Worker's Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh said back in February, during the first Budget debate of the year that as far as the WP was concerned, politics would take a backseat.

This was so that Singapore could present a united response to the Covid-19 outbreak.

However, Pritam feels that the government's handling of the crisis needs to be reviewed and accounted for.

During the Fortitude Budget debate in Parliament on June 5, he said:

"The Workers Party has not come in to publicly criticise the government on its handling of an unprecedented crisis in ways that would undermine the national effort, but Singaporeans have a right to expect a thorough review and accounting on the response to this public health crisis."

Pritam's speech on the Fortitude Budget, likely his last speech in this term of parliament if the General Election is called in July, is also his lengthiest response to a Budget statement this year.

Constructive opposition communicates the feelings of Singaporeans on the ground

Pritam elaborated that the WP's position as a constructive opposition requires it to communicate the "feelings of Singaporeans on the ground" in Parliament.

He suggested that a Commission of Inquiry or some other independent body could review specific aspects of the government's response thus far.

Pritam said that there was the perception that the government's response lacked two things commonly associated with its reputation, clarity and decisiveness.

The need for clarity and decisiveness

Pritam: Public should have been informed of mask supply difficulties early on

He gave the example of a "broadly accepted view" that the public should have been clearly told early on about universal masking, and that it would have been a challenge due to supply constraints, instead of "illegal recordings behind closed doors."

While not saying so explicitly, Pritam might have been referring to the leaked audio recording of Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing addressing a chamber of commerce about the problems Singapore faced in obtaining masks in the early stages of the outbreak.

He added:

"To this end, straight talk, especially on Singapore's limitations and shortcomings in managing the crisis, did not always define official government communication on COVID-19.

There was a perception among some Singaporeans of a public confused with many piecemeal announcements, u-turns and positions that did not gel intuitively, like limiting the number of visits to parents and grandparents to two individuals, when safe, when public transport safe distancing rules had already been lifted."

Pritam: Businesses unclear about Covid-19 directives

Pritam then referred to frustrations with the new regulations expressed by construction companies, and a Straits Times article pointing out that some beauty services were still considered non-essential, while others were allowed to resume. He said:

"For some Singaporean businesses, at times it felt as if no one in government was taking ownership of how Covid-19 directives would be perceived, interpreted and understood on the ground."

Pritam: Crisis reinforced/revealed Singapore's reliance on foreign sources of manpower and supplies

Pritam then discussed the "higher-order trade-offs" and tough decisions that Singapore had to make.

He noted that while other countries requisitioned mask supply lines, it appeared that Singapore resisted doing so.

Pritam speculated that this could have been done with an "eye on the future" so that international companies would always see Singapore as a reliable place to do business.

While Pritam acknowledged that this was a "tough call", he said that the government did not make its position clear to the public, leaving the public to infer its positions instead.

Pritam said that for younger Singaporeans, Covid-19 has shown just how reliant Singapore is on foreign sources of manpower and supplies, and reminded commentators to remember this before speaking ill of our neighbours.

Give space for alternate views

Opposed ideologies already in Singapore

Pritam referred to his own speech during the Resilience Budget debate, in which he suggested having long-term economic support schemes to help those affected by Covid-19 in a Franklin D. Rooseveltian "New Deal" for Singapore.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat then cautioned him about "localising" systems from the U.S., however Pritam countered that "diametrically opposed ideological perspectives" already existed in Singapore, accentuated by online discourse.

Pritam cited the example of various chambers of commerce responding to calls made by Singaporeans to reduce the number of migrant workers in Singapore in light of the Covid-19 outbreak.

He said there is already a perception that corporates and big businesses are over-represented in the "political ecology", be it through the grassroots or their association in private/public national level committees.

As such, government needs to consider how it can become a better arbiter between different views, while at the same time retaining a "laser-like focus" on fact-based conversations that portend a progressive future all Singaporeans can endeavour towards.

Allow space for more diverse views

Pritam pointed out that some Singaporeans who wondered if "we had done right by foreign workers" and called for an improvement in their living conditions were met with naysayers questioning their motives.

In the wake of Covid-19, where the government quickly introduced guidelines for better accommodation for migrant workers and the promotion of a more respectful culture has been a "very positive development."

Pritam further defended critics, saying:

"In my view, Mr Speaker, we should count ourselves fortunate that we have citizens who are the loving critics amongst us, some of whom have been questioned in this very House in this term of government.

Members would recall one citizen's poems were nitpicked with a view to cast wholly negative aspersions on his character, even though that individual was not present in the House to defend himself."

Pritam did not say so explicitly, but he might have been referring to the time when Education Minister Ong Ye Kung referred to playwright Alfian Sa'at's 1998 poem Singapore You Are Not My Country and cited lines from it supposedly to demonstrate that he held "misgivings" about Singapore.

Later, Alfian replied and said that the lines had been quoted out of context.

Leaders influence the public with their rhetoric

Here, Pritam warned against the consequences of such acts:

"Mr Speaker, when any leader or person of influences engages in what will be interpreted as dog whistling, it sets the tone for how members of the public debate with those whose views they disagree with."

Pritam acknowledged that the government has to take into consideration a multitude of perspectives, but said that most Singaporeans would recognise that.

He added that is important to recognise and not forget that citizens criticise, and even organise, because they care.

To that end, government could consider opening more avenues like Parliament for citizen engagement, greater data sharing, empower institutions like Think Tanks and enlarge the mainstream media to give alternatives more voice.

He concluded by saying that the pandemic provided Singaporeans with an opportunity to take a deeper interest in the country and society, and this is an opportunity for the current generation to envision and build a better Singapore.

Top image from CNA.