A sign of a more open approach?
Debates in Parliament suggest more transparency by the Government
Letter from Dierdre Grace Morgan and Fong Wei Sheng
TODAY, Oct 24, 2011
WE REFER to the commentary "A promising start, but the hard work's just started" (Oct 22), which argued that one main question is whether the increased level of debate in this new Parliament would translate into better policy-making.
Apart from this, we would point out that it is interesting to note how the dynamics in Parliament may change.
With an unprecedented eight Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party, it is likely debates may inevitably highlight the different stances adopted along party lines (as how the "Happiness versus Gross Domestic Product" debate unfolded).
This raises the question of the role of Government Parliamentary Committees, which were formed in 1987 to scrutinise proposed legislations, and according to some scholars, to act as a pseudo-opposition.
In the previous Parliament, GPCs were fairly active in querying on policies and giving suggestions, with even a Private Member's Bill being moved by the GPC chair for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Given the increased Opposition presence now, their level of prominence and manner of positing alternative views is to be seen.
What also remains to be seen is the role of Nominated MPs, when they are selected. With the Government and the Opposition singing to the same choruses respectively, how NMPs would feature in the debates in a non-partisan manner would be interesting.
In addition to proposing viable policy alternatives, as mentioned in the commentary, a priority for the Opposition would be to ensure good governance and accountability by the Government.
This may be perceived by some as trying to score political points, but the emphasis must be on the interests and welfare of Singaporeans.
With the "co-driver" analogy from the General Election still fresh on our minds, there is perhaps already an expectation the Opposition has to live up to.
If it is anything to go by, the debates last week could be a suggestion of more transparency by the People's Action Party Government and a willingness to embrace the "new normal".
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's exposition on the Internal Security Act and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen's announcement of publishing a National Service disruption list suggests a more open approach, even in the traditionally sensitive areas of national security and defence.
On the whole, recent developments this year have paved the way for an exciting session of Parliament ahead.
A promising start, but the hard work's just started
by Eugene K B Tan
TODAY, Oct 22, 2011
It is still early days yet but this past week, Singaporeans got a glimpse of what the 12th Parliament would be like. It augurs well. The debate on the President's Address did not disappoint, but it also highlighted the realities, some harsh, that Singapore faces.
Coming on the back of the May General Election (GE) and the August Presidential Election, expectations of the Class of 2011 MPs are naturally exuberant. Parliament now has the largest number of elected Opposition MPs (six), with three Non-Constituency MPs, since the 1968 GE.
The various MPs' speeches have demonstrated that there is no shortage of ideas on what can be done to make Singapore better as an inclusive society and to engender constructive politics. The quality of the speeches was generally good and many MPs spoke knowledgeably, with conviction and passion.
The speeches that connected well and left deep impressions invariably came from MPs who spoke to Singaporeans from the head and the heart. There must be the cognitive and, equally important, the affective connect.
Policy ideas and options must not only sound right, but must also secure buy-in from Singaporeans. Rhetoric and posturing will certainly be employed by politicians of all hues but Singaporeans must be alive to the reality that governance is about trade-offs.
Certainly, the Government can be less tight-fisted. But questions of how we are going to fund cheaper public housing, expansive social safety nets and a high quality of life have to be confronted head-on at the same time.
Here, everyone in the political realm-from the Government to political parties to civil society - has to have the moral responsibility not to present false choices to the masses. Even as we enter the supposed "new normal", Singaporeans must insist on responsible politics from all players in the political arena.
The debates in the past week underscored that the ruling party is tuned to the evolving political landscape, and it is going to try to win back lost support. The People's Action Party (PAP) is not going cede the ground to the Opposition so easily.
While the Workers' Party (WP) MPs have generally performed to expectations so far, the challenge for them is to go beyond critique and demonstrate the force of their policy options by having the Government refine its policies - or, better still, to adopt their views. They have to provide cogent, feasible ideas that would excite and persuade Singaporeans, and compel the Government to consider them seriously.
For both the PAP and WP, talk is the easy part - realising the plans, the vision, the promises is the real test.
Much as the PAP and WP offered competing narratives for Singapore, there is a middle ground. The debate over GDP or happiness is a false dichotomy. It is not an "either or" option. The fact is we need both GDP and happiness. As always, getting the balance right is key.
This is where the imperative of inclusiveness comes in. It is clear that the emphasis on growth cannot be the be-all-and-end-all. Certainly, we will see more attention given to social issues, the post-material concerns. This is a signal to civil society to be more involved.
There is strong agreement and renewed commitment to helping the needy and disadvantaged among us. The big question is how to help them while ensuring the dignity of those being helped is not undermined and that a crutch mentality does not develop.
The "new normal" is a very recent but powerful meme in local political discourse. Yet it is also misleading because the geopolitical, economic and social realities facing Singapore remain fundamentally the same.
Much as it may be normal in many other societies, perpetual politicking will only disadvantage us. And this is what MPs from both the PAP and the WP will have to bear in mind even as they seek to outdo each other in parliamentary debates. It remains to be seen if the PAP, WP and all other political parties raise their game, resulting in better policy-making, a more engaged and committed citizenry and enhanced social cohesion.
Singaporeans need to put behind them any inchoate sense of anger or over-exuberant expectations. Policy railroading or paralysis, making it all but impossible for the Government to act decisively, is not what most really want. It is time to let the Government and Parliament get down to the business of governing.
What the PAP and the Opposition do between now and the next GE will provide a firmer indication of the direction and substance of political change in Singapore. For me, the next GE, which will have to be held by January 2017, will be the real watershed election. But now the hard work begins for all.
Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.
Criticise only when offering alternatives? Be open then
Letter from John Chan Chi Yung
TODAY, Oct 24, 2011
I REFER to the report "Always assess trade-offs from people's perspective: Low Thia Khiang" (Oct 22) and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say's implication that criticisms should be made only when one has alternatives.
An analogy would be that if my contractor makes a mess of painting my home, I must be able to tell him how else he should do it before I think about criticising him.
Obviously, this should not be the case because the contractor is the expert hired to do that job and is privy to knowledge and skills that I am not, even though the home is mine.
A cursory examination of past Parliament debates will show how the People's Action Party Government treats most suggestions and alternative views, including those as stated in the manifestos of the Opposition parties.
Isn't this why there is now an emphasis on genuinely listening and being open to alternative views? Mr Lim's reply gives me an uneasy feeling that, perhaps, not all PAP Members of Parliament "get it".
And for those who feel that the Opposition MPs are still in campaign mode, I would like to point out that these are their maiden speeches for the first sitting of Parliament under a new term of Government.
It is not inappropriate for MPs to make reflective speeches for such an occasion.
Opposition still in campaign mode
ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011
I AM disappointed with the quality of speeches by opposition MPs, who seem to be stuck in election campaign mode.
Pointing out the shortcomings of People's Action Party (PAP) policies might have led to applause during the general election, but it is not for Parliament, which has a tradition of MPs articulating well-thought-through ideas supported by facts.
Take for instance Workers' Party Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong's comments that the casinos 'can lead to long-term problems' ('Happiness index 'not a fuzzy concept''; Thursday). The introduction of casinos was widely and thoroughly debated and the trade-offs well recognised before integrated resorts were approved.
So what was Mr Yee's rationale in raising the subject yet again?
The integrated resorts have fundamentally changed the tourism landscape, creating thousands of jobs for Singaporeans across the hospitality, retail and other related sectors, and diversifying our economy.
What Singaporeans expect from the opposition MPs are constructive and well-researched ideas that will raise the overall quality of the policies and benefit all Singaporeans, not pointing out the negative side of trade-offs through oft-repeated accusations.
Bobby Jayaraman
RAISE QUALITY OF DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT
Opposition should grow out of election rhetoric
ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011
IF THE Workers' Party wants to be a constructive force in Parliament as it has declared, Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam certainly did not do justice to its cause by peppering his speech with sarcastic asides against the Government's track record over the past decade ('Government 'seized chances for growth''; Wednesday).
Mr Giam's repetition in Parliament of his party's election theme sounded like a broken record.
He should offer genuine ideas for change, like how home owners can get the keys to their new build-to-order flats sooner rather than merely complain that they will be without a home during the wait.
By contrast, the genuine effort at change by the People's Action Party is clear, such as the unprecedented step it took in offering Mr Giam's colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC), a place in the Committee of Selection.
It cannot be that the Government can only do wrong, as Mr Giam appears to think.
I hope the Workers' Party will stop being the pot calling the kettle black and get on with the job of offering genuine alternative ideas.
By suggesting that Singapore owes its success to a party of 'yes men' shows Mr Chen's utter lack of understanding and respect for our founding fathers' legacy.
Rights must come with responsibilities.
Toh Cheng Seong
PAP MPs' knee-jerk rebuttals unproductive *
ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011
PARLIAMENTARY debate should have been different now after the watershed general election in May. But if this week's session is any indication, it appears to be business as usual.
If People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament routinely rose one by one in rebutting the opposition in the past, the electorate, unfortunately, received more of the same this week.
So is it any surprise to find parliamentary reports describing an opposition MP's speech drawing the same, virtually automatic chorus of PAP rebuttals, such as the ones where PAP MPs 'rose to rebut', or the ones where the opposition MP's remarks 'drew quick fire'?
If the PAP government admits to not having a monopoly on knowledge and ideas, why do the party's MPs react as if their opposition colleagues have nothing of value to offer in Parliament?
Is the sole task of PAP MPs aimed at making the job of opposition MPs unpleasant in the House?
Will we inadvertently cast aside good ideas and valid concerns simply because they originate from the opposition?
I hope all political parties will set aside such politicking in the House, or weak attempts at wit such as Pioneer MP Cedric Foo's rebuttal of the opposition on Bhutan's gross national happiness concept when he said: 'So maybe (since) they only have two opposition MPs, the people are very happy' ('MPs push for change in Govt-citizen ties'; Tuesday).
Joseph Khoo
* It is business as usual in that the opposition chooses to harp on the stuff everybody already knows while continuing its mission to claim credit where none is due.
No comments:
Post a Comment