-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Aljunied GRC MPs Outreach...
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
Debate on President’s Address
Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)
Mr Speaker, Thank you, and congratulations.
Following our two elections this year, some commentators tell us that Singaporeans’ political differences are rising to the surface. Many of our leaders have expressed their concerns about the differences. They warned of divisions and called for unity. I’d like to remind us that differences are not divisions. It is the intolerance of differences that will be divisive.
I would like to quote a man who is not able to join us here today. In a newspaper interview, former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo related what a Roman Catholic cardinal told him about the late Pope John Paul the Second. The cardinal had drafted, “Even though we’re all different because we speak different languages, we are one”. The Pope corrected him. “No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” Mr Yeo then said, “I thought that was so profound and beautiful. In my first speech to the United Nations, I repeated that story because in the UN, it is also because we are different that we are one. To be a human being is to be different. The whole logic and driving force of biological life is diversification. An imposed unity is a false unity; it’s a contradiction in terms. To me, that is a core position, and Singapore is an expression of that core position.”
Singapore is an expression of that core position of diversity, and this must include political diversity in this day and age. Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an opposition member of this parliament. I may challenge government policy in parliament, but I do not by definition oppose government policy. It does not mean that I do not support the government in its work. It is very simple. I am an opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law-making process, based on my party philosophy. But I submit to laws properly made because I believe they express the sovereign will of our people. You see, I do not believe that Parliament is just form, and no substance. I have been elected to serve in this Parliament and will do what I can to help make it work for Singapore, make it a First World Parliament after our own fashion. As an opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the government, I am a Singaporean and a patriot.
I believe that our community will come out of robust debates stronger. Not just in Parliament but in larger society as well. Social cohesion will be strengthened when we give people, including our young people, room to voice their views and grievances and participate in community affairs. This is being recognized in households and at work places around us and is affecting how they are run. There is no reason not to learn from it. But we must start from a position of difference, not a forced unity.
How do we move forward from a position of difference?
A wise Singaporean wrote to me recently on Facebook, “the key is always to set our ‘devilish’ pride aside and for both parties to communicate.” He did not mean political parties, but any two parties in a position of difference. He goes on, “The aim is not to impose one’s view over the other but to find as much common ground as possible for the good of the common objective both parties have… And yes, I have always practised this in the office and with the wife…so far so good.”
How do we expand the areas of common ground to accommodate political differences? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans in spite of their political differences. The office of the Presidency, for example. President Tan clearly intends this. In his swearing in ceremony he said, “I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. …Whatever your political views,… I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you.”
The government in the addenda to the President’s address said, “The building of friendship, understanding and trust amidst increasing diversity will be supported through organisations such as the People’s Association and grassroots platforms such as the Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles.” We welcome this.
Let us Singaporeans take our cue from the President. Look for what Singaporeans’ different visions have in common and take our next steps in these areas of common ground. Let us ask ourselves “is there more we could do?” I believe that it would always be possible to find common ground among Singaporeans, even if it might now take greater efforts on the part of those of us here in this House. But it is possible – they call politics “the art of the possible”.
HUMAN CAPITAL
Mr Speaker
In the addenda to the President’s address, the government announced its plans to, “significantly enhance the transport infrastructure, quality and opportunities in education, healthcare and housing”. We endorse the goal. And we will hold the government to it.
We believe that Singaporeans in recent years have been underserved by enhancements in these areas. We believe that most of these enhancements are best thought of, not just as increased expenditure, but as investments in the human capital of our country, with long term benefits to our society, such as the productivity increase that the government calls our “fundamental economic challenge”. Adam Smith wrote many years ago about investments in a person, such as by the acquisition of new talents, he wrote, “such acquisition of talents always costs a real expense, which is a capital realized in his person. [but] Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs.”
Many economists have long regarded expenditures on education and healthcare as investments in human capital. They produce income and other useful outputs for the individual over long periods of time. They also produce external benefits for the rest of society. When growing disparity in wealth suggest that more and more households may not be able to make the investments that may be needed to give their children a place at the same starting line as their cohorts, it is even more appropriate for the government to increase public investments in the human capital of our young people.
This is one of the goals the government set in the addenda to the President’s address: “Through our investment in Education, we ensure that every child, regardless of family circumstances and background, has access to opportunities.” That access to opportunities has to be meaningful and available to everyone.
Similarly, for many expenditures we make outside the areas of education and healthcare, If we just take an expanded view of the returns from these investments, we will be able to see their long-term benefits.
Take elder care for example. Our investments in this area do not just benefit our elders alone. They enhance the productivity of working family members who worry about their care. They sustain and unlock the rich social and cultural capital embodied in our elders, which enhance the efficacy of our economic capital. More importantly, taking good care of our elders who built the nation is the right thing to do in the “fair and just society” that the President wishes for Singapore. It strengthens our sense of community. It is consistent with the values that we wish to impart to our children. These are all intangible but significant returns on our investments.
This is part of our nationhood: these are the bonds that will hold us together in times of trouble.
Our social harmony needs to be sustained and cultivated, carefully ministered. We must invest in these efforts.
“People are the real wealth of a nation”, declared the United Nations’ inaugural Human Development Report over twenty years ago. “People are the real wealth of a nation,” this is especially true for our nation. Let us put our people at the center of our government policies.
Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.
Significant investments cannot be made all at once. In addition to fiscal discipline, we would need to watch out for inflation, for effects on our currency and competitiveness. But the investments must be made. So we should start now and engage in a long term sustainable investment pattern for the good of our people.
CONCLUSION
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister concludes in his National Day rally speech that “ours is an improbable nation”. I cannot agree more with his call for all Singaporeans to treasure and fight for our improbable nation.
I would like to add that an improbable nation will be made more probable for future Singaporeans by the politics of possibility.
Mr Speaker, sir, I support the motion. And now in Chinese.
在今年的两次选举之后，我们许多领导人都提到团结的重要。全国人民现在必须上下一心，步伐一致地向前迈进。
他们有人认为新加坡有政治分裂，不利於团结与将来发展。但是各位想想，这分裂是怎么造成的？ 是因为社会出现了不同的声音，还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂？
“政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”，“为政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而众星拱之”，“风行草偃”，这些都是孔子说的来形容好的执政者，意思就是，一个好的领导者，只要有 信心，有正确的方向，有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来，人民自然会乐意跟著他走。不需要害怕国家分裂，强调团结。
爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。一个党再伟大也只是国家的一部分而已，不是国家全部啊！陈独秀说过，＂党外无党，帝王思想。＂在民主社会里，有不同的意见，不同的建议，是很自然的事情。这也是好事。
其实孔子三千年前就已说过，“君子和而不同”。和谐，可却不尽相同。晏婴说过：乐团只演奏一个音符，谁听得下去？白开水上再加白开水，谁喝得下去？一个和谐的社会，不只有一种声音。而是每个人很和平的在法律的範围内发表他的看法，从事政治活动。我们不必防民如防贼。
在中国历史上最伟大的贞观之治就不是一言堂式的全民团结，就是有喜欢諌言喜欢说真话不怕被唐太宗讨厌的魏徵，才有了贞观之治。
在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。
我屡次与国外的人接触，大家似乎有一种感觉，觉得新加坡守成有馀但开创不足，似乎欠缺了那创新的能力。在这全球化的竞争下，我们国家不是应该培养出更多有主见、有创造力的新一代吗？
李前总理在演说中也说了他担忧我们年轻人，生活太过安逸。可见李前总理也想过这问题。真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执 政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境下生成。我们要我们下一代有创新、有独立自主精神，就不能不在政治上、精神上给他一个自由竞争的环境。这要求及这深深的忧虑不安 其实是隐藏在许多新加坡人心中，在全球化激烈的竞争下，我们的竞争力难道只能靠执政党的完全控制来达成吗？
所以我们在野党是为了国家的好，才提出建言与批判，爱国不是执政党的专利，希望我们能在各自的岗位上演好自己的角色，这样我们的国家才能有活力、创造力的向前进步。
最後我要提醒执政党除了对自己有信心以外，对国人也要有信心。但我也要感谢执政党，把新加坡建设成一个成熟的法治社会，让我们在野党，可以在一个合法的基础上与执政党并存，竞争,为人民服务。
谢谢。
Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)
Mr Speaker, Thank you, and congratulations.
Following our two elections this year, some commentators tell us that Singaporeans’ political differences are rising to the surface. Many of our leaders have expressed their concerns about the differences. They warned of divisions and called for unity. I’d like to remind us that differences are not divisions. It is the intolerance of differences that will be divisive.
I would like to quote a man who is not able to join us here today. In a newspaper interview, former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo related what a Roman Catholic cardinal told him about the late Pope John Paul the Second. The cardinal had drafted, “Even though we’re all different because we speak different languages, we are one”. The Pope corrected him. “No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” Mr Yeo then said, “I thought that was so profound and beautiful. In my first speech to the United Nations, I repeated that story because in the UN, it is also because we are different that we are one. To be a human being is to be different. The whole logic and driving force of biological life is diversification. An imposed unity is a false unity; it’s a contradiction in terms. To me, that is a core position, and Singapore is an expression of that core position.”
Singapore is an expression of that core position of diversity, and this must include political diversity in this day and age. Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an opposition member of this parliament. I may challenge government policy in parliament, but I do not by definition oppose government policy. It does not mean that I do not support the government in its work. It is very simple. I am an opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law-making process, based on my party philosophy. But I submit to laws properly made because I believe they express the sovereign will of our people. You see, I do not believe that Parliament is just form, and no substance. I have been elected to serve in this Parliament and will do what I can to help make it work for Singapore, make it a First World Parliament after our own fashion. As an opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the government, I am a Singaporean and a patriot.
I believe that our community will come out of robust debates stronger. Not just in Parliament but in larger society as well. Social cohesion will be strengthened when we give people, including our young people, room to voice their views and grievances and participate in community affairs. This is being recognized in households and at work places around us and is affecting how they are run. There is no reason not to learn from it. But we must start from a position of difference, not a forced unity.
How do we move forward from a position of difference?
A wise Singaporean wrote to me recently on Facebook, “the key is always to set our ‘devilish’ pride aside and for both parties to communicate.” He did not mean political parties, but any two parties in a position of difference. He goes on, “The aim is not to impose one’s view over the other but to find as much common ground as possible for the good of the common objective both parties have… And yes, I have always practised this in the office and with the wife…so far so good.”
How do we expand the areas of common ground to accommodate political differences? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans in spite of their political differences. The office of the Presidency, for example. President Tan clearly intends this. In his swearing in ceremony he said, “I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. …Whatever your political views,… I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you.”
The government in the addenda to the President’s address said, “The building of friendship, understanding and trust amidst increasing diversity will be supported through organisations such as the People’s Association and grassroots platforms such as the Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles.” We welcome this.
Let us Singaporeans take our cue from the President. Look for what Singaporeans’ different visions have in common and take our next steps in these areas of common ground. Let us ask ourselves “is there more we could do?” I believe that it would always be possible to find common ground among Singaporeans, even if it might now take greater efforts on the part of those of us here in this House. But it is possible – they call politics “the art of the possible”.
HUMAN CAPITAL
Mr Speaker
In the addenda to the President’s address, the government announced its plans to, “significantly enhance the transport infrastructure, quality and opportunities in education, healthcare and housing”. We endorse the goal. And we will hold the government to it.
We believe that Singaporeans in recent years have been underserved by enhancements in these areas. We believe that most of these enhancements are best thought of, not just as increased expenditure, but as investments in the human capital of our country, with long term benefits to our society, such as the productivity increase that the government calls our “fundamental economic challenge”. Adam Smith wrote many years ago about investments in a person, such as by the acquisition of new talents, he wrote, “such acquisition of talents always costs a real expense, which is a capital realized in his person. [but] Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs.”
Many economists have long regarded expenditures on education and healthcare as investments in human capital. They produce income and other useful outputs for the individual over long periods of time. They also produce external benefits for the rest of society. When growing disparity in wealth suggest that more and more households may not be able to make the investments that may be needed to give their children a place at the same starting line as their cohorts, it is even more appropriate for the government to increase public investments in the human capital of our young people.
This is one of the goals the government set in the addenda to the President’s address: “Through our investment in Education, we ensure that every child, regardless of family circumstances and background, has access to opportunities.” That access to opportunities has to be meaningful and available to everyone.
Similarly, for many expenditures we make outside the areas of education and healthcare, If we just take an expanded view of the returns from these investments, we will be able to see their long-term benefits.
Take elder care for example. Our investments in this area do not just benefit our elders alone. They enhance the productivity of working family members who worry about their care. They sustain and unlock the rich social and cultural capital embodied in our elders, which enhance the efficacy of our economic capital. More importantly, taking good care of our elders who built the nation is the right thing to do in the “fair and just society” that the President wishes for Singapore. It strengthens our sense of community. It is consistent with the values that we wish to impart to our children. These are all intangible but significant returns on our investments.
This is part of our nationhood: these are the bonds that will hold us together in times of trouble.
Our social harmony needs to be sustained and cultivated, carefully ministered. We must invest in these efforts.
“People are the real wealth of a nation”, declared the United Nations’ inaugural Human Development Report over twenty years ago. “People are the real wealth of a nation,” this is especially true for our nation. Let us put our people at the center of our government policies.
Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.
Significant investments cannot be made all at once. In addition to fiscal discipline, we would need to watch out for inflation, for effects on our currency and competitiveness. But the investments must be made. So we should start now and engage in a long term sustainable investment pattern for the good of our people.
CONCLUSION
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister concludes in his National Day rally speech that “ours is an improbable nation”. I cannot agree more with his call for all Singaporeans to treasure and fight for our improbable nation.
I would like to add that an improbable nation will be made more probable for future Singaporeans by the politics of possibility.
Mr Speaker, sir, I support the motion. And now in Chinese.
在今年的两次选举之后，我们许多领导人都提到团结的重要。全国人民现在必须上下一心，步伐一致地向前迈进。
他们有人认为新加坡有政治分裂，不利於团结与将来发展。但是各位想想，这分裂是怎么造成的？ 是因为社会出现了不同的声音，还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂？
“政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”，“为政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而众星拱之”，“风行草偃”，这些都是孔子说的来形容好的执政者，意思就是，一个好的领导者，只要有 信心，有正确的方向，有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来，人民自然会乐意跟著他走。不需要害怕国家分裂，强调团结。
爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。一个党再伟大也只是国家的一部分而已，不是国家全部啊！陈独秀说过，＂党外无党，帝王思想。＂在民主社会里，有不同的意见，不同的建议，是很自然的事情。这也是好事。
其实孔子三千年前就已说过，“君子和而不同”。和谐，可却不尽相同。晏婴说过：乐团只演奏一个音符，谁听得下去？白开水上再加白开水，谁喝得下去？一个和谐的社会，不只有一种声音。而是每个人很和平的在法律的範围内发表他的看法，从事政治活动。我们不必防民如防贼。
在中国历史上最伟大的贞观之治就不是一言堂式的全民团结，就是有喜欢諌言喜欢说真话不怕被唐太宗讨厌的魏徵，才有了贞观之治。
在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。
我屡次与国外的人接触，大家似乎有一种感觉，觉得新加坡守成有馀但开创不足，似乎欠缺了那创新的能力。在这全球化的竞争下，我们国家不是应该培养出更多有主见、有创造力的新一代吗？
李前总理在演说中也说了他担忧我们年轻人，生活太过安逸。可见李前总理也想过这问题。真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执 政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境下生成。我们要我们下一代有创新、有独立自主精神，就不能不在政治上、精神上给他一个自由竞争的环境。这要求及这深深的忧虑不安 其实是隐藏在许多新加坡人心中，在全球化激烈的竞争下，我们的竞争力难道只能靠执政党的完全控制来达成吗？
所以我们在野党是为了国家的好，才提出建言与批判，爱国不是执政党的专利，希望我们能在各自的岗位上演好自己的角色，这样我们的国家才能有活力、创造力的向前进步。
最後我要提醒执政党除了对自己有信心以外，对国人也要有信心。但我也要感谢执政党，把新加坡建设成一个成熟的法治社会，让我们在野党，可以在一个合法的基础上与执政党并存，竞争,为人民服务。
谢谢。
Last edited:
A Weapon Is Mightier Than A Pen
Talk and talk but no action ... the thieves and robbers are still very happy. Heck care even if your ang moh shee-shor-shee-shor also no use whard. No one bothers to arrest the fascist. So, continue to loot and fill this island with craps from all over the world. The ecosystem will breakdown one day ? It's you or them ? Are you all willing to fight ? Talk to gangster party no use lah.
秀才遇着兵，有理也说不清
Talk and talk but no action ... the thieves and robbers are still very happy. Heck care even if your ang moh shee-shor-shee-shor also no use whard. No one bothers to arrest the fascist. So, continue to loot and fill this island with craps from all over the world. The ecosystem will breakdown one day ? It's you or them ? Are you all willing to fight ? Talk to gangster party no use lah.
秀才遇着兵，有理也说不清
Re: A Weapon Is Mightier Than A Pen
[h=1]Gerald Giam’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)[/h]
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 up to 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.
[h=1]Gerald Giam’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)[/h]
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 up to 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.
The worker's party have all put up a good shot. Will Shit Times report all these message in full or will there be an edited verson so as not to put PAP to further shame.
Let's circulate all these oppositon speeches and let the world hear what they have said, otherwise our 158th Shit Times will simply sweep them under the carpet and let PAP "MOVES ON" quietly without any intelligent show.
Let's circulate all these oppositon speeches and let the world hear what they have said, otherwise our 158th Shit Times will simply sweep them under the carpet and let PAP "MOVES ON" quietly without any intelligent show.
Last edited:
yaw Shin Leong’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to begin with my heart-felt thanks to the voters of Hougang, for allowing me this opportunity to serve our country in Parliament. I also wish to express my gratitude towards Mr Low Thia Khiang for his guidance. I aspire to and will work diligently to meet the high bar set by my predecessor.
Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to address two main issues affecting Singaporean workers: First, we need to always put Singaporeans first when formulating our manpower policy. Second, we need to look at international best practices in addressing unemployment and retirement needs. I will conclude by sharing my vision of how I will serve Singapore as a WP parliamentarian.
Putting Singaporeans First
Mr Speaker, I would first like to address the concerns many working Singaporeans have about our foreign manpower policy.
I read in the Straits Times on Saturday that there is “a rare show of disagreement” between NTUC and the SNEF. We have noted this “new development” from the NTUC and are pleased that the NTUC is now in line with the Workers’ Party’s position on manpower policy, which we described in our Labour Day Message in 2008 as “Putting Singaporeans First”.
The WP is pro-Singaporean and recognises that immigrants and foreign workers have an important role to play in our country’s progress. We do not see this as a contradiction. Our goal should be to strike the right balance between an efficient system of manpower supply and to achieve the best outcome for employers, employees, and above all, Singaporeans.
I would like to discuss three areas we need to work on to achieve this balance. First, we need more transparency and accountability in our employment and S-pass system. Second, we need further tightening of the work pass system by adjusting the inflow of foreign manpower by industry. Third, we need to enhance current workforce training in order to increase productivity.
The Employment and S-Pass system needs to be more transparent. Figures showing a breakdown of the different categories of passes issued, and across different industries are not released to the public. Why this secrecy? We need regular reports showing the relative standing of Singaporeans and Passholders.
Singaporeans have expressed their concerns about losing their jobs to foreign workers. With the release of such detailed figures, it will help us better understand the need for foreign manpower across various industries. Analysis of these figures would help us calibrate foreign manpower recruitment across employment segments. Transparency will also go far in removing insecurity on the part of Singaporean workers and cool unwarranted anti-immigration sentiments. Transparency begets accountability.
Although the circumstances of labour supply are not made clear to us, it is evident that Singaporeans are at a disadvantage under the current system. Because Singaporean workers cost more to employ. The need for Singaporean males to serve National Service aside, employers are also required to make CPF contributions for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents but not for Passholders. In the recent move to tighten the Q1 pass criteria, the Ministry of Manpower estimated that it will increase the wage cost for about 20% of current Employment Pass holders or 30,000 foreign professionals by 1 to 2%. This tiny amount does not level the playing field for Singaporeans as employers do not make CPF contributions for foreign employees while the CPF component of the wage cost of Singaporean workers amounts up to 16% of gross wages.
There needs to be measures in place to enable Singaporean workers to compete equally with foreign skilled workers. Already, letting in lower cost foreign skilled workers without consideration for different demand across industry sectors are putting our workers at a great disadvantage. The WP believes that the inflow of foreign workers should therefore be calibrated for each industry, considering FIRST the suitability and availability of Singaporean workers for these industries.
Mr President in his speech mentioned our shared goal is for every Singaporean worker to have a skilled, well-paid job. In order to achieve that, we must start from our formative years, and continue to ensure that there are effective training programmes to allow each worker to maximise his ability and to keep his skills up-to-date throughout the course of his working life.
The setting up of Continuing Education and Training Centres and big employment institutes is well and fine. But instead of waiting for employers and employees to flock to the classrooms, we should also be proactive and bring more training programmes to workplaces to encourage employers to retrain Singaporean workers. Existing and new training programmes should be enhanced to ensure that they would target increasing actual productivity in the workplace, and not just abstract ideas of improving productivity in the classroom.
Since WDA has been shifting its focus from employer-based training programmes to worker-based and outcome-based programmes, we should reconsider the principle guiding the Skills Development Fund that assistance is to be given to employers as incentives and not as subsidies. It is time to move towards giving assistance in terms of both subsidies and incentives to workers. Payroll subsidies should be provided to help workers bear the costs of training for worker-based programmes. This is especially important, as workers may not have employer sponsorship and employers will naturally be reluctant to let workers select their own training programmes and take no-pay leave to complete them.
All government-funded training programmes should have an outcome-based effectiveness measuring system tailored to industry requirements. Given that increasing productivity is our topmost concern, we need to develop quantitative performance indicators that evaluate the contribution of training programmes to increasing productivity over an appropriate time-frame. Monetary incentives pegged to the performance indicators should be awarded to top up payroll subsidies and to pay for course fees.
On this note, I urge the government to think twice before accepting Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang’s proposal for a compulsory training framework for work permit and S Pass employees. As things stand, Singaporeans do not compete with foreign workers on a level playing field because foreign workers cost less. Let us make sure that the odds are not further stacked against Singaporean workers by subsidising foreigner workers’ training using our tax payers’ monies to increase their effectiveness and employability. This, I believe, would contradict the WDA’s chief objective to help Singaporean workers to improve our employability.
Unemployment and CPF: Learning from the World
Mr Speaker, I would like to now turn my attention to unemployment and the inadequacy of retirement provision.
The global financial crisis has highlighted problems in these areas. We need to be able to analyse these shortcomings, study international best practices, and learn how other countries have dealt with such issues. We can then take these valuable lessons and apply them to ourselves, with the aim of recalibrating our own system always with our people’s interests at heart.
Our workers need better protection from involuntary unemployment. Singapore has a small open economy, susceptible to external forces of globalisation. The current sovereign debt crisis in the US and Europe, the problems faced by the Eurozone — these affect us too. Our economy is maturing and growth is moderating in the context of the current prolonged global economic crisis. Cyclical and structural unemployment is a reality and our people are facing increasing risks of retrenchment.
Already, the resident unemployment rate for the second quarter of 2011 has crept back up to 3.9%, very close to 2010 levels. Since the height of the financial crisis in 2008, only 50 and 58 percent of residents have been re-employed within six months of having been made redundant, compared with 66 to 78% before the crisis. Yet, the government let in more Employment and S Pass professionals, increasing the number from 188,000 foreign skilled workers in 2008 to 240,000 in 2010. This is a 27% increase as half of our laid-off resident workers struggled to find work.
Under these circumstances, the combined weight of financial commitments for laid-off workers — be it rent, mortgage re-payments, utility bills, medical bills and educational expenses — can be considerable. There must be some level of support for the unemployed to continue to live a decent and dignified life. It is also important that the involuntarily unemployed be provided with peace of mind to retrain, upskill and look for employment.
We do not want unemployment to push our workers into the vicious circle of poverty. We note that there are Comcare Work Support and Transition programmes for the unemployed to tide them over periods of unemployment. The stringent criteria for these programmes include a household income of not more than $1,500. This will not help the unemployed from the sandwiched middle class with a household income that exceeds this ceiling; they too have bills as well as mouths to feed and elderly to take care of.
For a long term solution to temporary and involuntary unemployment, we should very carefully study the feasibility of an unemployment insurance scheme. The Prime Minister dismissed this idea in 2006 on the basis of affordability. He said it will reduce a worker’s take-home pay or add to wage costs and reduce competitiveness.
Five years on, global economic conditions have changed and the risk of unemployment faced by our workers has risen considerably. However, we now have the benefit of seeing mixed results from many unemployment insurance schemes around the world, particularly after they have been put through the crucible of the global financial crisis. Some schemes are costly and cannot be sustained, but there are also schemes that appear to have been successfully implemented.
Not all unemployment insurance schemes provide income without work. Unemployment insurance can encourage the unemployed to find work or even to retrain, for example by tying payouts to participation in WDA job placement and training programmes. We must therefore study international best practices and consider whether they could be adapted to our context. We cannot dismiss it out of hand without due consideration and research, especially now that we are facing challenging economic conditions ahead.
Finally, I would like to address the adequacy of our CPF in providing for Singaporeans’ retirement needs. The Australian Centre for Financial Studies and Mercer have just released their Mercer Melbourne Global Pension Index report for 2011. Among 16 countries (which include developed countries and fast developing countries such as Brazil, India, China and Chile), Singapore is ranked 11 and received a ‘C’ grade. In terms of the three dimensions of the index, our CPF is doing well in terms of sustainability and integrity, but we fared badly for adequacy. In other words, our CPF is at risk of not delivering adequate retirement benefits for Singaporeans. We ranked second from the bottom for the adequacy index, scoring only 41.9 points when the average is 63 points. We scored 51.7 points in 2009 and have dropped nearly 10 points in just two years. This is very worrying.
The Melbourne Mercer report suggests six ways for us to improve our CPF system. I want to highlight three of them which echo what the WP has proposed.
Firstly, our CPF should raise “the minimum level of support available to the poorest pensioners”. We have a duty to protect our senior citizens who have spent the better part of their lives contributing to Singapore’s growth. Not everyone turning 55 in 2013 will be covered by CPF Life, as only those with $40,000 or more in their Retirement Account will be automatically included in the scheme. The CPF board estimates that 70% of the cohort will be auto-included, while the rest with less than $40,000 in their Retirement Accounts would have to opt in. Ironically, the bottom 30% are the ones who need better support.
Furthermore, we understand that the CPF Minimum Sum or CPF Life monthly payouts can be less than the prevailing Public Assistance allowance of $400 per month for a one-person household. Those who are receiving less can therefore apply for Public Assistance. Even so, is $400 a month enough, in the words of MCYS to “sustain basic living?”. I note too that CPF Life is not inflation indexed. If core inflation continues above 2% each year, and headline inflation is above 5%, the purchasing power of each monthly payout will have eroded by between 25% to 50% in 15 years.
How is this insurance for longevity? The government should consider setting up a Longevity Fund to supplement the income of our senior citizens inadequately covered by the CPF Minimum Sum or CPF Life schemes. The Fund could be built up through transfers from budget surpluses. This small but significant step by the government will go a long way in our goal to ensure that all our senior citizens will have adequate means to enjoy their golden years after spending their prime years contributing towards nation building.
Taking the second and third points together, the report states that our CPF should “invest a portion of the CPF in growth assets and reduce the barrier to establishing tax-approved group corporate retirement plans”. We welcome the recent announcement that the SMRA interest rate will continue to be fixed at 4%. The extension of the 4% rate is only a temporary solution. In the first place, the aim of the 10-year SGS floating rate policy is to improve returns for Singaporeans beyond the 4% rate. It is cold comfort when the Minister of State for Manpower recently boasted that the 10-year average real rate of return is 2.6% for the Special Account in 2010, when the 10-year average real GDP growth is 5.6%. Singaporeans deserve fair returns for what we work for.
It has also been said that this portfolio is largely risk-free. It is only risk-free insofar as the government will pay out the amounts that have flown into the fund. The Minister should be reminded that risk includes present and future inflation risk, past real returns notwithstanding, and inflation risk has grown significantly in the past few years. Past performances are not indicative of future ones. The time has come for a comprehensive study drawing on international best practices to assess the feasibility of a pension fund model tailored to Singapore’s own circumstances to enhance CPF returns.
I would like to conclude by saying that the issues I have highlighted above are very real and pressing problems for my constituents and also for the people of Singapore, as we fight to find our footing in an ever-volatile and challenging environment.
It is my hope that in carrying out the business of this House, we will work together towards a better life for each and every single Singaporean.
On the cusp of what we are constantly told is a new era in our young country’s political development, I am energised by what I have seen in the past decade: the development and the gradual maturity of our politicallandscape. I look forward with much anticipation to my part in ensuring that reasoned, alternative voices continue to make ourselves heard in this honourable institution.
It is an honour and a privilege that I will preserve while serving the people of Hougang constituency and the Republic of Singapore. Thank you.
Last edited:
Govt must put S'poreans first in manpower policies: Yaw Shin Leong
Posted: 19 October 2011 2048 hrs
<tbody>
</tbody>
SINGAPORE: The opposition MP from Hougang, Yaw Shin Leong, said that the government must put Singaporeans first when formulating manpower policies.
Referring to how Singaporeans are concerned about losing their jobs to foreign workers, Mr Yaw asked for more transparency in the employment and S Pass system. He also urged the government to think twice before accepting Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's proposal to have a compulsory training framework for work permit and S Pass employers.
Mr Yaw said: "As things stand, Singaporeans do not compete with foreign workers on a level playing field because foreign workers cost less.
"Let us make sure that the odds are not further stacked against Singaporean workers by subsidising foreigner workers' training using our taxpayers' monies to increase their effectiveness and employability. This, I believe, would contradict the WDA's chief objective of helping Singaporean workers to improve our employability."
In response, Mr Yeo said: "The government training subsidies for our workers in Singapore, only extends to Singaporeans. So I am not sure what is the basis for him to assume that when we suggest that foreign workers must also go for certification and training, the costs will be borne by the government and not the employers."
-CNA/ac
Posted: 19 October 2011 2048 hrs
| ||||||
<tbody> </tbody> 
Yaw Shin Leong | ||||||
| |
<tbody>
</tbody>
SINGAPORE: The opposition MP from Hougang, Yaw Shin Leong, said that the government must put Singaporeans first when formulating manpower policies.
Referring to how Singaporeans are concerned about losing their jobs to foreign workers, Mr Yaw asked for more transparency in the employment and S Pass system. He also urged the government to think twice before accepting Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's proposal to have a compulsory training framework for work permit and S Pass employers.
Mr Yaw said: "As things stand, Singaporeans do not compete with foreign workers on a level playing field because foreign workers cost less.
"Let us make sure that the odds are not further stacked against Singaporean workers by subsidising foreigner workers' training using our taxpayers' monies to increase their effectiveness and employability. This, I believe, would contradict the WDA's chief objective of helping Singaporean workers to improve our employability."
In response, Mr Yeo said: "The government training subsidies for our workers in Singapore, only extends to Singaporeans. So I am not sure what is the basis for him to assume that when we suggest that foreign workers must also go for certification and training, the costs will be borne by the government and not the employers."
-CNA/ac
Yee Jenn Jong’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I touch on the President’s speech, I like to add to the references on Bhutan, as well as correct misconceptions that had surfaced in this House. I happen to visit Bhutan just before this year’s General Elections and am now involved in a non-profit education project for the country.
Mr Cedric Foo joked that Bhutanese are happy because they have only 2 elected opposition members. Bhutan’s concept of happiness was implemented by the 4th King in the 1970s, long before they had parliamentary democracy in 2008. On my flight into Bhutan, I picked up this In-Flight magazine of Druk Air, their national airline. This page listed the 4 most important persons in Bhutan: His Majesty the King, the Chief Abbot, the Prime Minister and … the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking with Bhutanese, I was amazed at the respect they accorded to the Opposition, as well as to the democracy process.
Just as Minister Khaw said that developing Bhutan wants to learn from Singapore, there are useful lessons from Bhutan. The concept of Gross National Happiness is not some fuzzy feel-good about individual happiness as some members alluded to, but about collective happiness and long term sustainability. It does measure economic indicators, like all other countries. It also measures three other important areas: Preservation of Culture, Preservation of the Environment and Good Governance. Bhutan chose to do so because it wanted to leave something for future generations, rather than mine natural resources for short term gains or destroy the culture that made them unique. We have seen measures to prop up the economy, like liberal immigration and the casinos, which may bring immediate benefits but can lead to long term problems. Are Singaporeans happy with headline-grabbing economic growth when it is their jobs that have been impacted; when they struggle with high cost of living; or if family members face chronic gambling problems?
Sir, I will now move on to my main speech. I thank the President for reminding us to do our very best for our country and to make it the best home for all Singaporeans. I grew up in an independent Singapore. I have seen the changes we went through. Doing my best for Singapore is an aspiration that I share. Singapore is my home and my family.
The President touched on many issues. I will focus on education and the economy.
First, I like to declare that I have vested interest in the education space as an owner of several private companies offering education services, mostly to schools.
Sir, the President said that we should have “a truly special Singapore, where our children can grow to be the best that they can be.”
The main form of our current mainstream education started with the bold 1979 Goh report by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Minister for Education. It was to address the challenges of the day. Streaming was introduced. Singapore went for mass production to raise the overall level of students’ performance.
Schools were differentiated progressively from 1988. From 1992, they were ranked yearly by MOE and the ranking were published. Next, MOE published schools’ actual versus expected performances. Ranking was later replaced with banding schools of similar range of students’ academic performances together. Today, while schools are appraised in non-academic areas, they are still banded by academic results.
The changes have raised overall education levels, but they also created excessive anxieties for parents and students, and widened public’s perception of quality between top and lower ranked schools.
An educator friend blogged that she had asked parents in workshops to draw their impression of our education system. One drew prison bars! There were similar drawings by other parents expressing helplessness at being trapped in the system. They felt helpless over the many high stake examinations; and pressure to get children into good schools, failing which they deem the future of their children would be compromised.
In a recent 938Live radio talkshow, a caller whose daughter was taking PSLE this year described how her family relationship became strained while preparing for the exams. A friend shared that his daughter in a top school cries frequently just before exams. I feel terrible hearing of children having their confidence crushed and growing up in fear of education. A former civil servant I met online wrote that he had migrated to Finland because he did not want to subject his son to the unhealthy system here. He wanted his son to simply love learning.
Today there is over reliance on academic performance as a benchmark of success and meritocracy, a phenomenon I call hyper-meritocracy. Hyper-meritocracy has seen parents who could afford it, pack children’s schedule with tuition. A good paper qualification is seen as a guarantee to a successful career. The safe thing to do in Singapore is to score in exams, get a scholarship and land a secure good-paying job. This has led to a dearth of risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore.
I share Mr Teo Ser Luck’s observation that risk aversion will be a key challenge for him to promote entrepreneurship. The problem of lack of entrepreneurs begins in schools, where students are conditioned not to take risks and do not learn to handle ambiguity. In this aspect, I am happy to work with Mr Teo as I have been working with young entrepreneurs and students for quite some time now.
Sir, I am happy to note that MOE is looking into Character and Value-based education. Character and values are important guiding principles for life and must be imparted to students. However, schools are supposed to already have civics and moral education for years. MOE’s 21st Century Skills framework, already included character and values development. Schools, preoccupied with measurable indicators of success such as school ranking and academic grades, are known to have replaced civics periods with mainstream subjects. This sends wrong signals to children that values are not important.
Schools pile homework on students and drill them for major exams. I know of a top school which had three full-scale prelim exams in addition to mock exams using prelim papers of other schools, in order to prepare students for this year’s ‘O’ levels. Principals feel pressured into delivering academic results over other forms of holistic development.
We have had education policies with good intents before, but their effects were often muted because we did not address our examination culture.
At the heart of the issue is what good education should be about. Do we sieve out academic performers through a series of examinations so that we can concentrate them together? Is this so because we believe we need to identify the top 5% of each cohort who will run our country and our top companies in the future?
Today, we face a totally different world where what we know can quickly become obsolete. Nimbleness to change is essential for survival. We do not just churn out workers for the multinationals. We are competing against the world for investments, businesses and jobs. We need our people to be innovative and adaptable.
Mr Speaker, I hope two areas can be addressed:
1. Critically examine our intense examination culture. Can we cut down on streaming and do we need to start streaming so early?
Finland, a country with about the same population size as Singapore, went the opposite direction with their education reforms, equalizing resources in schools and spreading talents across the system. They stream students only at 15 years old. Finnish students do well in international assessment benchmark. Notably, it has the shortest school hours in OECD countries and the narrowest gap between the high and low scorers, indicating education equity. Students hardly go for tuition. I feel it is useful to study their approach.
2. Broaden learning and seriously infuse character and values development.
Already schools are reluctant to offer subjects that are important to broaden students’ thinking, such as literature and history, as these subjects are difficult to score well in. Yet they are important for students to appreciate diversity, handle ambiguity and to develop critical thinking.
We should further broaden learning to include political education so that students can grow up with a wider spectrum of thoughts. Perhaps, they can then develop the Digital Quotient that Dr Lam Pin Min spoke about and can become responsible participants in our evolving parliamentary democracy.
Today, we appear more educated. However, I am not sure if we are more learned and more innovative, or we are simply more exam-smart.
I like to share a story with this House. Recently, I met a Singaporean couple who run an international school in Bangkok. They shared the experience of their daughter. Jazlina retained a place in a Singapore school under overseas leave of absence. She returned in primary 6, took her PSLE and was admitted into an autonomous school. She spent her secondary two in Singapore.
Jazlina is a bright and self-motivated girl who had thrived in school while in Thailand. But under our system, she felt constrained trying to conform to a rigid regime expecting standard answers. With a class size of over 40 students, her mother had to put her through tuition to keep pace with the class. Jazlina started to lose self-confidence and told her mother that ‘maybe I am not so smart after all’. At secondary three, she was streamed into a subject combination that was not her passion. After fighting the system for a few more months, the family put her back into their own school in Thailand.Jazlina blossomed again. She now represents Thailand in international debating competitions, where she has won prizes. At this year’s iGCSE exams, Jazlina aced all her subjects and scored 100% in two subjects, including for the subject of her passion which she was not selected to take in Singapore.
Her mother shared that had they not brought her back into a more nurturing environment, her confidence would have plunged further. She felt that Singapore’s system was not bringing out the best in Jazlina, but was instead drowning her.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the President’s call for our children to ‘grow to be the best that they can be’ is a great ideal. Like Mr Lawrence Wong, I believe that education should light up fires in children. We have to deal with many like Jazlina, who are talented and passionate, but constrained by the system. Instead of being obsessed with picking out winners, education should make winners out of the ordinary.
We may have done well in the past. Based on that, we entrench our processes further without critically considering the changing environment or the negative effects. It has been 32 years since the Goh Report. I believe it is time to make bolder evaluation of our mainstream education.
Sir, next, I like to talk about the economy. I feel the government has become small in areas it should be big in, and big in areas it should be small in.
In the last decade, Singapore has adopted a free market approach for many government services. Some areas like the provision of public housing, public transportation and health care, which are essential social responsibilities of the government, have gone this route too.
My colleague, Gerald Giam had touched extensively on the under-capacity of hospital beds, public transport and housing as a result of this policy. We outsource critical areas to the private sector and hence we had issues such as DBSS which had caused unhappiness due to public housing being pushed to unaffordable levels.
The government chose to play a smaller role in the provision of essential services. It passed these responsibilities to the free market. With a free market mindset, the government was not prepared to take risks. As a result, Singaporeans bore the cost of the under-provision.
On the other hand, in areas that the government should play a smaller role, it has instead grown bigger.
As our economy developed through the years, instead of letting private enterprises take more initiative in the economy, our government’s share of the economy has grown through its participation in Government Linked Companies or GLCs. This is in contrast to countries like South Korea and Taiwan whose governments also had helped pioneered some key businesses but progressively withdrew to let the private sector drive growth thereafter.
The NTUC group is a large cooperative with a stated US$3.5 billion annual turnover from its website. GLCs and cooperatives like NTUC inevitably compete with local enterprises, making the domestic market even smaller for them.
A Straits Times Forum writer wrote last week to share his experience as an entry-level entrepreneur in Chinatown Complex. In May this year, NEA engaged professional valuers to appraise the value of the complex. Rent went up by 71 to 100% as a result.
Keeping rental cost manageable is important to the survival of small enterprises. In the past few years, JTC divested many of its properties to Real Estate Investment Trusts. I noted that rental cost of former JTC spaces have gone up as a result, an observation shared by SME leaders in an article in the Straits Times today. Hence, SMEs today struggle with high rental cost on top of challenging manpower cost.
SMEs sometimes also suffer in tenders due to risk aversion by government officers who may shun smaller companies even if the solutions offered have met specifications at lower costs. To promote the growth of SMEs, the government could look at ways to allow GLCs to participate only in tenders above certain minimum values. Or GLCs and cooperatives should withdraw totally from non-essential market segments if SMEs are capable of fulfilling local demands.
I believe there’s merit in encouraging SMEs to develop themselves further with a mindset of professionalism, precision and perfection. In some developed economies like Germany and Switzerland, there are vibrant cottage industries comprising long established family-run businesses. They have generations of know-how that have allowed their products to be sought after despite competition from lower cost countries.
SMEs create jobs. Those that have succeeded locally could end up as global winners. In Singapore, we also have our cottage industries. I am happy to note that we have long established food brands like Tee Yih Jia, Sin Hwa Dee, Polar Puffs and others that have been able to scale globally. It is imperative that Singapore provides the conditions to develop more of such local enterprises.
As we move forward to strengthen our economy, I hope the government can consider right-sizing itself in the appropriate areas. I like to see it being big in providing essential social services. I like to see it become small in running domestic businesses and leave the space to grow our SMEs.
With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion of thanks.
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I touch on the President’s speech, I like to add to the references on Bhutan, as well as correct misconceptions that had surfaced in this House. I happen to visit Bhutan just before this year’s General Elections and am now involved in a non-profit education project for the country.
Mr Cedric Foo joked that Bhutanese are happy because they have only 2 elected opposition members. Bhutan’s concept of happiness was implemented by the 4th King in the 1970s, long before they had parliamentary democracy in 2008. On my flight into Bhutan, I picked up this In-Flight magazine of Druk Air, their national airline. This page listed the 4 most important persons in Bhutan: His Majesty the King, the Chief Abbot, the Prime Minister and … the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking with Bhutanese, I was amazed at the respect they accorded to the Opposition, as well as to the democracy process.
Just as Minister Khaw said that developing Bhutan wants to learn from Singapore, there are useful lessons from Bhutan. The concept of Gross National Happiness is not some fuzzy feel-good about individual happiness as some members alluded to, but about collective happiness and long term sustainability. It does measure economic indicators, like all other countries. It also measures three other important areas: Preservation of Culture, Preservation of the Environment and Good Governance. Bhutan chose to do so because it wanted to leave something for future generations, rather than mine natural resources for short term gains or destroy the culture that made them unique. We have seen measures to prop up the economy, like liberal immigration and the casinos, which may bring immediate benefits but can lead to long term problems. Are Singaporeans happy with headline-grabbing economic growth when it is their jobs that have been impacted; when they struggle with high cost of living; or if family members face chronic gambling problems?
Sir, I will now move on to my main speech. I thank the President for reminding us to do our very best for our country and to make it the best home for all Singaporeans. I grew up in an independent Singapore. I have seen the changes we went through. Doing my best for Singapore is an aspiration that I share. Singapore is my home and my family.
The President touched on many issues. I will focus on education and the economy.
First, I like to declare that I have vested interest in the education space as an owner of several private companies offering education services, mostly to schools.
Sir, the President said that we should have “a truly special Singapore, where our children can grow to be the best that they can be.”
The main form of our current mainstream education started with the bold 1979 Goh report by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Minister for Education. It was to address the challenges of the day. Streaming was introduced. Singapore went for mass production to raise the overall level of students’ performance.
Schools were differentiated progressively from 1988. From 1992, they were ranked yearly by MOE and the ranking were published. Next, MOE published schools’ actual versus expected performances. Ranking was later replaced with banding schools of similar range of students’ academic performances together. Today, while schools are appraised in non-academic areas, they are still banded by academic results.
The changes have raised overall education levels, but they also created excessive anxieties for parents and students, and widened public’s perception of quality between top and lower ranked schools.
An educator friend blogged that she had asked parents in workshops to draw their impression of our education system. One drew prison bars! There were similar drawings by other parents expressing helplessness at being trapped in the system. They felt helpless over the many high stake examinations; and pressure to get children into good schools, failing which they deem the future of their children would be compromised.
In a recent 938Live radio talkshow, a caller whose daughter was taking PSLE this year described how her family relationship became strained while preparing for the exams. A friend shared that his daughter in a top school cries frequently just before exams. I feel terrible hearing of children having their confidence crushed and growing up in fear of education. A former civil servant I met online wrote that he had migrated to Finland because he did not want to subject his son to the unhealthy system here. He wanted his son to simply love learning.
Today there is over reliance on academic performance as a benchmark of success and meritocracy, a phenomenon I call hyper-meritocracy. Hyper-meritocracy has seen parents who could afford it, pack children’s schedule with tuition. A good paper qualification is seen as a guarantee to a successful career. The safe thing to do in Singapore is to score in exams, get a scholarship and land a secure good-paying job. This has led to a dearth of risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore.
I share Mr Teo Ser Luck’s observation that risk aversion will be a key challenge for him to promote entrepreneurship. The problem of lack of entrepreneurs begins in schools, where students are conditioned not to take risks and do not learn to handle ambiguity. In this aspect, I am happy to work with Mr Teo as I have been working with young entrepreneurs and students for quite some time now.
Sir, I am happy to note that MOE is looking into Character and Value-based education. Character and values are important guiding principles for life and must be imparted to students. However, schools are supposed to already have civics and moral education for years. MOE’s 21st Century Skills framework, already included character and values development. Schools, preoccupied with measurable indicators of success such as school ranking and academic grades, are known to have replaced civics periods with mainstream subjects. This sends wrong signals to children that values are not important.
Schools pile homework on students and drill them for major exams. I know of a top school which had three full-scale prelim exams in addition to mock exams using prelim papers of other schools, in order to prepare students for this year’s ‘O’ levels. Principals feel pressured into delivering academic results over other forms of holistic development.
We have had education policies with good intents before, but their effects were often muted because we did not address our examination culture.
At the heart of the issue is what good education should be about. Do we sieve out academic performers through a series of examinations so that we can concentrate them together? Is this so because we believe we need to identify the top 5% of each cohort who will run our country and our top companies in the future?
Today, we face a totally different world where what we know can quickly become obsolete. Nimbleness to change is essential for survival. We do not just churn out workers for the multinationals. We are competing against the world for investments, businesses and jobs. We need our people to be innovative and adaptable.
Mr Speaker, I hope two areas can be addressed:
1. Critically examine our intense examination culture. Can we cut down on streaming and do we need to start streaming so early?
Finland, a country with about the same population size as Singapore, went the opposite direction with their education reforms, equalizing resources in schools and spreading talents across the system. They stream students only at 15 years old. Finnish students do well in international assessment benchmark. Notably, it has the shortest school hours in OECD countries and the narrowest gap between the high and low scorers, indicating education equity. Students hardly go for tuition. I feel it is useful to study their approach.
2. Broaden learning and seriously infuse character and values development.
Already schools are reluctant to offer subjects that are important to broaden students’ thinking, such as literature and history, as these subjects are difficult to score well in. Yet they are important for students to appreciate diversity, handle ambiguity and to develop critical thinking.
We should further broaden learning to include political education so that students can grow up with a wider spectrum of thoughts. Perhaps, they can then develop the Digital Quotient that Dr Lam Pin Min spoke about and can become responsible participants in our evolving parliamentary democracy.
Today, we appear more educated. However, I am not sure if we are more learned and more innovative, or we are simply more exam-smart.
I like to share a story with this House. Recently, I met a Singaporean couple who run an international school in Bangkok. They shared the experience of their daughter. Jazlina retained a place in a Singapore school under overseas leave of absence. She returned in primary 6, took her PSLE and was admitted into an autonomous school. She spent her secondary two in Singapore.
Jazlina is a bright and self-motivated girl who had thrived in school while in Thailand. But under our system, she felt constrained trying to conform to a rigid regime expecting standard answers. With a class size of over 40 students, her mother had to put her through tuition to keep pace with the class. Jazlina started to lose self-confidence and told her mother that ‘maybe I am not so smart after all’. At secondary three, she was streamed into a subject combination that was not her passion. After fighting the system for a few more months, the family put her back into their own school in Thailand.Jazlina blossomed again. She now represents Thailand in international debating competitions, where she has won prizes. At this year’s iGCSE exams, Jazlina aced all her subjects and scored 100% in two subjects, including for the subject of her passion which she was not selected to take in Singapore.
Her mother shared that had they not brought her back into a more nurturing environment, her confidence would have plunged further. She felt that Singapore’s system was not bringing out the best in Jazlina, but was instead drowning her.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the President’s call for our children to ‘grow to be the best that they can be’ is a great ideal. Like Mr Lawrence Wong, I believe that education should light up fires in children. We have to deal with many like Jazlina, who are talented and passionate, but constrained by the system. Instead of being obsessed with picking out winners, education should make winners out of the ordinary.
We may have done well in the past. Based on that, we entrench our processes further without critically considering the changing environment or the negative effects. It has been 32 years since the Goh Report. I believe it is time to make bolder evaluation of our mainstream education.
Sir, next, I like to talk about the economy. I feel the government has become small in areas it should be big in, and big in areas it should be small in.
In the last decade, Singapore has adopted a free market approach for many government services. Some areas like the provision of public housing, public transportation and health care, which are essential social responsibilities of the government, have gone this route too.
My colleague, Gerald Giam had touched extensively on the under-capacity of hospital beds, public transport and housing as a result of this policy. We outsource critical areas to the private sector and hence we had issues such as DBSS which had caused unhappiness due to public housing being pushed to unaffordable levels.
The government chose to play a smaller role in the provision of essential services. It passed these responsibilities to the free market. With a free market mindset, the government was not prepared to take risks. As a result, Singaporeans bore the cost of the under-provision.
On the other hand, in areas that the government should play a smaller role, it has instead grown bigger.
As our economy developed through the years, instead of letting private enterprises take more initiative in the economy, our government’s share of the economy has grown through its participation in Government Linked Companies or GLCs. This is in contrast to countries like South Korea and Taiwan whose governments also had helped pioneered some key businesses but progressively withdrew to let the private sector drive growth thereafter.
The NTUC group is a large cooperative with a stated US$3.5 billion annual turnover from its website. GLCs and cooperatives like NTUC inevitably compete with local enterprises, making the domestic market even smaller for them.
A Straits Times Forum writer wrote last week to share his experience as an entry-level entrepreneur in Chinatown Complex. In May this year, NEA engaged professional valuers to appraise the value of the complex. Rent went up by 71 to 100% as a result.
Keeping rental cost manageable is important to the survival of small enterprises. In the past few years, JTC divested many of its properties to Real Estate Investment Trusts. I noted that rental cost of former JTC spaces have gone up as a result, an observation shared by SME leaders in an article in the Straits Times today. Hence, SMEs today struggle with high rental cost on top of challenging manpower cost.
SMEs sometimes also suffer in tenders due to risk aversion by government officers who may shun smaller companies even if the solutions offered have met specifications at lower costs. To promote the growth of SMEs, the government could look at ways to allow GLCs to participate only in tenders above certain minimum values. Or GLCs and cooperatives should withdraw totally from non-essential market segments if SMEs are capable of fulfilling local demands.
I believe there’s merit in encouraging SMEs to develop themselves further with a mindset of professionalism, precision and perfection. In some developed economies like Germany and Switzerland, there are vibrant cottage industries comprising long established family-run businesses. They have generations of know-how that have allowed their products to be sought after despite competition from lower cost countries.
SMEs create jobs. Those that have succeeded locally could end up as global winners. In Singapore, we also have our cottage industries. I am happy to note that we have long established food brands like Tee Yih Jia, Sin Hwa Dee, Polar Puffs and others that have been able to scale globally. It is imperative that Singapore provides the conditions to develop more of such local enterprises.
As we move forward to strengthen our economy, I hope the government can consider right-sizing itself in the appropriate areas. I like to see it being big in providing essential social services. I like to see it become small in running domestic businesses and leave the space to grow our SMEs.
With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion of thanks.
Last edited:
Pritam Singh’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)
Mr Speaker Sir,
Please allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House.
In his speech to this House, the President noted, “we must find ways to use the new media constructively, to connect with the digital generation and sustain fruitful conversations on issues concerning us all.” MICA’s addendum noted that the Ministry seeks to find innovative ways to connect with citizens and it plays an important role in driving and coordinating whole-of-government efforts in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.
Mr Speaker Sir, my speech today relates to suggesting ways in which the government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. It is divided into two parts. First I assess Singapore’s mainstream media landscape, which directly affects the online world. Secondly, I seek to provide suggestions to the government on how it can sow the seeds for a media and information environment where Singaporeans are as far as possible, inoculated from lies and misinformation online, and biased reporting from other media outlets in general.
Sir, the new media does not exist in a vacuum. Some Singaporeans routinely wonder why alternative political commentary websites are so popular among Singaporeans – these include Singapore Recalcitrant, Singapore Daily, Singapore Notes and sites from across the centre-left of the political spectrum like Yawning Bread, The Online Citizen and even some articles from the discontinued Temasek Review. Could it be because for every ounce of misinformation, perceived or otherwise, these websites and blogs also ask serious questions pertaining to governance in Singapore – questions that are sidestepped, diluted or even ignored by the government and mainstream media?
The government has, over the last few years in particular, referred to the new media in largely pejorative terms – the Prime Minister has previously referred to it as the “wild west” and more recently, as a “cowboy town”. But the reality is this – the new media is here to stay, and it will continue to eat into the mindshare of the mainstream media, no matter what the government chooses to call it. Temasek Review may have gone offline, but it is not going to be too difficult or technically challenging to bring 10 new incarnations of Temasek Review online overnight.
Rather than fear or castigate the new media, members need to consider how far the explosive popularity of the new media is partly a function of the PAP government’s politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP governments have placed upon the mainstream media.
In 2010, former MICA Minister, Mr Liu Tuck Yew stated “we want to make sure that the Press is, and is seen as, independent of the influence of Government.” This house would know, through conversations members must have had with their friends, that many self-respecting Singaporeans have well-founded doubts, perceptions though they may be, that the mainstream media operates with the long shadow of Government firmly cast upon it.
The perceptions of ordinary Singaporeans were somewhat confirmed when the Chief Editor of the Straits Times was quoted last year as saying, “We’re aware people say we are a government mouthpiece or that we are biased.” For me personally, this perception was somewhat crystallized when I recently read a chapter in former President SR Nathan’s memoirs titled “Entering the newspaper world”.
In page 459, he is quoted as saying (this is shortly after the corporate restructuring of SPH and the just prior to the launch of the New Paper), “privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with the Straits Times could well result in demands for heads to roll and a return to the old idea of putting in a government team.”
Some members may feel that President Nathan’s views are nothing more than reflections from a bygone era. But in 2003 another episode occurred, euphemistically referred to as the Val Chua affair, this time with Today, the Mediacorp publication. The precise details of what happened, and why it happened are hazy, but what did happen is that the newspaper’s editor left his job shortly this episode.
Little wonder why some Singaporeans, particularly those in the post-65 generation have more faith and confidence in the new media, and why some may even tolerate misinformation or get taken in by disinformation to varying degrees online.
Mr Speaker Sir, this government is not in a position to change perceptions of the mainstream media unless there is a fundamental rethink about elements of the NPPA, and opening the mainstream media market to genuine competition – these are issues far beyond the scope of my speech.
But that should not stop the government from thinking about how it can prepare Singaporeans for a future – if it is not here already – where information will increasingly be at everyone’s fingertips, whether you are 9 or 90 years of age.
How do we make sure the overwhelming majority of our citizenry are readily able to seek reliable sources of information be it online or in the mainstream media? How do we convince our citizens that there can be various perspectives to an issue and to respect these various perspectives and narratives, even if we may disagree with them or if they differ from our own? Once more, the answers to these questions do not lie in the online world, but in the real world.
To improve communication with Singaporeans, this PAP government has to work hard to change the perception of its philosophy of indirect control of the mainstream media, and deliberately move towards a politics of empowerment when dealing with Singaporeans. The government should commit to share more information and in doing so, exorcise itself from its insecurity and paranoia, which makes less sense in view of the borderless nature of the internet and the speed at which information is exchanged and perceptions formed.
Mr Speaker Sir, I agree with Mr Lam Pin Min’s views that active citizenry in the real and virtual worlds are good for Singapore, and that good digital literacy and judgment is needed in future. I also support Mr Edwin Tong when he said government engagement with Singaporeans can build a new social compact and that what is required is trust and not blind faith. Ms Sim Ann alluded to the new normal and said that voters must be active participants so that rationality has the upper hand. Mr Baey Yam Keng spoke of an emphasis in research and the interpretation of information. Mr Cedric Foo arguably went the furthest when he highlighted the existence of information asymmetries in Singapore, suggesting that voters had no benefit of decisions made in the highest echelons of government. He also said that the government’s default mode should be to share more to secure greater buy-in from the public, so there is less room for the truth to be distorted. And Mdm Fatimah Latiff noted that government communication had to be enhanced and it was one of the weakest aspects of this government.
Mr Speaker Sir, with these words from PAP backbenchers which I support, I will now move into the second section of my speech that envisages specific legislation – that can protect Singaporeans from lies, misinformation and open up new avenues for the new media and mainstream media to promote a more informed citizenry.
I make 4 proposals, all of which call for more than, the digital education suggested by Mr Lam. Critically, my proposals seek to signpost the government to move beyond slogans such as the “new normal”, to substantive change with a view to promote active citizenry.
Firstly – a Freedom of Information legislation – an idea that has been repeated in the WP’s 2006 and 2011 manifestos. Mr Speaker Sir, a prospective freedom of information act will allow any Singaporean citizen to make enquiries with any public body for statistics and information, at a reasonable price. While I commend the government for the recently launched website data.gov.sg and the regular public release of information by the Department of Statistics, these examples amplify the fact that it is the government that decides what it wants to put out.
What a Freedom of Information Act would do is to allow ordinary citizens to pull information from public bodies that have not put the information sought in the public realm. A Freedom of Information legislation is not meant to oblige the government to release sensitive data such as defence deployments and procurement. Exceptions are routinely scheduled in Freedom of Information legislation elsewhere, which prohibit government release of sensitive information. It is useful to note that Freedom of Information legislation is very much the norm in countries, which host a diverse and plural polity.
And in case some members feel such open-government legislation only originates in Western countries and that we Asians do it differently, the multi-racial Malaysian states of Penang and Selangor have opened a dialogue on the induction of such legislation. India passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, a high-water mark of the previous UPA government.Lets try to envisage a Freedom of Information Act in practice. In the event, some misinformation is being peddled about on the internet or mainstream media, ordinary citizens and journalists can walk into any ministry, go to the designated information officer and seek official statistics on the matter. With this information in hand, the peddler of misinformation either online or in the mainstream media, would be found out, and the webpage or newspaper which hosted the misinformation would lose credibility.
No Singaporean will be able to accuse the government of selectively putting out information it wants to, since ordinary Singaporeans will be empowered to seek the information they require.
A Freedom of Information Act hosts other benefits too. Only a few weeks ago MCYS launched “Be the Change”, an initiative, which invites “young Singaporeans to step forward, share their ideas, and take the lead in turning their ideas into reality.” Such projects are likely to be far more successful, popular and broad-based if youth can make enquiries of government on data and statistics to ensure their ideas are workable and practical.
A second arrow in the politics of empowerment is an obligation by the government of the day to order the automatic release and disclosure of official information at fixed intervals of 30 years or so. In the United Kingdom, the Public Records Office manages this process. The disclosure of official documents, apart from introducing substantive accountability and transparency in government-decision making processes, will likely provide Singaporeans with valuable insights on why decisions were made the way they were by political leaders in the past. Such a repository of information is extremely helpful to ensure succeeding generations understand the circumstances behind the success of their predecessors while avoiding the very same mistakes and missteps.
Automating the periodic disclosure of official documents may necessitate a review of certain sections of the National Heritage Board Act. The government should not see such changes as an attempt to criticize and expose previous governments. But no politician should be beyond reproach and a commitment to open government files for historical scrutiny are important features of a politically mature society.
Thirdly, President Tony Tan, during his Presidential campaign revived interest in the office of the Ombudsman, a proposal first made to the PAP government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin commission almost 50 years ago. The PAP government of the day rejected the Wee Commission’s proposal. The current Law Minister reiterated the call for an Ombudsman when he was backbencher less than 20 years ago in 1994. The office of the Ombudsman protects the interests of citizens aggrieved by official decisions. Currently, while the courts are available for this purpose, it is important to remember that judicial review, as far as Singapore law is concerned, only allows the court to adjudicate upon the process by which a government decision was made, not the decision itself.
The office of the Ombudsman reflected an important philosophy of government the 1966 Wee Commission recognised – that all political power has limits, and people have rights against government too, and the very individuals they voted into office.More than just an institution, the office of the Ombudsman symbolizes a certain confidence and trust a government has in its people and vice versa. Establishing such a office today is likely to go some way to opening new channels of communication between citizen and state, regardless which government is in charge of Singapore. And it is a proposal this government would do well to reconsider.
Finally Mr Speaker Sir, in 2005, a Business Times article reported that speaker after speaker at a local conference called for Singapore companies to encourage whistle-blowing, to help ensure good governance. These speakers included Hsieh Fu Hua, special adviser to Temasek Holdings, former SMS Ho Peng Kee and former PAP MP Davinder Singh. Unfortunately on 18 May 2011, a week or so after the 2011 General Elections, a government spokesman with the Ministry of Finance announced that the Ministry had considered and decided to not pursue a whistle blowing law to protect corporate whistleblowers. This was in spite of strong calls by Singaporeans for whistle-blower legislation, partly because of the banking disasters that came to light in 2008, but more because of Singapore’s acutely important role as a financial and economic hub.
Singapore remains a prime target for economic crimes as so much commerce passes through our shores. Whistleblower and whistleblower protection legislation makes ordinary Singaporeans part of good governance process, not just the government and law enforcement agencies. It also protects ordinary businesses from rogue directors and employees.
Australia for examples has included whistleblower provisions in their Corporations Act. In view of the comprehensive review of our Companies Act currently underway, which coincidentally is modelled on Australian legislation, it may be apposite for this government to re-consider including whistleblower provisions in our statute books.
In case members think such legislation would stymie the business and cause the wheels of commerce to cease, whistle-blower legislation makes allowance for the prosecution of whistleblowers should their complaints be found to be vexatious and without basis.
Mr Speaker Sir, there is a lot of scope for this government to take good governance to the next level and divert the focus from misinformation or disinformation online towards building institutions that promote communication, transparency and accountability between the state and all Singaporeans. Any sincere effort by the government is likely to have significant knock-on consequences online. Each of these proposals, a freedom of information act, public release of official information, the office of the Ombudsman and whistleblower protection are key nodes in a system of trust that would give Singaporeans the tools necessary to rely less on the government for solutions and play their part in active citizenship.
In the early 1990s, before the advent of the new normal, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought to usher participatory democracy in Singapore. This slogan did not last very long, and many Singaporeans do not remember the Goh Chok Tong era as opening to door to participatory democracy. In the course of this debate, close to 10 PAP members have called for the government to improve communication with ordinary Singaporeans. Without doubt, the time has come for the government to decisively move in this direction, not in words but in deeds.
Mr Speaker, I support the motion.
Last edited:
Low Thia Khiang urges Govt to review bilingualism policy
oposition leader Mr Low Thia Khiang on Friday urged the Government to review its bilingualism policy, by focusing on teaching mother tongues better through deeper appreciation of cultures.
Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang on Friday urged the Government to review its bilingualism policy, by focusing on teaching mother tongues better through deeper appreciation of One way he suggested is to promote a deeper appreciation of each ethnic group's culture.Mr Low said it was necessary to do so because the government policy has eroded the ability among Chinese Singaporeans to read and write proficiently in the mother tongue. i thout changes on this front, Mr Low said it could affect Singapore's ability to compete globally, given that many youth in other countries are becoming effectively bilingual and could exploit opportunities in a rising China.
oposition leader Mr Low Thia Khiang on Friday urged the Government to review its bilingualism policy, by focusing on teaching mother tongues better through deeper appreciation of cultures.
Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang on Friday urged the Government to review its bilingualism policy, by focusing on teaching mother tongues better through deeper appreciation of One way he suggested is to promote a deeper appreciation of each ethnic group's culture.Mr Low said it was necessary to do so because the government policy has eroded the ability among Chinese Singaporeans to read and write proficiently in the mother tongue. i thout changes on this front, Mr Low said it could affect Singapore's ability to compete globally, given that many youth in other countries are becoming effectively bilingual and could exploit opportunities in a rising China.
Last edited:
Pritam Singh calls for Freedom of Information Act
When Mr Singh (above) challenged the Government to consider how far the popularity of online media 'is partly a function of the PAP government's politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP governments have placed upon the mainstream media', Mr Shanmugam asked if he personally believed the mainstream media was controlled. -- PHOTOS: SCREENSHOTS FROM TV
The Government should move decisively to foster an informed and engaged citizenry by introducing a Freedom of Information Act, Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) said on Thursday.
He was resurfacing a call the Workers' Party had made in its 2006 and 2011 election manifestos.
Such a law would allow Singaporeans to access official information that public bodies had not made available. It would help to inoculate Singaporeans against lies and misinformation online, Mr Singh argued.
When Mr Singh (above) challenged the Government to consider how far the popularity of online media 'is partly a function of the PAP government's politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP governments have placed upon the mainstream media', Mr Shanmugam asked if he personally believed the mainstream media was controlled. -- PHOTOS: SCREENSHOTS FROM TV
The Government should move decisively to foster an informed and engaged citizenry by introducing a Freedom of Information Act, Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) said on Thursday.
He was resurfacing a call the Workers' Party had made in its 2006 and 2011 election manifestos.
Such a law would allow Singaporeans to access official information that public bodies had not made available. It would help to inoculate Singaporeans against lies and misinformation online, Mr Singh argued.
Last edited:
By S Ramesh | Posted: 21 October 2011 1838 hrs
<tbody>
</tbody>
<tbody>
</tbody>
SINGAPORE: Workers' Party (WP) Secretary General and MP for Aljunied GRC Low Thia Khiang, making his first speech in the new session Parliament on Friday, said while the lack of resources and information may hamper his party from developing alternative policies, it will not be deterred from doing its best to contribute to the debate on behalf of its electorate.
In his speech in English, Mr Low said his party's MPs will scrutinise policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect the people adversely and 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.
Mr Low also urged the government to view indicators such as the Gross National Happiness in addition to GNP and GDP as part of the new normal which has been described by President Tony Tan Keng Yam in his opening speech to Parliament.
Mr Low said he finds it puzzling that some People's Action Party (PAP) MPs made a fuss when his party's chairman, Sylvia Lim, had said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals.
Besides normal economic indicators, he said Singapore 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.
Mr Low hopes that the government's stand on the matter was not a sign that its memory of the people's reactions to its policies during the May General Election was fading.
He added that the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Election, and even now, is that the government is more concerned with paying its ministers well than about the welfare of the people.
And he asked the government to ponder over why Singaporeans felt that way. He believes the answer lies in the policy "trade-offs".
Mr Low argued that it seemed, more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those adversely affected.
Mr Low said: "The policy trade-off is nothing more than a political assessment by the government. 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' (cannot withstand), the government will get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.
His comments sparked off debate in the House that he was claiming credit for the positive changes after the recent General Election.
Mr Low said: "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.
"Though the political system is not a level-playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system."
"In what way does he think that the field is not level for the opposition," challenged Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Minister of State for Trade & Industry, and National Development.
"Simply put, the GRC system is something which has not given the opposition a level-playing field," replied Mr Low.
Joining in the debate, Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said: "Mr Low, in his address earlier, basically claimed credit for everything - all the positive changes that had taken place since the General Election. Let's not be politicians and keep worrying about votes... Let us be political leaders worrying about the future of Singapore. Let us put Singaporeans first, not PAP first, not Worker's Party first."
In his reply, Mr Low said: "On the contrary Sir, I actually commended the PAP's resilience in response to the ground reaction after the election and I said this all goes well for Singapore. I have not claimed any credit that the Worker's Party has made the PAP do that. And who should really claim the credit? Probably the voters."
Mr Low also spoke in Mandarin on Singapore's bilingual system.
- CNA /ls
| ||||||
<tbody> </tbody>
Low Thia Khiang | ||||||
| |
<tbody>
</tbody>
| |
<tbody>
</tbody>
SINGAPORE: Workers' Party (WP) Secretary General and MP for Aljunied GRC Low Thia Khiang, making his first speech in the new session Parliament on Friday, said while the lack of resources and information may hamper his party from developing alternative policies, it will not be deterred from doing its best to contribute to the debate on behalf of its electorate.
In his speech in English, Mr Low said his party's MPs will scrutinise policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect the people adversely and 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.
Mr Low also urged the government to view indicators such as the Gross National Happiness in addition to GNP and GDP as part of the new normal which has been described by President Tony Tan Keng Yam in his opening speech to Parliament.
Mr Low said he finds it puzzling that some People's Action Party (PAP) MPs made a fuss when his party's chairman, Sylvia Lim, had said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals.
Besides normal economic indicators, he said Singapore 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.
Mr Low hopes that the government's stand on the matter was not a sign that its memory of the people's reactions to its policies during the May General Election was fading.
He added that the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Election, and even now, is that the government is more concerned with paying its ministers well than about the welfare of the people.
And he asked the government to ponder over why Singaporeans felt that way. He believes the answer lies in the policy "trade-offs".
Mr Low argued that it seemed, more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those adversely affected.
Mr Low said: "The policy trade-off is nothing more than a political assessment by the government. 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' (cannot withstand), the government will get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.
His comments sparked off debate in the House that he was claiming credit for the positive changes after the recent General Election.
Mr Low said: "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.
"Though the political system is not a level-playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system."
"In what way does he think that the field is not level for the opposition," challenged Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Minister of State for Trade & Industry, and National Development.
"Simply put, the GRC system is something which has not given the opposition a level-playing field," replied Mr Low.
Joining in the debate, Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said: "Mr Low, in his address earlier, basically claimed credit for everything - all the positive changes that had taken place since the General Election. Let's not be politicians and keep worrying about votes... Let us be political leaders worrying about the future of Singapore. Let us put Singaporeans first, not PAP first, not Worker's Party first."
In his reply, Mr Low said: "On the contrary Sir, I actually commended the PAP's resilience in response to the ground reaction after the election and I said this all goes well for Singapore. I have not claimed any credit that the Worker's Party has made the PAP do that. And who should really claim the credit? Probably the voters."
Mr Low also spoke in Mandarin on Singapore's bilingual system.
- CNA /ls
Similar threads
