Happy Happy Joy Joy Parliament

I read this article on Little Speck: Too much self-praise, What Singaporeans want is some frank, value-added debate. By Seah Chiang Nee, The Star on Mar 24, 2007. [Link]
It reflected on a topic that I have been thinking about so I thought I'll post it here.

NEEDED in 21st Century Singapore: A new breed of articulate Members of Parliament who can match the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, S. Rajaratnam and David Marshall.

With few exceptions, today’s lot – whether in government or opposition – lacks that sharp tongue and fire in the belly that marked the previous generation of politicians.

As the Old Guards left one after another, they were replaced by young, co-opted technocrat-MPs, who were good problem solvers, but who lacked the passion and ability to motivate Singaporeans.

Neither are they good at debates or explaining policies in the pull-no-punches way that Minister Mentor Lee and his peers could do with ease.
The lack is fine as long as the PAP continues to enjoy the complete trust of voters the way that Lee had.

But his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is dealing with – and has to win over – better educated, more cynical citizens with very high expectations.

That requires the party to govern with more than top scholars and good policies; it also needs people with the power of persuasion.

After demolishing all strong opposition one way or another, Minister Mentor Lee has admitted that many young MPs lack the opportunities to learn the thrusts of political debate.

For its own survival, the PAP has to allow its MPs to speak frankly and openly on issues of the day, even if it is galling to the party.

It has another reason to do this. It has rejected the opposition playing a checks-and-balance role in the government, saying it can do it by itself. For this to be credible, observers say, it has to be seen doing it.

Most Parliament sessions here – unlike in Kuala Lumpur – have been tame, polite affairs involving prepared questions and answers, after which the MP would sit down to make way for another.

This was evident during the recent Parliament budget session that was to give important tax changes (GST up 2%) and rising poverty a proper airing.

Most government MPs spoke in favour of a rise in the unpopular Goods and Services Tax – no GST can be popular anywhere in the world – from 5% to 7%. Yet they made it sound like it’s the long-awaited salvation.

(The budget also provided offsetting payments, with the poor and older people getting a larger share, which will help to mitigate – for five years – the impact on the lower class).

Singaporeans are generally opposed to the GST increase, which is the centrepiece of the budget, and several government MPs pitched for more aid to the poor.

But the majority of backbenchers praised the budget, some in exuberant terms that are opposed to public sentiment.

Despite the leaders’ exhortations to MPs to speak their minds, not many had done so.

A sample of backbenchers’ exuberant praises included – “generous and forward looking”, “good intentioned” and “made in heaven”, “a landmark budget”, “wonderful”, “innovative” and “pragmatic.”

The generosity of the budget is possible under the stewardship of the ruling People’s Action Party, said one MP, sounding like a Pyongyang news headline.

Another remarked: “Nowhere else in the world can you get a budget which includes love and compassion in abundance as this one.”

Some young Singaporeans say they were turned off by these flowery but useless descriptions.

Even a commentator of the pro-government Straits Times, Chua Mui Hoong, was moved to call on the PAP MPs to go beyond “cheerleading”.

“Too much self-praise by the PAP is off-putting,” she wrote.

“An MP's role should include critiquing policies, voicing independent points of view and scrutinising the executive's decisions,” she said, adding that some did so, but they were a minority.

Former PAP MP Hwang Soo Jin, 71, related how a doctor had surprised him by asking why Parliament had bothered to debate the budget when the government had already decided to implement it.

Hwang wrote in the Chinese Lianhe Zaobao that there was a 'chasm' between Parliament and the people.

After Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, his successor, Goh Chok Tong had steadily eased up on control of people’s’ lives.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who took over from Goh, has pledged to continue the process.

Some feel Parliament could do with the return of several strong-minded ex-PAP backbenchers, who had the moral courage and skills to take on ministers.

They included former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Wang Kai Yuen, who have left behind an outspokenly biting legacy.

Soo Khoon once hit out at government wastage, targeting seven gr-and ministerial building projects, labelling them sarcastically as the “Seven Wonders of Singapore.”

He likened some of these gleaming new buildings to five-star hotels, which led him to wonder if the ministries were competing to see which of them could “be better than the Four Seasons Hotel.”

“(People) complain because they realise that if you spend so much money, then we will be taxed more. That's why people are unhappy,” he added.

Parliament is a stepping-stone for tomorrow’s leaders, which explains why MPs should be encouraged to use their flair.

Some analysts, however, believe that sustained periods of affluence and stability are not ideal to producing brilliant leaders; only chaos or wars can.

It was chaotic Singapore in the 50s and 60s that threw up leaders like Lee and his contemporaries – and that just can’t be re-created.

Enough said. Well I have to say that the Singapore Parliament does seems to be very boring, to me anyway. It looks, to me anyway, staged. Kind of like WWF. I use to believe that WWF were for real when I was young. I mean they look real, the people appears to be really fighting one another, they seems really passionate about what they are doing and stuff. But in the end, it's all a show. The outcome of the fights are always decided forehand. Kind of like the reality TVs we have nowdays. The results are not exactly surprising.

Maybe I am not been fair, but maybe been on the same political party does make it hard(er?) for you to disagree on policies. It seems that the MPs will come up all hot and enthusiastic on some issues like: "are you sure Singapore can support a the growing population?(6.5 millions)?", "are the welfare payment really enough?", "is there enough done to off-set the GST impact?", "our transport system, is it good enough?", blah... You know.

Then some ministers will come on and in a nut shell says: "yah, don't worry about it, we're good."

And then the MPs will be like: "Oh, really? ... Ok."

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

And our few oppositions are not really very impressive, frankly.

That's why its so hard for Singapore government to answer a question straight and not treat us like idiots.

There's no one to hold their feet to the fire and asks difficult questions and demand a straight answer.

Do you agree?