Why are people cynical about politics? Are we missing something?

7/28/2019 Why are people cynical about politics? Are we missing something?

1/4

Why are people cynical about politics? Are we missing something?

The Straits Times, Singapore

4 April 2002

Why are people cynical about politics? Are we missing something?- Former Speaker Tan Soo

Khoon

Unlike the previous two days, only three of the 15 MPs who spoke yesterday were newcomers.

Perhaps, it was no surprise then that the most striking speech on the third day of the debate on

the President's Address to Parliament was given by an old hand. Now a backbencher, Mr Tan Soo

Khoon, who was the Speaker of the House for 13 years and has been an MP for 25 years, spoke

about what could be done to reduce the persistent cynicism among Singaporeans of the political

process here.

We produce extracts.

BETWEEN the opening of the Ninth Parliament and this one, so much has changed in the world.

Five years ago, we were brimming with confidence. Nobody foresaw that within a few months, the

Asian financial crisis would engulf us, President Suharto would fall from power in Indonesia and

Singapore would go through two major economic crises.

The dream of more good years would be put on hold as Singaporeans would Line is overdrawn

find themselves losing their jobs. Certainly, nobody at that time would have imagined aneconomic downturn and the sight of Singaporeans queueing up to collect money from their MPs

to give them relief.

And, most certainly, none of us ever thought it possible that we would ever see two airplanes

plunging into the World Trade Center in New York. It was an event that would eventually lead to

the possibility of terrorism rearing its head at our doorstep.

Amid these dramatic events, the Government called an election before it was due. We wanted to

quickly provide hope for our people.

And these are the pressing issues: the deepest recession since Independence, unemployment,

finding jobs for our people, high business costs, our economic competitiveness, the tudung issue,

relations with our neighbours and terrorism.

So it did somewhat baffle me that, while we went out to seek a new mandate from the people

very quickly, it took almost five months for Parliament to be convened for the representatives of

the people to meet and discuss the issues that are so crucial to Singaporeans and our future.

I am in no way suggesting that the Government is not seeking to engage Parliament. Having been

a Member of this House for a long time, I can attest that the Government has not shirked in its

accountability to Parliament.


2/4

But this time, there are so many urgent issues that should have been discussed sooner rather than

later. I can therefore understand the scepticism of many Singaporeans of our political process.

Some Singaporeans tell me: The Government makes all the decisions. It's all done behind closed

doors. It asks for feedback. We know they hear us, but do they listen enough? Questions like these

are perplexing to me.

When I heard the President telling us that we need to open up more space for them to participate

in the national debate, I know we have made some progress in the right direction.

But I still ask myself: Why do most Singaporeans feel left out of the political and decision-making

process?

So, I asked myself: Are we missing something here?

Maybe it's their failure to understand how we arrive at our decisions Perhaps, part of this failure

to understand us lies in the way we do things.

And I also find myself grappling further with questions like these: Why are Singaporeans,

particularly younger ones, cynical of our political process?

How can we be more open with the way we arrive at our decisions so that they can understand

that policies are not made and rammed down their throats, but that every conceivable alternative

would have been weighed before a decision is taken?

Perhaps, we are sometimes too efficient or, some may say, too business-like.

It is, indeed, a rare occasion in this House where a minister accepts changes to be made to his Bill,

except as one minister puts it: 'I guess I can live with the changes if they are just commas and

full-stops.'

Or we may want to consider sending more Bills to select committees so that we can engage public

participation.

I find myself asking further: Has the government parliamentary committee system proven so

effective for the Government, in that it allows the backbenchers to thrash out issues with

ministers behind closed doors, to the extent that by the time the issue reaches the floor of the

House, the sting has been taken out, so much that the public perceives our backbenchers to be

either too understanding or amenable of the Government's position?

Is it the way the Government handles MPs' criticisms and proposals that lead the public to think

that MPs are less effective than they would want them to be?

Like MPs, ministers, too, come in all shades. Some are more receptive than others. I have seen, onoccasion, how a minister can, if I may put it in a gentle way, bristle at some of the criticisms of his

policies.


3/4


4/4

consultative government, out-of-bound markers, as they are called, were put in place, undefined

as they were, to limit the discussion space.

So I ask, if we really mean it this time, why do we need to impose a Whip at all? After all, we have

such an overwhelming majority in this House that it's inconceivable that the Government would

ever be defeated in a vote.

We need only impose the Whip on crucial matters - money matters, motions of no-confidence,

constitutional changes - and not lift it only when the Government Whip decides to do so.

I have one last suggestion on how to curb the cynicism of Singaporeans about our decision-making

process. On important issues, I feel that we should let ministers state their individual views.

I have often heard the remark, again from cynical Singaporeans, that on practically all issues, all

ministers share the same view, no difference.

We must find a workable formula for this without compromising on the principle of collective

responsibility and confidentiality in Cabinet, because if we have good men in Cabinet, like Dr

Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Raymond Lim, both of whom have up till now been respected for their

individualistic, sound arguments, sometimes contrary to the Establishment's, men who can think

out of the box - but, may I add that I hope the box will not be crushed - and if we allow them to

freely expound their views before the decision is taken, Singaporeans can only stand to benefit

greatly by the diversity of views that they express, and can better understand how decisions are

finally arrived at.

Documents

Why are people cynical about politics? Are we missing something?