Cabinet newbies need “baptism of fire” as backbencher, not parachutes

By Sean Lim

In secondary school, I was part of the executive committee in the Student Council. As part of the committee, my friends and I were given departments to helm, such as events, students’ discipline or public relations. They were important responsibilities given only to upper secondary students after they went through two years of an ordinary councillor. 

That sounds reasonable, right? 

Moreover, if I was appointed an exco member right at the start, when I joined the council in secondary one, eyebrows would be raised. I could foresee the arguments: How could you allow a novice to helm a department in the council when he had not even experienced life as a student councillor.

If that’s the case, then why are we not batting an eyelid when first-term MPs were appointed into the cabinet?

Monday (July 27) saw seven newly-elected MPs sworn in to Prime Minister’s Lee Hsien Loong’s cabinet, one of whom is a full minister. They are: Dr Tan See Leng, Mr Alvin Tan, Mr Eric Chua, Ms Gan Siow Huang, Mr Desmond Tan, Mr Tan Kiat How and Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.

As compared with the new cabinet appointments after the 2011 and 2015 general elections, there are visibly fewer newly-elected MPs appointed to cabinet this time due to PM Lee’s emphasis on continuity in the Covid-19 pandemic. But still, the trend of parachuting political greenhorns into political office-holder positions is worrying. 

Let us not forget these individuals are first and foremost an MP. In Parliament, their role is to scrutinise the budgets of the Government, hold it accountable for the policies made and represent their constituents. 

If politicians are appointed to the executive branch of government right after their first election, how do they fully understand and empathise with the role of a backbench MP when they did not go through that experience. Singaporeans have high expectations of their political office-holders and they want them to be all-rounded, which includes some background as a rank-and-file MP. 

They will be taking questions from backbenchers and explain policies to members in the House before they even launch their first parliamentary question. Can they stand in the shoes of backbenchers and appreciate their agenda and viewpoints? 

Besides, if these office-holders take on their respective positions without parliamentary experience, I wonder if there is enough time for them to build up the tenacity and sharpness a leader needs in a debate. It is important for ministers to first undergo the training and baptism of fire through the cut-and-thrust of debates, before growing to be an even more capable debater as an office-holder. 

Surely Singaporeans don’t expect ministers to be learning on the job to be a strong debater, hemming, and hawing in the House; their debating skills are expected to be robust by the time they become a minister. 

Perhaps office-holders could get away with less-than-ideal debating skills in the past with fewer opposition MPs in the House. But with a record number of opposition MPs elected into Parliament since independence — a total of 10 from the Workers’ Party — and that such a trend is here to stay, said PM Lee at the swearing-in ceremony of his new cabinet, I can’t stress enough that Government leaders need to be strong debaters by the time they are given office positions, in order to engage robustly with “their colleagues across the aisle” and vocal PAP backbenchers. 

Many of us will remember Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam as a quick-witted debater in Parliament. Part of the reason is probably due to his legal training, but I won’t be surprised if his rich experience as a backbencher for almost two decades played a part too. He became an MP in 1988 but it was only in 2008 when he was given his first office-holding appointment as a Second Minister for Home Affairs.

Ditto for former PM Goh Chok Tong, who also had a stint as a backbencher when elected as MP for Marine Parade in 1976, before he proved his mettle and was appointed as a Senior Minister of State for Finance close to a year later, and eventually became the leader of the country. 

In contrast, while Deputy PM Heng Swee Keat is a good technocrat who did well in the Education Ministry and is pivotal as the Finance Minister who delivered four budgets to help the country during this time of crisis, I’m not sure if I can say the same in his communication and persuasion skills. 

He was unconvincing when he argued with the WP MPs over the “GST test balloon” episode in 2018. Neither did DPM Heng handle the cut-and-thrust of debate well last November as he fumbled with his script while answering a question from the Opposition, during a motion that called on WP MPs Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to recuse themselves from financial matters relating to Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. 

And yes, DPM Heng was appointed directly as a full cabinet minister right after GE2011, bypassing the phase as a backbencher. Who knows, he might be an even better DPM if he had gone through that baptism of fire as a backbencher. 

More importantly, being an office-holder is a tall order with heavy responsibilities, since most of them will be helming or co-helming ministries. They will make major decisions that create a ripple effect across the country. Only the most capable leaders with substance should be appointed to those positions. 

If an MP did not even go through the process of a backbencher to first gain parliamentary experience, they will lack the moral authority and political track record in persuading Singaporeans that they can do the job. We are merely lucky if ministers parachuted into cabinet right after their first election performed well, but this cannot be forever a guarantee.

I recognise PM Lee’s urge to let these political novices have the necessary exposure as office-holders. But the political arena is not a training ground; anyone who becomes a minister must already be capable, all-rounded, and have a wealth of experience — which I believe one will have if he has the backbench experience. 

A good compromise will be this: Instead of appointing fresh faces as office-holders right after an election, do so during a midterm cabinet reshuffle. That might be the best of both worlds, having clocked up some experience as a backbencher before becoming an office-holder. 

Unless there is a lack of a credible pool of leaders to choose from — which, by the way, will be a major existential problem for the PAP. 

Picture from Prime Minister's Office