PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions Act was enacted in 1978 to provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities in respect of service as Members of Parliament and as holders of ministerial and other offices.

My understanding is that over the last decade or two, the emphasis has been to convert the pension scheme and encourage the granting of Central Provident Fund for our civil servants and employees. Of course, as volunteer employers, one can make voluntary contributions towards their respective CPF accounts. Would it, therefore, not be in line with the general policy of the Government to also convert pensions for Members of Parliament, ministerial and other offices, to keep in line with the rest of the working people in Singapore? In this way, our citizens would observe that Parliament has not introduced in any way any form of discrimination, as perceived by them, in favour of MPs, Ministers or other officers connected to Parliament, eg, Mayor, that is being introduced through this proposed amendment.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding Mr Low Thia Khiang's point on why we did not come to Parliament to seek approval for the creation of the post of Mayor, and the formation of Community Development Councils (CDCs), it is the prerogative of the Government, the Prime Minister in particular, to decide what sort of structure of government he wishes to have. Since 1997, we have created Community Development Councils to help the Government to carry out and implement the policies of some of our Ministries. Hence, we have Community Development Councils. In the past, because we had small Community Development Councils, we therefore required the Chairman, if he is to be appointed as a Mayor, to also become the Chairman of a Town Council, apart from being the Chairman of a Community Development Council. But for those Chairmen of Community Development Councils who are not Chairmen of Town Councils at the same time, then we say that they will carry on and be called Chairmen of Community Development Councils, and not Mayors.

In 1997, we had two Mayors, in Tanjong Pagar and Marine Parade GRCs, because both Mr Eugene Yap and Dr Ow Chin Hock were Chairmen of both Councils - the Town Council as well as the Community Development Council.

After the last General Election, we thought that, for better organisation, efficiency and for synergy, we should enlarge the Community Development Councils by reducing the number of CDCs from nine to five. By doing so, therefore, we increased tremendously the responsibilities of the Chairmen of Community Development Councils, if they were required to be Chairmen of Town Councils, and they may be loaded with unnecessary implementation and operational duties. So, we decided that we make an amendment to the rules to only require him to be the Chairman of the Community Development Council in order to become the Mayor.

In so doing, we also recognise that this is a very important position and, obviously, we will not simply appoint anyone unelected to be the Chairman of the Community Development Council or as Mayor. That will not serve the objectives of the Government. We could just have General Managers. In fact, for the administrative details and implementation, we have the General Managers of the CDCs running the day-to-day operations. When it comes to direction, strategy, policy and, in some instances, even talking to the Ministers concerning what the CDC should do, we needed the Mayors to do the job. Hence, the post of Mayor was created, and he has substantial responsibilities and, therefore, he shall be an elected person. There will be no occasion that we can think of that will make us appoint an unelected person to be a Mayor. I think Mr Low can be assured of that. In the same way, we have made the Town Council Chairman an elected MP.

On the question of whether it is fair to compare the Mayor to other appointments in the Parliamentary Pensions Act, eg, the Prime Minister, Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and the Political Secretary, are they of the same level or why should we put a Mayor in the same category as office-holders, office-holders are important political appointments, because they help the Government carry out its objectives, and these appointments are decided by the Prime Minister.

Mr Low said that the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are defined in the Constitution and, therefore, the power is derived from what is provided for in the Constitution. In the Constitution, we do not have posts such as Ministers of State nor Political Secretary, and yet we have these posts in our Parliamentary Pensions Act. In the case of Political Secretary, he does not even need to be an elected MP. The Prime Minister, with his prerogative and powers, can appoint any person to be a Political Secretary, and he is fully entitled to pension under the Parliamentary Pensions Act, albeit not being an elected person.

Sir, there is no reason why Mayors should not be considered in the same category and be eligible for a pension in the same way as other office-holders. For a Mayor who is a new Member - a "new Member" means any Member of Parliament elected after 1995 - he is not eligible for an MP pension. He is eligible for CPF. So, for a Mayor who is a new Member, he needs to accumulate eight years of service as Mayor in order to qualify for a pension.

In the case of an old Member who has got reckonable pensionable service as an MP, then his time spent as Mayor, if it is less than eight years, can be computed for the purpose of considering his MP pension eligibility. Hence, two-thirds of his service as Mayor is counted as an MP's service.

Among our present Mayors, we have both examples - those who are old Members and those who are new Members. But, for new Members, they need to serve long enough in order to qualify for a pension.

Sir, I have, in a way, dealt with Mr Low Thia Khiang's questions.

As regards Mr Chandra Mohan's question, I was quite curious as to why he is interested in Parliamentary pension when the subject does not really concern him. I now understand he is talking about a different issue, like why do we want to consider office-holders' appointments even as pensionable. He says that the trend has been towards CPF. Yes, indeed, it has been, but there are certain key appointments that we have kept as pensionable service, eg, the Administrative Service, Foreign Service and Intelligence Service are still pensionable services. There are good reasons for this. Similarly, for office holders, we think that it is important that they remain on pensionable service and, hence, we keep them on pensionable service.

But for Members of Parliament, we have made a decision way back in 1995 that all new Members of Parliament, elected henceforth, shall be paid CPF.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I wish to seek a clarification from the Minister. The Minister, in his answer, said that the appointment of office-holders is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the Minister is saying that the job of Parliament is just to approve the spending of public funds for whatever appointments that have been created by the Prime Minister. Should that be the role and job of Parliament?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It is definitely not the role of Parliament to decide on what posts to create. That is the prerogative of the Prime Minister and the Government. As to whether the post should be pensionable or not, in certain instances, like in the civil service, it is totally the prerogative of the Government to decide which post should be pensionable and which post should not be pensionable. In the case of office-holders, because they are elected Members, we have the Parliamentary Pensions Act. That is why we have come to Parliament to amend this Act to include the post of Mayor in the Parliamentary Pensions Act, for qualification of pension.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Further clarification, Sir. Does the Minister consider Mayor as a public officer?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Can Mr Low explain what is the meaning of "public officer"? 3.32 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Low, before you move on, can I ask the Deputy Leader to move the motion for exempted business?