Ans: None of the above coz you missed out the highest paid chap.
-
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.
PAP struggling with WP's multi-prong attack.
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
Ans: None of the above coz you missed out the highest paid chap.
Old Folks Must Know This Mah
So, the message is good for our side. But, you MUST understand one thing: are the old folks going to cast PAP out ? They will continue to combine force with the FT fake citizens to vote and neutralise all our pro-opposition votes.
NO REVOLUTION = STATUS QUO
That means PAP can go on and talk cork while they continue to loot the coffer and used most of us as slaves to their ultimate goals. LHL will STILL continue to be the emperor of Sinking-poor.
So, the message is good for our side. But, you MUST understand one thing: are the old folks going to cast PAP out ? They will continue to combine force with the FT fake citizens to vote and neutralise all our pro-opposition votes.
NO REVOLUTION = STATUS QUO
That means PAP can go on and talk cork while they continue to loot the coffer and used most of us as slaves to their ultimate goals. LHL will STILL continue to be the emperor of Sinking-poor.
who is the highest paid mole ?????
What WP attack.
The overall theme was to work for the good of all Singaporeans.
LTK was trying to show that there was no attack and expressed surprise that there was a counter attack.
Rightly so. There is nothing wrong with embracing the good that the PAP has done.
The only problem is that Govt has used the wrong barometer to gauge people's pain and at each election their suffering were relegated to "noise" because they were overwhelmingly re-elected.
Judging by the way the PE was engineered, those who doubt that their stranglehold can continue should think again.
As it were, someone somewhere realised that without an opposition, the barometer is skewed. Some of the pincers and needles were relaxed (helping the opposition) and out popped ChenSM.
Tan CB giving TT "a fright" is also a reflection of this pain. If not for the 4-cornered fight, the end would be different story.
Is this a dream?
The overall theme was to work for the good of all Singaporeans.
LTK was trying to show that there was no attack and expressed surprise that there was a counter attack.
Rightly so. There is nothing wrong with embracing the good that the PAP has done.
The only problem is that Govt has used the wrong barometer to gauge people's pain and at each election their suffering were relegated to "noise" because they were overwhelmingly re-elected.
Judging by the way the PE was engineered, those who doubt that their stranglehold can continue should think again.
As it were, someone somewhere realised that without an opposition, the barometer is skewed. Some of the pincers and needles were relaxed (helping the opposition) and out popped ChenSM.
Tan CB giving TT "a fright" is also a reflection of this pain. If not for the 4-cornered fight, the end would be different story.
Is this a dream?
On the contrary, PE2011 is totally different from GE2011. Most of us are to a certain extend fair weather supporter, show us the result and people will back that party. That really part of human mentality.. People support WP precisely for the fact that they produced the result and not because they are loyal to that party. U have to understand there is a different here. If they fail to deliver, that support will be gone.
Goh Meng Seng said:
GMS, you seem to be very happy that TJS had gotten more votes than TKL. Otherwise you would not be so satisfied with the PE 2011 results. Anyway the PE contest is not meant to be a contest between parties but between individuals. Your two preferred candidates incidentally took the last two places.
Well spoken. Spot on. He goes on like that, he'll be digging his own grave.
This statement pretty much sums up the feelings of those middle ground voters.
I know people who would have voted PAP who voted TCB. So are some who voted opposition had voted TCB. But there is no TCB in GE. Secondly the lines are not so clear. Even some opposition voters voted TT. Some PAP voters voted TKL. To compare PE and GE wholesale is silly. If you put the 4 Tans under a party, the result will be very different.
1st parliament meeting after election already have so many question. Next one will be worst more daring question from WP if will be hard to answer by PAP.
Question like
1. How many PR approved year by year in last 10 year
2. How many FT worker year by year in last 10 year.
3. How many FT in service line
4. How many FT student paid by gov and total of amount $$$
5. What will be new revised salary for Ministers
6. Why MRT keep breakdown how to justify the fare increase?
...................
................
Question like
1. How many PR approved year by year in last 10 year
2. How many FT worker year by year in last 10 year.
3. How many FT in service line
4. How many FT student paid by gov and total of amount $$$
5. What will be new revised salary for Ministers
6. Why MRT keep breakdown how to justify the fare increase?
...................
................
Classified Top Secret.
..........
Last edited:
Dear Rmadillo,
Have you read his Chinese speech? If not, I guess you better read it.
He did suggest that WP be the Wei Zheng to PAP and that is why I am writing about it. Not merely suggest, but even literally said that let PAP be Emperor Tang Tai Zhong and "we" (meaning WP MPs) be Wei Zheng. Yeah, it is unbelievable but he said that and he actually posted his speech on his FB. I thought the newspaper Zaobao must have misreported it at first but after checking it out, yes, its from the horse's mouth.
I don't want to be there to depend on whether PAP will listen to me. Nope. But you are representative of the typical Singaporeans and no puns intended. Singaporeans are not ready to see active parliamentary contest, least about whether there are any other parties which could become ruling parties or not.
Basically, they are quite contended with PAP's rule, even if they do complain about its policies from time to time. Even when they want to vote in any opposition party's candidates into parliament, they are looking for someone who are similar to PAP or even best, could "help" PAP to rule better. It is a kind of ironic although there is a group of hardcore anti-PAP voters who want to kick PAP out of power.
Goh Meng Seng
You are so dumb and out of depth here. In one swift stroke, CSM has elevated the status of the opposition/WP from a "opposing force"/"trouble maker" to probably the wisest and most honorable counsel in Chinese history. That is ingenious.
It is a cheap shot because you related this exchange as though Pritam has said something terrible and unbecoming of an opposition member. You know what you wrote and the intended effect so don't weasel out of it. I know it is ingrained in you to weasel out, but make an effort to admit to what you mean.
Last edited:
Certainly not a chap whose plans, ideas, predictions, confident you-wait-and-see taunts have not had a single one ever materialised.
Last edited:
Senior Workers' Party member Goh Meng Seng has quit the party, taking responsibility for Internet postings he said had tarnished the WP's reputation.
"I need to be accountable for it," said the 36-year-old, who was part of the WP's Aljunied team in the last polls.
However, sources say he was also unhappy with impending party guidelines to curtail members' postings on the Internet, a claim he denied.
Mr Goh, an active netizen, had attracted brickbats recently on online forums for harsh language, calling a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity."
A netizen even fired a letter to party chairman Sylvia Lim, complaining about WP members' online behaviour.
Mr Goh told The Straits Times yesterday: "It has created a bad image for the party and the party must come first. Someone must be accountable."
He stressed that he was not pushed out of the party and that his comrades had asked him to stay.
His resignation two weeks ago came as a shock to party members. He was a central executive committee (CEC) member and part of the WP's "A team" led by Ms Lim, which claimed 43.9 per cent of the valid votes in Aljunied GRC during May's General Election.
Mr Goh, who joined the WP in 2001, said it was not an easy decision to quit. "I may not be a veteran who has been with the party for over 40 years. But there is still an emotional attachment," he said.
"I have no regrets," he said repeatedly, adding in Mandarin: "Tian xia mei you bu san zhi yan xi." The Chinese proverb he quoted states that there is no banquet in this world that lasts forever.
He said he has not thought of joining another opposition party and will still help out with WP activities.
Ms Lim told The Straits Times last night the party is "always sad to lose people."
Added WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang: "I have to respect his choice. I respect the individual's choice, and he has made his contributions to the party in the past." He did not want to elaborate on the reasons behind Mr Goh's departure.
On the party's Internet guidelines, he said: 'There was some feedback from younger members of the party who are active on the Internet, that perhaps we should have certain "netiquette."
"Since it's something from the ground that younger members would like to see, the CEC will take it up and see what is the best we can come up with."
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=57246 SINGAPORE: Senior WP member quits over Net fracas AsiaMedia Archives: Singapore: Senior WP member quits over Net Fracas
Seems like someone cannot let go of WP due to his own folly.
"I need to be accountable for it," said the 36-year-old, who was part of the WP's Aljunied team in the last polls.
However, sources say he was also unhappy with impending party guidelines to curtail members' postings on the Internet, a claim he denied.
Mr Goh, an active netizen, had attracted brickbats recently on online forums for harsh language, calling a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity."
A netizen even fired a letter to party chairman Sylvia Lim, complaining about WP members' online behaviour.
Mr Goh told The Straits Times yesterday: "It has created a bad image for the party and the party must come first. Someone must be accountable."
He stressed that he was not pushed out of the party and that his comrades had asked him to stay.
His resignation two weeks ago came as a shock to party members. He was a central executive committee (CEC) member and part of the WP's "A team" led by Ms Lim, which claimed 43.9 per cent of the valid votes in Aljunied GRC during May's General Election.
Mr Goh, who joined the WP in 2001, said it was not an easy decision to quit. "I may not be a veteran who has been with the party for over 40 years. But there is still an emotional attachment," he said.
"I have no regrets," he said repeatedly, adding in Mandarin: "Tian xia mei you bu san zhi yan xi." The Chinese proverb he quoted states that there is no banquet in this world that lasts forever.
He said he has not thought of joining another opposition party and will still help out with WP activities.
Ms Lim told The Straits Times last night the party is "always sad to lose people."
Added WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang: "I have to respect his choice. I respect the individual's choice, and he has made his contributions to the party in the past." He did not want to elaborate on the reasons behind Mr Goh's departure.
On the party's Internet guidelines, he said: 'There was some feedback from younger members of the party who are active on the Internet, that perhaps we should have certain "netiquette."
"Since it's something from the ground that younger members would like to see, the CEC will take it up and see what is the best we can come up with."
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=57246 SINGAPORE: Senior WP member quits over Net fracas AsiaMedia Archives: Singapore: Senior WP member quits over Net Fracas
Seems like someone cannot let go of WP due to his own folly.
Jottings from my Singapore desk, warts and all
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Master Class
Uncle is rejuvenated each time he recalls, eons ago, being thunderstruck when Francis Seow addressed the rally at Cheng San, reminding the massive turnout that only one person in history can credibly claim the ability to rise from the grave. The policeman standing next to him was more shocked when he, in his naïveté of youth, uttered aloud spontaneously, "Omigosh, this guy could be our next premier!" The cop was fidgeting with a cheap model Ecolac attache case, crammed with 3 or 4 vintage Walkman-type recorders, gathering material surreptitiously to sue the pants off any politician with a careless word. How was he going to erase the truth expressed from the groundswell?
It must be déjà vu for him, coupled with a touch of nostalgia, to read the print version of Low Thia Khiang's masterly performance in parliament. How we wish parliamentary debates were broadcast live on TV. The sight of court jester Lim Swee Say and company cringing at his words, squirming in their seats, must be priceless.
"I think is is high time the PAP MPs refrain from using this (pitfalls of a welfare state) as a red herring to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government." Ouch!
"It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected." Double ouch!
Low expands on Lim's CBF doctrine
Low made reference to the threshold of pain, using the colloquial expression tahan (Malay for withstand), that citizens have stoically experienced while putting up with bad governance instances that inflicted the scorch of housing woes, infrastructure shortcomings, foreign hordes, etc. The list is long, and too painful to regurgitate. "But when the people tak boleh tahan, the Government will get hit during the election, " reminded Mr Low. Lim Swee Say must have asked of the genie from the magic lamp of his wacky bed-time story, wishing "to be beaten half to death." Be careful what you wish for, Mr Lim, look at what just happened to Gaddafi. Even an euphemistic version of his inglorious finale must be tough to tahan.
After the shock and awe of the brass knuckles, Low laid on thick with the velvet gloves, "I am happy to note the PAP has done some reflection on ground reactions, and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people," alluding to PM Lee's pledge on Thursday (adding to the longer list of earlier, yet to be delivered, election promises) to strengthen the social safety net.
Omigosh, this guy could be our next premier!
Transcripts of Mr Low Thia Khiang's speech in Parliament on 21 Oct 2011.
Mr. Speaker Sir,
In his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal.
We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.
The Presidential Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.
All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Sylvia Lim said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan’s case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).
The President described the situation after the general elections as a ‘new normal’. Should the government not view indicators such as GNH as a ‘new normal’ in addition to GDP & GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the government’s memory of the people’s reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.
In the Presidential Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that “you can spend your silver years with peace of mind” – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognized and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.
To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the government must provide affordable health care and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more government expenditure.
When MPs from the Workers’ Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a ‘welfare state’. We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the Presidential Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.
While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a ‘red herring’ to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.
In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfill his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.
Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government’s perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people’s perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used ‘trade-offs’ as and when it suited them.
When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalization means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched “not too poor, not too rich” group, it spoke about subsidizing those who needed it most.
To shorten the long queue for subsidized rental flats, the Government’s expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children regardless of how that could affect family relationships and as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidized rental housing was not straight-forward, but it needed attention.
However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.
I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy “trade-offs” expounded by a member on the government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.
The policy “trade-off” is nothing more than a political assessment by the govt. The assessment is whether people can withstand – or as we say in Malay, ‘boleh tahan’ – the impact of the policy. But when the people ‘tak boleh tahan’, the govt will ‘kena’ and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.
The government should thank the opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The opposition parties have also enabled the government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.
I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.
We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for MND on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCDYS is now not only looking after the “In Risk Group”, but will also be focusing on “At Risk Group” is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.
Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.
I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.
Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a “First World Parliament” befitting a First World nation, Singapore.
While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinize policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade off.
I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way. The Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Master Class
Uncle is rejuvenated each time he recalls, eons ago, being thunderstruck when Francis Seow addressed the rally at Cheng San, reminding the massive turnout that only one person in history can credibly claim the ability to rise from the grave. The policeman standing next to him was more shocked when he, in his naïveté of youth, uttered aloud spontaneously, "Omigosh, this guy could be our next premier!" The cop was fidgeting with a cheap model Ecolac attache case, crammed with 3 or 4 vintage Walkman-type recorders, gathering material surreptitiously to sue the pants off any politician with a careless word. How was he going to erase the truth expressed from the groundswell?
It must be déjà vu for him, coupled with a touch of nostalgia, to read the print version of Low Thia Khiang's masterly performance in parliament. How we wish parliamentary debates were broadcast live on TV. The sight of court jester Lim Swee Say and company cringing at his words, squirming in their seats, must be priceless.
"I think is is high time the PAP MPs refrain from using this (pitfalls of a welfare state) as a red herring to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government." Ouch!
"It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected." Double ouch!
Low expands on Lim's CBF doctrine
Low made reference to the threshold of pain, using the colloquial expression tahan (Malay for withstand), that citizens have stoically experienced while putting up with bad governance instances that inflicted the scorch of housing woes, infrastructure shortcomings, foreign hordes, etc. The list is long, and too painful to regurgitate. "But when the people tak boleh tahan, the Government will get hit during the election, " reminded Mr Low. Lim Swee Say must have asked of the genie from the magic lamp of his wacky bed-time story, wishing "to be beaten half to death." Be careful what you wish for, Mr Lim, look at what just happened to Gaddafi. Even an euphemistic version of his inglorious finale must be tough to tahan.
After the shock and awe of the brass knuckles, Low laid on thick with the velvet gloves, "I am happy to note the PAP has done some reflection on ground reactions, and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people," alluding to PM Lee's pledge on Thursday (adding to the longer list of earlier, yet to be delivered, election promises) to strengthen the social safety net.
Omigosh, this guy could be our next premier!
Transcripts of Mr Low Thia Khiang's speech in Parliament on 21 Oct 2011.
Mr. Speaker Sir,
In his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal.
We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.
The Presidential Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.
All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Sylvia Lim said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan’s case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).
The President described the situation after the general elections as a ‘new normal’. Should the government not view indicators such as GNH as a ‘new normal’ in addition to GDP & GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the government’s memory of the people’s reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.
In the Presidential Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that “you can spend your silver years with peace of mind” – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognized and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.
To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the government must provide affordable health care and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more government expenditure.
When MPs from the Workers’ Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a ‘welfare state’. We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the Presidential Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.
While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a ‘red herring’ to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.
In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfill his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.
Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government’s perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people’s perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used ‘trade-offs’ as and when it suited them.
When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalization means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched “not too poor, not too rich” group, it spoke about subsidizing those who needed it most.
To shorten the long queue for subsidized rental flats, the Government’s expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children regardless of how that could affect family relationships and as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidized rental housing was not straight-forward, but it needed attention.
However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.
I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy “trade-offs” expounded by a member on the government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.
The policy “trade-off” is nothing more than a political assessment by the govt. The assessment is whether people can withstand – or as we say in Malay, ‘boleh tahan’ – the impact of the policy. But when the people ‘tak boleh tahan’, the govt will ‘kena’ and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.
The government should thank the opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The opposition parties have also enabled the government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.
I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.
We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for MND on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCDYS is now not only looking after the “In Risk Group”, but will also be focusing on “At Risk Group” is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.
Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.
I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.
Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a “First World Parliament” befitting a First World nation, Singapore.
While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinize policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade off.
I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way. The Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.
Similar threads
