Institutionalising Office of the Leader of the Opposition in Constitution
Ministry of FinanceSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns Dr Neo Kok Beng’s inquiry to the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the constitutional institutionalisation of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and the criteria for appointment. Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing responded that the Government supports institutionalisation in principle but prefers Parliamentary conventions to mature further before codifying the Office in statute. He explained that the LO should lead the main opposition party and maintain high integrity, noting that another opposition Member of Parliament could be considered if the primary leader fails to meet the criteria. He emphasized that certain conventions of conduct are essential for all Members and cannot be fully codified into law. Finally, he stated that having no qualified Member is unlikely given the institutional requirement for at least 12 non-ruling party Members in the House.
Transcript
82 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Office of the Leader of Opposition will be institutionalised in the Constitution; (b) if so, what are the criteria for an elected Member of Parliament (MP) assuming the Office; and (c) where there is no elected MP who meets the criteria, whether the Prime Minister will continue to appoint an elected MP to the Office.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): My response is on behalf of the Prime Minister.
The People's Action Party (PAP) Government first formalised the Office of the Leader of the Opposition (LO) in 2020. The Leader of the House had also set out the duties and privileges of the LO in the 14th and 15th Parliament, and these are on the Parliamentary record.
The Government supports, in-principle, further steps to institutionalise the Office. However, as a relatively new institution, its roles, responsibilities and operating arrangements continue to be shaped by Parliamentary practice, experience and the conduct of those who occupy the Office. It would therefore be appropriate to allow these conventions to further develop and mature, so that any eventual codification in statute is informed by established and sound practice.
Dr Neo asked about the criteria for a Member of Parliament (MP) to qualify as the LO. There are several relevant considerations. Normally, the LO should be the leader of the main opposition party in Parliament, provided there is a predominant Opposition party with a significant number of MPs. Furthermore, the LO must uphold high standards of honesty and integrity and command the trust and respect of Parliament necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Office. If, for some reason, the leader of the main Opposition party does not meet the criteria, then another Opposition MP can be considered.
Should the Office be institutionalised in the future, some of these requirements may be set out explicitly. At the same time, there will always remain conventions of conduct and responsibility that cannot be fully codified, but which are nevertheless understood, respected and observed by all MPs. These conventions are essential to upholding the high standards of personal integrity and honourable behaviour expected of MPs and political leaders in Singapore.
Dr Neo also asked whether the Prime Minister would continue to appoint a LO if no elected Opposition MP meets the criteria. This is a hypothetical and highly unlikely scenario. There is a strong desire among Singaporeans for a greater diversity of views in Parliament. We have also instituted rules to ensure that there will always be 12 non-ruling party MPs in the House. I therefore have little doubt that there will always be Opposition voices in this House, and among them, Members in good standing who are able to meet the requirements of the Office and discharge its responsibilities with integrity and responsibility.