Who's sitting where: Singapore Parliament releases seating arrangements, Singapore News
As per tradition, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong takes the middle spot of the first row on the right side of the Speaker.
He will be flanked by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam.
In the previous term of Parliament, PM Wong was seated between Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and then-Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat.
Meanwhile, the remaining 14 Cabinet ministers fill out the rest of the row.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah, who is the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, takes up her usual spot next to the Speaker.
Behind the Cabinet ministers are the senior ministers of state, followed by the ministers of state and senior parliamentary secretaries.
The remaining seats on the right side of the Speaker will be filled up by several first-term MPs.
With the Singapore Parliament's layout modelled after the Westminster system, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh sits directly across from PM Wong.
The Workers' Party (WP) chief is joined by the chairpersons of the Government parliamentary committees.
They are 12 groups made up of People's Action Party (PAP) backbenchers which scrutinise various ministries' legislation and programmes.
The new heads of the government parliamentary committees were named in July.
Labour chief Ng Chee Meng is also in the row, while the rest of the PAP and WP MPs fill out the left side of the House.
Following the May 3 General Election, the 15th Parliament has 99 MPs, an increase from the 95 in the previous term.
The PAP has 87 seats, with the rest filled by the WP.
The opposition party's team of 12 is its largest-ever in Parliament. It has 10 elected MPs and gained two Non-Constituency MPs in Eileen Chong and Andre Low.
There will be a total of 29 first-time MPs sworn — 24 from the PAP and five from the WP.
The incumbent, Seah Kian Peng, will be nominated for re-election as Speaker.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam will then deliver his opening address, where he will outline the priorities, policies and programmes of the Government.
Debates on the President's Address will subsequently occur between Sept 22 and 26.
[[nid:719076]]
chingshijie@asiaone.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Online spaces should be built with children, not for them
SINGAPORE: At this year's National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighted the growing concern of excessive screen time for children. Mr Wong emphasised the need to strike a balance between protecting youth and empowering them to leverage technology, noting that Singapore is observing the experience of countries that have restricted children's access to social media platforms. Australia's recent decision to block YouTube for users aged 16 years and younger has reignited debate over age-based social media bans. Exempted originally because of its educational value, the platform will now be grouped with TikTok, Instagram and other platforms that, according to the Australian government, need tighter controls to keep children safe. What prompted the reversal? A survey by Australia's internet regulator, in which four in 10 children reported seeing harmful content on YouTube. NOT JUST CONTENT, BUT SYSTEMS However, harmful content is only one part of the problem. What shapes a child's digital experience is the underlying infrastructure: autoplay, algorithmic recommendation and infinite scroll. These systems are designed to keep users engaged, nudge behaviours and maximise screen time. They trap users into doing things they didn't mean to: spend longer on an app, consume harmful content from autoplay or make purchases. When 'risky-by-design' features undermine online safety, age-based bans begin to look less convincing. A hard stop at age 16 might simplify enforcement, but it obscures the more complex reality. Current design does not care whether a user is 15 or 16; the algorithms work the same. Tech companies must be held to higher standards of safety especially when their platforms shape how children learn, socialise and play. LEARNING HOW TO SWIM SAFELY In Singapore, researchers from the National Institute of Education recently weighed in on a related question: Should schools ban digital devices? The researchers argued that denying students access to digital devices out of fear is akin to refusing to teach them to swim for fear of drowning. This echoes what Mr Wong said at the National Day Rally – that Singapore must help children build digital resilience, not shelter them indefinitely. Instead of denying access, we should be equipping young people with skills to self-regulate their digital use and to swim safely. Regulatory momentum is growing in the Asia-Pacific region. Governments are trialling technology that keeps underaged children out of restricted sites, and requiring greater transparency in the form of safety audits. Platforms like YouTube are rolling out AI-driven tools to verify user age and reduce exposure to certain content. These are steps in the right direction. But the pattern remains familiar: a reactive cycle of restrictions, appeals and patchwork solutions. When one platform is regulated, another emerges. Rules are drawn up in response to high-profile incidents, not guided by long-term strategy. There is no denying the need for safeguards. But if bans and age restrictions are all we have, we are playing a game of catch-up that cannot be won. We need a different approach. We should not treat children as victims requiring protection, but as participants in policy design. PLANNING WITH, NOT ONLY FOR, CHILDREN AND YOUTH Children and youth are the largest group of online users. But when UNICEF engaged adolescents around the world on AI, one noted that 'most of the technologies that exist are not made with children in mind'. The message from the teens was clear: They want to be engaged in AI's development and future. Consulting with youth will help us better anticipate and shape a fast-changing digital environment. For instance, UNICEF is currently engaging children from Spain to Sierra Leone on how governments, tech companies, and caregivers can better uphold their best interests online. Through a series of hands-on workshops, children are being invited to explore how digital systems influence their lives, and how they want those systems to function. Closer to home, the National Youth Council is collaborating with youth through the #TechHacks youth panel to examine how online harm can be mitigated and digital well-being, enhanced. Of course, co-designing with children and young people is not without challenges. Power asymmetries, varying cognitive development stages and implementation complexity must be managed with extra care. But these are not reasons to avoid participation. With the right support and structure, young people can meaningfully participate in shaping systems that will shape them in return. CHANGING THE FRAME If we are to match the pace of digital change, we must update not just our policies, but our posture – from gatekeeping to partnering youth. We will need to rethink what digital maturity looks like. Instead of asking, 'How do we keep children off these platforms?', we could ask: 'What would these platforms look like if children had a say in how they worked?' Instead of measuring safety by access restrictions, we could consider: What skills, values and supports help young people flourish in a world shaped by intelligent systems? Instead of building around children, we could try building with them. Regulation is an important start, but it's not enough. What is needed now is a longer view – one that begins with the recognition that children will not just live in the digital future. They will build it. As Mr Wong reminded us, every generation faces anxiety over new technologies and some of those fears, like those levelled at comics and rock and roll, have faded with time. The goal is not to dismiss concerns, but to respond with insight rather than instinct.
Straits Times
16 hours ago
- Straits Times
Americans worry democracy in danger amid gerrymandering fights, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Democratic Texas Representative Gene Wu speaks during a press conference after the passing of H.B. 4, during a session in which Democratic lawmakers, who had left the state to prevent Republicans from redrawing Texas's 38 congressional districts, returned to the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, U.S., August 20, 2025. REUTERS/Sergio Flores WASHINGTON - Most Americans believe that efforts to redraw U.S. House of Representatives districts to maximize partisan gains, like those under way in Texas and California, are bad for democracy, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- said they feared that American democracy itself was in danger, a view held by eight in 10 Democrats and four in 10 in President Donald Trump's Republican Party. The six-day survey of 4,446 U.S. adults, which closed on Monday, showed deep unease with the growing political divisions in Washington -- where Republicans control both chambers of Congress -- and state capitals. The poll found that 55% of respondents, including 71% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans, agreed that ongoing redistricting plans - such as those hatched by governors in Texas and California in a process known as gerrymandering - were "bad for democracy." At Trump's urging, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott has called a special session of the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, aiming to help Republicans defend their 219-212 U.S. House majority. Incumbent presidents' parties typically lose House seats in midterms, which can block their legislative agendas and in Trump's first term led to two impeachment probes. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a White House hopeful in 2028, has threatened to try to redraw his state's district map in response, adding five Democratic seats to offset Republicans' expected Texas gains. The practice is not new but has gained attention because it is happening mid-decade rather than following a census. It has meant that the vast majority of House races are not competitive in general elections; in recent decades about two-thirds of them were won by more than 20 percentage points. As president, Trump has flouted democratic norms with steps including directing the U.S. Justice Department to pursue his political adversaries, pressuring the independent Federal Reserve to lower rates and seizing control of Washington, D.C.'s police force. In interviews, Texas Republicans who participated in the poll largely supported the state's potential redistricting, while Democrats described it as 'cheating' but supported the idea of Democratic states trying to respond in kind. The poll had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points when describing the views of all Americans and about 3 points for the views of Republicans and Democrats. 'SHADY BUSINESS' Amanda Kelley, 51, an insurance fraud investigator in Dallas, was the rare Republican to criticize the Texas effort. "I don't like it when either side tries to do that. I think that's shady business," Kelley said. "The optics of it happening in the middle of the term when you would draw district lines, that leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth." Paul Wehrmann, 57, an attorney in Dallas who described himself as an independent voter, also opposed it. "It's unfair, and it sets a bad precedent," said Wehrmann, who worries it could spiral into states redrawing maps every election cycle instead of every decade. Partisan gerrymandering "is bad all around, but I think that it is fair for Democrats to try to counterbalance what Republicans are doing. "They need to stop bringing a knife to a gunfight.' Americans of both parties have long disliked elected leaders of the rival party, but the Reuters/Ipsos poll found that they also distrust regular people who align with the opposing party. Some 55% of Democrats agreed with a statement that "people who are Republican are NOT to be trusted," while 32% disagreed. Republicans were split, with 43% agreeing that Democrats were untrustworthy and 44% saying they disagreed. The poll also showed politics weighing more on people's everyday lives than in past years, particularly among Democrats. Some 27% of Democrats said last year's presidential election has negatively affected their friendships. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in April 2017, early in Trump's first term, showed a smaller share of Democrats - 18% - reported fraying friendships because of the election. Only 10% of Republicans said this month that politics weighed on their friendships, largely unchanged from 2017. Jeffrey Larson, a 64-year-old toxicologist and Republican voter in Seabrook, Texas, said he and his wife, a Democrat, agreed not to discuss politics. 'I might not agree with what the Democrats are doing, but I don't think that they're trying to specifically destroy my life or destroy America,' Larson said. Close to half of Democrats - or 46% - said their party had lost its way, compared to 19% of Republicans who said the same of their party. Sandy Ogden, 71, a tech executive from Sunnyvale, California and self-described Democrat, said she faulted her party's leaders. 'I think the Democratic Party members are united in what we believe, but the leaders are ineffective in mounting an opposition that works,' Ogden said. Analysts said that ordinary Democrats' greater mistrust of Republicans and friction with friends suggests a reluctance among Democrats to engage with Republicans that could harm the party's chances at regaining political standing. 'Democracy involves a willingness to allow people with differing views to express those views,' said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster. Michael Ceraso, a longtime Democratic operative, found the poll results frustrating. "The majority of Democrats believe our democracy is failing and nearly half of them don't want to talk to the opposition party," Ceraso said. "We have to be better." REUTERS
AsiaOne
18 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Who's sitting where: Singapore Parliament releases seating arrangements, Singapore News
The seating plan for the 15th term of Parliament, set to convene on Sept 5, has been revealed. As per tradition, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong takes the middle spot of the first row on the right side of the Speaker. He will be flanked by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam. In the previous term of Parliament, PM Wong was seated between Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and then-Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat. Meanwhile, the remaining 14 Cabinet ministers fill out the rest of the row. Leader of the House Indranee Rajah, who is the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, takes up her usual spot next to the Speaker. Behind the Cabinet ministers are the senior ministers of state, followed by the ministers of state and senior parliamentary secretaries. The remaining seats on the right side of the Speaker will be filled up by several first-term MPs. With the Singapore Parliament's layout modelled after the Westminster system, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh sits directly across from PM Wong. The Workers' Party (WP) chief is joined by the chairpersons of the Government parliamentary committees. They are 12 groups made up of People's Action Party (PAP) backbenchers which scrutinise various ministries' legislation and programmes. The new heads of the government parliamentary committees were named in July. Labour chief Ng Chee Meng is also in the row, while the rest of the PAP and WP MPs fill out the left side of the House. Following the May 3 General Election, the 15th Parliament has 99 MPs, an increase from the 95 in the previous term. The PAP has 87 seats, with the rest filled by the WP. The opposition party's team of 12 is its largest-ever in Parliament. It has 10 elected MPs and gained two Non-Constituency MPs in Eileen Chong and Andre Low. There will be a total of 29 first-time MPs sworn — 24 from the PAP and five from the WP. The incumbent, Seah Kian Peng, will be nominated for re-election as Speaker. President Tharman Shanmugaratnam will then deliver his opening address, where he will outline the priorities, policies and programmes of the Government. Debates on the President's Address will subsequently occur between Sept 22 and 26. [[nid:719076]] chingshijie@
