Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff

7.25 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I seek to move, "That this Parliament determines that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) shall be revised in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff in Paper Misc 4 of 2026".

Sir, the remuneration of Parliament Staff is provided for in the Constitution. Specifically, Article 51(6) of the Constitution provides that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament may be determined by Parliament after receiving the advice of a Commission consisting of the following persons, either Speaker as Chairman, not more than three Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister and a member of the Public Service Commission.

A Commission was set up to consider revisions to the schemes of service of the Parliamentary Service arising from the Civil Service pay revisions announced on 20 February 2026. This Commission comprised: yourself, Mr Speaker; the Minister for National Development, Mr Chee Hong Tat; the Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Finance, Mr Jeffrey Siow; Mr Ramli Buang, a member of the Public Service Commission; and myself.

The Commission presented its Report to Parliament on 27 July 2026. The Report recommends that the salaries of the Parliament staff adopt the same salary adjustments as civil servants on the Management Executive Scheme (2008) and a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks.

The staff of Parliament comprise the Clerk of Parliament and the officers who assist him, such as Parliamentary Clerks; and Language Service Officers who are on the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008), respectively. Since 2008, these schemes have adopted a salary and performance-based framework similar to the Management Executive Scheme (2008) in the Civil Service.

On 20 February 2026, the Public Service Division (PSD) announced that eligible civil servants on the Management Executive Scheme (2008) would receive salary adjustments of 2% to 9% to keep pace with market standards and enable the Public Service to continue to attract and retain talent to deliver well for Singaporeans. These adjustments took effect on 1 August 2026.

The Commission recommends that the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) adopt the same salary adjustments, also with effect from 1 August 2026. This will bring these schemes in line with the current framework for the wider Civil Service and supports the continued attraction and retention of officers in the Parliamentary Service.

The Commission also recommends introducing a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008), and for this to take effect from 1 September 2026.

The volume of parliamentary work has increased substantially over the years. Further, our Parliamentary Clerks handle increasingly complex and novel questions of parliamentary business and rules. As the pool of Parliamentary Clerks is small, each departure has a disproportionate impact on the operational effectiveness of the Parliament Secretariat. The work of Parliamentary Clerks is highly specialised. There are challenges recruiting suitable candidates, especially qualified legal professionals. Even where suitable officers are recruited, time is needed for the officers to acquire the proficiency needed for such work.

PSD supports these proposals. The Commission's recommendations are aimed at ensuring that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament remain competitive in attracting and retaining strong officers in the schemes of service of the Parliamentary Service. Mr Speaker, I ask the House to accept the recommendations of the Commission.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

7.30 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Leader of the House.

This Motion may appear administrative, but at its heart, it speaks to something very important: making sure that the staff who support Parliament every day have fair, updated and sustainable terms of service.

The Commission's first recommendation is to align the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) with the recent adjustments to the Management Executive Scheme (2008). As the Report highlights, the PSD announced salary adjustments of 2% to 9% depending on market gaps to help the Public Service continue to attract and retain talent to deliver well for Singaporeans.

Since our Parliament staff have followed the Management Executive Scheme framework since 2008, it is only right and fair that they receive the same adjustments.

The second recommendation introducing a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks is especially important. Parliamentary Clerks form a small group of specialists, their work is highly technical, demanding and central to the smooth running of our Sittings, committees and legislative processes.

Mr Speaker, the Report notes that the volume and the complexity of Parliament work has been increasing. We have all seen this first-hand. Major Bills today routinely involve extensive clause by clause scrutiny and complex amendments. Recent examples include the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill and the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill which introduced new regulatory duties for digital platforms and critical infrastructures with technical definitions and multi-agency coordination that our clerks must manage with precision.

Committee work has also grown more demanding in the last few years. The Public Petitions Committee has handled increasingly complex petitions such as the 2023 petition on the Maintenance of Parents Act, which required hearings, legal analysis and a detailed report. Earlier petitions on housing policies for single unwed parents and on strengthening of harassment protection also involve substantial stakeholder engagement and cross agency coordination.

On top of this, our Sittings now regularly see over a hundred Parliamentary Questions filed. Members are seeking clarifications on complex policy areas such as digital regulations, sustainability and cost of living measures. All these developments place heavier demands on our Clerks, who must manage complex procedures, tighter timelines and a broader range of legislative issues than ever before.

Recruitment has also become more challenging, especially for legally trained officers who can handle the specialised nature of Parliamentary work. And when good officers join us, the training required to reach proficiency is extensive. As the report states, there is also substantial replacement costs and a clear need to retain officers long enough to build up the specialised competencies Parliament relies on.

The proposed retention payment is a practical and thoughtful response. It is designed with clear parameters, a fixed quantum, roughly equivalent to 1.5 to 1.75 months' salary per year, annual payouts for entry level Clerks and three-year payouts for those recognised for competence, but capped at 20 years, and a one-off ex-gratia payment to support the transition.

This is a sensible and targeted measure to strengthen retention, reduce turnover and ensure that Parliament continues to have a stable, experienced secretariat. It is an investment in institutional capability, one that ultimately supports the functioning of this House and the quality of our legislative work.

Under article 5(51)(6) of the Constitution, Parliament must determine the terms of service after receiving the Commission's advice. The Commission has considered the matter carefully and PSD has also supported the proposals. These recommendations are measured, justified and aligned with the long-term needs of Parliament. Most importantly, they recognise the contributions of our Clerks and secretariat officers, whose work is often behind the scenes but absolutely essential to the smooth running of this House.

Accepting these recommendations is an investment in Parliament's capability. It strengthens Parliament's capacity to scrutinise, legislate and engage the public with continuity and professionalism. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

7.35 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Recognition, remuneration, responsibility. Mr Speaker, with these three words, I rise in firm support of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff, because all three facets point clearly to the fact that the recommendation in this report should be adopted.

I begin with recognition. Why recognition?

I think we ought to start by recognising the critical work that our Parliamentary Clerks, staff and translators carry out behind the scenes to ensure that Parliamentary business, which is very serious business, runs smoothly. They support the Office of the Speaker, Members of this House and Select Committees in the proper conduct of Parliamentary business.

They advice on Parliamentary procedure and examine Parliamentary Questions, Motions, amendments and other papers to ensure compliance with the Constitution, Standing Orders and established practices. They also support Sittings and committee proceedings, and maintain authoritative Parliament records, or Hansard.

In other words, their work, often unseen, helps ensure that our Parliament can make decisions for Singapore smoothly, efficiently and effectively. We should therefore recognise them for their integrity and ever reliability, and for their ability to think on their feet when applying the Standing Orders objectively and professionally.

They do all this while Sittings happen in public view and scrutiny. In fact, right in front of the cameras that are rolling live even now. And the need for accuracy and adherence to our Standing Orders is paramount for public accountability and transparency. Because what we debate here could well become law, because national policies are fine-tuned in this House, I think we ought to take a moment to credit our Parliament Clerks, secretariat, staff and the translators for all their hard work. Can I invite the House to record our support for them? [Applause.]

In short, the professional support needed to ensure robustness of debate and accuracy of policy is extremely important. Hence, I firmly believe it is important to recognise the significance of the duties Parliamentary staff carry out for all Members of the House, be they Government Members of Parliament or Opposition backbenchers, elected, or Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs).

In fact, I know that our Parliamentary secretariat has seen the evolution of Singapore's Parliament from being a fully elected house to one with NCMPs and NMPs, so we should recognise the accuracy and professionalism of our clerks and all the staff. Once we agree in principle, with the recognition of our Parliamentary staff, I think the natural corollary or the practical consideration which follows is that remuneration should match the significance of their work.

Here, what is proposed in the Report comprises essentially of two parts: first, adopting the same adjustments adopted by PSD for the Management Executive Scheme, as well as higher discretionary bonuses to recognise and encourage strong performance.

Second, introducing a retention payment component to attract and retain talent, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Report. These adjustments are much needed, and I am in full support. I note that the last review was some time ago, in fact, many years ago.

In fact, compared to salaries being paid in the private sector – and I have no doubt the capability of our Parliamentary staff can match those of people in the private sector – it has actually been behind the curve. In this regard, I think it is fair that the changes will be on par with those, or broadly in par with those on the Civil Service. I might even go so far to urge that when we consider the importance of Parliament in keeping Singapore viable and adaptable in today's competitive and changing world, the remuneration of our Parliamentary staff should in fact be at the forefront of the curve.

I am therefore happy and much encouraged that Mr Speaker has personally taken this proposal up. In fact, Sir, I recall my conversation with you together with then Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan, where we raised some years ago, the need to raise salaries for our Parliamentary staff. I therefore wish to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your leadership and for taking this up.

Third, responsibility. The question here is how do we ensure that recognition, when matched with remuneration, will result in a responsible officer. To this, I say there is no doubt in my mind that the ethos of responsibility runs deep within our Parliamentary Clerks, secretariat, translators and staff.

To this we need not look any further than the four to five unprecedented Budgets we passed in 2020 when Singapore was in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a House, we decided to meet in person, physically, no such thing as Zoom parliaments in this jurisdiction. We therefore passed the Budgets, ensuring safety and viability, while ensuring safe distancing within the House. I remember those days and some of us who have been in this Chamber long enough remember those days. Masks on, empty seats between each Member, but the House was filled, nevertheless.

Through it all, our Parliament staff worked hard to ensure that Parliamentary business continued in the depths of the crisis. For instance, we were not in our actual seats, so we had to vote by standing up and saying "yes" or "no" or "abstain" on placards, and Parliament staff would record every vote to reflect the democratic will of our people.

This task they did with fortitude, and with the help, we passed nearly $100 billion in support for Singaporeans. And holding up that placard and counting every single Member was important because we needed a certain amount of super majority vote to use our reserves.

In this, I saw great resilience and how in this House we have an institution where people are committed to a cause bigger than themselves.

All these combined shows how the need for a cutting-edge Parliament has become all the more obvious in the last 10 to 15 years, and if demands on our elected Parliamentary Members has increased, and rightfully so, because demands have increased, then what more the need to attract and retain good talent to support this process? This is why I am confident these responsibilities will be carried out by our professional Parliament staff.

To recap, this is about recognition, remuneration and responsibility. In light of these three arguments, I urge all Members to support this worthy Motion unanimously. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Leader.

7.44 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I do not think there is anything further I need to say in response, other than to thank Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Christopher de Souza for their strong support for the Motion and also to urge Members of the House to support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: I do not want to be presumptuous, but any clarifications for the Leader? No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament determines that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) shall be revised in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff in Paper Misc 4 of 2026.

Mr Speaker: I would like to thank Members for your strong support on behalf of my colleagues. I am quite sure with it, they will help me and help us do our job better. Deputy Leader.