Given Singapore's size and system of government, MPs here have a uniquely broad remit with an accompanying intense workload. And yet, even with their bumper pay packets, almost all choose to have second jobs.
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.
For subscribers only
Subscribe now to read this post and also gain access to Jom’s full library of content.
The recent spate of high-profile scandals in Singapore has prompted observers to discuss the political fortunes of the PAP and the WP. Yet, these have overlooked the more fundamental question of what the incidents reveal about the nature of political legitimacy in Singapore.
Ahead of the polls on September 1st, some Singaporeans have vowed to spoil their votes, in protest at what they believe has become a farcical race for head of state. But for the many undecided voters, an analysis of the candidates might help to clarify some doubts before they head to the ballot box.
In a second piece on RidoutGate, a senior counsel questions the perceived independence of a ministerial review, and its failure to robustly assess the Code of Conduct for Ministers.
