By Sylvia Lim

On 8th July this year, Parliament sat and passed the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Act, which basically provides for the PAP personnel who are holding office as Mayors to qualify for parliamentary pensions. This comes at a time when unemployment is inching towards a predicted high of 6%, workers are still being retrenched and several sub-committees are still remaking Singapore.

Under the current law, parliamentary pensions come in 2 forms.

The first is the office-holders' pension, which up to July 2002 was given only to members of the executive government holding positions from Prime Minister all the way 'down' to Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretary and Political Secretary. If a person holds such office for at least 8 years, and reaches 50 years of age, he will qualify for the office-holder's pension which is calculated as a fraction of his salary.

The second form of parliamentary pension is the Member's pension, which is given to Members of Parliament who have served a total of at least 9 years in the House and reach 50 years of age. This is calculated as a fraction of the Member's allowance. Interestingly, if an office-holder does not serve at least 8 years to qualify for the office-holder's pension referred to above, his years of service as an office-holder can be added on to the number of years he has served as a Member, to enable him to chalk up 9 years to qualify for the Member's pension.

The amendments passed in July 2002 allow time served as a Mayor to be counted as time served as an office-holder, if the person serves as Mayor for at least 8 years.. If less than 8 years are served, then the time served as a Mayor can be added to the years the Mayor has served as a Member of Parliament, to enable him to chalk up the requisite 9 years for a Member's pension.

In other words, the office of Mayor is now considered equivalent to at least the office of a Parliamentary or Political Secretary. But is this justified?

If one looks at the other office-holders who draw office-holder's pensions, one can immediately see that the nature of the work done is at Cabinet level. They discuss and draw up national policies and resolve issues of national security, and foreign affairs. Most of the offices mentioned are created under the Constitution. In contrast, a Mayor in Singapore works towards enhancing community relations, which is consistent with the fact that Mayors are appointed under rules made by the Board of Management of the People's Association (PA) under the People's Association Act. Well, an apple is obviously not an orange!

As for allowing a Mayor's term to count towards a Member's pension, it is interesting to note that in November 2001 (the month of the last General Election), the Board of the People's Association (consisting of the Prime Minister, another Minister, 8 appointees of the Prime Minister, and 4 persons elected from other appointees) met again. They changed the criteria for eligibility to the office of Mayor. Previously, it was a requirement that the potential Mayor should be the Chairman of a Town Council, who has to be an elected MP under the Town Councils Act. However, since November 2001, the requirement for the Mayor to be the Town Council Chairman was deleted, and the requirement now is only that the potential Mayor must be a Chairman of a Community Development Council, who does not have to be an elected Member.

In answer to queries by Mr Low Thia Khiang during the Parliamentary debate on the amendments, Minister Wong Kan Seng assured the House that the PAP could conceive of no instance when the PA would appoint an unelected person as a Mayor. However, these assurances are not binding on the future, and under the existing structure it is possible for someone to serve as an unelected Mayor (ie. a Mayor who is not an elected Member of Parliament) and use that period of service to qualify for a Member's pension, without serving the requisite 9 years required of other MPs. If and when this happens, it will further undermine the dignity and respect to be accorded to a holder of a Member's pension!

Why did the PAP moot these changes? Minister Wong declared that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to have Mayors, and the districts had now become huge (total of 5 in Singapore) to take advantage of economies of scale in managing constituencies. He said that there was no reason why Mayors should not be treated like the other office-holders who can draw pensions. However, the justification for giving pensions to Mayors is still unclear. What could the underlying reason be? Does the PAP need an incentive for its members to agree to be Mayors? And is there a fear that some Mayors may not be able to serve 9 years as a Member, and will quit the PAP rather than stay?

One disturbing feature of this whole episode is how the PAP has, again, managed to use the handy tool of subsidiary legislation to effect significant changes at a national level. Sadly, our Parliament has become accustomed to passing skeletal Acts giving wide powers to the implementing bodies to come up with the details. While this is sometimes necessary, too much of it leads to Parliament literally giving carte blanche (ie. a blank cheque to the executive to do what it wants. The creation of Community Development Councils and the office of Mayor was not debated in the House, but designed by the Board of the PA under the People's Association (Community Development Councils) Rules. These rules are subsidiary legislation not scrutinised by Parliament. Belatedly, after the creation of the post of Mayor, the government comes to the House to ask for the release of public monies for parliamentary pensions for Mayors. By that time, with the post of Mayor already created and approved, the outcome was easily predictable. In a kind of fait accompli.

There has been chat over the Internet and in conversation as to why Mayors are required in Singapore, when there are already 84 MPs managing constituencies through the Town Councils, many of which are already clustered into Group Representation Constituencies of 5 to 6 Constituencies.

The Singapore Mayors are getting parliamentary pensions at a time when ordinary working people light votive candles for signs of economic improvement, paying increased fees for basics necessities like transport, power and even medical care in public hospitals. Hot on the heels of the "Stayer/Quitter" debate sparked by Prime Minister Goh's National Day Rally speech in August, I cannot help but embrace the words of the famous trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow: "True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else".

Sylvia Lim is a lecturer who is a lawyer and former police inspector. She serves on the WP Council.