SG Talk

Full Version: MPs should not ask questions to ‘clock numbers’; focus
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
MPs should not ask questions to ‘clock numbers’; focus should be improving S’poreans’ lives: Seah Kian Peng | The Straits Times

 https://share.google/NkIHIFLV4yhgG96mg
The statement by Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng — “MPs should not ask questions to ‘clock numbers’; focus should be on improving Singaporeans’ lives” — may sound reasonable at first, but it has several flaws and inconsistencies when examined critically. Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:


---

🔍 1. False Dichotomy – Framing Quantity vs Quality as Mutually Exclusive

Flaw: Seah implies that MPs who ask many questions ("clock numbers") are not focused on substance.

Reality: A diligent MP can ask many meaningful questions that hold the government accountable. Quantity doesn't always mean low quality — and in many cases, persistent questioning is necessary to get real answers.


🧠 Critical point: Oversight in a parliamentary democracy often requires repetition, especially if the first answer is vague, evasive, or incomplete.


---

🔍 2. Delegitimizing Opposition MPs’ Role

Flaw: This statement subtly undermines opposition MPs, many of whom use parliamentary questions as a tool to probe policy gaps, seek transparency, and raise ground issues.

This rhetoric can be read as a way to shame or discourage scrutiny by implying that questioning the government is a form of "grandstanding" rather than good governance.



---

🔍 3. Vague Metric of 'Improving Lives'

Flaw: The Speaker invokes "improving Singaporeans’ lives" as the gold standard, but who defines what counts as an improvement?

Parliamentary questions are a core way MPs help improve lives — by raising issues such as CPF rules, HDB delays, MRT faults, or medical fee transparency. So asking questions is directly tied to improving citizens’ lives.



---

🔍 4. Selective Application of Standards

Flaw: PAP MPs also submit many written questions, sometimes with minimal depth. If Seah’s statement is truly neutral, why has it not been applied equally across all parties?

This could be interpreted as a selective rebuke targeted at more active or vocal MPs, especially those not in the ruling party.



---

🔍 5. Discouraging Parliamentary Accountability

Flaw: Labeling MPs’ questions as “clocking numbers” may intimidate backbenchers or opposition MPs into silence, for fear of being perceived as "insincere."

Parliament is meant to be a space for questioning. Shifting the focus away from transparency and debate risks weakening Singapore’s already constrained democratic checks.



---

🔍 6. Speaker’s Role Should Be Neutral

Flaw: As Speaker of Parliament, Seah is expected to be politically neutral and uphold procedural fairness.

By commenting on the "intent" of MPs' questions, he risks appearing to judge motives, which could undermine his perceived neutrality.



---

Summary Infographic (Text Format)

🧠 SEAH KIAN PENG’S COMMENT: “MPs should not clock questions, but improve lives.”

🚩 6 Flaws in the Statement:
1️⃣ False Dichotomy – Quantity ≠ Lack of Quality
2️⃣ Delegitimizes Opposition MPs’ Oversight Role
3️⃣ Vague Benchmark – “Improving Lives” is Subjective
4️⃣ Double Standard – Not Criticizing PAP MPs Equally
5️⃣ Silences Accountability – Discourages Questioning
6️⃣ Risk to Speaker’s Neutrality – Inte
rpreting Motives

📣 In Parliament, questions ARE a tool to improve lives.