Committee of Supply – Head F (Parliament)

The Chairman: Head F, Parliament. Mr Cheng Hsing Yao.

3.48 pm

Effective Parliament

Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Chairman, my cut is about how to ensure that our Parliament will always be an effective and respected political arena. This is important because our Parliament is where laws are passed and the country’s future is charted.

Looking around the world, we can find many examples of parliaments, or equivalent legislatures, degenerating into dysfunction. Many of them are of older and purportedly exemplary democracies that the rest of the world should aspire towards.

We should be careful who we emulate. Proceedings at many of these legislatures or parliaments sometimes look like "reality TV". Legislators or parliamentarians shout, interrupt, fight or do whatever they can to prevent a genuine debate.

What is more concerning is the amount of half-truth rhetoric that can be promulgated inside and outside of the parliaments. Some of these ideas even garnered enough support from their people to change the course of their country, often for the worse.

The parliament is a reflection of the society, but it also sets the tone for the society. A dysfunctional parliament tends to go hand-in-hand with a society that is highly cynical and distrusting of their politicians and public institutions.

Singapore’s heterogeneous society is still relatively cohesive. There is a small number of people who are cynical of everything and extreme in the way they see the world. However, the vast majority of our people are reasonable, rational and still exhibit a high level of trust. This majority is precious, they are the ones who will decide on the fate of the country.

In Singapore, we will have to continue to deal with all sorts of divisive issues, such as on wealth, foreigners, as well as race and religion. We need to be careful with the kind of ideas we promulgate. We may unwittingly cause fissures, as well as erode trust and cohesion in our society.

Having rigorous debates on policies and issues in the parliament is important. Bringing up alternative viewpoints is critical to preventing us from groupthink. However, there is a constructive way to do it. We can promote critical thinking among our populace, but not cynicism.

I would thus like to propose four principles to guide how issues should be brought up and debated within our Parliament: one, being factually accurate; two, highlight both benefits and trade-offs; three, being constructive; and four, avoid creating polarisation.

I hope that the Singapore Parliament will always remain functional and respected by our people. I hope our parliamentarians can be an inspiration for Singaporeans on how to engage with each other on difficult subjects. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Leader.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Nominated Member for his very pertinent speech, which was both thoughtful and incisive. It serves as a timely reminder of the importance of an effective Parliament in service of the nation and an opportunity to reflect on what being an effective Parliament really means.

Parliament is where the Government is held to account, where issues of national importance are debated and matters of public interest are explained. It is where our laws are made and also where the direction of the country is set and the future of our people is determined, through the Bills and the Motions that Members of Parliament vote on.

Parliament is also the place where our national identity and the character and soul of our society, is shaped through the values we espouse, words we say and the decisions we make.

Thus, what we say and do in Parliament has a profound impact on the lives of Singaporeans and the future of Singapore. This is a privilege that must be exercised responsibly and in the best interest of our people and our country.

We have seen what has happened in other countries, where their Parliaments are gridlocked, hamstrung or so hopelessly at loggerheads that the country cannot move forward. It is their people who pay the price. We must avoid going down that path.

So, what makes for an effective Parliament?

Certainly, there must be robust debate, so that policies and recommendations can be scrutinised and assumptions tested. But the quality and integrity of the debate also matters greatly. Mr Cheng suggested four principles to guide how issues should be brought up and debated. I agree with these and would add one more. But let me first address the four principles he raised.

First, factual accuracy. This is important because decisions are made and opinions are influenced based on our deliberations. That is why Members are expected to be able to substantiate any statements made by them, if challenged. But beyond factual accuracy is the deeper underlying principle of honesty and integrity, because people must be able to trust what we say. Lying in Parliament, or to any Committee of Parliament, erodes trust and debilitates our democracy. What is less obvious, but equally dangerous and which we must also guard against, are half-truths, misleading statements and innuendos which suggest false things without actually saying so.

Second, highlighting benefits and trade-offs. While some things are straightforward, a good deal of the issues confronting Singapore today are manifold and complex. Oversimplifying them does not give our people a true picture. Given our small size and limited resources, there are always trade-offs. Advocating a position, without at the same time highlighting relevant downsides, does our people a disservice. Advancing generous policies, without telling people how they will be paid for or where the money to pay for it ultimately comes from, creates false hopes which will ultimately end in disappointment. Seeking easy options, such as using up the reserves without good justification rather than creating sustainable revenue streams, undercuts our resilience and chips away at fundamental principles of prudence and responsibility.

Third, being constructive. It is par for the course that matters brought before the House should be vigorously debated, questioned and scrutinised. However, at the end of the day, irrespective of our political stripes, we must have the same overriding objective, which is to improve the lives of Singaporeans and help Singapore prosper.

Fourth, avoiding polarisation. We have seen the effect of this in other Parliaments and the outcomes are not pretty. Perhaps, the most shocking example of this was the US Capitol attack on 6 January 2021. Those were scenes we never expected to see in America, the bastion of democracy. But they happened and they happened as a result of deep polarisation. We can have different political philosophies. But what we must avoid in our Parliament is the politics of division. There is a difference between reflecting genuine ground concerns, which is our duty and the deliberate stoking of anger and creating or intensifying of divides, which is not only wrong, but dangerous. We must always strive to bring people forward in unity, even with diversity.

I would add one more point to Mr Cheng's four principles, which is that we should consistently endeavour to do what is right and avoid a descent into populism.

As Members of Parliament, we not only have to reflect the concerns of the people and give voice to the aspirations of Singaporeans, but also exercise our judgement on issues and speak up for what we believe in, even if it is contrary to the prevailing or most popular view, to persuade our fellow Members and the public at large as to what is the best solution to a difficult problem, or what is the most important issue before the country.

Parliament's deliberations should shape the public discourse and set the direction for the country. We have to think not only about the here and now, but also for the future. We must think not only for one group, but for all Singaporeans. Singapore is unique and special and we have come this far because our Parliaments before us did what was right for us. That task is now ours and we must discharge it to the best of our abilities.

The Chairman: Any clarifications? Mr Cheng, would you like to withdraw your amendment.

Mr Cheng Hsing Yao: Thank you, Leader of the House for the response to my cut. Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Is the hon Member given leave to withdraw his amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $48,528,000 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,883,200 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.