Many Singaporeans may not know this but the order of business in Parliament is tightly regulated. There is usually only 1½ hours of Question Time to ask oral questions at every sitting, and the order which questions are asked is determined by the Speaker. If a question is at the end of the queue, there may not be enough time for it to be answered orally, and for MPs to ask additional supplementary questions, before Question Time is up.
Hazel Poa Koon Koon 潘群勤 and I had filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lesson on the Israel-Hamas conflict at yesterday’s sittings. However, these PQs were not answered orally during Question Time because Question Time has been reduced to 30 minutes during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates and there was not enough time to reach these PQs.
At the start of the sitting, I raised a Point of Order to ask the Speaker to consider extending Question Time so that the PQs on the CCE lesson could be answered orally and supplementary questions could be asked. The Speaker declined, given that Minister Chan Chun Sing had already addressed the questions during MOE’s COS debate on 4 March 2024.
However, the PSP views this as insufficient, as there are strict time limits for clarifications during the COS debates, and this time also has to be shared with clarifications on other issues raised by MPs during the COS debate.
PSP is also disappointed that on 7 March 2024, Minister Chan chose not to answer PQs on the CCE lesson on the Israel-Hamas conflict via a Ministerial Statement, which would have provided more time for clarifications and questions from MPs. This issue has understandably caught the attention of many Singaporeans and I am sure that many, like us, still have questions that we would like the Government to answer. The PSP therefore chose to defer its PQs to the April 2024 Parliamentary Sitting so that we can have a meaningful discussion on this topic with Minister Chan.
Parliament, like many other institutions in Singapore, is highly efficient at going about its business. As Singapore matures as a democracy, we hope that we can strike a better balance between efficiency and time spent on constructive debate, especially when sensitive issues that reach the heart of our social fabric are concerned.
Singaporeans deserve better.
For Country For People
