[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: A week in Parliament after the president’s speech, which set the direction for a new term of government, saw robust debates on critical issues such as Singapore’s foreign worker policies, but the discussions could have benefited from more data and new ideas, analysts. said.
Members discussed important policy frameworks that shape the nation’s trajectory, such as labor markets, social safety nets, and political development, with “very sharp questions” from both the opposition and the ruling Popular Action Party (PAP). ), said Institute for Political Studies (IPS) deputy director of research Gillian Koh.
“There was a sense that everyone was committed to a thorough, constructive, pragmatic and long-term approach to policy and legislative debate,” he said.
But he felt there could have been more solid data on which to base the discussion.
“What was a bit difficult was the balance between empirical data and points of principle: when the opposition wanted to go with hard data, government ministers often responded with points of principle. I’m sure there will be other times when government ministers want to go with hard data, and those who raise the issues go to points of principle, ”he said.
READ: The government and the opposition must work for Singapore, not just for partisan interests, says Prime Minister Lee
While more than 70 members of Parliament spoke on a wide range of topics, and many touched on their “favorite topics”, some clear issues and points of contention emerged. These included policies on foreign workers, the Progressive Wage Model versus having a minimum wage, and issues of race and politics.
Leonard Lim, national director for Singapore at government affairs consultancy Vriens & Partners, found that the debate around certain issues, especially the one around the implementation of a universal minimum wage, lacked substance.
Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim of the Workers’ Party (WP) had passionately advocated for a minimum wage in his speech, obtaining clarification from six PAP MPs, including Chief Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
READ: Tharman, PAP MPs debate minimum wage and policymaking with WP’s Jamus Lim
Dr. Lim, an economics professor, strongly defended his position, but did not give a number when asked what a possible minimum wage might be, although the WP manifesto had proposed setting it at S $ 1,300. During the debate, the Dr. Lim proposed the creation of a national commission to understand and study the issue.
Leonard Lim said such economics-focused proposals would benefit from having some hard figures or data as a starting point for discussion. Without the numbers, such as the possible minimum wage level, it is a challenge to move the discussion beyond an ideology or morality, he said.
“The Jamus episode has shown that every WP MP, as well as PSP (Progress Singapore Party) NCMPs, should expect to defend their ideas amid very stubborn follow-up questions, not just from one or two PAP backbenchers, but possibly more, and with political officials jumping into the fray as well, ”he said.
MP Jamus Lim responded to clarifications requested by various members of the House in Parliament on Thursday (September 3).
Political analyst Eugene Tan, a former MP nominee, said that while the debates were substantial, there is a need for new perspectives and ideas.
“When looking at the issues of foreign labor, race and religion, we could use a new perspective and more discussions on solutions,” said the associate professor of law at Singapore Management University.
“RESPECTFUL COMMITMENT”
One notable exchange of the dozens of hours of proceedings that took place between August 31 and September 4 was between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and WP chief Pritam Singh, especially since it was the first frontal debate between them. under the new rules of engagement. established after Singh was appointed leader of the opposition (LO).
As LO, Mr. Singh has the right to the first answer and to put the main question to the ministers. The two politicians engaged in a vigorous debate over whether the opposition supporters who voted tactically were “opportunists” and the WP’s intention to ask for the size of Singapore’s reserves.
READ: Opposition leader Pritam Singh discusses with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on the use of reserves, ‘free rider’ opposition voters
Assoc Prof Tan said it was a “powerful display of respectful commitment even when both leaders stood their ground.”
“It showed that it is possible to have a strong exchange of views with clearly articulated competing, or even conflicting positions,” he said.
In Parliament on Wednesday (September 2), opposition leader Pritam Singh made clarifications in response to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech.
Former NMP Walter Theseira said it was “very significant” that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition exchanged views directly after Mr. Lee’s speech.
“While I think we are a long way from the prime minister’s questions as seen in the UK, I think it is important for Singaporeans that the most important politicians on both sides can directly engage each other in Parliament,” he said.
“PMQs like in the UK are certainly quite theatrical and sometimes hotter than light, but having some kind of regular practice for PM and LO to exchange views in Parliament could be helpful.”
However, Associate Professor Theseira, who is from Singapore University of Social Sciences, said he believes that parliamentary debate does not really allow, in the current Westminster system, collective decision-making.
“There are almost no decisions now in Westminster parliaments that political parties have not previously decided for their MPs, as a matter of policy, through party whips,” he said.
“This is not a problem with the Singapore Parliament … In short, the majority of the votes, in today’s parliamentary systems, are too important to be decided by the vagaries of debate.”
READ: Foreigners keep Singapore ‘economically relevant’, but pay attention to Singapore worker: Pritam Singh
If Parliament wants to examine issues such as foreign worker policy in greater detail, it has the option of forming a Parliamentary Select Committee and then debating the committee’s findings in a motion, he said.
However, Dr Koh said that Parliament was the proper and effective channel to articulate and address ambivalence about Singapore’s foreign labor policy, even if agreement on a complete and comprehensive solution could not be reached.
“This helps the public to believe that channels of representation and to bring to light the problems that the national community strongly feels exist and are effective,” he said.
“With repeated exchange, the public and stakeholders, as well as leaders, will better understand concerns on the ground, arrive at a more appropriate calibration in policies, and find solutions that achieve several key long-term competitive goals. “Forward benefit of the country and as many Singaporean residents as possible.”
MPS SHOULD NOT PULL AWAY FROM EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS
Analysts said the wide range of issues raised and the substantive debates in Parliament’s first session may be a sign of things to come, but it is still too early to tell.
“Some MPs can take their liberty with the relatively open schedule and warmth in the early sessions to ‘test the waters,'” Associate Professor Tan said.
“But it is good and necessary for Parliament to be the main platform for these burning issues to be raised, for the articulation of diverse points of view, and for policy options to be openly put forward for Singaporean understanding and reflection. “
READ: Differences between races must be accepted and addressed ‘constructively’: Maliki Osman
Some issues, including citizenship, locals versus foreigners, as well as race and religion, will by their nature be more emotional, Lim said. However, parliamentarians should not “shy away” from raising these issues when the occasion or the domestic environment requires it.
“The point is to approach the issue responsibly and constructively rather than seeking to be populist,” he said.
Dr Koh said that the act of holding the government to account so that it has to explain its position, its rules, its track record and its plans is now being reinforced with the largest number of duly elected opposition MPs.
“The front bench has certainly responded appropriately as well. Rather than closing in on any questioning, we saw the front bank participate and explain their position and how it was, from their point of view, good for Singapore. “
He said, however, that what will probably be remembered from these proceedings is “who called the profiteer voters, the exchange of Human Resources Minister Josephine Teo with Jamus Lim and the question of whether there are local leaders at the helm of the most important companies. Singapore Important “.
“I think what should be enduring are the policy frameworks that were discussed,” he said.
READ: Government agrees ‘in principle’ to broadcast Parliament proceedings live, MCI will study details
READ: Ministers Respond in Parliament to NCMP Leong Mun Wai’s Comments on Not Having a ‘Homegrown’ DBS CEO
Mr Lim said that while there will be some debates that may inadvertently descend into “political theater” and the chances of that happening are greater now that Parliament’s live broadcast is finally taking place, it was too early to say in which direction. the tone of the speech was adopted will change.
“One hopes that Parliament will continue to be a platform to raise and discuss serious issues related to Singapore and Singaporeans, without the exchanges taking fruitless or even unpleasant turns that would leave a bitter taste in the mouth and alienate some Singaporeans or worse. , they would make some not bother to tune in, ”he said.
Said Associate Professor Tan: “There are many reasons for taking a deeper interest in parliamentary proceedings. It is a sign of the times and as we hope that Parliament, parties and MPs will improve the game, the common citizen must also improve their game by taking a greater interest and understanding of the many important problems facing the country at this turning point in our history “.
