Impartial Speaker of Parliament

5.35 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to draw Members' attention to the Standing Orders before the Motion is proceeded with.

The subject matter of the Motion is on the general desirability for an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fair arena. This Motion is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. Members are hence reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject of the Motion to be discussed.

In their speeches, Members should not impute improper motives to any other Member and, most specifically, rulings made by the former Speaker on any point of order cannot be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive Motion directly addressing those specific Points of Order.

Any aspersions on the conduct of the former Speaker or allegations that he was thereby not independent and impartial will hence be out of order. Members are to abide by these Standing Orders and I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

5.37 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all."

*The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa.

Before I begin my speech, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of Parliament. We are sure that your years of experience as Deputy Speaker will put you in good stead for the role that has now been entrusted to you and we trust that you will do your best to restore public confidence in the office of the Speaker of Parliament.

The events that led us to debate this Motion today has been truly regrettable. Even though Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin has resigned and apologised for his comment for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech on the President's Address during the Parliamentary Sitting on 17 April 2023, the PSP believes that the conduct of the former Speaker has brought Parliament into disrepute and is a matter that deserves a full debate in this House.

Sir, the Speaker of Parliament is responsible for presiding over Parliamentary Sittings and enforcing the rules of debate that have been laid down in the Standing Orders of Parliament to ensure that Parliamentary business is conducted in an orderly manner.

In carrying out these important duties, the Speaker must remain impartial to all Members of Parliament (MPs), regardless of their political affiliation. He must be seen as a fair referee, just like a Judge.

Mr EW Barker, the first Law Minister of Independent Singapore, pointed out the similarities between the Speaker of Parliament and a Judge during a speech in this House in January 1970. Mr Barker said, and I quote, "There is a great deal of similarity between the Judge and the Speaker. The impartiality both are expected to maintain between contending and contentious factions has to be, it is generally believed, judicial."

Indeed, all Speakers of Parliament prior to 1970 had been members of the legal profession, a fact that was also pointed out by Mr Barker in his speech.

It is paramount that a Speaker must be impartial and be seen by the public as impartial in discharging his duties in this House.

Speaker Tan's comment during the 17 April Sitting already damaged the public perception of its impartiality, even before the revelation of his inappropriate relation with a fellow PAP Member of Parliament (MP).

Let us consider the context of Speaker Tan's comments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just concluded a speech on poverty, titled "Hard Living in Singapore". Among other things, he called for the implementation of a poverty line and to make the approval process for ComCare less onerous and intrusive. After Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had taken a seat, Speaker Tan muttered a comment under his breath which I will not repeat, out of respect for the Standing Orders.

Speaker Tan's comments were highly contentious for two reasons. First, unparliamentary profanities were used in the comment. Secondly, which is the more serious reason, the comment itself revealed Speaker Tan's views of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as a person or the contents of his speech or both.

The Speaker of Parliament is, of course, entitled to form his own private opinions on any Member of this House or any speeches made here. However, as an impartial referee that enforces Parliamentary rules and procedures, the Speaker must not publicly express those opinions. This is no different from judges and heads of states in the Westminster system. We do not expect or, indeed, allow judges to express their opinions publicly or heads of states to express a different view from the government on public policy.

The issue here is that not being neutral and impartial leads to consequences of negative public perception that lower public trust in public institutions.

While Speaker Tan may not have expected that his comment will be picked up publicly, he was on duty and discharging his responsibilities as Speaker of the House. It was, therefore, a serious error to have even made that comment.

Furthermore, the tone and content of the comment make it clear that Speaker Tan objected to the contents of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech. This is especially problematic because the Speaker is expected to ensure that Parliament is a fair arena for all MPs, regardless of their political affiliation and he was objecting to the speech made by a Member of a different political party.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if I can just remind you what I mentioned at the start, before you spoke, that we should not be comment – this is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Speaker, I understand that. But the recent event is, sort of, the ingredient for bringing out the principle, right? So, it is part and parcel of —

Mr Speaker: Yes, so stick to your Motion. But not to comment on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, that is right.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, I will carry on. Speaker Tan's comment thus did great damage to public perception of his impartiality as well as the impartiality of the office of the Speaker. He acknowledged this in his resignation letter to Prime Minister Lee when he said that his mistake raised "broader questions over my neutrality and impartiality as Speaker."

Speaker Tan's inappropriate comments —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, Mr Leong. I thought you understood what I said earlier?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but this is part and parcel of —

Mr Speaker: So, you can talk about your Motion, which is about the neutrality of the Speaker, but you do not need to make references to the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. I hope you understand that?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Point of Order, Sir. Can I know under what Standing Order I am restricted from saying this?

Mr Speaker: Well, I will get the exact Standing Order to you, but here, this Motion, I would like to repeat myself, in my opening remarks, it is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. So, it is not about his conduct. It is about – let me read your Motion, "That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all." That is your Motion. Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Speaker Tan's comments are a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, as a result we are —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, since you asked me which section of the Standing Order, Standing Order 50(1) states the content of speeches and this is why I say that Members, I reminded Members that they should confine their observations to the subject of the Motion to be discussed. And in Standing Order 50(6), it states that in their speeches, Members should not impute improper motives to any other Member; and more specifically, I again repeated myself to say that rulings made by the former Speaker on any Point of Order cannot be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive Motion directly addressing those specific Points of Order.

So, these are the specific references that you asked for. Thank you. If you would like a copy of the Standing Order, I can pass the book to you?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, no, no, I understand that.

Hence, we are disappointed with the Prime Minister's confirmation during the Ministerial Statement just now that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign for his inappropriate comment. We think the Speaker should be held to a higher standard than an MP. This is an issue that should be debated further in this House.

For any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust. How can the public trust Parliament when its presiding officer had compromised his ability to be independent and impartial?

Mr Speaker, historically, even without recent events, the actions of the PAP Government over the years could arguably be perceived by the public to have eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years. As I mentioned earlier, prior to 1970, all the Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession, either judges or lawyers. Except for the brief period between 1963 and 1964, when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were also non-partisan. When Mr Barker was elected as Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye explained that this was a temporary stop-gap measure until the consent of the Malaysian government, which was responsible for Singapore's judiciary at the time, when we were part of the Federation of Malaysia, could be solved, for a judge to be elected as Speaker. And indeed, this was followed through when AP Rajah was elected as Speaker in November 1964.

However, this convention changed after 1970, following the election of PAP backbencher and non-lawyer, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, as Speaker. I would like to add that this happened, incidentally, after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 General Election.

Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessors have also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, at the power centre of the ruling party. This evolution from having a non-partisan Speaker, a backbencher Speaker, to Speakers who are ex-office holders or members of the PAP's CEC could be perceived as having eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years.

PSP believes that it is problematic for the Speaker to uphold his impartiality and independence while simultaneously being at the power centre of the ruling party and being privy to the ruling party's political strategy alongside members of the Government.

It is also difficult for the public, especially those who do not support the ruling party, to be fully convinced that a core member of the ruling party can be an impartial presiding officer of the Parliament. We are of the view that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. Hence, we supported the elevation of Mr Speaker from the backbenches to the Speaker's office this time round.

We hope that the Speaker of Parliament, who is not closely linked to the core of the PAP, will be able to restore public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the office of the Speaker of Parliament. The PSP trusts, that you, Mr Speaker, will make every effort to do this for the rest of this term of Parliament.

As our democracy develops and the number of alternative and opposition MPs, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again in the future, just like AP Rajah in 1964.

Sir, since I cannot quote many of the examples that I have prepared here, I shall conclude by recounting an event in English history which has a bearing on how Speakers in Commonwealth jurisdictions conduct ourselves.

In 1642, King Charles I of England entered the English House of Commons and attempted to arrest five MPs. He demanded that the Speaker of Commons, William Lenthall, identify these five Members for arrest. Lenthall famously replied to the King, "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, except as the House, whose servant I am, directs of me." This incident underlines the principle that the Speaker should not be subordinate to the Government but an independent servant of the House. The Speaker has a duty to this House and this House alone. He is also not at liberty to express his opinions beyond defending the interests of this House.

The comments of a Speaker, therefore, must continue to build on the confidence that the public has in the office of the Speaker and he must always be independent and impartial. There is much work to be done by this House and our new Speaker to restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the office of Speaker, which has taken a body blow by recent events.

I call on Members to support the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and I, and unanimously reaffirm our commitment for the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial, and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for your good wishes, Mr Leong, and I appreciate your trust and confidence.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

5.57 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as well. The position of the Speaker of Parliament exists in almost all modern parliamentary systems. The Speaker is a generally a Member of the House that is selected by fellow Members with a majority of the vote. While Singapore’s Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of Parliament (MP), the general practice has been for the Speaker to be an elected Member.

In most countries, the result of these two practices, namely (a) the Speaker being an MP and (b) the Speaker being elected by the majority of the House is often that the Speaker is an MP from the ruling party. There are times when non-ruling party MPs get elected as Speaker, and in Singapore's case, when non-MPs also get elected as Speakers, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

PSP's proposal does not seem to be suggesting we do away with this completely, but just seems to suggest within certain parameters around which the person should be selected, namely that the individual should not have been a part of the core leadership team of the ruling party.

I do not think there is the need for this additional limitation and I will explain this in my speech.

The most important point is the Speaker has to command the support of the majority in Parliament. Why is this important? The Speaker has the duty to preside over the elected representatives in the Chamber and he must in turn have their mandate to do so. Otherwise, you will have the anomalous situation of an unelected person potentially controlling the proceedings of the elected officials.

I think while my colleague Mr Leong highlighted some similarities between the role of a Judge and the role of a Speaker, there are also some important differences. One of the most important differences is that a Judge makes decisions on the facts before them and their decisions bind all parties on those facts. The Speaker, on the other hand, presides over Parliamentary proceedings, and while the Speaker may make decisions on procedural issues, the substantive decisions are made by the legislative chamber itself. Bills can only be passed by elected representatives. The Speaker does not have the power to force a Bill through.

Before Singapore’s independence, when we had a Legislative Assembly under British Rule, the first Speaker, Sir George Oehlers, was appointed by the Governor-General, who was the representative of the Crown, and this was in 1955.

Since Independence though, Singapore, like the UK and all other Commonwealth countries, had its own Parliament and the Speaker was one who was voted in by the majority of legislators in Parliament. As a matter of practice, the Speaker was nominated by the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister is the individual who commands the support of the majority in the House.

The Speaker in Singapore does not have to be from the ruling party, but usually is. After Sir George Oehlers, our next Speaker was Mr EW Barker in 1963 and he was also a very successful lawyer. But he was a member of the ruling party. The next Speakers after him, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, were not members of the ruling party but they were nominated by the Prime Minister and endorsed by the majority of the House.

Following that, from 1970, we had three of our longest serving Speakers: Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. The three of them took us all the way from 1970 to 2011. All three were members of the PAP. In Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's case, he was a member of the Cabinet, so, he was a part of the core leadership team before becoming a Speaker. They were appointed the same way as their predecessors, namely, nominated by the Prime Minister and elected by the House.

The fact that the Speaker is from the ruling party is not something that should take away from the discharge of their duties. The Speaker is still required to discharge their duties independently and impartially.

The Motion talks about Parliament being a fair arena. However, the fairness of Parliament is not just dependent on the individual who is the Speaker. The Speaker himself, like all Members, is bound by Parliament's Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Parliament's Standing Orders give Members who wish to speak a wide range of opportunities to do so. They may file Parliamentary Questions for written or oral answer, which Ministers will have to address publicly. They may speak on any Bills put forward by the Government, meaning, they have a say on any and every piece of legislation that passes this House. They may file Adjournment Motions if they need more time to speak on a specific issue and, again, the relevant Ministry will be required to address the issues raised. Finally, if they wish to speak at length on a topic, they may file a Motion, which Mr Leong is doing today.

The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act sets out additional protections for MPs, including freedom of speech such that anything that is said in Parliament is generally protected from proceedings in Court or any other forum, other than Parliament itself, which is why the Parliament is the first port of call if Members were to breach the Standing Orders.

All these matters provided for in Parliament's Standing Orders give every Member, whether from the ruling party or the opposition, the opportunity to raise and discuss matters they feel are important.

In keeping Parliament a fair arena, it is therefore also important for all Members to respect and comply with these rules.

The substance of keeping Parliament a fair arena is, I would respectfully say, largely captured in these rules and the law. The Speaker has the duty to ensure observance of the Standing Orders by Members in Parliamentary proceedings and must be independent and impartial in doing so.

If, indeed, there is any allegation that the Speaker has not acted independently and impartially in his decisions, this should be the subject of a specific Motion. No such Motion has been put forward.

Our process also has its checks on the Speaker's conduct should the Speaker fail to discharge his duties properly. The first is the Speaker's own party, if it feels the Speaker has not acted properly in any way. The second is Parliament itself, where Members are free to raise any objections they may wish to or even file the necessary Motion. Third, the ultimate check on a Member of the legislature is the ballot box. As Parliamentary debates are public, every action that the Speaker may take is up for public scrutiny. If there is any allegation that he has been unfair or impartial in the discharge of his duties, that is something the voters may take into account, both against him and even the party he is from, if the party endorses that conduct.

I think Mr Leong has made some references to the UK and the Speaker there. I would say different countries may have different practices in selecting the Speaker. The UK has a practice of the Speaker resigning from his political party upon nomination and actually being "dragged", supposedly unwillingly, from this chair to take the seat of the Speaker. This is because of the history of the Speaker sometimes having to deliver uncomfortable news to the Crown and for which he may face the consequences.

However, even though the Speaker may resign from his party upon nomination, it is clear that he still has the support of the party that commands the majority in Parliament and, in most cases, was a former member of that party. That would suggest his personal beliefs are likely to be aligned with the party he was a member of. Notwithstanding that, in the discharge of his duties, he is expected to be independent and impartial.

There are other peculiarities in the UK's approach, including that the Speaker's seat is generally uncontested by other parties and he campaigns as Speaker. He is thus likely to get re-elected unchallenged if campaigning as a Speaker.

This means that, unlike the Singapore system, where people vote for all legislators, including the Speaker, in the UK, the Speaker would not be subject to a challenge at the ballot box. So, his accountability in that sense is only to the Parliament itself, should the majority nominate him again. Whereas under our system, as I mentioned, the Speaker has three sets of checks: the party he is from, the Parliament itself, and third, the ballot box.

This is a different approach, but I do not think it is necessarily superior to the one we have.

There are other Commonwealth Countries, such as Australia, which have a system very similar to ours. There, the Speaker remains a member of a political party and will have to campaign for re-election like any other Member. The Speaker needs to get the support from the majority in Parliament. In practice, most of the Speakers have been from the ruling party, although there, too, were a few notable exceptions – just like in Singapore.

The Speaker in the Australian Parliament has often had to exercise a much firmer hand than the Speaker in Singapore on Points of Order and breaches of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Yet, despite the Speaker being from a political party and exercising these powers, nobody has seriously suggested the Australian Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.

I therefore do not think that the fact that the Speaker happens to be from a political party or from its leadership automatically means that he lacks independence in the performance of his duties as Speaker.

Finally, I believe this obligation to keep Parliament a fair arena for all is not just for the Speaker, but also one in which every Member has a part. It is important for Members to respect the Standing Orders so that other Members would also have opportunities to speak and raise the points they need to speak. It is thus important for all Members to honour and comply with their obligations as set out in the Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Against this backdrop, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion?

Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of your amendment?

Mr Vikram Nair: Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies available for other Members?

Mr Vikram Nair: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Please move your amendments. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Vikram Nair: I will just wait for Members to get the copies.

Mr Speaker: Yes, let us give it another minute. Mr Vikram Nair, you can move your amendment.

Mr Vikram Nair: Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the following amendments:

One, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'".

Two, "In line 2, to delete the words 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'; and

Three, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'".

The amendments have been marked up in the handout for Members' reference.

I agree with the PSP that the Speaker must act independently in the discharge of his duties. The first amendment reflects this. This is being suggested so that the Motion is not misinterpreted to mean that the Speaker cannot be from a political party in order to be independent. The amendment therefore focuses on the independence in the discharge of his duties, which is the standard Speakers in all Parliamentary systems are held to. The Speakers in many Commonwealth Parliamentary systems come from the ruling party and this has never been a basis to say Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.

The second part of the amendment is, I think, equally important. As I had explained earlier, many of the rules that ensure Parliament is a fair arena, including the rights and obligations that Members have, are all actually in the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. These are rules that every Member should be committed to in our shared obligation to ensure Parliament is a fair arena.

I therefore beg to move the Motion as amended, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: There are three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair to the Motion.

First, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'."

Second, "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'."

And the third amendment is, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'".

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have the hon Members' agreement to this?

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.12 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I will follow the precedent set by my fellow Members and likewise extend my congratulations on your recent election.

I am also keenly aware that possibly, one of the catalysts for this Motion – on the need for an independent and impartial Speaker – was because of an off-the-cuff remark made by the former Speaker on a speech that I had delivered in response to the President's Address to begin this House's second session.

While any call for censure of the former Speaker would appear to have been overtaken by events, I would like to offer some thoughts on two matters: first, on the reaction to the speech, and second, on the role of debate in policymaking in a modern democracy.

The former Speaker had characterised the proposals I offered on policies targeted at alleviating the plight of the poor as populist. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I do not fault him for having his own views on the matter. That said, I will only add that populist policies are those designed to appeal to the broad populace – hence, the name – who feel aggrieved by the establishment. Populism is about arousing the raw sentiment, with a perception of an uncaring elite.

To be clear, my intention was anything but. Rather, I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. I would have hoped that it should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.

Mr Speaker, I now move on to my second point and that is policymaking in a modern democracy is made better when there is active debate, even when we happen to disagree.

When we were a developing nation, the sorts of optimal policies we should pursue – the pursuit of an economy open to international trade and investment flows, coupled with an orientation toward export promotion, for instance, or a keen respect for the rule of law and property rights, along with the importance of governance, more generally, and socio-political stability, undergirded by meritocratic principles and respect for the equality of different races and religions – were well understood, even if non-trivial to accomplish.

Thanks to the pioneering generation of Singapore's leaders, however, we were able to build a foundation of economic openness, institutional quality and social capital, which we as subsequent generations have been able to draw on and enjoy.

These were the ingredients for Singapore's economic success, and it has made us into one of the richest economies in the world.

While we should never allow the legacy of these hard-won policies and institutions to erode, the reality of a modern economy and society is that the way forward is no longer as certain. While many of the challenges of development were about getting these fundamentals right, the issues faced by a developed nation do not present as clear-cut a solution.

Think about matters that now occupy much of our political and Parliamentary time. Issues like the need for greater social protection through the institution of a minimum wage, official poverty line or unemployment insurance. Or a more vibrant intellectual environment that will allow our highly trained workforce the room to be creative and innovative. Or greater equality in sharing the fruits of our economic success via more progressive income and wealth taxation. Or tricky matters of individual liberty and socio-cultural norms, such as the debate over the repeal of 377A and the relative freedom of the media to publish their opinions. These examples are all fundamentally ones that involve trade-offs and redistribution, rather than efficiency and optimisation.

When that is the case, I believe it is impossible to successfully identify the right way forward for the society, unless there is genuine, passionate, and, dare I say, animated debate, with proper respect for Parliamentary decorum, of course.

This is because I sincerely believe that we will only arrive at a balance that society as a whole can accept when there is some degree of agitation toward a solution, and even if some may do so somewhat more grudgingly.

This brings me back to our former Speaker's original remark. This can only happen in a Parliamentary setting where such differences of opinion are not only acquiesced to, but actually welcomed. Do we deride what we disagree with and dismiss it with a convenient label or seek to score political points with ad hominem rebuttals or do we at least seek to understand the premise of the other's argument, giving them the benefit of the doubt even if we may ultimately disagree with them? Can this occur anywhere, but in a Chamber where Members feel that the freedom to air these alternative views, with an adjudicator that they feel is independent and impartial?

More generally, I am hopeful that this Government will not casually dismiss alternative, evidence-based policy proposals, put up in good faith, but offer equally evidence-based counterarguments when rejecting any given policy proposal. This comes down to a competition in ideas and I do not believe any single person in this House will always have the best ones.

Academics, of which I am, are taught early on in their training to respect ideas, regardless of their origin. That is why we subject our work to seminars and conferences, to peer-reviewed journals and to public scrutiny, where they are challenged and, more frequently than we like, rejected. As much as nobody enjoys having their ideas shot down, the process of defending, refining and revising our ideas is what makes them more robust and ultimately, far more valuable. In the end, only the best ideas survive, and these are the ones that have the potential to go on and make a difference for both society and for the world at large.

For the same reason, I believe we need greater competition in the politics, policies and ideas that will bring Singapore forward into the next century. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

6.20 pm

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader Zaqy Mohamad.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

6.21 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) for raising the Motion. I will not be able to support the Motion as introduced by the NCMPs. While I agree that the Speaker of Parliament should be impartial and that Parliament should be a fair arena for debate, I cannot agree with the original Motion's call for the Speaker to be independent.

The term "independent" in the context of Parliament or in politics has a particular definition. In his speech, Mr Leong appears to conflated the words "independent" and "impartial", but the fact that they both appear in the Motion suggests that they are intended to mean different things. When applied to a Member of Parliament (MP), the term "independent" would generally mean that that MP is not affiliated with a political party. This definition is used not only in Singapore, but in most, if not all, Parliamentary democracies.

Article 40(2) of the Constitution provides that the Speaker of Parliament may be elected from amongst MPs who are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or from amongst persons who are not MPs. The Constitution does not require that a Speaker, whether drawn from MPs or non-MPs, to be independent.

Furthermore, article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution also provides that an MP's seat will fall vacant if he ceases to be a member of, is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election. Therefore, it is a non sequitur argument to expect that an MP elected as Speaker should resign from the party, he had been elected to Parliament with, as he would lose that seat. As such, this Motion, as it was originally crafted, would be envisioning a situation where only non-MP MPs who stood in the elections as independents and won, or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) could be considered for the position of Speaker.

Let me deal first with independent MPs. First, there have never been independent MPs elected to the Singapore Parliament since Independence. So, this option can be dispensed with immediately. Second, I have read media reports suggesting that NMPs be considered. But, Sir, we are, quite honestly, hardly a proper source, given that our term is only half of a Parliament's full term – although some of us may serve two terms, which is not usual – but we are not senior, nonetheless, to backbenchers with sufficient experience to chair the House and to carry out all the other roles of the Speaker. We would not want a revolving door of inexperienced Speakers. In any event, given that Speakers do not take part in debates, it would be contrary to the objectives of having NMPs, which is to provide for alternative voices in Parliament.

As regard to a non-MP serving as Speaker, there have been two such Speakers, as mentioned by hon Member Vikram Nair. The first was Mr AP Rajah, who was the first Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore. He was the holdover Speaker from the previous Legislative Assembly of Singapore. Mr Rajah had at one time been a member of the Legislative Assembly and was an eminent lawyer. He later became an ambassador and a High Court Judge.

The second Speaker of Parliament, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy was also a non-MP. Mr Coomaraswamy was also an eminent lawyer and later also served as an ambassador and a High Court Judge. All Speakers since then, as mentioned by both Mr Leong and Mr Nair, have been elected MPs from the ruling party. I do not know the exact reason why the first two Speakers were non-MPs, but I can fathom that it may well be because Parliament was young at that time and wanted to have eminent local lawyers who would be familiar with formal procedure to chair the House in its early years. Once MPs had sufficient experience, they were called upon to serve as Speakers and have done so until today. They have done a good job and their fairness has largely not been questioned by Members on both sides of the House.

Furthermore, even a cursory survey of current elected MPs would throw up many names who have the knowledge, experience, temperament and wisdom to serve as Speaker. It is only if we cannot find one within that we should look without. And we can find many elected MPs to take up the role.

As mentioned by hon Member Nair, our Singapore system is different from the UK system, where the Speaker, upon his election, severs ties with his former political party so that he is, in all aspects of the job, a completely non-partisan figure. This independent character of the Speaker was attained over a long, gradual and uneven process over 300 years, and it evolved in response to the particular political situation in the UK.

Members may know the origins of the position of the Speaker in the UK. The Speaker is called the Speaker because he was the person appointed to speak to the King on behalf of the House of Commons. The Speaker was expected to provide the King with the politically unvarnished views of the House. It was considered a dangerous position as Speakers were from time to time subject to the guillotine if the King was not happy with what the Speaker spoke. Thankfully, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is no longer a hazard of that office or of your office. And it is in this regard that I will also take this opportunity to congratulate you in your elevation to the Chair.

The role of the Speaker in the UK has evolved with its independent nature solidified in both procedure and custom in the 19th century. Such custom includes, for example, that an incumbent Speaker runs in the general elections not under a political party ticket but as Mdm or Mr Speaker in elections, and it is generally unopposed. The UK Parliament also abides by what is known as the "continuity principle", where an incumbent Speaker after being re-elected in a general election, would be re-elected as Speaker even if there was a change of the party forming the government. This custom is not something that is present in our system.

Most other jurisdictions that have a Westminster-type parliament also do not have an independent Speaker. India and Canada flirted with the idea, but both came to the conclusion that an MP who was elected as Speaker could be impartial without having to be independent.

The Canadian parliament rejected the notion that impartiality required independence and considered it a non sequitur argument – it was not considered an unreasonable expectation of the Speaker to separate his party allegiances with his duty to parliament. It also determined that it did not possess the customary nor procedural history that the UK had to support an independent Speaker – an argument I similarly make in relation to our House.

In India, the committee considering this question came to similar conclusions as the Canadian parliament. In addition, the Indian Supreme Court had also opined on this matter and its pronouncement is worth mentioning because it sets out the underlying rational as to why a party-affiliated Speaker could still be impartial.

In the case Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon Speaker of Karnataka, the court was faced with the petitions of five members of the Karnataka State parliament against the Speaker of that house, who had refused to accept their resignations. The court said: "The speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions. The constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed, the court made it clear that his political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication." The court continued that if the Speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence.

In other words, the court was saying that it is incumbent then on that house to invoke the relevant procedures to correct or, if necessary, to remove the Speaker.

All this having been said, I come back to first principles – that is, that our Constitution does not require that our Speaker be independent. Procedurally, I do not think that this House can affirm a Motion that is inconsistent with the Constitution or that would purport to constrain the provisions of the Constitution.

I will, however, support the Motion as amended by hon Member Nair as it addresses my concerns that we do not inadvertently affirm that a Speaker be politically independent, meaning not being part of a political party, but instead, that he should discharge his duties independently and impartially which is indeed what we should expect of the Speaker. It may seem a small change but Mr Nair's amendment changes the meaning of the Motion and removes doubt as to what exactly Parliament is affirming.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for your good wishes and also that of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Vikram Nair. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

6.29 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I may also extend my congratulations on your election to the post of Speaker.

Sir, one of the duties of the Speaker of Parliament is to preside over the Sitting of Parliament and to enforce the rules prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament. This is to ensure the orderly conduct of Parliamentary business.

Sir, I want to stress the importance of Standing Orders because without Standing Orders, Parliament could descend into chaos as there will be no need for accountability. Members of Parliament (MPs) can be arguing, quarrelling with one another. We note that in some countries, members of parliament fight in parliament. MPs can be criticising another person in public or in parliament, without giving them a fair chance of reply. This will be in breach of natural justice.

Time limits are set in Standing Orders because MPs can drag their speeches and, in the US, this is called filibuster. Some of the older Members may remember Mr Lee Siew Choh who spoke seven hours in 1961 in the Singapore Legislative Assembly, and you then keep everyone occupied because you just want to extend the length of your speech and extend the time. So, many Parliaments, not just Singapore, set time limits on the length of speeches. So, I stress again, Mr Speaker, Standing Orders are important for the conduct of Parliamentary business.

Sir, in carrying out the duties in the House, the Speaker must remain impartial and fair to all MPs. This part, I agree with that part of the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai. This is also clearly stated in the website of the Singapore Parliament. The Speaker regulates and enforces the rule of debate. He decides who has the right to speak and puts the question for the House to debate on and to vote on. The Speaker does not take part in the debates of the House but can abstain, vote for or against the Motion as if he has the original vote as an elected Member.

Sir, I was elected as a Deputy Speaker from 2015 to 2020. During my five-year term, I was the Deputy Speaker to Speaker Mdm Halimah, now the President, and subsequently, I was Deputy Speaker to former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I am required to preside over Parliament or to chair a Committee, I am always mindful of this need to ensure that I remain fair and impartial to all the Members in the House. So, I make sure that Members, whether they are from the ruling PAP party, the Opposition party or the NMPs, they are all given the chance to raise clarifications and to hold the Government to account. So, I am mindful that Parliament is a place for debate on policies and a good debate will allow better ideas to prevail and this would benefit all of Singapore. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I hear speeches made by MPs from the PAP, MPs from the Workers' Party, I, too, form my opinion on the contents of the speech, but I keep my views to myself. And as a Deputy Speaker, I know that I should not express my own view or even mutter my view under my breath.

So, Sir, I want to add that the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, has made known his stand to me and the other Deputy Speaker Mr Charles Chong that we have to be fair to all MPs, including members of the Workers' Party (WP), the NCMPs and the NMPs. Over the past many years that I have been an MP, I have not heard of any MP within the House suggest that our Speaker has not been impartial.

Sir, let me refer the House to a Point of Order which was raised by the Leader of the House in April 2023. In April 2023, the Leader of the House raised the point that Mr Leong Mun Wai had made several statements in and out of Chamber which were wrong and not proper. She said that Mr Leong had addressed Speaker in a manner that was disrespectful, disregarded the authority of the Chair, and that drew a caution from her on the need to maintain proper demeanour in Parliament.

She said Mr Leong apologised to the Speaker in Chambers very shortly and clarified he had not intended to cast aspersions on the Ministers and admitted he was wrong to make the suggestions in his statement. The Leader of the House then said there was no need to take further action on this matter and she sought Mr Speaker's concurrence on this matter, in particular to the fact of disregarding the authority of the Chair is a matter for the Speaker, and then Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, as Speaker, said he concurred.

So, Sir, this is evidence that our Speaker is impartial in his conduct. He could have taken action against Mr Leong Mun Wai for behaving in a manner that was disrespectful and had disregarded authority. But he treated everyone fairly and he accepted the apology of Mr Leong and said that he concurred with the Leader's recommendation not to take further action on the matter. So, Mr Leong apologised, Speaker accepted it, and the matter was closed. I would want to submit, Mr Speaker, that suggests very strongly that our Speaker has always been impartial.

Next, going to the point of Mr Leong's Motion that the Speaker must be independent, I am not sure how Mr Leong measures the term "independent". If he suggests that "independent" means not being a member of a political party, then perhaps I can remind him of the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr John Bercow.

Mr John Bercow was a member of the UK Conservative Party before he resigned when he assumed the role of Speaker. However, even though he was not a member of the political party at the time, he was accused of not being impartial when he was Speaker. In fact, it was said he was refused a place in the House of Lords because he was not seen to be politically neutral. He was alleged to be biased against Brexit. Thus, Mr Speaker, impartiality really depends on the person who is the Speaker and not his political affiliation.

In many other Commonwealth countries, many Speakers are active members of their political parties. Australian Speaker Mr Milton Dick is a member of the Labour Party, the Canadian Speaker is a member of the Liberal Party and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha India is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

So, even if we appoint a person who is without any political affiliation, whether the person is a judge or otherwise, I am quite certain that the person would have his or her own views of the speeches made by Members in the House. In fact, I would submit it is impossible for anyone, except a robot, not to form their own views as to whether a speech is populist or not.

So, for that reason, I cannot support the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai and I would support the amended Motion as moved by Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Lim, for your good wishes. Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah.

6.37 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate.

The Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai is that "This House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all". Insofar as what he means by "independent" though, it was clear from his speech that, by "independent", he meant either non-partisan or not a member of a political party.

So, to that extent, I cannot agree with this Motion. But I do agree that a Speaker needs to be fair, impartial and to act independently. So, for that reason I would be able to agree with the first part of the amendment which Mr Vikram Nair has moved, which is that "This House affirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially".

The second part of Mr Leong's Motion seeks the House's affirmation that Parliament should be a fair arena for all. That, too, I agree, except that when it comes to being a fair arena for all, it means that all Members must participate in this and act and conduct themselves appropriately. Hence, we have the Standing Orders, which are supposed to govern the conduct of Members vis-à-vis one another, and also, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act which sets out what Members should and should not do, and what it means when you have privileges as an MP, how you should act and not abuse them.

And, therefore, I agree with the second part of the amendment moved by Mr Vikram Nair, which is that "This House should also affirm its commitment to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act", and if we all conducted ourselves accordingly, you would have a fair arena for all.

In this regard, before I go on to explain why I support the amended Motion, may I just clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim because I heard him say that he supported the Motion, but I was not sure whether he meant the original Motion or whether he meant the amended Motion?

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I support the original Motion and I will also support the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification.

So, let me move on to the first point about the need for the Speaker to be fair and impartial. The major Commonwealth democracies all recognise the need for the person holding the role of Speaker to act in an impartial manner when discharging his or her duties, and Singapore is no different. Speakers must behave in an impartial manner in the discharge of their duties and successive Speakers of our Parliament have acknowledged this. The question is – how is this to be achieved?

The underlying assumption or presupposition put forward by PSP is that you can only achieve this if the Speaker is independent of any political party. That is their underlying premise. The premise is that the Speaker should not have any political association, so he or she can be perceived to be completely neutral.

Well, what does our law provide? The Constitution sets out the eligibility requirements for the Speaker. MPs, except those who are Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, are eligible. And non-MPs are also eligible, but the Constitution requires that such persons must be persons who are qualified for election as an MP, such as being a Singapore Citizen above the age of 21 and a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years in aggregate.

So, our Constitution also recognises that MPs can be the Speaker, that is, members of a political party. Thus, under our law, any person who meets these eligibility requirements can be elected as the Speaker. So, PSP's proposal to require a Speaker to be independent in the sense of not being a member of a political party or not being an MP is actually not in accordance with and much more limiting than the Constitutional requirements. That is the first point.

The second point is: what is the practice and the reality around the world? Actually, you will find that in most of the major Westminster-style democracies like ours, the Speaker comes from the majority party. And this is true of the current Speakers of the Australian House of Representatives, the Canadian House of Commons and the New Zealand House of Representatives, all of whom are from the majority party in those Parliaments.

In the US, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also usually from the majority party in that House. The identity of the Speaker is typically determined by the party members at the organising caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected. So, in short, the Speaker is somebody who can receive the support from the majority of the House and that will very often be somebody from the majority party. And this arrangement reflects the reality that the person has to receive a majority of the votes in Parliament to be appointed Speaker. And it is quite natural for a candidate from the majority party to be in a position to receive the majority of votes.

It is also important to bear in mind that the majority party would have derived its majority from the voters. You do not get to be a majority party without the majority of votes. It is the electorate; it is the voters who put the PAP in Parliament as a majority. So, you have to bear in mind that the mandate of the majority party is drawn directly from the people. And the person put up for election as the Speaker, if he or she has the confidence of the majority, then he or she gets appointed as the Speaker.

And it is not always a given that a nominee from the majority party will always be able to command the support of the majority of the MPs or that the nominee may necessarily be from the majority party. For example, the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives was appointed as Speaker only after 15 ballots were taken, despite receiving his party's nomination for Speaker earlier. So, for the first 14 ballots, he did not manage to obtain a majority of the votes.

This is not the only system in practice. There are different ways of doing it and our practice is in sync with other major democracies.

Each country has to decide what works best for them. More importantly, the Parliaments have to choose the right individuals. So, just having someone who is non-partisan or not a member of any political party does not guarantee you the outcome that you would like.

The UK, for example, has a convention where the Speaker resigns from his or her political party upon being appointed as Speaker. So, ostensibly neutral, ostensibly bipartisan. The convention also extends to the Speaker's seat not being contested by the major political parties and the Speaker not campaigning on political issues.

But even though the UK has taken these steps, that does not guarantee the desired outcomes. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan highlighted earlier, the UK system did not prevent one of their former Speakers from being put in a position where he was accused of bias. The former Speaker was mired in controversy by accepting certain procedural amendments and rulings. I do not need to go into details, but in short, he was alleged of bias on issues, that is, of not supporting Brexit as opposed to remaining. So, you can have bias on issues or alleged bias on issues.

And also, he had separately had complaints levelled against him for bullying. This does not have to do with his rulings in the Chamber, but he was the subject matter of an Independent Expert Panel. And they found that his behaviour "fell very far below that which the public had a right to expect from any Member of Parliament", and it was so serious that, "had he still been a Member of Parliament" – because the Committee's rulings came out after he stepped down – the Committee said, "we would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it is, we recommend that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate."

So, having somebody who is non-partisan, not a member of a political party, does not guarantee you the results that you want. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the individual holding the office of Speaker conducts himself or herself, and it is very important that the Speaker is mindful of the duties and obligations that come with the office.

But equally, it is important for the MPs to be mindful of the duties and obligations that come with their office – whether they be Ministers or backbenchers – and to not make it difficult for the Speaker, because in making it difficult for the Speaker, you also force the Speaker to have to make rulings. It is incumbent upon MPs to not disregard the authority of the Chair, to be familiar with the Standing Orders, to know what the Standing Orders mean and, if referring to articles or principles or sections, to actually know which articles and sections they are referring to, and to not misrepresent proceedings in Parliament and essentially, comply with the Standing Orders.

So, it works both ways for Parliament of function effectively, properly and importantly, to gain the respect of people. The Speaker has to do his job, but equally, all MPs and Ministers have to do their jobs.

In conclusion, what I would like to do is to just highlight some quotes in respect of previous Speakers, which really illustrate the point that I am making, which is at the end of the day, it is about the individuals. It is about how the individual in the Speaker's Chair conducts himself or herself. Previous Speakers of Parliament in Singapore have earned praise and respect from both sides of the House, even though they were a member of a political party.

So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as Members know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Then, in 1989, Mr Chiam See Tong had this to say of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, who was Speaker and also a PAP MP – and not a lawyer. Mr Chiam said, "Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just allow me a moment also to convey my congratulations on your elevation to the Speakership. Sir, I think it would not be complete if it is just the Leader of the House conveying his congratulations to you. This is to make it complete. You have the approval of the whole House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the previous Speaker who had a very good rapport with the Opposition."

And also, speaking when Mr Tan Soo Khoon ended his appointment as Speaker in 2002 after 13 years in that role, Mr Low Thia Khiang from the WP rose to record his views as follows, "Mr Tan Soo Khoon, as Speaker of the House, has won my respect for being fair most of the time, if not all the time" and that "Being a non-PAP Member, I have not felt discriminated and I think this is important as he was the Speaker."

So, that Mr Speaker, concludes the essential premise, which I am making – which is at the end of the day, it is about the individual how he or she conducts themselves and about making sure that all of us do our part in Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

6.52 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members Vikram Nair, Member Raj Joshua Thomas, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Member Lim Biow Chuan and the Minister for their contributions to this debate that I have raised together with my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa. It has allowed us to cover a little bit more ground than in the clarifications after a Ministerial Statement.

I will not rebut individually the points raised by some of the Members, but I would like to condense the thing in two points.

One, we are here today – just now with the Ministerial Statement and now with this Motion – because something has happened. And that something is a very well-meaning speech and policy proposal put up by the Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that was just written-off in this House, in a very dismissive manner – although it is just a quiet comment. But nevertheless, it is an indication that we need to remind ourselves on what is the impartiality of the Speaker. Without that, we would not be debating today.

The second point I would like to make is, some of the Members who have spoken have talked about our Parliament, that we have an untainted record, track record of the Speaker being impartial, but here is an example that we have to remind ourselves that we need to reaffirm the impartiality of the Speaker.

As a result of that, PSP had decided to put forward this Motion to suggest a gradual process whereby we can enhance the independence and impartiality of the Speaker, that this House would remember that in May this year, I actually have spoken about the rules and procedures of this House already, in my Adjournment Motion to make Parliament a fairer arena for all. At that time, I did not take up the issue of the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. But today, the situation is different.

So, the Motion is meant to propose a gradual process. As a result, we brought out the historical examples. And at the same time, we had just proposed that for the time being, Government, please ensure that the Speaker does not belong to the central committee of the ruling party. That is a small step. Of course, as our democracy develops and more and more members from different parties come into Parliament, then we can think of reverting to a situation whereby we have a totally independent Speaker. That is an ideal idea that PSP is trying to put forward with this Motion.

Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. For it to function properly, the Members, processes and proceedings must all work towards promoting an environment where open, substantive and thorough debates can take place.

Well, I do not wish to go too much into Speaker Tan's case, actually, but just now I think what we have seen is that there are certain rules that this House has that has just prevented this Motion to be debated in a more open, substantive and thorough debate because of a technical point – that the Motion statement was not done in the way that allows me to have a more thorough debate. I accept that. That is the current Standing Orders of the Singapore Parliament.

In order to promote the debate, as I have said, more debate, I have put up seven recommendations in my Adjournment Motion making Parliament a fairer arena for all at the May Sitting this year, including bigger research budgets for MPs from alternative parties, more flexible timekeeping during clarifications and debates, and appointing MPs from alternative parties to chair the Public Accounts and Public Petitions Committees. These are all just incremental changes, and the Government can actually consider this and allow our Parliament to move closer to a fairer arena for all.

Hence, my Motion is meant to be a first step towards an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fairer arena for all.

The amended Motion on the other hand is re-affirming the status quo and just sticking to what is more of the same. And I have been debating in this House for the last three years that we cannot be just having the status quo. We have to move on. Times have changed; the environment in the world has changed. So, why are we just sticking to the old rules, in many aspects of our Government?

So, I view the two Motions as one. My Motion as a Motion with a dream, an objective that in the future, we can have a have a better Parliament. So, I hope this House will support my Motion.

Ultimately, the best solution to making our Parliament a fairer arena for all is to have at least one-third or 33% alternative MPs in this House, commensurate with the percentage of votes that alternative parties have already won among Singaporeans.

The PAP Government does not need a super majority of about 90% to govern effectively, but such a super majority prevents the views and opinions of tens of thousands of loyal Singaporeans from being adequately represented in this House.

Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Dear fellow Singaporeans, today, we concluded the debate on the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial.

This is a very important Motion, because Parliament sits at the apex of our democratic system, and the Speaker should be independent when presiding over Parliament proceedings and enforcing the Standing Orders to ensure that debates are carried out orderly. In carrying out his duties, he must be impartial and treat Members of Parliament (MPs) from different parties equally. He must be like a judge and be fair in executing Parliamentary procedures.

We should learn from the recent incidents and find ways to plug the gaps, perfect the system and grow in the future.

When we review the role of the Speaker over the years, we noticed that, compared to pre-Independence days, the impartiality and independence of the Speaker had changed quietly. Since the People's Action Party (PAP) dominated Parliament, the office of Speaker has evolved from being occupied by a non-partisan person to a senior PAP member.

Before 1970, all Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession. Except for a brief period between 1963 and 1964 when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were non-partisan.

However, in 1970, when Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, a PAP member and non-lawyer, became the Speaker, this convention changed. I want to point out that this happened incidentally after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 election.

Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessor had also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, although they held a politically neutral position, they were also at the power centre of the ruling party.

The evolution, from having a non-partisan Speaker to a backbencher Speaker to Speakers who were ex-office holders or members of the PAP’s CEC, has caused many Singaporeans to question the independence and impartiality of the Speaker’s office over the past 50 plus years.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that being simultaneously the Speaker and a CEC member of the ruling party is contradictory. Hence, we urge that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. We are glad to see that the new Speaker is not a PAP CEC member.

As Singapore's democracy matures and the number of opposition MPs increases, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again like before. This will reflect progress in our democratic system and reverse the retrogressive practice of the PAP when appointing the Speaker over the past 50 plus years.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, under your leadership, we look forward to this House being a fairer arena for all.

We have spent much Parliamentary time debating the issues and concerns of Singaporeans. They have arisen from the recent spate of unfortunate events. It is my hope that in the coming months, there will be no more such events and this House can refocus our attention to the more important issues faced by Singaporeans, such as the rising cost of living, price and availability of public housing, economic uncertainty and job insecurity.

7.07 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Mr Leong? I do not see any.

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put the questions to the House for decision. We have three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair. We will deal with the amendments first.

The first amendment is: "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'."

Question, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, we register our dissent.

Mr Speaker: Alright, we will have it recorded that Mr Leong and Ms Hazel Poa want their dissent recorded.

Mr Speaker: The second amendment is: "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'."

Question, "In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Please, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, we will have that recorded – Mr Leong and Ms Poa.

The third amendment is: "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962.'"

Question, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

The amendments have been agreed to, the Original Motion as amended is now before the House.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House reaffirms its commitment (a) to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962."

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded.

7.10 pm

Mr Speaker: Okay, Mr Leong and Ms Poa, we will have your dissent recorded. Deputy Leader of the House.