Grab’s appointment of Tin Pei Ling, a member of parliament (MP) with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), as director of public affairs and policy sparked a debate about conflicts of interest (which culminated in the firm shifting her into a different role). But the episode also raised a second, broader question. Should MPs hold second jobs in the private or not-for-profit sectors, or should they work as MPs full-time?

There are many politicians on both sides of the aisle with a wide variety of second jobs. This includes the PAP’s Tan Wu Meng (doctor) and Mariam Jaafar (consultant), and the WP’s Leon Perera (chairman of a research and consulting firm) and Jamus Lim (academic).

Proponents of second jobs point to the loss of direct income, the opportunity cost of working as a full-time MP, and the possible long-term impact on MPs’ career trajectories (of being out of the workforce for an extended period).

For proponents of full-time MPs, a key consideration is whether a part-time MP working a second job can juggle the various duties of an elected MP and be an effective representative of their constituents. Loss of income, they argue, isn’t a robust enough reason given how handsomely MPs are paid: an allowance of S$210,000 per annum or S$17,500 per month, over three times Singapore’s median wage.

In fact, early in her political life, Tin herself was one of the few MPs, alongside the likes of Chen Show Mao from the Workers’ Party (WP), who paused their private careers to become full-time MPs. They argued that this allowed them to dedicate more time to understanding their constituents and the various issues they face, which in turn would allow them to better voice constituents’ concerns in and out of Parliament.

Having examined all available MP CVs, there appears to be only one full-time MP today, the PAP’s Louis Ng. Would our democracy be better served with more? To answer that, we must first examine the MP’s uniquely Singaporean job scope. (Ng and Perera declined to comment for this piece.)

Singapore’s unique political system consists of a unicameral legislature with no additional scrutiny by an upper house. The government seldom forms select committees to do deep dives into proposed government bills or pertinent national issues. And there are no local government elections given the small size of our country.

As such, all our elected MPs wear multiple hats. First, they lead Town Councils, which are “autonomous legal entities”, that are responsible for the management and maintenance of the common property at public housing estates in each constituency. This includes everything from routine repairs, conservancy services, upgrading works, and cyclical maintenance work like repainting of buildings and replacement of lifts.

Second, they regularly engage their constituents through house visits, public forums, and weekly Meet-the-People sessions, where they help residents by connecting them with the right social support service or writing appeal letters to government agencies on any number of issues.

Third, they hold the government accountable by filing parliamentary questions (PQs) at each sitting to ask about issues of the day or the work of any one ministry. These questions help shed light on key statistics not already available publicly, clarify the government’s position on an issue, or provide insight into the government’s efforts to tackle a problem that is of public interest. PQs are one of the most reliable ways through which Singaporeans learn new information about policies. For instance, in January this year, the government disclosed for the first time its annual advertising spending in response to a PQ by an opposition MP.

Fourth, MPs scrutinise any new legislation put forward by the government, propose amendments to it, and debate the merits of the new law before voting whether to pass it. One may argue that since the ruling PAP rarely lifts its whip, PAP MPs don’t have to make independent voting decisions, and thus don’t have to be so well versed in the details of proposed bills. Still, as political diversity increases in society, one suspects there’ll be more instances of parties lifting their whips, as the WP did in last year’s debate over S377A. Moreover, constituents increasingly expect their MPs to be able to articulate their own views on legislation.

So, ideally, between the monthly parliamentary sessions, MPs should work actively with think tanks, experts, non-government organisations, as well as the media to scrutinise government policies and proposed legislation, and engage their constituents in a deeper, more meaningful way on hot-button issues or their personal struggles.

MPs, in short, play a big role in the life of a Singaporean. They are responsible for both fixing municipal issues and raising national ones, for being a check on the executive government while also scrutinising its legislative agenda, and for engaging its constituents while also being their go-between with government agencies. In other words, they have a lot on their plate. Any MP would struggle to do all these roles justice, let alone in a part-time capacity.

It’s no wonder that a legislative power of theirs is often forgotten. Most bills that become law are government bills introduced by ministers, but any MP can actually introduce their own bill. In the last few decades, however, only a handful of private member’s bills have been introduced in Parliament by backbenchers, PAP or otherwise. The last one was in 2020 by Louis Ng when amendments to the Wild Animal and Birds Act were made. Other notable private member’s bills that became law include the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act introduced by Christopher de Souza, PAP MP, in 2014 and the Maintenance of Parents Act introduced by Walter Woon, nominated MP, in 1994.

The experiences of other democracies are illustrative. It’s often argued that MPs should have real world work experience, outside of politics, so they can better empathise with their constituents and their issues. But there’s a difference between a career politician who has no other significant work experience, and a full-time MP who might come with considerable prior work experience in different sectors or even countries.

In other Westminster parliamentary systems like the UK, Australia and Canada, many candidates are identified young, often in their early 20s-30s, and get involved in one way or another within their party machinery with hopes of winning local party branch nominations and becoming a career politician. This was the path of leaders such as the UK’s David Cameron, Australia’s Tony Abbott and Canada’s Justin Trudeau. As backbenchers, some then work second jobs before they get the opportunity to hold political office.

In Singapore, however, candidates usually come with significant prior work experience, be it in the armed forces, civil service, the private sector or the non-profit space. It may, therefore, not seem unreasonable for candidates successfully elected to Parliament to take a break from their other careers to focus on their role as an MP.

Of course, mandating a complete ban on second jobs is fraught with issues, not to mention the possibility that it might deter people from running for office. But MPs could be restricted to advisory, part-time, or consulting positions at their workplaces, to allow them the time and mental bandwidth to immerse themselves in their MP work.

In Germany, they have done exactly that where the law states that being a member of the lower house, the Bundestag, must be an MP’s main job. While they are allowed to work on the side, all additional income must be declared. In addition to parliamentary compensation, each German lower house MP also receives a tax-free lump sum allowance to cover expenses such as office rent and hiring of staff.

Meanwhile, following a conflict of interest scandal in the UK, where an MP lobbied against tougher financial regulations that would directly benefit law firms he worked for as a barrister, there has been renewed debate there about the scope of second jobs. A 2021 Ipsos poll in the UK found that half of the Britons disapproved of MPs having second jobs, due to these two concerns about workload and conflicts of interest.

Perhaps the lesson is that Singapore needs a lot more transparency and guidelines about the additional jobs and income streams of its politicians. (Unlike many democracies, politicians here do not even have to make asset declarations.)

Finally, even if an MP can somehow perform multiple jobs admirably—possibly by sleeping very little—we must ask ourselves whether those are societal norms we want to promote. It’s not just their constituents we care about, but the MP’s own well-being.

In 2006, during a visit to Raffles Lighthouse (located on Singapore’s southernmost islet some 23km from the mainland), SR Nathan, then president, reflected on how the space allowed ministers in the 1960s “to reflect and think of solutions to the many National problems they were faced with.”

Caught in today’s “always-on” culture, turbocharged by mobile phones, the internet, and social media, it’s harder than ever for our politicians to enjoy that kind of headspace. They may want to consider not also being sucked into the rat race like so many of us.

Chirag Agarwal is a former Singaporean civil servant and government affairs and public policy consultant. He is currently the co-founder of Talk Your Heart Out (TYHO), a mental health and well-being start-up.