Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.21 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Mr Speaker, Parliament is a forum for deliberation. Members meet face to face, in this Chamber, to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. Our rules and procedures, even the architecture of this Chamber, are designed around this function.

But the COVID-19 situation has affected how we work, just as it has affected other parliaments and legislatures around the world. To ensure the continuity of Parliament, since March, we have been sitting with safe-distancing arrangements. Members are spread out within the Chamber, and some of us are seated at the public galleries.

This is about as far as we can go under the law today. The constitutional provisions governing Parliament are premised on a physical meeting at one place that is appointed by the President. Certain provisions in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act are also drafted with reference to Parliament House and its precincts.

But it is entirely conceivable that exigencies may make it unsafe or even impossible for us to meet at one place. During such exigencies, it is even more critical for Parliament to carry on its constitutional functions of legislating and holding the Government to account. We have seen the critical role played by this House in the last two months when Members passed the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act as well as the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets. In the constitutional framework, we are an essential service.

The Government is therefore proposing to amend the Constitution to put in place a mechanism for the continuity of Parliament even during such moments of crisis.

Sir, the Bill will insert a new Article 64A into the Constitution.

The new Article will create a mechanism for Parliament to meet under continuity arrangements. When the mechanism is activated, Parliament need not meet with all Members gathered at one place. Instead, Parliament will be able to meet with Members spread across two or more places appointed by the President and in contemporaneous communication with each other.

This physical separation will enhance the survivability of Parliament as an institution. In the context of the COVID-19 situation, separating Members into cohorts and limiting the physical contact between these cohorts allows us to cut down the chance of infection spreading to all Members of Parliament – in other words, the whole of the political leadership of the nation, Government as well as Opposition. If one cohort is infected, other cohorts can still carry on.

The details of these continuity arrangements will be decided by this House or by you, Mr Speaker. These details could include allocating Members between the appointed places and the mode of communication between those places. Continuity arrangements may also involve modifying the existing Standing Orders. For instance, the rule on ringing division bells would have to be modified if we conduct a division across different locations. This House or the Speaker would be able to make these modifications.

With these arrangements, Members will be able to take part fully in the proceedings of Parliament. Their presence at an appointed place will count for attendance, quorum and voting purposes. The powers, immunities and privileges of this House will also be extended to apply to continuity arrangements.

The mechanism will be active for six months after this Bill is enacted and comes into force. In the future, it can be activated by Parliament for six months at a time, if Members consider that it is impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to meet in one place. Parliament can also resolve to deactivate the mechanism at any time. When the mechanism is deactivated, we will resume normal sittings in this Chamber.

Sir, in developing this mechanism, we have considered other options, including the possibility of remote participation, which is being tried out by the House of Commons in the UK. We decided that we do not need to go so far. Singapore is a small country and Members should be able to travel to alternative sites for Parliament. We also wanted Members to be physically and fully present to apply our minds together to the important business of Parliament, even if we co-locate between several places.

As I said when I wrote to Members last Tuesday, there is no immediate need for continuity arrangements. As the Minister for Health said yesterday, the average number of new cases in the community and unlinked cases have decreased, compared against the week before the circuit breaker was introduced. This suggests that the circuit breaker measures are effective and so, Mr Speaker, we will continue to meet in this Chamber for this month with safe distancing arrangements.

We hope there will be no need to activate these continuity arrangements. But we cannot be certain how events will unfold. Out of an abundance of caution, we should put the constitutional mechanism in place. If the need arises, for instance, if there is widespread local transmission of COVID-19, we can immediately implement the necessary arrangements. This is why the Bill has been introduced under a Certificate of Urgency. But let me assure the House that should we decide to meet under continuity arrangements, every Member will be given adequate notice and full technical support. I would ask for the goodwill of all Members to operate the arrangements if it comes to that. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.29 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the National Library Board reports that the first Singapore-London telephone call was made in 1937. Yet the Merdeka Talks two decades later were carried out physically in London over three rounds and two years to determine Singapore's transition from colony to self-governing state. A telephone conference was not considered the best option for such a momentous and delicate negotiation.

The question underlying this amendment is not so different from that faced by our pioneers. Can the business of Parliament be conducted properly through technology? In other words, would permitting the remote meeting of Parliament in multiple places, even during a crisis, fundamentally undermine the quality of decision-making and deliberation conducted by Parliament?

If so, then it may well be better not to meet at all, because the only thing worse than a Parliament unable to conduct business, is one that puts the stamp of legitimacy on decisions that have not been properly debated and deliberated.

Fortunately, technology has advanced today to the point where many of the functions of Parliament, most notably Chamber debates and official proceedings of committees, can be conducted remotely without any great loss of quality. So, on that basis, I support this amendment.

But I think this amendment speaks to a broader question of how Parliament actually functions, what types of parliamentary work technology helps to enable and what technology still cannot achieve yet.

Let me start with what many consider to be the core function of Parliament – to meet in this Chamber and debate and pass laws. Sir, the idea of persuading your countrymen in open debate to follow a particular course of action, that goes beyond Parliament. It is the foundation of collective decision-making in human societies. But how does Chamber debate actually fulfil that function?

If we look at the actual practice of Parliament, we will see that what we sometimes have is more theatre than debate. I do not mean to insult hon Members in saying so or to doubt their seriousness in coming here. What I mean is that we come prepared knowing that our lines will be put on the Hansard permanently, and reported to a national audience. Our true audience often goes beyond the hon Member sitting across from us. The audience is outside the Chamber because Singaporeans need to see that the issues of the day are being debated by the hon Members who represent them.

Technology today is well suited to solving the problem of theatre. Yes, there is something lacking when you see a speech online or on TV, as opposed to in person. That is why political rallies still draw so many people. But all the basic elements can be brought to us through technology. For Chamber debate and Question Time, technology is an excellent substitute for face-to-face meeting.

So, what does technology struggle with, which is yet vital to the functioning of a Parliament? I think something less appreciated is that much of the work of Parliament is conducted outside the debating Chamber. And that is because a parliamentary debate is not quite a discussion, negotiation, deliberation or other type of meeting. The rules of parliamentary debate and the knowledge that we are all playing a public role, may constrain us at times from being in real communication with each other.

Sir, that is, I think, where technology today falls short. If the Chamber debate is theatre, then what technology struggles to enable fully is the painstaking backstage work that hon Members carry out every single day – to find out what are the issues affecting Singaporeans, how can the challenges that affect society be solved, what are the ways that we decide as one Singapore to solve them. That work carries on in Parliament as well, but outside this Chamber, in the discussions and meetings that take place during every sitting, and beyond that.

Technology is an enabler, but not a leveller, in this. We can certainly email any other hon Member or Minister. Some of us may even feel comfortable calling or video-conferencing a Minister at any time. But others will not. The discussions that we have in person, in the grounds of Parliament, whether by design or by accident, form an important basis for trust, relationship building and even national decision-making.

So, in accepting the necessity for Parliament, from time to time, to meet at multiple sites using technology, we must be aware what the limitations are, and think actively about ways to overcome them. For example, when meeting at multiple places, we may not want the set of Members of Parliament at each location to be fixed for the entire duration of the crisis. Even at some risk of cross contamination, it may be useful to have a different set of Members see each other at some interval. We may also want to create institutions, such as a virtual Members’ Room, so that informal discussions can continue even when we must be apart.

And because a constitutional amendment may outlive those of us in the Chamber today, we should also be aware of how it may affect the future business of Parliament. There has been no need since Independence for the Government to collaborate with the Opposition in order to pass parliamentary business. But the time may come when the Government does not secure a two-thirds majority, or may even find itself in minority. In that case, having an effective means of building trust and relationships across party lines will be even more important than it is today. Indeed, I think it safe to assume that when a Government lacks a majority, Bills do not pass or fail based on the Chamber debate alone. The reasons for passage or failure are laid in backroom negotiations.

Of course, democratic accountability holds that the business of Parliament should be as public as possible. So, we must find the right balance. But that does not change the fact that parliamentary work is done, offline and online, and technology can help, but cannot replace, the need to form human connections in doing this work. The most important work of trust and relationship building in the service of the country is still done face to face, in Parliament and outside it. Even though technology now allows us to see someone virtually, we still need to build that element of trust first. Barring unexpected changes in technology and in social norms, I think this will continue, even though we must all take more care. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

3.36 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution Amendment Bill 2020 before the House today proposes to make changes to the Constitution, so as to allow Parliament to sit at two or more places rather than all in one location. This is what the Bill refers to as "continuity arrangements". The Bill empowers the majority of Members to give notice that "it is or will be impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to sit and meet in one place". If that is the case – and this is the language used in what will be the new Article 64 – then such arrangements can take effect.

The letter sent by the Leader of the House to Members on 27 April regarding this Bill makes clear that the Government believes that there is no immediate need for such continuity arrangements, but that it is appropriate to put this mechanism in place in case the need arises in the future.

I agree with the Government that it is appropriate to do so now. The current COVID-19 pandemic could take a turn for the worse. It behoves us as Members of this House to prepare for that eventuality by putting in place a mechanism now. In that light, the Workers' Party supports the Bill. I will devote the remainder of my speech to clarifications and suggestions.

Firstly, the Leader's letter made reference to the UK Parliament's experiment using video-conferencing, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing members to take part in Parliament sittings from home. I would like to clarify if the current Amendment would allow for that to happen in future, should that become necessary? The language of the new Article 64A(2) reads that continuity arrangements "may be made for Parliament and its committees to sit, meet and despatch business with Members of Parliament being present at two or more appointed places and in contemporaneous communication with one another."

Notwithstanding the advice from the Leader of the House in her letter of 27 April that the Government does not wish to adopt this approach right now, would this Bill thus allow Parliament to adopt the UK's video-conferencing approach or something similar, if it deems necessary to do so, with members calling in from home? This practice would appear to be consistent with the language of the new Article 64A(2) since each Member's home could be deemed to be an appointed place and the video-call technology would allow Members to be in contemporaneous communication with one another.

To be sure, I am not calling for this to be done now, but the possibility that our COVID-19 situation gets much worse cannot be ruled out. Also, we cannot rule out the future possibility of an even worse pandemic or some other national security crisis, which would necessitate Members of Parliament calling in from home or other locations.

Next, I would like to revisit the issue of live streaming of parliamentary proceedings. When this was discussed in this House in November 2017, the answer given by the Government for why we do not have full live streaming for all Parliament sittings is that it is not in great demand, as based on past experience, only a small fraction of persons would watch certain parliamentary proceedings like the Budget speech live, compared to the number that watch delayed telecasts or clips online.

If Parliament adopts continuity arrangements and sits in more than one location, arrangements would need to be made to live stream the proceedings between two or more locations. The investment to do that would need to be made. One can assume that taking the additional step of then making that live stream between the locations available online would be relatively inexpensive. However, if cost is an impediment, these costs could and should be discussed.

I recently had the privilege of moderating a webinar for the Workers' Party Youth Wing. Four panellists dialled in from their homes via a video-conferencing service. We were able to live stream the panel discussion on social media, namely Facebook, such that the people who did not sign up to the video-call were still able to watch the panel discussion live on Facebook. The whole process was relatively simple to run and very cost effective.

Many groups and individuals with few resources have live streamed events in this way. If we adopt parliamentary continuity arrangements in future, my suggestion is that we could use that as an occasion to experiment with live streaming all parliamentary proceedings under continuity arrangements to the public to test this hypothesis about how much demand there is.

Demand is not a static thing. Demand for live streaming may have been low on previous occasions when that was tried, like for certain debates and certain speeches. But if we adopt consistent live streaming of all proceedings, over time, there is the possibility that more people, knowing that this resource is available every time Parliament sits, would use it. If this happens, it would be a good thing for our democracy and our society. It would probably increase the public knowledge of parliamentary proceedings of how debates turn and how issues are discussed and decided, based on arguments made. This, in turn, is likely to increase the public appetite for participating in the parliamentary process by providing feedback to Members of Parliament, by participating in public debate on issues that are close to their hearts, and so on and so forth.

Of course, one could argue why can such engagement not happen by the public consuming delayed telecast clips. Well, for the same reason that there is an audience for live debates, an audience for live political speeches, an audience for live sports and an audience for other kinds of live events, as opposed to there being no audience for such live and real-time events. The sense of engagement that comes from watching something live and being the first to know is different from watching a delayed clip. It is different from first hearing about something through media reports before you even see the clip.

To be sure, even if demand is low, and provided that the cost is not prohibitive, which it is unlikely to be, I would still argue that the members of the public have the right to see live stream of parliament, even if only a minority choose to exercise that right at any given point in time. Live streaming of parliament is common in other developed countries. But having said that, continuity arrangements would provide a good opportunity to proceed with this for the reasons that I have mentioned.

Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

3.44 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to create a mechanism for Parliament to meet under continuity arrangements, should it become impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Members to meet in Parliament. This is a prudent move to ensure that Parliament sittings continue in such unpredictable and challenging times, so that we can still debate and "properly pass the laws and any supplementary funds the Government requires to act in protecting our fellow Singaporeans", as you, Sir, had put it in the last sitting.

Yet, as much as we strive to maintain continuity of Parliament, we must also maintain continuity of access for the public. Otherwise, this Bill and its intent in continuity planning is incomplete and creates an unintended dismissal of Singaporeans as part of our parliamentary process.

Public access to Parliament is fundamental to our parliamentary proceedings. As you shared in your 2018 blog, Mr Speaker, “whatever happens in Parliament affects Singaporeans and Singapore,” so Parliament staying connected to citizens could “bridge knowledge gaps and combat misinformation for a more informed and constructive public discourse on Parliament matters”. Only with such intentional and on-going engagement can an informed and invested citizenry and therefore a “democracy of deeds” eventuate.

Other than Hansard transcripts and assorted recordings by CNA, the most direct, engaging and intimate access to parliamentary proceedings for members of the public is to watch live from the visitors’ gallery and the press gallery. In fact, I understand that extensive attention was paid to public education of the parliamentary system in the form of galleries on a study trip by the Committee Members during the design of this building in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately, since the introduction of more drastic safe distancing measures, these galleries have been closed to the public and the media. How can we ensure continuity of this access to live proceedings?

I would propose that we expand the notion of the public gallery online through live-streaming to ensure continuity of access. This may have been seen as a “nice to have” in the past but I would argue that in these COVID-19 times, this is now an imperative. Let me elaborate.

First, the COVID-19 virus has challenged the status quo in so many ways. The daily updates by the Multi-Ministry Task Force, now live streamed to our homes, has begun to demonstrate the kind of leadership in transparency and accountability away from exceptionalism that has, in my humble opinion, been critical in inspiring the confidence needed in Singaporeans to ride this storm together.

Could trust and resilience have been built without risking vulnerability, without risking bad but honest news? I doubt so.

In the same vein, instead of relying only on media analysis which is constrained by limited air time and print space, Singaporeans should be given live access to parliamentary debates. This would allow them to be fully invested in the policies deliberated and enacted to tackle this public health and economic crisis.

Second, you have made admirable efforts in engaging young Singaporeans to take more than a cursory interest in Parliament, Mr Speaker. “My Parliament Journey” allows students to observe the proceedings from the gallery – hordes of them would come in every sitting; I used to enjoy seeing and guessing which school they are from based on their uniform. Sadly, this live experience is no longer available to them at this time. Yet, I would suggest that in fact, now more than ever, as this Chamber debates Bills and makes laws with urgency to save lives and livelihoods in our biggest crisis since World War II, our young must be engaged to witness history being made and be invested in this “war” that we are fighting together. Live streaming ensures the continuity of this critical part of their national education and citizenship-building, and provides the opportunity for this to take place at their homes as well.

Lastly, I would also argue that we must engage in the same way with Singaporeans overseas to enfold them into parliamentary debates to tackle the crisis and our recovery after. Many of my Singaporean friends overseas would have appreciated watching the parliamentary sessions live in the last few sittings as they were so eager to know what the Government would do and what the Members of Parliament would be asking with such a colossal crisis at hand. Some have been away from Singapore for a while and are seeking ways to stay connected to Singapore in this trying time. This is even more important given that elections may be imminent. Having parliamentary live streams will allow Singaporeans abroad to stay connected and is valuable as a long-term measure to help these Singaporeans maintain their stake and commitment to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, more than 90 countries have given their citizens the opportunity to access parliamentary proceedings through live streaming. Live streaming and maintaining archives are now mainstream technologies such that cost is no longer an obstacle.

“I firmly believe that given our greater appetite for self-information in this digital age, we can nudge greater citizen participation by offering official channels they can trust,” these are not my words but yours, Mr Speaker. And I cannot agree with you more.

COVID-19 has shown us how much of a highly wired world we live in, and live streaming is becoming a way of life. However, live streams of parliamentary proceedings are not news sound-bites competing with entertainment channels, they are in fact an investment in our future and our citizenry. And this investment is an investment we must make regardless of viewership, just like how we invested in the generous space for the public and press galleries regardless of visitorship. It must be made on a matter of principle, the same way that the Hansard and public gallery are manifestations of the democratic principle. So, will the Minister please clarify whether live streaming will be part of the continuity planning for public access to protect the integrity of our parliamentary process, especially with the public gallery closed to the electorate?

Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify why the Bill does not provide for Parliament to meet remotely under the new Article 64A should such need arise so that we do not have to keep tabling urgent amendments, since experts have shared that COVID-19 would not be the last pandemic.

Sir, this Bill is significant in that it protects the integrity of our democracy by ensuring continuity of Parliament, especially in a time where laws have to be changed, debated and made at record speed to keep pace with a rapidly evolving crisis in order to protect our people and our economy. But we must also protect the rights of the electorate by continuing to give them direct and live access through live streaming as a continuity arrangement. We can keep distance for safety by closing the public gallery but we must come even closer between the Legislature and our people to forge a stronger compact for a post-COVID-19 world.

Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications above, I support the Bill.

3.52 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet today in a time of crisis and uncertainty, fighting together an unseen foe – a pandemic. As we have seen in the past few months, it is essential, in these times, that Parliament has the ability to sit and pass the necessary legislation, take swift and decisive fiscal actions, put in place much-needed measures both to control the spread of the virus as well as to alleviate the consequences of these control measures. We need to discuss these openly and robustly for the sake of the constituents we represent. These make not just for good collaborative democracy where we can get Parliamentary business done efficiently, but such debate allows us to combat fake news and maintain trust and confidence in institutions in this time of crisis.

Faced with a situation, legislative bodies all around the world have asked themselves the question whether they can or need to meet and, if yes, how they will meet. Today, we are tabling and reading a Constitutional (Amendment) Bill under a certificate of urgency to put in place a continuity plan. Why?

In this COVID-19 crisis, it is only prudent that we possess the ability to be flexible and adjustable as the need requires. We have technology that allows us to do so, and we should be able to make use of it when the need arises, just as many Singapore businesses have had to utilise their continuity plan.

However, this change from the normal mode of business should not be taken lightly. It is not the norm and should not be the norm.

The proposed new Article 64A(2)(b) provides that “arrangements… may be made for Parliament and its committees to sit, meet and despatch business with Members of Parliament being present at two or more appointed places and in contemporaneous communication with one another.” This is not just a change in the way Parliament sits but it will also affect the way Parliament works, and hence should not be utilised lightly. Meeting in a physical place has its role and advantages to democracy that meeting in separate locations cannot replace. It builds an eco-system of collaboration.

What do I mean? By bringing all parliamentarians into one single location, regardless of their political party affiliation or non-partisan affiliation for Nominated Members of Parliament, we as parliamentary colleagues have valuable opportunities to feel the tone and nuance of fellow Members’ speeches. That adds to our assessment of the subject at hand.

What this means is that there is space for persuasion, for close communication, where we can discuss, persuade and work on issues together. It is not impossible to do so when we do not meet in one single body of caucus, but it is much harder to do so. Therefore, while the provisions being suggested today are necessary to address the difficulties of our current times, I would ask humbly that they be leaned on only if absolutely necessary. We should quickly try to revert to debating and persuading in a single caucus.

Coming back to the provisions of this Bill, the proposed Article 64A(1)(a) specifies that the suggested alternative arrangement may be possible – one, for a period of six months after the date the Act is published in the Gazette; two, for a period of six months if Parliament resolves that it is or will be impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to sit and meet in one place; or three, the Speaker presents to Parliament a notice in writing given by the majority of all Members of Parliament stating words to the same effect.

What it takes to invoke this arrangement subsequent to the passing of this Bill is a mere majority of Members of Parliament to pass such a resolution. While there will be situations that are clear and uncontroversial such as during this COVID-19 crisis, there may be other times that are less so. Parliament and parliaments in the future who seek to pass such a resolution or sign such a notice should carefully consider the implications of having such an arrangement before doing so. This would be especially disadvantageous to parliamentarians with no or smaller natural informal forums to discuss issues with fellow parliamentarians.

In light of this, could the Leader of the House elaborate on what “inexpedient” might look like and what is the reason for setting the threshold for agreement to that of a majority through a resolution for future instances instead of, say two-thirds majority of elected members, as is the requirement today.

I understand that there is a difference – that we are seeking to amend the Constitution today and the invocation of the provisions in future would not amount to an amendment of the Constitution. But, I would humbly prefer that a two-third majority of sitting members be required to split the caucus into the two or more different locations given the importance of single caucus debates. Would the Leader of the House kindly explain the rationale for requiring a simple majority instead of a super two-third majority?

The ability for the Speaker to present a notice given by Members is good as it provides for a way to invoke these alternative arrangements in a situation where Parliament may not be able to physically meet in one place anymore. During this COVID-19 crisis, it was good that we had a runway – a runway to be able to still meet physically in one place today and pass this piece of legislation that will enable us the flexibility to meet in different places if we need to. We may not have had such an opportunity to do so in the future and having this in the Constitution today, presuming it is passed, is important.

Furthermore, this Bill is broadly drafted so as to accommodate a variety of situations – expected and unexpected. This would allow our Parliament and future parliaments the flexibility they may need to handle unexpected and unprecedented crises in the future.

The passing of legislation and robust debates are important features of our democracy and are, in fact, essential. For the benefit of this Parliament and future parliaments, would the Leader of the House elaborate on some principles and concerns that may guide arrangements mentioned in the proposed Article 64A(2)(c) both in the present as well as in the future?

While the shape of the arrangement would probably be informed, to a large extent, by the situation presenting itself at the time, I believe that certain processes and principles, some embedded in our standing orders, are foundational to keeping and maintaining a parliament that is effective and efficient.

Another question that I would like to seek clarity on is, constitutionally, how would a newly formed Parliament be able to utilise this continuity plan? Would Members have to first meet physically in one location for the swearing in before these amended provisions can be invoked?

In summary, this Bill puts in place measures which allow us to continue sitting as Parliament despite it being impossible, unsafe or inexpedient to sit at one, single physical location. This gives Members the requisite ability to continue to pass legislation needed for the constituents we serve to get through this crisis. On the basis that the provisions should be invoked sparingly and only when necessary, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

4.01 pm

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to thank Members who have spoken on this Bill for their broad support and comments.

Let me first address the points relating to the Bill.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked a few questions about activating the new Article 64A.

First, what would amount to inexpedience under the Bill? It is difficult to state a hard and fast rule, because it is impossible to foresee what form an emergency will take and how it would affect Parliament. It could be a health threat, a virus of another kind, a security threat, or even a natural disaster. So, we need a broadly framed provision to capture all possible scenarios. But I can say, in principle, we should make every effort to sit in this Chamber, as Mr Christopher de Souza has said convincingly, face-to-face. We should only move to continuity arrangements in truly exceptional circumstances.

Second, why does it only take a simple majority to activate continuity arrangements? This is because we envisage that the circumstances requiring activation to be those where time and flexibility are of essence. The situation is likely to be fluid and dynamic, necessitating Parliament to act swiftly in activating the mechanism. Furthermore, the mechanism does not give the Government or the majority any advantage or put the minority under any disadvantage. Every Member can still attend, speak and vote from his or her location. The privileges, immunities and powers of the House will stay the same. Any matter that requires a supermajority will still require a supermajority. Given that this is logistical and procedural in nature, there is no reason why we should require a supermajority to activate continuity arrangements.

Third, how would the mechanism be activated by a new Parliament? Constitutionally, the first item of business for a new Parliament is to elect a Speaker, because Parliament cannot function without a Speaker. Members must also take the Oath of Allegiance. Only after that can Parliament proceed to transact other business, including activating continuity arrangements. If need be, we can arrange for Members to be divided into cohorts for the purpose of electing a Speaker and taking the Oath.

Ms Anthea Ong asked whether the mechanism can be activated for future crises and the answer is yes.

Mr de Souza and Ms Anthea Ong asked about the form of continuity arrangements. The Bill requires Members in different locations must be in contemporaneous communication with each other. In principle, we would want a Member who is speaking to be seen and heard live at all locations – so that means a contemporaneous audio-visual link. Members should also be able to ask supplementary questions and seek clarifications, though the process will need to be modified given that we have more than one location. The Speaker should also be seen and heard by all Members. And there should be certainty on the casting and recording of votes. If the Bill is passed, Parliament Secretariat will look into the procedural, logistical, technical and security details.

Ms Ong and Mr Leon Perera asked about remote participation. Why does the Bill not allow for that?

Sir, let me use the Division process as an example to illustrate. When a Division is claimed, the bells are rung, and then the Sergeant-at-Arms locks the doors. When we cast our votes, there are no strangers present, no outside interference. The decision that emerges is ours alone. The responsibility is also ours alone. There is a certain seriousness of purpose, a certain sanctity of process. And that is true also of what we say and how we debate in this House. The same solemnity cannot be reproduced in remote proceedings where there is no effective control over the physical environment from which Members dial in.

So, in response to Mr Perera's question: whether it is legally possible to have 100 places taking part in a debate; would the Bill allow for remote sitting? The answer is that it is technically possible. But as I have explained earlier, that is not the scenario that we envisage. If that had been the case, we would have to put in a lot more certainty, a lot more precautions into how the proceedings would take place in our own individual homes. There are technical issues. There are security considerations and logistical considerations. And that will not make that option comparable to us sitting in this Chamber with the existing procedures.

For large countries, they have no choice. Remote participation is the only feasible option for legislators who are far away from the seat of the legislature. But as I said in my opening speech, we are just one city, and Members should have no problems travelling to alternative sites for Parliament sittings.

We have therefore struck the balance that is found in the Bill. Members have called for face-to-face discussions, negotiations and persuasions. So, we have tried to incorporate that as much as possible. It is a balance between considerations of safety, better continuity, but at the same time, keeping as much as possible to the current format of Parliament sittings. So, Members can spread out for continuity purposes, but we also keep the solemnity of a physical meeting.

Members also raised some points that fall outside the scope of the Bill. With your leave, Sir, I will briefly address them.

Ms Ong and Mr Perera spoke about ensuring the continuity of public access to live parliamentary proceedings, or live streams as they call it, in order to build transparency and trust in times of crisis, to nurture nation building and citizen engagement.

I thank Members for their comments. This Bill does not deal with broadcasting. The public will continue to have access to the proceedings as they currently do when Parliament sits in this Chamber.

This topic has also been previously discussed in this House. The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information, Mr Chee Hong Tat, had explained that the reason why we do not have a live feed. There are channels available for members of the public, including students and overseas Singaporeans, to easily access full parliamentary proceedings online in a timely, comprehensive and convenient manner. They can view the complete set of footage of Parliament speeches, as well as questions and answers from each sitting on the CNA Parliament microsite. Parliamentary highlights are loaded onto this microsite within three hours of broadcast. In addition, the public has access to the full written record of Parliamentary proceedings via the online Hansard.

The continuity arrangements will be activated when it is deemed that it may be unsafe for Parliament to sit in one place. And accordingly, to ensure the safety of the public, public viewing from the galleries should only proceed when it is deemed safe to do so. This will be determined as part of the details of the arrangements, to be decided by Mr Speaker or this House.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about the need for trust and collaboration, even as there are fewer opportunities for Members to meet in person to discuss. I believe Mr de Souza made a similar point. I would relay Mr de Souza and Assoc Prof Theseira's concerns to the Parliament Secretariat and ask that they look into giving all Members technical support for continuity in the collaborative engagements between Members, in and outside formal proceedings. It is critical for us to remain connected and deliberate on critical national issues with each other, as we grapple with the difficult challenges we are faced with.

Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support for the Bill and their valuable comments.

Sir, Parliament must carry on its constitutional functions of legislating and holding the Government to account even in exigencies. I trust that my fellow Members will hold fast to our commitment to doing so, even under difficult circumstances. The amendments in this Bill seek to put in place a mechanism to ensure the continuity of Parliament even in moments of crisis, so that the business of Parliament can continue unhindered. This way, we will be able to address issues that will matter greatly to the collective well-being of Singaporeans, when it is most needed. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: Take your vote. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes in the order based on the current seating arrangement. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise their vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. It is colour-coded but the words are printed there as well. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, there and then Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded. The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.

Mr Speaker: There are 84 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, " That the Bill be now read a Third time." That Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise the vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded. The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.

Mr Speaker: There are 84 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.32 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]