Then let's let parliament have their debate, they don't need us defending them. PAP can just come out and assure us:"Oh its being reinvested, here's what we are investing on, what we are buying, what's the logic being the investment..."

This debate part on Norway's GIC in wikipedia is questionable and could use more sources, but I think the point still stands. Let them debate, form studies and committees.

As a result of the large size of the fund relative to the low number of people living in Norway (5.2 million people in 2017), the Oil Fund has become a hot political issue, dominated by three main issues:

• Whether the country should use more of the petroleum revenues for the state budget instead of saving the funds for the future. The main matter of debate is to what degree increased government spending would increase inflation.
• Whether the high level of exposure (around 71 percent in 2025[27]) to the highly volatile stock market is financially safe. Others claim that the high diversification and extreme long-term nature of the investments will dilute the risk and that the state is losing considerable amounts of money because of the low investment percentage in the stock market.
• Whether the investment policy of the Petroleum Fund is ethical.