Firstly, when you debate gay Loong be aware of one thing. This guy's is an idiot. He is good in maths but not much else. He is not the mental equal of his father and therefore, Low should not be intimidated and give him the respect that he did.
Mr Low: Mdm, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics: Because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views, and moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspectives of Singapore. It’s important for us to move forward together as one united people.
I would suggest that Mr. low understand one thing. we can never be a united people as long as the PAP is in power. All the PAP has done is divided us between the have and have nots, the FTs and the local, etc. to think that the PAP can move forward with you and be a united people is to kid yourself.
Mr Lee: Mdm Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when it comes to election rallies because the WP approach has been to be extremely reasonable – indeed low profile – in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.
Mr. Low, you never want the leader of the govt to say that you as an opposition party have been "extremely reasonable", and "low profile" in parliament. And is he right? what have you done as an oppo? other than the white paper on the 6.9 million population, you have voted for pretty much everything that the PAP has voted for. Do the words "fake opposition" ring a bell?
Mr. Low: We debate the policies, we came up with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffer or suggesting to use the reserves.
Since Mr. Low nor anyone in the country knows how much is in the national reserves, why shouldn't the WP make any suggestions that it wants? For example, I have yet to hear the WP suggest that all CPF should be released at the age of 55, as per the original intend of the CPF. If the PAP thinks it will bankrupt the govt, then let them come out and say it. They will have to show why and how it will bankrupt the govt. All citizens would love to hear it too. In this, you have been too timid.
Mr Low: Mdm speaker, again I’d like to say the PM is reasonable to say that the WP may not be able to come up with all the alternative policies. That’s true. But to say that the WP has no position on major issues, that’s not true. I think we did state our position in Parliament. We debated major policies vigorously. We don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and it concerns the future of Singapore, like the Population White Paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?
Mr. Low, are you stupid here? Never ever admit that your party has no alternative policies. If you want some alternative policies idea, just come to SBF. How U can be taken as a serious contender to run the country when you have no "alternative policies". even if you really do not have them, don't ever admit it. The PAP will never admit a weakness, why should you? Even if you set your staff to sketch out an alternative policy without fleshing it out, you should still have an outline. U should have a staff member shadowing every ministry and cabinet position, just so you can have an alternative policy available.
Mr Lee: I think it is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate, the position taken by the WP is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow; I have not heard the WP demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?
Mr Low: We had made a calculation at that point in time while debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers (FWs) to grow it will be untenable in the future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers’ growth in numbers.
Our calculation was that probably within the existing number of foreign workers, you can still move (them) around in some sectors that don’t need so much of FWs thereby you can still get by with the zero foreign workers’ growth.
We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off. That is our position at that point in time. We have not objected subsequently, or grilled the Government, for why are (they) not doing it because that is our view, that it should have zero (foreign worker) growth, but the Government decided otherwise that’s their way of doing it. We have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on. But our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning and I’m glad to hear today that PM is saying that the Government is taking a very serious view the about tightening and watching the growth of population.
When gay Loong puts it to you like this, don't micro manage the reply. Instead, reply in a manner that will resonate with the population. When gay loong says "we have continued to grow", you have to ask him "at what cost", and " who does this growth benefit.?" You should have informed him that the only growth that the PAP has be responsible for is the growth of 2 million new jobs to FTs. You should have told him the so called growth has not benefited the singaporean men and women on the street. And that this growth has come at the expense of riots, crowded public transportation, expensive housing, etc. Under this circumstances, zero growth is better than the PAP's kind of growth. why bother to talk simi lancheow population white paper with him?
Mr Low: Mdm speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a sub-standard Opposition. This is the mark of a responsible Opposition not to jam up the Government; allowing the Government - after giving our view, debating it – allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government. It is a mark of a responsible Government and a mark of first world Parliament.
jam up simi lancheow, Mr. Low? You only have 7 seats in parliament. At any one time, they can steam roll over u with any bills they want to pass. U are but a speed bump. Your reluctance to fight the PAP on each and every front because you "do not want to jam up the government" is indicative of either your party as PAP stooges, or you are really clueless. The fact is the situation is very dire for many singaporeans, and for you not to fight tooth and nail against the PAP because you are afraid of "jamming" the govt. is really a stupid concept on you part. That is why I think you are a fake oppo. JBJ would have never stood there and took the beating that you did. I am a nobody, but even I could have put up a better fight that you. $16,000 a month is not easy money to earn, lets see you really work for it.
Mr Low: Mdm, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics: Because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views, and moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspectives of Singapore. It’s important for us to move forward together as one united people.
I would suggest that Mr. low understand one thing. we can never be a united people as long as the PAP is in power. All the PAP has done is divided us between the have and have nots, the FTs and the local, etc. to think that the PAP can move forward with you and be a united people is to kid yourself.
Mr Lee: Mdm Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when it comes to election rallies because the WP approach has been to be extremely reasonable – indeed low profile – in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.
Mr. Low, you never want the leader of the govt to say that you as an opposition party have been "extremely reasonable", and "low profile" in parliament. And is he right? what have you done as an oppo? other than the white paper on the 6.9 million population, you have voted for pretty much everything that the PAP has voted for. Do the words "fake opposition" ring a bell?
Mr. Low: We debate the policies, we came up with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffer or suggesting to use the reserves.
Since Mr. Low nor anyone in the country knows how much is in the national reserves, why shouldn't the WP make any suggestions that it wants? For example, I have yet to hear the WP suggest that all CPF should be released at the age of 55, as per the original intend of the CPF. If the PAP thinks it will bankrupt the govt, then let them come out and say it. They will have to show why and how it will bankrupt the govt. All citizens would love to hear it too. In this, you have been too timid.
Mr Low: Mdm speaker, again I’d like to say the PM is reasonable to say that the WP may not be able to come up with all the alternative policies. That’s true. But to say that the WP has no position on major issues, that’s not true. I think we did state our position in Parliament. We debated major policies vigorously. We don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and it concerns the future of Singapore, like the Population White Paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?
Mr. Low, are you stupid here? Never ever admit that your party has no alternative policies. If you want some alternative policies idea, just come to SBF. How U can be taken as a serious contender to run the country when you have no "alternative policies". even if you really do not have them, don't ever admit it. The PAP will never admit a weakness, why should you? Even if you set your staff to sketch out an alternative policy without fleshing it out, you should still have an outline. U should have a staff member shadowing every ministry and cabinet position, just so you can have an alternative policy available.
Mr Lee: I think it is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate, the position taken by the WP is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow; I have not heard the WP demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?
Mr Low: We had made a calculation at that point in time while debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers (FWs) to grow it will be untenable in the future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers’ growth in numbers.
Our calculation was that probably within the existing number of foreign workers, you can still move (them) around in some sectors that don’t need so much of FWs thereby you can still get by with the zero foreign workers’ growth.
We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off. That is our position at that point in time. We have not objected subsequently, or grilled the Government, for why are (they) not doing it because that is our view, that it should have zero (foreign worker) growth, but the Government decided otherwise that’s their way of doing it. We have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on. But our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning and I’m glad to hear today that PM is saying that the Government is taking a very serious view the about tightening and watching the growth of population.
When gay Loong puts it to you like this, don't micro manage the reply. Instead, reply in a manner that will resonate with the population. When gay loong says "we have continued to grow", you have to ask him "at what cost", and " who does this growth benefit.?" You should have informed him that the only growth that the PAP has be responsible for is the growth of 2 million new jobs to FTs. You should have told him the so called growth has not benefited the singaporean men and women on the street. And that this growth has come at the expense of riots, crowded public transportation, expensive housing, etc. Under this circumstances, zero growth is better than the PAP's kind of growth. why bother to talk simi lancheow population white paper with him?
Mr Low: Mdm speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a sub-standard Opposition. This is the mark of a responsible Opposition not to jam up the Government; allowing the Government - after giving our view, debating it – allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government. It is a mark of a responsible Government and a mark of first world Parliament.
jam up simi lancheow, Mr. Low? You only have 7 seats in parliament. At any one time, they can steam roll over u with any bills they want to pass. U are but a speed bump. Your reluctance to fight the PAP on each and every front because you "do not want to jam up the government" is indicative of either your party as PAP stooges, or you are really clueless. The fact is the situation is very dire for many singaporeans, and for you not to fight tooth and nail against the PAP because you are afraid of "jamming" the govt. is really a stupid concept on you part. That is why I think you are a fake oppo. JBJ would have never stood there and took the beating that you did. I am a nobody, but even I could have put up a better fight that you. $16,000 a month is not easy money to earn, lets see you really work for it.
Last edited:
