Yawning Bread. April 2006

The serene backbenches

    

  

 
"Have [opposition Members of Parliament] made important contributions which have benefited Singapore and improved the lives of Singaporeans?" asked Wong Kan Seng rhetorically at a press conference this week. The 1st Assistant Secretary-General of the ruling People's Action Party was introducing more new PAP candidates to the media, but took the opportunity to engage in some electoral sparring as well.

Wong, who is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs as well, said, "It is the quality of MPs which determines whether we will have robust debates in Parliament that can contribute to the improvement and formulation of policies."

Indeed, robust debate in Singapore's Parliament is as rare as hail in our tropical paradise. Even when an MP asks a question, quite often we get a minister making a prepared statement in reply, and then no follow-up questions are asked. Partly, this has to do with how few opposition MPs there are in the House; there just aren't enough of them to jump up on their feet to probe further.

But we should also be alert to the philosophical straitjacket that the role of MPs is merely to "improve" policies, for such a statement assumes that political debate is just to obtain better execution. MPs have an equally important role to challenge the instincts and direction of the government, i.e. to ask why they are doing what they are doing, to demolish their rationalisations, not just to offer suggestions to help them do it better.

Perhaps opposition MPs have been doing more of this kind of job, questioning the very basis of the government's actions, rather than helping them do it better? If so, it would hardly be surprising that Wong felt they hadn't contributed to the "improvement and formulation of policies."

Wong's other criticism, that "Mr Chiam [See Tong] focused on issues pertaining mainly to Potong Pasir matters. And Mr Low [Thia Kiang] was only keen on scoring political points" may be valid. I myself have noticed how too many of their questions were limited to their own constituencies and the slights they have suffered from the PAP; I mentioned this in the article Again, why we need proportional representation

But ultimately, these are qualitative, even subjective assessments. Perhaps we can at least get a quantitative measure, for example, we can ask, how many times have the MPs spoken in Parliament? Their job is to speak up for the people. Have they been doing that job? Have PAP MPs been doing that job?

* * * * *

The Parliament website has a good search function. It is possible to pick up a count of how many times a particular Member of Parliament has spoken in a defined period of time.

So what I did, on 8 April 2006, was to compare the 3 opposition MPs with a random sample of PAP MPs.

The sampling method was as follows: As the MPs were listed in alphabetical order and serially numbered, I took those whose serial numbers were divisible by 4 as my gross sample. Of this gross sample, I removed the PAP MPs who were office-holders, because their job was reactive, i.e. to answer questions, not so much to ask them. I also removed Nominated Members of Parliament, mostly because the current batch's term of office only began in January 2005. It wasn't coincident with the term of the elected Members of Parliament, so comparison wouldn't be fair.

That left a net sample of 11 PAP MPs, which we will compare with the 3 opposition MPs.

The Hansard database in which I searched was for the current Parliament. They were elected in November 2001, but their first sitting was on 25 March 2002. The latest available report in the Hansard (when I did my search on 8 April 2006) was 9 March 2006.

Thus the count of how many times the backbenchers have spoken in Parliament relates to the period 25 March 2002 - 9 March 2006, both dates inclusive.

Serial Number MP's name Why excluded Count of "speaking level" entries in the Hansard
  1 in 4 MPs*    
4 Ang Mong Seng   128
8 Chay Wai Chuen   47
12 Chiam See Tong See below  
16 Davinder Singh   3
20 Gan Kim Yong Office-holder  
24 Halimah Yacob   334
28 Ho Peng Kee Office-holder  
32 S Jayakumar Office-holder  
36 Lee Boon Yang Office-holder  
40 Lee Yock Suan Office-holder  
44 Lim Chun Leng, Michael   42
48 Lim Swee Say Office-holder  
52 Low, Penny   162
56 Mohd Maidin BPM Office-holder  
60 Ng Phek Hoong, Irene   226
64 Ong Seh Hong   122
68 Png, Paak Liang, Ivan NMP  
72 Sin Boon Ann   150
76 Tan Soo Khoon   144
80 Teo Yeok Ngee NMP  
84 Wee Siew Kim   87
88 Yatiman Yusof Office-holder  
92 Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Office-holder  
  Average (PAP MPs)   131
   
Non-PAP MPs		    
11 Chia Kiah Hong, Steve   511
12 Chiam See Tong   346
54 Low Thai Kiang   448
  Average (non-PAP)   435

*Peoples' Action Party MPs unless otherwise indicated

The three opposition MPs spoke an average of 435 times in the last 4 years. The average for the 11 PAP backbenchers was 131 times.

The clichéd question that comes to mind is, "Who gives you more bang for the buck?"

The most likely rejoinder from the PAP is, "Yes, but it's all scattershot." Perhaps that's true. But it's for voters to judge.

© Yawning Bread 

6 April 2006
Straits Times

Opposition 'has done little' to benefit S'poreans 

PAP MPs did better in helping to improve policies for all, says Wong Kan Seng 
By Laurel Teo

In the sharpest attack yet on the opposition, People's Action Party (PAP) first assistant secretary-general Wong Kan Seng said yesterday that the three opposition men in Parliament had done nothing important to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

It was the PAP MPs and even the Nominated MPs who had performed better in giving concrete suggestions to improve policies, he said.

Presenting the PAP's latest batch of new candidates, he underlined the party theme that quality is what counts, and voters should choose MPs who are more capable, committed and sincere.

'Ultimately, what is important is not the number of opposition MPs in Parliament to check the Government,' said Mr Wong, who is Deputy Prime Minister.

'It is the quality of MPs which determines whether we will have robust debates in Parliament that can contribute to the improvement and formulation of policies.'

He noted that Singapore People's Party leader Chiam See Tong has been MP of Potong Pasir since 1984 and Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang has held Hougang since 1991.

'Have they made important contributions which have benefited Singapore and improved the lives of Singaporeans?' he asked.

This was his assessment of their performance in the House: 'Mr Chiam focused on issues pertaining mainly to Potong Pasir matters. And Mr Low was only keen on scoring political points.'

And not once did Mr Low raise any ideas from his party's manifesto during the recent Budget debate, he added.

As for the National Solidarity Party's Non-Constituency MP, Mr Wong had this to say: 'Mr Steve Chia did raise many issues and questions, but none of significance that will change the lives of Singaporeans.'

[rest of article snipped]

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None