Committee of Supply – Head F (Parliament)

1.14 pm

Strengthening Our Parliament

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 Inter-Parliamentary 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 have enshrined the principle of the Speaker's impartiality 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 and also, 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 lynchpin 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 the 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 have 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 Deliberate 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.

Question proposed.

Select Committees for Ministries

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Parliament currently has seven standing Select Committees. But none of these is specific to individual Ministries. This is quite unlike many other legislatures around the world.

The United Kingdom's (UK’s) House of Commons, for example, has Select Committees for every government department, like Defence, Home Affairs and Transport, to name a few. Australia's parliament has House Standing Committees on Health, Aged Care and Sport and on Employment, Education and Training, among others.

These Select Committees examine each Ministry's policies, spending and administration. They are empowered to inquire into and report on any matter referred to them by the House or Minister. The committees may call in subject matter experts to give testimony and answer questions from members that can inform their considerations.

Select Committees also provide a platform for members of parliament (MPs) to better understand each other's positions and that of the government. The government may share in confidence with committees information that shapes its policy stances. The committees can discuss legislation or major policy changes before they are officially tabled so that there is more room to work out, compromises before each party takes its position publicly.

After a thorough scrutiny of legislation and policies, the Select Committees can make recommendations to parliament before Bills and Motions are debated and voted on by all MPs. This process will lead to more informed and constructive debate and better decision making in parliament. The committees thus help to contribute to more effective governance, build political consensus and strengthen national unity.

For these reasons, I call on Parliament to set up standing Select Committees for each Ministry or group of related Ministries, consisting of MPs from all political parties represented in Parliament. They should be supported by the Parliament Secretariat and meeting minutes should be made available to all committee members. Ministries should endeavour to engage them on a regular basis.

Attracting the Very Best to Become MPs

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): "It will be harder and harder to attract good people" "…it is a very serious problem". These were comments made by the Prime Minister in the book "The History of the PAP". The PAP has, for a long time, been very candid about the challenges it faces convincing good people to enter politics. On the other side of the aisle, the Leader of the Opposition has also said that the Workers' Party's (WP's) search for candidates was always an ongoing process.

The quality of the Members in this House is of paramount importance. The Cabinet is drawn from amongst MPs and legislative debate is critical to articulate views on the ground, for transparency and accountability and to shape public opinion.

But over the years, it is not only the demands on MPs that have grown, but also their exposure to toxic social media and encroachments on their private lives. Singapore is a small country with a limited talent pool and as a citizen, I am concerned that many of our good people who should be in Government will be deterred by these changing demands. How do we continue to attract the very best into Parliament? I would like to make three points on this in my speech today.

First, I think that we need to be realistic about what makes a good politician. Do we expect that our politicians will be flawless individuals; who had hardly set a wrong foot; and who had not and will not make mistakes or missteps along the way. This is an impossibly high bar that will deter many good candidates from joining. What Singaporeans expect is influenced by how parties position themselves and their candidates. So, to a certain extent, if Singaporeans develop unrealistic expectations of their MPs, the problem is somewhat self-made by the parties themselves.

This having been said, the bar of course must be set very high – not impossibly high – but very high because these are our national leaders after all. To me, the cardinal criteria are a genuine passion to serve and a high level of competence – not infallibility. I think this is also what is of critical importance to Singaporeans.

MPs, like everyone else, have flaws, fears and doubts and will make mistakes from time to time. I think a candidate who admits and owns these mistakes and who shows he has learnt from them and has become a better person, can still be a good candidate as long as they meet the cardinal criteria.

We can draw wisdom from an ancient Chinese idiom on governance: clear waters do not have any fish. A person who is perfect and devoid of failings will have a sterile mind and hold no interesting or useful ideas or contributions. Flaws, the impurities in the water, are what underpin character and experience. It grants a person empathy that allows him to connect with and to understand others.

Of course, there are some impurities that are in fact, poisons. A corruptible character and a proclivity towards dishonesty are traits that are fatal to a good MP. Such persons should be weeded out as best as possible by each party's vetting processes. But otherwise, persons who have a passion to serve and who are competent, should step up to serve. They should not be deterred by an impossibly high bar set by party and public expectations.

My second point is on the use of social media. The nastiness hurled at MPs on social media, often at a personal level, is something that, sadly, MPs and future MPs must come to accept. This is an inevitable outcome of an open society that is highly connected to the internet and a populace that is opinionated.

There are a lot of complaints about MPs online. There are those that surface real concerns, but a lot of it is griping and sniping. I would like to encourage my fellow Singaporeans to also post positive accounts of their MPs.

Let me give you an example. Someone approached me in July last year on a very urgent family matter. Seeing that this person was a resident in Minister of State Alvin Tan's constituency, I asked him if he could help look into it. On the day that I referred the matter to the Minister of State, he was moving a Bill and the Sitting ended at close to 9.00 pm.

Despite that, the Minister of State rushed down to meet the resident and spent quite a bit of time with them to understand their situation. He helped to coordinate with the relevant agency over the next few days and sorted the matter out. I told the resident later – well, looks like he did a good job. But she said no. He is a rock star. That is what she said. And I have no doubt that there are many examples of the good work and effort our MPs, both ruling party and opposition, put in to serve their constituents.

So, how do we better showcase the good work that our MPs do without an MP being accused of "ownself praise ownself"? Residents can consider posting such positive accounts online, akin to a Google review.

But for many such cases, residents may not want to draw attention to their situations. In this regard, grassroots organisations could consider highlighting positive cases with the consent of the resident and properly anonymised, like my anecdote earlier. These would serve to show how MPs can help their constituents, as well as a form of accountability that their MPs are actually working and getting things done for them.

I do not think that our MPs do what they do to get praise. But just like anyone else, it does not harm to give them a pat on the back when they do a good job and I am sure they will appreciate it and be spurred on to do better.

Sir, persons who take up public office must accept that there will be encroachments on their private lives. But this loss of privacy is, in my view, one of the biggest deterrents to persons entering into politics. It is not because they have something to hide, but it is simply because many aspects of private life are just not anyone else's business.

In many other countries, this has been taken to an extreme; with the media and even government agencies probing into politicians' lives on things that have nothing to do with their official duties and often, with political intent or an intent to embarrass. Sir, it is absolutely critical that we do not allow the private lives of MPs to be politicised.

As an absolute minimum, MPs' family members must be out of bounds in the political arena. Many new candidates would be in their 30s and 40s, with families and young children. Subjecting their families to the public glare would be foremost in their minds and could be the deal breaker.

Sadly, it is not possible to prevent anonymous online vigilantes from making claims or spreading rumours about MPs' family members. But it is possible for political parties, whether currently represented in Parliament or otherwise, to have their own code of ethics to not exploit such things for political gain. The media, both mainstream and alternative, should also exercise ethical judgement in how these are covered.

Finally, Sir, I have some views on Member Mr Louis Chua's suggestion that Ministers publicly declare their assets and the impact that such a policy would have. First, Ministers do have to declare their private assets to the President and on a routine basis. Second, I find it curious that the Member's suggestion stops at Ministers. In his own example – the UK – all MPs, including opposition MPs, have to declare their assets, not only Ministers.

The inference I can make from the Member's reference to conflicts of interest in his speech, is that it is because Ministers oversee Ministry budgets and Ministries are involved in procurement tenders. But let us not forget that all our elected MPs, opposition MPs included, have a part to play in the running of Town Councils. Town Councils handle tens of millions of dollars of contracts every year, so the potential for conflicts of interest to arise for backbencher MPs is also quite possible. So, by that rationale, the Member’s suggestion should have extended to all MPs, opposition MPs included.

But in many countries that have such declarations in place, there are problems with evasion, which becomes a political hot point. The content of the declarations themselves also become political issues. For example, the assets of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, which distracts from debate on real national issues like jobs, housing and the economy. The underlying anti-corruption intent is lost.

Last year, we heard two Ministers explain their housing choices in Parliament. To be fair, let us look across the aisle – on my side of the aisle as well – I would not be surprised, given their past careers, that many opposition Members in this House live in private condominiums or landed homes. When made in declarations, these would also become part of the political debate and perhaps even elections issues.

Is it relevant? I do not think so. What is relevant is the actual work and impact of MPs on the ground, as I have mentioned earlier.

But my concern today, is the effect of these suggestions on attracting persons to become MPs – both for the ruling party as well as for the opposition. Many of these people would have already had some success in their careers and understandably, they would have put their hard-earned monies into properties and other investments. Imagine now asking them to put this all up for public scrutiny.

They are new candidates – there is no question of corruption at that stage because they were private citizens. This would be a huge deterrent. So, I think we must be careful when making such suggestions. We should not just pluck and propose without looking at the current system that we have and how effective it already is. That is taking it at its highest. But taking it as it appears to be, I think we should not propose mechanisms that have the effect of politicising the private lives of politicians and in this case, only a particular category.

1.30 pm

Sir, I will end my speech. A budget is allocated to Parliament to carry out its functions with competence. Let us ensure that we build an environment where good people are not deterred from entering politics and contributing in this House and in Cabinet. Failing to do so will be to the detriment of Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.

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.

I will move on to address some of the matters which may have been raised by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas. I would like to thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for his speech on attracting talent. I will just make two points. First, I agree with Mr Thomas that politicians obviously cannot be infallible. New candidates, for example, or first-time MPs, will occasionally need some latitude.

But at the end of the day, politicians are human as well. It is very important that our MPs must have high standards of integrity. This applies on both sides of the House. Occasionally, some mistakes will be made and those would have to be dealt with, but where we have to draw a bright white line is where integrity and honesty are concerned, because the people and our citizens must be able to trust us.

Every political party must also have its own code of conduct. The People's Action Party (PAP) has its rules of prudence and its own way of conducting itself and it will be for the opposition parties to look and see how their members conduct themselves as well.

On the second point, I echo Mr Thomas' call for us to treat all our MPs with dignity and respect. I think increasingly, what is happening, not just in Singapore but across the world, is that politicians do become targets. When they become targets, it makes it very difficult for them to carry out their duties. It takes a toll on them.

But it also takes a toll on society, because when it becomes too difficult to do the job as an MP or politician, good people will hesitate to step up. When good people hesitate to step up, some who are not as good may do so. Then, the system and the society will suffer as a whole.

So, it is fine if we want Singapore to be a place where we have robust conversations, robust discourse. But we should try to avoid what we do see sometimes and in other countries – a certain level of nastiness, a certain level of direct personal attacks and more importantly, in some cases, attempting to drag family members in, which really should not be the case, as Mr Thomas touched on.

What does it take to not become a society like that? What it takes is for good people, decent people, to stand up and to say, "We do not approve of this". When something is well done, to say that it is well done; to give encouragement and support where a person, a team, a group or the Government has done something well; to let them know that, "You have done the right thing and you have our support", because that is actually the biggest and the strongest antidote to sniping and harsh comments.

That is what makes it worthwhile at the end of the day, to know that you have actually made a difference to people's lives and to communities, and made Singapore a better place. So, I thank Mr Thomas for his remarks.

1.45 pm

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would say that our Parliament has served us well. It remains an effective platform for rigorous debates on important issues and it will continue to evolve in tandem with our changing needs, and this speaks to the resilience of our democratic institution. Together, we can maintain a Parliament that engages in robust but respectful debates, and at the same time, deliver effective outcomes in and out of the Chamber. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for answering my cut. Sir, is the Minister saying, and I paraphrase, that Select Committees do not lead to better governance and trust?

I do not think she has established that causality. I am referring to Select Committees in other countries. I do not think she has established that causality, that they lead to poorer governance and trust. Because is she saying that they cause the people to trust the Government less, because of the Select Committees?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification. No, I am not saying that at all. What I was responding to is the underlying assumption that always goes with the proposal to have Select Committees.

I assume that the reason why the Member suggests having Select Committees is: he feels it would make for better governance and that it would make for better accountability. I am addressing that point.

I am saying that having Select Committees does not necessarily guarantee nor give you better governance or better accountability. I am saying that the processes that we have give a lot of room for the Government and Ministers to be held to account. And I am saying that the system that we have already allows for very good governance. I do not think that having Select Committees essentially overseeing Ministries or having Ministries reporting to them will improve things.

My reference to other countries was then to say that, when you look at those other countries, they do have Select Committees or their equivalents, but are their outcomes better than ours? It does not appear to be so. That was the point I was making.

The Chairman: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister. A second clarification on the point she makes about Select Committees being unproductive and a drag on Government's resources. What about the resources used by Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs)? How is the time and resources that Ministries spend answering questions and briefing GPCs justified? Even more so, given that they are not Parliament organs, but PAP party organs?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for this clarification too. I am afraid the Member may have it back to front. GPCs are a party construct. They are called "Parliamentary Committees", but they are not a "Parliament Committee". They are PAP Committees, but they are called "Government Parliamentary Committees" because they come from the party forming the Government.

They were formed, for those who are familiar with its history, back in 1987. When they were formed, then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong took pains to explain that they were different from Select Committees, which include representation from all parties. GPCs do not.

The purpose of the GPCs was to allow the ruling party, which was the dominant party, to enable or to help the Government's MPs to perform their duties better, by playing a more effective role in the policy-making process, to tap on their expertise and to allow them to give political feedback.

In other words, the role of the GPCs within the party construct is to give feedback to the Ministers and to the Ministries, to enable the Government to do better policy-making. It is not the reverse, where the Ministries brief the GPCs or report to the GPCs.

Ministries can brief GPCs where there is a matter that they need to seek the GPCs' input or views on, but the inputs are given through the Minister, because the GPCs essentially are a party construct. Essentially, the GPCs' role is to scrutinise legislation, to make suggestions to the Minister, and to help the Ministries to do better.

For example, the Pioneer Generation Package is not means-tested. This was something that the GPC for Finance Chair Mr Liang Eng Hwa strongly advocated for and it was something that was fed back to us. We took that into account.

I know that others also give feedback and we take feedback from everyone, but essentially, the GPC framework is the party's way of organising their MPs to give feedback to the Minister. I think just this year, for example, members of the GPC for Communications and Information tabled a Motion on building an inclusive and safe digital society, and members for the GPC for Health filed a Motion on improving mental health and well-being.

So, the role of the GPCs is really for MPs from the governing party to help the Government to do better.

The Chairman: Mr Giam. One short clarification, please.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you for your indulgence, Chairman. Just one last set of questions. Do GPCs get confidential briefings by Government Ministries that are not made available to opposition Members? The Minister said that GPCs get information through the Minister. Does that mean that civil servants do not brief the GPCs?

Ms Indranee Rajah: Ministries may brief a GPC for the Ministry's purposes, if the Ministry wishes to seek feedback or to find out about something which the Ministry is doing. But if there is anything which is political, that is really not for the civil servants. That is really for the Minister and the GPCs, because the GPCs come from the same party as the Minister.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua, I am afraid we are reaching the end of the guillotine time. Unless you have a super, super short clarification. Okay, to the point.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Chairman. I figured I should, since Member, Mr Thomas, mentioned my speech. So, I just wanted to clarify with him, if he is suggesting that all Members should make asset declarations and not just Ministers? And does he think that anyone in this Chamber will try to hide their assets?

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Sir, no, that is not what I was saying. I was, essentially, asking why is it that the Member stopped at a certain point, because in the example that he used, the UK, it was not only Ministers who declared their assets, but all members of parliament had to declare their assets. So, that was the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that this is something that we should do. In fact, if you look at the gravamen of my speech, it was really to say that it is not something that we need to do, within our system.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $48,684,900 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $6,676,000 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.