HEAD F - PARLIAMENT

Column: 1708

_

Head F - Parliament: _

MPs' Allowances

**__ Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong ** : Sir, I beg to move,

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

Mr Chairman, Sir, one of the key duties of a Member of Parliament is to represent his constituents and speak up in

Column: 1709

Parliament. They must be prepared and able to have the time and opportunity to ask questions and speak on topics and issues concerning their residents and affecting Singapore.

Yet, this ability to speak and ask questions is continuously being restricted by the Parliamentary Standing Orders. First, the right to ask oral and written questions is being curbed to a total of three plus two (maximum). Then, the right and the time given to raise matters at the Committee of Supply is also restricted to 18 minutes for us.

The use of the simple average of 18 minutes for this Committee of Supply debate and five questions in total for oral and written questions is limiting the ability of MPs who are harder at Parliamentary work and more willing to take their work more seriously to speak up and ask more questions than some others.

It is terrible to read that the number of cuts filed by MPs has dropped by 65% because of this time limit imposed and that the largest number of cuts on a Ministry dropped drastically from 104 last year to only 29 this year. There are MPs who would have submitted more cuts and asked more questions than others who would not even have been actively seen in Parliament. Using this important average ratio of the active and inactive MPs forces the active and outspoken MPs to become mediocre and less active in their duties. This is not good for their track records.

If the speaking and questioning rights of MPs are being reduced through restrictions in the Standing Orders, and their effectiveness to perform that duty is being reduced accordingly, I would suggest that Parliamentarians' and Ministerial allowance, by the same argument, should be reduced accordingly. Instead of taking the average of the top-earners in the top six professions, they should adopt this simple formula used

Column: 1710

here. Just take the simple average of the earnings of Singaporeans and pay a simple average to the Ministers and civil servants. Whereas this is not the case, I hope that the Parliamentary Standing Orders Committee would use a more equitable formula in allocating more speaking time for active MPs than taking the simple average of the total time used divided by the total number of MPs.

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Steve Chia's premise is that, first of all, the speaking and questioning rights of MPs have been reduced through the changes in the Standing Orders and, therefore, correspondingly, the MPs' allowance should be reduced. He has made two points which are both wrong.

First, is his contention that the speaking and questioning rights of MPs have been reduced. It has not been reduced and I will explain why. If he recalls, last year, in Parliament, we had an exercise to update the rules of Parliament and this was to bring it in line with other parliaments and jurisdictions. One of the things we reviewed was the number of questions, both oral and written, that a Member could ask at one sitting. As part of this exercise, we looked at the practice of other Parliaments - Lok Sabha in India, the Canadian Parliament, the Malaysian Dewan. We saw that these parliaments all have different limits on the number of questions, ranging from three to five questions per Member per sitting. This idea of a limit on the number of questions is not something exceptional. It is not something that we cooked up. In our case, we looked at the number of questions that were asked over the last couple of years and the Committee decided to recommend to Parliament that there be a limit of five questions, oral and written, per Member per sitting. This was a reasonable figure, and Parliament approved it.

Column: 1711

Sir, this move does not in any way reduce the speaking rights of MPs. In fact, apart from asking questions for oral answer or submitting questions for written answer, there are many other things that Members of Parliament can do. They can move substantive motions, raise adjournment motions, ie, they can raise a matter upon the adjournment of Parliament, debate on Bills, and introduce cuts during Committee of Supply debates.

Indeed, the implementation of this new procedure of allocating speaking time to Ministers and MPs during the debate in this Committee of Supply which we have seen, has ensured that we all have sufficient time to make our points without being guillotined. It has also provided time for Members to question Frontbenchers, and to seek clarifications on certain issues that have not been addressed and needed to be addressed. This has made the debate in this sitting a much better debate, both in substance and in style. I do not see any Member of Parliament having insufficient time to raise his point, even though he may have had a limited time to make his cut. There has been sufficient time set aside after the Minister, the Minister of State or Senior Parliamentary Secretary has spoken, for clarifications to be made. In fact, not all the time that has been allocated has been used up. That is the reason why we are running so far ahead of schedule. There is no excuse whatsoever for the NCMP not to raise his point or to make his clarification.

Now, with the new system, we have more opportunities for Members to speak. We have more opportunities for them to question and comment on Government policies and issues of concern of their constituents.

Therefore, I totally disagree with Mr Steve Chia that the amendment to the Standing Orders that we introduced last

Column: 1712

year has curtailed, in any way, the Members' effectiveness in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

On the question of MPs' allowances, Mr Steve Chia must know that the elected MPs' responsibilities are more than just in Parliament. They have to look after the interests of their constituents in Parliament by speaking up on their behalf, but also in their constituencies, through the various activities that they organise - mobilising their constituents, explaining Government policies and, in general, making sure that their constituents have a good standard of living and a better quality of life.

The MPs' allowance and the honorarium are meant for MPs to meet part of their expenses in the course of these duties. Non-constituency MPs like Mr Steve Chia, of course, do not have any such responsibilities to look after their constituents. So if there is any reduction in MPs' allowance, I guess it could conceivably apply to NCMPs.

Generally, Mr Chairman, Sir, I cannot see any correlation between the amending of the Standing Orders last year and the allowance that is paid to MPs.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I note that the Opposition MPs have two extra minutes than the PAP MPs except for GPC Chairmen. Can I ask why is Parliament being more generous to the Opposition MPs in terms of giving them two minutes more than the rest of us?

Secondly, if the law of averages is to be applied in terms of the number of cuts given, it could be argued that a logical conclusion would be to cut the allowance of Opposition MPs because the PAP MPs have filed more cuts on average a year than the Opposition MPs.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I guess the real answer is that we have

Column: 1713

always tended to bend over backwards to give the Opposition MPs a chance to be heard in Parliament. After all, there are only two elected Opposition Members and one NCMP.

I guess other Members would not mind if we give them two minutes extra to say what they have to say.

1.15 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I have a few points of clarification. First of all, how could Parliament break the rules just to favour us? Rules are rules and they have to be followed. How could the rules be broken just in favour of us as the Opposition? That is the first point.

Secondly, a point of clarification, the extra two minutes that have been given to me is, I suppose, because I moved the cut as the only person speaking on this head. That is to answer Ms Irene Ng.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what weightage of work is accorded between parliamentary duties and constituency work. As it is, the NCMP and NMPs are only paid 15% of what elected MPs are paid. Effectively, you are saying that constituency work is 85% more important than parliamentary work. Is that how Parliament accords the responsibility?

Next clarification: why choose countries that are in favour of limiting the time? There are so many other countries that do not have ---

The Chairman: Mr Chia, we are supposed to end at 1.20 pm. I suggest you leave some time for the reply.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I just want to ask the question: why are the countries selected in favour of limiting time when there are many others who do not have such restrictions? While there is

Column: 1714

sufficient time given for MPs to talk about their cuts, there are not enough cuts, in the first place, to go around. That is why we have too much time and we are trying to fill up so much time now.

The Chairman: I do not think we have time any more. Let Mr Mah reply first. You have got five minutes.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I notice that you have been very generous with the NCMP, giving him sufficient time to speak.

The Chairman: I am.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: In fact, I have to rush my answer now, looking at the clock.

Sir, the NCMP made a few points. I think one of the questions he asked was what is the proportional value of the time that MPs spend in Parliament versus the time spent in the constituency. I think it is a very difficult question to answer. But let me say this. If the MP does not do his work in the constituency and if he does not convince his constituents that he is worthy of their support and be their representative in Parliament, there would be no time spent in Parliament, to speak of, because he would not be elected. So, he should tell me what is the relative value of work done in the constituency versus work done in Parliament. I think he will know the answer for that, and that is the reason why he is the NCMP and not the elected MP.

Sir, why do we choose Parliaments that have limits? The answer is a very simple one. We have looked at all the practices of various other jurisdictions. Some of them have limits and some of them do not. We feel that, in our case, it is relevant for us to have a limit and that is the reason why we have chosen those particular parliaments. The issue is not

Column: 1715

whether there is a limit or not. The issue is really what is a reasonable number. Having looked at the practice of other parliaments and at our own record, how much time our MPs take and how many questions they file, we have arrived at a standard for us. This is something that we feel is reasonable and I think Members of Parliament have not been constrained in any way. I do believe they will continue to exercise their responsibilities seriously, effectively and adequately in Parliament with the new Standing Orders in the same way that the new format for debate in the Committee of Supply has, as I said earlier, made for a much better informed and more robust debate in Parliament. I think all of us have been the better for it.

The Chairman: It is guillotine time. Mr Steve Chia, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I thought the guillotine time is at 2.00 o'clock.

The Chairman: If you read the guidelines for the new system, the guillotine time has been moved forward.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, as you have requested.