Committee of Supply – Head F (Parliament)

The Chairman: Head F, Parliament. Ms He Ting Ru.

10.40 am

Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Singapore has come a long way since independence and much of our progress will be was built on the bedrock of political stability. Yet, we must not mistake political dominance for political stability. Single party dominance brought us here, but we cannot assume it will guarantee stability ahead. Even the People's Action Party (PAP) acknowledges a growing appetite for more voices in Parliament, more diversity in policy-making.

This is why the Workers' Party (WP) continues to push for the further strengthening of our parliamentary institutions, whether through electoral reforms or select committee work, as previously called for by Aljunied Member of Parliament (MP) Gerald Giam. Parliament is sovereign and the bedrock on which our Government derives is legitimacy. We should not view increases in legislative work, including Select Committee work as a drain on time and resources.

Parliament's duty and responsibility to the public is to continuously strive for rigorous oversight and active legislative work. To strengthen our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that we have safeguards and institutions to define our politics, particularly, the delineation and interaction between partisan and non-partisan roles. And as we move forward towards a more diverse and representative political and parliamentary landscape, it is reasonable to properly delineate what is and what is not partisan.

A step is to introduce cooling off periods between partisan and non-partisan roles, allowing individuals to meaningfully detach from previous associations. This is especially important when we turn our attention to who sits in this House. Otherwise, how do we stop ourselves from wondering whether a Member is auditioning for another role or a different office each time they rise to speak?

I would not be breaking any rules if I retired from electoral politics, quit the WP, left my seat, declared myself non-partisan and applied to be an Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the next day. If I did this, Singaporeans would and should ask whether this passes the smell test, wonder about our parliamentary institutions, and whether it is enough to just keep to the letter of the law. Distinctions between partisan and non-partisan roles should apply to those leaving political appointments, the presidency and senior public sector roles too.

Public servants seeking political office should observe a cooling-off period. Political appointees and senior public servants leaving service office should not immediately be employed in areas they last oversaw or regulated to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Cooling-off periods are not novel. Jurisdictions from the United Kingdom (UK) to Canada impose various cooling-off periods, prohibiting Ministers, backbenchers and senior civil servants from joining private entities or undertaking lobbying activities to better manage potential revolving door conflicts of interest, along with the risk of undermining public trust, or even the perception of regulatory capture.

In Singapore, under our Code of Corporate Governance, independent directors must generally have a three-year gap from any prior executive role before being regarded as independent. It appears that our civil service has similar restrictions and principles.

In 2012, the Indian Election Commission muted a cooling-off period clause to prevent civil servants from joining electoral politics straight after they resign to give these persons time to dissociate from their previous roles and deter civil servants from acting or auditioning to gain favour for candidacy. This idea was previously raised by Leon Pereira and I want to repeat this call.

These restrictions are not about in the individual trustworthiness. They exist because systems must provide clear, defensible boundaries against conflicts of interest, perceived or real. This is about enhancing and concretising protections for the integrity of political institutions, especially at a time when lines may be easily blurred in the public eye.

Next, grassroots advisors. The PAP's position is that grassroots advisers under the People's Association (PA) advances the policies of a sitting administration, or the PA does important work and may bring into and policies into our communities. This is also where the complexity begins. Is the role of the grassroots advisor a non-partisan public function or is it a partisan extension of the governing party's ground operations? How do we tell? If the role is a non-partisan extension of the state, then individuals occupying those roles must be non-partisan, like the civil service.

Civil servants serve a sitting administration. They do not carry partisan loyalties into their roles, nor do their appointments hinge on electoral fortunes. Their credibility depends on discharging their duties without fear or favour, regardless of administration.

The present design of the GRA system attempts both: non-partisan in theory while requiring political alignment in practice. It would be helpful to provide clarity on which side GRAs fall on. This also has implications on how grassroots activists see their role. If grassroots activists are involved in electioneering, what are the lines between partisanship and non-partisanship?

10.45 am

The rules are apparent for civil servants but less so for grassroots activists and PA staff. If the grassroots advisers structure is genuinely non-partisan and functions like part of the civil service ecosystem, would partisanship be appropriate? If GRAs are an extension of a ruling party's political machinery, then we should be candid. And relatedly, we should scrutinise the PA budget, which is provided by taxpayers with these considerations, particularly when it shapes whether Members of this House are able to access the state resources that they come with.

Ultimately, this will ensure that our institutions uphold the principles of a Parliamentary democracy where the will of the people is respected. It would be a shame if the lack of clarity of whether something is partisan or not, takes us back to the days when voters were threatened to have public funds withdrawn, upgrading pushed back should they not make the right choice.

Question proposed.

The Chairman: Minister Indranee.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, the gist of this cut was strengthening Parliamentary democracy and safeguarding democracy in a changing world.

Watching recent events unfold on the global stage, it sometimes feels like democracy is under siege. In some other countries, which have long been regarded as leading democracies, there is a sense that systems are breaking down, trust has been eroded and once-revered institutions have been rendered ineffective, compromised or even under direct attack.

This malaise is marked by the following symptoms: polarisation, deep divisions with no space for a middle ground, sometimes resulting in legislative paralysis; political contestation, increasingly framed around race, religion or other divisive issues which exploit and deepen divisions; populism, where electorates are sold only the upsides and not told the downsides, and where difficult but necessary decisions are avoided; short-term thinking driven by selfish political calculation without regard to societal cost; performative politics in and out of Parliament, in lieu of substantive and rational discourse; misleading statements or even not so rarely, outright falsehoods; disregard of the rule of law and processes.

We can be thankful that our Parliamentary democracy is not in such a parlous state. This is not because we are immune to such dangers. We are as vulnerable to these political pitfalls as any other society. We have, in large part, avoided going down this path only because we and, in particular, successive PAP Governments have continued to maintain high standards and important fundamentals.

But this is not to say it cannot happen to us in the future. And it takes very little to get onto the slippery slope. How then can we safeguard our Parliamentary democracy?

First, there must be proper laws, coupled with respect for the rule of law. One must observe the letter and the spirit of the rules and to follow through, even though the consequences may be politically inconvenient.

Second, integrity. Laws alone are not enough. Around the world, we see democracies with many laws but that are still dysfunctional. Democracies can only be safe when the Parliamentarians, in whose hands democracy is entrusted, act honourably and with integrity and who, when things go wrong, have the courage and the sense of shame to accept accountability for matters within their responsibility, and their personal conduct.

Third, the right people. We need Parliamentarians with competence, commitment and conscience on both sides of the House. In Government, we need competent people who understand the fundamentals of governance and can master the difficult task of running a country. In opposition, we need competent people who understand the issues, ask the right questions and hold not only the Government, but also themselves to the same high standards of integrity and accountability. We need Parliamentarians who are committed, who will stay the course and are able to put country before party.

Ms He Ting Ru raised two points. One was on cooling-off periods and the other on grassroots advisors.

On the question of cooling-off periods, actually, it is very straightforward or simple. I think she put forward the suggestion or the scenario – could she resign from the Workers' Party (WP) and become a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the following day?

The answer is, if she resigned from the WP and declared that, there is no obstacle to her becoming an NMP the following day, provided that when she, assuming she is selected, carries out those duties as an NMP properly. You have declared to the world that you are no longer partisan. You have taken on a responsibility to be non-partisan and so long as you carry out that duty properly, there is nothing wrong with that.

And should the reverse be the same or take place, meaning that you are in a non-partisan position and let us say, tomorrow you wish to become partisan, then the right thing to do would be to step down from your non-partisan position and say to the world that you intend to have a partisan role or are exploring a partisan role. That way, it is transparent, it is fair and this is what we have done in our system, and it has served us well.

She mentioned conflicts of interest, perceived or real. Well, that is a good point. Because a conflict of interest can also arise where you may have taken a certain position in Parliament and then later, be sitting on a tribunal which has to decide on an issue where you have already taken a position in Parliament. Now, that would be a conflict of interest too. So, we must see how we conduct ourselves appropriately and much depends on the individual.

On the role of grassroots advisors. Firstly, that is not a Parliamentary matter and is wrongly discussed under Head F. That is one of the reasons why Members of Parliament (MPs) should, in the gist when they file their cuts, actually set out a bit more on what they are going to say.

So, first, it is wrongly filed under this cut. So, I do not propose to address it in detail, other than to say that this has been answered quite fully by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a separate earlier session of Parliament, where he explained the difference between the role of a grassroots advisor, which is essentially flowing from Government, and that of an MP. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 27 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 21, Correction By Written Statement section.] The MP's role is to come to Parliament to represent their voters and to do certain things and the roles are separate.

So, let me just wrap up by pointing to a speech made by Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1988 about the infamous Hendrickson affair. He cited three political models: one, the American system of checks and balances, where the underlying premises is fundamentally one of distrust, where each branch must constantly keep the other in check; the other, the British system, where the Executive, the Prime Minister and Cabinet are given wider discretionary powers.

The Singapore system is more like the British system, except as Mr Goh noted, Singaporeans have gone further and super-imposed on our Constitutional framework, the ideal of a political leader who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust and we believe that leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity, committed to the public good.

Mr Goh quoted from the Analects of Confucius: "To govern is to set things right. If you begin by setting yourself right, who will dare deviate from the right?"

The Chairman: We have very little time for clarification. So, Ms He, it has to be a very short clarification. In total, we only have one and a half minutes, so that is for you and the Minister to respond.

Ms He Ting Ru: Okay, thank you, Mr Chairman, much obliged. I think I have two quick clarifications. The first is, I heard the Minister's explanation earlier about how as long as you tell people that you have stepped down from your partisan role or your non-partisan role, and you are switching over to the other side. But I think I quoted earlier that there is a code of corporate governance which has a three-year cooling off. So, is the Minister saying that if directors or formerly executive officers in a company actually step down and declare that they are henceforth independent, that that would suffice?

And then the second point, I believe, was the Minister saying about conflicts of interest. I just wanted to set the record straight that even though some of the WP MPs were tasked by the WP Central Executive Committee to look into the matter of our Secretary-General, Mr Pritam Singh, this was an internal party disciplinary matter. Proceedings are ongoing. I do not want to pre-empt nor speak for the panel at this stage.

But also just to clarify that the Motion that was tabled before Parliament was on many limbs. None of them were about contravening the party's constitution, which is what we were tasked to look into, and when it came to actually voting about the Motion, I felt that because of the many limbs in there, I felt that was something that I could not support.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I do not have to look at the code of governance for directors. That is a regime for directors. What is of importance is what is the right and appropriate conduct for MPs, and I have outlined that earlier.

On the second point about conflicts of interest, the resolution that was discussed did touch on matters which will be something that the Central Executive Committee or the disciplinary tribunal of the WP has to look at. I say no more than that because it is self-evident and self-explanatory.

The Chairman: Ms He, I would like to invite you to withdraw your amendment.

10.56 am

Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $50,739,900 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $12,792,700 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.