Calvin Cheng's defence of David Neo's Parliament joke splits opinion online

A Facebook post by former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Calvin Cheng defending Minister for Culture, Community and Youth David Neo's parliamentary remark about ministers having no time to watch movies has drawn hundreds of comments, revealing sharp disagreement over how the quip should be understood.

Cheng's post, published on Saturday, 25 July, linked to a Straits Times report in which Neo said he should not have made the remark.

In the post, Cheng wrote that some Singaporeans lacked a sense of humour and an ability to appreciate quips, adding that sarcasm represented what he called a higher form of wit.

He compared this to the UK Parliament, which he said he often watched for its highly sarcastic and witty exchanges between MPs, and suggested Singaporeans expected Parliament to be only solemn and serious.

Cheng added that this expectation might reflect a wider society that was, in his words, serious, robotic, and a bit petty and sensitive.

Former Tampines GRC MP Irene Ng commented "Agree" on Cheng's post, before publishing her own separate defence of Neo the following day, in which she compared the remark to a 1960 quip by founding Culture Minister S. Rajaratnam.

Background to Neo's remark

Neo's quip was made in Mandarin on 7 July, during a parliamentary debate on the government's approach to dialect-language films, in response to a question from Workers' Party (WP) MP for Aljunied GRC Kenneth Tiong.

Tiong had asked which version of the film Dear You ministers had watched, the Mandarin-dubbed release or the original Teochew version, as part of a broader question on whether restrictions on dialect-language content should be reviewed.

Neo was later asked about the criticism at a 22 July press conference announcing the Cabinet reshuffle, where he said he should "just not tell any more jokes".

In a separate 20 July interview, he said more directly that he should not have told the joke.

Commenters who saw condescension, not wit

Many commenters on Cheng's post rejected his characterisation of the remark as a joke, arguing instead that it functioned as a dismissive rebuttal to Tiong's question.

Some said the delivery, tone and facial expression accompanying the remark suggested it was not intended as humour, and that it only became a joke once colleagues in the chamber began laughing.

Several commenters argued that a genuine joke would have needed to land as funny, and that the absence of a broadly positive reaction indicated it had not.

A number of commenters questioned whether Neo would have made the same remark had the question come from a fellow People's Action Party (PAP) MP, suggesting the tone reflected a lack of respect for opposition members specifically.

Others suggested the remark, referring to "ministers" collectively rather than Neo himself, read as elitist rather than self-deprecating, since it implied ministers' time was more valuable than that of ordinary citizens.

Commenters who defended the remark as humour

Other commenters agreed with Cheng's framing, arguing that Singaporeans had become excessively sensitive and that a well-intentioned joke should not attract sustained criticism.

Some said Tiong himself had not lodged a formal complaint over the remark, and questioned why other members of the public had reacted strongly on his behalf.

Several commenters argued that critics were driven primarily by political alignment rather than an objective assessment of the remark, suggesting the same words would have been read differently had they come from an opposition MP.

A few defended the value of humour in Parliament more broadly, arguing that excessive caution among politicians made public discourse less relatable and more sterile.

Wider disagreement over comparisons to the UK

Cheng's comparison to the UK Parliament drew further division among commenters.

Some agreed that Singapore's political culture was comparatively more guarded, with one commenter linking this to the risk of defamation suits and legal consequences for pointed remarks made about those in power.

Others rejected the comparison as inapt, arguing that the military-influenced, dry style of humour associated with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) differed fundamentally from the sarcasm found in UK parliamentary exchanges.

Some commenters also referenced Neo's earlier remark describing Hong Kong football supporters as "idiots", which he had previously walked back, arguing this context undercut the claim that his comments were consistently well-intentioned humour.

A smaller number of commenters said the broader dispute over Neo's remark risked overshadowing the underlying policy question of whether restrictions on dialect-language films should be reviewed.

Cheng's response to critics

Cheng responded to several critical comments within the thread, at one point writing that he had anticipated the comments section would draw what he described as self-righteous reactions.

He also responded to individual critics directly, defending his original characterisation of the remark as humour and disputing suggestions that his post reflected a broader partisan bias.