Mr Chairman
I beg to move, ‘That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100.
Singapore has come a long way since independence, and much of our progress was built on a bedrock of political stability.
Yet, we must not mistake political dominance for political stability. Single-party dominance brought us here, but we cannot assume it will guarantee stability ahead. Even the PAP acknowledges a growing appetite for more voices in Parliament, more diversity in policymaking.
This is why The Workers’ Party continues to push for the further strengthening of our parliamentary institutions, whether through electoral reforms or select committee work, as previously called for by Aljunied MP Gerald Giam. Parliament is sovereign and the bedrock on which our government derives its legitimacy. We should not view increases in legislative work, including select committee work, as a drain on time and resources. Parliament’s duty and responsibility to the public is to continuously strive for rigorous oversight and active legislative work.
To strengthen our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that we have safeguards and institutions to define our politics, particularly the delineation and interaction between partisan and non-partisan roles.
And as we move toward a more diverse and representative political and parliamentary landscape, it is reasonable to properly delineate what is, and is not, partisan.
A step is to introduce cooling-off periods between partisan and non-partisan roles, allowing individuals to meaningfully detach from previous associations. This is especially important when we turn our attention to who sits in this House. Otherwise, how do we stop ourselves from wondering whether a Member is auditioning for another role or different office each time they rise to speak? I would not be breaking any rules if I retired from electoral politics, quit the Workers' Party, left my seat, declared myself non-partisan, and applied to be an NMP the next day.
If I did this, Singaporeans would and should ask whether this passes the smell test, wonder about our parliamentary institutions, and whether it is enough to just keep to the letter of the law.
Distinctions between partisan and non-partisan roles should apply to those leaving political appointments, the presidency and senior public sector roles too. Public servants seeking political office should observe a cooling-off period. Political appointees and senior public servants leaving office should not be immediately employed in areas they last oversaw or regulated to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest.
Cooling-off periods are not novel. Jurisdictions from the UK to Canada impose various cooling-off periods prohibiting ministers, backbenchers and senior civil servants from joining private entities or undertaking lobbying activities, to better manage potential "revolving-door" conflicts of interest, along with the risk of undermining public trust or even the perception of regulatory capture.
In Singapore, under our Code of Corporate Governance, independent directors must generally have a three-year gap from any prior executive role before being regarded as independent. It appears that our civil service has similar restrictions in principle, although public details are vague.
In 2012, the Indian Election Commission mooted a “cooling off period” clause to prevent civil servants from joining electoral politics straight after they resign to give these persons time to dissociate from their previous roles and deter civil servants from acting or auditioning to gain favour for candidacy. This idea was previously raised by Leon Perera and I want to repeat this call.
These restrictions are not about individual trustworthiness. They exist because systems must provide clear, defensible boundaries against conflicts of interest, real and perceived. This is about enhancing and concretising protections for the integrity of political institutions, especially at a time when lines may be easily blurred in the public eye.
Next, Grassroot Advisers. The PAP’s position is that GRAs under the People’s Association advances the policies of a sitting administration.
While the PA does important work and may need to bring policies into our communities, this is also where the complexity begins.
Is the role of Grassroots Adviser a non-partisan public function, or is it a partisan extension of the governing party’s ground operations? How do we tell?
If the role is a non-partisan extension of the state, then individuals occupying those roles must be non-partisan, like the civil service.
Civil servants serve a sitting administration. They do not carry partisan loyalties into their roles, nor do their appointments hinge on electoral fortunes. Their credibility depends on discharging their duties without fear or favour, regardless of administration.
The present design of the GRA system attempts both — non-partisan in theory, while requiring political alignment in practice.
It would be helpful to provide clarity on which side GRAs fall on.
This also has implications on how grassroots activists see their role. If grassroots activists are involved in electioneering, what are the lines between partisanship and non-partisanship? The rules are apparent for civil servants, but less so for grassroots activists and PA staff.
If the GRA structure is genuinely non-partisan and functions like part of the civil service ecosystem, would partisanship be appropriate?
If GRAs are an extension of a ruling party’s political machinery, then we should be candid. And relatedly, we should scrutinise the PA budget – which is provided by taxpayers – with these considerations, particularly when it shapes whether Members of this house are able to access the state resources that come with it.
Ultimately, this will ensure that our institutions uphold the principles of a parliamentary democracy where the will of the people is respected. It would be a shame if the lack of clarity of whether something is partisan or not takes us back to the days when voters were threatened to have public funds withheld or upgrading given late should they not ‘make the right decision’.
