NON-CONSTITUENCY AND NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Withholding of allowances for Legislative Assistant)

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister whether there was any particular reason for the sudden decision to withhold from Non-Constituency and Nominated Members of Parliament the allowances for a legislative assistant.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Question 3, Sir. But before it is answered, may I point out that it concerns me as well. I take it that it is in order.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, certainly, it is in order to ask this question.

The allowances and benefits of Elected, Nominated and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament are reviewed from time to time, including the allowances for Legislative Assistants (LAs). In a recent review, the Government decided that NMPs and NCMPs would no longer be eligible to claim allowances for an LA because their duties are not as heavy and onerous as those of an elected MP. They have no constituencies to look after and they do not represent any constituent. Also, Parliament meets, on average, only two days in a month. Out of 10 NMPs and one NCMP who had served between 1988 and 1996, only four employed an LA.

The Government also felt that the LA allowances, amounting to 40% of the NCMP and NMP's current honoraria, would be disproportionate to the honoraria for the NMP and NCMP. To reduce the allowance of the LA would make the scheme unattractive. However, NCMPs and NMPs will continue to be eligible for medical benefits currently enjoyed by elected Members of Parliament.

Nevertheless, the Government will review the LA scheme for NMPs and NCMPs should their parliamentary workload increase in future to justify it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few supplementary questions. But, first of all, may I ask on a point of order, Sir, whether the Prime Minister himself should not be present in the House to answer questions directed to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A point of clarification then, Sir. Because in other parliaments, questions directed to the Prime Minister have to be answered by the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: That is also not a point of clarification. Could you proceed with your supplementary question?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If it pleases you, Sir. Is the Minister aware, I am sure he is, that after Parliament was elected, and to be precise on 3rd January 1997, the regulations provided for the payment of legislative allowances for NMPs and NCMPs. Then suddenly on 27th May this year, just four days before Parliament sat, it was revised to take them out. May I ask what was the momentous reason for the sudden change in a policy that had been adopted for some years now?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, this Parliament is different from many other parliaments. We set our own rules, and we have our own procedures, and from time to time we change and amend them. We also copy from others if they suit our purposes and if they are in line with what we think would make good procedures for debate. The Prime Minister himself has asked me to answer this question and there is no reason why the Prime Minister cannot delegate any responsibility to his Ministers. So it is perfectly in order for me to answer the question as Leader of the House.

The regulations sent out by Parliament on LAs on 3rd January was sent out before the Government did the review. Government did a review after that. In fact, I said that the Government does review this from time to time. So when Government did a review and decided that LAs are no longer to be employed by NMPs and NCMPs, the rules were subsequently changed. Parliament sent out the rules before consulting the Government. That is the reason.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have another supplementary question. Would the Minister say when was this change in the decision made between 3rd January and 27th May this year? And why precisely was the reason for this change?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If my recollection serves me right, the review was done at the end of January. And the reason is, as I have explained, the Government looked at all this from time to time and decided that the NMPs' and NCMPs' workload is not as heavy and onerous, and so we changed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have another supplementary question for the Minister. He says that the elected MPs are paid this because they have constituents to care for and attend to, leaving aside the question whether I have a duty to 48,000 residents in Cheng San or not. May I ask what legislative research will be necessary to help constituents to get a flat faster or to solve one of their little domestic problems? What legislative research will be necessary for that?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Elected MPs have to attend to a lot of constituency issues. They have also to attend to many parliamentary matters. They sit in many Committees which the NCMP does not. And that is why they need more help than the NMP and the NCMP.

Mr Jeyaretnam claims to represent 48,000 voters in Cheng San. I think that is absurd. He himself said in 1985, and Mr Chiam also held the same view, that an NCMP does not represent any elector. So how could he claim to represent anybody at all? It is an absurdity!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification. Did I say that I claim to represent? I said, leaving aside the question that there are some 48,000, perhaps not 48,000, but 45,000 residents in Cheng San who may wish to, and do sometimes, see me about their problems. Quite apart from representation, we are talking about caring for and attending to their needs.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The caring of the needs of the constituents in Cheng San Constituency, whether they voted for the PAP or for the other party, is the job of the elected MP, and that is our system. In our first-past-the-post system, the winner comes into Parliament. Mr Jeyaretnam himself in 1984, when the Bill to amend the Constitution was made to allow for the NCMP scheme, said that NCMP should not come in here, otherwise it was just by the grace of the Government. He is here by the grace of the Government, and here he is making all these hypocritical claims to take responsibility for 45,000 voters.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister what does he exactly mean when he says "by grace of the Government?" Is it not provided in the Constitution? I know that the scheme was introduced by the Government, but it has now become a matter of law. Is it still right to call it a grace of the Government?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, these were not my words. They were his words in 1984.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You call it the grace of the Government.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: These were his own words.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But you said that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, I said it because these were his words. I am just repeating what he said in 1984. I was not here. I read up the Hansard, and it is not just in the Hansard but also in The Hammer, that he said the NCMP scheme is by the grace of the Government.