From Q&A to Q&Q: Who Is Really “Absurd and Novel”?

When Workers’ Party MP Fadli Fawzi suggested that routine ministry-level meetings with foreign counterparts should include discussions on international law, SM K Shanmugam deployed a familiar but formidable parliamentary tactic: shifting the exchange from Q&A (answering questions) to Q&Q (questioning the questioner).

Rather than simply addressing the substance of Fadli's proposal, Shanmugam labelled it “absurd and novel”, reframing a legitimate question about international law and diplomatic engagement into a test of administrative practicality and statecraft.

It was a clever rhetorical manoeuvre. Instead of having the Government defend why such discussions should not be part of routine diplomatic engagement, the opposition MP was placed on the defensive, expected to justify why they should be.

Who won the exchange?

The PAP scored points on its familiar ground: pragmatism, operational constraints and the complexities of governing. Fadli, meanwhile, received a baptism by fire, confronting the formidable debating instincts of a seasoned minister.

But there is a bigger issue here that deserves closer scrutiny.

Parliamentary debate should test government decisions, expose policy gaps and demand accountability. Yet when the government can repeatedly redirect questions towards the competence, assumptions or preparedness of the questioner, the original policy issue risks disappearing beneath a rhetorical counterattack.

This is where the PAP's parliamentary supermajority matters.

A dominant governing party does not merely enjoy the numbers to pass legislation. It also possesses an enormous structural advantage in controlling the terms, direction and momentum of parliamentary debate. When that numerical dominance is combined with experienced ministers who are skilled at cross-examination, reframing and putting opposition MPs on the defensive, the imbalance becomes even more pronounced.

The opposition is then fighting on two fronts: scrutinising the Government while simultaneously having to defend its own credibility and competence.

And this is hardly the first time such a dynamic has emerged. Nor is it likely to be the last.

The real question is not whether Fadli's proposal was practical, impractical, novel or absurd. It is whether the Government adequately answered the underlying policy question.

After all, questioning the questioner is not the same as answering the question.

A government confident in its policies should be prepared to defend them on their merits, without turning every challenge into an examination of the challenger's qualifications.

In a Parliament dominated by one party, Q&Q can be a powerful political weapon. It can deflect scrutiny, shift the burden of proof and make the opposition appear perpetually on trial.

But parliamentary accountability is not a debating competition in which the Government wins simply because the opposition struggles to respond.

The purpose of Parliament is not to prove that the opposition is ready to govern before it is allowed to question the Government. It is to ensure that the Government, precisely because it holds power, is always prepared to answer for how it governs.