Mister Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100”.
Law students learn early that the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary is the foundation of the rule of law. As such, I hope the House will agree with me that Parliament, as the primary organ of the Legislative Branch, must not only be able to discharge its law-making responsibilities, but also to ensure that the Government remains faithful to its duty to all Singaporeans.
To this end, I wish to reflect on my nearly 20 years in this House and highlight three areas where I believe we need to do better:first, on the way Parliamentary Questions are managed; second, on Parliament's reputation as a law-making institution; and lastly, on the Presidential Council For Minority Rights, which is a vital safeguard on Parliament.
Parliamentary Questions
Parliamentary Questions (PQs) are a critical aspect of government accountability, as they are the primary means by which MPs can scrutinise the government’s performance, as well as to reflect the concerns that are brought to us by our constituents.
To that end, it is notable that questions posed by MPsto one Ministry may be redirected to be answered by another Ministry, without prior reference to the MP. From my understanding, such redirection is done by the government ministries and not the Parliamentary staff.
Of course, sometimes the redirection is justified, such as when the MP may have inadvertently asked the question to the wrong ministry. E.g. questions about banks may be mistakenly filed with the Ministry Of Finance when the bank regulator, the Monetary Authority, comes within the province of the Prime Minister’s Office. However, it seems to me that questions may also be redirected simply because the government finds it expedient to do so. This may undermine the main purpose of QuestionTime—government accountability.
To take a recent example, the Leader of Opposition had in August last year filed a PQ to the Ministry of Transport asking for LTA's assessment on the demand for bus services on the routes being plied by the special shuttle bus services at Marine Parade GRC. Even though his question asked for LTA’s assessment of transport needs, his question was redirected to the Ministry of Culture Community & Youth without his input. When he rose to ask supplementary questions which were transport-related, the Minister of State for MCCY was unable to answer them andinstead invited the LO to file a question with LTA instead, notwithstanding the fact that the LO had initially done so. While the Minister for Transport Did step in shortly at that session to address the LO’s queries, the question still remains as to why a question posed to LTA was redirected to MCCY in the first place.
Question time is precious. Limited to usually 90 minutes per sitting, MPs compete to have their questions chosen for priority listing, failing which they either let it lapse for written answer or hope to have priority listing on another day. When a question is redirected to aMinistry that cannot address the MP’s concerns, the MP may face procedural objections to refiling it.
Moving forward, could MPs be consulted on any intended redirection of questions, so that our input can be taken into account?
Reputation of Parliament
Next, I touch on protecting the reputation of Parliament as an institution that makes laws prospectively and with advanced notice to the public before implementation. To this end, I believe the recent episode of the urgent Insurance Amendment Bill targeting the Income-Allianz deal may have dentedParliament’s reputation.
The Workers’ Party expressed serious misgivings about the proposed acquisition of Income Insurance by Allianz, but we did not support the Bill. As my party colleague Ms He Ting Ru had argued then, the legislation affected a live transaction and would undermine legal and business certainty that was critical to a business hub such as Singapore.
In that debate, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souzaopined that the Bill was a hybrid bill. He explained that although the provisions of the Bill were drafted in general terms, it was clear that theBill was. in substance, aimed at the proposed acquisition of Income byAllianz. Ordinarily, the Standing Orders would require that such a Bill be referred to a Select Committee for close scrutiny, since it affected prejudicially the rights of particular parties. But because aCertificate of Urgency was obtained, the Select Committee procedure was done away with. This deprived Parliament of the opportunity to hear from the affected parties before passing the Bill.
While the circumstances may have required it, suchCertificates of Urgency should be deployed as a last resort. For example,the urgent Bill could have been avoided had the lacuna in MCCY’s regulatory ambit been identified in 2022, when Income’s corporatisation exercise was approved.
This episode is a salient reminder of what is at stake:our reputation as a legislative body that respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law in the discharge of our responsibilities.
The Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR)
Finally, I wish to highlight the role and composition of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR).
In 1966, a Constitutional Commission chaired by then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin recommended the formation of the PCMR, which was established in 1970. Its role is to scrutinise Bills passed by Parliament for any differentiating measures that discriminate against any racial or religious community, and if so found, to refer the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. The PCMR was later entrusted with other functions as well.
The Wee Chong Jin Commission had recommended that PCMR members be chosen from distinguished individuals who did not hold any political affiliation. It also further recommended that members serve for fixed terms that could be renewed. However, these recommendations were not adopted,and today, the PCMR is comprised of 18 members, 5 of whom are appointed permanently and for life. I am very disturbed that all 5 permanent members in the PCMR have been or still are Cabinet Ministers, including currently,Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the incumbent Minister for Home Affairs andLaw. Of the 5, only Mr Abdullah Tarmugi and Mr S Dhanabalan received their permanent appointments after they had left Cabinet.
The Workers’ Party values the check that the PCMR could provide against inadvertently discriminatory legislation. However, most of the Bills passed by Parliament are proposed by the Government, and yet theBills are being sent for scrutiny by a PCMR consisting of life members of incumbent and former Cabinet Ministers. Is there not a conflict of interest here?
I must confess to be perplexed as to why Cabinet Membersneed to be appointed to the PCMR. If it’s the case that the PCMR would benefit from hearing from the Government, the Prime Minister is already empowered to authorise any member of Cabinet to participate in PCMR meetings, albeit without a vote. Even so, it does not explain why they have to be appointed for life; indeed, the PCMR is the only institution I am aware of where some members serve for life. Would it thus not be far superior to keep the PCMR as a council of distinguished citizens who are non-political individuals there, on fixed terms, as recommended by the Wee Chong Jin Commission?
Sir, we should aim to build institutions that will seeSingapore through over a long period of time. Whether or not it works today will not be indicative of whether it works tomorrow. And a system whichentrenches the influence of members of former administrations, until quite literally, the day they die, in my opinion, is not a viable one.
