AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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. 11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded.

Sir, Members will recall that at the sitting of Parliament on 4th March this year, Parliament passed a resolution empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary.

I am happy to report that the Committee has submitted its Report and has recommended that the amendments set out in Appendix I of the Report be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament.

The main objective, Sir, of these amendments is to make the functioning of Parliament more effective and efficient. With these changes, we will be more focussed in our deliberations and debates. The net result is to improve the quality of debate in this House.

Your Committee has proposed 26 amendments. I shall group them into three categories:

(1) Formalisation of existing practices;

(2) Minor changes; and

(3) Significant changes.

Formalisation of existing practices

There are four practices that need to be formalised. One, is the sitting time of Parliament. The amendments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 24 of the Report refer to the sitting time of Parliament. Parliament sitting time was changed by resolution on 1 March 1985. The difference between these changes proposed and the resolution passed on 1 March 1985 is that the lunch time has now been reduced from 1(r) hours to one hour. Generally, Members found that the one-hour lunch time is more than adequate.

The other three formalisations refer to the Deputy Speaker performing the duty of the Speaker in the latter's absence, the days allocated for the Annual Budget Statement, and taking the Heads of Expenditure in the Main Estimates according to the seniority of the Minister. These amendments are in paragraphs 5, 15, 20 and 22.

Minor Changes

There are four.

Firstly, paragraph 25 of the Report is a consequential change arising from the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1986, to empower the Speaker to deal summarily with any breach of privilege in Parliament.

Secondly, the amendment in paragraph 26 is made to admit strangers to a Select Committee by majority agreement.

Thirdly, the present practice of providing for five days of debate for the Main Estimates and two days for the Development Estimates debate remains, but the Speaker will be given the flexibility and discretion to extend the number of days if he thinks fit. This is referred to in paragraphs 17 and 23.

Fourthly, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the procedure in Committee of the whole House or Whole Parliament on a Bill is changed to expedite the consideration of clauses without affecting the Member's right to speak on any clause.

Significant Changes

There are three.

(1) Time allowed for Members to speak: There is no change to the 15 minutes allowed for a Member to address a Committee of the whole House. The Straits Times report on 21 August on this matter stated that "it also limits any MP wanting to address a committee of the whole Parliament to no more than 15 minutes at any one time" gave the wrong impression that this is a change. I would like to emphasize that there is no change to this practice.

But if a Member wishes to speak on any question, the time allowed will now be reduced from one hour to half an hour. This is in paragraph 9.

Your Committee feels that 30 minutes is more than sufficient for any Member to express his views. From experience, very very few Members take up more than half an hour in their speeches. The reduction in time will also allow time for more Members to speak on any matter. The half hour allowed is favourably compared to the time given to members of other Commonwealth Parliaments, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India.

Half an hour is indeed a very long time. If you were to type your speeches into foolscap pages, that will be about 20 pages of foolscap paper. A lot of substance can go into 20 pages, unless of course you filibuster or waffle.

If a Member wishes to have more time because the matter he wishes to raise is of great public importance, he can move a motion for which he will have one hour for his opening speech and another hour for reply. If there is an amendment to his motion, then he will have extra time again.

(2) Collection of Voices and Procedure on Division: These amendments are found in paragraphs 10 and 11. These changes will save time for Parliament and yet not deprive a Member's right to have his dissent recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Reports of this House.

Calling for a division is a very time-consuming affair. It takes about 10 minutes during which time debates come to a standstill. It is also not meaningful if fewer than five Members wish to seek a division.

The practice of requiring a minimum number of Members' support before a division can be called is again not new. In the Malaysian Parliament of 177 members, at least 15 members must support the call for a division before one is called. In the UK, I am told, 40 members out of 650 in the House of Commons must give their support for a division to be called. This is about 6%. In India, 1/10 of the membership in the Lower House (presently 544) is required for a division to be called.

(3) Procedure for debates of the Main Estimates: The amendments are found in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21. First of all, again let me correct the press report which gave the wrong impression that Members must now give at least three clear days' notice before the first allotted day if he wishes to move an amendment to reduce any Head of Expenditure. This is the existing practice and there is no change to it.

What is changed in the procedure, however, is that the Members who wish to speak on a policy matter will now move a token cut of $100. He will indicate the policy he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that policy matter. Members who wish to speak on details of expenditure, for example, operational matters, will move a token cut of $10 and indicate the detail of expenditure he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that matter. There will also be sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure.

Members have experienced from previous debates of the Main and Development Estimates that policy matters were often mixed up with implementation details. As a result, the time allotted for each Head of Expenditure was often not enough to allow all Members who had moved cuts to speak. Those Members who moved an amendment which appeared at a latter part of the Head, often had no chance to speak.

The delineation of policy matters and details of expenditure in a debate will allow a smoother flow of debate. The sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure will also give Members who move amendments at the latter part of the Head a chance to speak.

In the Indian Lok Sabha, that is the Lower House, cut motions are divided into disapproval of policy cut, economy cut to save money, and token cut to ventilate grievances. Members who move cuts are required to state precisely what is to be debated and confine his speech to that matter. The idea of separating debates on policy matters from details of expenditure is adapted from the Indian Lok Sabha.

Finally, Sir, I hope Members will appreciate that all these amendments are made for a more efficient and effective use of time in this House and, therefore, I urge all of you to support them. Thank you, Sir.

Question proposed.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Report of the Standing Orders Committee.

At the outset, Sir, I wish to assure you that I will not take the full one hour.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Take your time.

Mr Chandra Das: If this is the last time, one has an opportunity to speak for one hour. I definitely do not intend to take one hour.

Sir, in general, I am in agreement with most of the amendments as set out in Appendix I of the Report. As the Leader of the House pointed out, most of the amendments are of a consequential nature and I give it my unqualified support.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to confine my remarks mainly to the amendment of Standing Order No. 44 whereby the speaking time of Backbenchers (I repeat, Backbenchers) is reduced from one hour to 30 minutes. Sir, I do not see the wisdom in reducing the Members' entitlement to speak, from one hour to 30 minutes, and in the same breath it allows Government Members (Ministers, Ministers of State, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries) to speak for one hour in reply. That means maintaining the status quo for Frontbench Members and reducing the time from one hour to 30 minutes for Backbenchers.

Firstly, this is discrimination, and secondly, the argument advanced does not hold water. Am I to understand, Sir, that office holders need longer time to explain issues raised by Backbenchers? From my own experience in this House, it has not been the case. If MPs have to say their piece in 30 minutes, then I suggest the others do likewise. I suppose if an MP speaks for one hour, he is considered longwinded and wasting everybody's time. On the other hand, when office holders speak for one hour, they are merely responding fully to Members' views. Sir, I believe this is a pure case of double standards.

My main point, however, is to ask the necessity to reduce the speaking time to half an hour, in the first instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, prior to 1964, there was abuse. So on 10th June 1964, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Leader of the House, in moving the amendments to the Standing Orders stated:

'It is our hope that the changes proposed in the Standing Orders will facilitate the proceedings in this Assembly, and will also assist Mr Speaker, who is in the Chair, in the conduct of proceedings.'

Today, the Leader of the House also makes such a pious declaration.

Sir, in 1964 the Leader of the House then went on to say:

'Previously we have had Members standing up in this Chamber regurgitating speeches written for them by somebody else and the whole period lasting seven hours. Very often sittings had to be extended to past midnight and there were occasions when many Members of this House were absent while a Member was spouting out his speech from his script and Mr Speaker had considerable trouble even to find a quorum. Well, it is to eliminate this abuse of freedom of speech in this Chamber that we have come to this arrangement in this Standing Order No. 43. I would also add that any Member in this Chamber who has anything of real value to say should be able to find one hour quite adequate to put his point across. It is to avoid tedious repetitions and diversions that this time limit has been imposed. In fact, [he went on to say] those who have ever been students before are aware that they can stand a teacher's lecture for at the most only one hour. While we do not consider ourselves to be still in class, I feel that the majority of us would consider that one hour is sufficiently adequate to listen to a Member's speech and if he has anything worth of note, he could put it in within the period of one hour.'

Sir, there was full justification for allowing Members to speak for one hour. The Government then strongly made a case for the one hour time limit. The limit prevented everyone from making unnecessarily lengthy speeches.

In 1964 reference was also made about Commonwealth countries like Nigeria and Australia having less than the one hour time limit. Again the same argument is extended, this time the reduction is from one hour to 30 minutes.

Sir, I believe there has been no abuse as before, as was the case in June 1964. We already are a very business-like Parliament, and rightly so. Our sittings are not too frequent, like other Parliaments - the Leader quoted the Lok Sabha - and there is practically little or no waste of time. Even the Member for Potong Pasir, since his entry into this House, I believe, has only spoken for one hour on one occasion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Right.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, if the intention is for more Members to participate, then the obvious solution is to increase the number of sitting days, rather than curtail the speaking time of Members.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fear this amendment will leave the impression that the Government does not want to waste time with debates in this House. In 1964 it was cut from no-limit to one hour. The proposal today is to cut from one hour to half an hour. The next amendment may be to cut it down to 15 minutes, and a subsequent amendment may be to limit it to written submissions to this Parliament.

More seriously, I do not think the reduction of speaking time is a good move. If I may use a terminology from cricket, not all Members of this House bowl in the same manner. Some are fast bowlers who need a longer run-up. Some will be slow bowlers requiring practically no run-up. We will have to allow for differences in style and presentation. And it will definitely add variety to the debates in this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I refer to one other recommendation, ie, Standing Orders 59 and 60. I fully agree that calling for a division is time-consuming and in many cases unnecessary. Sir, we are in the age of IT information technology. The real answer is for this House to introduce an electronic method of recording votes. Sir, I would urge you to give this some serious consideration.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to say a few words on the amendments to the Standing Orders.

Like the previous speaker from Chong Boon, I do not agree that the speaking time for Backbenchers and other Members, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, should be reduced by 50%, from one hour to half an hour. It has already been mentioned that before 1964, I believe, there was a record of a speaker really speaking up to 6 or 7(r) hours. But I think that is really too much to stomach. I think one hour is very reasonable and should not be reduced any further.

I think the issue here is freedom of speech against, as the Minister put it, "the efficient function of Parliament and to improve the quality of debate." I do not believe in the second reason. But he says, "to improve the efficient function of Parliament". I think we have to balance the two. We should go more for freedom of speech. If you curtail somebody who has something to say, you are actually curbing his freedom of speech. Any Member who stands before this House and speaks is not speaking really on his own behalf. He is speaking on behalf of members of his constituency. He is speaking on behalf of perhaps even the public in general. Therefore, if you curb him, you are actually curbing the voices of the public. Therefore, we should not reduce this one hour time any further.

Another issue is: do we or do we not want to promote democracy? In the past few days, many people were herded to sign the pledge. What does the pledge say? Essentially, the pledge says:

"We the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves to build a democratic society so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."

That is the essential part of the pledge. Basically, we pledge to build a democractic society. It was reported in yesterday's papers that some kindergarten kids were brought there to sign the pledge. The teachers who were with them said that they had explained to the children the reason for their excursion, to pledge their loyalty to Singapore. The pledge is not really to pledge loyalty to Singapore. I think there is a misconception here. Further on, the Chief Commissioner of the Singapore Boy Scouts also brought the kids there. Now the scouts do all kind of things.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I do not want to curb his freedom of speech. But how is this related to the motion in hand?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, this is relevant. Because by curbing from one hour to half an hour, we are curbing democracy. I am coming to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Come to it quickly because I can see you are getting out of point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. I am going to say that there is a misconception of our pledge. The essential point of our pledge is to build a democratic society. That is the key to the pledge. And unless we have got a democractic society, we cannot achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. When we are curbing our freedom of speech here and we are not allowed to say when we have something important to say, that is certainly not democractic. So we in this Parliament are setting a bad example. If we are curbing freedom of speech here and not promoting democracy, I think we, as leaders of our country, are certainly setting a bad example. I can just imagine, it goes all the way down the line to our schools. They have a meeting and there you are, the teacher or the person in charge, with authority, just shuts them off. He says, "Look, Parliament has also cut down the time for speaking. What are you blabbering away?" I think we should set an example here. If a Member has got something important to say, let him say it. Why curb his freedom of speech?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you are engaging in tedious repetition.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I hope I have put the point across, Sir.

Look at the Swiss. We have always been comparing ourselves with the Swiss. They have not curbed any freedom of speech. In fact, they have gone one step further. They have encouraged people to call for a referendum on an issue. And they always have meetings in the village square. I think the House here should not conduct its meetings as if we are in a board meeting of a company - hurrying through so that we can get on with our social activities after that. I think we should conduct ourselves more like the village council where everybody is given a chance to speak. I think that is true democracy. I think you should not laugh at this because I do not think we are more efficient than the Swiss. The Swiss are very efficient people and yet they have got regular meetings in their town square. Everybody is allowed to say something.

Dr Augustine Tan: Are you supporting town councils?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Member for Whampoa has gone off in a tangent. What has this debate got to do with town councils? We are talking about freedom of speech, please.

Dr Augustine Tan: In a town square.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The other point is that I think we should not compare ourselves with other Commonwealth Parliaments. The Minister has said that other Commonwealth Parliaments have curbed their speaking time. He mentioned Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. I think he should not compare them at all. Tell me, which one of these Commonwealth Parliaments has only one Opposition Member in their House? If you can tell me that they have only one Opposition Member in their House, I will agree with you. So if you are curbing speaking time, you are literally shutting up the Opposition in Singapore. There is only one.

We must have a right to speak, as of right. When I move a motion, I have to probably buy cups of tea for the Whip to get into good terms with him before I can move a motion. We want to speak as of right and not by the grace of somebody. So I do not think it is fair to say that I can always move a motion. I do not think so, unless the Leader of the House assures me that any time I want to move a motion, he will get a seconder for me.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, any time.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, let us have it on record. Good. I hope you do not go back on your word. Because if this amendment goes through, the House is almost, literally, shutting out the Opposition in Singapore. We are in a unique position. We have only one Opposition Member at the moment. If you pass this motion, then there would probably be more people coming in because they feel that one person with half an hour speaking time is certainly not enough. There must be more coming after me.

The other point is on calling a division. I think you are making it difficult, impossible, for the Opposition to call a division. Again, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would assure me that if I want to call a division, four others would support me. I have been in this House for over 2(r) years. I think I have called for a division only once. So I have not been wasting Parliament's time. Why are you so worried then? Why must you get this through and say, "You are wasting 10 minutes every time you call a division." Nobody has wasted Parliament's time, at least not me. Again, I think this amendment should not go through. Because with one Opposition MP in the House, you are making it impossible for him to call a division.

A division is very important. In fact, in America, every Member in the House of Representatives has a voting record. They keep a record of so-and-so Member voting on every issue. I think that should be the case over here too. I think we should have a record of every Member to see what stand he takes. With this general voting, the whole thing is taken at one go. Nobody knows who votes for what.

Again, I think the credibility of a Member is not really tested. A Member may be speaking very strongly against an issue, but when it comes to voting, he votes for it. With this new amendment, there is no chance of calling a division. Then these Members can become irresponsible. They can just speak any way they like but really not taking a stand on it. Again, for these reasons, I think this part of the amendment should not go through.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I must thank the Members for speaking whether they were for or against this motion. Responding to the Member for Chong Boon, the idea of giving the Ministers one hour to respond to views is to ensure that all the points brought up by the Members, and each one of them has half an hour, will be fully answered. Unless of course the Members after having made their points do not want the Minister to respond. Sometimes the Minister may ask his Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister of State to respond. So for the same reason, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of State are both given one hour each. If the Minister does not have the full hour to respond, then many of the points raised by the Members will not be answered.

The Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Potong Pasir said that long ago we changed from a no-time limit to one hour and that now we change it to half an hour, and in future it will be much less. Maybe, I am saying this in jest, and with hindsight, we should have changed it to half an hour right from the beginning. Then they could have seen the effect and usefulness of a half-hour debate.

There is really no need for Government to worry about wasting time. When we are here in the House, we are serious about business in the House and we want to make sure that all views are canvassed. There is no question of denying any Member the right to speak. One must not mix freedom of speech with the length of the speech. Freedom means you can say anything, and there is nothing here in these House Rules to stop any Member from speaking. He can either move a substantive motion or an adjournment motion. Outside the House, he can make a press statement. He can call the press, he can ask questions in this House, and all the proceedings in this House, are telecast every night and people can see that Members are given every right to speak. But that cannot be equated with filibustering and time wasting, as can be seen in the example not too long ago.

I give the Member for Potong Pasir the assurance that when he wants to move a motion which requires the agreement of another Member, we will find someone to support his motion, if he is not objecting to this particular amendment. Even if he is, I will still find one of my colleagues to support him ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: No excuses, please.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: --- to move a motion if he wishes to raise any matter of public importance. He does not need to owe anyone a favour when they support him.

Calling for a division, as we see it this morning,is important because it concerns an amendment to the Constitution. But I just took a count of the time spent in taking the division. It took 10 minutes. During that time the whole business of the House came to a standstill, other than calling of names to indicate the "Ayes" and "Noes". Any Member who wishes to dissent on any matter or any Bill can still have his vote recorded in the Official Proceedings and people will still know that he has voted against it. The Member for Potong Pasir must not make the false assumption that when PAP MPs speak against a Bill or a part of the Bill, they will be voting against the Bill. All PAP MPs are in support of the Bills. Sometimes they may disagree with parts of the Bill, but I think all PAP MPs are sensible people. They do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Member for Potong Pasir also cannot compare our system, the British Parliamentary system, with the US Congressional system. They are two different systems. Unless the Whip is lifted in this House, all PAP MPs are expected to vote in favour of the Bill or any matter that the Government puts across.

Earlier on I mentioned about the time allowed for Members to speak in other Commonwealth Parliaments. Maybe to make it more clear to the Members present, I will ask the Clerk to circulate later on a Table that shows how these other Parliaments use their time.

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. 11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded.