SINGAPORE: The opposition has a role to play in Singapore’s maturing democracy, with the country needing both “serious government and serious opposition”, said Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on Friday (Apr 21) in response to Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.
“I believe there is a role for the opposition to play in our politics, in our democracy, and a very important role to campaign for your ideas and your proposals to hold the elected government to account and to offer serious alternatives to the government,” Mr Wong said on the fifth day of the debate on the President’s Address.
Over the past few days, ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House have sparred several times over comments made by Mr Wong earlier this week about how the opposition should provide concrete alternatives and “not just opportunistic or populist ideas”.
During his speech, Mr Singh (WP-Aljunied) rejected criticisms that the Workers' Party (WP) has no serious policies or that it advances populist ideas, adding that it was “a most unfair charge” levelled at the WP.
Joining the debate on Friday, Mr Wong said he accepts Mr Singh’s view and that both sides “may well have to agree to disagree”.
He added that he had raised the point about the future of Singapore’s democracy due to worries over how populism has divided and polarised more developed democracies elsewhere in the world.
Singapore is not immune from this risk and if populism takes root here, it will cause “great damage to Singapore and Singaporeans” in the long term, he said.
As such, the government rejects all forms of populism and seeks to “uphold honesty and integrity in policymaking”, added Mr Wong, who is also Finance Minister.
“If the government were ever to fall short of these standards, we expect the opposition to call us out and say so. Please do. You have to do it, we expect you to do it,” he said.
"Conversely, if the opposition were to propose ideas and policies that we feel are populist, we likewise will highlight them and highlight our concerns, rightfully so. I hope that's our common understanding of how we can take Singapore’s politics and democracy forward.”
In response, Mr Singh said in the course of debate, both sides of the House “will be going back and forth at each other’s proposals and ideas”.
“But insofar as populism and opportunism are concerned, I am quite certain that DPM means that ought to work both ways,” he added, noting that it “cannot be a case of pointing fingers at the opposition and accusing them of that when certain actions of ruling party politicians on the ground are no better”.
“But having said that, I accept DPM’s concerns of our democracy and certainly the Workers’ Party, and I hope the opposition in general, will be mindful going forward and work towards the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans,” said the WP chief.
The opposition comprises nine WP MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs from the Progress Singapore Party.
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng also responded to a comment made by Mr Singh, who likened getting information from the government to “squeezing blood out of a stone”.
During his speech in parliament, Mr Singh called for the government to be more open in sharing information, using his party’s experience during a debate on job security and foreign manpower in 2021 to highlight the challenges they faced in getting information.
Mr Singh said that if information had been released earlier, this could have "reduced heat before things reached a boiling point".
In response, Dr Tan said many of the questions asked by opposition members were related to confidential information that is not usually released.
“Notwithstanding that, in the interest of addressing the issue in parliament to the best extent that is possible, our manpower officials came up to put the statistics required by members in parliament,” he said.
“To your point about the confidential information that could have been released earlier, I believe that it cannot be the reason for the ugly xenophobia, racial undertones surrounding CECA (Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement),” he added.
Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong, who spoke on Friday about the need to keep forging unity and cohesion in Singapore, also gave his views on Mr Singh’s proposal of an English test when assessing a person’s application for citizenship or permanent residency in Singapore.
Mr Singh made this proposal on Feb 27 during the Committee of Supply debates for the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The opposition leader repeated the suggestion on Friday and cited a recent poll done by CNA, which found a large majority of Singapore-born citizens being in favour of the test.
About 80 per cent of the 500 respondents believe that such a test should be part of the application process.
Mr Tong noted that a “significant proportion of Singaporeans throughout our history have not been able to speak English well”.
Raising his 96-year-old grandmother as an example, he added: “If we had years ago applied this test, then someone like her may not have made it into Singapore.”
The minister also said that an English test may not be the best marker of an applicant’s ability to integrate in Singapore.
He pointed to the country’s immigration framework, which was “tightened significantly in 2009”, that considers a broader range of factors, including the length of stay and family ties to Singapore.
These other factors would be “equally, if not perhaps in some cases, more effective” as a marker of integration, the minister added.
“So I would say not that English proficiency is not important – I think there's value in that – but not make it a single qualifying test and don’t make it a single point assessment for citizenship," said Mr Tong.
Mr Singh clarified that he did not say that English proficiency should be a single point of consideration for new permanent residents and citizens.
“I made it clear in my speech today that it was a nudge to align our immigration policy and our bilingual policy,” he said.
Referring to the findings of CNA’s poll, Mr Singh said while he does not want to lean too much into one survey alone, it may be “a good time” to consider how people's views change through generations.
To that, Mr Tong responded that the survey findings are “not an unimportant consideration”.
“It's one survey ... but it does reflect sentiments in our society. I think we must take heed of it,” he said.
Continue reading...
“I believe there is a role for the opposition to play in our politics, in our democracy, and a very important role to campaign for your ideas and your proposals to hold the elected government to account and to offer serious alternatives to the government,” Mr Wong said on the fifth day of the debate on the President’s Address.
Over the past few days, ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House have sparred several times over comments made by Mr Wong earlier this week about how the opposition should provide concrete alternatives and “not just opportunistic or populist ideas”.
During his speech, Mr Singh (WP-Aljunied) rejected criticisms that the Workers' Party (WP) has no serious policies or that it advances populist ideas, adding that it was “a most unfair charge” levelled at the WP.
Joining the debate on Friday, Mr Wong said he accepts Mr Singh’s view and that both sides “may well have to agree to disagree”.
He added that he had raised the point about the future of Singapore’s democracy due to worries over how populism has divided and polarised more developed democracies elsewhere in the world.
Singapore is not immune from this risk and if populism takes root here, it will cause “great damage to Singapore and Singaporeans” in the long term, he said.
As such, the government rejects all forms of populism and seeks to “uphold honesty and integrity in policymaking”, added Mr Wong, who is also Finance Minister.
“If the government were ever to fall short of these standards, we expect the opposition to call us out and say so. Please do. You have to do it, we expect you to do it,” he said.
"Conversely, if the opposition were to propose ideas and policies that we feel are populist, we likewise will highlight them and highlight our concerns, rightfully so. I hope that's our common understanding of how we can take Singapore’s politics and democracy forward.”
In response, Mr Singh said in the course of debate, both sides of the House “will be going back and forth at each other’s proposals and ideas”.
“But insofar as populism and opportunism are concerned, I am quite certain that DPM means that ought to work both ways,” he added, noting that it “cannot be a case of pointing fingers at the opposition and accusing them of that when certain actions of ruling party politicians on the ground are no better”.
“But having said that, I accept DPM’s concerns of our democracy and certainly the Workers’ Party, and I hope the opposition in general, will be mindful going forward and work towards the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans,” said the WP chief.
The opposition comprises nine WP MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs from the Progress Singapore Party.
Related:
SOME INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng also responded to a comment made by Mr Singh, who likened getting information from the government to “squeezing blood out of a stone”.
During his speech in parliament, Mr Singh called for the government to be more open in sharing information, using his party’s experience during a debate on job security and foreign manpower in 2021 to highlight the challenges they faced in getting information.
Mr Singh said that if information had been released earlier, this could have "reduced heat before things reached a boiling point".
In response, Dr Tan said many of the questions asked by opposition members were related to confidential information that is not usually released.
“Notwithstanding that, in the interest of addressing the issue in parliament to the best extent that is possible, our manpower officials came up to put the statistics required by members in parliament,” he said.
“To your point about the confidential information that could have been released earlier, I believe that it cannot be the reason for the ugly xenophobia, racial undertones surrounding CECA (Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement),” he added.
Related:
NEED FOR ENGLISH TEST
Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong, who spoke on Friday about the need to keep forging unity and cohesion in Singapore, also gave his views on Mr Singh’s proposal of an English test when assessing a person’s application for citizenship or permanent residency in Singapore.
Mr Singh made this proposal on Feb 27 during the Committee of Supply debates for the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The opposition leader repeated the suggestion on Friday and cited a recent poll done by CNA, which found a large majority of Singapore-born citizens being in favour of the test.
About 80 per cent of the 500 respondents believe that such a test should be part of the application process.
Mr Tong noted that a “significant proportion of Singaporeans throughout our history have not been able to speak English well”.
Raising his 96-year-old grandmother as an example, he added: “If we had years ago applied this test, then someone like her may not have made it into Singapore.”
The minister also said that an English test may not be the best marker of an applicant’s ability to integrate in Singapore.
He pointed to the country’s immigration framework, which was “tightened significantly in 2009”, that considers a broader range of factors, including the length of stay and family ties to Singapore.
These other factors would be “equally, if not perhaps in some cases, more effective” as a marker of integration, the minister added.
“So I would say not that English proficiency is not important – I think there's value in that – but not make it a single qualifying test and don’t make it a single point assessment for citizenship," said Mr Tong.
Mr Singh clarified that he did not say that English proficiency should be a single point of consideration for new permanent residents and citizens.
“I made it clear in my speech today that it was a nudge to align our immigration policy and our bilingual policy,” he said.
Referring to the findings of CNA’s poll, Mr Singh said while he does not want to lean too much into one survey alone, it may be “a good time” to consider how people's views change through generations.
To that, Mr Tong responded that the survey findings are “not an unimportant consideration”.
“It's one survey ... but it does reflect sentiments in our society. I think we must take heed of it,” he said.
Related:
Continue reading...