Lawrence Wong must face MPs in Parliament, not hide behind compliant media

On Friday, marking his 100th day in office, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong held a press conference following his National Day Rally speech, where he reiterated the importance of such engagements.

He opened by reaffirming his earlier promise: “I had mentioned earlier that I would hold press conferences from time to time to share my thinking with Singaporeans, through the media.”

In the press conference, which lasted over 40 minutes, Mr Wong addressed issues such as the cost of living, which he did not cover in his National Day Rally speech, and how more shocks and crises can be expected in the coming years due to increasing geopolitical tensions and armed conflicts.

However, while many answers were given, many more questions that members of the public have remained unanswered.

Media reports on the press conference—by publications directly or indirectly funded by the government—resemble more a press release or propaganda piece for Mr Wong and his party rather than offering any real scrutiny on how the government plans to address the issues that concern many Singaporeans.

While press conferences offer a platform to share updates and future plans, they lack the rigorous scrutiny that a parliamentary session provides.

Instead of opting for controlled media interactions, Mr Wong should prioritize answering questions directly in parliament, where his statements can be challenged and examined by elected representatives.

Earlier in May—before he was officially sworn in as Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister—Mr Wong pledged to hold more press conferences to better communicate the government’s “thinking and considerations” to the public once he formally took office.

However, since his swearing-in, it has become apparent that critical questions — both oral and written —from members of parliament for the past July and August sittings of Parliament are being answered by his colleagues in the Prime Minister’s Office rather than by Mr Wong himself.

A notable example is the response to the Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) motion calling for a review of how electoral boundaries are drawn.

Given that Mr Wong, as Prime Minister, would have the most comprehensive understanding of the electoral boundary review process as he would be the one directing the committee on how to redraw boundaries, he would be expected to address such questions directly.

Instead, Minister for Education and Minister-in-Charge of Public Service Chan Chun Sing was tasked with responding.

He made statements that fell short of expectations, including the perplexing remark that he could not answer questions on behalf of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) because he was not part of it.

Worst of all, when asked a direct question as to where there is gerrymandering in Singapore, Mr Chan chose not to answer the question but said that he left it for the public to decide.

This approach raises concerns about Mr Wong’s commitment to transparency and accountability with Singaporeans.

While his intention to communicate through press conferences was meant to enhance the public’s understanding of government decisions, this method appears more focused on controlled messaging rather than engaging in the necessary and often challenging discussions in parliament.

If Mr Wong is truly committed to sharing his thoughts with the public, he should spend less time engaging with compliant media and more time making his statements in parliament, where his points can be contested, questioned, and elaborated upon by elected MPs in the form of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs).

In the United Kingdom, PMQs are held every Wednesday, allowing members of parliament to question the Prime Minister directly about government business. This tradition ensures that the Prime Minister is accountable to both parliament and the public, providing answers in real-time to the representatives of the people.

In contrast to Mr Wong, other leaders in the region who practice the Commonwealth parliamentary system, such as Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, have embraced the practice of answering questions directly during PM Question Time, engaging with elected representatives in a transparent and accountable manner.

Parliament—not a controlled environment where accredited media outlets are given press handouts—should be the primary platform where the Prime Minister shares his thoughts, defends his policies, and answers the tough questions that the public deserves to have answered.

Anything less undermines the very principles of democratic governance that Singaporeans expect and deserve.