Revisiting the 14th Parliament: The term that delivered hot mics, shock exits, and made history
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 21 Apr 2025
Author: Wong Pei Ting & Ang Qing
This term of Parliament was not much longer than the last, with the difference being just 2½ months. But the tempo was higher with 162 sittings, up from 135.
One night in Parliament, the clock struck midnight – and MPs were still debating two competing motions on jobs and Singapore’s foreign talent policy, more than 13 hours since the sitting began.
By the time Leader of the House Indranee Rajah adjourned the House to “great relief” at 12.33am on Sept 15, 2021, Nominated MP Janet Ang had returned to the Chamber after leaving to celebrate her birthday over dinner with her family, while the birthday of Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad had just begun.
This is just one instance that reflects how the 14th term of Parliament has not just been active, but near relentless.
For starters, this term of Parliament was not much longer than the last, with the difference being just 2½ months.
But the tempo was higher with 162 sittings, up from 135, along with an unprecedented number of Bill and motion speeches, ministerial statements and adjournment motions.
The number of occasions a PAP backbencher spoke during question time and orders of the day such as Bills or motions increased by 65 per cent from the 13th term of Parliament.
All but seven of the 27 PAP MPs who were re-elected in 2020 took their participation up a notch.
Contributions by the opposition MPs grew 164 per cent, partly due to the WP’s additional four seats in Sengkang GRC from the 2020 General Election.
Leading the pack was incumbent Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng, who was also the most active MP in the 13th term.
Mr Ng’s participation went up by 72 per cent in the term, with him filing or clarifying 728 parliamentary questions, versus 327 previously, while clocking 195 speeches or clarifications on Parliament’s items of business.
Besides Mr Ng and incumbent Yio Chu Kang MP Yip Hon Weng, who came in second, other members who finished in the top 10 in terms of questions asked and debate participation included all three incumbent Sengkang GRC MPs Louis Chua, Jamus Lim and He Ting Ru from the WP, and PSP Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai.
The larger and stronger opposition presence has certainly given the PAP a run for its money, said Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan.
This is unlike the 1970s when the PAP was the only party in Parliament, or the 1980s when there were no more than two opposition MPs, he added.
Claiming the floor
Associate Professor Tan said that as the WP and the PSP use Parliament as the platform to showcase their policy on key issues of the day, PAP backbenchers “certainly feel the need to match the opposition”.
Agreeing, National University of Singapore political scientist Elvin Ong noted the trend of the PAP’s social media platforms featuring more questions and speeches by its backbenchers.
This trend could support the theory that the PAP wants to convince voters there is no need to vote for opposition MPs because PAP backbenchers can do as good a job to keep the executive in check, he said.
Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) senior research fellow Gillian Koh said the higher activity overall on both sides is partly the effect of the “institutionalisation or normalisation of the opposition voice” in Parliament.
Noting that the 14th term not only had a higher number of duly-elected opposition MPs, but also the appointment of an official Leader of the Opposition, Dr Koh said Parliament grew livelier by virtue of the fact that the WP had 10 elected members. The PSP had two NCMPs.
This may help explain why late-night sittings – once rare – have become more common. Almost a third of the sessions stretched past 8pm this term, versus 18 per cent in the term before this.
There were nine occurrences of sittings that stretched past 10pm this time round, compared with just one such sitting in the previous term – when the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, which put in place Singapore’s fake news law, was passed following a two-day marathon debate.
Five of these nine late-night sittings in the 14th term were devoted to debating motions raised by the opposition, including a PSP motion on affordable and accessible public housing in February 2023 and a PSP motion on foreign talent policy in September 2021.
On these two occasions, ministers from the ruling party countered with competing government motions – setting the stage for lengthy debates and sharp exchanges.
The three other occasions were when Parliament passed a WP motion on reforming Singapore’s justice system, a PSP motion on supporting hawkers, and a WP motion on the cost of living, after PAP MPs proposed significant amendments.
Shaping the agenda through motions
MPs tabled a record 20 private member’s motions this term, a sharp rise from nine in the last term. The 20 broke the previous high of 18 set in the ninth term.
Analysts say the rising number of clashes here reflects a growing awareness among opposition MPs of the power of such motions to shape the agenda in Parliament.
Noting that this is where all sides are prepared to allow for a “full ventilation of the policy issues at hand”, Dr Koh said opposition MPs are making fuller use of the parliamentary tools at their disposal.
Motions serve the incumbent as well – they grant the PAP government the stage to further explain their policies and articulate policy options and trade-offs, Prof Tan said.
Adding that parties increasingly see parliamentary performances as crucial to their political relevance, he said: “It’s about getting their narrative out to Singaporeans.
“For the opposition parties, it is fundamentally about showing that they can hold their own against the dominant PAP. How they engage the PAP is also part of their narrative.”
PAP MPs filed seven such motions in the 14th term, on issues such as climate change, mental health and building an inclusive digital society.
MPs from the WP filed four, including on sporting success and the cost of living.
The two PSP NCMPs filed eight motions in all, covering topics such as abolishing group representation constituencies, and an impartial Speaker of Parliament. The remaining motion was filed by three Nominated MPs, on supporting healthcare.
Issues have become more complex, Prof Tan noted. “Consider the effort to deal with the various types of online harms, the use of past reserves, and electoral system reforms. So the parties are locking horns more – across a range of issues and more substantively,” said Prof Tan, who is a former NMP.
Economist Walter Theseira, also a former NMP, views the increase in motions tabled as a positive development as it brings more debates on policies into the public sphere.
“While such diverse discussions also take place in forums like dialogue and feedback sessions, none have the same transparency, legal weight or historical significance as Parliament,” he said.
The 14th term saw a record 59 ministerial statements as well – more than double the 29 delivered in the previous term.
Prof Tan said such statements are an avenue for the Government to get key messages across to Singaporeans, facilitate a more engaged and more informed discussion of the issues raised, and seek a parliamentary as well as a societal consensus on the issues.
Associate Professor Theseira said the statements allow the Government to set the agenda and place on record its views on a policy or matter of public interest. It is a move in the right direction, he added.
As an NMP, he had preferred that the Government address complex issues with a ministerial statement than to give lengthy replies during the 90 minutes set aside for question time, as that meant fewer questions could be addressed orally in that sitting, he said.
While a minister could simply address such issues by responding to parliamentary questions, giving a ministerial statement allows the Government to provide more comprehensive remarks that go beyond the questions filed, he added.
Dealing with the pandemic, and controversies
Analysts said the rise in activity should also be seen in the context that the 14th Parliament began amid a global pandemic, which led it to pass an unprecedented 12 Budgets – including five in 2020.
Dr Koh noted that since the term started in August 2020, there was an extraordinary amount of government business and legislation to deal with due to Covid-19.
Following that, the PAP government moved its major Forward Singapore agenda by rolling out a raft of policy reforms, legislative changes, and funding programmes to implement that agenda, while the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, she noted.
Disputes and scandals further filled the docket, with Dr Koh noting that concern about parliamentary conduct was a theme in this term – from upholding the dignity and decorum of Parliament to, specifically, ensuring that parliamentary privileges are not abused.
PSP’s Mr Leong was the subject of several points of order owing to his claims that he was constrained from speaking in Parliament, while then Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin was separately flagged for unparliamentary conduct due to remarks he made that were caught on a hot mic.
A point of order is a formal objection raised that can be raised by any MP during a sitting to draw the Speaker’s attention to a breach of parliamentary rules or procedures.
There were also multiple resignations during the term. The WP’s Ms Raeesah Khan stepped down after admitting to lying twice in the House, while Mr Leon Perera resigned over a past extramarital affair.
The PAP’s Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and Ms Cheng Li Hui resigned over their extramarital affair, while former transport minister S. Iswaran did the same due to a corruption probe.
In June 2023, then Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam resigned to run for the presidency. He was elected in the presidential election later that year.
Notwithstanding what the House accomplished in its latest term, observers said there is still room for legislators to make a greater impact.
Prof Tan said: “I am not sure if debates have become meaningfully intense and substantive. All too often, I find PAP and the opposition do not really lock horns as they often talk past each other.”
Since live streaming of Parliament proceedings began in January 2021, there have been more “performative speeches” and “political posturing” on both sides of the political aisle as well, he added.
What future MPs can do is to look at what Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam did when he was a backbencher for almost two decades, Prof Tan said.
“He wasn’t particularly active but his speeches were profound, provocative and substantial. Many of them are still quoted and referred to by opposition MPs and in academic research,” he said, suggesting that MPs focus on the impact of their speeches and questions.
One can expect parliamentary sessions to last as long, or stretch even longer, if the parliamentary opposition grows in size after the general election, Prof Tan said.
He expressed concern about the possibility of MPs focusing more on form over substance, by “playing to the gallery” and “scoring debating points” rather than contesting ideas and policies.
IPS Social Lab research fellow Teo Kay Key expects to see the same level of intensity in the new term of Parliament, given the more competitive political landscape.
Prof Tan said: “Parliament will grow in importance as a platform for the keen contest of ideas.”
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1329