BYPASSING OF PARLIAMENT

5.30 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, are you going to speak on the same matter again?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I am going to speak on a different matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This time on Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the last motion was a plea that the Executive should allow the courts to fulfill their role given to them under the Constitution. In this motion, I am making a similar plea for Parliament. I am asking this House to say that Parliament should be allowed its full role under the division of powers that we accepted, and that Parliament should not be bypassed, in anything, with the Executive taking all the decisions.

As I said earlier, Parliament under a parliamentary democracy is supreme. The government of the day is accountable to Parliament and the government acts under and in accordance with laws passed by Parliament, with the Judiciary acting as a watchdog to see that the Executive does act under and in accordance with the laws passed by Parliament, that there is no deviation. I think I said this in my first speech in this House. This is the House of the people. This is where the people expect their views and grievances to be heard and to be given effect. So it is a matter for regret that this Government does not allow Parliament its role and functions.

There are a number of things why I say this. For one thing, sittings of Parliament. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, why it is not possible for Parliament to sit more often. Parliament should not be summoned just because the Government has got Bills to pass. The efficiency of Parliament is not to be measured by the number of Bills that it has passed. The efficiency of Parliament is to be measured by how it controls the Executive. That is how the efficiency of Parliament will be measured and judged. But we do not have enough sittings of Parliament, with the result that Members send in Questions and they cannot all be heard within the one hour allotted for Question Time. I think there is an urgent need for extending that.

Then there was the other obvious ignorance of Parliament, that although Parliament had been elected on 2nd January last year, no attempt was made to convene Parliament until the end of May 1997, and the Executive chose to govern without Parliament for nearly six months, without having Parliament overlook its governance of Singapore.

I tried to raise the question as to why the Budget could not have been presented in March, but Mr Speaker overruled me saying that my question was not admissible. I do not know why it was not admissible but anyway that is not what I am raising.

I think there is an urgent need in Singapore if we are to live up to all our professions of being transparent, accountability, honest government and all that, that Parliament's role be strengthened and recognised. I think there is an urgent need for more sittings of Parliament. There is an urgent need for Question Time to be extended. And there is also another need that Questions addressed to the Prime Minister should be answered by the Prime Minister. In other Parliaments, one or two days of the sittings every week are set aside for Questions to the Prime Minister and he has to attend to answer. But here the Prime Minister would seem to ignore Questions to him. I have asked two or three Questions of the Prime Minister and they were always answered by somebody else.

I think there is a need for us, if Parliament is to be the watchdog, to set up departmental committees with powers to summon civil servants and Ministers to explain any decisions taken by the Government on any matter. I know we have got Government Parliamentary Committees, but they do not serve that purpose. I have in mind committees, as they have in the United Kingdom and in other countries and in the US Congress, with real powers to question and to summon witnesses before them, the Executive that is. Of course, these committees should comprise not only Government Members but more so the Opposition Members of Parliament, because it is the role of the Opposition particularly to act as the watchdog for the people.

There are two instances which would highlight what I have been trying to say. On 7th October 1997, I raised a Question with the Prime Minister for Written Answer whether he would disclose the names of all public officers who had bought properties in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. And I had a written answer from him to say, "There is no impropriety. We are not going to disclose the names of public officers who bought these properties." I tried to tell him that it is not a question of any impropriety. It is a question of Parliament being told who are the other public officers who had bought these properties at discounts. The Prime Minister refused to budge and said, "There is no impropriety. I am not going to tell you who are the other public officers."

Why should Parliament be bypassed? Why should Parliament not be told? Public officers are accountable and they should be seen to be acting perfectly within the law in anything they do, even if it is a private purchase.

Then there was the other Question that I raised with the Minister for Home Affairs, and this was on the retirement of the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ong Seng Chye. My understanding was that this officer had been retired prematurely, that he was retired in the public interest. So I raised a Question with the Minister for Home Affairs whether he would inform Parliament of the circumstances under which this very high officer in the Police Force, ie, Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police, was retired. And the answer came, "We don't discuss retirement of public officers." Should Parliament not have a right to know why such a senior officer in the Police Force, the Senior Assistant Commissioner, had been retired in the public interest? What had he done that required him to be compulsorily retired? These are matters in which Parliament has a direct interest and an attempt to shut out information on all these matters from Parliament is to minimise the role of Parliament and to refuse Parliament to play its full role in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know how many millions of dollars are being spent in building a new Parliament House, a grand Parliament House. May I repeat, a grand Parliament House does not make for an effective role for Parliament to fulfill its functions. A Parliament that does play its part, its rightful part, is a Parliament that is given all the opportunities to play its part and to fulfill its role as the guardian of the liberties of the people and as a watchdog on the Executive. So my plea is that it is time that a Committee be set up to consider the revision of Standing Orders of Parliament to see how Parliament's role can be strengthened and given more power, to examine whether departmental committees should be set up. We will then be showing the people that we are quite serious in the role of Parliament as their House, guardians of their liberties, guardians of their rights, and not simply a Parliament that is here to pass laws proposed by the Executive. That is all I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Member makes, first of all, similar points. The point about the loan, I think, has been covered in my reply. In fact, the point is covered in the Attorney-General's opinion as to why there was no need to come to this House to get Parliament's approval. That is the first point that he makes.

Then he asked whether we should in any case come to Parliament to discuss other matters. I think the role of Parliament is prescribed in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders and it has been fulfilling this role for a long time effectively. Parliament has functioned very well in making laws, in enabling Members to come to this House to ask searching questions where Ministers will give answers. Mr Jeyaretnam, now that he is an NCMP, has asked for an enlarged role for himself and for Parliament. But the point is that Parliament has got procedures that have worked well. Again, it is just like his other point about asking Government to bring the matter before the constitutional court. The Government has good reason not to do it. Government discloses the reason and we stand by the reason. So he asks questions as to why we do not meet more often or why the Prime Minister does not answer questions. I think these are questions which the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will have to decide. Parliament will meet when there are matters to be discussed, when there are Bills to be passed, laws to be made, and topics to be discussed.

On matters that the law does not require Parliament's approval, it is a matter of judgment whether or not a parliamentary session should be held to discuss the matter, just like the loan to Indonesia. As I have explained just now, time was of the essence. Therefore, this matter was not discussed in the House. So the Executive must have the prerogative and exercise its judgment wisely, unless, of course, required by law. The law does set out certain requirements as to when Parliament must meet and what matters must be put before Parliament. For the rest, we have to look at practice, we have to look at what has worked well for Singapore.

As for accountability to the public, yes, of course. In fact, we have many Committees already set up in Parliament. There are Select Committees to discuss specific Bills and Committees such as the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to discuss expenditure and financial matters. So there is already in place a system where those matters which are within the purview of Parliament to check on the Executive, they are in place.

The specific motion says, "Bypassing of Parliament". We have talked just now about the doctrine of separation of powers where there is a role for the Executive, a role for Parliament and a role for the Judiciary. So each organ has a role to play. So my response to Mr Jeyaretnam is that the Executive is not bypassing Parliament. Just like my response just now, the Executive is not showing disrespect to the Judiciary by not putting the matter before the constitutional court, as asked by the Workers' Party, my response now will be the Executive is not bypassing Parliament. Matters which require parliamentary approval, yes, we will seek it. Matters which do not, it is a matter of judgment on the part of the Executive whether that matter will be brought to Parliament. Rest assured, please, that the Government observes the Constitution, Government observes the laws and procedures in carrying out its functions. In any case, as I have mentioned just now, Government accountability is captured in a poignant form during Question Time. Question Time is one hour every time we meet. I think matters are dealt with and questions are answered. There are other matters which must be dealt with. Therefore, we should not lengthen Question Time. That is all I want to say. Sir, it is really a repeat of the earlier motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes to Six o'clock pm.