SINGAPORE — A suggestion from opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Gerald Giam to introduce increased scrutiny of each ministry’s spending, policy and administrative decisions was rejected by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

On Thursday (March 7), Mr Giam, a Workers’ Party (WP) MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, suggested during a debate on Parliament’s budget that select committees be created for each ministry or group of related ministries to examine the ministry’s decisions and report back to Parliament. 

Ms Indranee, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said that there was no need for such a system, because Singapore’s Parliament is faring relatively well compared to countries that have adopted such a system, and that having more committees would take up more resources.

Below is a transcript of their exchange on Thursday, edited for clarity and flow. 

Mr Giam: Parliament currently has seven standing select committees, but none of these is specific to individual ministries — this is quite unlike many other legislatures around the world.

The United Kingdom’s House of Commons for example, has select committees for every government department like defence, home affairs and transport, to name a few.

Australia's parliament has house standing committees on health, aged care and sport and on employment, education and training, among others. 

These select committees examine each ministry's policies, spending and administration.

They are empowered to inquire into and report on any matter referred to them by the house or minister.

The committees may call in subject matter experts to give testimony and answer questions from members that can inform their considerations.

Select committees also provide a platform for members to better understand each other's positions and that of the government.

The government may share in confidence with committees information that shapes its policy stances.

The committee can discuss legislation or major policy changes before they are officially tabled, so that there's more room to work out compromises before each party states its position publicly.

After a thorough scrutiny of legislation and policies, the select committees can make recommendations to parliament before bills and motions are debated and voted on by all MPs.

This process will lead to more informed and constructive debate and better decision making in parliament. The committees thus help to contribute to more effective governance, build political consensus and strengthen national unity. 

For these reasons, I call on Parliament to set up standing select committees for each ministry or group of related ministries consisting of MPs from all political parties represented in Parliament.

They should be supported by the parliament secretariat, and meeting minutes should be made available to all committee members. Ministries should endeavour to engage them on a regular basis.

Ms Indranee: I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is: In the other countries, where they have these multitude of select committees, are they necessarily better governed? Do they necessarily have better outcomes? Are their parliaments more efficient? Is their government more trusted?

I would venture to say no, not necessarily, to all of those questions.

On many international rankings by any measure, you will find that Singapore fares well in governance, transparency, in lack of corruption, or in low corruption, and where it is discovered, it is dealt with promptly, quickly and decisively.

Having more standing committees or more select committees would not be very productive.

For example, it would be unproductive for every ministry to have to answer to a standing select committee.

Setting up a committee for each ministry requires significant time. Ministries will also have to expend scarce resources reporting to and preparing answers for the respective committees and these are resources that could be spent on important policy work.

Members will also be keenly aware that our parliamentary sittings have grown longer, busier and more frequent.

Ministries are (spending) more time than ever preparing for parliamentary sittings.

There is a cost to this as it eats into the time that the ministries have for their policy and other work.

For these reasons, creating standing select committees for every ministry will do little to enhance accountability or increase productivity or efficiency. 

What we have is a system that works. When the ministries have a policy, it is brought to Parliament, either (by a) motion or during the budget debate, which has a broader overview… and you must remember, a select committee is really a mini version of Parliament as a whole.

But here, you have everybody who is able to ask questions, participate, debate. So the public does not lose out by this.

Mr Giam: Is the minister saying that... select committees don't lead to better governance and trust?

I don't think she has established that causality. I'm referring to select committees in other countries... Is she saying that they cause the people to trust the government less because of the select committees? 

Ms Indranee: No, no, I'm not saying that at all. What I was responding to is the underlying assumption that always goes with the proposal to have select committees.

I assume that the reason why the member suggests having select committees is he feels it would make for better governance, and that it will be for better accountability. And I'm addressing that point.

I'm saying that having select committees doesn't necessarily either guarantee or give you better governance or better accountability.

I'm saying that the processes that we have, they give a lot of room for government and ministers to be held to account.

And I'm saying that the system that we have already allows for very good governance and I do not think that having select committees, essentially overseeing or having ministries reporting to them, will improve things. 

And my reference to other countries was then to say that when you look at those other countries, they do have select committees or their equivalents, but are their outcomes better than ours? And it does not appear to be so, that was the point I was making.

Mr Giam: On the point she makes about select committees being unproductive and a drag on government's resources, what about the resources used by government parliamentary committees (GPCs)?

How is the time and resources that ministries spend answering questions and briefing GPCs justified even more so given that they are not Parliament organs but (the ruling People’s Action Party's) organs?

Ms Indranee: I'm afraid the member may have it back to front. GPCs are a party construct. They're called parliamentary committees but they're not a Parliament committee.

They are People’s Action Party committees but they are called government parliamentary committees because they come from the party forming the government… they (are) different from select committees, which include representatives from all parties. GPCs do not. 

The purpose of the GPCs was to allow the ruling party, which is the dominant party, to enable or to help the government MPs perform their duties better by playing a more effective role in the policy-making process to tap their expertise and to allow them to give political feedback.

So, in other words, the role of the GPCs within the party construct is to give feedback to the ministers and to the ministries to enable the government to do better... It is not the reverse of the ministries briefing the GPCs or reporting to the GPCs. 

Mr Giam: Do GPCs get confidential briefings by government ministries that are not made available to opposition MPs?

The minister said that GPCs get information through the minister. Does that mean that civil servants do not brief the GPCs?

Ms Indranee: Ministries may brief a GPC for the ministry’s purposes if the ministry wishes to seek feedback or to find out about something that the ministry is doing.

But if there is anything that is political, that's really not for the civil servants. That is really for the minister and the GPCs, because the GPCs come from the same party as the minister.