Steve Chia Kiah Hong
Singapore
“A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election.”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the m…”
“Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?”
“The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?”
“Active political recruitment has been going on inside and outside the RC and PA s organisation and premises. Although grassroots leaders are under no compulsion to join the PAP and can opt out if they want to, Straits Times' Forum writer, Ms Yee, had correctly pointed out that "joining a grassroots organisation seems to be a sure way for…”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Steve Chia Kiah Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 11.
“Sir, I want to touch on two of the topics that Mr Tan also talked about, but in a different aspect. I also applaud the Traffic Police (TP) for requiring motorists to belt up, but it seems that punitive measures have been taken for non-compliance. Prior to enforcing this law, the TP did not carry out sufficient educational programmes to educate motorists on the importance of belting up. It would be a pity if the Government has to resort to using punitive measures to ensure compliance of all our laws. Second, fatal motorcycle accidents. Like Mr Tan, I share this concern, but I also want to declare my interest as the President of an active motorcycling club. The statistics supplied by the Ministry confirmed my belief. 82% of all fatal accidents over the last 5 years happened on bikes below 200 cc. 24% of these victims got their class 2B licence within a year and met with an accident. Many of them died also as a pillion to these new riders. Something is wrong here. Either bikes below 200 cc are inherently not safe, or newer riders are more accident prone, or both. The answer is probably somewhere in between. As a motorcyclist, it always pains me to hear of a motorcycle accident, and my heart usually skips a beat. I hope the Traffic Police will act on my suggestion, from the motorcyclist's point of view, on how to improve motorcycle safety. It will be different from what Mr Tan mentioned. One, the TP should prohibit P-plate motorcyclists from pillioning passengers. These new motorcyclists on the road have not clocked enough riding hours, experience or defensive skills. How then can they be allowed to take responsibility of the life of their pillion passenger?”
“I hope the Minister can give a fair and helpful solution to these and other affected people and how they can help solve the problem.”
“And for those investors who suffered loss because of the SGX's decision, what course of remedy is there for them to claim this loss? For further clarification, many of the investors are going to be sued by the company.”
“Sir, I would like to declare my significant direct interest in this matter about the market manipulators. It affects me as much as many other traders and investors who have suffered monetary loss because of the SGX Settlement Committee's decision on the Links-Island. It has been 2 years. I have spoken to many industry practitioners and broking firms and they are also unhappy and dissatisfied with the SGX's decision but they cannot do anything. Sir, I have been a remisier with OCBC when Links-Island was listed on the SGX and traded. Subsequently, on Friday, 11th August, many other investors and I bought shares of this company in the market. On the next available day, on Monday, 14th I contra-ed the 30 lots. Some of the other investors also contra-ed. Two days later, on Wednesday, the stock was suspended by the SGX on suspicion of market manipulation. It is very disappointing that the SGX took one full year to conclude that the stock had been cornered. What is worse is SGX's decision to cancel the trades done in the last three trading days before the suspension. This has caused abnormality in the stock, especially for those who bought the shares a week before and contra-ed within those three trading days. Suddenly, by the arbitrary decision of the SGX Committee, the buy positions on Friday became valid, whereas the sell positions became invalid and cancelled by the Stock Exchange. Can the Finance Minister explain how the SGX arrived at this arbitrary decision? How has the cancellation of the trades of the last three days helped to solve the cornered situation? It has been almost two years. Those investors affected have heard nothing from the SGX. Can the Minister tell us if the market manipulators have been identified? When will they be charged in court?”
“Sir, I have already raised my point yesterday at the debate on the Budget Statement but I have yet to hear the Minister's reply on my suggestion.”
“Sir, I have a point of clarification. The Elections Commission, as the Minister has said, does not guarantee a sense of fairness but, at least, there is a Commission that we can complain to, and which can look into how the people actually execute the election process. And, if there is something that we disagree, we can actually seek out the Commission and complain to them. The Minister also talked about other countries ---”
“We are also contributing to nation building by giving the perspective of the non-PAP voters which number about 10-30%, depending on which election. This is important for the Government that takes pride in caring for all its people. On top of speaking in Parliament, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament has to cover as many electoral constituencies as possible and get the feeling and understanding of the citizens, especially of those who are not supportive of Government policies. We have to understand their grievances and raise them in Parliament. Like all the elected MPs, constituency work is to build rapport and support with the electorate for the next election. This is the same duty as any of the elected MPs. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will agree with my above reasoning and look into reinstating the NCMP allowance to be on par with all the elected MPs, as it was first crafted. 1.45 pm My next cut is on legislative and secretarial assistance for NMP and NCMP. Sir, I would like to state my direct interest in this matter again. Like all MPs, NMPs and NCMPs are invited into Parliament to represent a different viewpoint from the PAP Government. They are expected to speak up with sound advice, research and argument, to raise issues and discuss policies and contribute to parliamentary debate. Therefore, will the Prime Minister also agree with me that it is necessary for NMPs and NCMPs to be given legislative and secretarial allowance to employ help? Does the House not want to hear more contributions and more in-depth debates from these NMPs and NCMPs?”
“Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Mr Chiam, for speaking up for me Sir, the Senior Minister had once said, "If you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys." I agree with the Senior Minister on this matter. Last month, the House had a passionate debate on NMPs and voted strongly to have them in this House. It had been said that NMPs were very good and had contributed a lot of good debate to this House. I was not here then, but I do not deny that they contributed a lot. I think NMPs had helped to liven up debates in the past, but I went to argue that there was no need for them in this session of this House, because the PAP Government was freeing up its MPs for more debates and disagreements, and this would help solve the cynicism and scepticism in youths. It was not listened to and I was out-voted. Now that we are going to get NMPs in this House, I would want to speak up for them too. I think we should give them their due recognition. The honorarium of an NMP is at 15% of an elected MP's allowance. This is too little. Like all MPs, they have the duty to speak up and engage in good debates. We should therefore recognise their contribution and pay them an NMP allowance equivalent to 40% or more of the elected MP's allowance, instead of a small honorarium of just 15%. As for the NCMP's honorarium, Sir, I would like to declare my personal direct interest in this matter. An NCMP is not quite, but is close to a political appointment. We know that when the PAP Government wins all the seats, there will be at least three such NCMP appointments. Our role, as NCMPs, is as heavy as an elected MP. We are not only expected to be robust and vigorous in speaking up in Parliament and contributing to good debates.”
“Not many young Singaporeans are foolish like myself to challenge this giant Goliath. Before the last General Elections, all my friends and family members thought that it was suicidal or crazy to go into Opposition politics. They do not see a future. They do not see a hope. There is no hope of reaching shore with this sampan. So, if the Prime Minister is sincere in wanting to encourage more young Singaporeans to enter politics, the Government must first calm the sea and play fair. Allow the sampan to find shore and grow hope. Only when the first batches of adventurers had safely crossed the Atlantic Ocean will it give hope to other great idealists. Therefore, if the Government wants youths to be interested in politics and to serve the country in the highest office, then we must have hope, opportunity and freedom to choose which boat to board. As the Prime Minister's task is to look at the long-term interest of the country, can we expect the Government to play fair and give hope to all?”
“Finally, I will move on to touch on youths in politics. The Prime Minister had ever said that entering politics is the highest form of public service. There had also been laments from some Ministers that there are not enough youths who are interested in politics. Politics is the most uncertain of careers - both for the PAP as well as for Opposition politicians. Therefore, it is not surprising that young professional Singaporeans are not interested to go into politics at all. What is making matters worse is that there is only one company, one party or one cruise liner to go to if these young professionals are interested to make politics as a career, ie, to join the PAP. Joining the PAP is like going on board a luxury cruise liner - very big, strong and stable. No risks and no worries of a capsize. Full of luxury, joy and entertainment, it is no wonder that many Singaporeans - good and bad, qualified or not - are rushing on board to join this PAP cruise liner. But for those with a different perspective, who do not like the trappings, the style, the direction or the destination of this PAP cruise liner, they have no other ship or liner to board. They can only consider the rickety sampans that we, the Opposition, have to offer. But it is full of risk and danger. A storm may arise and we may have a shipwreck. Or a big fish may jump out from nowhere and swallow us, never to be seen again for the next 30 years. Whatever it is, the PAP cruise liner has made it risky for young idealistic Singapore professionals to join the small sampans. They have no choice but to stay on shore and forget about their ideals of helping to explore new opportunities and claiming new grounds for the people of Singapore.”
“Can the Prime Minister kindly explain this matter? Next, out-of-bounds markers. Many people have spoken out about OB markers in the past. They had argued that OB markers are vague, lacking clarity and creating confusion for active citizens who want to participate in the nation building process. Some of them have also asked that the OB markers be spelt out and be clear so that it can be avoided. I want to ask the Prime Minster if he had a list of OB markers ready for public release. If citizens have to keep wondering what they say is going to step on any of the Minister's toe and thus out-of-bound, then soon the active and concerned citizens will learn not to say anything. They will just shut up and shut out. They will learn to be bochap. It is safer to adopt this bochap attitude. Do not bother to listen to the Government, no need to disagree, no disagreement, no need to speak up, no fear of stepping onto the OB markers, therefore, no fear of offending the Ministers. Life remains peaceful and calm. How good. But the fact that this bochap attitude is developing is worrying and bad for our society. Where there is no exchange of ideas it is bad for the society. Our citizens must be encouraged to speak up without fear. We must allow them to express themselves and learn to take responsibility for what they say. If there are no OB markers in parliamentary debates then there should be no OB markers at all in our society. Once we go into the political arena we must expect criticism and unfair condemnations. If we can defend ourselves in the parliamentary debates, I think we should have the grace to defend these criticisms in public. I hope the Prime Minister can clarify on the list of out-of-bounds markers, and remove this requirement from our society totally.”
“There is no need to be kiasu and kiasee and use all attempts to stop the Opposition from gaining a foothold into Parliament. The electorate is now mature enough to differentiate between the better candidates. Can the Deputy Prime Minister learn to trust the people more? I will now go on to my next cut on the Elections Department. The Elections Department conducts the election process and produces the Electoral Boundaries Committee Report before every election is held. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how some of the electoral boundaries are redrawn? Specifically, can he explain how Braddell Heights, which is near the centre of Singapore, in Serangoon, be redrawn into Marine Parade GRC, which is at the East Coast? Can the Deputy Prime Minister also explain on what basis did the Prime Minister convince the President to dissolve Parliament a day after the Electoral Boundaries Committee Report was released? Did he not have special privileged information used to his Party's advantage? Is there a case of an abuse of power? The Prime Minister is also the Secretary-General of the ruling party. As the Secretary-General of the PAP, it is his duty to ensure that his party candidates win in as many constituencies as possible. Thus, is there a conflict of interest or is there not a conflict of interest and duty by placing the jurisdiction of the Elections Department under the control of the Prime Minister's Office? Can the Prime Minister explain what due process did he use to ensure that there is no conflict between his obligation to the nation as Prime Minister and as Secretary-General of his party? Finally, is it not better and safer for the Elections Department to be under the jurisdiction of the Elected President or some independent commission?”
“The General Election is a special time, once every five years, where citizens come and give their votes of support or disapproval to the governing party and its elected representatives in Parliament. The true test of democracy is a free and fair general election held at fixed intervals. In the long term interest of nation building, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain, if he truly believes in the democratic principle of elections, why are there so many changes and adjustments to the electoral process aimed mainly at keeping the Opposition at bay and maintaining the power and presence of the ruling party? While we do not expect the ruling party to help the Opposition to win the election, we can only hope that the electoral process could be fairer. In this regard, I hope the Prime Minister can look into the following proposals to make the general elections fairer: 1. Allow at least six months after the release of the Electoral Boundaries Committee Report before dissolving Parliament. It would be equally fair to the incumbents and interested contestants to review the new constituency; 2. Reduce the number and size of each GRC to a maximum of 11 and four candidates per GRC, respectively. Introduce back more single member constituencies so that more citizens will have a chance to exercise their votes; 3. Do not misuse national resources as a tool for political support. Linking upgrading to voter support is abuse of the people's trust; and 4. Finally, I hope the Minister can also look into setting up a media watch committee to look into the matter of unfair media coverage. By being open and playing fair, the Government will be able to win more of the people's trust and support.”
“I hope the Ministry can take some of these initiatives to prepare Singapore for long-term competitiveness. I hope the Prime Minister can look further and explore the feasibility of this proposal.”
“Sir, currently the scholarship bond is strict and non-convertible. Our best and brightest students are sent over to the best universities overseas to learn and mix with the world's best and brightest. Then, they are asked to come back and serve in the public service or the Armed Forces with a fast-track career. This may have served the public administration, the Armed Forces and the statutory boards well in the past and the present. But the time has come for us to expand the system a little bit further. It is no longer enough to send out brightest students to these prestigious schools for four years and then get them to come back to serve. Will the Government consider allowing some of these scholars, those who are interested and able, to secure careers on their own with the top 500 Fortune companies, to allow them to postpone serving their bonds for a period of time? Let them gain work experience in these top MNCs, learn their system, adopt their work cultures and benefit by dealing with the companies' best and brightest. After five to 10 years, when these scholars are prepared to come back to Singapore, they may be invited back to serve Singapore in any of the sectors or industries, public or private. If they do not intend to come to Singapore at all, then we can exercise the contractual bond and demand high compensation for breaking the contract. This will be our best form of international talent that we can develop and groom and call our own. We can be proud if a few of our top scholars are groomed to climb the corporate ladders in these top MNCs and then come back to serve their duty in Singapore, in one of the SMEs or the GLCs. I believe the details and technicalities can be worked out if this idea is considered.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that it is not necessary to cut personal income tax. This saving could be used to cut corporate tax further, which would give us an equal balance. So I am not saying that we should cut more of the corporate income tax and then increase the GST. The hon. Member will have to hear me more clearly.”
“" Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister can take the words of this old man into due consideration and look into how retired senior citizens and the lower income can be exempted from the effects of GST. I believe that the most efficient and equitable way is to identify a list of these essential items and exclude it from tax. If it is so easy for NTUC Fairprice to produce a list of such staple items and absorb the GST increase, I believe the Ministry of Finance can do a lot better than a blanket no. Finally, Sir, I want to talk about car usage and car parking. If we want to allow more Singaporeans to own cars but encourage them to use it less often, then we must have incentives to encourage them to keep it stationary, ie, not to drive it. Increasing car parking charges is definitely not an incentive. To the car owners, whether it is money paid to HDB, URA, LTA or the Ministry of Finance, it is still money going to the Government. The Government should consider the total revenue it collects from cars and look into subsidising some of these loss-making departments within the Ministry that help to solve and regulate car usage. We cannot expect every department in the Ministry to be always profitable. There will always be some departments that cannot. If every department in the Ministry must be profitable, if HDB has to build car parks and make them profitable or at least break even while other ministries make a lot from COE, then it can only mean one thing, ie, our citizens will become poorer and poorer through all these taxes. I hope the Government will not insist that every Government service must be able to recover cost.”
“Looking at the trend, I am quite certain that there are going to be more cuts in the personal income and corporate tax rates in the future. To make up for this revenue loss, it is certain that the Government is going to raise GST even higher. So before this GST is increased to 5%, 7%, 9% or even higher in future, I hope the Government can plan ahead and institute a system to exempt certain essential staple items from GST. Do not wait until there is great social discontent to do it. Once such a system is institutionalised, any future increase in GST to a very high level will not cause severe hardship and political ramifications. Those who find that the tax on sushi is too high can still opt to buy plain rice and fish, with the option of not going hungry just to save on GST. The freedom of choice is there and this is very important. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we progress into this developed world, let us work together towards a kinder and more caring society. Let us not subject our lower and middle income citizens and our aging community to more stress, hardships and taxes. At my Party constituency walkabout in Jurong West two Sundays ago, I spoke to a senior citizen who said to me, "Given a choice, I would rather return all the ERS shares and rebates to the Government if I have the option to be exempted from GST. These rebates and grants are short-term measures to ease our pain, but GST is going to stay with me till I go to my grave. I would rather not have it. I paid taxes when I was young and working. Now I am old, unemployed and waiting to die, and I still have to pay taxes. This is unfair.”
“If the Minister finds it so difficult to decide what items to exempt from GST, be it sushi, fish or rice, then may I suggest that the Ministry of Finance send an investigative delegation to other developed countries with GST exemptions on these essential goods and services and study how these countries do it. If these countries and some states like California in the USA can have a system where certain essential goods like rice, oil, sugar, salt, meat, vegetables, fish, etc, or services can be exempted from GST, I do not see what is so difficult about implementing it in Singapore. Where there is a will, there is sure to be a way, unless it is the Government's intention to raise as much revenue as possible from GST. If so, I have nothing to say. If not, I will give one very good reason why these essential goods and services should be exempted from GST. Currently, the GST rate stands at 3%. Come January, it will be increased to 5%. Five years later, maybe after the next general election, it may again be raised, perhaps to 7%, 9% or even 12%. I do not know how much higher it can go, but I am very certain that every percentage increase is going to affect everyone, but more so for the lower income, the poor, the unemployed and the retired. When GST is all-encompassing and raised even higher, it is going to make living in Singapore more miserable and create greater social inequality, resulting in resentment to Government institutions. Citizens need to eat and drink to live and survive. It will become unbearable for less well-off citizens just continuing to eke out an existence here. Their lives will become more miserable as they have less purchasing power.”
“It is clear that they will be one of the greatest beneficiaries of this tax cut. They earn very high income with zero risk of business failure attached. But for the private sector, I wholly support the cut in the corporate income tax. However, I feel that this ERC proposal is not bold enough. If countries like Germany, as cited, can reduce its corporate income tax from 40% to 25% in one year, we can do better than the miserable 4.5% cut over two years. We can be a lot bolder in cutting corporate income tax to keep us ahead of the competition. When a company has more retained profits, it will be bolder in employing more people, thus helping to create more jobs and helping the economy. If foreign companies intend to take advantage of this lower tax benefit and relocate to Singapore, their employees will have no choice but to move here too or they will face retrenchment back home in their country. There is no need for us to cut the top marginal personal income tax rate just to attract these companies to come over here. The Government should save on cutting top marginal personal income tax for the rich. By doing so, the Government will save $620 million every year. This saving can be used to offset a bigger and bolder cut in the corporate tax rate than the 2.5% recommended. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now move on to talk about GST. Many speakers here have talked about the effects of the increase in the GST rate and have asked to delay its implementation. There is also a suggestion that certain items be exempted from GST. The Government has said no. Like many Singaporeans, I do not understand why the Government is so unwilling to exempt essential staples from GST.”
“If they have to spend more of what they earn by paying more indirect taxes, like higher liquor charges and car costs, then they will not be interested to come to Singapore in the first place. These talents are not stupid. It does not make sense for them to save on direct personal income taxes but pay a bomb to own a branded car or a pigeon hole in the sky. Taxes are taxes, direct or indirect, it is cash outflow from the individual to the Government - be it income tax, GST, ERP, COEs or fees, it still adds to the Government's coffers. Therefore, we need more than personal income tax cuts to encourage talents here to help spur our economic activity and entrepreneurship. If the Government is genuine in wanting to encourage entrepreneurship through tax reductions, then it should consider waiving the tax liability of start-up business persons in the initial few years until their business is more stable and profitable. A larger "entrepreneurship income tax relief" can be introduced to help start-up smaller businessmen. It will definitely be more helpful than the top-end cut of 6% for already successful high income earners. Any tax waivers or rebates given to a new start-up business person will definitely help to plough back to help their business grow more and survive. How many entrepreneurs just starting out can make disposable income of more than $320,000 a year to qualify for the 6% cut in personal income tax? Not many! I personally do not know of any. Maybe the Government can give us some examples of which entrepreneur has achieved this. This will help more Singaporeans to emulate their success. Incidentally, not all high income earners are entrepreneurs. Many in Singapore happen to be working in the Government service.”
“Over the last 30 years of nation building, they had contributed in their own ways to help build Singapore into this developed society. They, the older workers, are retiring soon, or some of them have already retired. But they are going to continue to face paying GST right up to their deathbeds and even into their coffins. This is not right. The Government should look into how it can waive the GST completely for the retirees and senior citizens. They have done their share of duty to serve the country. We should recognise their contribution and exempt them from this tax burden in their twilight years. The Government may have recognised this problem and adjusted the pension allowance for retired civil servants. But how about many other retirees and blue collar workers from the private sector? I believe the Government can do a lot more for this generation of nation building senior citizens not from the civil service too. Next, coming to cuts in top-end personal income tax to 20%, I do not think that this is a useful move. The Minister had argued for a significant reduction as a means to attract international talents to work in Singapore and help create more jobs. Is that equation really that simple? I do not think so. I believe that talented high-income earners will not just flock to Singapore because of the lower individual tax rate. In any way, 20% is not attractive enough compared to other countries like Hong Kong. They will consider the total package. Factors like pay compensations, a more conducive living environment, cultural adaptations and other examples of cost of living, like car ownerships, will play a bigger consideration than simple tax cuts.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for his maiden Budget Statement. There are several proposals that I support. However, there are also some concerns that I would like to take this opportunity to raise. First, like several other MPs yesterday, I want to talk about the impact of the GST on the poor and the ageing Singaporean workers. Second, I disagree with cuts in the top marginal personal income tax as a means for promoting business. Third, the corporate tax cut is not bold enough to increase Singapore's competitiveness. Fourth, as Singapore moves towards greater indirect taxation, the anticipated impact of future GST increases should warrant exemption of essential goods and services from this tax. Last but not least, I support Prof. Chin's call on the Government to use the funds collected from the additional COEs to help HDB cover its car park building cost. As I study the impact in detail, I become more and more convinced that these Budget changes and the recommendations of the ERC are from the rich, by the rich and for the rich - to make the rich even richer. The income gap between the talented and the workers is going to widen drastically. More has to be done to help the poor, the unskilled and the untalented to cope with this rising wealth gap. Otherwise, in our effort to rebuild our economy, the social cohesion and fabric of our society will risk being threatened and crumble in the long run, leading to detrimental results. It is quite certain that after the five years of offset measures, the lower income and the ageing workers will become poorer, especially for the ageing workers who had been paying taxes in their younger days.”
“Sir, can I clarify that this new smaller class size, as what the Minister said, will actually help to improve the current emphasis on project work?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may ask the Minister how much time is given for the project work and project presentation, whether it is done during class time or outside class time, and whether a reduction in class size will actually help to give the students more time for more project work presentation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may ask the Minister whether the emphasis on project work has helped to reduce the emphasis on grade, if any?”
“Sir, can the Minister advise whether the petrol duty is also used as a form of vehicle control and usage?”
“The Minister has agreed that the short period given in the last election is unusual. Can the Minister give the assurance that this kind of short one-day notice between the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report and the dissolution of Parliament would not happen in future?”
“Can the Minister give us an update on the progress of the alternative search for water source?”
“Sir, the Leader of the House said I am a purist. I am not a purist. I did not object to the scheme of NCMP but my argument is that: do we need to have NMPs in the House in this first session of Parliament? My argument is that we do not need to, because the Government could show their sincerity in their action by allowing their people to speak up even more.”
“The question asked is, if the Government is not prepared to open up its Party and allow its Members to speak up and vote freely, how can it be genuine in wanting to open up society? Many Singaporeans are watching, silently waiting and hoping that the Government's action will match its words. Like a resident in Choa Chu Kang once remarked to me in Hokkien, "mai gong ka jue, zuo lai kua sheng". He said, "Do not talk so much. Do and show me first." The best action for the Government to convince its critics and the many young cynics out there is to free its Party Members completely from the constraints of the Whip. The PM had said no to this permanent lifting of the Whip. I disagree, but that is a decision of the governing Party and I have no say in it. However, I hope that it can be proven that there is no need for more NMPs to come in to help this fine team of MPs in the debates. We have already had NMPs for 10 to 12 years. Let us try for two years, for this Session of Parliament, without NMPs. If, at the end of two years, the Government MPs, ourselves included, fail to do a good job in airing alternative views or constructive dissent, then let me be the one to move the motion to have NMPs at the Second Session of this Parliament. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly believe that we must seize this opportunity to get rid of the growing cynicism in young Singaporeans. We can do it by allowing the MPs in this House to be genuinely critical. This is leadership by example. It will be the best way to convince Singaporeans that the Government is willing to stand corrected. I propose that we do without NMPs, Sir.”
“There are probably constraints and restraints by the Party's internal rules that do not allow them to vote against their Party leaders. This was confirmed again by the Prime Minister earlier. However, we have also heard from the PM that the Government is prepared to lift its Whip more often. This will free the current batch, as discussed, "the magnificent 7" and all the other 25 new MPs to be vigorous, to be more vigilant, in asking questions and debating the important policies, as what we have seen in the last five days. And I believe the new and old MPs will be able to do a good job, speaking what concerns their heart. Given more opportunities, there will be more alternative views to be presented in the months to come. In the last four days, we have also heard many Members talk about the scepticism and cynicism of youths towards the Government. Sir, it is the youths who are sceptics and cynics, and they cannot vote. So it does not mean that the 75% of the population who voted for the Government are not sceptics. Some of these youths have remarked to me that the Government introduced the NMP scheme to drown out the voice of the Opposition MPs. I do not see how that can be the case when we are so out-numbered. If there is a reason to drown out, it will be the presence of the PAP MPs who speak against us that will drown us out. The success of the NMP scheme shows the failure of the governing Party MPs in speaking up and being critical. To a certain extent, the impression of the public is that they need the NMPs to do the job for them because they cannot do it as Party members. The question on the minds of many Singaporeans, including myself, is whether the Government, when it talks about opening up society and engaging the young, is for real.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am speaking not in favour of the motion to have Nominated MPs in this session of Parliament. The PM had earlier in the debate lifted the PAP's Whip and allowed its Party Members to vote freely on this motion. This is excellent. Otherwise it is pointless for us t/o continue in the discussion. If the Whip is not lifted, the 82 Members would have only the "Yes" button to press when it comes to voting. This lifting of the Government Whip gives Members of the House a free choice to exercise their individual beliefs and philosophy. While I disagree with the PM on the Whip, I shall not debate it here. The question that is put before us now is whether there is a need for NMPs in this First Session of the Tenth Parliament. It is no longer a debate about the merits of the NMP scheme anymore. That has already been very well covered in the last two Parliament sessions, and by Dr Tan, Dr Wang, Mr Leong and Mr Davinder Singh earlier. The performance of past NMPs has also shown that the scheme works. Times have changed, however. What had worked in the past does not mean that it will continue to work in the future. The NMP scheme had worked in the past for two main reasons. First, the Special Select Committee did a good job in selecting outspoken but sensible critics. But, more importantly, there was, in my opinion, a gap, a niche that past NMPs had fulfilled. That niche is to generate debate and critical evaluation of the Bills that were presented. At most, MPs, again in my humble opinion, might have failed to perform effectively. It could be due to the Whip or the presence of the Whip, and the lack of consistency between speaking up against a policy and, yet, voting for it at the end of the day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may ask the Minister of State, when will plans for the additional step-down facilities be implemented? When can we see the step-down facilities be done and in what percentage are we talking about?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister if there are plans for more step-down care services to be provided.”
“It is very important for the Government to respect their desires and work closely with us to close this political divide. Singapore is a very small and vulnerable country. It is very important for all of us to be objective, level-headed and not be adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. In summing up, Mr Speaker, Sir, being a non-Government party Member, and being the youngest in this House, I have spoken my mind without fear or favour. Now, I volunteer my services to the sub-committees in the remaking of Singapore and its economy. Will I be invited to participate? Or will we be excluded? I would like to look forward to a good working relationship with all Members to restructure and prosper Singapore in this uncertain world. Sir, with that, I support the motion to thank the President for his Speech.”
“Something must be done once and for all to convince our voters that their votes are really secret. The best way is to completely remove the serial number at the back of the ballot papers. Deputy Prime Minister Lee had mentioned before the last General Elections the introduction of the Fair Competition Act. It is very much our hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Act will also cover fair competition in the area of politics. In line with that, the Elections Department should come under the jurisdiction of the President, instead of the Prime Minister's Office. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House, during the debate on the motion for nomination of NMPs in the Ninth Parliament, said, and I quote: "As Opposition Members, they will generally take an adversarial position in the debates though sometimes they have been constructive." Sir, by definition, I am from the Opposition. However, what am I opposing? We do not oppose for the sake of opposing. What is there to oppose if a policy is for the good of the people? If it is not good for the people or the country, I believe many Government party members will join me in opposing such a policy. Are they then considered the Opposition as well? The General Elections are long over. Seventy-five percent of the voting population voted for the governing party. The rest have rejected it and voted for the Opposition. Whatever the reasons, it is time for us to rise above party politics and work together for the common good. My alliance Chairman, Mr Chiam, had expressed that here is an important role for us to play as non-PAP MPs. Sir, I believe that role is to represent the sizeable minority of the population who have supported us.”
“They are either not given the right opportunity or not empowered to exercise their talents. It is important that we put greater emphasis in developing this talent pool. We need to develop a stronger sense of belonging. Specifically, Singaporeans must have special privileges and rights that they hold dear in Singapore. If they decide to migrate overseas, they will forfeit these rights. Sir, let us all think of ways to build more privileges and rights for Singaporeans, so that even international talents may be attracted to become our citizens. More than just political renewal Mr Speaker, Sir, the President talked about political renewal. I think we need more than that. Ms Irene Ng yesterday had talked about the four divides. Today, I will add the fifth divide to it - the political divide, ie, the divide in the population between hardcore Opposition supporters and the Government. Fair political competition in Singapore is almost non-existent, and so are constructive and rational non-governing political parties. Singaporeans want and hope that the General Elections will be fairer. The use of threats and goodies, together with the last-minute announcement of new electoral boundaries, does not make elections fair to non-governing party candidates. Other than being known as kiasu and kiasi, Singaporeans are also known to kia zhenhu. They are afraid of offending the governing party based on - please correct me if I am wrong - the unfounded belief that their livelihood would be jeopardised. This is especially so when the ballot papers have serial numbers on the back. It does not help to build confidence in the electoral process, especially when the vote could potentially be traced through the serial numbers.”
“" It is high time to set in motion this bottoms-up approach - to spend more time engaging and listening to the people, to understand their concerns and aspirations; to be more sensitive to their needs and wants. A good way to start this bottoms-up approach is by having each Residents Committee (RC) and its Chairman elected by the residents themselves. Currently, it is being appointed by the MP, and for most residents they would not know who are the Chairmen of the RCs. By being elected, they will get to know the residents better, earn their respect and be their voice to Government officials. This interaction between the community and the Government will definitely build a more dynamic society. The Government must trust the people and allow them to help shape policies that affect their lives. By empowering the people to make wise decisions, Singaporeans will be more supportive and pursue these policies wholeheartedly. (c) Develop a sense of belonging for Singaporeans Regarding the President's Speech on "international talent", I agree it is important to attract these talents to Singapore. I applaud the President for his use of the term `international' over the often-controversial phrase `foreign talents'. I believe that not all foreigners are that talented. Some are just more outspoken or better in packaging themselves. In Jack Neo's movie, political satire, "I Not Stupid", the expatriate is only holding a very junior position in his home country and not very creative. But he became the creative director in the show because he is an expatriate. We must correct and stop this assumption that all foreigners are talented. Many are not. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many young Singaporeans who are equally, if not more talented.”
“We must let our citizens feel real ownership of our society, not just physical ownership. As leaders, we must learn to agree to disagree. We can disagree professionally but we must always work together to uphold the decisions of the majority, while considering the concerns of the minority. This will provide the social glue for a more cohesive society. Politics is very discouraging for the young, especially for those on the opposite side of the governing party. In past elections, there were many settling of scores and law suits. This does not make a more gracious or cohesive society, especially when it is seen as a big Goliath bullying a small David. Sir, I believe as national leaders, we should learn to be more forgiving of political opponents. We should give more leeway for the heat generated during an electoral contest, and not make a big issue out of a molehill. We should be more magnanimous to those who spoke out and are highly critical of us. For instance, I am on talking terms with my political opponent, Prof. Low, from Chua Chu Kang. I respect him - he is not here - for his electoral victory, but I shall continue to work the ground and try to win the support of the residents there. This is civil competition. It is healthy and should be encouraged. "May the best person win" should be the motto of our society. This is the spirit of meritocracy. (b) Adopt a balanced approach to managing society Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to take on a balanced approach to society. I believe that our society has been over-managed to the extent that Senior Minister complained there is little buzz. The Government has been taking a very top-down approach in managing our society. I agree very much with the President's view that, and I quote: "We must open up more space for Singaporeans.”
“A safe and encouraging environment must be present for children to ask questions and speak their mind. This should be the priority in our schools. The Education Ministry must seriously look into this. It is not healthy for young Singaporeans to learn to keep their mouths shut - like the fishes in Jack Neo's movie "I Not Stupid". To have a questioning mind is the beginning of wisdom. It is more important than constant mugging for examinations or the memorising of facts and figures. We must give our only natural resource, that is, our human talents, a lot more care, encouragement and empowerment to bring them to their full potential. Although not all will turn out to be another Mr Sim Wong Hoo, at the very least, they will be equipped with the correct thinking skills to be creative thinkers. The art of asking questions will definitely kick start the thinking process, foster initiative and a sense of ownership of the problems on hand. It will break our infamous attitude of kiasu and kiasi that Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned on Monday. I strongly believe that a "thinking person" will be a model citizen with the `spirit of resilience and self-sufficiency' that Dr Ng Eng Hen mentioned on Monday. Their first instinct will not be to run to the MPs to ask for help, but to think of the problems, and to take the initiative to solve the problems themselves. This will certainly boost the brand name of our Singaporean professionals and managers. Building social cohesion (a) Develop a more tolerant, magnanimous and forgiving culture Mr Speaker, Sir, now I would like to move on to talk about building social cohesion. To continue to develop this culture of creativity and initiative, we must restructure our society and political system, allow for differences in thinking and attitudes.”
“Therefore, in the interim measures to make Singapore competitive, the Government should take the lead to lower these burdens and adjust them to a more competitive level. This is the best immediate way to help reduce business costs. Developing a creative thinking society For the longer term, we need greater initiative to develop more unique products and services that we can export. To achieve this, we must be free to think. Look at the USA - their emphasis on creativity and a free-thinking society have paid off very well economically. Creativity is the current buzzword in education and society. What actually constitutes creativity? Sir, I believe there are two types of creativity - artistic and thinking. I cannot speak for artistic creativity, but thinking creativity is something that we can nurture and build upon. To be a nation of creative thinkers, we must first start by getting our citizens to ask the question "Why". For example, why must we rely so heavily on Malaysia for water? Why must we fear China's economic growth? Can there not be a better solution to what the Ministers proposed? There must be other fresh solutions to Singapore's many challenges. Mr Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology must be spending a lot of time thinking, "What new products can I market to the world? How can I improve on the sound blaster card?" Sir, it is through the questioning attitude that opens our mindset to the possibility of looking for solutions out of the box. Had Sir Isaac Newton not asked, "Why did the apple drop from the tree?", he would not have gone on to discover the laws of gravity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Wee Siew Kim, that for a truly questioning mind to be developed, it has to start from a young age.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC. The President has reflected a very tough external environment and has laid out several present and future challenges for Singapore. I would like, first, to comment on economic restructuring and why we need to develop a society of creative thinkers, before moving on to propose ways to build social cohesion. I will end by arguing why there is a need for more than just political renewal. Economic restructuring and developing a society of creative thinkers It is well known that Singapore's economy is highly dependent on electronics and manufacturing. The manufacturing sector has served Singapore very well in the last several decades. We have virtually exported our way out, from a third world to that of a developed nation. Credit is due and must be given to the founding leaders for their wisdom and foresight in pursuing this policy. Reducing business cost However, times have changed. We are now a developed economy and cost is awfully high. We are expensive and no longer cost-competitive. Our manufacturers cannot compete efficiently in terms of pricing alone. We are trying to move up the value chain and technological expertise. However, these are just ways to stall for time before other countries, like China, catch up. In the meantime, we need to look into ways to reduce the high cost of doing business in Singapore. Most of these high costs, like licence fees, public service charges, land cost, rental, direct and indirect taxes, transport cost and so on, can be traced to the Government. Like Mr Ravindran said, I also wonder if the public service departments are recovering costs, or making huge profits.”