Effective communication highlighted as crucial for meaningful parliamentary debates
This year’s Budget season commenced on a high note, largely due to Minister Lawrence Wong’s impressive delivery. Standing confidently at the podium to present his first Budget statement as Finance Minister, Wong avoided the usual technical jargon. Instead, he broke down the government’s fiscal plan into clear, understandable segments over more than two hours, making complex financial concepts accessible to the general public.
A standout moment of clarity was when he explained that for every dollar spent on public services, 80 cents come from taxes, while the remaining 20 cents are funded through the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). He detailed that the NIRC contributed approximately S$17 billion in revenue. Wong effectively communicated the importance of the social compact by stating, “No one likes to talk about taxes. But there are no painless solutions. Ultimately, every need must be paid by someone—every dollar not paid by one person will have to be made up by someone else, either today or in the future.” This poignant reminder underscored that nothing in public finance comes free, addressing the often unpopular topic of taxation directly rather than deferring the burden to future administrations. Notably, Wong delayed the expected Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike to January 2023, which helped mitigate potential backlash.
Despite the commendable delivery of his Budget speech, the subsequent seven days of Committee of Supply debates left much to be desired. The quality of speeches from backbench MPs was notably lacking. Unlike last year, where budget debates held my attention, this year’s sessions were often filled with farcical remarks that failed to engage the audience. For instance, the MP for West Coast, now in his third term, suggested an expiration date for degrees from local universities. This unrealistic proposal sparked widespread ridicule online, with netizens mocking the notion of renewing university qualifications every five years until retirement—a concept that overlooks the significant tuition costs Singaporeans already bear.
Further contributing to the disappointment were speeches from Ms. Poh Li San (MP for Sembawang), who called for regulation of bubble tea shops, and Ms. Hany Soh (MP for Marsiling-Yew Tee), who proposed using Cocomelon-style songs to encourage children to become eco-champions. These misguided initiatives highlighted a legislature seemingly out of touch with practical realities, raising questions about the preparedness and insight of MPs during budget debates.
Such gaffes illustrate a legislature that either lacks connection with the public sentiment or is inadequately prepared for substantive budget discussions. In the esteemed environment of Parliament, where debates have real-life implications, mediocrity has no place. Indranee Rajah, the Leader of the House, noted that this year’s participation rate in budget debates was the highest in five years. However, while increased participation is essential, the quality of contributions remains paramount. When MPs present ineffective or unrealistic proposals, it limits the space for discussing other important issues that could lead to meaningful policy shifts benefiting Singaporeans.
Not all MPs fell short during the debates. Some brought up genuine concerns and presented well-supported proposals. Louis Ng, the MP for Nee Soon, consistently advocates for parental issues and requested more lactation rooms at workplaces to support working mothers. Leon Perera from the Workers’ Party sought detailed statistics on students’ socio-economic backgrounds in various secondary schools during the Education Ministry’s budget debate. Additionally, Dr. Wan Rizal Wan Zakariah, MP for Jalan Besar and an educator, called for imposing a hard cap on teachers’ working hours in light of their mental health challenges. These MPs demonstrated diligence by asking necessary questions backed by data and real-world examples, suggesting feasible changes within existing frameworks rather than proposing radical, unattainable ideas.
However, the responses from ministers often fell short of expectations. Many ministers dismissed legitimate queries or provided vague, non-committal answers. For example, Associate Professor Faishal Ibrahim, the Minister of State in the National Development Ministry, responded to Mr. Ng’s request for more lactation rooms by urging building owners to exceed the requirements of the Code on Accessibility. This response was seen as indecisive and shifting responsibility to private entities, which is ineffective given Singapore’s rules-based society. Similarly, Second Minister for Education Maliki Osman acknowledged Leon Perera’s concern about socio-economic data but did not provide the requested statistics or explain the ministry’s stance on releasing such information.
Christopher De Souza of Holland-Bukit Timah constituency delivered a critical speech urging fourth-generation leaders to expedite the selection of Singapore’s next prime minister. This pressing issue was notably overlooked by Minister Wong in his wrap-up speech, as highlighted in a Lianhe Zaobao column. When MPs manage to engage with Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin for follow-up questions, the time constraints of debates often prevent thorough discussions, leaving many issues unresolved.
Ministers need to enhance their accountability and provide clear, substantive explanations rather than evading questions or offering generic statements. For instance, Assoc. Prof. Faishal could have clearly articulated why the government is not adjusting lactation room requirements, instead of relying on the goodwill of building owners. Similarly, Maliki Osman should have explained whether the ministry tracks socio-economic data and why it wasn’t provided.
The importance of effective communication in Parliament cannot be overstated. Speaker Tan emphasized the need for clear and impactful discourse, questioning whether the current trend of political correctness is hindering honest and evidence-based conversations. Ministers must embrace accountability and transparency, ensuring that their responses are informative and address MPs’ concerns directly. This approach not only honors the diligence of MPs but also upholds the integrity of parliamentary debates, allowing Singaporeans to make informed judgments based on comprehensive and truthful information.
The situation in Singapore mirrors challenges seen in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where political leaders also often provide vague or evasive answers. However, as a nation striving for excellence, Singapore should aim to elevate its parliamentary performance, ensuring that debates are both meaningful and productive. With Singaporeans increasingly engaged in parliamentary proceedings through initiatives like live streaming, the demand for high-quality political discourse is greater than ever. MPs and ministers alike must commit to fostering an environment of transparency and effectiveness, living up to the expectations of a well-informed and civic-minded populace.
Poll Insight:
Last year’s research by Milieu Insight for RICE revealed that more Singaporeans are invested in parliamentary proceedings since the introduction of live streaming in January 2021. As citizens become more engaged and informed, the expectation for robust and insightful political debates grows. It is a privilege for MPs to debate in Parliament, and they must ensure their contributions are substantive and aligned with the needs of the community. Mediocre politics are no longer acceptable, especially in a society that values transparency and accountability. Ministers must strive to provide clear, evidence-backed answers, facilitating honest and productive conversations that can drive meaningful improvements for Singapore.
Conclusion:
Both backbenchers and ministers have roles to play in enhancing political discourse. MPs should continue to raise pertinent questions and bring forth realistic solutions, while ministers must respond with clarity and accountability. Effective communication is essential for addressing the real concerns of Singaporeans and ensuring that parliamentary debates lead to tangible benefits for the nation. By fostering an environment of honest dialogue and mutual respect, Singapore can uphold its standards of governance and continue to thrive as a well-informed and united society.
