About Trust – in Parliament
It has been four months since the last General Election. As we commence this new term of Parliament, I note that we have 31 members who are entering Parliament for the first time. I am privileged to be here for my 5th term. There are quite a few others who have been here longer, including Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his 10th term – more than 40 years. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to give my personal welcome to the newly-minted MPs from both sides of the House.
One of the themes in the President’s Address is about Trust. Some Ministers have in past days also emphasised the importance of trust in institutions. Today I wish to say a few words about trust in one of the key institutions we have – this Chamber – Parliament.
All of us here gained entry through a competitive process i.e. we contested in the recent elections to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans. Fundamentally, party politics is a competitive process which pits one party against another. Yes, elections involve a zero-sum game: one vote for you means one less vote for me. But once the dust of elections has settled, we are entrusted to represent our constituents. How can we best do so? On a broader level, how does one measure the effectiveness of a Parliament?
To answer this question, one needs to return to the purpose of Parliament in the first place. One respected index that covers this issue is the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project compiles an index that the Singapore government frequently cites for its high rankings of Singapore in the area of Order and Security. To give a bit of background, the World Justice Project declares itself as an independent, multi-disciplinary organisation that seeks to advance the rule of law worldwide. The Project reviews countries around the world to assess each country’s laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment to the rule of law. The outcomes it is interested in centre around four principles: accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice; it believes these principles are universal. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree that these principles apply to us as well.
In assessing the state of the rule of law, the World Justice Project examines each country on various indicators. In its latest overall ranking in 2024, Singapore was ranked 16 out of 142 countries, which is overall respectable. When we look across the different sub-indicators for Singapore, what sticks out is that we have largely healthy scores across six out of eight indicators; the two indicators where we do not do so well are in the factors called Open Government and Constraints on Government Powers. I believe this has been our consistent scorecard from the World Justice Project for many years. Such a mixed scorecard should also come as no surprise.
In measuring Open Government, the index looks into matters such as how much information is shared by the government with the public and whether citizens have a right to information. Open Government also measures public accountability – whether there are effective complaint mechanisms and how far the people are empowered with the tools to hold the government accountable.
As for the factor of Constraints on Government Powers, it is concerned with how far those who govern are bound by law. One key sub-indicator is whether government powers are effectively limited by the legislature. That is where Parliament comes in. On this issue, our score is not respectable – the Singapore Parliament is ranked 104 out of 142 national Parliaments. Among high income countries, we are second last. In contrast, our courts appear to be doing well as a check on the government, being ranked 17th out of 142 countries.
Sir, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth but as a point for introspection. We should honestly examine why there is an independent, multi-disciplinary opinion that our Parliament is not effective in limiting government powers.
Of course, one likely reason is the balance in Parliament between different political parties, or should I say imbalance, with almost 90% of the seats in the hands of the ruling party. This is the result of our system design and Singaporeans’ votes on Polling Day. We respect the outcome of the elections. That said, it is a fact that in the House, the government agenda is set by the leaders of the ruling party, and party discipline demands that ruling party MPs vote in support of the government agenda. But we should be mindful that, as MPs, our overriding duty is not to our parties, but to Singaporeans. Regardless of our affiliation, we have a duty to speak for our constituents and ensure that this Chamber works for them. This means questioning the government and holding it to account, rigorously if necessary.
On the government’s part, it should always demonstrate that it is sharing as much information as possible in the House. And in the long run, it is Singaporeans who need to decide if the balance of power in the House should be changed.
On our part as opposition MPs, we are expected to take an independent line, question the government and vote against proposals when we deem it necessary. Speaking from experience, this is not easy, especially when one is surrounded and vastly outnumbered. But that is our obligation and that is what voters expect us to do. We will play our part to build a Parliament that the people trust. We are cautiously optimistic that our Parliamentary system has potential to do better.
Earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a Parliamentary sitting in the UK – in the House of Commons in Westminster. Many of us would have seen television footage of somewhat rowdy sessions from the UK Parliament and strong exchanges between opposite benches. But I realise now that such scenes do not tell the whole story. What I saw that day was a Minister from the Labour government painstakingly explaining an urgent matter that had just taken place over the weekend in London - how British police had upheld democratic values while policing a mass protest over the situation in Gaza.
What was more striking to me was the response of the Shadow Minister from the Conservative Party. He rose to ask for an assurance from his political opponent - the Minister - stating that if that particular Minister gave the assurance, he would accept it. That moment set me thinking hard. Political competitors, yet able to give each other some credit and credibility.
That is my hope for our Parliament too. Politics is competitive, but why are we in this? I would like to believe that the main motivation is a calling to serve the public in elected office, a calling that is most meaningful and noble. In this term of Parliament, I hope we can build trust in the House as well. At the very minimum, we should remember that all colleagues here are fellow Singaporeans who have made a choice to leave our comfort zones to take up national office. Let us start from a position that a fellow MP has a good motivation, though we may disagree with the position he or she is taking and should take the issue on. If we can do that, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from a focus on the issues that matter.
Sir, let me conclude. Our system of government expects Parliament to play its role to ensure good governance. All of us here are competitors but not enemies. The people have elected us to act on their behalf, to ensure Singapore endures for the long term, to work towards a Singapore built to last. On this, we have common cause.
