Parliament: WP MP Kenneth Tiong apologises for saying Minister Chee Hong Tat asked 'stupid question'

The exchange occurred during a sitting of the Parliament of Singapore on 5 November 2025 between Kenneth Tiong, Member of Parliament representing Aljunied GRC from the Workers' Party, and Chee Hong Tat, Minister for National Development, and Deputy Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, MAS, centred around issues relating to the regulation of single‑family offices in Singapore, tax‑incentive regimes and due diligence vis‑à‑vis financial crime and money‑laundering risks.

Mr Tiong asked questions about whether persons sanctioned by the US or convicted of money‑laundering offences had operated tax‑exempt SFOs in Singapore, and what systemic reforms were in place at MAS to guard against abuse of the regime. Minister Chee responded by emphasising that Singapore adopts a risk‑proportionate rather than a “zero‑risk” approach to regulation, in order to remain open to legitimate investment and maintain the competitiveness of its financial services industry.

In the course of the exchange, Minister Chee asked Mr Tiong to clarify whether the Workers’ Party’s position was that Singapore should adopt a zero‑risk approach, or whether it agreed with the risk‑proportionate model. At that point, Mr Tiong responded quite sharply. He said there was “a pattern of ministers and political office‑holders asking… rhetorical questions, which have no meaning.” When pressed by the Speaker to answer the question, Mr Tiong said:

“The answer is no, and I don't think it is the minister's point of view that you should, in fact, have a zero‑risk approach … because it's impossible. So he's asking a stupid question”.

The remark immediately drew the intervention of Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng, who said that such language was “quite insulting” and “beneath the dignity of this House” and reminded members to maintain decorum. Mr Tiong then withdrew the comment and later formally apologised to Minister Chee. The apology was accepted and Minister Chee expressed the hope that future discourse would be “civilised and polite”.

Why it matters

1. Decorum in parliamentary debate

Parliamentary systems often emphasize not only what is debated but also the form: how questions are put, how answers are provided, and the demeanor between government and opposition. Mr Tiong's use of the phrase "stupid question" was flagged as crossing the line of decorum by the Speaker. As the Speaker said, "the use of such language about a fellow Member of Parliament is not par for the course."

In a setting that expects MPs to scrutinise ministers and hold the government to account, tension always exists between robustness in questioning and respectful interchange. Even when the substance of serious matters is at stake, like financial‑crime risk and regulatory oversight, the means by which one engages remains under scrutiny.

2. Merits of the underlying controversy

Behind the moment of tension lies a substantive debate on how best to regulate complex entities such as single‑family offices, and how to strike a balance between strong safeguards and maintaining a competitive financial centre. Minister Chee made the point that Singapore’s model is “risk‑proportionate, not zero‑risk”. He pointed out that if regulations were tightened to the point of being overly burdensome, legitimate investors might be deterred and local jobs might be put at risk.

Mr Tiong challenged that view by asking whether due diligence on existing client relationships, not just new ones, should be compulsory across all regulated sectors - basically querying whether the government's approach is sufficient given evidence of networks exploiting the regime.

The exchange thus surfaces a real trade‑off: the risk of abuse- financial crime, money laundering- versus openness and competitiveness of the financial sector.

3. Implications for public trust

Public trust in regulatory oversight and parliamentary debate is important for democratic legitimacy. When MPs or ministers use language perceived as dismissive or disrespectful, it impacts citizens' views of the institution of Parliament itself. The comment "stupid question", though ostensibly made in response to what Mr Tiong perceived as a rhetorical question, attracted criticism that it undermined the dignity of the House.

Moreover, the issue at hand is about high‑net‑worth individuals, family offices, tax incentives, and possible financial‑crime exploitation-all concerns that add up to questions of equity and integrity in government. It is expected that a topic of this nature should be treated with seriousness, clearness, and respect given that it sets, as well, the tone of democratic engagement.

Reflection on the apology

Mr Tiong's formal apology is the most important part of the resolution of the incident. It recognises that even when the substance of the question is valid, the form of engagement - in word choice, tone and respect for the process - matters. The fact that the minister accepted the apology and that the Speaker intervened to remind of decorum shows that the institution held itself to a standard of behavior.

Taking a broader view, the incident could be regarded as a learning point, particularly for new MPs-Mr Tiong is considered relatively new in Parliament. What it shows:

Importance of word choice: even if a point is valid, characterizing someone's question as "stupid" in a formal parliamentary context is likely to be flagged.

Clarity and direct response needed: When the minister sought an explanation, zero‑risk vs risk‑proportional, the exchange exposed the risk of skirting and injecting commentary (on rhetorical questions).

Value of decorum as a facilitator of substantive debate: Maintaining mutual respect helps the institution focus on issues rather than interpersonal friction.

It remains to be seen how this incident will shape subsequent exchanges in Parliament. The Minister’s aspiration for “civilised and polite” deliberation sets the standard for future debates.

Look ahead: what to watch

Here are some of the follow-on issues and questions raised by this incident:

Regulatory reform and oversight of family offices: Given the questions raised by Mr Tiong, will the authorities consider new measures such as mandated reviews of existing relationships, not only onboarding checks? Will the transparency or oversight of SFO tax incentives increase?

Parliamentary behaviour: Will this exchange lead to training or tighter guidelines for MPs on parliamentary language, tone, and process? Will standards of decorum be reinforced? Public perception of the Parliament: How will this incident be viewed by the citizens of Singapore? Will this perceived slip in decorum affect the reputation of the opposition's ability to question effectively or the government's responsiveness? It means striking a balance between openness and risk in the financial sector, and the fundamental policy choice between risk‑proportional and zero‑risk remains a live one. Indeed, how Singapore addresses future cases of abuse in the financial sector may ultimately shape the credibility of its regulatory regime. Final thoughts The exchange between Kenneth Tiong and Chee Hong Tat stands out for both form and substance — delving into government oversight of high-net-worth regimes and culminating in a public apology. It speaks to the fact that in parliamentary systems, the way one asks questions is just as important as what is asked. Mr Tiong's apology restores a measure of decorum, but the incident also serves as a reminder: robust scrutiny and respectful language are not mutually exclusive. A parliament which combines both stands a better chance of retaining public trust and engaging in meaningful policy debate. For Singapore, the key takeaway might be this: ensuring strong governance over complex financial vehicles is critical-and doing so, while preserving the competitiveness of the sector, requires both clarity of policy and civility of discourse.