Policies: Good. Politics: Can do better

Nine days and over 80 hours of debate later, what is one to make of this year's marathon Budget debate session?

The first three days had 54 MPs speaking, mainly in support of the Government's fiscal policy. This year, the star was the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package that promises generous subsidies for those aged 65 and above, which won support from all.

Parliament then went into what is called the Committee of Supply to scrutinise the budgets of the Prime Minister's Office and 15 ministries.

Traditionally, MPs file motions to propose cuts to the budget - of a token sum of $100 - to open the floor so the budget can be debated. When the issues have been debated to everyone's satisfaction, the "cuts" are withdrawn. This year, 452 "cuts" were filed.

The Government's Budget invariably then passes intact, and uncut. Does this mean the entire exercise is just one of rubber-stamping the Budget and that it's just a waste of time?

I would say no, for two main reasons. First, the annual debate presents a valuable progress report on the Government's policies.

Parliamentary proceedings are open to the public - so anyone is free to spend nine days in the air-conditioned public gallery to watch the debates live.

Second, the debate gives what I would call a "leading indicator" of politics.

Progress report

A mid-term progress report at this juncture is important for the People's Action Party (PAP) Government, which saw support slide to the lowest level since independence during the May 2011 General Election.

The Government's five- year term ends in October 2016.

This year, MPs appear satisfied with progress made on the once- hot issue of housing, as Leader of the House Ng Eng Hen observed when he wrapped up the debate.

He added that "the honour of hot seats" instead went to the ministries of Health, Transport and Manpower.

On health, many questions were asked on the transition of MediShield to MediShield Life, with MPs seeking clarity on premium affordability and coverage. On manpower, the plight of older workers was a key concern.

On health and manpower, MPs' report might read: Satisfactory, but can do better.

On transport, MPs asked if frequent train breakdowns were a new norm for commuters. One called the situation "appalling". Even Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew admitted that satisfaction in public transport had fallen.

But he pledged an expansion of the public bus network. The expansion of the MRT system, meanwhile, will take years but is on track.

For the ministry, MPs' report might read: Can and must do better.

On social issues, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has expanded childcare and kindergarten places and subsidies; introduced subsidies for home-based care; and is testing respite care options to relieve caregivers.

These are longstanding issues raised by social service advocates such as MPs Denise Phua and Seah Kian Peng, both of whom took pains to acknowledge the progress MSF has made.

Leading indicator

Parliamentry debates are also good times to discern areas in which progress is clearly lacking. MPs' ferocity in arguing a case is an indicator of simmering issues.

Several MPs warned of rising business costs. One was Mr Inderjit Singh, who said businesses were struggling to cope with higher wage costs, higher rental costs, and the too-rapid pace of restructuring. "The situation actually could be very serious," he warned, if there were major business failures and job losses.

Hansard records show that way back in February 2007, Mr Singh warned about overcrowding and soaring costs as results of a too-fast growth policy.

But it was only in September 2009 that the Government made front-page news for its pledge to slow down immigrant and foreign-worker intake.

Even today, Singaporeans feel the impact of too little, too late, being done on the crowding issue.

Will Mr Singh prove to be a Cassandra again, with prophecies ignored?

Parliament is also useful for divining the engagement styles of politicians. Most ministers spoke off prepared scripts. MSF Minister Chan Chun Sing spoke from notes in point form.

The best bits often come when ministers have delivered their prepared texts, and MPs press them for clarifications they respond to on the fly.

This is where one shows one's mettle.

Here, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat's best moment was when he responded to a question on Singapore's policy of giving loans and scholarships to foreign students.

When negotiating trade agreements in the past, he said, he was struck by the goodwill shown to Singapore by foreign officials who had studied here. His heartfelt, off-the-cuff remarks had MPs thumping their seat-rests, in the usual parliamentary gesture of approval.

One can prepare texts, but one cannot prepare or fake emotion when delivering it. Constituents do not only care what is said, but watch how it is said.

So leaders must master the art of communicating and public engagement, not just the art of public reading.

My pick of best MP in the debate would be Nee Soon GRC MP Lee Bee Wah. She filed only five cuts but sought many more clarifications.

Engineer Lee, as she prefers to be called, was fearless and clear, whether championing Yishun residents' cause for a covered walkway and a better swimming pool, speaking up for companies reeling from the cutback in foreign workers, or castigating the SMRT for train breakdowns.

This year's debate can also be read as a leading indicator of sorts, of the Workers' Party's (WP) possible political strategy in the years leading to GE 2016.

If so, chances are the WP will not attack the PAP in the years ahead. Instead, it will strike a moderate posture - while claiming credit for every improvement in Singaporeans' lives delivered by the Government. Without the WP, it will argue, the Government wouldn't be so responsive.

So the WP gave unqualified support to the Government's Pioneer Generation Package - but also pointed out that it had previously called for pioneers to be appreciated.

The Government may think it just has to let its policies speak for themselves. It may be banking on improvements in jobs, wages, housing and health care to win people over.

If so, it is mistaken. Singaporeans take for granted that they will have good jobs and a quality living environment, so are unlikely to give the Government extra credit for providing these.

Politics is fought at the level of the gut and the heart, not just the mind. This requires government leaders to focus as much on politics as on policies, and as much on communicating as on designing policies.

Ministers need to act less like super permanent secretaries making policies, and more like leaders prepared to mobilise and galvanise people, to explain, counter, rebut, engage.

It is revealing that a recent survey by government feedback unit Reach showed that many Singaporeans don't know the extent of subsidies they enjoy.

Two in three did not realise they received housing subsidies. Four in 10 underestimated discounts in a Class B2 hospital ward. The problem was worse among the poor and elderly. To me, this is a clear sign that policies may be working, but the politics follow far behind.

Yes, people's lives are improved. But do they feel it? Do they enjoy greater peace of mind? Do they feel more engaged in the country as a result?

If the answers are no, the policies may have delivered outcomes objectively, but have failed at the affective, subjective level.

Good policies do not speak for themselves. Leaders must speak for them. In this respect, the debate might have scored on policy fronts, with the slew of improvements.

But in terms of politics - rallying people, getting their buy-in - I would say the Government's report should read: Can do better.

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.