AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS:

(Motion): 5.29 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix 1 to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Sir, at the sitting of Parliament on 16th September this year, a resolution was approved by the House empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on necessary amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Members were invited to submit their proposals for the Committee's consideration. No proposal was received from the Members by the deadline of 27th September 2010.

As part of the Committee's consultative process, a discussion was held with representatives of the House drawn from the ranks of the Government Parliamentary Committees, Opposition and Nominated Members' bench. This was to seek their views on the key changes proposed to be made to the Standing Orders.

Under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Committee deliberated the views and feedback given. It has recommended that the proposed amendments set out in Appendix 1 be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament.

Sir, the Committee has made 29 recommendations. Some of the amendments are new procedures, some are formalisations of existing practices by the House, some are liberalising the current procedures to achieve greater flexibility, and the rest are housekeeping amendments.

There are three key areas of procedure or business which the Report covers. They pertain to:

(a) speech times;

(b) Supply business; and

(c) extension of sitting times by the Speaker.

The Committee also made recommendations in other areas such as Exempted Business Motions, Ministerial Clarifications, Select Committees, Petitions, and House decorum. I will now take Members through these amendments.

Speech times

Sir, one of the principal recommendations of the Committee concerns the speech times in this House. This is found in paragraph 10 of the Proposed Amendments. The Committee has proposed a reduction in speech times of both the frontbench and backbench, from the current one hour and half an hour respectively, to that of 40 minutes and 20 minutes. In Committee of the whole Parliament, speech time is proposed to be reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes for any one speech. Speech time for movers of original motions in Parliament and Committee is also proposed to be reduced, from currently one hour each to 40 minutes for moving the motion and another 40 minutes for the reply.

The Committee feels that 20 minutes for a backbench Member and 40 minutes for an officeholder to express his or her views to any question in Parliament are adequate. The amendment not only allows for more efficient use of time, it will also instil greater discipline on Members in addressing the House. From experience, not many Members take up more than 20 minutes in delivering their speeches. The average time per speech of backbench Members on Bills and Motions for the past two years was less than 10 minutes; in fact, 7.4 minutes to be exact, whilst the average speech time on the Debate on Budget Statement from 2008 to 2010 was 15.1 minutes. For the frontbench and movers of motions, the average speech times were 12.4 minutes (for Bills and Motions) and 19.4 minutes (for Debate on Budget Statement).

Sir, if a Member wishes to have more time to raise issues of substantial importance, he can move a motion for which he will have 40 minutes to state his position and another 40 minutes to reply. Also, the reduction in speech time in the Committee of the whole House to 10 minutes per speech does not affect the current procedure where a Member can speak more than once in Committee. The revised time limit of 10 minutes is also not applicable during the Committee of Supply which allocates time on a block basis. Later, I will touch on this point again under the Supply business amendments.

Sir, the proposed time limits for speeches in Parliament and Committee compare well with those practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and Canada, which are detailed in the Report. In New Zealand, for example, the time limit for most businesses in Parliament is 10 minutes whilst in the UK, the Speaker sets a time limit of seven to 15 minutes depending on the number of speakers.

Supply business
Multiple items of Supply business on one day

Sir, the next recommendation is to formalise a long-standing practice of the House to take more than one item of Supply business on an allotted day. For example, the Supplementary Estimates and Estimates of Expenditure are usually taken on one day of the Committee of Supply. The Supply and Supplementary Supply Bills have also been conventionally taken on the same day at the conclusion of the Committee of Supply (COS). This recommendation is stated in paragraph 16 of the Proposed Amendments. The proposed change to the Standing Orders will accord more flexibility to the House to deal with Budget debates in a timely manner.

I wish also to assure Members that ample notice of the allotted days for discussion on the Main and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, Second Readings of the Supply Bill and Supplementary Supply Bill will be given to Members, as in the existing procedure. The scheduling of more than one Supply business on an allotted day is also practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments, such as Malaysia and Australia.

10-minute limit on a COS speech

The Committee proposes to lift the current 10-minute time limit for a speech made by a backbencher in the Committee of Supply. This is set out in paragraph 20 of the Proposed Amendments. Members are then free to allocate their speech times in COS in whatever manner they choose, subject only to their individual block-time cap and the guillotine times.

Question Time on allotted days

The Committee proposes to allow the Speaker to specify a shorter Question Time on days that are allotted to any business. Generally, these will be days allotted to Supply business, Debate on the Budget Statement and Debate on the President’s Address. The House has, by practice, given its approval for Question Time to be shorter on days when the Budget Statement and Supply business are considered, in view of the priority for the completion of these businesses. This amendment to the Standing Orders is recommended in paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments.

Extension of sitting times by the Speaker

Another recommendation of the Committee is that of empowering the Speaker or the Chair in Committee to extend the sitting time by up to 30 minutes at the end of the day. This recommendation is found in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. The short time extension, which is also exercisable by the Chairman in the Committee of Supply, is to facilitate the completion of speeches or matters that are about to end at the adjournment time, instead of being cut-off at that moment. Should the business require more than 30 minutes beyond adjournment time or the moment of interruption, an Exempted Business motion can be moved to obtain the House’s approval for a longer sitting.

Other procedural areas

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on recommendations pertaining to other procedural areas.

Exempted Business motion

Paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments sets out the proposal to widen the time window for which an Exempted Business motion can be moved to enable the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption. With the proposed amendment, such a motion can be moved any time after Question Time, instead of the current period of 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm. In this way, Members will benefit from the earlier notification of an extended sitting.

Ministerial clarifications

The Committee recommends to liberalise the procedures for Ministerial clarifications. Currently, Ministerial clarifications are taken at the appointed time for Ministerial Statements or Personal Explanations and not thereafter. In paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments, it is proposed that, with the leave of the Speaker, brief Ministerial statements and clarifications on concluded proceedings can be made at any time between subsequent items of business. This will facilitate corrections or clarifications to be made to the House at the earliest opportunity at any part of the sitting as long as they are not taken in the midst of an ongoing debate.

Select Committees

The Committee proposes to formalise the current practices and procedures followed by Select Committees. Paragraphs 22 to 26 of the Proposed Amendments deal with the powers of the Select Committee to exclude non-Committee Members and strangers from its meetings, and to exclude from its Report minutes of evidence taken in private; the non-disclosure of minutes of evidence which are not included in the Committee’s report to persons other than Committee Members; and the election of a temporary Committee Chairman in the absence of the Chairman where the Chairman is not the Speaker. Other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and India also have these provisions in place.

Sir, there are other minor amendments included in the Report of the Committee. The slight changes to Petitions procedures are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Proposed Amendments; and the restatement of Standing Order 52(d) in paragraph 11 to reflect the desired decorum and behaviour to be observed by Members at all times. The amendment in Standing Order 52 seeks to emphasise the necessity for Members to give their full attention to the proceedings in Parliament at all times and the avoidance of behaviour that distracts others from these proceedings. This is to ensure that proceedings of the House are always conducted with order and decorum.

Finally, there are housekeeping amendments stated in paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Proposed Amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the Committee, have been made as a result of much deliberation and consideration. Their purpose is to put in place the necessary rules that will enable the House to keep pace with changing circumstances, improve use of time and meet the procedural needs of Members in discharging their duties in this House. Sir, I urge Members to support these recommendations and adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.43 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Standing Orders have undergone several changes over the years and these changes have helped refine the parliamentary procedures.

Sir, I believe backbenchers, like myself, are thankful for the refinements over the years as they strengthen the process and improve the participation of Members of Parliament (MPs) and engagement of Ministers.

I applaud the proposal pertaining to conduct of MPs in the Chamber. Sir, it is important that we demonstrate in this august Chamber exemplary behaviour, our respect and consideration for our fellow Members when they are speaking and for Parliamentary proceedings.

On the proposal to reduce the speaking time, Sir, I agree that the quality of a speech is not determined by the length of the speech. I agree that the time limit for speaking in this august Chamber is generous as compared to other Commonwealth countries, like in the UK, where the limit is 15 minutes. But I would like to request that more leeway in time be given to serious issues which require in-depth discussion and clarifications. Sir, the 20-minute time limit for MPs and 40 minutes for Ministers should not be cast in stone and a grace period should be exercised at one go as and when necessary by the House. Such flexibility would not only enhance the quality of the proceedings but also allow for a more robust and enlightened exchange of views.

As elected backbenchers, we must fulfil expectations of voters, exception to the rule, with an element of flexibility, will assure voters that, when necessary, extra time will be given to important issues.

Over the years, the number of Members in this august Chamber has increased and, with recent changes to the Constitution, it is set to increase even further. As mentioned earlier, barring discussion on important topics, the reduction in speaking time is sensible and it would allow more Members to participate actively before legislation is passed and speak up for their voters. The capping of speaking time would put more discipline on speakers and help them to stay focussed and prepare their speeches well. This amendment will enhance the proceedings and avoid protracted parliamentary sittings.

Sir, on Standing Order No. 48, the amendment to allow Members to speak in any or any combination of the four official languages in their speech is not only timely but would help for a smoother delivery of speeches by backbenchers as some points could only be put across best in the vernacular language.

Sir, I welcome the changes. Although I support the amendments, I would like to request that future Standing Orders Committee should have a larger representation of backbenchers as the feedback received from them would be more representative in making future amendments to the Standing Orders.

Sir, in support of this amendment, I am glad that I have delivered my speech within the 10 minutes. In any case, though the current time limit is 30 minutes, I have seldom gone beyond 15 minutes. So, I believe the 20-minute limit will not have any negative impact on Members.

On this note, Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mdm Ho for her support for the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders.

Sir, Mdm Ho made a few points. First, she observed that the revised time limits are still generous as compared to the other Commonwealth countries. I think this point is worth emphasising. Over the last three years, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 119 speeches on Budget Statements. Of the 119 speeches, only 17 took more than 20 minutes. In other words, 85% of the speeches made by the backbenchers in this House in the debate of the Budget Statements were actually within the revised time limit of 20 minutes.

Secondly, over the last two years, again, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 200 speeches on Bills and Motions. And of the 200 speeches, only two of them went beyond 20 minutes, and for these particular two, the time taken was 21 minutes. In other words, almost 100% of the speeches made by backbencher-Members in this House for the last two years on Bills and Motions were within the proposed new time limit of 20 minutes. So, on that count, I agree with Mdm Ho that the revised time limit, by any standard, is still quite generous as compared to many other countries.

Thirdly, Mdm Ho asked for leeway to be given for discussions on serious issues. Sir, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, if any Member of this House feels strongly about any particular issue and would like to conduct a more in-depth discussion, he is encouraged to move a motion, very much like what NMP Viswa has done today. Whether we all share the same view on these motions is not the key issue. The key issue is that in this House, Members are here to perform a duty. At any point in time, if they feel strongly about any issue, please move a motion and with that, they will have up to 40 minutes to present their views and 40 minutes to give their replies.

Of course, in extreme situations, there is provision for an exemption of Standing Orders. But in my 14 years in this House, I have not yet come across a situation where the Leader of the House actually proposed an exemption regarding the speech time limit. Therefore, my advice to the Members of this House is, do not count on that. I think it is better that every one of us do our very best to tighten our speeches, and sharpen our focus, so that we say whatever we want to say in that 20 minutes and then, as I said, if they have something more than that to talk about, present it in the form of a motion.

Sir, Mdm Ho's last point is regarding the composition of future Select Committee on Standing Order. She would like to see a larger representation of backbenchers. Sir, as provided for under our Standing Orders, the Select Committee on Standing Orders have 10 Members. Of the 10 Members, of course, the Speaker is the Chair and the two Deputy Speakers are Members of this Committee. So that leaves us with seven Members to be appointed to this Committee. Of the seven Members, some Members of this House are more involved with the procedural affairs of the House, eg, the Leader of the House and the Whip. As a result, five places are taken up by the Speaker, the two Deputy Speakers, the Leader of the House and the Whip. So, that leaves us with five other positions. In this particular review, out of that five positions, two went to the frontbench and three went to the backbench.

Sir, we take the point by Mdm Ho that we do want to take in the views of as many backbenchers as we can. I want to assure the House that the views of the backbenchers are important to us, and that is the reason why we invited the Members to come forward with their proposals, if there is any. Even though there was no proposal from Members of the House, we actually went out to invite some of the Members for a dialogue, for an exchange of views. Indeed, their views were taken into consideration and, to some extent, were reflected in the changes that we are presenting today.

Sir, with that, I believe I have answered the key points brought up by Mdm Ho, and I look forward to the support of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.