Whither Singapore's Parliament?... points and counter-points

I'll stay with the political theme for just one more day.

The subject of the role of the Opposition in Parliament not only led to MPs on both sides of the divide arguing it out. There was also a healthy series of point and counter-point in the press. The thread below comes from TODAY:

24 Oct, letter from John Chan Chi Yung
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...

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 MPs "get it".

25 Oct, letter from Yee Yao Zeng

I disagree with the letter "Criticise only when offering alternatives? Be open then" (Oct 24) which wrongly uses a contractor-client analogy to describe the People's Action Party-Workers' Party relationship.

A project team relationship is a more appropriate analogy. If one team member only criticised without offering well-thought alternatives, that member is a whiner and not a productive member.

I can give PAP and WP Members of Parliament the benefit of the doubt that their maiden speeches are about setting the tone for the coming years. But as interested voters, we want to hear more than complaints at the next debate.

We want viable alternative solutions to be presented and debated. There is little reason to pay MPs about S$200,000 a year to hear them complain. Complaints are available at a cheaper rate in a typical taxi ride.

The WP had campaigned for a First World Parliament. Presumably, this means the WP will be a First World Party capable of backing up its proposals with robust analysis, much like political parties in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Perhaps the WP could start by explaining its campaign proposal to nationalise public transport. What are the details of this proposal such that citizens will be able to enjoy cheap and reliable public transport service that is free of capacity problems?
The bottomline is that we want to hear solutions.

3 Nov, letter from Risa Tan Xuan Ying

I REFER to the letter "Voters want to hear solutions in the debates" (Oct 25) and am completely in favour of MPs raising policy alternatives.

But to expect MPs to have "well-thought alternatives", with robust analysis "like in the United States and the United Kingdom", every time they criticise a policy is idealistic but unrealistic.

Even American and British political parties do not always back up their criticisms with a full-bodied analysis or always offer a solution when they point out a problem. It is neither necessary nor possible.

It is time to change our mindset. We should not see criticism as "complaints" and opposition as a hindrance to progress.

---------------------------------------------------

I think the above has been a robust debate, with valid points all-round. I shall leave the last words on this issue -- as reported in ST -- to excerpts from the recent Parliamentary speeches of the PAP's PM Lee and the WP's Mr Low Thia Khiang:

PM Lee
We look forward to joining issue with the opposition. They declared they will be responsible and constructive. We will hold them to their word. Don’t just criticise what the Government does. Put up serious alternatives to be considered, argue your case, be scrutinised as you scrutinise us. And don’t just support popular measures such as increasing social spending or building more HDB flats or asking the Government to deliver more. Anybody can do that.

Also acknowledge that these measures cost money and explain how proposals will be funded. Speak up for measures which may be necessary but are unpopular like immigration.

Being principled doesn’t mean not being afraid to offend the Government because the Government is not the emperor and doesn't chop heads off. Being principled means not being afraid to tell unpalatable truths to Singaporeans.

Mr Low
Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a "First World Parliament" befitting a First World nation, Singapore.

While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in Parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinise policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House, so that the Government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade-off.

I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of Western liberal democracy and work towards a "First World Parliament" in our own way.