Committee of Supply – Head F (Parliament)

The Chairman: Head F, Parliament. Ms Sylvia Lim.

11.36 am

Defending Parliament's Role

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, I seek to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100”.

Sir, 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.

Sir, 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 (PCMR), which is a vital safeguard on Parliament.

First on Parliamentary Questions (PQs). PQs are a critical aspect of Government accountability, as they are the primary means by which Members of Parliament (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 MPs to 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, for example, questions about banks may be mistakenly filed with the Ministry of Finance (MOF) when the bank regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), comes within the province of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

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 Question Time – Government accountability.

To take a recent example, the Leader of Opposition (LO) had in August last year filed a PQ to the Ministry of Transport (MOT) asking for the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) assessment on the demand for bus services on the routes being plied by the special shuttle bus services at Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency. Even though his question asked for LTA’s assessment of transport needs, his question was redirected to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) 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 and instead 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.

Sir, 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 a Ministry 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?

Next, on the reputation of Parliament as an institution that makes laws prospectively and with advanced notice to the public before implementation. Sir, to this end, I believe the recent episode of the urgent Insurance (Amendment) Bill targeting the Income-Allianz deal may have dented Parliament’s reputation.

The Workers’ Party (WP) 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 Souza opined 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 the Bill was, in substance, aimed at the proposed acquisition of Income by Allianz. 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 a Certificate of Urgency was obtained, the Select Committee procedure was done away with. This deprived Parliament of the opportunity to hear from the affected parties themselves before passing the Bill.

Sir, while the circumstances may have required it, such Certificates 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.

Sir, this episode is a salient reminder of what is at stake – our reputation as a legislative body that respects the fundamental rights of the rule of law in the discharge of our responsibilities.

Finally, Sir, on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). In 1966, a Constitutional Commission was chaired by then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin and it 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 the PCMR members be chosen from distinguished individuals who did not hold any political affiliation. It also 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, five of whom are appointed permanently and for life.

I am very disturbed, Sir, that all five 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 and Law. Of the five, only Mr Abdullah Tarmugi and Mr S Dhanabalan received their permanent appointments after they left the Cabinet.

Sir, the WP 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 the Bills 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 Ministers need to be appointed to the PCMR. If it is the case that the PCMR would benefit from hearing from the Government, the Prime Minister is already empowered to authorise any member of the 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, on fixed terms, as recommended by the Wee Chong Jin Commission?

Sir, we should aim to build institutions that will see Singapore 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 which entrenches the influence of members of former administrations, until quite literally, the day they die, in my opinion, is not a viable one.

The Chairman: Minister Indranee.

11.45 am

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for her cut. She had three points.

One, on the way Question Time was managed, but essentially, that cut was really focused on redirection of questions; the second, was on the reputation of Parliament, but essentially, that focused, I think, more on Bills brought on an urgent basis, and Certificate of Urgency in the specific context of the NTUC-Allianz Bill; and the third, was on the PCMR, which actually does not quite fall into the gist of the cut that was filed, because it says, "Question time and the legislative process need to be safeguarded and strengthened". And I am afraid there was not sufficient indication that PCMR was going to be part of that.

But nevertheless, I will address the question as it has been presented and if there are any further details that are needed or if the Member thinks is not fully addressed, the Member can let me know.

So, let me deal first with redirection. At the at the end of the day, what is the purpose of PQs? The purpose of PQs is so that Members can ask questions about things and the Ministers can reply. It is really for the Government to assess and determine who would be in the best position to respond to the questions. And in some cases, MPs actually do address the question to the wrong Ministry.

For example, MOF frequently gets PQs on the MAS. MAS reports to the PMO, not to MOF. So, essentially, when the PQs come in, Parliament will look at that and they will send it to the Ministry that is named. And the Ministry that is named will have to look to see whether this is under the Ministry's purview or whether another Ministry is best-placed or is the policy owner or has the carriage of the operational aspects. So, that is something you should leave to the Government to determine.

It is not really for the MP to decide who has the relevant knowledge. It is for the Government, looking at the question, to determine who amongst us, who amongst the agencies and the Ministries is the one responsible or has the knowledge or is in the best position to respond. What is truly important, at the end of the day, is that the question is responded to. And that, effectively, is what is done.

Because no matter who the question is redirected to, which agency or which Ministry, there will be an answer provided. And if, at the end of the day, the answer from the Minister or Ministry is not sufficient, the MPs do have the opportunity to come back and to ask further questions in another PQ or on another occasion.

I think in the example that Ms Lim cited of the Leader of the Opposition's (LO's) PQ that was filed, addressed to the Ministry of Transport (MOT), asking for LTA's assessment. My understanding is that, the bus decision, in this particular case, was made by the People's Association (PA), not MOT or LTA. And it was, therefore, not for MOT to explain why the shuttle bus was launched, because that was a scheme done under PA. And PA is a statutory board that comes under MCCY. That is why the Minister for MCCY responded to that.

That said, I believe the Minister for Transport Chee Hong Tat did rise to clarify a point from LO as he had asked with respect to the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, and that comes under MOT. So, because that one came under MOT, the Minister for Transport responded to that. So, that deals with the first issue, which is on redirection.

Then, the second thing on the reputation of Parliament, let me just say at the outset that actually just bringing a Bill quickly on a Certificate of Urgency is not the most important consideration when it comes to reputation of Parliament. The reputation of Parliament, what is most important is that MPs conduct themselves with the highest standards of conduct, with integrity, do not mislead people outside as to what happened in Parliament and also speak the truth to Parliament and its Committees.

Let me deal with the specific instance that Ms Lim raised. The issue that Ms Lim raised was Bills which are presented on an urgent basis. Our system ensures that Members do have sufficient time to review the Bills and to debate them robustly in this House. Bills are introduced at prior Sittings and as a general rule, there must be 10 clear days between the First and the Second Readings of a Bill. Hence, MPs generally have about a month to go through each Bill, which forms the basis of the Minister's Second Reading speech.

However, there may be situations where it is necessary for a Bill to be brought for Second Reading at short notice. Hence, our system also allows for a Bill to be presented under a Certificate of Urgency on the rare occasions when there is a need to do so. On the Bills that were presented under Certificates of Urgency during this term of Government, there was the COVID-19 Temporary Measures Bill and the three amendment Bills thereafter, as well as the other COVID-19-related Bills.

Then we had the one that Ms Lim talked about, which was the Insurance (Amendment) Bill in October 2024. The purpose of the Bill was to allow the Minister in-charge of MAS to impose conditions on an approval of an application to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer where a co-operative is concerned. This was necessary because the proposed deal by Allianz was under active consideration by NTUC Income shareholders at the time. A long duration between the First Reading and the Second Reading of the Bill, and thus, a delay in the amended law taking effect, would have given rise to even more uncertainty in the market and for the parties concerned. Minister Edwin Tong had explained this context in his Ministerial Statement when the Bill was introduced.

Sir, we will always respect and uphold due process in this House to ensure fairness and maintain trust in our institutions. But from time to time, there may be exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of the Allianz Bill, that call for us to be an agile legislature so that we can best serve Singaporeans. Measures, such as Certificates of Urgency, have been and will continue to be used sparingly and only when necessary.

I come now to the last point which Ms Lim raised, which I understand, really, to be an objection to the fact that the PCMR has certain permanent members. Sir, there is value in having members who have long experience. There is value in having members who are also members of Cabinet because they provide a certain perspective. There are other members, of course, who come in, and those members may change or provide other perspectives.

But what we try to do, particularly with minority rights, is to have a wide spectrum and a wide range. And it is important to remember, sometimes, that there are Bills which were passed, legislative provisions that were made because of a certain historical context. Therefore, having people who remember that context, who remember the original situation in which a certain legislative provision was provided or certain reasons why we did not put in legislative provisions, that is valuable and that is useful. So, I cannot see any objection to the composition of the PCMR in the terms suggested by Ms Lim.

The Chairman: Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, how much time do I have?

The Chairman: I will give you some time, yes, but I hope not too long. We are actually approaching the end of guillotine time.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Okay, thank you, Sir. I have three clarifications for the Minister based on the three topics which are raised.

First, on the Government deciding which Ministry should answer the question, does the Leader of the House not agree that sometimes questions can cut across more than one Ministry and the MP actually would be the one to know what is the focus of the question. And, therefore, is it not possible for there to be a procedure where there is some loop back to the MP to ask the MP, "Alright, we intend to redirect it to another Ministry. Do you have any concerns about it?" Then, at least, our input can be taken into account. So, that is the first clarification.

The second topic I raised on legislative process, actually, I think the Leader of the House kind of missed the main issue, which was that, as pointed out by the Deputy Speaker at that Sitting, the Insurance (Amendment) Bill was a hybrid Bill that directly affected particular parties. And under the Standing Orders, it is supposed to be the norm that if there are such Bills, then a Select Committee has to be formed so that Parliament can hear directly from the affected parties on how the proposed Bill would affect them. In this situation, we are talking about a really important social issue and the MPs were deprived of that opportunity to hear from the parties because the Certificate of Urgency was issued. And therefore, the Bills were just passed without the Select Committee procedure being activated. So, I think, to that extent, Parliament has been prejudiced.

Last of all, about PCMR. Actually, what the Minister answered was already pre-empted in my speech. She said that having members with knowledge of why particular Bills were passed or the legislative history would be helpful to PCMR. But the Constitution already provides for the Prime Minister to appoint Ministers to attend PCMR meetings to give that perspective to PCMR members. So, there is no need for Ministers to be members of PCMR for their voices to be heard. Does she not agree with me that the system design, if PCMR is supposed to be an independent check on legislation, having Ministers on PCMR actually does not look quite right?

Ms Indranee Rajah: On the PCMR, I am not sure that the PCMR is set up as a check on the legislature. It is set up as a check to ensure that minority rights are addressed or thought about. Whether you appoint members or whether they are permanent members, the point is that, they have something valuable to contribute. So, I do not see the objection to having permanent members.

Then the second point on the legislative process and the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, I do take Miss Lim's point that, in the normal case, it would go to a Select Committee. But the Standing Orders also do provide that in an urgent case, that it need not go to a Select Committee. In other words, when the Standing Orders were designed, this was thought about. And you do anticipate that there may be such situations that are urgent. Because when we go to a Select Committee, it takes time.

And in this particular instance, given that there were concerns with the market, as I have explained, there was urgency to do it. And that is why a Certificate of Urgency was brought. So, in other words, it is not that every day we have Certificates of Urgency. In this particular instance, there was a need to do it quickly. And that was already explained by Minister Edwin Tong, so it is unnecessary for me to go into that in detail.

Then, on the last one about redirection, I think we would not want to put in place a process that for every single question that is filed, you have to go back to an MP and check what their underlying intent was. I mean, really, MPs, when they file their questions, should make their questions clear.

In the situation that Ms Lim describes, where the question is redirected and the Member feels that it should not be because the underlying intent was to ask the other Ministry something, the Member is always free to reach out to the relevant Minister and explain that. Actually, usually what happens is, when we get a PQ that is not very clear, the Ministries or either the Senior Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of State will reach out to the MP to ask, "What exactly are you asking here?"

There have been cases where we have had to do that because the intent of the PQ is not clear. It does not happen all the time, but, sometimes, when the question is ambiguously worded, we do. In that instance, once we ascertain from the MP, what the real intent is, we can then decide whether to leave it with one Ministry or redirect it to another.

12.00 pm

But on the face of it, questions ought to be clear if they are properly drafted. And if it is clear and it appears to us that this falls under the purview of a particular agency or Ministry, we will redirect it accordingly. Like I said, it is not as though the MP has no chance to come back and file a clearer PQ directed at the Ministry or agency that the Member wants. So, the MPs are not shut out.

The Chairman: Ms Lim, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Ms Sylvia Lim: May I just make two quick points, Sir?

The Chairman: A very quick one. We are actually out of time.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. Just to respond that under the Standing Orders, a Member may be precluded from filing a question again if it is deemed to have been fully answered. So, that decision, sometimes there is a tussle between the relevant officers and Members about this.

And last of all, regarding the urgency of the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, of course, to note that the deal has been aborted, so I do not know whether the parties felt that they were inadequately listened to, so I do not know the answer to that.

But, Sir, in any event, there are clearly many interesting issues that we can talk about Parliament and its functioning. And I would hope that there is common cause that all of us want Parliament to be effective. And with that, Sir, I back leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Minister Indranee.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, a very quick response. The first point that Ms Lim made was that because of the Standing Orders, which says that if a question has been answered fully, then you cannot bring it again.

But that is the point, because if the MP felt that this was supposed to have been addressed to another Ministry, it must follow that it was not answered fully, so then they can direct it to the other Ministry. [Interruption.]

And with respect to the last question, when she raised the issue of the deal being aborted and what the response was, this is a classic example of a question that should not be directed to me. That should instead go to Minister Edwin Tong. So, if the Member has any clarifications on that, that is something to be directed to Minister Edwin Tong.

12.02 pm

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $47,784,400 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $13,746,000 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.