SINGAPORE - Can a Speaker of Parliament who is also a member of a political party be independent? This issue was debated in the House on Wednesday, as Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai put forward a motion on the independence and impartiality of the legislature’s presiding officer.

Mr Leong suggested that a Speaker would have to be non-partisan to be truly independent. He was rebutted by other MPs who said that Speakers belonging to the ruling People’s Action Party had shown they can act independently.

In the end, his motion, calling on the House to affirm “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” was amended.

The amended motion, proposed by Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC), was eventually passed. It called on the House to “reaffirm its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all; and to uphold the standing orders of Parliament and obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962”.

At the start of the debate on the motion, newly elected Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng reminded the House that the motion is about the independence and impartiality of the Speaker, and not about the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.

However, Mr Leong said the recent incidents involving Mr Tan had been the “ingredient” for his motion.

Mr Tan had been caught on microphone muttering “****ing populist” in response to a speech by Associate Professor Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) during the April 17 session of Parliament. A video of the segment had been circulated online in July, before Mr Tan’s resignation over an affair with former Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui.

As an impartial referee charged with enforcing parliamentary rules and procedures, it was a “serious error” for the Speaker to have expressed his opinions, he said.

The incident had lowered the public’s trust in Parliament, he added.

Mr Leong also said that the independence and impartiality of the Speaker’s office had been eroded over the years, with the evolution of the role from being a non-partisan one, to now having former officeholders or members of the PAP’s central executive committee elected to the role.

“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,” he said.

“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 Parliament.”

He proposed that Parliament should ensure that the Speaker is not a member of the PAP’s decision-making body for a start, and move towards having a non-partisan Speaker.

Several MPs rebutted him, including Leader of the House Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC), and Nominated MP Raj Joshua Thomas, who noted that Singapore’s Constitution recognises that MPs belonging to political parties can be Speaker.

This makes Mr Leong’s proposal much more limiting of the constitutional requirement, they said.

Mr Thomas cited Canada and India which also have party-affiliated Speakers who are expected to be impartial.

Ms Indranee said that in most major Westminster-style democracies, the Speaker comes from the majority party, such as in the Australian House of Representatives, Canadian House of Commons and New Zealand House of Representatives. This reflects the reality that the Speaker must receive support from the majority of the House, and that will often be somebody from the majority party, added Ms Indranee, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

She added: “It’s also important to bear in mind that the majority party would have derived its majority from the voters. You don’t get to be a majority party without the majority of votes. “It is the electorate, it is the voters, who put the PAP in Parliament as a majority. So you have to bear in mind that the mandate of the majority party is drawn directly from the people.”

At the end of the day, whether a Speaker is impartial boils down to the individual holding the office, said Ms Indranee. She cited examples of opposition MPs, including the late Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang, who had praised previous PAP Speakers of Parliament for being impartial and fair.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten) pointed to how Britain’s former Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow was accused of not being impartial about Brexit, although he had already resigned as a member of the UK Conservative Party before he assumed the Speaker’s role. Mr Lim, who was Deputy Speaker from 2015 to 2020, said that Mr Tan had impressed upon him the need to be fair to all MPs.

He added that when Mr Leong had addressed Mr Tan in Parliament in a disrespectful manner, Mr Tan had accepted Mr Leong’s apology and agreed not to take action. He said this is evidence that Mr Tan was impartial.

Ultimately, all MPs have to do their job in keeping to the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act to ensure Parliament is a fair arena, said Mr Nair.

During the debate, Prof Lim addressed Mr Tan’s comments about his speech, in his longest public comments on the matter. Noting that he had addressed policies to alleviate the plight of the poor, he said that he had been speaking up for a minority group and not the broad populace. Thus, being populist could not have been farther from his intentions, he added.

He also expressed hope that the Government will not just dismiss alternative policies when there is a difference of opinion, but instead offer evidence-based counterarguments.

“I believe it’s impossible for us to successfully identify the right way forward for society, unless there is genuine, passionate and, dare I say, animated debate, with proper respect for parliamentary decorum,” he added.

Wrapping up his motion, Mr Leong said the reason the House was debating the issue was precisely because the hot mic incident had taken place and called into question the impartiality of the Speaker. He added that he was merely suggesting a “gradual process” to enhance the independence of the Speaker, by ensuring the role is not taken up by someone from the PAP’s central executive committee.

But ultimately the way to make Parliament a fairer arena would be to have at least one-third of the seats filled by opposition MPs, he said.