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 3 of 3.
“The fact of the matter is this: equal opportunity may lead to unequal outcomes, and these unequal outcomes sometimes outrage our sense of justice. This leads me to the other very important meaning of equality: equality of outcome. As my colleague Mr Viswa has pointed out, Singapore has a relatively high income inequality, closer to the standards of under-developed countries in the world; its income inequality, as represented by the Gini coefficient, is higher than many of our neighbouring countries. Income inequality is an inequality of outcome. The important question is this: Even if we accept that Singapore is meritocratic, and even if the Government has successfully ensured a more or less even playing field and equality of opportunity to all citizens, it remains a fact that Singapore has one of the highest income inequalities in the region. Can we as a people accept that this inequality is just, that this inequality is fair? Is equality of opportunity all we need to care about when we pledge to build a society based on equality? As I argued before, equality of opportunity and a meritocratic system can still produce very unequal results because people are born with different abilities, or are just plain unlucky even if they are hardworking, committed or even talented. The important issue is thus this: if we believe that unequal outcomes that arise from equal opportunities are still unjust, then we have to do something about it and the only thing we can do is to tweak the outcome. That is where the problem starts because when translated into practical economic policies, it reveals a tension between the two types of inequalities. Let us go back to a practical issue – the very important issue of income inequality.”
“The thought goes like this: if the playing field is equal and nobody is unfairly disadvantaged, and if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, then the outcome must also be fair and just. Whether you win or lose, you have an equal chance to succeed. If you are one of the winners, your prize is well-deserved. If you are one of the losers, you have nobody to blame, as you had an equal chance to succeed, but you did not. But is this really just? There is a fundamental weakness to the idea of equality of opportunity and this is it: no matter how level the playing field is, no matter how fair the rules of the game are, some of us are always more likely to lose. This is because even if opportunities are equal, human beings are not born with equal talents. When I was young, I was pretty sure I had an equal chance to become a star basketball player or even a supermodel, in so far that there are no laws in Singapore that stop me from doing so. That I am neither now is not a reflection of unequal opportunity, but the fact that I am challenged in terms of height and in looks, something that I was born with through no fault of mine. The role that luck plays in our lives is also very important, when judging whether mere equality of opportunity is enough to create a just society. As the cliché goes, accidents happen, and like most clichés, there is truth in it. Sometimes people do badly in life not because they are lazy, or made the wrong decisions, or are unwilling to try, but because they are plain unlucky. This is not shifting blame or avoiding responsibility, but a very real fact of life. For instance, illness could incapacitate an otherwise talented man in the prime of his life.”
“When Mr S. Rajaratnam penned the Pledge, I believe he put these two concepts together on purpose, for there is a conviction that a just society is an equal society, and an equal society is a fair society. Justice, equality and fairness are thus ideas that are inextricably linked. However, when Singaporeans put their hands to their hearts and pledge to build a society based on equality, what do they exactly mean? What is equality? There are many ways to discuss this but I would like to focus on two meanings of equality that I think are most important to Singaporeans and, depending on which meaning they believe in more, would shape their thoughts about what national policies, especially economic policies, should be formulated to build a society based on equality. The first is equality of opportunity and the second equality of outcome. I think equality of opportunity can best be encapsulated by the phrase, "a level playing field". It means that whoever we are, wherever we come from, regardless of what socio-economic group we are born into, or gender, or race, we have an equal chance to succeed in life. It is this type of equality that I think underpins a meritocratic society. A society that offers an equality of opportunity will have institutions that are blind to the differences I talked about – class, gender, race – and every man, every woman, would have, in theory, an equal chance to get into the best schools, obtain the best jobs, or even run for the highest political offices in the land. A society based on the equality of opportunity strives to ensure that each citizen is not disadvantaged by any discrimination. Fundamental to the idea of equality of opportunity is the principle of dessert.”
“In a first-past-the-post system, stable governments with clear majorities are more likely. This, if I am not wrong, has been the view of the People’s Action Party. A proportional representation system, because it allows smaller parties with small proportions of the popular vote to gain seats, is more likely to result in a proliferation of parties in Parliament, and thus a need for coalition governments. Experience in other countries has shown us that coalition governments tend to be more unstable and weak, leading to more frequent elections. A proportional representation system is also more likely to introduce fringe parties to Parliament, like when the Pirate Party of Sweden won a seat in the European Parliament recently. Fortunately, these are not real one-eyed bandits but people who believe that the sharing of music on the Internet should be free; more dangerous would be the introduction of extremist parties, like the blatantly racist British National Party, into an elected chamber. Yet, the supporters of a proportional representation system are not wrong: it is a fairer, more proportionate system that more accurately reflects voter preferences. There is something intuitively unfair that a party with 51% of the popular vote could technically end up with all the seats in Parliament. In deciding what sort of voting system will help Singapore build a more democratic society, Singaporeans should thus be very aware of the costs and benefits of both systems in practice, and choose very carefully. When theory becomes practice, and when idealism is tempered by pragmatism, an idea that may sound very attractive conceptually may not be so easy to implement in reality. I now move on to the next part of the Pledge that reads, "... based on justice and equality".”
“On the other hand, Switzerland has a system of government that incorporates more elements of direct democracy, where ordinary citizens can propose legislation, and referenda are regularly called for the citizens to vote on. If one day, Singaporeans were to think that this is the sort of democracy they want, and this is the type of democratic society they want to build, they must do so with their eyes open to the practical implications. For example, direct democracy is very time consuming and citizens have to educate themselves about the proposed legislation before voting in the referenda, turning up on voting day to vote, and do this several times a year! For Singaporeans who even now complain that they do not even have time to make babies, they should especially make sure that they consider carefully! I have not yet heard strident calls for more direct democracy, but another more important debate about the form that democracy should take will be more familiar and significant to Singaporeans – voting procedure. In Singapore, some political parties have called for a system of proportional representation to replace the current "first-past-the-post" system. In the current system, it is possible for a party with 51% of the popular vote to win 100% of the parliamentary seats. To some, this is unfair – the Workers' Party, for example, in its manifesto, calls for "An alternative system of proportional representation ... that could reflect party votes at the national level". There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, and both are used by democratic countries elsewhere. In deciding what sort of democratic society they want to build, Singaporeans should be aware of the practical implications of both.”
“For example, if we believe that there should be a protection of minority rights in a truly democratic society, and that simple majority-rule is not sufficiently democratic, then Singaporeans must ask themselves whether sometimes, even if the majority feels a certain way, the minority still deserves to be protected. For example, I think it was this sort of thinking that led to the debate on the repeal of section 377A. Yet, not all minorities can be protected – this is simply neither possible nor practical. If we do, every group with special tastes, with unique preferences, will be able to claim protection, and the smallest minority is a minority of one. In practice, even if we think that democracy requires us to protect minorities, there needs to be a balance when formulating national policies that takes them into consideration. It is my opinion that the best form of protection for minorities is the equal regard that all individuals get in the eyes of the law. Our founding fathers have, like in many countries, chosen a system of representative democracy, specifically parliamentary democracy, as Singapore’s system of government. In a system of representative democracy, regular elections are held to decide who will form the government, rather than to decide the issues of the day. Once elected, a government has the authority to formulate policy and enact legislation, until it loses its mandate in the elected chamber, or when fresh elections are called. Singapore has this system, and with variations, so do countries such as the US, Britain and many democratic countries.”
“Western liberals are particularly guilty of this, and they assume that their version of democracy is the benchmark by which all democracies and democratic societies have to be measured against. Some Singaporeans have also adopted this attitude, and have criticised Singapore for being undemocratic, because we do not meet the standards of western societies. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the western model of democracy is wrong – I am just saying that their model, which even differs from western country to western country, is but one possible model of democracy. Most political theorists would agree that democracy is a system of governance "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Beyond this three-part description, there is enormous dispute over what democracy is. For example, should democracy be simply a system of majority-rule, or should a protection of the minority, the minority who would lose in a democratic vote, be also protected? Is a representative democracy where citizens elect representatives to govern for a period of time sufficiently democratic, or is a truly democratic system direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on the enactment of laws and policies as much as possible? These are all questions that, when answered, lead to different models of democracy. I do not believe there is a right or wrong to these questions, and each country, each culture, must choose a system of democracy suitable for itself. But Singaporeans must be aware that this choice is not merely an academic exercise but will have practical implications.”
“However, even though the meaning of "regardless of race, language or religion" is clear, I wonder how practical it is to formulate all policies according to this line of the Pledge. These divisions are very real and even though the idealist in me would very much like to see a single Singaporean ethnic identity, I feel this may be a pipe dream. Even in America, allegedly the poster boy of the melting pot, multi-cultural society, race and religion still remain very important. This has been most markedly demonstrated during the last American presidential election where race and religion of Barack Obama was a very important issue. I thus think it is still important to bear in mind the differences in race and religion when formulating policies. That said, I am young. And being young, I hope and I dream. Even if complete assimilation is impossible, I hope that integration can be further increased, for example, by allowing more interaction between the self-help groups and their volunteers. Even if separate ethnic identities will always prevail, I dream that one day a strong Singapore identity will arise that unites us around our similarities and commonalities. The issue of differences in meaning arises with the next line of the Pledge – "to build a democratic society". It may appear self-evident what democracy is, or what a democratic society is. It is not. I find it extremely annoying when people tell me, "Singapore is not democratic". I am annoyed not because they are right, nor because they are wrong, but because they assume that they have a monopoly over the meaning of democracy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the chance to speak. I feel a lot of pressure now having to make my maiden speech after Minister Mentor has spoken. I will try my best. I thank Minister Mentor for giving us a reminder of the origins of the Pledge – origins the young might have forgotten. Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I however do so with some reservations. This is because although the Pledge enshrines ideals that we want all citizens to aspire to, many of the basic tenets, the building blocks of the Pledge, are, in my opinion, open to interpretation; consequently, the national policies that one would support would differ according to how one interprets these tenets. In this speech, I hope to clarify the following. Firstly, that some important ideas enshrined in our National Pledge will mean significantly different things to different people. Secondly, as a result, these different meanings, if adopted, will lead to vastly different policies in practice. And, thirdly, I will argue that it is important that Singaporeans debate, discuss and understand these different meanings and be aware of their practical implications. "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion …". These lines are fairly un-contentious. Although some may argue that other social divisions should be included, I believe that this is not necessary. Race, language and religion are the biggest divisions in most multi-cultural, multi-racial societies such as ours, and pledging ourselves as one united people, despite these major differences, is a sufficiently noble, important and challenging task.”