Can our MPs debate in parliament?
-
One day they will be "debating" who has the most healthy hair in parliament.
-
Actually Low is one of the most natural speakers I have seen. He is calm and his mind works extremely fast, typical of a debater. I'm very sure he would have no problems debating on national TV.
There was this time when a few PAP MPs ganged up on Low when he criticised the job credit scheme. He rebutted each and everyone with valid arguments. The most forgettable was Lim Swee Say's reply. Forgot what exactly but gave me the impression that he works within a certain framework and cannot think out of the box nor accept a varying opinion.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Actually Low is one of the most natural speakers I have seen. He is calm and his mind works extremely fast, typical of a debater. I'm very sure he would have no problems debating on national TV.
There was this time when a few PAP MPs ganged up on Low when he criticised the job credit scheme. He rebutted each and everyone with valid arguments. The most forgettable was Lim Swee Say's reply. Forgot what exactly but gave me the impression that he works within a certain framework and cannot think out of the box nor accept a varying opinion.
It was to be expected.
If it was Low who proposed the same scheme and the government did not support it, the incumbent party MPs would be blasting Low with all sorts of illogical arguments.
They are there just to oppose opposition MPs rather than fight for Singaporeans.
-
not surprising the PAP MP cannot debate. they are spoonfed into the parliament. they are babysit into the parliament help by the minister leading each GRC
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Got meh? NCMP is a lady, who is the best opposition loser, mind you. Unless you mean NMP, that is Nominated MP by officials.
My mistake. It should read NMP Calvin Cheng.
-
Opinion — NMP Calvin Cheng’s idea of having different levies for different industries may be well-intended, but his proposed solution on the issue of foreign workers in Singapore should definitely not be adopted.
Speaking during the budget debate, Mr. Cheng suggested that different foreign levies should be imposed for different industries in Singapore. Particularly, industries that have an inelastic supply curve of foreign workers — such as those of the construction and cleaning sector — should be imposed the highest foreign levies so that these firms may be pushed to increase their productivity and hire more locals.
Other industries, such as the manufacturing sector, should be dealt with in a more “gentler” manner, giving them more time to upgrade themselves.
Despite his well-intended solution, Mr. Cheng has undoubtedly perceived the situation incorrectly.
Firstly, the average and ordinary day-to-day Singaporean surely is not worried about foreign workers from Bangladeshi or China filling up positions in the construction or cleaning sector. In fact, many Singaporeans are thankful that these foreign workers are present to carry out the menial tasks of clearing the rubbish chutes or constructing a new building under the hot afternoon sun — a task that most Singaporeans deign not to do.
The average working Singaporean is definitely more concerned about the influx of foreign workers from India, China or even neighboring Philippines taking their jobs in the middle-class sectors away from them, simply because they are more willing to work the exact same hours, carrying out similar or even more tasks, for much lower pay.
I know of a mother earns a meager $1,200 a month works long hours a day, standing as a food promoter in a shopping mall for hours on end, in order to feed two of her children who are still schooling. Her husband lost his job as a salesman several years ago and has been unable to find a job since. She takes home barely above a thousand dollars every month after CPF, and lives from hand to mouth without any savings.
Fear of falling prey to a serious bout of illness concerns her everyday, but the major worry on her mind now are the workers from China that her boss is steadily employing across different branches, may soon come to eventually replace her one day. These foreign workers who are very willing to take home an income of $900 a month, able to stand for longer hours, and who are much younger and youthful — these are the exact source of worry for ordinary, day-to-day middle class Singaporeans who face the very brute reality of losing their income and jobs.
This scenario is being repeated across most middle-class jobs affecting the everyday Singaporean. Local call centers are hiring Filipino or Indian workers by the dozens, most who are willing to also work more for less, sacrificing the average Singaporean in the process. Simply call the helpline of your credit card company and the high chance is that a non-Singaporean will pick up the phone. This has definitely its resonance even in the upper management levels.
IT is these hardworking, humble and ordinary Singaporeans that the foreign levies should protect the most — certainly not by imposing a much heavier foreign levy on Bangladeshi rubbish chute cleaners or construction workers from China.
Because of their lower cost of living back home, most of these workers are willing to work more for less, because less here simply means, well, more back home. For $900 a month the average Filipino can live very well off back at home, but this is definitely not the case for the mother of two who needs to feed her primary school children and pay for their textbooks in Singapore.
The foreign levies should therefore really make it more expensive to hire these foreign workers who are causing the hardworking and average Singaporeans to lose their jobs in the middle-class sectors. The formula that the highest foreign levies should be imposed on the sectors that have the most inelastic dependence on foreign workers should not be adopted, for if it were all the middle-class working Singaporeans will be left exposed — and vulnerable to a very real threat of losing their jobs.
Singaporeans will end up having to sacrifice their income by being willing to be paid less in order to remain competitive. And these are the Singaporeans who bleed the colors of our country, and who serve national service for more than 2 years of their life, returning every year for in-camp training — Singaporeans for whom, Singapore is their one and only home.
And this is done not by imposing the highest levy on the Bangladeshi rubbish cleaner.
Productivity is certainly the buzzword of the Budget. Simply because it is an elegant and easy to understand word that fits in snugly into any formula to boost our economy.
For whoever can argue against the claim that “increasing productivity” is a bad thing?
But the question that should be asked in the face of Mr. Cheng’s solution is: whose productivity?
Mr. Cheng’s suggestion that the heaviest foreign levy should be imposed on the foreign cleaners and construction workers so that they may be pushed to “increase their productivity” should be considered against the backdrop of this question.
What difference does it make if the Bangladeshi worker beneath our HDB blocks can clear 20 rubbish bins per hour as opposed to 10 previously?
Surely, this is less important than increasing the productivity of say, Singaporeans in the manufacturing sector through a series of restructuring or training to increase their efficiency/workload management?
And while taxing these demand inelastic industries for foreign workers so that firms will “employ Singaporeans at a faster rate” sounds like a good suggestion, the question should be asked: exactly how many Singaporeans will want to clean rubbish chutes or carry bricks to construct new expensive condos in the city area?
Many of the buzzwords and propositions in the Budget are good-sounding.
“Increase productivity” and “hiring more Singaporeans” are but two of the many.
The challenge then is for the Singaporean to think through these proposals and examine them for what they are truly worth. It is without a doubt then only will we shatter the fallacious perception that these propositions are the infallible truth for all Singaporeans to subscribe to.
-
NMP talk cock la.....they are nominated by the PAP. So they'd better toe the line.
-
Let me just tell you from my HR resouces in IR, Philippinos service peoples are paid $1,800/per mth excluding OT and allowances with full boarding and air tickets. Now where are the singaporeans??
Now listen probably, i went to Universal studio recently, and i met my old poly mates who are in bunny suit, another few of them as usher and guest relation officer, all NTU and NUS graduates, paid range from $1200 net in bunny suit to $1800 net as officer. I wonder how come graduates are working as service peoples in Universal studio...if you dun believe, go down and ask them yourself. A total waste of talent and resources
Now, if graduated Singaporeans are taking merely $1200 to $1800, what do you expect from the lower educated Singaporeans??
-
Talk cock queen Josephine Teo also "infamous" bitching attack on Low Thia Khiang for the dependency ratio.
She is attacking for the sake of attacking, using the name and power of PAP to attack the opposition.
You call this PAP quality? Lanjiao lah!
-
Originally posted by dare82:
Talk cock queen Josephine Teo also "infamous" bitching attack on Low Thia Khiang for the dependency ratio.
She is attacking for the sake of attacking, using the name and power of PAP to attack the opposition.
You call this PAP quality? Lanjiao lah!
The other bitching master from the party is seng han tong who bitched and humiliated Low on national TV in the last election campaign. -
hopeless case this PAP.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Let me just tell you from my HR resouces in IR, Philippinos service peoples are paid $1,800/per mth excluding OT and allowances with full boarding and air tickets. Now where are the singaporeans??
Now listen probably, i went to Universal studio recently, and i met my old poly mates who are in bunny suit, another few of them as usher and guest relation officer, all NTU and NUS graduates, paid range from $1200 net in bunny suit to $1800 net as officer. I wonder how come graduates are working as service peoples in Universal studio...if you dun believe, go down and ask them yourself. A total waste of talent and resources
Now, if graduated Singaporeans are taking merely $1200 to $1800, what do you expect from the lower educated Singaporeans??
Your words contradict yourself, angie. Using your own words.
If the pinoy/pinay is paid $1,800 excl and a Singapore's graduate is paid merely $1,200 to $1,800, isn't there something seriously wrong somewhere?
A pinoy here who merely earns $900 can retire rich in the Philippines, taking into consideration the favourable exchange rate for them.What about the young Singaporean facing inflation, declining wage rate, nature of job shifting from permanent to temporary, declining CPF contribution, narrower economic cycles of boom and burst?
-
Originally posted by Fuck PAP & Lee Kuan Yew:
hopeless case this PAP.
People are loving it.hip hip hip , they are the winner!
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Just watched some videos on parliamentary debates in other democracies via temasekreview.com.
You know, in singapore, we grow up here without ever watching any parliamentary debates live. So we are conditioned to think that this is normal and it's ok if we don't watch the process on how these MPs improve the workings of Singapore.
And I realised a few years back that our so called "debates" in parliament are actually scripted beforehand. MPs have to submit their questions a few weeks before the parliament sessions so that the relevant MPs may craft their replies.
Shouldn't we citizens be allowed to participate, watch and listen to debates in parliament? Or are we just peasants who leave the running of the country to these MPs and just do their bidding if they say so.
Something's seriously lacking in this political system of ours.
The debate in parliament sould be more impromtu.There are many opportunites to make speeches outside the parliament.
-
I believe the founder of Singapore can debate the best. =)
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
I believe the founder of Singapore can debate the best. =)
Raffles.
-
the question should be can they debate in ten years time .
pssst! its about time. Time is the essence.
either u get what i mean or u don't.
oh mamee, help me!
-
Originally posted by dare82:
I thought Grace almost slept when Chiam was giving his CPF speeches in his stroked manner.
having menopause -
Originally posted by likedatosocan:
the question should be can they debate in ten years time .
pssst! its about time. Time is the essence.
either u get what i mean or u don't.
oh mamee, help me!
Can, why not, by that time, there will be mynmar, PRC, bangal, india, pinoy and many other intrepreters to help foreign Singapore MP. -
Originally posted by reyes:
not surprising the PAP MP cannot debate. they are spoonfed into the parliament. they are babysit into the parliament help by the minister leading each GRC
Of course, they know how to debate. But the system doesn't allow them to debate freely.
-
PRP
after watching the way they debate, i come to the conclusion that the whole thing was staged..........
whenever an issue was raised, the joker answering it seems to be expecting the question that was asked............you can hear it in his/her voice and argument................some can even quote % figures to support their argument, how could that be possible ???
no wonder so many MPs and ministers falling asleep in parliament becoz they already knew the ''script''............
-
Hope that they can debate on the current COE increase....
-
Originally posted by dare82:
Talk cock queen Josephine Teo also "infamous" bitching attack on Low Thia Khiang for the dependency ratio.
She is attacking for the sake of attacking, using the name and power of PAP to attack the opposition.
You call this PAP quality? Lanjiao lah!
Dependency ratio? But that can be (And has seen such, and people get charged for it) cases of "ghost workers", where these list of workers are fake, such as relatives, some tom, dick & harry employed and get a very little reward for using their names as part of the employee list, so that it is better than pay full fledged expensive "not so hardworking" Singaporeans.
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Dependency ratio? But that can be (And has seen such, and people get charged for it) cases of "ghost workers", where these list of workers are fake, such as relatives, some tom, dick & harry employed and get a very little reward for using their names as part of the employee list, so that it is better than pay full fledged expensive "not so hardworking" Singaporeans.
Ya I mean this was not the 1st time she attacked LTK.
Even during last year's 2009 Budget Debate, she also attacked LTK on the Jobs Credit Scheme.
I find her statements towards LTK irrelevant.
-
Can MP debate in parliament?
Obviously no la.