on points of order from time to time and it will be helpful for these to serve as precedents to govern future proceedings. What advisories are helpful, having easy access to past Speaker’s rulings can also help members better understand and thus abide by the standing orders.
Next, on why an accessible Parliament is important. In order for Parliament to properly represent and hold the respect of our people, it must not be seen as a cold tower which operates independently and heedlessly of our constituents’ everyday lives. Our people must believe that Parliament is a place where the people’s concerns are debated and for their voices to be heard.
To build respect for Parliament as a lynch pin of our democracy, we have to ensure that as much as possible, our policy, law-making and accountability processes flow through our Parliament first and foremost; and the chosen means to discuss important matters of public interest in Parliament, also matters.
For example, questions about Ridout Road and initial announcement of former Transport Minister S Iswaran being investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) were taken by way of Ministerial Statements in July and August 2023 respectively. A Ministerial Statement only allows for Members to ask short clarifications and the Standing Orders expressly prohibit Members from having a debate thereon.
While a full Motion means that any Member wanting to make their views known on the matter had up to 20 minutes to make a speech, not including clarifications, a means through which Parliament obtains regular and better dialogue and input from the public is by the use of Parliamentary Committees, which my colleague Gerald Giam will speak on. In short, having members of the public, experts and different interest groups provide evidence like was the case during the Select Committee on Online Falsehoods, can ensure more voices are heard and lead to interested parties being able to watch the proceedings and thus understand the complexity of the issues being considered.
We have to keep working to keep Parliament as accessible to our people as possible with increased openness; reduced secrecy – whether perceived or real – to promote the man in the street’s understanding of the actual process of legislating and making queries of how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. Where information is shared, it has to be on the basis of full disclosure unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
Maintaining the principle of parliamentary transparency and openness can only encourage and advance more participatory democracy and better governance and I hope that all of us here will play our part in enabling this to happen in a world that is getting increasingly unpredictable and volatile.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their cuts. Indeed, it is important to have a strong parliamentary system and a strong Parliament. Ms He Ting Ru ran through a number of points.
I would just say broadly, insofar as the Office of the Speaker is concerned, that is provided for in the Constitution and our legislation. The Speakers in this House have endeavoured to uphold those principles. Where there has been any deviation, that certainly has been addressed.
So, the principle of the Speaker’s impartiality is not in dispute and certainly, the principle of why the Speaker does not participate in a debate is very similar in many jurisdictions.
The system that we have and the way that we organise our parliamentary business, is actually not very different from many other places. Each country has its own variations, and every country has to adapt for its particular circumstances. But if we were to ask our people and if we were to ask around Singapore, is there a high level of trust in our Parliament? I think the answer is yes.
How does Singapore fare compared to Parliaments in other countries? I think you would find Singapore does well. That is testimony and credit to the many Speakers who have sat in this House and upheld their duties with dedication and a lot of hard work.
I think the other point that Ms He Ting Ru raised was that one must have the ability to properly represent and operate in Parliament. I think there is no dispute about that either. The way our system is structured is that the Government carries out the business of the Executive, and the Legislature or Parliament carries out the business of law-making, of scrutinising Bills, of holding the Ministries and the Ministers to account through Parliamentary Questions, Motions and various other procedural devices. All of this is available and have been actively deployed, not just by Government MPs, but also MPs from the opposition.
I think one other point that Ms He raised was that policy-launching must flow through Parliament first and foremost. I think there may be a misunderstanding here about the role of the Government or the Executive, and the role of the Legislature. It is the role and the duty of the Government to develop policies, to implement them, to operationalise them, to carry it out.
When it comes to making laws, the Government has to bring it before Parliament. Parliament must agree. Parliament can ask questions and hold the Ministers to account. But Parliament is not the Government. There is a distinction between the two roles and one should be careful not to conflate the two. Our system of having the Executive separate from the Legislature is a well-known, well-tried and tested one.
On the question of why certain issues were taken by way of Ministerial Statement, those were taken by way of Ministerial Statement because that is the normal way in which information is presented to Parliament, and Members had the opportunity to ask questions, which they did.
We did not do it by way of a Motion, simply because it did not present itself as a matter for resolution, but this does not preclude anybody else from raising a Motion if they wish to.
I think the key point that Ms He was making was that Parliament should be accountable, accessible, and people must be able to trust our Parliamentarians. On that point, I agree, which is why it is extremely important that when MPs say something, they should not do so without basis. Importantly, MPs should not lie to Parliament, nor to Select Committees of Parliament.
At the same time, it is also important that MPs do not, then, after something has transpired in Parliament, go outside of Parliament and misrepresent what has occurred in Parliament. Those things are very important too, for accountability of the MPs and for transparency, and also to maintain trust in MPs.
I move on now to the second point about Parliamentary Committees or Select Committees, which Ms He alluded to, and I think that was essentially the main point of what Mr Gerald Giam raised. He is essentially saying that in addition to the Standing Select Committees that we have, we should create more Select Committees to oversee various Ministries, if that is how I understood him correctly, and that has been done in other countries.
I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is, in the other countries where they have these multitudes of Select Committees, are they necessarily better governed? Do they necessarily have better outcomes? Are their Parliaments more efficient? Is their government more trusted? I would venture to say no, not necessarily, to all of those questions. In fact, on many international rankings by any measure, you will find that Singapore fares well in governance, transparency, in lack of corruption, or in low corruption. Where it is discovered, it is dealt with promptly, quickly and decisively.
Having more Standing Committees or more Select Committees would not be very productive. For example, it would be unproductive for every Ministry to have to answer to a standing Select Committee. Setting up a Committee for each Ministry requires significant time. Ministries would also have to expend scarce resources reporting to and preparing answers for their respective Committees. These are resources which could be spent on important policy work.
Members will also be keenly aware that our Parliamentary Sittings have grown longer, busier and more frequent. Ministries are spending more time than ever preparing for Parliamentary Sittings. There is a cost to this as it eats into the time that the Ministries have for their policy and other work. For these reasons, creating Standing Select Committees for every Ministry would do little to enhance accountability or increase productivity or efficiency.
Instead, we convene ad hoc Select Committees where appropriate, for smaller groups of MPs to study and report to Parliament on specific topics, and sometimes novel issues of national interest.
One example is the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods, which Ms He also mentioned, that was appointed in 2018 to study what was then, and still is, a new and complex societal problem. To examine this one policy issue – just this one, not even the work of the entire Ministry – the Committee held 16 meetings over eight months, conducted public consultations with many stakeholders, and received written representations and oral evidence from individuals and organisations alike, before reporting its findings to Parliament.
So, you can imagine having many more Standing Select Committees, each one to inspect one Ministry that oversees many policy issues would be very costly in terms of opportunity cost as well as the time taken up for the civil servants, the Ministers and the Ministries to do this. Since most of our policy issues are cross-cutting, the value of setting up Ministry-specific committees is also questionable.
What we have is a system that works. When the Ministries have a policy, it is brought to Parliament, either through a Motion or during the Budget debate, which has a broader overview, or when a specific Act is being passed. We must remember, a Select Committee is really a mini version of Parliament as a whole. But here you have everybody that is able to ask questions and participate in debate. So, the public does not lose out by this.
In terms of being accessible to the public, that does not actually have much to do with Parliamentary procedure. That has to do with how MPs conduct themselves in their everyday duties, where they see and speak to their residents, interact with their residents and then bring the issues that are of concern to their residents to this Chamber. We are well-versed with all the concerns of the residents of Clementi. [Laughter.]
This is how you bring residents’ issues to the Chamber and how you make Parliament accessible. That is the work that has to be done on the ground.
The Chairman: With that, can I invite Ms He, if you like, to withdraw the amendment?
Ms He Ting Ru: Thank you, Chairman. To close, I would like to thank Parliament staff for their work in ensuring the running of the various different functions of Parliament, which range from the official parliamentary business, like ensuring that Sittings go smoothly, coordinating visiting dignitaries and overseas visits, and also, the often unseen work in ensuring the functioning of areas, such as security, research, communications and facilities management.
Our current Speaker reminded us, upon his election last year, of our own fragility and mortality. He said that we are all too human, and as individuals we may fail, while rules and institutions, which apply without exception, do not. This brings to mind something that Thomas Paine said a few centuries ago, in which he reminded us that there can never exist a Parliament which will last forever, nor capable of commanding forever how to govern.
So, given that our time on earth and this Chamber, is temporal, I hope that all of us can look deep within ourselves to think about the part that we can do in the here and now, to maintain an institution that can be rightfully called a strong Parliament that future generations can look up to. Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Parliament
7 March 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2407
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 