HEAD U - PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Column: 1204

Head U - Prime Minister's Office

The Chairman: Head U - Prime Minister's Office. Dr Ahmad Magad.

Service Quality of Civil Service

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, the Government's continued push on the economy drive in the civil service, amongst others, is seeing an additional 3% budget cut of all Ministries, except MINDEF. Including last year's 2% cut, the total permanent reduction is now 5%. I applaud this move, as just like in the private sector, the public sector should also find ways and means to be cost-effective, minimise waste and increase productivity.

However, Sir, just like Mrs Lim Hwee Hua said in this House last year, we have painstakingly built our civil service to the level today, renowned for its integrity and

Column: 1205

efficiency. It is evident from what the Prime Minister has just explained in his closing Budget Statement's speech that the move to implement the additional 3% cut has been carefully thought through and taken into account that last year's 2% budget reduction for all Ministries has not had any negative impact on service quality to our citizens. I would appreciate it if our Prime Minister could provide this House with a better understanding of some of the measures that the civil service has put in place to ensure that service quality, including counter services, is not jeopardised as a result of the additional 3% budget cut and also the recent operationalisation of the five-day work week in the civil service.

Sir, another concern I have is also potentially the signal that the Government is sending that the budget cuts may translate to lower salary increases and lower starting salaries in the civil service. Retention and attraction of talent, Sir, requires a rigorous compensation management programme to be put in place. People, particularly top talent, must feel comfortable that they are compensated at market rates in order to retain them. I would like the Prime Minister to clarify about the thoroughness of the compensation management system in the civil service to ensure that we will not face an exodus of talent from the civil service and also that it is capable of attracting new talent necessary to maintain and continually improve service quality within the civil service.

The Chairman: Mr Teo Yock Ngee, you can take your four cuts together at one go.

Contract and Part-time Employment

Mr Teo Yock Ngee (Nominated Member): Sir, I have the following questions and points to make for the Prime Minister's Office, specifically the Public Service Division.

Column: 1206

First, may I know what are the terms and conditions of contract employment in the public sector? And what is the number and percentage of public officers, in terms of divisional status, who are employed under such contract terms?

Was there an increase over the years in the employment of contract employees and why? And how many have been emplaced on the permanent establishment eventually?

Also, is there a limit to their renewal of contracts or are contracts renewed indefinitely? And is there a quota and cap on this? This must be of great concern to the Government as an employer because such terms of employment are insecure and lack prospects. Most of these employees could be neither executives nor professionals who have much higher qualifications and better job mobility in the labour market.

Second, may I know how many public officers are on part-time employment? Could the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, provide figures in terms of categories of staff, divisional status, age and gender?

Would the Government consider making part-time employment more attractive to encourage those who are not working to return to the workforce? This may attract the economically inactive but able-bodied to be self-reliant and make a contribution to the economy of Singapore.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Family-Friendly Workplace Practices were drawn up by the National Tripartite Advisory Panel to develop and promote the above at the workplaces in August 2004. The Government has also since implemented the five-day work week, equal medical benefits for men and women officers, cut in maid levy, and an increase of paid maternity leave from 8 to 12 weeks.

Column: 1207

Could the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, confirm that employees under either contract or part-time employment will not be denied of such basic terms, conditions and these additional benefits?

Extension of Service Beyond Retirement

Sir, I am making the following request for public sector employees to the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division.

May I know if the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, is studying the feasibility of allowing older employees to work beyond their legal retirement age of 62? This is in view of the longer life expectancy (about 80 years of age) of Singaporeans and their need to work longer.

Although a tripartite committee, comprising the Government, trade unions and employers, has been set up to discuss and deliberate on the issues concerned, I would like to know if the Government is taking the initiative to look at the possibilities of some areas of work available. We were told that, at the moment, work beyond retirement or an extension of service, as we call it in the public sector, has been considered on a case-by-case basis. May I know what do they mean by this and how many are on such extension?

In my view, would it not be better if the various Ministries start identifying and discussing with unions on what are the jobs that could be done by the older employees? Or would the Ministry consider redesigning and creating some jobs suitable for the older employees? I think we should be more proactive and constructive as the tripartite committee may take some time to work out its recommendations and so on.

Column: 1208

The Government, as the largest employer, should show the way and set a good example.

Employment Adjustment Programme

Sir, I am proposing a review on the matter to the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, for consideration.

The Employment Adjustment Programme (EAP) is quite different from the new scheme that we have just introduced, ie, REAP. This exercise in the public sector is conducted for organisational renewal purposes. It is a voluntary scheme meant for officers who do not have a good job fit in the area of work or stagnating in their performance to leave the organisation. The Special Gratuity Scheme (SGS) is one of the schemes, besides the Early Retirement Scheme and Optional Retirement Scheme.

It is now a voluntary scheme, unlike 2-3 years ago, which means that employees could apply for it subject to the respective employer's approval, which could either be the respective Ministry or statutory board. The employer has the right to reject the application.

I have no question on the details such as the calculation of payment except on the practice and implementation of the Scheme, though it must not be confused with the Special Resignation Scheme (SRS) that is based on redundancy.

Why are the employees still being offered to apply to leave under SGS? And to make matters worse, there have been cases where they were offered time and again each year. Why again? I think this is rather demoralising and tantamount to telling the employees that they are no more needed here and they can leave now. Why not just let the employees apply and the employer consider their applications? I certainly hope that the

Column: 1209

Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, can do a review on this matter.

Disciplinary Proceedings

Sir, I am proposing a review on the matter of interdiction to the Prime Minister's Office for consideration. The meaning of "interdiction" here is suspension from work. The interdiction clause in the Public Service Commission (PSC) Disciplinary Proceedings is archaic, outdated and should be reviewed.

Currently, a public officer who is charged under the above Regulations could be "interdicted and may not receive such portion of the emoluments of his office for such period during the time of interdiction as decided by the Commission." This means that the officer concerned, while pending consideration and investigations by the Commission, may not receive his normal pay or only part of his pay.

There have been cases of public officers under investigations and were interdicted without pay. During this period, they have not been convicted. These investigations were prolonged and, in the meanwhile, the officers faced hardship and were not able to support themselves and their families. Union officials representing them had to appeal to the Commission for consideration, but most of the times, were not successful.

May I request that the Prime Minister's Office, or whichever authority, take a look again at the plight of these officers affected? Why be so unkind and unfair to the employees when they are not proven guilty as yet? And why is the Commission taking such a long time, sometimes as long as six months or longer, to close the case?

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank Dr Ahmad Magad and Mr Teo Yock

Column: 1210

Ngee for taking an interest in issues related to the public service.

A clean and efficient public service is the bedrock of good governance in Singapore. It has helped to ensure that policies are implemented effectively and in the national interest. It has helped us to keep taxes low because public services are delivered efficiently. It has helped us build trust between the Government and the people, because Singaporeans know that public servants are not corrupt.

We have a first-class public service. But it is critical that the public service continues to reinvent itself in order that it can help the Government serve the people and enable Singaporeans to create and seize opportunities.

An important new focus for the public sector is to put customers and citizens at the centre of policy regulation and service delivery.

This means that public servants must have a systematic way of taking in the views of customers and citizens and actively find out what is happening in their area of responsibility and among the people whom they are supposed to be serving.

3.30 pm

An example of good practice is the Pro-Enterprises Panel, which includes not just top public servants but also representatives from the private sector, to ensure that rules and regulations do not unnecessarily hinder business. There have also been concerted efforts to raise the level of public consultation to ensure that the voices of Singaporeans are heard in the policy making process. Since the launch of the Feedback Unit's online consultation portal in 2003, more than 17,000 submissions from the public have been received through its various online feedback channels. This shows that Singaporeans are ready and keen to partner with the Government to create a

Column: 1211

better Singapore. The public service will continue to provide more channels to engage Singaporeans and actively incorporate their views, where constructive, into the policy formulation process.

We also need good people in order to have a first class public service. To attract, develop and retain good people, the human resource management practices in the civil service must be progressive, responsive and flexible. Over the years, the Public Service Division (PSD) has empowered Ministries to give them more flexibility to decide on terms and conditions of employment. They, therefore, become responsible for their own employees. There is now greater emphasis on performance-related pay and career development. More recently, the civil service has led the way in promoting flexible work arrangements and a better work-life balance for its employees.

Even as agencies are given more autonomy to meet customer needs, it is vital that Government agencies act in concert. A key responsibility of the Public Service Division is to develop a common ethos and understanding of the principles of governance so that the various agencies could function effectively together as a part of one networked government.

Dr Ahmad Magad asked if the 3% budget cut would undermine the service quality of the public service. I would like to assure Dr Magad and Members of the House that the Government continually seeks new ways of doing more with less and without sacrificing service quality. The additional 3% cut in the budget of Government Ministries aims to encourage greater prudence and efficiency in the public service. Ministries are encouraged to review their functions and staffing levels and, where appropriate, streamline their processes and operations so that

Column: 1212

workload remains manageable. I can quote an example. The Singapore Police Force has outsourced its vehicle management function. This has led to substantial savings and, more importantly, freed up its manpower for core policing duties.

The civil service is committed to serving the public. When the service moved to a five-day work week, it was promised that service levels to the public would not be affected and, indeed, they have not. Customer volumes at Government counters on Saturday are high, as it is a preferred day for many Singaporeans who do not work on that day, to visit Government public service counters. As such, Government agencies continue to provide counter services on Saturday, by giving staff the appropriate time off or by rostering staff on duty.

The Government has also sought to raise the quality of service through innovation so that they are not just dependent on counters, but there are other service outlets as well. Today, more than 1,600 Government services are available on the Singapore Government Online portal. E-services deliver new value and, the way that our E-services are constructed today are that they are focused around what a citizen needs or wants in particular phases of his life, rather than on what the Ministries do. They allow public services to be delivered any time to customers anywhere while reaping cost savings. Citizens unfamiliar with accessing e-services could get help through the eCitizen Helper programme, which is available in more than 50 locations in Singapore.

To ensure that the public service maintains service standards, Mystery Customer Audits have been implemented where public agencies are paired up to conduct incognito service checks on each other. Results of the (Mystery Customer) Audits and the service standards of the

Column: 1213

Government agencies involved are publicly available on the PS21 Internet website. Every public agency also has a Quality Service Manager to respond to customer concerns and feedback about service quality.

Dr Magad also raised concerns about whether the budget cut would undermine the civil service's competitiveness in talent attraction. Let me assure him that attracting and retaining a fair share of talent has always been, and will always be, one of the service's top priorities. We believe in recruiting the best person for the job, and in getting the best out of him or her through timely rewards and recognition.

Even with the budget cuts, the civil service will continue to ensure that it remains an attractive employer. For example, the Public Service Division regularly reviews the civil service's employment terms and conditions to ensure that its compensation and benefits packages are competitive and benchmarked to the private sector. This is to ensure that the Government is able to pay appropriate market salaries to attract top talent where they are needed. I should point out that in maintaining appropriate market salaries, the salaries do go up and down, with the market benchmarks.

These efforts have led to a steady increase in the inflow of mid-career officers from the private sector in recent years. For instance, in the Management Executive Scheme of Service which recruits graduate officers into a variety of jobs in the Ministries, about one third of recruits in 2004 were mid-career officers from the private sector, compared to about 13% in 2000. This trend confirms that the Government is still competitive in attracting good officers, including top talent from the private sector.

I would turn now to the points that Mr Teo has raised. To position itself as an

Column: 1214

attractive employer, the civil service has also introduced a range of employment options such as contract and part-time employment.

Contract employment provides the service with greater flexibility and responsiveness in its manpower management and recruitment strategies. It also provides the individual who seeks employment greater flexibility as well, because he could come in for a term of employment and then choose to do something else later on. This is attractive to many younger people especially. It also allows the ministries to tap on a wider pool of candidates, such as mid-career officers from the private sector, some of whom may prefer the flexibility offered by contract employment.

Currently, Ministries could appoint an officer on contract terms for short-term projects or as a means to assess the suitability of the officer. There is no limit placed on the number of times a contract could be renewed. Contract officers generally enjoy similar salaries and benefits as those of any officer on the permanent establishment doing a similar job. Good officers are usually offered permanent positions after 1-2 years. We do not set any quotas on the number of contract officers who are emplaced on the permanent establishment as this would depend on a number of factors such as the availability of suitable permanent jobs, the officer's employment track record and his suitability for a long-term career with the organisation.

Although contract employment has become more prevalent in the job market, the majority of civil servants are employed in the permanent establishment. The percentage of contract officers in the civil service has remained fairly stable at about only 4% over the past three years. Although at the point of employment, the percentage of contract employees has gone up, many of them are eventually

Column: 1215

absorbed into the permanent establishment after several years.

Mr Teo also spoke about the treatment of part-time officers in the service. Flexible work arrangements like part-time employment allow civil servants to balance their work and their family or other personal commitments. Over the past five years, about 1,000 civil servants have gone on part-time employment. The majority of them are female officers. Let me assure Mr Teo that officers working part-time are treated like their colleagues working full-time. They enjoy the same terms in salaries, benefits and bonuses except that these are pro-rated based on their individual work options. They are assessed no differently from full-time officers and their service is recognised for promotions and service benefits. Upon return to full-time employment, the officer's salary and benefits would be the same as those of similar full-time officers.

On the extension of service beyond retirement, the civil service welcomes and values the contributions of older and retiring civil servants, given their wealth of experience and knowledge.

The service already has a re-employment policy for Ministries to employ retired officers or to extend the services of retiring officers if they are still fit and want to continue working. These officers could be re-employed under a range of flexible work and contract employment schemes. Over the past five years, more than 650 officers have been re-employed or have had their service extended beyond retirement age, either in full-time or part-time positions. These officers are employed in a diverse range of jobs, such as teachers, translators and officers running our juvenile homes. I will be happy to hear any suggestions from Mr Teo or any of the others, and also to see whether the suggestions that come out

Column: 1216

from the Tripartite Committee would be useful for the civil service.

Mr Teo has also made a suggestion to improve the implementation of the Special Gratuity Scheme in the civil service. Mr Teo has explained what the Special Gratuity Scheme is all about. It allows eligible officers who do not have a good job fit and who have reached the ceiling in their careers to leave the organisation, if they so choose. The decision as to whether to take up the programme is entirely up to the officer.

I do agree with Mr Teo that the programme should be implemented with some sensitivity. For this reason, the Public Service Division provides a forum for Ministries to discuss and share good practices. Ministries are also encouraged to communicate the intent of the programme clearly and explain the application process to their officers. Continuing feedback from the unions and other stakeholders will be of benefit to us.

Let me move on to disciplinary proceedings. First, I would like to explain that under the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, the Public Service Commission can interdict a public officer from duty provided that criminal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings are being contemplated against him with a view to his dismissal or retirement in the public interest. Interdiction is, therefore, invoked only in cases where the offences are of a serious nature and the officer's continued presence in office either poses a serious risk to office security, hampers investigation into the case against him, compromises the safety of persons (for example, in the case of school students where the case involves molestation or other immoral behaviour by school staff), or undermines staff morale.

As officers are interdicted only for serious offences and not required to report for work, some part of the officer's

Column: 1217

salary is withheld. In order not to cause undue financial hardship, only up to 50% of an officer's pay would be held back pending the outcome of the case against him. Only upon court conviction would he be put on no pay. If the disciplinary proceedings ultimately do not result in the officer's dismissal or retirement in the public interest or other punishment, he would be refunded the full amount of the emoluments which he would have received had he not been interdicted.

I would like to assure Members that a decision to interdict an officer is taken only after very careful consideration. Over the last three years, of the 372 disciplinary cases completed by the PSC, only 72 were interdiction cases. 71 of these ended up in court conviction or dismissal or retirement in the public interest. Only in one case was the officer reinstated with back-payment of salaries withheld.

PSC is mindful of the fact that the disciplinary process should be efficient, especially in view of the possible financial strain faced by an interdicted public officer. Sometimes, the length of time is because of the investigation process by the various investigation agencies. Regular reviews are carried out to expedite the effective handling of disciplinary cases without compromising the impartiality and rigour of the system. We will continue to see how the process could be carried out more expeditiously.

Role of a Member of Parliament

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I have got a cut on the role of an MP. "Members of Parliament represent the whole community, responsible in the last resort to their own consciences" wrote Professors Waite and Philips in their book "Constitutional Law". This quote is in the context of the English parliamentary system. But, in Singapore, our system is the dominant-party system with an

Column: 1218

"administrative state", according to Chan Heng Chee in her book entitled "The Dynamics of One-Party Dominance - The PAP and the Grassroots". She says that Singapore is an administrative state.

What does this mean? To me, it means that in Singapore's case, due to the ruling party being a one-party government for so long, about 50 years, it has come very close to the civil servants. The civil servants feel obliged to help the PAP readily since it is so close to the ruling party. The implication is that those who are in the PAP or have close connections with them get things done more readily, for example, the allocation of TOL of large pieces of land to the PAP election candidate in my constituency. People who believe in a democratic system of government shall not tolerate this kind of situation because it can be easily abused.

I have got this kind of problem in my constituency. Large pieces of land aforesaid, in my constituency, and choice places for putting up banners, have been allocated to my rival, the PAP election candidate. And, furthermore, Government policies which involve public funds are given to the PAP election candidate to implement at Potong Pasir. I refer to the HDB offering free services to make good spalling concrete.

The information about such free services was told to the PAP candidate but not to the elected MP in the constituency. I came to know of it only at a very late date when the programme was at its tail end.

3.45 pm

With this kind of a situation, I have a fear that my work as an MP shall be hindered. The saga which I am about to cite refers to planting of trees again. I say again, because when I was first elected, the HDB even refused permission for me

Column: 1219

to plant one tree. This time round, residents requested me to plant a row of trees along a footpath linking the MRT station at Upper Serangoon Road to Block 147 at Potong Pasir Avenue 1, to provide a shade for them from the sun. That request was made about six months ago in August 2004.

The Chairman: The timer is flashing, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: After about six months of correspondence and telephone calls, I was told that permission had been granted to the CCC, and the PAP election candidate, as adviser, could plant the trees. To make a long story short, finally, I did plant the trees myself.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, you have asked for four minutes and I have given you four minutes.

Elections Office

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I said it in the last two years' budget debates and I asked for it again at the debate on the President's Address this year, and I still think it is very important for me to raise it again in this year's Budget debate, ie, to have an independent elections commission.

Sir, until our public - local and international communities - can see, agree and be satisfied by an independent elections commission that the general election in Singapore is truly free and fair, we are far from being a vibrant democratic, cosmopolitan, advanced and talent-attracting society.

There is no better way to silence all the critics - myself included - than the setting up of such an independent elections commission, headed by a retired

Column: 1220

Judge and comprising citizens of public repute, like retired CEOs, ex-NMPs, Government and non-Government NMPs.

If the Government is good, and currently it is good, there is no need for it to be afraid of setting up such an independent elections commission to help promote our image as a country with a free and fair elections system. Why the big hesitation?

This lack of an independent impartial referee to oversee our political system is the greatest disgruntlement any Singaporeans have against our Government. By removing itself as the referee when playing in the game, the PAP Government will silence all critics immediately about any unfair electioneering activities and it will win more praises - both locally and internationally.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, I thank Mr Chiam and Mr Steve Chia for raising these two perennial issues and for giving me an opportunity to speak under the PMO Head.

Every year, we have to deal with their pet peeves - one about the role as an MP and the other about an independent elections commission. Mr Chiam cited the British example and talked about the British constitution and about the role of the MP. I am sure he knows that, over the years, we have evolved quite a bit from the British system. The British gave us the Legislative Assembly, and then we turned it into a Parliament when we became independent. Since 1984, we have Mr Chiam as an elected MP from the Opposition. We have Nominated MPs, those seated at the last bench, and Mr Steve Chia as a Non-Constituency MP.

Mr Chiam thinks that by just being an MP, he can do anything he wants in his constituency. I think he probably misunderstood his role as an MP. There

Column: 1221

are duties of an MP which all of us have to fulfil, like looking after our constituents, listening to their complaints, filing petitions for them, writing letters to the authorities, and coming to Parliament to raise issues for residents, issues of national importance, and scrutinise the Bills in Parliament, and then cast their votes accordingly.

Since the late 1980s, we also have a system that allows the MP to run the HDB estates which they are elected in. That is only for HDB estates. The MP does not manage the private estates. In other words, Mr Chiam cannot really do whatever he wants in Sennett Estate.

Mr Chiam talked about the tree that he wanted to plant in 1985 which subsequently, for some reason, disappeared. I do not know what was the cause of its disappearance. Now, he again said that his residents wanted him to plant trees near a footpath on land which is owned by the Government. He thought that it had been unfair that as an MP, he cannot plant a tree. I hope that in his 20 years in Parliament as an MP - or more if he gets elected the next time - he would not just be remembered as an MP who only wants to plant trees for his residents, and is always worried about whether the trees will survive or not.

I wonder if Mr Chiam thinks that he can just do as he pleases to plant a tree in an open space, say, in Sennett Estate, and ask his contractor to plant the tree because the Sennett Estate residents want a tree. I do not think so. He will still need to get approval from the Land Office if the land is owned by the Land Office or get approval from the LTA if it is on LTA land. The piece of land which Mr Chiam talks about belongs to the State and has been leased to the CCC on TOL. Therefore, he should rightfully get the permission of the CCC to plant the trees, which he did not. I think he was advised to do so and he still has not.

Column: 1222

By the way, Mr Sitoh is the adviser. He is not just a PAP candidate defeated by him. Being the adviser of the CCC, he has things to do which include helping the residents, because many of our grassroots organisations also help the residents. For example, during the SARS crisis, we had our grassroots leaders going all out, together with their advisers, whether it is for temperature taking, delivering food or helping those who need assistance during the time when they were quarantined.

Mr Chiam suggests that the HDB should allow him to tell the residents about the spalling concrete repair scheme, I think that is quite another matter. The HDB does not need to tell the MP. The adviser is the one who has been notified by the HDB. Therefore Mr Sitoh asked the residents if they needed help. I suppose Mr Chiam can always work harder so that the residents in Potong Pasir will benefit from the hard work given, by both Mr Chiam and Mr Sitoh. And if Mr Chiam has to work harder because of Mr Sitoh, then so be it. But if he does not want to, then the residents will decide at the next election.

As regards Mr Steve Chia's question on an independent elections commission, he says that we should have one so that we can profile and project ourselves to the world that our election is free and fair. And since we have parliamentary democracy, we must therefore be "seen" to be democratic. I think Mr Steve Chia is probably also aware that our election system has always been free and fair. If not, he would not be here too. And because we have evolved our system to suit our needs, we have even given the opportunity to somebody who had lost the election to speak in this Parliament.

As for Mr Chia's suggestion that the Government is afraid of setting up an elections commission, I do not think so. We just do not think that there is a need for one, and we should not just blindly

Column: 1223

follow what other countries are doing. But if we want to learn from others, we must also choose what is good for us, and we choose wisely what is suitable to our context.

The Elections Department has conducted elections for a long time, I believe, even during the British days. That was how we had the Legislative Assembly. Over all these decades, no one has ever said that the Elections Department has been unfair, even though it is under the Prime Minister's Office. The election rules apply to all candidates, both the ruling party - the PAP - as well as the Opposition. In fact, during election time, I heard my PAP colleagues complain about the Elections Department being too strict on them - getting them to remove posters and telling them not to put up this or that if they did not comply with the election rules.

Singaporeans know that we have a free and transparent election system that is fair, even though elections are organised by civil servants. And to say that civil servants are beholden to the PAP, I think that is an insult to the civil servants who have served the country so efficiently. Our civil service has always been rated to be very good compared to other countries in the world. I think Mr Chia will surely not believe that he had lost unfairly in Chua Chu Kang in the last election because the Elections Department had not been fair to him.

I do not believe that the general election can be more free and fair just by having an independent elections commission. We also know that not all countries with independent elections commission have had elections that were free and fair. In fact, in many countries, there were allegations of fraud and unfair practices, such as ballot box stuffing and vote buying and other kinds of

Column: 1224

malpractices. Indeed, many of these commissions were set up because of allegations of abuse during elections by the political parties. That is not the case in Singapore.

In the past many elections, the fact that 25%-35% of Singaporean voters voted against the PAP showed that they had no fear in doing so. On the other hand, those who supported the PAP testified to the fact that they endorsed what the PAP had been doing, including the holding of free and fair elections. Otherwise,

on such a fundamental matter as choosing their representatives in Parliament, there would be a huge outcry from Singaporeans if election is not free and fair. They would not stand for this, and the PAP would not have been here since 1959.

4.00 pm

What matters is not whether it is an elections department or an independent elections commission. It is the integrity of the electoral system as well as the civil servants and people who run it. Having an independent elections commission does not change anything if officials are corrupt and biased. Our Elections Department is run by civil servants and officials from other Ministries, and they have been doing their job transparently.

We all know that this is not the first time that we hear of calls to set up an independent elections commission and it is also not the last time. I am sure we will hear from Members again in future years, and I look forward to the opportunity to reply.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to clarify?

The Chairman: We have time. Go ahead.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the facts of this tree planting case show that residents

Column: 1225

have requested me to plant the trees. The HDB and/or the CCC had stopped me from doing so as an MP. I think this is an important point. Can anyone stop the MP from doing his legal duties?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, when an illegal act is being done, certainly, it can be stopped. Even for Mr Chiam who, as the MP for Potong Pasir, did something on the property that did not come under his management as a Town Council Chairman, he would not be allowed, and I have just cited the example of Sennett Estate. If there is a piece of land, and Mr Chiam says that his residents have asked him to plant a tree there, I am sure he will be told to remove it because he just cannot, as an MP, do as he pleases.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I would like to clarify my point. It is not that the elections are not free or not fair, but the image that is presented both in Singapore and internationally. We have international bodies coming to understand and study our elections system, and putting up reports saying that the electoral process could be more fair and free. It is the image that we need to project to the world that has to be done. I believe that the setting up of an independent elections commission would address that issue.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Does Mr Chia agree that our elections system is free and fair? I note that he nodded his head. It means he agrees. If it is, then what image are we projecting to the world? It must be that it is a free and fair election system. Right?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: It could be more free and fair.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It is free or fair. It cannot be more free, less free or less fair. It cannot be one way or the other. What are these international bodies coming here to tell us what to do? Maybe Mr Chia can

Column: 1226

tell us what are these independent or international bodies.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I am clarifying that it has to be more fair. If you look at the last general election, the way the electoral boundaries were redrawn and the way the timing was given, all these were explained in the past. But it goes to show that a certain process leading up to the election was not very fair to the non-governing party. So what we are asking for is to make it appear more fair to everybody.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think we are belabouring the point. The fact is that we have an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee that delineates the boundaries, and the Committee comprises senior civil servants who know the profile of the demography of our voters. They have been doing this job for years. As for the last general election, there was not very much time even though the election was supposed to be held much later. But because of some extenuating circumstances, like September 11, we had to hold it immediately after September 11. As a result, the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Committee's Report was not put out to the public with enough notice to the Opposition MPs and others. We will try not to repeat that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, is there time for another clarification?

The Chairman: Yes, please carry on with your clarification, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir. About this tree planting at Potong Pasir, permission was given to the CCC to do so. But permission was not given to the MP to plant the tree. If that is the case, we might as well have the CCC or its adviser run the constituency. Why bother to have elections and elect an MP?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In the first place, Mr Chiam knew that for that piece of

Column: 1227

land, TOL was granted to the CCC. Since TOL was granted to the CCC, and when the CCC wanted to plant the tree, they should be allowed to do so. But Mr Chiam got wind of this and jumped the gun and went to plant the tree. In fact, he instructed his contractor to plant the tree, even though he knew it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It was delayed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He knew that the CCC was going to plant the tree. Right?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: You did not know?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I did not know whether they would do so.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: But did he know that they were going to plant the tree?

Mr Chiam See Tong: They did not say so.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Let me see whether I can find something here.

Mr Chiam See Tong: They did say that they were going to plant a tree.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: This letter was dated 18th October 2004, addressed to Mr Chiam See Tong, as Member for Potong Pasir. This letter was written by the Director, Property and Land Department of HDB, and, of course, it referred to Mr Chiam's request to plant a tree. It said that, "The footpath linking Blk 147 at Potong Pasir MRT Station was constructed by the LTA in August 2003, in response to the request from the Potong Pasir CCC and residents. As a follow-up programme, the CCC plans to plant trees and install lightings along the footpath. The project is likely to be implemented shortly." Did Mr Chiam see this letter?

Column: 1228

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Therefore, he jumped the gun.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, they had not done so.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Did they give Mr Chiam any right to jump the gun?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It did not. I am glad he recognises this fact.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, there is still some time. Would I be allowed to seek a clarification from the Minister?

The Chairman: Yes, a short one.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. The Minister has said that we have free and fair elections. Would he clarify or elaborate on what account or basis he said that we have free and fair elections, especially in relation to (1) how do the Serial Nos. on the ballot papers ensure a free and fair election; (2) how does redrawing of boundary without consultation with the Opposition constitute a fair and free election?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have also explained on many occasions the reasons for having the Serial Nos. on the ballot papers. The Serial Nos. on the ballot papers are to make sure that in the event there is an election petition saying that there is fraud, then we can always apply to the High Court for a court order and open the ballot boxes for inspection. Supposing there are 20,000 voters but 22,000 votes were cast, then obviously somewhere 2,000 votes were slipped in. If there is no Serial No., how are we to determine which is a genuine one and which is not? We have very good reasons why we have the Serial Nos. Nobody has

Column: 1229

ever said that they are afraid of the Serial Nos. and therefore afraid to vote against the PAP. The fact that 25% to 35% of voters voted against the PAP in every election and the fact that they voted for Mr Low, Mr Chiam and, in the past, two other candidates also showed that they were not afraid of the Serial Nos. appearing on the ballot papers.

On redrawing of boundaries without consultation with the Opposition, the Committee also did not consult the PAP either.

The Chairman: Dr Ahmad and Mr Teo, do you have any clarifications to ask? No? Yes, Mr Chia.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, the Minister replied that the last election was supposed to be much later but, because of 911, the Government felt there was an urgent need to call the election earlier. Because they took into consideration that it was to their advantage to call the election earlier without reference or due consideration to the Opposition's position. That was very unfair to us - to have the election immediately after the boundaries were announced when Parliament was dissolved.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Chiam just now cited the British constitutional law and British parliamentary practice. Maybe Mr Chia can take a lesson from Mr Chiam since they are both in the same party, the SDA, and he would have learned that under the British parliamentary system, the Prime Minister has the prerogative to call an election any time.

The Chairman: I think we have enough. Dr Ahmad Magad, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Sir, I would like to thank both the Minister for Defence and Minister for Home Affairs for their very comprehensive and penetrating

Column: 1230

answers to the questions and clarifications requested by Members. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $151,115,490 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $58,580,300 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.