HEAD F - PARLIAMENT

Column No : 733

Sitting resumed at 2.45 pm

[

Mr Speaker in the Chair: ]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[

Mr Speaker in the Chair: ]

Head F - Parliament

The Chairman: Head F - Parliament. Mr Steve Chia.

First Reading of Bills

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.

Sir, the current Parliament's practice is for the Minister to introduce a Bill, or Bills, or its amendments at the First Reading. He will then speak and explain his reasoning for the proposed Bill or amendments at the Second Reading, followed by comments from MPs before summing up to reply to any questions raised by the MPs.

Sometimes, and often enough, Members, the press and the general public cannot grasp the essence of the proposed Bills presented and the important key features and highlight of the Bills and/or the amendments would be lost in the text. This is especially so if it comes in a thick stack of papers and is very technical in nature, which some Bills are. This past practice handicaps comprehensive debate and the gathering of effective feedback for the Minister and his Ministry.

Recent Bills passed by Parliament, after the Second and Third Readings, without comprehensive debate nor feedback caused several controversies and unhappiness with the general public. One such Bill was the transfer of assets from the reserves to the statutory board without going through the President. The MOF had to come out and explain many times over several papers after the Bill was passed. Yet, the public is still unsatisfied about the clarification.

Another was the appointment of a CEO for MUIS by the Minister for Muslim Affairs. There were a lot of unhappiness and allegations that this Bill was bulldozed through by the Minister without much debate and consultation with the community and no opportunity for them to provide effective feedback before the Bill was passed into law.

Sir, my proposal is to amend the Standing Orders so that the Minister will speak and address the House upon the presentation of the Bill at the First Reading. This will allow Members, the media and the public to pick up the important points that the Minister wants to highlight. Public comments and effective feedback can then be sought by Members and the media before the Bill is read again at the Second Reading. This suggestion is just like what the Finance Minister had been doing with the Budget Speech all along, giving time for his ideas to be digested and feedback sought before it is debated. Such a practice will encourage more effective and focused debate at its Second Reading and not allowed the Bills to be constantly passed through without any Backbenchers speaking on it, just like what we have been saying of late.

More importantly, Sir, members of the public would not be caught by surprise when some of the controversial Bills are passed through without their better understanding and Members of Parliament are accused of sleeping through the Bill and debate. I hope Mr Speaker will agree and institute this new practice for the good of our Parliament and everyone here as soon as possible.

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Steve Chia has asked that the Ministers should speak at the First Reading of the Bill and his reason for asking for this to be done is that he can better understand why the Bill is introduced when it is read the first time.

Sir, currently the objective of every Bill is stated at the end of the Bill. There is an Explanatory Statement in the Bill and this statement states the purpose of each section or amendment and whether public monies will be spent as a result of the Bill. So Members do have a good idea as to why the Bill is introduced at its First Reading.

In some cases, like the Casino Control Bill, for example, information is also set out in the Bill, giving the legislative origins or the history of the provisions. For Bills which have a significant public impact and, I think, this is what Mr Steve Chia was referring to when he said that there is not enough time being given, the public consultation exercise is usually conducted on the intended provisions of the Bill and this is undertaken by the Ministry in charge before it is introduced in the House. I can cite some recent examples. We had the Parks and Trees Bill and the Competition Bill in 2004, the Workplace Safety and Health Bill, the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill and the Deposit Insurance Bill in 2005. In fact, I recall that most of the MAS' Bills which are, by nature, very technical, are given a round of public consultation before they are introduced.

This consultation process generates the publicity and the awareness of the proposed legislation and its policy directives. In some instances, the Ministries concerned also put up a statement to give more details of the Bill before the Second Reading. So, from this, one can see that sufficient information is already provided on the purposes and scope of the Bill at the First Reading. What Members should do is to look at the details of the Bill, do their homework, study the Bill carefully, research the matters brought up in the Bill so that they can be well prepared when they finally come to Parliament to speak after they hear the Minister's Second Reading.

Sufficient time is also given to Members to examine the Bill in detail before its Second Reading. Why? Because the Standing Orders stipulate that there must be at least seven clear days after the Bill is gazetted before its Second Reading. Usually, in our case, because Parliament sits on average every month, there is, in fact, much more than the seven clear days that is stipulated in the Standing Orders. At the Second Reading, the Minister would make his speech to elaborate on the Bill, then the debate follows and Members can make their views known and question the Minister on specific aspects of the Bill.

Sir, the current practice has served us well. It is also the practice in the British House of Commons and other Commonwealth Parliaments in Canada, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, to name a few. There is no need to change this practice.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification, Sir. The current Bill has served us well in the past, but apparently it has not served well because there have been complaints that Bills are passed through without any debate in Parliament, as two of the examples I quoted were not effectively debated. So what is the problem with us changing the practice so that we can actually make Parliament even more effective and the Bills are even more publicised by the media and more feedback can be gathered before it has been passed into law? If it is a good practice, we should change it.

The Chairman: Mr Mah, you have got one minute.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, this is the first time that I have heard that there are people complaining that we do not debate Bills thoroughly in Parliament. As I explained, before the Bill is read the first time, or when it is presented to Parliament, and before it is gazetted, there are explanatory notes being given. In fact, in the case of the Casino Control Bill, which is a very complicated Bill and, as Mr Steve Chia noted just now, it is actually a huge stack, the Ministry in charge, the Ministry of Home Affairs, actually provided a lot of explanatory notes, provisions, explaining why the various clauses are drafted as such. It is during this time that public feedback and consultation are sought, and Members can actually go through these notes and make reference to them to prepare for debate on the Bill. So it is not correct to say that there is no time given or there is not enough information given as to the contents of the Bill.

I think what the Member is probably commenting on is that the Bills that are put to Parliament are actually passed and not that there is not enough debate. In fact, most of the Bills, controversial Bills particularly, see extensive debate in this House, not just from Members of the Opposition and the Non-Constituency MPs, but also from the PAP Members of this House. So I dare say that if the PAP Members can take the trouble and the effort to do their homework and come up with very cogent, relevant and useful points for the Minister to consider, I do not see why other Members cannot do the same.

The Chairman: Mr Chia, are you withdrawing the amendment? It is guillotine time already. For this amendment it is ten minutes only.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Although I disagree with the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $25,532,770 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,827,100 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.