Calvin Cheng
Singapore
“But having said that, as I have mentioned earlier, we do want to try and bring a slightly different balance going forward. If Members look at all the grants funding that we give, including to the so-called smaller companies, the situation will not be as stark.”
“Regardless, we already have foreign-born sports people here. Reasoning to the people by pointing out our dearth of local sporting talent may not convince. Even the very act of winning a medal itself may not work. Rather, let us appeal to the feelings and emotions of citizens by telling the stories of our foreign-born sports people.”
“This will explain the "deer in the headlights" syndrome that many businesses have at the moment – they are in shock, stunned and they do not know how to react except to call for reduction in the foreign worker levy. Sir, it is all well and good that the Government has put aside a large fund to help productivity increases.”
“It is a tax that is not only narrow-based, but will most likely be borne by ordinary Singaporeans around us. Even a broad-base increase in our progressive tax system may be more directly efficient in re-distributing income and helping low-wage earners.”
“After all, they are the ones who "sell" the opportunity of work to the migrant workers, convincing them to come to Singapore and making money in the process. In monitoring these agencies, MOM needs to make sure that these agencies do not misrepresent job opportunities to migrant workers, or force them to take up jobs they do not want.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and I do take his point regarding teething problems. But I would like to point out that we see the Integrated Resorts having teething problems with their hotel rooms, conference facilities, roller coasters but, funnily enough, not their casinos.”
The complete record
Every one of 109 lines we hold for Calvin Cheng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“But having said that, as I have mentioned earlier, we do want to try and bring a slightly different balance going forward. If Members look at all the grants funding that we give, including to the so-called smaller companies, the situation will not be as stark. So that drops from 54% to about 43%, and the literary arts groups would have gone up to 6%-plus, because the groups are actually smaller and some of them, like individuals and so on, do not come under grant funding. The second part on extending the kindness and gracious movement to the cyberspace, I agree with the Member that it is something that ought to be considered. On the "Little Nonya", I will let my Senior Parliamentary Secretary deal with it.”
“Sir, I have got three clarifications. Firstly, regarding the major funding to the various sectors of the arts, I would like to know why there is a preponderance of major funding to theatre and so little, 1.1%, to the literary arts. Is it because the threatre sector is a lot more vocal? Secondly, I would like the Ministry to consider extending the kindness and gracious campaign to the cyberspace, ie, target it at the cyberspace. I think netizens, from my experience, need it a lot more than normal citizens. Finally, I know the "Little Nonya" has been cited a lot as an example of a successful PSB funding for projects that are not otherwise commercially viable. Actually, I disagree. The "Little Nonya" has proven itself to be very commercially viable. It was even exported to China and it was so well received that in the KFC in Shanghai, there are now nonya chicken wings (niang re ji chi pang) being sold. So, how does one ascertain whether something is commercially viable? Where "Little Nonya" is concerned, does the Minister think that MediaCorp has not tried hard enough to make it commercially viable before coming for PSB funding? And since it has been commercially viable, would they consider returning the PSB funding to MICA? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: On major funding, yes, the theatre groups, I think they have about 54%, as I have shown in the pie chart, for a variety of reasons. Theatre groups, by and large, are larger groups and, hence, more funding is given to them. This is so in line with what happens in other countries. When we look at the data, we also try to do comparisons with how other countries fund their groups and how it is distributed across different genres. So, it is skewed in the direction of threatre groups.”
“Our Internet generation has to be equipped with the critical thinking skills to sift through the tons of misinformation and disinformation to be found on the Internet, to be able to tell truths from lies, and to carry a healthy dose of scepticism into cyberspace. This is crucial to the political process, as a democracy functions well only if the electorate is able to make reasoned and rational choices made on correct information. The next election will no doubt see some anonymous irresponsible people spreading lies, mistruths and unfounded rumours in cyberspace. Trying to clamp down on these troublemakers may be difficult; much better to equip our people in the long run with the critical thinking skills to ascertain fact from fiction. Finally, in the Internet age, it will get harder and harder to have a monopoly of information, not only because the Internet makes it easier to verify facts, but also because the Internet generation cannot be fobbed off with morsels of information. People in power have to be more forthcoming with information and be fully aware that anything they say, once it is on the Internet, it will be there forever and will spread like wildfire. Some things will have to be kept secret, as no state can allow a total freedom of information. The electorate needs to accept this and not make irresponsible and unreasonable demands. Openness does not mean anarchy. The Internet generation may prove a wild card in the next election. But, at the end of the day, only a wild card. A good government who delivers a royal flush would still sweep the table and, I trust, in this upcoming election, as always, bread and butter issues would still inevitably win the day. 3.30 pm Cyber wellness”
“Moreover, with anonymous proxy servers all over the world, everybody can be anybody. Chasing anonymous people around cyberspace is like trying to catch a ghost – time-consuming and ultimately futile. Instead, I would rather that the Government uses education as its reaction to the Internet, to make sure that the Internet generation has a beneficial rather than a pernicious effect on the political landscape. Firstly, netizens have to know that the social rules that apply to the real world should apply to the Internet as well. If one is a polite person in the real world, why would one want to turn into a rude, ranting obnoxious maniac on the Internet? If one would not be racist or insult other people’s religions, or slander another human being normally, why would one think it is okay to do so just because it is a blog or a Facebook account? If anonymity means that you are free to become a beast, then a beast you are, Internet or not. Be the person you would be on the Internet, as you are in the real world. Secondly, whereas education in the past focused on rote-learning information, memorising historical facts, and swotting up knowledge, education now has to focus on information processing, analytical skills and the ability to differentiate fact from fiction. In the past, if I read something in Encyclopaedia Britannica, I know it to be a fact, and I can safely commit it to memory. Now if I read something on Wikipedia or on the Internet, I have to first ask myself whether it is really a fact. This is crucial.”
“This is the generation that does not pull out a copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica to research but expects to find the gospel truth on Wikipedia. They think they are entitled to say whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. They think that the Internet has finally given ordinary people the power to seek the truth from people who they think are hiding the truth, and they get angry when they think they are being lied to. In China, nothing is more fearsome than a flesh-search (人肉收索), where millions of netizens combine efforts to ferret out information about people they think might have done wrong. The impact of the Internet and the Internet generation will be difficult to predict in the next election. Already at the last election in 2006, we have seen an inkling of what may happen. There was already use of some message boards and socio-political blogs to spread information. No doubt, this election will see even more of this and the pervasive use of Facebook and Twitter to gather support. The young may not bother turning up at rallies, but you can be sure that they will turn to the Internet to gather every bit of information they can find. Sir, governments around the world have reacted to this change often with regulation. This is pointless. Although Egypt has shown that one can pull the plug on the Internet, this would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. No country can function without an Internet connection to the outside world nowadays, especially one as open as Singapore. And even China has struggled to maintain its great firewall. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are so readily available nowadays that to try to put up a firewall around an entire country is a joke.”
“Sir, recent events in the Middle East have shown the power of the Internet to not only change the political landscape of a country, but to even help overthrow governments. Closer to home, the 2008 loss of the two-thirds majority by the ruling coalition of Malaysia was partly attributed to the influence of the Internet. In that very same election, a prominent blogger was elected to Parliament. Sir, it seems that the Internet is a technology that not only disrupts businesses but also politics. It may go even further than that. To many who have adopted the Internet in their adult lives, it may seem like a technology, something they have learnt to use. However, to those who have grown up with the Internet – the Internet generation – the Internet is not merely a technology, it is their way of life. The Internet is estimated to have started in the mid-1990s. Those who are 21 to 30 at the next election in Singapore, which may be in a matter of weeks, would have been five to 14 in 1995. This generation has practically grown up with the Internet. They do not remember a world where the Internet did not exist. Sir, this generation, as a result, behaves and thinks in ways that their elders cannot understand. This is the generation that puts their lives up for public display on blogs, writes about their innermost thoughts and shares it with thousands of strangers. This is the generation that makes friends and keeps friends not through going down to tea dances, but through social networks. This is the generation that would tweet about the most private moments of their lives. Whatever information they offer freely of themselves, they demand it also. Do not know a thing – well, "Google" it – and the information is expected in milliseconds.”
“Singapore can be a place where Westerners, particularly Hollywood, can safely contract with Asian media producers, particularly the Chinese, knowing that their IP would be protected by a fair, efficient and neutral jurisdiction. Joint ventures, co-production deals should be encouraged to be done here in Singapore where a system is put in place to facilitate easy negotiation, settlement and arbitration. In the long run, Singapore's media industry will also benefit when the giants do their deals here. Sir, the purists in our midst might be disgusted by the raw commercialism in my suggestions, but we have to be realistic. In order for the media industry to thrive in the long run, it has to make sense commercially. It cannot forever depend on the largesse of the Government or on charity. The Arts is important. But the Arts is not the luxury of beggars. Only if the media industry as a whole is sustainable commercially can the lucky few indulge in making documentaries about stray cats. MICA thus needs to invest long term in a system and vision that achieve this. Local broadcast and production industry”
“A Malay movie sitcom, film or song not only targets the 500,000 Malays in Singapore but can potentially reach the estimated 180 million Bahasa Melayu or Indonesian speakers. A Chinese production can not only be watched by 2.8 million ethnic Chinese in Singapore but to the 1.4 billion in China. This is the meaning of a hub – a production hub that uses our ethnic and geographical advantages by reaching out to the far larger commercial market. Secondly, our vision needs to be premised upon the fact that we are not needed. We are, in the larger scheme of the world media market, pretty much irrelevant. Recently, I have been in conversations with Chinese movie studios about moving some of their operations to Singapore and they asked me bluntly, "Why should we go to Singapore?" Honestly, I had no good answer. I wanted to say, "We can finance you", but that would have been a good answer 30 years ago but, nowadays, the Chinese are swimming in money. I wanted to say, "We can connect you to the West", but we forget that the Chinese now are fully capable of connecting themselves to anyone, on private jets, no less. Does the West need us to connect them to China? Does Bollywood need us to reach out to the rest of the world? Maybe only in a fantasy movie. However, we do have one advantage. At this juncture – and this window may close very soon – Singapore is still one of the few places in Asia with a stable political environment with strong IP protection. IP protection and the rule of law are very important to content owners who have ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into their products. In most other places in Asia, pirated versions of movies hit the streets even before they hit the screen. The second pillar of our media USP thus should draw on this.”
“I am very pleased with the increased Budget that MICA is getting this year. I am sure many players in the media industry are rubbing their hands with glee, hoping for the largesse to be spread. In the coming months, MICA and MDA will surely be swarmed with a variety of ad hoc projects that need financing and there will be much pressure to cave in to these demands. I think this will be wrong. An increased Budget should not be used opportunistically. Now is not the time to share the bounty. Now is the time for MICA to cover a long-term vision and invest the money in a sustainable way to ensure that the media industry will have long-term recurring returns. Now is the time for MICA to build the unique service proposition (USP) for Singapore. It is a cruel reality that whenever we try to draw up an economic vision for Singapore, we have to bear in mind our small population and limited market size. It is no different for media. Firstly, because of the small domestic market. I do not think we will ever develop media products with a strong indigenious flavour. Phua Chu Kang may be a hit in Singapore but because of its strong parochial character, it can, at the most, be exportable to Malaysia. An Australian or American will "catch no ball". If you look around at all the successful media markets in the world, they either have a large domestic market to produce local products for or they have to produce in English and target the world. This makes business sense. Unfortunately, for us, and I may offend some by saying so, nobody wants to watch Asian people acting in English. I thus suggest that in the long run, MICA and MDA invest in a vision that makes Singapore the production house for our greater ancestral region.”
“All of these, the shared culture background, the shared history of parents, our grandparents, bind us together and help us form a common identity. I am sure the Indians and Malays have similar stories as well and, together, our stories form our identity. Sir, we cannot be xenophobic. A xenophobic, inward-looking nation cannot prosper especially one as small as Singapore. However, a country that keeps taking in new people soon find itself having an identity crisis. This is being seen all over the world. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently declared the failure of their policy of multi-culturalism. Germany is struggling with its Turkish immigrant population. Even America, the mother of all immigrant nations, wonders what it would be like when ethnic minorities outnumber those that have been in the United States since independence. If these old countries have problems, what more a country like us which is only 45 years in their making? A balance thus needs to be struck for Singapore. Otherwise, we will never have a national identity to integrate our new immigrants into. Changing rules for a new social impact”
“A New Yorker may not be an American, but there are Americans who do not live in New York. A Londoner may not necessarily be a member of the British nation. Singapore is different. It is a city-state – a city and a state. We cannot be a global city that is also part of a wider not so global and fundamentally local state. For us, it is one and the same. I thus wonder whether we are trying to square a circle. If Singapore is ever truly to become a global city, does that mean, by definition, we will never be a nation? Sir, much has been done about the integration of new immigrants and this is to be applauded. However, in order to integrate them, we need a strong identity to integrate them into in the first place. Everywhere in the world, countries have to deal with the integration of new immigrants but older nations with a strong identity find it easier to do so. If we do not even know who we are, how can we expect our new citizens to become more like us? Sir, much as I believe that we need new immigrants to counter our declining birth rates and add to the vibrancy of our city, I think we need a certain ratio of a core group of Singaporeans to be maintained. How do we define these Singaporeans? It is never easy to draw a clear line but I will give you a reply that I gave my mainland Chinese friends. Many of us from my generation will be the third generation on our island. Our grandparents came here. I explained to them that our surname seemed weird to a speaker of Mandarin because our ancestors came from southern China. Many of us in our 30s and 40s were born here post-independence and grew up in Singapore. We have many friends of many races but we all speak in the same accent.”
“Sir, I worry about how immigration will impact the national identity of Singapore. As a country, Singapore is still an infant and its national identity is still forming. We are a state but, in many ways, not yet a nation. Nations take many years to form and a national identity takes time to develop. The question is: as we take in these new immigrants at such a hurried pace, would it slow down the formation of our national identity? Would it make it even harder for us to become a nation? We are a state that is formed primarily by immigrants, although some have used this as an argument to argue that, as a result, we should have no problems taking in more immigrants. I disagree. It is precisely because we are trying to form a nation out of immigrants that Singapore struggles with a national identity. We have to meld together people of different cultures, different histories, and up to half a century ago, loyalties to different nations. Forming a nation out of these disparate communities is like cooking a soup and our ingredients have been brewing for 45 years. But now, just as to stew is just about to be right, we throw in even more raw ingredients. In this case, will the "stew" of our national identity ever be ready? Sir, it has often been argued a truly global city needs to always be opened to new immigrants. Singapore strives to be a global city. However, Singapore is not merely just a city. It is, importantly, also a state and a country hoping to be a nation. We are thus fundamentally different from and can never be a New York or a London. New York is a global city but, nevertheless, a city in the United States of America. London is a global city but, nevertheless, a city in the United Kingdom.”
“Sir, I have two clarifications – one for Mr Teo and one for Mrs Yu-Foo. First, I want to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo for his response. I have no doubt that FSTs compete on merit and contribute to Singapore’s sporting landscape. However, the point of sports cannot be merely to create champions but champions we can be proud of. So I hope MCYS can, on top of focusing on the medal tally, look into helping Singaporeans connect emotionlly and identify with the FSTs and accept them as part of our tribe. Sir, I would like to respond, in Mandarin, to Mrs Yu-Foo’s Mandarin speech. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, I would like to respond to Mrs Yu-Foo's reply regarding singles. Although it is a good thing that the Government encourages singles to get married, I am concerned that the policy may make singlehood look like a crime. Being single is not a sin. Although Mencius said that it is most unfilial to have no children, I hope the Government considers our feelings while encouraging the singles to get married. We do not want to feel pressured.”
“Regardless, we already have foreign-born sports people here. Reasoning to the people by pointing out our dearth of local sporting talent may not convince. Even the very act of winning a medal itself may not work. Rather, let us appeal to the feelings and emotions of citizens by telling the stories of our foreign-born sports people. Show the people how they are very much Singaporean like us, eating at kopitiams and hawker centres, speaking the occasional "lah" and "lor", living as our neighbours in our communities. After all, sports is about tribalism, and if we never accept them into our tribe, we will never feel that their victories are also ours. Sporting pride and national pride in the end are not rational. Sometimes, it may be better to be a proud loser, rather than a glory-seeking winner that spends his way to victory. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan, I should know.”
“The foreign talent sports scheme has borne results in the last few years, especially in swimming and table tennis. The question is whether this scheme has achieved its aim. If the aim is to win medals for Singapore, then, without a doubt, this scheme has been successful. However, this cannot be the ultimate aim of sports. Sports is not like GDP growth, where a rational objective benchmark can be used to gauge success; sports is about tribalism, it is about fostering national pride, patriotism and a sense of national unity. This should thus be the ultimate benchmark by which success should be measured, and not merely the medal tally. Glory is not a number on a table, but a feeling of passion that burns in the heart. Sir, it is true that our foreign-born athletes are citizens. It is true that they have a strong desire to win and they have given up their homelands to come here. These are all perfectly good reasons why when they win medals Singaporeans should be proud. However, one cannot reason people into a feeling of pride. This is not the same as the rational justifications for having foreign talent contribute to our economy. If one does not feel the sense of burning patriotism, even if we win multiple gold medals, then our sporting achievement would have failed regardless. Sir, allow me to play the devil's advocate. If our foreign sports talents fail to ignite the flames of national sporting pride regardless of the number of medals that they have won, should we re-examine the raison d'etre of the scheme itself? If our sporting officials, our MPs, even our Prime Minister, have to keep telling people why they should rally behind our foreign-born sports talents and be proud when they win medals, has the point not already been lost?”
“This will explain the "deer in the headlights" syndrome that many businesses have at the moment – they are in shock, stunned and they do not know how to react except to call for reduction in the foreign worker levy. Sir, it is all well and good that the Government has put aside a large fund to help productivity increases. However, in addition to calls from my hon. colleagues yesterday for help given to SMEs to navigate the various schemes, perhaps the Government can set up an expert consulting taskforce to help the hospitality industry associations think of new ways to increase productivity. Perhaps they can help think of ideas when these businessmen, who have been long been stuck in the same business processes, find new ways to change. If we do not do so, I fear that one day we might sit down in a posh restaurant for meal just to find that we have to join the buffet for caviar. 2.32 pm”
“Unless a new technology or new drug is invented to enable a waiter to run faster and move his hands with lightning speed, the number of tables he can wait is going to be naturally limited. No amount of training or deployment of iPads is going to increase this physical limitation by much. One cannot automate a smile. The key, therefore, may lie in business processes, including the remuneration schemes that hospitality industries use. When we travel, we notice that in many countries, the service staff are not only local but are often more efficient and provide excellent service when compared to Singapore. They are very much human and probably not on any super human drug. They are also not using cutting edge secret technology either. So how do they do it? One answer may actually lie in remuneration. In Europe and the United States, waiting tables is a viable career choice, paying enough financially to attract locals who are better educated and better trained. This might, perhaps, take a mindset shift amongst the populace but employers need to also take some responsibility. Sometimes I wonder how much of the 10% we pay for service actually goes to the waiting staff. In countries known for excellent service, waiting staff are directly compensated for their performance and responsible for their tables. Excellent service is thus well compensated encouraging more productive service. Sir, the problem with change in business processes in order to increase productivity is not as easy as adopting a new technology by machinery or sending staff for training. When businesses have been doing things in a certain way for years, they are stuck and find it unable to think out of the box.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Like some of my hon. colleagues before me, I am concerned about the increase in foreign worker levies. Without a doubt, increasing productivity and reducing reliance on cheap foreign workers is a laudable aim; however, the devil, as always, lies in the details. Sir, I am especially concerned about the impact of this increase on the hospitality industry in Singapore, which not only includes hotels but the many F&B outlets that form a large part of Singapore's SME sector. Anecdotally, these are the industries that find it the hardest to find local staff as Singaporeans do not see an attractive career in being waiters, waitresses or other service staff. Sir, the hospitality industry is vital to Singapore's growth as a tourism centre and if we are serious about growing tourism, the Government needs to pay extra care to this issue. The problem is that the well-intentioned call to increase productivity when translated into reality may not prove very implementable. The hospitality entrepreneurs I spoke to are tearing their hair out, wondering how they are meant to increase productivity. At the end of the day, Sir, the hospitality industry is very reliant on the human being and much of the service cannot be automated. We may yearn for the day where robot waiters can be deployed but this, at the moment, is science fiction. At the moment, a waiter's work is very personal and although we hear about the use of iPads to take orders, truth be told, the increase in productivity is only marginal. A waiter, being a human being, only has two hands, two legs, one mouth and two ears and can only be at one table at a time to take orders or deliver food.”
“It is a tax that is not only narrow-based, but will most likely be borne by ordinary Singaporeans around us. Even a broad-base increase in our progressive tax system may be more directly efficient in re-distributing income and helping low-wage earners. But as I have said, it would take a very brave politician to campaign on a platform of higher taxes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am for inclusive growth. What I am against is the politicising of this issue to serve the narrow interests of certain groups. What I am against is playing on human feelings of resentment and envy for political ends. We want all Singaporeans to benefit from growth. We do not want an underclass to develop. We want everyone to have a fair chance to succeed and an equal opportunity to prosper. Regardless of political loyalties, I believe this to be true for all Singaporeans. Let us all work towards these noble aims. With that, I support this motion. 4.45 pm”
“In politicising the issue on minimum wage and pulling on the feelings of resentment and envy, I think some politicians have hoodwinked people into believing that the minimum wage is some magic medicine, that is somehow paid for either by the Government or some faceless people detached from ordinary Singaporeans. This is blatantly untrue. The people who would be affected by minimum wage are employers who are not only big companies – who would ironically be the least affected because they are capital-intensive – but people around us, the small employers: the provision stall owners round the corner, the HDB coffeeshop owners, ordinary people who are our family or friends and our neighbours. The people most affected would be the small businesses who have no money to invest in automation and therefore, the people who rely the most on low-wage labour. A minimum wage at the end of the day, when one cuts through all the verbosity is a re-distributive tax, a tax on the employers of low-wage labour and benefiting low-wage earners. It is not only a tax, but the very narrow-based tax. Taxing one small group of people to benefit another small group of people. This is not very inclusive at all, is it? Put like this and recognising that the people who would bear the most burden of a minimum wage will also be ordinary Singaporeans, a minimum wage does not look very attractive at all, does it? But would politicians and people lobbying for minimum wage, go forth and shout to the world "let us tax one group of ordinary Singaporeans, so we can help low-wage earners". No, they would not, because no politician who wants to get elected will campaign for higher taxes. But that is precisely what a minimum wage is.”
“In order for inequality – and some inequality will always exist – to not lead to bitterness and disruptive envy, there must be an equality of opportunity, meritocracy and a fair chance of moving up. The old man from the rental flats in Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan's story, instead of feeling bitter or resentful, must be made to feel hope. Hope and faith that his children or grandchildren, if they take the chances could one day live in the beautiful condos opposite. Finally, I turn my attention to the issue of minimum wage, which no doubt will be much debated in this Chamber today. I will not be liable for the arguments for and against minimum wage, as even professional economists cannot agree. There are empirical studies that abound on both sides of the argument that purport to prove that either side is correct, and neither shall I go into these. I would instead like to ask another simple and perhaps obvious question: who pays? Amidst all the sophiscated economic arguments and empirical studies being bandied about on both sides, I wonder whether anybody has given thought to this question. I feel that there are some mistaken impressions that because the Government does not want minimum wage to be implemented, somehow, if it would be legislated, the Government will be paying the minimum wage. It is, of course, utter nonsense. The people who will be paying the minimum wage, who will be financially responsible for it, are employers. And who are these employers? Employers are not some faceless monolithic evil empire of multinational corporations, but people around us, people whom we meet everyday.”
“The second scenario one where the average grows by 2%, but the bottom 10% grows by 4%. In the first scenario, the average grows much faster than the bottom. In the second scenario, the bottom grows slower than the average. But not only does both the average and the bottom grow throughout the first scenario, the bottom in the second scenario grows only at half the pace of the first. Therefore, although income inequality is reduced in the second scenario, everybody is worse off than in the first scenario. Inclusive growth therefore cannot specifically aim to reduce income inequality. This cannot be its priority. Inclusive growth has to be long term in its vision to ensure that everybody grows as much as possible, with no one group being consistently excluded. The most pernicious effect of income inequality is when one group is consistently being excluded from economic benefits, forming an underclass and not from income inequality in itself. More important than the wealthy well-being of the poor, we should be more concerned with the absolute well-being of the poor. The poor needs to be helped regardless of whether the rich are getting richer. The absolute well-being of the poor needs to be cared for. This is a fact, independent of how they are fairing compared to the well-off. Politicising income inequality will only lead to unnecessary social resentment, jealousy and envy, when what we should be focussing our attentions on are the absolute welfare of our poor and making sure an underclass does not develop, by ensuring that the same people, same family units or same demographic groups do not get entrenched in poverty, generation after generation.”
“This is the surest way to prevent an underclass in Singapore from developing, rather than re-distributive policies that subsidise our bottom 10% without understanding who the bottom 10% are: what got them there and whether they and their families – the actual people, and not the statistics – have a chance of moving up the income scale. This is because re-distributive policies target the symptoms of the disease rather than the causes. It also causes us to obsess over relative welfare, rather than absolute welfare, which brings me to the issue of income inequality, another concept which I feel is too often politicised and too little properly debated. Income inequality is a relative measure. It tells us nothing about the absolute well-being of a society’s poorest people. Recently, I have an article about an island in the Caribbean where billionaires retire and reside. This island is not on the normal charts of Gini coefficients. This tongue-in-cheek article did a survey and found that not only the Gini cofficient and income inequality of this island is extremely high, but the bottom 10% consisted of mere millionaires. That bottom 10% – these mere millionaires – were cast extremely badly off in the relative sense, compared to their billionaire neighbours but it would take a brave and silly person to claim that in the absolute sense, they were poor and deserving of welfare. Of course, the poor in Singapore are not millionaires, far from it. However, it is my opinion that the obsessed over income inequality over this relative measure misses the forest for the trees. For example, let us take two situations. The first situation is one where the average grows at 15%, but the bottom 10% grows by 8%.”
“However, I think what we really need to know is whether this stagnating 10% are, through the years, the same people, and are drawn from the same family units and demographic groups. If this is so, we have something fundamentally more damaging and poisonous than any mere statistics taken show. If sociological studies have evidenced that the demographic profile of our bottom 10% is not changing, it means that we have an underclass forming. That is, there is one group being consistently excluded from our growth. I bring this up because a society that truly promotes inclusive growth means that even though that there will always be a bottom 10%, the people at the bottom 10% has a chance to raise, may be not to the top 10%, but at least out of the bottom 10%. Even if they cannot, their children have a chance to. The bottom 10% cannot and should not consistently be drawn from the same group of people or families. I am talking about the equality of opportunity. Inclusive growth does have to be based firmly on the tenets of meritocracy. Saying that everyone should benefit from the fruits of growth is the platitude. Stating and believing that everyone should have a fair chance and an equal opportunity to participate in the fruits of growth, on the other hand, is a policy direction. This is something that Singapore should strive for. It is my fervent belief that the best way to achieve this policy-driven vision of inclusive growth, rather than the other Eutopia-driven vision of inclusive growth, is to ensure that nobody should be left behind, because of the lack of access to education and health.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I do not think that anyone would oppose a motion on inclusive growth to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind as we prosper. The devil, as always, lies in the details. The first problem that we encounter is in definitions. What is inclusive growth? If we are clear what inclusive growth means, we would have a better idea on how to achieve it. The problem is such terms are always politicised at the battle ground more over what inclusive growth entails, rather than how to achieve it. I think this is wrong. Politicans need to stop fudging the definitions and politicising terms, such as income and equality and be truthful to the electorate about what they really mean. Only then, can we move forward in making sure that all Singaporeans participate fairly in the fruits of our growth. Firstly, I think it is stating the obvious that it would be great that when the country is growing, all the citizens are including in its growth. If this is what we are debating today here in this Chamber, let us recognise this as the platitude that it is, vote "aye" for the motion right now, and be done with it. In my opinion, a more useful way to look at this issue and defining inclusive growth is that it should not only mean that everyone should be included, but that "no one" group should be consistently excluded. This is important, especially when people are obsessing over the bottom 10% and politicising it. There will always be a bottom 10% in any measure, this is a logical necessity. My hon. colleagues today will also no doubt be highlighting the worrying statistics that the wages of the bottom 10% are stagnating or growing less fast than the average. This is indeed also something to fuss about.”
“After all, they are the ones who "sell" the opportunity of work to the migrant workers, convincing them to come to Singapore and making money in the process. In monitoring these agencies, MOM needs to make sure that these agencies do not misrepresent job opportunities to migrant workers, or force them to take up jobs they do not want. They should have a moral and legal responsibility not to place them with companies they know to have problems, whether financial or ethical. These agencies are dealing with human lives, and more needs to be done to ensure that they do so with utmost responsibility and care. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with our economy booming, we will see many new migrant workers coming to our shores to do jobs we Singaporeans may not want to do. As a developed country, it is our responsibility to ensure that these workers, these people are treated fairly and humanely. With that, I support the Bill. 6.30 pm”
“Instead, they should collect the fees from the employers. Admittedly, this only solves part of the problem given that many of the most abusive agents are not Singaporean or operating in Singapore but in the migrant workers’ home countries. But, at the very least, it will ensure that Singapore registered agencies are not complicit in any potential abuse. Secondly, even though this amendment to the Act has made it an offence for agents to split fees with the employers, we need to punish the employers too. This is especially if the agents are foreign-based and we have no jurisdiction over them. In this case, we have to go after the companies themselves who have no business in making money off the collection of fees from their migrant workers. Employers found trading in Work Permit applications, in-principle or otherwise, must also be dealt with harshly. Thirdly, we need to make it harder for companies to apply for and cancel in-principle Work Permit applications. It is utterly irresponsible and morally reprehensible to promise a poverty-stricken, vulnerable and semi-literate human being a job, make him travel thousands of miles to a foreign country, and then frivolously cancel his Work Permit application. In my opinion, short of failing a medical test, or under extremely exceptional circumstances such as the worker misrepresenting his qualifications, the employer who applied for the in-principle Work Permit must be compelled to hire the worker, and for a reasonable amount of time. Cancellation cannot be simply done with a few clicks of the mouse. Finally, we should consider making agencies more responsible for the migrant workers they bring into Singapore.”
“As mentioned, the collection of agency fees is such a lucrative industry that agencies can offer companies a kickback in order to issue in-principle approval Work Permits that the agent can then "sell" – and then they split the agency fees with the potential employer. When the worker arrives, a worker that the company presumably does not need a couple of clicks of the mouse is all it takes to cancel the Work Permit application. The worst abusers of this system are potentially Singaporean companies set up to employ workers not for themselves, but to supply to other people. These companies have no business of their own other than to hire foreign workers whom they can then outsource to other companies that need them on an ad hoc basis. Again, they potentially stand to gain a lot from fees that they split with employment agencies. The problem is compounded by the fact that these companies do not technically hire the workers for themselves and are thus more likely to shut down, leaving the workers stranded. These companies also doubly exploit migrant workers by supplying them at high prices but paying the workers only a low wage. In a way, these companies are also acting as agents, except that they hire the workers directly and pay the workers a wage, however measly or irregularly. I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Manpower can look into such companies more carefully. I thus feel that the Ministry of Manpower needs to close as many loopholes as possible to ensure that Singapore plays no part in what is admittedly an international problem. Firstly, we can consider following the examples such as Japan and Australia where agencies are not allowed to collect fees from employees except under certain exceptional circumstances.”
“Sir, the collection of these large agent fees have become a lucrative industry in itself, subject to much abuse, and it is my opinion that our system currently abets it. Firstly, we have the in-principle approval system for Work Permits. This allows the worker to come to Singapore with the promise of a potential job waiting for the would-be migrant worker. Of course, the lowly-educated migrant worker who at most times cannot even read English does not even know that! As far as he thinks, he is able to leave his home country, come to Singapore, and the provision of this in-principle approval is sufficient for the overseas agent – sometimes in Singapore as well – to claim success in placing him in a job and demand a huge agency fee before he is allowed to come to Singapore. What the migrant worker does not know is that all he has is the precarious promise of a job, subject to conditions and what makes it worse is that our system currently makes it too easy for these in-principle approvals to be cancelled. A check on the MOM website shows that in-principle approvals and an application for a Work Permit can be cancelled with a couple of clicks of the mouse. The poor migrant worker is thus left stranded with thousands of dollars of debt, with no job and in a strange country with no money even to buy a ticket to get back home. Of course, if one is a legitimate company, one is not going to cancel Work Permit applications frivolously. The problem arises when unscrupulous companies abuse the system to make a quick buck.”
“Sir, an employment agency deals directly with human lives and, in the case of foreign migrant workers, some of the most vulnerable and needy human lives around. It is not amiss to expect higher standards from these companies. In this light, I would also like to call for higher capitalisation of employment agencies, who deal with foreign workers, to make sure that there are fewer fly-by-night operators who can roll up their shutters and liquidate overnight. My discussions with these volunteer organisations have also led me to believe that, anecdotally, the agencies and agents most likely to be errant in their behaviour are the one or two men shops who put up the bare minimum to get an employment agency licence. This needs to be reviewed. We also need to ensure that errant agencies are less likely to get away with compounded fines. Sir, we are not dealing with traffic offences here. These agencies deal with human lives, fragile human lives, and we cannot allow a light rap of the knuckle as the rule rather than the exception. Sir, I now turn to what I feel is the biggest root cause of many of the abuses by employment agencies as well as the employment of migrant workers in general. This is the collection of agency fees from migrant workers in order to find them jobs in Singapore. Sir, many migrant workers, in order to escape poverty in their home countries and in search of a better livelihood, pay thousands of dollars, sometimes amounting to more than six months of their potential wages, in order to come to our shores. They thus come laden with debt, toil for months on end, living a hand-to-mouth existence, before they even have a chance of making any money to remit back to their families.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Employment agencies, in particular agencies that deal with low-wage foreign migrant workers, deal with some of the most vulnerable workers around, and tighter legislation would mean that they are not abused. *Cols. 2347-2348. Recently, I have had a chance to talk to volunteers from groups who help migrant workers, and have come to be acquainted with the terrible plights that these migrant workers are subjected to. Many come here with heavy debts from fees they paid to agents; some are stranded when they lose their jobs, or are injured and because of their lack of education, their poverty and their inability to communicate in English, many are left helpless and unable to fend for themselves. We must not ignore the role that errant employment agencies play in this. Sir, before I go on to discuss what I feel is the single largest cause of abuse in the employment of migrant workers, I would like to first touch on some minor details that the amendment to this Act can improve on. Firstly, I notice that we are only holding directors and key appointment holders of employment agencies responsible for the actions of errant agencies – I feel we should also include shareholders. After all, shareholders have a financial interest in these agencies, and stand to gain from profits that are made from these agencies. They should also be held responsible for the actions of their companies and in the case when a licence is revoked, anybody who has ever held shares in an errant employment agency should be subject to more scrutiny if this person were to be involved in a new agency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I have only one point to make, in the form of a suggestion. Can I suggest that we include the terms "marketing and promotion" wherever and whenever the term "advertising" appears in the Bill? I believe that this will cover a loophole that tobacco companies may be able to exploit to promote their products. Some years ago, at an outdoor event, I saw a tobacco company sponsoring a hospitality tent by subtly using the colours of their well-known cigarette packaging as the theme of their tentage. In the tent was custom-made furniture in the shape and colours of their cigarette packaging. The staff who manned the tent were also all dressed in uniforms in the colours that one would automatically associate with the cigarette packaging. Though subtle, this was obviously a clever way for the tobacco company to circumvent the law regarding advertising, but is nevertheless still an attempt to promote their product. Sir, it is my belief that by including the terms "marketing and promotion" in the Bill, we may be able to catch any sort of promotional, marketing and advertising activities that tobacco companies might get involved with. This will include below-the-line as well as above-the-line advertising, event association and even the subtle forms of marketing that I illustrated earlier. The use of tobacco is a harmful, nasty habit that should not be encouraged in any form. Tobacco companies should not be able to exploit any loopholes in the law in order to market their poisonous wares to an unsuspecting public. With this, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.20 pm”
“Firstly, victims like us in such a process have to hire our own lawyers at our own cost to bring charges against our aggressors. This, by itself, is already a huge barrier to justice being done. And because the process is more civil than criminal, the other party, who also hires a lawyer, can also counter-charge, as I found out to my own chagrin, turning the victim into the aggressor and the aggressor into the victim. Moreover, before the matter even goes to trial, the victim has to endure mediation under the Community Mediation Centres Act. Sir, can you imagine going for mediation with the person who attacked you, if you were Mr A Jaffar, or Mr K M Ho, or the young doctor? How can this be right? A person attacks and injures you in public and in many of these cases by strangers or virtual strangers, and you have to stand in front of a Justice of the Peace who delivers platitudes at you, and tries to mediate as if you are domestic lovers having a quarrel? How can this be justice? Sir, I call on the Minister to review the instances where Voluntarily Causing Hurt is a sizeable offence. Filing a Magistrate’s complaint cannot be the way that justice is served after a person is assaulted in public, even if he is not elderly or young, or a person who is in a public service role. For many people, filing a Magistrate’s complaint is costly, time consuming, and thus a barrier to them obtaining justice. The mediation processes inherent in Magistrate’s complaints are also patently unsuitable in such incidences. With this, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In the TODAY newspaper on 1st Mar 2010, Conrad Raj wrote about this issue and recounted the report some years ago, when a young doctor was assaulted at a food stall at Lorong 9, Geylang, by a group of six to eight men who had accused him of staring at them. As a result of their beating, he suffered multiple facial fractures and damage to a facial nerve. He had to undergo a three-hour operation, which included having two metal plates inserted around one of his eyes. I am sure Members remember this report. The initial reaction of the Police was again to "advise" the victim that the blatant attack was a civil case and to "file a Magistrate's complaint". It was only after an appeal was made, that the matter was reclassified under section 325. By then 10 days had passed, by which time witnesses would have dispersed and memories faded, said his sister, Ms Liew Sok Kuan, in a letter to the press. Mr Conrad Raj went on to say, and I quote "I can understand the matter being a non-sizeable offence in the majority of domestic quarrels when the Police are called to intervene. But when a person is assaulted in public, especially by strangers, how can that be a non-sizeable offence?" Sir, as a previous victim myself after having been assaulted and hurt in a club and directed by the Police to file a Magistrate’s complaint, I would like to suggest that Voluntarily Causing Hurt be made a sizeable offence unless it is clearly a domestic dispute because the Magistrate's complaint process is, in my opinion, clearly not suitable for such criminal acts and indeed a perversion of justice. In my case, I went on to file a Magistrate's complaint against my aggressor, which led to a tortuous two-year process.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to speak specifically on Part VIII, section 151 on Magistrate's Complaints, and specifically to its relevance to acts of Voluntarily Causing Hurt (VCH) under section 323 of the Penal Code. Section 323 makes acts of Voluntarily Causing Hurt non-sizeable offences, except in cases where the victim is young, elderly or where there is specific public interest involved. In such cases, the alleged victim is normally directed by the Police to file a Magistrate's complaint. There have been several incidents reported in the newspapers in recent years about how members of the public have been directed to file a Magistrate’s complaint by the Police, after they have been assaulted and hurt. In a recent case, the Straits Times reported that senior executive A Jaafar reported to the Police on 10th January 2010 that he was assaulted by a Saudi Arabian Embassy official, but was told by the police that he should make a Magistrate's complaint instead. I also remember the case reported in the Straits Times on 16th December 2007 when communications manager K M Ho was reported to have been punished and beaten by a drunken sailor near Wheelock Place, and was also directed to make a Magistrate's complaint. This sparked a fury of letters to the Straits Times Forum which got the standard reply from a Police spokesman reiterating that under the current procedure, the Police is right to direct the alleged victim to file a Magistrate’s complaint.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and I do take his point regarding teething problems. But I would like to point out that we see the Integrated Resorts having teething problems with their hotel rooms, conference facilities, roller coasters but, funnily enough, not their casinos. I was wondering whatever the Ministry would consider taking a stronger stand in ensuring that the IRs keep to the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to clarify a point. Sir, I contended yesterday that the crucial difference between NMPs and NCMPs is that NMPs are not politicians. They should arguably be representing non-political issues. That is why, by definition, they cannot be elected nor fight an election. NCMPs, on the other hand, are politicians who stand for a certain political agenda. But that said I accept the Minister's point on making a practical decision on how Parliament should look like, although I remain extremely puzzled by the Government's generosity as it goes against everything that a Machiavellian view of politics would prescribe.”
“Singaporeans who want Opposition MPs in Parliament should vote for them. If they reject these Opposition MPs at the polls, they should stay rejected. I, thus, oppose the motion to increase the number of NCMPs. 4.39 pm”
“I say all of these with irony, of course. Parliament is not an Opposition MP incubator. Its function is not for beaten Opposition politicians to prove themselves, earn their stripes, so that they can compete better at the next election, and then perhaps get elected into Parliament for real. If Singapore wants a good strong Opposition, this Opposition needs to fight their way into Parliament tooth and nail, and not be mollycoddled. This is not only damaging to Singapore, it is damaging to Parliament, and even damaging to the Opposition themselves. The anecdote that Dr Lim Wee Kiak gave yesterday about the correlation between baby strollers and retardation was especially enlightening. If there is a need for more free-flowing debate in Parliament on political issues, rather than the non-political, non-partisan issues that I have argued NMPs should stand for, I call for the ruling party to lift the Whip if they have an overwhelming majority in Parliament, as is the case now. Before I entered Parliament, I was also under the impression that the PAP thinks and acts as a monolithic entity; of course, this is ridiculous, for how can so many people think as one. But this impression I had, I am sure many people share. I am now convinced the contrary. I am pretty sure the elected backbench Members of the PAP are capable of independent thought and may not agree with some of the issues proposed by their frontbench colleagues; more importantly, they were popularly elected into Parliament. If the party Whip was lifted more often, I am confident that there will be more constructive opposing voices in Parliament. The Government should be confident of convincing its own party members of its policies in Parliament. However, Sir, even if the Whip were not lifted, NCMPs are not the answer.”
“These are politicians who have stood on certain political platforms, for certain political issues and the majority of the electorate have considered these issues, these politicians and have rejected them at the polls. To then allow them into Parliament flies in the face of the logic of a democratic election at best and, at worst, is a slap in the face to the people who have voted against them. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] Sir, I understand the objective of the Government to accommodate the desire of some Singaporeans to see more opposing voices in Parliament. However, surely opposing voices are not what is needed, leaving issues of quality aside, but voices that represent the democratic will of the people. NCMPs are politicians who have stood for elections on their political beliefs, beliefs that have been rejected by a popular vote. If the people wanted these political views to be represented in Parliament, important bread-and-butter views that affect and influence the daily lives of all Singaporeans, they would vote them in. If they do not vote them in, then they cannot still have them in Parliament because, staying with the bread analogy, they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Sir, I applaud the ruling party on their incredible generosity in allowing their vanquished opponents a back door into Parliament. I was flabbergasted when the Opposition Members of Parliament yesterday voted against the Constitutional changes. This is such a golden opportunity to the Opposition it would be silly for them to reject it. In the business world, if my rivals who have beaten me then offer me a chance for my employees to work in their company, so I have a better chance of beating them the next time, I would be daft to turn it down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in opposition to increasing the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs). Before I begin, however, I have a few questions regarding the Internet for the Minister. Firstly, I would like to ask the Ministry how it intends to monitor electioneering, election advertising and campaigning on the Internet given the proliferation of blogsites and forums on the Internet, many which are anonymous. Also, would editorials and articles written on these blogsites, Internet newspapers and webzines count as election advertising, especially now that the ban on election advertising also extends to the eve of Polling Day when we expect most activity, including Internet activity? Finally, how does the Government intend to enforce the law against Internet election advertising by foreigners through websites based overseas? Sir, I now turn to the topic of NCMPs. In my speech on Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) yesterday, I argued how NMPs cannot be seen as unelected Opposition Members of Parliament, or even an alternative Opposition because not only are they not politicians, they should by and large not be representing political, partisan issues. NCMPs, on the other hand, are not only unambiguously Opposition politicians, being members of Opposition political parties, having participated in a General Election and lost, but also categorically oppose issues that the ruling party stands for. Sir, I do not know how to deliver the next part of the speech without being offensive and I would like to apologise to Ms Sylvia Lim if I cause any offence. Sir, people who are proposed to be NCMPs are politicians who stood for an election and lost. Sir, they lost. They lost. I do not know how much more emphatic I can be about this.”
“Further, as I evaluate my privileged membership in this House, I am acutely aware that few fellow Singaporeans would enjoy this opportunity to speak directly on policy decisions at the highest level. So I am struck by awe. And I feel a deep sense of responsibility to my country that I should make good use of this opportunity and that I must put in my best effort to add value to every discussion I can contribute meaningfully to. Who am I accountable to? Personally, I hold myself accountable to all Singaporeans that I should stay informed about parliamentary proceedings, participate meaningfully in debates whenever there is an opportunity to value-add to the discourse, be aware of the social issues that affect my fellow Singaporeans and raise these issues to the attention of the House. As Mr Calvin Cheng has already highlighted, it is really hard work because we work alone especially when you are not a lawyer for the Bills are really difficult to comprehend. I dread preparation for the next session because we saw the chunks that were being passed down. But we accepted this appointment – all the NMPs in this House – and we would put this responsibility as first priority in our work schedule. I want to thank Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Christopher de Souza, my MP, for having spoken up in support of the NMPs. All said, I want to thank the Speaker and the House for this awesome privilege to be a Member of Parliament. And I want to assure all who are listening that though we were not voted in, we feel a strong sense of responsibility to Singaporeans. For this reason, we work very hard to learn more about issues that are raised in the House. We are mindful that this is a privilege and we will continue to work towards earning the trust and respect of Members and the public.”
“Therefore, we should know how each NMP was nominated and, particularly for self-nominated NMPs, what interest groups they represent and what are some concerns they wish to bring to the House. This way, members of the public may also choose to engage these NMPs in discourse on issues they are concerned with. Thus, my main question is: if we entrench the NMP scheme in Parliament, what are some measures that will be taken to make the selection criteria more transparent so that Singaporeans will accept the NMPs as deserving of their privileged membership in Parliament? MPs who contest for their seats are held accountable to their constituents and to the party they represent. An important question arises for the NMPs – who are they accountable to? On this final concern, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House my personal perspective of accountability as an NMP. It is a tremendous honour and privilege to be a Member of this Parliament. My journey here involved the kind support of the University, particularly the Provost and President of the University who nominated me, my Head and my Dean who wrote the recommendation letters, my friends who affirmed my nomination, the committee who oversaw the nominations from the Institutes of Higher Learning, the Members of this House who commented on and endorsed my nomination and, finally, the Selection Committee who evaluated my case and made the final recommendation to the President of Singapore. I feel a very strong sense of moral responsibility knowing that so many people had worked so hard to facilitate my journey here.”
“Together, we bring alternative views to the House, raise the level of political discourse and add vibrancy to debates. Personally, I would not have engaged in this level of discourse if not for the NMP scheme. So it will be ideal when Singaporeans are more willing to step up and be actively engaged in the democratic process. The day when we move into a two-party system where opposing voices are more visible, we will not need NMPs or NCMPs anymore. But until we get there, the NMPs have a role to play. As we move today to institutionalise the NMP scheme, I think it is important that we can evolve a system that will further legitimise the role of the NMPs. It is important that Singaporeans have a better understanding and appreciation of how NMPs are selected. To this effect, my comments are centered around concerns about transparency of selection of NMPs. While self-nomination was an option, nominations were also invited from six functional groups – business and industry, labour, the professions, tertiary education institutions, social and community service organisations, and media, arts and sports organisations. My first observation is on the selection of the functional groups. How were the six functional groups determined as being the most relevant interest groups to contribute to representation of diverse and socially significant views to Parliament? What are the criteria for selection of each NMP? In order for NMPs to be accepted by Singaporeans, it will be important that there is greater clarity of the requirements of the candidates. It will also help inform those who may be interested in stepping forward to serve. It is also important for Singaporeans to know what each NMP stands for.”
“This fence assumes that to make a contribution, one has to be either for or against an issue. I beg to differ from this stand. First, just because I am not the Member of the ruling party or of any Opposition party, does not mean I have no legitimate views. The existing political party certainly cannot claim dominance over all view points, such that when you have a perspective, you must necessarily speak for one or against the other. Second, precisely because I am non-partisan, it frees me to explore and research the issues from all possible socially significant angles. As a sociologist and an academic, I am informed by the research I do, which includes a thorough review of various perspectives on the issues, the data I have collected and the outcomes of analysis. Together with my NMP colleagues in this House, in the past 10 months or so that we have been in Parliament, we have contributed to raising parliamentary questions at every sitting, spoken on almost every Bill that was tabled and participated actively in the COS debates. Together, we have raised issues ranging from eldercare concerns, healthcare costs, work-life balance, effects of immigration, the place of arts in Singapore, grooming sports talent, and even the welfare of singles. Personally, I have learned a lot listening to my fellow NMPs. I hope the House sees us as having added value to the debates. Because we do not belong to any political party, when I look at a social issue, I am not constraint by partisan concerns. Instead, I share my perspective as a sociologist. Similarly, my fellow NMPs bring to the debates their unique takes as business experts, sports professionals, representing the arts, the social services, or as independent political observers.”
“With your permission, Sir, I would like to address these concerns from an NMP's perspective. First, on the concern that the presence of NMPs undermines the democratic process. NMPs do not replace elected Members of Parliament (MPs). MPs continue to be voted in by constituents and the presence of the nine NMPs do not compromise or replace the number of MPs in the House. As NMPs are non-partisan, we do not replace either PAP MPs or Opposition MPs. Even with the inclusion of NMPs in the House, Singaporeans continue to vote for their MPs in every General Election. The democratic process of free elections has never been compromised. I have also read arguments that the NMP Scheme is used to placate the electorate’s desire for Opposition in the House and, therefore, the implication is that with the NMPs in place, the ruling party will continue its dominance in Singapore politics. Personally, I find little merit in this allegation for it undermines the intellect of the electorate. Singaporeans will vote for the political party that best represents their interests and ideals. The presence of NMPs does not feature into the equation in their consideration. The second set of concerns centres the discourse on the relevance and social significance of NMPs. With your permission, Sir, I would like to address this now. As an NMP, I believe I have a unique and distinct role in Parliament. I agreed to and accepted the nomination from NUS because I believe that I can add value to the discourse in Parliament. Being non-partisan, when I debate on a Bill or raise issues to the House, it is done based on my concerns on the issues – in my case, as a sociologist. I have read criticisms that the non-partisan nature of NMP renders them ineffective as they end up sitting on the fence.”
“An NMP's main job would be to ably represent his field of expertise for which he was appointed for and knowing this will allow him or her to function more effectively both in Parliament as well as in the eyes of the public. Sir, I thus recommend that in making NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament, that their role be clearly and unambiguously defined. Sir, NMPs have been labouring under a very large albatross around their necks, being misconstrued as back-door opposition Members of Parliament by segments of the public. I feel that the making of NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament is good as long as the NMPs' functions are clearly defined. If not, not only will NMPs be "Nobody’s MPs" but, worse, unwanted Members of Parliament, neither birds nor beasts, but bats ostracised and ignored by all sides. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. 4.52 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member):  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to justify our existence. [Laughter]. I stand in support of this Bill, which abolishes the requirement for a resolution to be passed by the Parliament before Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP) may be appointed. With this amendment, the NMP Scheme will now be entrenched as part of the Constitution. I have followed the debates on this issue and noted the opposition to the NMP Scheme in previous parliamentary debates. The main contentions were in two primary areas. First, that the NMPs were not elected by Singaporeans and, therefore, inclusion of NMPs in Parliament undermines the democratic process. Second, that the NMPs were not accountable to constituents and, therefore, there is concern about the relevance and value that NMPs bring to the House.”
“I would like to point out that the present mix of NMPs in this Chamber more or less represents many of the issues I have mentioned; what I however call for is for this to be made clear, that this is the main role of an NMP, to represent alternative, non-partisan issues in Parliament and not to act as an alternative Opposition. This would not only give them a clear platform, but also empower them to speak with a more confident voice, knowing exactly what they are meant to stand for. It will also help mitigate the criticism, raised by Ms Irene Ng, that they have not earned their right to be in Parliament since they are not popularly elected because, firstly, they are experts or distinguished achievers in their respective fields and, secondly, and more importantly, it is precisely because they do not represent political issues that they have to be appointed, rather than be elected. Of course, NMPs cannot be stopped from giving alternative, even opposing views on political or politicised issues in Parliament; equally, they may even support the views of the ruling party. Many issues raised in Parliament will also lie outside their fields of expertise but they will still be free to offer an opinion. But crucially, this will not be the main reason why they are appointed to Parliament. An NMP should not make it his or her job to campaign for political causes, whether it is a certain welfare policy, or economic policy or even something as mundane as building certain infrastructure in certain constituencies. An NMP should not try to pretend to represent the will of the people, because he does not, having not been popularly elected.”
“Sports, for example, is one and is ably represented in this Parliament by my colleague, Ms Josceline Yeo. Who best to represent this issue in Parliament than one of the most be-medalled and successful athletes in the history of Singapore? And even though Sports is a Ministerial portfolio, it is not a political issue in that elections are fought on this issue – thankfully – and it is not yet politicised by any political party in Singapore – thankfully – but needs to be ably represented in Singapore’s highest legislative Chamber. Other important alternative, non-partisan and non-political issues would include the Arts and Culture. Singapore’s political system has also evolved in such a way where we no longer have a party that is seen to solely supports workers’ interests and another that solely supports businesses. All parties, including the Workers' Party are multi-issue parties that may have differing views on workers and businesses, but does not solely support either. This leaves another void that can be filled by an NMP from the business chambers, as it is now by my colleague, Mr Teo Siong Seng, to be perhaps countervailed by maybe an NMP from the Labour Movement, as it is now by NMP, Mr Terry Lee. In the previous batch of NMPs, Mr Siew Kum Hong brought up the issue of homosexual rights, another arguably non party-political issue in Singapore, unlike in the US, for example, where the Democrats and Republicans have clear opposing views on this issue.”
“In Singapore’s political system today, there are social issues that still lie outside the political system insofar as no political party fights any election with these issues at its core, not having them as an important part of their political manifesto. An example would be environmental issues, green issues. Whereas in many Western countries, especially European countries, Green Parties have emerged as an important political force, Singapore does not yet have any political party formed specifically around green issues, and which fights elections on these issues. Although various elected MPs have now and again brought up environmental issues in Parliament, and some may even be extremely passionate and learned about them, they were more likely elected to Parliament on bread-and-butter issues and will continue to focus on them in their constituency work, representing the bread-and-butter concerns of their constituents as they should. An NMP who is also an environmental expert or activist would thus fill this void very nicely, representing an important social issue that has not yet been politicised in Singapore and, in this way, offer a view on an alternative, non-partisan issue. This is a very important distinction. An NMP would function a lot better if they were to represent alternative, non-partisan issues, rather than if they were asked to give alternative, non-partisan views on mainstream, partisan issues. The former fills a void, whilst asking NMPs to do the latter renders them irrelevant insofar as: (a) they are not Opposition politicians; and (b) one cannot be fully neutral about most things. There are many other such alternatives, non-partisan issues that have not yet been politicised and, hopefully, never will be.”