Aljunied GRC MPs Outreach...

[sengkang]

Low: Better, faster and perhaps cheaper ministers?





Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang and Labour chief Lim Swee Say from People's Action Party (PAP) locked horns during the final day of the 12th Parliament's first meeting on Friday.

As the last speaker to speak from the opposition bench, Low -- the MP for Aljunied GRC -- took aim at Minister Lim Swee Say’s oft-repeated slogan of “cheaper, better, faster” and said that “perhaps we will start to see better, faster ministers at work and perhaps cheaper (ones) after the ministerial salary review is completed”.

He also urged the government to ask itself why Singaporeans commonly perceived the government to be "more concerned with paying its ministers well than about the welfare of the people."

In reply, Lim – who is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office as well as chief of the NTUC labour movement —said that his “cheaper, better, faster” slogan was referring to products and services and that comparisons were unfair.

“There’s a fundamental difference,” he said in his speech. “What the NTUC and the tripartite partners and pursuing are cheaper, better, faster products and services, and a cheaper, better, faster economy, not a cheaper, better, faster workforce.”

The East Coast GRC MP also said he was at a loss for words when Low said he felt that ministers served out of self-interest, accusing opposition MPs of taking credit for "the good things" that the government has done since the May General Election by saying that the presence of opposition MPs have brought about policy changes.

Separately, Low also urged the People’s Action Party to refrain from using “doom and gloom” scenarios when debating health care and welfare policy trade-offs.

“I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of Western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way,” he said.

Low was defending Non-Constituency MPs Gerald Giam and Yee Jenn Jong's earlier calls for the government to spend on affordable and adequate health care, housing and retirement financing.

Both NMPs were then reminded by Minister of State for Trade and Industry and National Development, Lee Yi Shyan, of the pitfalls of a welfare state, citing the example of a debt-ridden Greece and its welfare system.

In rebuttal, Low said "it is high time the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a red herring to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the government."

Low added that the government had used the term "policy trade-offs" to defend decisions that benefited them instead of the people. Low gave the example of the decision to build the integrated resorts with casinos and the government "highlighted the benefits to our society over the related gaming and social ills -- never mind the trade-offs," said Low.

Low however did commend the PAP for its "resilience in response to ground reaction" and added that it was not the opposition MPs, but rather the voters that should really claim the credit for recent changes as they had voted more opposition in and that the result is that the PAP takes a serious look at what is happening.

Both Lim and Low also eventually agreed that national interest would remain above their own partisan ones.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AV2L7D7J-mY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AV2L7D7J-mY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

[sengkang]

Low Thia Khiang’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)


议长先生，


总统在宣读政府施政方针时以继续保持新加坡的独特性为总结。我认为，我们的独特性除了施政方针中所提到的，还应该包括我们的多元语文和文化。我国自独立以来就是一个多元种族的社会，各族的语言和文化也增加了我国多姿多彩的民俗景观。
然而，建国後，随着教育体系和教学媒介语的统一，各族的语言和文化都受到不同层次的冲击。华族的应用语言也在这个过程中产生了巨大的变化。从六十年 代开始，短短在一代人的时间里所施行的各种政策，使方言几乎在华族社群中绝迹，取而代之的是华文、华语。如今，这个趋势又步入另一个“舍华文就英文”的状 态。眼前所见的是，华族社群以英语为家庭用语的学生比例，已经超越了以华语为家庭用语的学生人数。这似乎已成定局，不可扭转。
目前，华文华语在新加坡正处于转变的关键时期。随着外在大环境的改变，中国的崛起，我们越发感受到华文华语的重要。虽然我们坚持实施双语教育多年， 但在这个教育制度下成长的一般年轻人，整体的华英双语能力表现却不突出，这批介于中间地带的所谓双语双文化的年轻人或许还能流利地以华语进行人际沟通，在 进行日常生活交流时并不成问题，在讲的层次上已达到中上水平。但事实是，他们却逐渐丧失了读和写的能力。他们当中有好些人已经无法阅读华文报纸及华文文学 读物。
今天，摆在眼前的是，华文互联网的崛起让这批年轻双语双文化人才面临更大的全新挑战。
是的，诚如沈颖次长所言，华文的生命力的确很强，在互联网的世界里，华文绝对不会因电脑输入法而在互联网的新时代被淘汰。
华文也的确是以更生动活泼的形态在这平台上茁壮成长，网络热词的大量涌现就是例子。网络词语与现实生活词语也在这时代迅速相融合，产生了如富二代、官二代等网络词语及一些生动的现实生活词语。
不少本地年轻人在互联网上建构高素质的英文网站，他们在网络世界里讨论政治、社会、经济、文化等各种议题，但又有多少年轻人进入华文网络世界里呢？我们能听能说，但读写技能却不够水平的双语双文化人才，是否会沦为全球华文网络世界里的文盲呢？
此外，民间看似蓬勃发展的文化活动、语文竞赛及大专学府或各校所开办的华文文化课程，参与和修选的又有多少是新加坡人呢？
我们总是标榜双语双文化是我们在国际舞台上竞争的一大优势， 平心而论，以我们沦为口头语言的华文程度， 在这场竞赛中，我们胜算的机会到底又有多少呢？以目前我们的双语环境和双语能力来看，我们是否只是在吃老本而已？
诚然，要扭转英文为主，母语为次的局势已是不可能。但至少应该做到的是，让学习母语的经验能更深入与更广泛。
既然我们一直强调成功的双语教育带来了巨大的竞争优势，双语政策似乎成为新加坡教育的重要品牌，那为什么随着英文逐渐占据社会主流，成为新加坡的第一语言后，我们学生的母语水平却似乎开始一蹶不振？最令人费解的是，我们的双语教育系统，除了一退再退之外，竟全然无力挽回。
在这样的大趋势下，我认为，双语政策的重心应该适时调整，也就是说是时候从强调英文，过渡到更为关注母语。否则此一时，彼一时，母语教育一旦崩溃，我们的双语政策也必将名存实亡。
我期待在母语比重的考量上和华文教改的落实上，教育部能在母语教学法，或以新媒体互动性教学来教导华文的同时，也注重最根本的文化传承使命；在注重语文的现代功能性与日常实用性时，也增添教导学生对文化的认识与欣赏。
我们这个小红点的语文政策绝对不可能左右全球，不论是华、巫、印的语文环境发展的大格局，但我们的语文政策，尤其是华文的语文政策，则肯定会影响我 们下一代在全球的竞争力。在不久的将来，在华人世界里，包括中港台等地，越来越多的年轻人都能同时掌握流利的英语与华语，而在西方世界里，学习华文华语的 年轻人也将逐年增加。
这些其他国家年轻的一代都因为双语，甚至多语能力的优越而能同时拥有东西方文化的精华与资讯的优势，当然也更能遨游自如地，驰骋在东西方的现实与虚拟世界里。到时，我国年轻一代的人，不但将失去原有的优势，甚至会处于劣势。
我相信这是一个忧国忧民的政府所应该担心的事，也应该是在我们讨论政策的未来方向时所应思索的范围之内。



Mr. Speaker Sir,

In his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal.
We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.
The Presidential Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.
All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Sylvia Lim said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan’s case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).
The President described the situation after the general elections as a ‘new normal’. Should the government not view indicators such as GNH as a ‘new normal’ in addition to GDP & GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the government’s memory of the people’s reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.
In the Presidential Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that “you can spend your silver years with peace of mind” – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognized and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.
To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the government must provide affordable health care and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more government expenditure.
When MPs from the Workers’ Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a ‘welfare state’. We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the Presidential Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.
While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a ‘red herring’ to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.
In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfill his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.
Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government’s perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people’s perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used ‘trade-offs’ as and when it suited them.
When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalization means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched “not too poor, not too rich” group, it spoke about subsidizing those who needed it most.
To shorten the long queue for subsidized rental flats, the Government’s expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children regardless of how that could affect family relationships and as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidized rental housing was not straight-forward, but it needed attention.
However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.
I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy “trade-offs” expounded by a member on the government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.
The policy “trade-off” is nothing more than a political assessment by the govt. The assessment is whether people can withstand – or as we say in Malay, ‘boleh tahan’ – the impact of the policy. But when the people ‘tak boleh tahan’, the govt will ‘kena’ and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.
The government should thank the opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The opposition parties have also enabled the government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.
I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.
We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for MND on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCYS is now not only looking after the “In Risk Group”, but will also be focusing on “At Risk Group” is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.
Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.
I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.
Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a “First World Parliament” befitting a First World nation, Singapore.
While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinize policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade off.
I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way. The Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.

 

[silentisgolden]

叶启田 - 爱拼才会赢


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTWrYNyUWSA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

 

[sengkang]

Chen Show Mao

Social Cohesion Night at Hougang Harmony Park with Adlina and Shanta. I am wearing a smile and my orange Mickey Mouse shirt. I picked it out over 35 years ago (at the old Isetan store on Havelock Rd) -- a big teenage purchase.

 

[sengkang]

Yaw Shin Leong
is attending a grassroots function organized by 云天宫. — at Basketball court between blk 2 and 6. Hougang
ave 3.

 

[sengkang]

Low Thia Khiang vs Lim Swee Say & Lee Yi Shyan in Parliament - 21Oct2011



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TV3bDFP0tc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

 

[sengkang]

[h=1]Low Thia Khiang - 12th parliament sitting[/h]


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8X-U1Ch_wZA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8X-U1Ch_wZA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

[The_Hypocrite]

To the WP, can you put more messages on the activities for the constituencies you will contest in the next GE? For example out reach activities in East Coast, Joo Chiat etc? That way it will counter the lack of coverage by the local media. It is a good Public Relations strategy too

 

[sengkang]

Aljunied Constituency Committee would like to wish everybody a very Happy Deepavali. May your home light up with the joy of Deepavali!

 

[sengkang]

Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this, my maiden speech to this House.
In his address to Parliament, the President gave a broad outline of this Government’s goals for the next five years. The Government says it wants “every Singaporean worker to hold a skilled, well-paid job; every family to live in an affordable, comfortable home; every young person to develop himself fully and pursue his dreams; every senior citizen to stay active and to live with dignity”.
These are bold goals which my colleagues and I in the Workers’ Party will hold the Government accountable for over the next five years.
Sir, today I would like to focus on three areas that many senior citizens, families and workers have pressing concerns about. They are healthcare, public housing and public transport.
Healthcare financing
Mr Speaker, the axiom, “it’s better to die than fall ill in Singapore” has been heard time and again—twice during this debate alone.
Many Singaporeans, especially the elderly poor, worry greatly about falling ill. They are concerned not just about the painful treatment they will have to go through, but more often about the high costs involved, and the financial burden they may place on their struggling children.
In Singapore, government subsidies make up only a quarter of total health expenditure . Out-of-pocket expenses, employer benefits and private insurance make up most the remainder.
The much vaunted “3Ms” of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund pay for less than 10% of total healthcare expenses , the lion’s share of which comes from Medisave, which is really patients’ own savings. MediShield is a self-funding insurance scheme, which members pay premiums to join. These premiums rise as they grow older. They also have to fork out large deductibles and co-insurance before receiving pay-outs, and coverage ends at age 85.
The Government will say that we have Medifund. But Medifund is subject to extremely stringent means testing and the disbursements are not exactly generous. In 2009, an average of $1,029 was given to less than 24,000 in-patient Medifund applicants . This represented just 5% of the total hospital admissions that year.
For seniors with no income and little savings, the burden of healthcare is shifted to their children. In 2005, 60% of the elderly had their medical bills paid from their adult children’s Medisave accounts . This is a very high percentage, and is in fact a departure from the principle of “self-reliance”. If these patients’ children are also low-income earners—as is often the case—the Government is merely shifting the burden of poverty within the pool of the poor . Basically we are asking one disadvantaged group to pay for another.
The Government seems very reluctant it to take on a larger financial responsibility for caring for our senior citizens. Instead, it hides behind the mantras of self-reliance and filial piety to justify its relatively low expenditure on healthcare for the elderly.
Self-reliance is good in principle, but when a patient has exhausted his own savings and has to rely on his own struggling family members, then we as a society are not being fair to both the patient and his family.
The Ministry of Health claims to provide universal health coverage to citizens , but I believe we are still some way from that. The World Health Organization defines universal health coverage as having a healthcare financing system that provides all people with access to adequate healthcare services without suffering financial hardship paying for them.
If we are to achieve this goal, we need to expand the coverage of MediShield and reduce the over-reliance on direct payments by patients at the time they need the care . To fund this, we need to strengthen the current forms of prepayment and risk-pooling, and provide assistance to those who cannot afford the premiums, like housewives and the elderly. All this points to a need to perform some major surgery on MediShield.
Hospital capacity
Mr Speaker, for some time now, our public hospitals have been running at near full capacity, with bed occupancy rates often exceeding 90% for Tan Tock Seng Hospital and over 85% for National University Hospital. Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, which opened just last year, was supposed to ease the crunch. But it too has been running at almost 85% capacity for the past month. The Royal College of Surgeons in the U.K. has advised that bed occupancy rates above 82% put patients at an increased risk of infection .
It was reported in the Straits Times on 30th August this year that hospitals in Singapore are facing such a severe crunch in beds that some are “borrowing” space from other nearby organisations to house their patients.
How did we get into such a situation?
Between the year 2000 and 2010, our population has seen an increase of 26%, mostly through immigration. The number of hospital admissions has seen an increase of 15% in this same period. However, not only have the number of hospital beds not kept pace with population growth, but they have actually decreased during this period. In the past decade, there has been a 7% drop in the number public sector hospital beds, according to the Department of Statistics
Two years ago, the then-Health Minister admitted, that on hindsight, his ministry made a mistake by not building a new hospital two years earlier. Recently, the Health Minister floated the idea of bringing forward the opening of Sengkang Hospital, currently scheduled for 2020. I support this move, but this is still a long time to wait, and by that time, our population would have increased even more.
What is left unanswered is why this self-proclaimed “far-sighted” Government failed in the past 10 years to build our healthcare infrastructure to keep pace with population growth and an ageing population. Was the Government instead overly fixated on the near-sighted goals of boosting economic growth by increasing our population?
Housing shortage and prices
Mr Speaker, I would now like to address many Singaporeans’ concerns about the public housing situation in Singapore.
In the past 10 years, the HDB has grossly undersupplied new housing units to the market. According to figures from the HDB, between 2001 and 2009, an average of just 7,700 new flats were built each year . This was far short of the average annual resident household growth figure of 24,280 since 2005.
Even when the population surged from 2007 onwards because of the liberalisation of our immigration policies, the Government failed to react by building more flats for our people. Instead, they permitted more cash rich foreigners to purchase almost any types of private property, which increased their prices, and pulled up HDB flat prices, since the two are linked.
This combination of low supply and high demand resulted in a severe housing shortage, causing a sharp and sustained rise in property prices. HDB resale flat prices are now 92% higher than they were 10 years ago .
This has not only caused much distress for many Singaporean families, but has also created a potential asset bubble which could severely damage Singapore’s economy in a downturn.
The Government finally awoke from its slumber this year and ramped up the supply of Built-to-Order (BTO) flats to an expected 25,000 this year and another 25,000 next year. This is a move in the right direction. However, BTO flats do not solve the immediate housing problem, because it takes two or three years before the new flat owners get their keys. In the meantime, many are still without a home of their own.
Despite the bumper launches of BTO and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) this year, we still saw the third-quarter HDB Resale Price Index shoot up 3.8% over the previous quarter. The cooling measures that the Ministry of National Development put in place earlier this year do not seem to be having their intended effects on the resale flat market.
The Government has gone some way in reducing the housing problems for first-timer couples, but not for singles, divorcees and those who need to downgrade to smaller flats because of financial difficulty. We need to find a way to help these people who are caught in between the policies. In particular, more measures need to be put in place to cool down the resale HDB flat market.
The HDB market, whether direct or resale, cannot simply be left to market forces. As a provider of this public good, the Government must step in to ensure that the welfare of its citizens comes first.
Public transport
Mr Speaker, please allow me to share some longstanding concerns about public transport in Singapore.
In March this year, just before the General Election was announced, SMRT and SBS Transit said they would add 590 additional MRT train trips. This was expected to ease the squeeze on trains. However, many regular commuters will testify that trains now seem even more crowded than ever. The recently opened Circle Line may improve the situation nearer the city, but for those commuting from the suburbs like Sembawang or Simei, finding room to board the trains will still be a challenge.
One key factor that affects the train loads is the waiting time. I understand that the current signalling systems on the ageing North-South and East-West lines allow for maximum train arrival intervals of about two minutes without compromising commuter safety.
If trains really arrived once every two minutes, the overcrowding problem would not be so severe. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. Outside of the narrow window of about half an hour on weekday mornings and evenings, the frequency drops to three to five minutes, or more. This results in trains arriving packed with passengers, making it impossible for many of those on the platform to board. As a daily commuter myself, I often have to wait for two—sometimes three—trains to pass by before I can board, during morning and evening rush hours.
Sir, if the Government is serious about encouraging our people to drive less and use more public transport, it must give priority to tackling the overcrowding problem on trains. The solution lies not only in building more lines, but making better use of the existing lines by increasing train frequency and maintaining that high frequency for longer periods, especially during peak hours.
Why can’t the MRT operators maintain a train interval of two minutes from 7am to 9am, and from 5pm to 8pm? Is it because of technical constraints, or because it will increase their costs and reduce their profits?
Under the current profit-maximising model, operators are incentivised to cut costs and service levels, just to maintain their high margins. Their duopoly position in the local market reinforces this behaviour.
It is time for the Government to demand that these operators provide a higher level of service to commuters, even if it reduces their profit margins.
Summary
Mr Speaker, whether in healthcare, public housing or public transport, the Government has gone too far down the road of pursuing free market efficiency, often to the detriment of the elderly and low wage workers.
At a time when our citizens are exposed to heightened risks in the form of global competition, increased economic volatility, rising inequality and wage stagnation, the Government is exposing them to even more competition from foreigners. Our workers are told to be “cheaper, better, faster”, more self-reliant and less selective about their jobs.
This regressive transfer of risks from government to citizens must count as one of the PAP Government’s biggest policy failures in the last decade.
The demographic, social and economic changes of the 21st century demand a rethink of how much a government should provide for its people, and how much we can reasonably ask our citizens to provide for themselves.
Mr Speaker, we are at the dawn of a new era in the history of our nation. The phrase “new normal” has often been used to describe this new political reality. Now with more Workers’ Party members in the House, some pundits wonder if we will be a constructive, or destructive party in Parliament; will we help build our country, or be obsessed with tearing down our political opponents? This is related to some of Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s concerns earlier. I believe our party’s track record in Parliament answers these questions.
Having more Workers’ Party MPs does not change our rational and responsible approach to politics. We want to be a force for good in our country—to help to uncover solutions, not add to the problems.
However, it takes two hands to clap. The responsibility for ensuring fair and constructive debates, in and out this House, rests not only on the Opposition, but also on the Government. I hope that debates in this House will not just be about winning the argument or scoring political points, but leveraging on the arguments, and counter-arguments, to elicit better policy outcomes.
This will ultimately benefit Singaporeans, who put us here to serve them.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/parl...ment_20111018__Parl-Floor_20111018_geraldgiam

 

[sengkang]

Workers Party MP for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim in a motion to thank the President for his speech at the opening of Parliament

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/parl...ament_20111017__Parl-Floor_20111017_sylvialim

 

[sengkang]

Maiden speech by Workers Party MP for Aljunied GRC Muhamad Faisal


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/parl...ment_20111017__Parl-Floor_20111017_MuhdFaisal

 

[sengkang]

Maiden speech by MP for Aljunied GRC Chen Show Mao during debate to thank the President



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tezhzB5kon8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tezhzB5kon8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

[sengkang]

Nonconstituency MP Yee Jenn Jong speaks on the motion to thank the President for his address to Parliament


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Bf_3W7k-6g?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Bf_3W7k-6g?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

[sengkang]

Workers Party MP Yaw Shin Leong Parliament speech


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-NcKnYsnk6M?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

 

[sengkang]

Health Talk (Chinese) @ Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division, happening at Blk 713, Bedok Reservoir Road

 

[sengkang]

Opposition MP for Aljunied GRC Low Thia Khiang gives his speech in Parliament on the motion to thank the President

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/parl...ment_20111021__Parl-Floor_20111021_thiakhiang

 

[sengkang]

 

[sengkang]

[h=2]30.10.2011 - 'Walk-To-Bond' with Eunos Division[/h]

 

[sengkang]

Welcoming visitors to the hawker centre at Blk 105 Hougang Ave 1 (Hainanese Village Centre)