Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 20.
“Yes. Only a few banks, we are very sure that they are at fault. But the other banks, we have to wait for the Court. That is what I get from the Minister. Because if that is not the case, then today, you can tell me what are the total fines imposed on our banks already. Am I right?”
“First of all, Speaker, Sir, I did not say that our banks have facilitated money laundering. The Minister has said something that bordered on that implication. What I am saying is, with all the good intentions and measures that our banks have taken and MAS has asked our banks to take, we still landed with this case. We have to demonstrate to our gatekeepers – most of our gatekeepers are the banks – that they must do their job properly. They must continue to do their job properly. In relation to the amount of money that has come into our system and the potential amount of profits that the banks can make from it, we must have penalties that are proportional to the potential profits that can be made if in the future, the verdict of the case has come out and it is demonstrated that some of the banks have been short on their anti-money laundering measures. This is what I want to say. What I take from the Minister today is that so far, only a few banks have —”
“Sir, I have to clarify some of the things that the Minister has said.”
“Sir, I think what the Minister just said hits at the heart of our discussion today. When you want to uphold zero tolerance in money laundering, of course, you have to suppress the profit motive of the people involved. Although the $1.45 billion does not belong to the bank, but the fact is that $2.8 billion has been placed in our system and most of it is in the banking system. And now, the Minister has given me the information that $1.45 billion is still in the banking system at the moment. Maybe now, we have frozen the funds so the funds cannot be used by the banks anymore. But in the process of allowing these funds to come into our banking system, that is a huge amount of money the banks have made. If we do not take away that amount of money, that means if we impose a fine on them equivalent to the amount of money that they have made – maybe that is not in line with international standards, then we can adjust it a bit – but in terms of the amount of money that we are talking about in this case that has come into our banking system, do you know how much money the banks potentially have been making? You cannot say that these are two different issues. It reflects that the regulators do not appreciate that this is the way that the bank makes money, with this whole thing. I would like to clarify, is that what you are trying to say?”
“Sir, can I clarify with Minister Josephine then what is the total amount of fines imposed on our banks so far?”
“Sir, I like to seek further clarification from the Minister of State on the fines imposed on banks so far. Can I clarify that the Minister of State is of the opinion that our current regime, at the moment, we have only imposed $3.8 million fine on the banks, compared to the $1.45 billion deposits that are already in the system, is according to international standard?”
“Yes, Sir. What I mean is that the banks currently already share client credit information on the Credit Bureau. So, that is already sharing of client's information. So, what is the problem of introducing COSMIC to share information that may be related to the money laundering activities?”
“Sir, I have two questions for Minister of State Alvin Tan arising from some of his answers to the supplementary questions. I would like to seek further clarifications. One, Minister Josephine Teo mentioned that $3.8 million of fines had been imposed on three banks. I take it that those are the only fines imposed so far. The question I want to ask the Minister of State is: is this penalty proportional to the amount of profit that the banks can make on the $1.45 billion which is still in the bank account? Second question: with regard to the introduction of the COSMIC system, why should there be a problem with client confidentiality when the banks already share clients' credit data on the Credit Bureau?”
“Sir, thank you. I have three questions for Minister Indranee. The first question is: how did the 10 offenders and their associates manage to buy so many properties? Over a hundred properties were bought by them. How many of the associates were also involved? The second question: while it is reported that there are more than 120 properties identified with the syndicate, why were there only 94 prohibition orders issued on the properties? The third question: are there any landed properties on mainland Singapore among the non-prohibited properties?”
“Yes. Can I clarify for the Minister that I am asking for specific amount of cash reported by the IRs, reported by the banks and reported by the property companies in the STR system?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions: one for Minister Josephine Teo and one for Minister Indranee Rajah. For Minister Josephine, can I ask, based on the investigations so far, how was the $2.8 billion of funds placed in our system? For example, how much was through our banking system and how much was through cash and then how much through other channels? For Minister Indranee, may I ask, just now she answered the question on the cash transactions, although she said it is not appropriate to impose a quantum on the amount of cash to be used in transactions but I used to run a stockbroking company in Singapore, I can declare, and we report suspicious transactions as well. So, can I ask Minister Indranee, so far what was the maximum amount of cash that was reported by the institutions – whether financial institutions or whether the integrated resorts (IRs) or public companies – the highest amount of cash transaction reported by IRs, banks and property companies through the suspicious transaction reporting system.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Leader. The purpose of PSP raising this Motion is to ensure we are consistent in terms of when we are advocating high salaries for our public office holders. Because we are advocating that high salaries will lead to being corruption-free. So, after we have established that, we also have to ensure that the high salaries go to deserving people. In this case, I am interested in what the Leader has said towards the end of her closing speech just now. The Leader mentioned about the possibility of clawback and we have also recommended back pay. The problem of our legislation today is that it does not provide for clawback or back pay of the high salaries that we are paying our public office holders. So, if the Leader can confirm that we are going to have a Bill in the future to ensure that that legislation is also in place, then I think PSP can reconsider many of our positions with regard to this Motion.”
“The PSP would also like to urge Parliament to move or agree to the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and myself, and amend the 1962 Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in order to ensure that Parliament has the right to back pay Minister Iswaran while he is absolved and when he resumes his public duties. The PSP has tabled this Motion for the for the amendment Bill because we truly want to improve our system, and this is valid, reasonable and in accordance with the laws. We hope that all Parliamentarians can understand our intention and provide full support. (In English): I support the Motion moved by Ms Hazel Poa. For country, for people.”
“This means that the annual payout could be up to S$192,500 in terms of MP allowances and it comes from the public coffers, and it is the taxpayers who are actually contributing to the public coffers. The Government has the responsibility to prudently use the taxpayers' money and it has the obligation to prevent taxpayers' money from being abused or misused. To that end, the PSP disagrees with the Motion from the Leader of the House and is unable to agree or accept that arrangement. The PSP believes that if Minister Iswaran is eventually found to be not guilty of corruption, then taxpayers, due to the restrictions of the current laws, would not be able to recover or claw back the money that has been paid out. But if we do not claw it back, that means that taxpayers, during the period through which a person is being investigated of a corruption have, for no reason, paid a large sum of money to this person under corruption charges. We are talking about a sum of $16,000 per month. That is not a small amount. From the Ministry of Manpower, we can understand that there are so many Singaporeans who are working diligently and contributing their labour and effort, and, despite that, their household income is below that of $16,000. Of course, the PSP also wants to seriously proclaim that we believe that before Minister Iswaran is proven to be guilty by the Court, he is innocent. Suspending his duties and allowance are but temporary. If he is found to be not guilty eventually, then we should, when the whole investigation is completed, repay him the MP allowance. The PSP would like to say that for taxpayers and Minister Iswaran, there should be a fair approach. And that is why we are tabling this Motion today to suspend his duties and MP allowance for the time being.”
“Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support my colleague Ms Hazel Poa's Motion today. The Progressive Singapore Party (PSP), tabling this Motion today, that is of historic significance, which is to uphold the zero-tolerance approach that our nation has towards corruption. For many years, the People's Action Party (PAP) government has been telling Singaporeans we must provide high pay to Ministers and Parliamentarians in order to ensure that the Government maintains its fairness and incorruptibility. The PSP agrees with paying people well to maintain corruptibility, but we also believe that when a Minister or Parliamentarian is being investigated for corruption and when this investigation or criminal case has not been ended yet, they should be suspended from their duties, or they should stop receiving such high pay for the time being. If the Parliamentarian or Minister were to be decided to be acquitted and to be guilt-free, then the full amount of the pay due to him during the unpaid leave period should be paid back. The Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah, today also raised a Motion and it requires that Parliament awaits the result of Minister Iswaran's case to be out before we make a decision on this. If Parliament were to choose to agree with that Motion and to reject the Motion from the PSP, then what is, in fact, happening is that we are maintaining the status quo; which means that Minister Iswaran, during this period of investigation when he is on leave, he will continue to receive more than $16,000 every month in terms of Member of Parliament’s (MP) subsidies or allowance until the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has completed the investigation into him.”
“Mr Speaker, can I pose one supplementary question to the Minister? Given that we are going to implement the Majulah Package, this will lead to the beefing up of the CPF Retirement Account for the lower-income Singaporeans. Given that, will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reconsider its policy stance with regard to increasing the $5,000 withdrawal for the lower-income CPF account holders? Given that besides retirement, many Singaporeans would also like to realise some of their lifetime ambition, some of the things they like to do, at the age of 55. So, in line with the inflation that we have experienced over the last few decades, the $5,000 withdrawal amount appears to be too small. So, will MOM reconsider that amount?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify that you also agree that rent control was never said by me?”
“Yes. Because "rent control" is a very strong word.”
“I understand that Mr Speaker, Sir. Can I direct a question to you and the question is for hon Member Mr Murali Pillai.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for indulging me. I will respect your decision, your ruling. But I want to have the opportunity to ask hon Member Mr Murali Pillai a question. Is that okay?”
“Speaker, Sir, so, can I confirm that if afterwards we have confirmed that I did not say that I am asking for lower rent, I am just talking of general approach, Member Murali will apologise to me and correct his statement? Member Murali, can I ask whether you will commit to that?”
“Sir, thank you for your indulgence. I want to clarify here, I never in my speech, mentioned I am asking for lower rent.”
“Sir, what I am trying to clarify and I insist that the Member clarifies that. From what I say, I do not like the inference that he has made, that I am trying to recommend pushing down the rent and towards the direction of rent control and, as a result, it will affect the desire, the motivation of the landlords in Singapore to make further investment in property and all that. I think this is too much of inference. And I am trying to quote that what I say, for example, in jobs, the Government tried to label me as xenophobic. When I talk about lower housing prices, the Government said I am trying to raid the reserves. This is the same pattern of what the Member Mr Murali is trying to do here, in my opinion.”
“Speaker, Sir, I think that explanation is still not enough. You must be very clear that I did not say that I am advocating rent control. Because what you are trying to say is actually, sorry, it is actually quite similar to what the Government has always been saying with regard to what I recommend in this House. When I talk about we should not encourage too much property speculation; with this Bill, we can have more control over the big property landlord, you say I am advocating, you say what I am saying is going to lead to rent control. That is very dangerous. Just like whenever I said about protecting the jobs of Singaporeans, the Government accused — 4.20 pm”
“Thank you, Sir. Can I ask the Member again? What you have said is actually a very dangerous inference into what I say. I think I would ask you to retract what you have said. Because I have actually agreed with this Bill. And the direction that the Government has taken in this Bill, I totally agree with. It is something that is quite rare, actually, that I agree with the direction of the Government. But for this Bill, I also agree. I am also very happy with you. But I did not say that I am asking for lower rents. I am just saying that, in general, we should not encourage too much property speculation and we should not encourage a rent-seeking economy or society. So, you should not bring what I said in my speech to that conclusion. It is very unfair for the inference that you have made. Can you clarify that?”
“Thank you, Sir. Perhaps Member Murali is too happy with this Bill. If I hear correctly, he mentioned that I recommended rent control in my speech. Is that what you mean? I did not say that.”
“The House should note that even under the proposed legislation, landlords are still allowed to impose such rental computation structures provided there is mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant. We call on the Government to consider asserting its influence and encourage FTIC to outlaw such rental computation structures altogether in the next iteration of the code of conduct. The Bill gives teeth and enforcement power to the code of conduct by enshrining it in law and obliging all retail landlords in Singapore to come on board. However, more work needs to be done to reduce rent seeking in the retail sector in Singapore. Singapore needs more innovation and entrepreneurial spirit to continue competing effectively with the rest of the world in the Information Age. Such innovation and entrepreneurship are unlikely to be forthcoming if the business environment in Singapore favours rent-seeking property owners. High rents also limit wage growth for local workers and perpetuate the need to bring in cheaper foreign workers in order to maintain profit margins for entrepreneurs. Small business owners in Singapore face a multitude of challenges, such as the rising costs of goods, utilities and labour, which have not abated since the pandemic ended. A reset of our current policies is needed to create an environment that is more favourable for small businesses to ensure that jobs are created and our economy remains vibrant for many years to come. Singapore does not need an economy with high property prices and high rents but a dearth of innovation and creativity. Addressing the power imbalance between retail landlords and tenants is only a small step in that direction. Much needs to be done. Mr Speaker, the PSP supports the Bill.”
“My colleague Ms Hazel Poa and I have spoken in this House many times before about the need to curb excessive property speculation and rein in property prices and rental in Singapore. For example, during the housing debate in February this year, I said, "The more important property investment and speculation become in an economy, the more likely that economy will become less competitive because property speculation and rent seeking are easier and better alternatives to innovation and entrepreneurship." This also means that the total factor productivity of Singapore will remain low – an issue which we have debated during the National Productivity Fund (Amendment) Bill just now. While I was talking about residential property previously, the same thing applies to the commercial property market in Singapore, where we also see the emergence of a rentier economy. The power balance has always been tilted in favour of landlords because there is a limited pool of landlords that tenants in the retail sector can choose their rent from, given the many shopping malls that are now owned by commercial real estate investment trusts (REITs). For many years, these big institutional landlords have had the market power to extract rent from tenants through unfair rent structures, such as charging tenants a base rent or a percentage of gross sales, whichever is higher. This rent computation structure means that landlords enjoy the good times as rent increases in tandem with sales and are still protected during bad times as tenants must continue to pay the base rent to the landlords. Even large retail and F&B chains must play by these rules, not to mention SMEs in the retail sector. Such rental computation structures sap the vitality of the retail and F&B sectors in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill being debated today will make it mandatory for retail lease contracts to comply with the code of conduct for leasing of retail premises in Singapore. It seeks to level the playing field between landlords and tenants of retail premises in Singapore. The Bill is a step in the right direction and I commend the Government for this. Among other things, under the code of conduct, retail landlords will no longer be allowed to include clauses in leases to force tenants to pay for unspecified costs. Landlords and tenants will both have the right to pre-terminate the lease, unlike previously, when only landlords typically had this right. Landlords can also no longer include exclusivity clauses that restrict tenants from opening another outlet within a certain radius unless there is mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord. An affordable dispute resolution process will also be set up to mediate disputes between tenants and landlords. All these will strengthen SMEs in the retail and F&B sectors in Singapore, which, for too long, had been at the mercy of landlords. Rent accounts for more than 25% of the cost of doing business in the retail and F&B sectors. For many years, SME tenants have borne the brunt of unfair leasing practices by landlords who have taken advantage of them. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, there were many cases of landlords refusing to reduce the rent while their tenants were in dire straits or failing to pass down savings from property tax rebates to their tenants. This Bill is, therefore, an encouraging first step to create fairer and more equitable leasing practices in the retail sector.”
“Sir, on the ground, we have received a lot of feedback or complaints by drivers or hirers and also from commuters about the condition of the point-to-point transport in Singapore. So, I would like to ask, based on the understanding of the Minister of State, what has been the trend of fares, waiting times and the drivers' or hirers' income over the last three to five years?”
“Sir, thank you. Can I ask the Minister of State what will be the further actions taken with regard to this acquisition? For example, we all know that this acquisition is likely to have a great impact on the livelihood of about 100,000 taxi drivers and driver hirers. So, did the Ministry conduct any study on what has been the impact of Grab's acquisition of Uber on fares, waiting time for commuters and the income of driver hirers and taxi drivers? That is the first question. Did the Ministry do any survey on all these things and what has been the impact? So, that will become a consideration in assessing this acquisition. The second question is: given that Grab already controls 75% of the current private ride hailing market and we know that the taxi and PHP markets are actually like part and parcel of one another already as the development of the market continues. So, since Grab is already holding 75% of the market – of course, I may be jumping the gun a little bit – but does the Minister of State think that that will be taken into consideration very seriously by CCCS?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we register our dissent.”
“The evolution, from having a non-partisan Speaker to a backbencher Speaker to Speakers who were ex-office holders or members of the PAP’s CEC, has caused many Singaporeans to question the independence and impartiality of the Speaker’s office over the past 50 plus years. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that being simultaneously the Speaker and a CEC member of the ruling party is contradictory. Hence, we urge that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. We are glad to see that the new Speaker is not a PAP CEC member. As Singapore's democracy matures and the number of opposition MPs increases, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again like before. This will reflect progress in our democratic system and reverse the retrogressive practice of the PAP when appointing the Speaker over the past 50 plus years. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, under your leadership, we look forward to this House being a fairer arena for all. We have spent much Parliamentary time debating the issues and concerns of Singaporeans. They have arisen from the recent spate of unfortunate events. It is my hope that in the coming months, there will be no more such events and this House can refocus our attention to the more important issues faced by Singaporeans, such as the rising cost of living, price and availability of public housing, economic uncertainty and job insecurity. 7.07 pm”
“This is a very important Motion, because Parliament sits at the apex of our democratic system, and the Speaker should be independent when presiding over Parliament proceedings and enforcing the Standing Orders to ensure that debates are carried out orderly. In carrying out his duties, he must be impartial and treat Members of Parliament (MPs) from different parties equally. He must be like a judge and be fair in executing Parliamentary procedures. We should learn from the recent incidents and find ways to plug the gaps, perfect the system and grow in the future. When we review the role of the Speaker over the years, we noticed that, compared to pre-Independence days, the impartiality and independence of the Speaker had changed quietly. Since the People's Action Party (PAP) dominated Parliament, the office of Speaker has evolved from being occupied by a non-partisan person to a senior PAP member. Before 1970, all Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession. Except for a brief period between 1963 and 1964 when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were non-partisan. However, in 1970, when Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, a PAP member and non-lawyer, became the Speaker, this convention changed. I want to point out that this happened incidentally after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 election. Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessor had also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, although they held a politically neutral position, they were also at the power centre of the ruling party.”
“These are all just incremental changes, and the Government can actually consider this and allow our Parliament to move closer to a fairer arena for all. Hence, my Motion is meant to be a first step towards an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fairer arena for all. The amended Motion on the other hand is re-affirming the status quo and just sticking to what is more of the same. And I have been debating in this House for the last three years that we cannot be just having the status quo. We have to move on. Times have changed; the environment in the world has changed. So, why are we just sticking to the old rules, in many aspects of our Government? So, I view the two Motions as one. My Motion as a Motion with a dream, an objective that in the future, we can have a have a better Parliament. So, I hope this House will support my Motion. Ultimately, the best solution to making our Parliament a fairer arena for all is to have at least one-third or 33% alternative MPs in this House, commensurate with the percentage of votes that alternative parties have already won among Singaporeans. The PAP Government does not need a super majority of about 90% to govern effectively, but such a super majority prevents the views and opinions of tens of thousands of loyal Singaporeans from being adequately represented in this House. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Dear fellow Singaporeans, today, we concluded the debate on the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial.”
“So, the Motion is meant to propose a gradual process. As a result, we brought out the historical examples. And at the same time, we had just proposed that for the time being, Government, please ensure that the Speaker does not belong to the central committee of the ruling party. That is a small step. Of course, as our democracy develops and more and more members from different parties come into Parliament, then we can think of reverting to a situation whereby we have a totally independent Speaker. That is an ideal idea that PSP is trying to put forward with this Motion. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. For it to function properly, the Members, processes and proceedings must all work towards promoting an environment where open, substantive and thorough debates can take place. Well, I do not wish to go too much into Speaker Tan's case, actually, but just now I think what we have seen is that there are certain rules that this House has that has just prevented this Motion to be debated in a more open, substantive and thorough debate because of a technical point – that the Motion statement was not done in the way that allows me to have a more thorough debate. I accept that. That is the current Standing Orders of the Singapore Parliament. In order to promote the debate, as I have said, more debate, I have put up seven recommendations in my Adjournment Motion making Parliament a fairer arena for all at the May Sitting this year, including bigger research budgets for MPs from alternative parties, more flexible timekeeping during clarifications and debates, and appointing MPs from alternative parties to chair the Public Accounts and Public Petitions Committees.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members Vikram Nair, Member Raj Joshua Thomas, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Member Lim Biow Chuan and the Minister for their contributions to this debate that I have raised together with my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa. It has allowed us to cover a little bit more ground than in the clarifications after a Ministerial Statement. I will not rebut individually the points raised by some of the Members, but I would like to condense the thing in two points. One, we are here today – just now with the Ministerial Statement and now with this Motion – because something has happened. And that something is a very well-meaning speech and policy proposal put up by the Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that was just written-off in this House, in a very dismissive manner – although it is just a quiet comment. But nevertheless, it is an indication that we need to remind ourselves on what is the impartiality of the Speaker. Without that, we would not be debating today. The second point I would like to make is, some of the Members who have spoken have talked about our Parliament, that we have an untainted record, track record of the Speaker being impartial, but here is an example that we have to remind ourselves that we need to reaffirm the impartiality of the Speaker. As a result of that, PSP had decided to put forward this Motion to suggest a gradual process whereby we can enhance the independence and impartiality of the Speaker, that this House would remember that in May this year, I actually have spoken about the rules and procedures of this House already, in my Adjournment Motion to make Parliament a fairer arena for all. At that time, I did not take up the issue of the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. But today, the situation is different.”
“As our democracy develops and the number of alternative and opposition MPs, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again in the future, just like AP Rajah in 1964. Sir, since I cannot quote many of the examples that I have prepared here, I shall conclude by recounting an event in English history which has a bearing on how Speakers in Commonwealth jurisdictions conduct ourselves. In 1642, King Charles I of England entered the English House of Commons and attempted to arrest five MPs. He demanded that the Speaker of Commons, William Lenthall, identify these five Members for arrest. Lenthall famously replied to the King, "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, except as the House, whose servant I am, directs of me." This incident underlines the principle that the Speaker should not be subordinate to the Government but an independent servant of the House. The Speaker has a duty to this House and this House alone. He is also not at liberty to express his opinions beyond defending the interests of this House. The comments of a Speaker, therefore, must continue to build on the confidence that the public has in the office of the Speaker and he must always be independent and impartial. There is much work to be done by this House and our new Speaker to restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the office of Speaker, which has taken a body blow by recent events. I call on Members to support the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and I, and unanimously reaffirm our commitment for the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial, and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.”
“I would like to add that this happened, incidentally, after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 General Election. Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessors have also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, at the power centre of the ruling party. This evolution from having a non-partisan Speaker, a backbencher Speaker, to Speakers who are ex-office holders or members of the PAP's CEC could be perceived as having eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years. PSP believes that it is problematic for the Speaker to uphold his impartiality and independence while simultaneously being at the power centre of the ruling party and being privy to the ruling party's political strategy alongside members of the Government. It is also difficult for the public, especially those who do not support the ruling party, to be fully convinced that a core member of the ruling party can be an impartial presiding officer of the Parliament. We are of the view that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. Hence, we supported the elevation of Mr Speaker from the backbenches to the Speaker's office this time round. We hope that the Speaker of Parliament, who is not closely linked to the core of the PAP, will be able to restore public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the office of the Speaker of Parliament. The PSP trusts, that you, Mr Speaker, will make every effort to do this for the rest of this term of Parliament.”
“No, no, no, I understand that. Hence, we are disappointed with the Prime Minister's confirmation during the Ministerial Statement just now that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign for his inappropriate comment. We think the Speaker should be held to a higher standard than an MP. This is an issue that should be debated further in this House. For any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust. How can the public trust Parliament when its presiding officer had compromised his ability to be independent and impartial? Mr Speaker, historically, even without recent events, the actions of the PAP Government over the years could arguably be perceived by the public to have eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years. As I mentioned earlier, prior to 1970, all the Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession, either judges or lawyers. Except for the brief period between 1963 and 1964, when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were also non-partisan. When Mr Barker was elected as Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye explained that this was a temporary stop-gap measure until the consent of the Malaysian government, which was responsible for Singapore's judiciary at the time, when we were part of the Federation of Malaysia, could be solved, for a judge to be elected as Speaker. And indeed, this was followed through when AP Rajah was elected as Speaker in November 1964. However, this convention changed after 1970, following the election of PAP backbencher and non-lawyer, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, as Speaker.”
“Okay. Speaker Tan's comments are a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, as a result we are —”
“Point of Order, Sir. Can I know under what Standing Order I am restricted from saying this?”
“Sorry, I will carry on. Speaker Tan's comment thus did great damage to public perception of his impartiality as well as the impartiality of the office of the Speaker. He acknowledged this in his resignation letter to Prime Minister Lee when he said that his mistake raised "broader questions over my neutrality and impartiality as Speaker." Speaker Tan's inappropriate comments —”
“Yes, Speaker, I understand that. But the recent event is, sort of, the ingredient for bringing out the principle, right? So, it is part and parcel of —”
“This is no different from judges and heads of states in the Westminster system. We do not expect or, indeed, allow judges to express their opinions publicly or heads of states to express a different view from the government on public policy. The issue here is that not being neutral and impartial leads to consequences of negative public perception that lower public trust in public institutions. While Speaker Tan may not have expected that his comment will be picked up publicly, he was on duty and discharging his responsibilities as Speaker of the House. It was, therefore, a serious error to have even made that comment. Furthermore, the tone and content of the comment make it clear that Speaker Tan objected to the contents of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech. This is especially problematic because the Speaker is expected to ensure that Parliament is a fair arena for all MPs, regardless of their political affiliation and he was objecting to the speech made by a Member of a different political party.”
“Mr Barker said, and I quote, "There is a great deal of similarity between the Judge and the Speaker. The impartiality both are expected to maintain between contending and contentious factions has to be, it is generally believed, judicial." Indeed, all Speakers of Parliament prior to 1970 had been members of the legal profession, a fact that was also pointed out by Mr Barker in his speech. It is paramount that a Speaker must be impartial and be seen by the public as impartial in discharging his duties in this House. Speaker Tan's comment during the 17 April Sitting already damaged the public perception of its impartiality, even before the revelation of his inappropriate relation with a fellow PAP Member of Parliament (MP). Let us consider the context of Speaker Tan's comments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just concluded a speech on poverty, titled "Hard Living in Singapore". Among other things, he called for the implementation of a poverty line and to make the approval process for ComCare less onerous and intrusive. After Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had taken a seat, Speaker Tan muttered a comment under his breath which I will not repeat, out of respect for the Standing Orders. Speaker Tan's comments were highly contentious for two reasons. First, unparliamentary profanities were used in the comment. Secondly, which is the more serious reason, the comment itself revealed Speaker Tan's views of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as a person or the contents of his speech or both. The Speaker of Parliament is, of course, entitled to form his own private opinions on any Member of this House or any speeches made here. However, as an impartial referee that enforces Parliamentary rules and procedures, the Speaker must not publicly express those opinions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa. (proc text)] Before I begin my speech, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of Parliament. We are sure that your years of experience as Deputy Speaker will put you in good stead for the role that has now been entrusted to you and we trust that you will do your best to restore public confidence in the office of the Speaker of Parliament. The events that led us to debate this Motion today has been truly regrettable. Even though Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin has resigned and apologised for his comment for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech on the President's Address during the Parliamentary Sitting on 17 April 2023, the PSP believes that the conduct of the former Speaker has brought Parliament into disrepute and is a matter that deserves a full debate in this House. Sir, the Speaker of Parliament is responsible for presiding over Parliamentary Sittings and enforcing the rules of debate that have been laid down in the Standing Orders of Parliament to ensure that Parliamentary business is conducted in an orderly manner. In carrying out these important duties, the Speaker must remain impartial to all Members of Parliament (MPs), regardless of their political affiliation. He must be seen as a fair referee, just like a Judge. Mr EW Barker, the first Law Minister of Independent Singapore, pointed out the similarities between the Speaker of Parliament and a Judge during a speech in this House in January 1970.”
“Mr Speaker, maybe I will clarify that I am saying this pertaining to investigations by CPIB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer is, just now, I mentioned "Minister", but I think it should also extend to all political office holders and politicians. What I said was that when a Minister is under investigation and – in this case, it is not just an ordinary investigation – even if it is an informal investigation, for the CPIB to undertake and keep the Prime Minister informed, it is something quite serious. I would expect our Government's stance on zero tolerance to include what I said just now. That means once the Minister is under investigation, he should be relieved of his duties. That is, of course, my opinion.”
“Okay, Speaker, then I would say that I do not have the provision. But can I ask for a general opinion from the Home Affairs Minister, whether such an act of secretly taking the video of other citizens, how is it covered under our law because it is an intrusion into the privacy of the individual?”