CNA Political Debate
-
Just watched the repeat telecast. Tharman and Josephine Teo brought up a lot of statistics about how they're helping the poor....it's such a different picture from the ground.
Tharman says that 85% of the bottom 20% own their flats. Yes, the reason why they own their flats is because all their savings have gone into these housing and that's why we still see old old $600 a month cleaners and old aunties and uncles picking cardboards.
JosephineTeo misses the point and says that 80% of the production operators in manufacturing are foreigners while 80% of managerial positions are singaporeans. If they were to remove foreigners, these foreign companies would move elsewhere. For fuck's sake, I think she completely missed the point. Nobody's asking for these unskilled or semi skilled workers to go, it's just that the managerial and professional positions....a lot are taken by pple from india, china and the phillippines. That's why there are so many unemployed PMETs.
Josephine Teo also mentioned that unemployment rate is very low at 2.1%. Well, if the sampling for the stats are based on residents, which includes PRs, then how many jobs are actually created for Singaporeans? We could have had a lot of locals unemployed but the percentage is mitigated by many other new PRs getting the jobs. The negative thing about such public debates is that they can quote any kind of figure they want and god knows it it's true?
Anyway, I think of the opposition members, only the males are worth listening to. Chiam's wife......she seems to talk without substance and expects the govt to get things done. At one point, she seemed to be opinionless and struggled to opine something out of thin air.
I really wished CSJ was on the show. Vincent, his replacement was pretty good though. He quoted the mas selamat incident, high ministerial salaries, said that PAP's productivity policy has failed etc. Good! He got balls!
Anyway, it has come to the point where sgporeans will just vote any opposition. I hope the PAP gets a tight tight slap on their faces this time.
-
Chiam wife, I dont really know what she is talking about.
Vincent is a outspoken person, calm and go straight to the point.
But seem like opp are unable to counter attack any comments thrown in by tharman or Jteo.
-
We need foriengers in Spore, that I agreed.
Especially foreigners set up their companies here and they need 100+ staff.
When they set up their operation here in Spore, they will bring their pple over here too. Of course local staff must be recruited. Here gain, local manager will either recruit locals or go for foreigners (cheaper).
That is the root of the problems.
-
It is easy to comment in hindsight.
But, even if they are better prepared and the croonies are being thrashed during the debate, will the scene be telecast ?
Or the debate is edited to show certain portion ?
It is a good start and hope more will come.
-
Opposition need to prepare , studied before taking this debate. Need to have solid proof.
I kind of feel very pity on the opp esp chiam wife, look at the notes she is holding..crumpled, Vincent is well prepared as you can see. WP also, he look calm and not nervious facing the paps.
Yeah maybe is has been edited? Nobody's know.
-
i think atobe mentioned this in TR; about tan howe liang's $100,000 medical bill. If got medifund, medishield and whatever medifark acting as safety nets, like what josephine teo claims, then why cases like this?
I think for such debates, they should put time slots at 3-4 hours. I will glue my face to the screen the entirety.
I'm most impressed with Vincent from SDP and Gerald from WP. Very systematic thinking. The Nazem from SDA sounds rather incoherent at times. Lina Chiam from SPP looks like she's bewildered...came to a point where Melissa Hyak had to ask what her party would do if they were govt. And she had to repeat the question three times in three different ways to her! Really bad impression but i hope people of PP will still vote her for husband's sake.
-
Best opposition speaker for the show
1) Vincent
2) Gerald
3) Lina
I think Vincent helped boost SDP's credibility by a lot today in the show.
I think he clearly expressed and lets the audience knows what SDP stands for.
Gerald probably a bit too nervous but nonetheless expressed what WP stands for.
Heard from others saying Lina works on the ground, probably. But if you notice her speech, she looks more like an auntie going to a seminar to learn more about the PAP.
The PKMS guy, I really dunno what to say. Like some normal uncle sent in to represent PKMS. I have to presume what he is trying to express, and sometimes he just blabbers off. Should have sent the young female candidate they introduced that day. She is better in her speech.
Looking forward to the Mandarin version today... -
Political parties' representatives debate on challenges facing Singapore. (CNA screenshot)
It was described as an "unedited", "uncut", "no holds barred" forum that would, for the first time in more than 20 years, pit four opposition parties' representatives against two People's Action Party (PAP) members.
But according to public reaction, some parties were clearly unprepared for their big moment on television, while others took the chance to shine.
Present at the debate entitled "A Political Forum on Singapore's Future" that was aired on Channel News Asia on Saturday night were:
- Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh Josephine Teo. Both are from the PAP.
- Lina Chiam, second vice-chairperson of the Singapore People's Party (SPP).
- Gerald Giam, assistant webmaster of the Workers' Party (WP).
- Mohamed Nazem Suki, assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA).
- Vincent Wijeysingha, assistant treasurer of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
The hour-long debate, which focused on Singapore's long-term and immediate challenges, touched on topics such as the rising cost of living, housing costs and influx of foreign workers, as well as what each party had to offer. It was moderated by TV presented Melissa Hyak.
Based on the people Yahoo! Singapore spoke to, and judging by the reaction online on platforms such as Twitter, the Workers' Party and Singapore Democratic Party emerged with the most credit.
Undergraduate Chew Rushan, 23, said she was "impressed" by Wijeysingha -- the son of former long-time Raffles Institution principal, Eugene -- who spoke "very clearly".
"After the forum, I even went to check out more about Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and what he does," she said.
Undergraduate Terence Lee, 24, also enjoyed the debate between Wijeysingha and Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
"They went at each other, they raised good points and counterpoints," he said.
The two participants crossed swords over topics such as whether basic services should be free of GST and if the standard of living is as good as the government says it is.
For instance, the minister said Singapore's median income is "much higher than anywhere else in Asia, apart from Japan" and the lower-end incomes and quality of life is "far higher than anywhere else in Asia".
"Just do a walking around test and you'll know what I mean," he said.
"No, I don't know what you mean," retorted Wijeysingha. "We walk around every week and I'm not sure whether our neighbourhoods are as you say they area... We see quite a different picture to the picture you've been painting."
WP's Giam, a former foreign services officer, also appeared to have won over some members of the public.
Retiree Steven Lye, who is in his 70s, said Giam fared the best of all the candidates.
"He was calm, very balanced and also very articulate and persuasive," he said, clearly impressed.
Lye added, "Nazem represented the ordinary folks well on housing and transport issues" while Wijeysingha had a "firm grasp of the issues and made his points well". Chiam, however, was "too hesitant and not very persuasive".
During the course of the debate, Chiam required the moderator to repeat a question to her several times before she responded. Others also felt the first-time candidate and wife of Potong Pasir incumbent Chiam See Tong failed to impress.
Microblogging platform Twitter lit up with people using the hashtag #sgCNAforum to discuss how each candidate performed.
Wakkaismusing tweeted, "am a tad disappointed with Lina Chiam… I fear for Potong Pasir."
Another seewhySEF went further by tweeting, "No wonder they said it's unedited. They wanted to humiliate certain individuals."
In an earlier interview with Today newspaper, Chiam said it was her first time in such a forum and she was "a bit nervous" initially.
Totallyguan also tweeted, "PAP needs a breakdown of their 'pretty' stats (statistics), SDA and SPP should have better speakers who do their homework and CNA should reduce PAP's two rep (representatives) to one."
Summarising the debate, thinkalexissg tweeted, "PAP won hands down... but pretty good Gerald & Vincent."
However, those looking for a robust debate were left a little disappointed.
Political observer and law lecturer Eugene Tan, who watched the forum, told Yahoo! Singapore, the reliance on a prepared text took away the cut-and-thrust of the debate and the arguments from the PAP were "as expected, not new," adding that the PAP participants were "not ruffled in any significant way".
The quality of the opposition participants "varied significantly," said Tan.
The party that stood out for him was WP. When it come to the debate on cost of living and foreign worker policy, Tan felt the party fared best among the opposition parties.
He said, by articulating their arguments in a dispassionate way, "they left a relatively good impression of being fair and balanced".
Others, however, were "active on criticism" but did not have clear or concrete suggestions.
In the end, these were the main points the different parties made to the watching audience.
PAP
- A team that is fair, proven, experienced and knows how to deal with crisis
- New leadership
SDA
- A government focused on public interest and not commercial interest
- Less foreign workers
SDP
- Turn public services (eg education, healthcare, housing) into non-profit services
- Cost of government (ministerial salary) to be reduced significantly
- Abolish GST for basic goods
- Singaporeans first policy
- Introduce minimum wage
SPP
- Build more universities to encourage learning; encourage lifelong learning
- Get schools to hold more talks for youth as platform for critical thinking; increase political awareness
- Increase number of hospital beds
- Take care of aged, marginalised citizens such as single mothers
WP
- An alternative government to ensure political checks and balances in government
Source:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/reaction-cna-forum-thumbs-workers-party-sdp-20110402-192024-072.html
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Just watched the repeat telecast. Tharman and Josephine Teo brought up a lot of statistics about how they're helping the poor....it's such a different picture from the ground.
Tharman says that 85% of the bottom 20% own their flats. Yes, the reason why they own their flats is because all their savings have gone into these housing and that's why we still see old old $600 a month cleaners and old aunties and uncles picking cardboards.
JosephineTeo misses the point and says that 80% of the production operators in manufacturing are foreigners while 80% of managerial positions are singaporeans. If they were to remove foreigners, these foreign companies would move elsewhere. For fuck's sake, I think she completely missed the point. Nobody's asking for these unskilled or semi skilled workers to go, it's just that the managerial and professional positions....a lot are taken by pple from india, china and the phillippines. That's why there are so many unemployed PMETs.
Josephine Teo also mentioned that unemployment rate is very low at 2.1%. Well, if the sampling for the stats are based on residents, which includes PRs, then how many jobs are actually created for Singaporeans? We could have had a lot of locals unemployed but the percentage is mitigated by many other new PRs getting the jobs. The negative thing about such public debates is that they can quote any kind of figure they want and god knows it it's true?
Anyway, I think of the opposition members, only the males are worth listening to. Chiam's wife......she seems to talk without substance and expects the govt to get things done. At one point, she seemed to be opinionless and struggled to opine something out of thin air.
I really wished CSJ was on the show. Vincent, his replacement was pretty good though. He quoted the mas selamat incident, high ministerial salaries, said that PAP's productivity policy has failed etc. Good! He got balls!
Anyway, it has come to the point where sgporeans will just vote any opposition. I hope the PAP gets a tight tight slap on their faces this time.
if CSJ is there, they need gukhas guards and some bouncer from IMH -
Did anyone catch the Political Debate on Ch 8 last night? Saw snippets of it and on first look, there wasn't any opposition that particularly impresses me.
__________
The Long-term Challenges of Singapore
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I am Zeng Yeli. Every political party in Singapore has activated its election machinery, in anticipation of General Election any time. This will be a watershed General Election. The number of SMCs has increased while some GRCs have become smaller. Also, the number of seats in Parliament has increased too. It is expected this General Election will be the most intense one in 2 decades.
That’s why MediaCorp took the opportunity to organise this political forum to allow representatives from each political party to discuss the long-term and short-term challenges facing Singapore. We hope this will improve the electorate’s understanding of each political party’s policy position. We have invited the ruling party (PAP) and 4 opposition parties to send representatives to participate in this forum and debate public policies face to face. However, the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) decided at the last minute not to send any representative.
Now, I will introduce the representatives of each political party. The People’s Action Party (PAP) is represented by Minister in Prime Minister’s Office Lim Swee Say and Member of Parliament Sam Tan. On the Opposition, there is Sebastian Teo of the National Solidarity Party (NSP), Alec Tok of the Reform Party (RP) and Koh Choong Yong of the Workers’ Party (WP).
According to rules of the forum, the ruling party PAP and the Opposition each has 50% to express its stance on public policies. After every representative has elaborated his stance, the next segment will be an unmoderated caucus for each representative to exchange views and debate policies. As moderator, my role is to ensure each representative will keep time quota and to keep the flow of debate on topic and civil. As such, I will disrupt the discussion if necessary.
The first segment of the forum is Singapore’s long-term challenges, which include economic growth, education for the next generation, future healthcare needs of the population and upgrading of urban facilities in Singapore.
Now I shall invite PAP representative Lim Swee Say to initiate the debate.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: Thank you, Yeli. Hi, everyone.
Singapore today is an excellent country. Our country is prosperous and stable, while Singaporeans have roofs over their heads and are secure in their jobs. Such an outcome is neither God-given nor achieved effortlessly. On the contrary, Singapore achieves this because the people are united and industrious while the government has foresight and is able to administrate effectively. We achieve this together through our hard work.
Reflecting on our future, will Singapore of tomorrow be better than the Singapore of today? This is the crux of the question for the coming General Election. We believe the challenges we face in the journey of nation-building will increase not only in numbers but also magnitude. The range of challenge includes food and shelter to education, healthcare, social development, economic growth and other aspects. On top of overcoming these challenges, there will also be more inertia from the electorate in response to new public policies that are designed to overcome the challenges faced by Singapore.
In another words, the success of the past wasn’t achieved effortlessly while it will be even harder to achieve success in the future. That’s why the mentality of the PAP is one that has no room for failure. We believe as long as the political environment of Singapore is stable while the people remains united and the Singapore government can administrate effectively, there is an insurance for Singaporeans against the future.
Moderator: Thank you, Minister. Your time has just lapsed. Now, it is time for the Opposition to respond. It is the turn of Sebastian Teo from the NSP. He also has 2 minutes.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: Thank you.
What challenges Singapore faces is a very wide topic, but it is definitely an area of concern for the People, so we must approach this topic from the angle of the People.
From various emerging phenomena, we know that some pockets of our citizen army of the Singapore Armed Force are unsure what they are fighting for, so wouldn’t it be timely for the government to examine the social cohesion and/or the sense of belonging in Singapore?
If there are more and more highly educated Singaporeans becoming taxi drivers shouldn’t the government be re-evaluating its labour policies and find the root of the problem?
If the Singapore government pursues a GDP growth while ordinary Singaporeans cannot share the fruits of this effort, shouldn’t we be examining what’s wrong with the national economy?
Also, despite contributing their youth to nation-building in the 60s and 70s, the elderly today are not self-sufficient. They have to sell their flats to raise money and implore their descendents to take care of them. They have no means to take care of themselves. Shouldn’t we examine the structure of society and find out what exactly has gone wrong in the challenge of aging population? Let’s take the opportunity to raise the debate on the aging population to next level.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr Teo. Next in line will be Alec Tok of the Reform Party. He will also have 2 minutes.
Alec Tok [RP]: Thank you, Moderator. Hi Everyone, I am Alec Tok of the Reform Party.
Although the RP only has a short history of 2-3 years, our members are very concerned on the issues faced by Singapore. They have personal and practical understanding of these issues. We also have views on the challenges faced by Singapore. In short, we have to find a new equilibrium in every aspect.
The first aspect to consider is whether there is any balance in the pursuit of economic growth. For example, Sebastian Teo of the NSP touched on whether GDP growth will lead to the betterment of the country at large. During the last 10 years, no ordinary Singaporeans were the beneficiaries of GDP growth. This is reflected by the statistics that average real wage has grown by 1% in the last 10 years. As a whole, Singapore has experienced growth but none of the benefits of growth have trickled down to ordinary Singaporeans. This is a very important problem and I hope we can spend this evening to debate this issue. Which is more important – the improvement of Singapore or the improvement of the People’s lives?
Moderator: Thank you, Mr Tok. We now invite Koh Choong Yong of the Workers’ Party to speak. He also has 2 minutes.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: The Workers’ Party believes the immediate challenges Singapore faces are: (1) whether GDP growth is beneficial for the people; (2) how to cultivate and develop the next generation; (3) the emerging social and healthcare needs of Singapore’s aging population; and (4) whether social welfare net is adequate and effective in catering to the underprivileged groups.
We believe that benefits of GDP growth should be shared equally by everyone and not a small class of Singaporeans. Citizens should have priority to national resources, so they wouldn’t feel second-class in Singapore.
On the economic front, we need to develop an entrepreneurial culture and facilitate economic opportunities to develop a local class of entrepreneurs, so that the national economy can evolve to the next level. We can begin through education: (1) foster curiosity and an interest in learning; (2) cultivate an attitude of endeavour and no fear towards failure; (3) move away from rote learning and rigid adherence to the examination system.
We believe the social safety net should be based on needs regardless of income status, so that no Singaporean will fall through the net and struggle for survival.
Moderator: You [Koh Choong Yong, WP] still have 30 more seconds.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: Then I will elaborate further on GDP growth. The benefits of economic growth are not distributed equitably. We understand that underprivileged groups need more assistance than any other social classes.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr Koh. Every party has expressed their stance. Now we have moved into the sub-segment of unmoderated caucus. This sub-segment lasts for 7 minutes. Sam Tan of the PAP has yet to speak, so this segment shall be initiated by him.
Sam Tan [PAP]: Thank you, Yelin.
Everyone knows that starting something is difficult and keeping it going is even harder. The success that Singapore has achieved over the past 50 years wasn’t achieved easily. It depended on government policies and support of the people. Precisely because the people and the government complemented each other in Singapore’s development, that’s why Singapore has transitioned itself from third word to first world. To even do a better job than we already had, we have set the bar very high.
This is why the Singapore government has initiated on many levels to seek and evaluate new policy directions, so as to strengthen its support for Singaporeans. On the economic front, we have to develop high growth industries domestically and enter Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with many countries, so that our merchants have more economic opportunities.
On the education front, we have to provide students with opportunities to explore and tailor the education system to their potential. The government has also initiated a set of public policies on healthcare, aging population and social development. However, the Singapore government cannot work alone. It requires the cooperation of the people for its policies to be effective.
Moderator: Sam Tan, your time is up. Now everyone else can speak up freely.
Alec Tok [RP]: If the reality is indeed as portrayed by the PAP, then the GDP growth experienced so far would be equitable, but this isn’t true. The rich-poor gap is one of Singapore’s key pressure points and it is gradually widening as we speak. If a citizen sees stellar economic growth rate in the national economy while the hole in his pocket is becoming bigger, why should he continue to support the policies of the Singapore government?
Moderator: Thank you. The other representatives shall speak now.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: I would like to touch on the topic of aging population. The aging population is a serious problem, but it didn’t begin yesterday. Based on demographic structure of the population, this problem should have been recognised twenty to thirty years ago. For the past twenty to thirty years, why hasn’t the Singapore government come out with anything concrete? If the government had anticipated the issue of aging population earlier, there wouldn’t be some pockets of the elderly population facing problems today.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: Sam Tan mentioned that starting something is difficult and keeping it going is even harder. However, he didn’t address whether the PAP approach for the past 50 years requires rethinking and injection of new ideas. The Singapore Parliament has been dominated by one party for a very long time. Since new challenges are increasingly complex, shouldn’t there be more Opposition voices in Parliament to boost the diversity of ideas and adopt a multi-faceted approach in Parliament to overcome these challenges?
Moderator: [Pointing to PAP] Either of you can respond.
Sam Tan [PAP]: Sebastian Teo has touched on the aging population. I used to work for the People’s Association in the 1980s, so I can vouch that the People’s Association has started working on this problem during the 1980s. During my time there, I have worked on many projects to the People’s Association on how to meet the needs of the elderly when the elderly constitutes for 1 in 5 people in Singapore in the year 2030. The ruling party has certainly made preparation for the day aging population confronts Singapore head-on. This is one strategic issue the PAP has considered as far back as 50 years ago.
Moderator: There is still 2 more minutes. Does anyone want to speak?
Sam Tan [PAP]: Can I? Just now…
Moderator: No, it is the Opposition’s turn.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: I would like to ask a question. In the blind pursuit of GDP growth, did the government consider there may be unwanted side effects? I believe high income groups receive all the benefits of this GDP growth while low income groups receive zero benefits. The 14% economic growth has no relevance to the lives of low income groups. Can both representatives from the PAP clarify what exactly is the government pursuing?
Moderator: Last one minute…
Alec Tok [RP]: If the PAP had considered the challenge of aging population 30 years ago, why did the PAP government decide that Singapore shall become a medical tourism hub? Wouldn’t this lead to a rise in healthcare cost?
Moderator: The last 20s shall be allocated to Sam Tan of the PAP.
Sam Tan [PAP]: I would like to address Koh Choong Yong’s assertion that country needs more Opposition voice in Parliament, so that Singapore can be governed better against emerging challenges. Administrating a country well doesn’t depend on the number of Opposition voices in Parliament, but whether the government can attract the best talent to join its ranks to serve the people. Just depending on Opposition voices alone isn’t sufficient for the betterment of Singapore.
Moderator: Time’s up. I would like to invite Minister Lim Swee Say to respond to the comments made so far. Minister, you have 2 minutes.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: The problems raised by the Opposition are not unique to Singapore. Aging population, widening income gap and inflation are problems faced globally. However, where Singapore is different from other countries is that the PAP not only discusses the problems, but also exercises practical policies to solve the problems.
For example, Singapore’s economy grew by 14.5% last year. Did this benefit the workers? What I saw was different from the Opposition because I am active in the trade unions. As a result of the economic growth, there was shortage in labour supply while bonuses for 2010 were far better than that of 2009.
On ageing population, the government has been deliberating on this problem many years, so I object the assertion that the government has never looked into it.
Which is more important – the country’s needs or the people’s need? Both are equally important, however there cannot be a family if there is no country. In another words, if a country does not progress, I believe it is definitely more difficult for the people to progress. The mission of the PAP is to serve the People and to overcome problems effectively for the People, so that workers have shelter and enjoy job security.
Moderator: Thank you, Minister. The first segment has ended. In the next segment, we will discuss the Cost of Living and the impact of Foreign Labour.
Translated by Donaldson Tan
-
Impact of Foreign Labour & the Cost of Living
Moderator: Welcome back to the Political Forum on Singapore’s Future. In this segment, we shall be discussing short-term challenges. According to a recent MediaCorp survey, every 1 in 2 Singaporeans considers the cost of living is the next most pressing issue after housing and foreign labour; and it will very likely have an impact on their voting choice. We now enter into an unmoderated caucus with a total time of 6 minutes. Now, timing begins.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: The WP believes there are many areas the government can intervene in curbing the rise in cost of living. For example, the supply of land, the collection of rent, taxes and other administrative charges by government agencies, Electronic Road Pricing, Goods & Service Tax, Road Tax, etc have some effect on the price level, so the government should not use the excuse of external factors to shred its responsibility on curbing inflation. Therefore, it should be a question of whether the government has the political will to combat the rise in the cost of living.
Alec Tok [RP]: One in every two Singaporeans finds the cost of living here too high. I can understand. Let me share my experience of living in New York City (NYC). Although the rent in NYC is much higher than that in Singapore, the purchasing power of New Yorkers are also much higher than Singaporeans. That’s why the Singapore Dollar (S$) is a lot smaller than the currencies of Europe and the United States. I would like to ask the PAP how it would respond to this comment.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: Cost of living encompasses food, shelter, clothing and transport. Housing and transport seem to be most pressing factors while various signs pointed out the problems of housing and transport arise from monopolies. For example, public transport is dominated by 2 operators while the Housing Development Board (HDB) is responsible for over 80% of the housing supply.
These 2 factors combined together make it increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to cope with the rising cost of living. On top of that, Singaporeans face wage depression due to labour competition by foreign workers. As such, life is especially difficult for the lower income group.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: Are you saying that the HDB in fulfilling its mission to provide housing for majority of Singaporeans is actually a bad thing?
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: No, it is not a bad thing, but the only 2 beneficiaries of high HDB prices are the government and foreign immigrants. To Singaporeans, high HDB prices doesn’t mean anything because we have to buy a new flat to replace the old flat we had sold to meet our housing needs. On the other hand, foreign immigrants can cash out on their residential properties when they return to their home countries. For the government and HDB, higher prices translate to more profit and stamp duties.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: The Workers’ Party believes that it is a good thing that 80% of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats, but finds that HDB flats are getting too expensive. Many people have told us they find HDB flats unaffordable. We believe there is a big gap between the cost of building a HDB flat and its market price. The selling price of a HDB flat should be based on a multiple of the median household income instead of utilising the market mechanism. Under such a non-market pricing regime, the price of HDB flats becomes regulated.
Alec Tok [RP]: I would like to add to Choong Yong’s point that the government is not only responsible for supplying land to HDB, but also provides housing loans. Under such an arrangement, it is inevitable that HDB price will go up.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: The PAP’s view and approach on housing policy consist of 3 points. The first point is that home ownership is the cornerstone of the housing policy.
The second point is there must be gradual appreciation in property prices. Why is this important for hdb price to appreciate gradually over time? Consider the hypothetical situation of a Singaporean who bought a HDB flat for $200,000. In 20 years time, would he benefit if the selling price is less than the price he bought today? If the Opposition thinks depreciation of HDB price is good, it can use this point as a platform to fight for more votes.
The third point is housing must affordable for young couples.
Moderator: Time’s up, Minister, but you will be allocated time to reflect on all the comments spoken in this segment. Now it is time for you to share your position on the cost of living and the impact of foreign labour.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: Inflation is indeed a key problem faced by Singapore. This year’s inflation rate will be higher than that of the last few years. The long-term outlook for inflation is expected to be higher than the inflation rate of the last 4 years. That’s why the PAP is very serious about this problem.
There are 2 ways to tackle the problem of inflation. Water located too far cannot be used to put out the fire nearby, so the government, through various mechanisms, put up assistance to lower income groups under the Grow & Share Package (Budget 2011). The rebates and the GST credits they receive would be able to offset the impact of inflation. The second way to tackle the problem of inflation is to boost productivity, so that the income level would rise. Job security, salary increment, sharing benefits and discipline enable Singaporeans to cope with inflation.
Moderator: Thank you minister. Now we proceed to next sub-segment on the impact of foreign labour. According to the same MediaCorp survey, 7 out of 10 voters expressed their concern on competition from foreign labour. We now enter an unmoderated caucus of 6 minutes to discuss this topic.
Alec Tok [RP]: On foreign immigrants, they are not only competing with Singaporeans for jobs, but also residential properties. Earlier on, Minister Lim said that the PAP would like to achieve steady growth in property prices, but the reality isn’t so. For the last 2 years, the lax foreign labour policy has resulted in many immigrants qualified to purchase HDB flats, thus HDB prices grew by 60% over the past 2 years.
Moderator: Now, it is time for Sam Tan of the PAP to speak.
Sam Tan [PAP]: Singapore’s progress is intrinsically linked to its economic development. The key reason for Singapore’s stellar economic growth for the last 10 years is twofold: (1) the government has been assisting workers to upgrade their skills, so they can earn higher salaries; (2) foreign talent and foreign workers take up the jobs that Singaporeans reject. These 2 factors are complementary and cannot do without each other. Hence, the crux of the question is not how many foreign immigrants are competing in our domestic labour market, but rather how we can achieve economic growth.
A more important point is when a country achieves excellent performance, how do we share the fruits of the economic growth among our workers and the rest of the electorate? This is why the Finance Minister was very generous in Budget 2011 to hand out S$66M to Singaporeans. We are able to do this because we are able to synergise the 2 pillars of economic growth – (1) Singaporean workers; and (2) Foreign labour.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: Fundamentally, the Workers’ Party does not oppose immigration and foreign labour. Foreign labour should make up for jobs that Singaporeans don’t want to fill. However, many Singaporeans now feel their jobs have been stolen by foreign labour. Moreover, the rate of absorbing immigration shouldn’t exceed the rate at which our basic infrastructure can cope with growing resident population. Singapore is so small. If we continue to take more immigrants, then basic infrastructure such as MRT and HDB flats would not be absorb the stress due to the growing immigrant population.
Moderator: Mr Teo, now it is your turn.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: If we don’t tighten the influx of foreign labour, there is no way we can rise the productivity of Singapore’s workers. Minister Lim’s approach of raising productivity level is actually quite difficult to comprehend. Firstly, competition from foreign labour leads to wage depression for Singaporean workers. Secondly, there is an impact on the quality of life here because the basic infrastructure wasn’t designed to cope with so many users considering the resident population increased from 3M to 5M. Did the ruling party take this into consideration when it liberalised the immigration policy? Inflation is also partially due to higher demand because there are more foreign immigrants in Singapore.
Moderator: Now, it is time for the PAP to respond.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: Mr Teo has mentioned that HDB price has rocketed in the past 2 years. The PAP is also very concerned on this development. This is why the Singapore government has implemented measures to cool the red-hot housing market and there appears to be sign of cooling in the housing market. It is impossible to avoid short-term turbulence in the housing market, but it is okay as long as there is long-term stable growth in housing prices.
Moderator: Would any of the Opposition like to speak?
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: I would like to ask why the government does not tighten the regulation on how local companies hire foreign labour. For example, the employer may have to prove that he is unable to hire a Singaporean worker before he is allowed to hire a foreign worker. The Australia government requires the employer to prove there he cannot find a domestic resident to fill the job before he is allowed to hire a foreign worker, while the foreign worker may find himself eligible to apply for Australia citizenship.
Alec Tok [RP]: Since Minister Lim is here, I would like to ask him this question: Residents feedback to us that it is baffling that the Reform Party calls for minimum wage legislation despite objection from the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC). Why does the NTUC object minimum wage legislation?
Moderator: Now we can invite the Minister to respond to the questions raised.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: There are many problems with the minimum wage legislation. If the minimum wage is set too low, many low-wage workers will continue to face many problems. If the minimum wage is set too high, many low-wage workers will loose their jobs. Hence, our approach is not to raise the minimum wage, but to raise the minimum skill level through retraining and skill upgrading, thus providing low-wage workers opportunities to earn higher wages.
On labour, the PAP and NTUC are unified in its view: if employment rate is high, then there is job security and prosperity. On one hand, we work to ensure unemployment rate is low. On the other hand, we work to ensure employment rate is high, so that job opportunities are abundant. There is a question I hope everyone here can consider calmly and rationally: while we can ban companies from hiring foreign labour, can we stop these companies from relocating overseas? In another words, it is a question of more or less foreign labour, and not zero foreign labour. There is no free flow of foreign labour into Singapore. On the contrary, the government’s approach is to raise the skills and productivity of Singaporean workers while raising the skill profile of the foreign labour in Singapore so that as a whole the Singapore workforce becomes more competitive.
Moderator: Time’s up. Thank you, Minister. Let’s take a short break. In the next segment, each party representative will summarise what has been discussed so far.
Translated by Donaldson Tan
-
Summary and Solutions to Singapore’s challenges
Moderator: Welcome back to the discussion at our Political Forum.
With regards to the challenges that Singapore faces in the short term and the long run, we have already listened to the arguments of the four political parties present. Now I would like to invite each party to propose solutions to those issues, so that the electorate will understand your policies. Everybody shall have 2 minutes to summarise.
First, I invite Sam Tan of the PAP.
Sam Tan [PAP]: Thank you Ms Zeng, thank you everybody. Now everything can be examined from a macro as well as a micro perspective, and of course we may have different views based on these different angles.
It’s like the hand of a man, which has five fingers. If we look at them separately, we may criticise, why is the thumb so fat, why is the ring finger so small (pointing at right little finger), and the middle finger so long. But if we combine all fingers together, so that they can unleash their power as one, then we will be able to handle anything, take up anything or let anything go at ease.
Government policies are the same. When you look at things separately, you may wonder why there are such differences in length and thickness, but when the policies are combined together, they will function as a whole. In the last 30 years, Singapore has managed to emerge from being a third-world country and upgrade into the first world, all because its policies have functioned as an integral whole. So this is something that we all should treasure, it is a reality that we need to understand.
Now in this coming General Election, the significance of what we are voting for, is not merely about people electing their representatives, but more importantly, it’s an election of our fourth-generation leaders. Therefore this General Election is a very important one, and the casting of one’s vote is a very important responsibility. This responsibility is in the hand of every citizen of the electorate.
I am convinced that the Singapore electorate should be able to look at this election very rationally, and decide which political party will be able to contribute to the prosperity and progress of Singapore in the next 50 years most effectively. This vote that is sacred, that is in their hand, will then be the wisest decision for themselves and for their next generation.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr Tan. Now we will have the National Solidarity Party to summarise their arguments. Mr Teo, please.
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: The slogan of the National Solidarity Party’s campaign is “Your Voice! Your Choice!”. So here we shall express three different voices to the ruling party.
The first is the voice of the elderly. They wish that after sacrificing their lifetime to sow the seeds of many trees from which we now enjoy the good fruits, they should be given reasonable care by the government. Another thing they wish to voice out is that hospital beds need to be increased. From what I know, since 1999 till now, we only have over 11,000 hospital beds, which have never been increased, that’s the situation.
The second voice is that of the workers. All enterprises should consider hiring local citizens, and wages should be tied to profits, one should not insist on keeping their wages down. Finally, it is a wish that our party would like to present to the ruling party. I hope that in this coming General Election, PAP will not make empty promises like signing ‘black cheques’.
From what I know, the cheque that was issued in year 2000 has still not been honoured. Back then, our Prime Minister, who is now our Senior Minister, said that in 10 years’ time, we would be able to enjoy a standard of living on par with Switzerland. But we didn’t have that. This time he is issuing another cheque, saying that in 10 years’ time, workers’ actual income will be increased by 30 per cent. I hope this time it is really something that can be honoured. This is the voice that I mean to present to everybody.
Moderator: Time’s up, Mr Teo. Thank you. Next, we have Alec Tok of the Reform Party to sum up. Time limit is again 2 minutes.
Alec Tok [RP]: The conviction of the Reform Party is very simple: The nation is its people. Can a country without its people be considered a nation?
Our mission is very simple too. We want public housing to return to what a young couple, a hardworking couple is able to own, a nest that they are able to buy. That is our mission.
Secondly, we want to make living expenses something that will really be within the control of Singaporeans.
Thirdly is that the low-income families we need to help most will all get proper assistance.
Lastly, the Reform Party hopes that CPF savings will be returned back to the our own control.
To sum it up, it’s again very simple, it is to enable those who wish to work, to work; to enable those who wish to buy a house, to buy a house; and to enable those who wish to retire, to retire.
The objective of the Reform Party is as simple as that. The nation is its people.
Moderator: You still have 30 seconds. Would you like to use up? Fine, thank you. Mr Koh, would you please summarise the viewpoints of Workers’ Party? Time is again 2 minutes.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: Just now we mentioned that to face up to challenges of the future, the parliament that promulgates its policies is a key point. Apart from what was mentioned, what the people should think about, is whether we still want a parliament that is completely dominated by PAP.
If, one day, the ruling party has declined, what should Singapore do? Will there be another group of people to take up the task of leading the country? Someone has asked Workers’ Party in another forum whether it is capable of substituting the government. Our reply was very honest, we said at the moment not. For setting up a substitute government is not something that can be done overnight, and WP would not make such a boast.
Our approach is to take things step by step, to first establish a rational, responsible and respected political party, to introduce candidates of high calibre at each election. However, the efforts on our part alone would not be enough. A candidate of high calibre would still need the help of the electorate to be sent into the parliament.
So one issue that the electorate should think about in this General Election is, for the sake of the future of the country and its people, should we not correct this situation of an overwhelming dominance? We need to have more candidates voted into the parliament, in order to form a counterweight to the ruling party. At the same time, we would also then be able to nurture leaders who will be to take up the formidable task of leading the country when the ruling party declines.
So in this coming General Election, what we have to do is to convince the people to send more WP candidates into the parliament, as a first major step for a more ideal political system, to ensure the future of Singapore. We hope more Singaporeans will understand how crucial this long-term challenge is. Support Workers’ Party, create a better Singapore with us.
Moderator: Time’s up. Thank you. Finally, we invite Minister Lim Swee Say to give a 2-minute summary.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: A healthy person does not mean that he would never ever fall ill. Similarly, someone who is ill does not mean he is unhealthy person. For whether one is healthy or not does not depend on the fact of whether he is ill or not; the question is whether it is a major or minor illness, whether he falls ill frequently or infrequently. If one’s illness is minor and infrequent, he is considered healthy; if the illness is major and frequent, then it’s unhealthy.
We feel that a country is the same. Of course, we have our imperfections, but on a whole, Singapore, Singapore as it is today, is indeed a healthy and strong Singapore. On this point, I believe even the opposition parties would not deny. Of course, looking into the future, the Singapore that we want to strive for is a more perfect Singapore. I can say confidently that we have not neglected in all these years the concerns of the elderly or of the common workers. That is why Singapore has full employment today. In the years to come, we will continue to improve.
WP asks what if PAP declines one day, there should be preparation for an opposition party to substitute. Actually, we have a different point of view, for what our country needs now, if we want to ensure our future, is not to wait for PAP to decline, to wait for opposition parties to replace it. Instead, we need to elect the best people into the parliament as soon as possible, for it is with good candidates elected into the parliament that we will have the best MPs possible, and with the best MPs, we will have the best cabinet, and with the best cabinet, we will have the best government to develop Singapore to its best.
Moderator: Minister Lim, time’s up. Thank you Minister and everyone who has participated in the discussion. Tonight, we have conducted a very meaningful debate of political views. We have heard voices of the ruling party and the opposition parties, their views on policies, and their approaches. The video of this discussion will be uploaded on the MediaCorp website. Thank you for watching this programme tonight. Goodbye.
Translated by Donaldson Tan
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
Best opposition speaker for the show
1) Vincent
2) Gerald
3) Lina
I think Vincent helped boost SDP's credibility by a lot today in the show.
I think he clearly expressed and lets the audience knows what SDP stands for.
Gerald probably a bit too nervous but nonetheless expressed what WP stands for.
Heard from others saying Lina works on the ground, probably. But if you notice her speech, she looks more like an auntie going to a seminar to learn more about the PAP.
The PKMS guy, I really dunno what to say. Like some normal uncle sent in to represent PKMS. I have to presume what he is trying to express, and sometimes he just blabbers off. Should have sent the young female candidate they introduced that day. She is better in her speech.
Looking forward to the Mandarin version today...
YES! A lot of my colleagues and I watch the 10pm telecast. We all also agreed that Vincent does a great job. He's well prepared and the stuff he said are based on SDP planning and Chee's team's idea.While for Lina, she's probably a little stage fright. Gerald has the content, but probably need to be a little cool.
-
1 hour is too short.
We need at least 2 to 3 hours of live debate. No hold bars.
We need outspoken and systematic person such as vicent.
It would be even better if ltk or slyvia or even dr chee to be in this debate.
They are daring and speak out from their mind and the minds of sporean.
I dont like to see opp speak like tea tarik. They must speak with a punch and speak fearlessly regardless of who is the pap members.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Impact of Foreign Labour & the Cost of Living
Sebastian Teo [NSP]: No, it is not a bad thing, but the only 2 beneficiaries of high HDB prices are the government and foreign immigrants. To Singaporeans, high HDB prices doesn’t mean anything because we have to buy a new flat to replace the old flat we had sold to meet our housing needs. On the other hand, foreign immigrants can cash out on their residential properties when they return to their home countries. For the government and HDB, higher prices translate to more profit and stamp duties.
Koh Choong Yong [WP]: The Workers’ Party believes that it is a good thing that 80% of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats, but finds that HDB flats are getting too expensive. Many people have told us they find HDB flats unaffordable. We believe there is a big gap between the cost of building a HDB flat and its market price. The selling price of a HDB flat should be based on a multiple of the median household income instead of utilising the market mechanism. Under such a non-market pricing regime, the price of HDB flats becomes regulated.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: The PAP’s view and approach on housing policy consist of 3 points. The first point is that home ownership is the cornerstone of the housing policy.
The second point is there must be gradual appreciation in property prices. Why is this important for hdb price to appreciate gradually over time? Consider the hypothetical situation of a Singaporean who bought a HDB flat for $200,000. In 20 years time, would he benefit if the selling price is less than the price he bought today? If the Opposition thinks depreciation of HDB price is good, it can use this point as a platform to fight for more votes.
The third point is housing must affordable for young couples.
Lim Swee Say [PAP]: Mr Teo has mentioned that HDB price has rocketed in the past 2 years. The PAP is also very concerned on this development. This is why the Singapore government has implemented measures to cool the red-hot housing market and there appears to be sign of cooling in the housing market. It is impossible to avoid short-term turbulence in the housing market, but it is okay as long as there is long-term stable growth in housing prices.
Translated by Donaldson Tan
Let's read the lines in blue again and slightly go through in easy point format.
1. Singaporeans need to buy house to sell house.
2. Foreigners cash out when leaving/quitting the country.
I can understand gradual inflation. The property that I currently owned has now appreciated by 100% in 6 years. My income had appreciated by 50% in the same number of years.
Is this a long stable growth?
Assuming I try to buy my current property now, as compared to purchasing it before. I would not be able to own my current property and have to settle for something smaller/remote.
Taking the same measure again, if I would to wait another 6 years more, I would not be able to afford anything.
-
Let's all think looooong term and ask: what about our children? what about when I retire?
Can I cash out my HDB and retire when I'm old? Will HDB allow that to happen en masse since standard of living by retirement would have gone sky high and people want money?
-
No opposition talk about the future generation.....the future children.
-
Every HDB by 2040 would be about $1m? And if Singaporeans are allowed to cash out, that would go into trillions. Food for thought huh.
-
CNA excludes SDP again 
Monday, 04 April 2011 Singapore Democrats
Following
protests about our exclusion to Talking Point and other programmes,
Channel NewsAsia (CNA) finally extended an invitation to the SDP to its
forum which was aired last Saturday evening and on which Dr Vincent
Wijeysingha spoke for the party.
But now CNA's Chinese section is doing it again. At its televised debate last night, the SDP was excluded even as the PAP and other opposition parties were invited.
When we queried why this was so, we were told that the PAP, SPP and WP were invited “because there are elected representatives in the Parliament for these parties.” (See exchange of letters below).
The explanation makes no sense but we will leave that to another discussion. We later found out that the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the Reform Party (RP) were also on the programme. Both NSP and RP do not have MPs.
The Chinese programme reaches out to a very different segment of the electorate and it is important that a party contesting in a general election be given equal opportunity to communicate with all segments of the voting public.
Again, this discrimination is highly unfair to the SDP. All we ask for is for an even opportunity to address voters. We are confident that when the public sees and watches our candidates explaining our policies and platform they will support us.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this effort to give the Singapore Democrats minimal coverage.28 March 2011
Ms Lee Siew Hoon
Executive Editor
Channel NewsAsia
MediaCorp Pte Ltd
Dear Ms Lee,
I understand that CNA is also recording a programme where political parties are invited to discuss issues related to the general elections in Chinese.
As there is a significant segment of the electorate that speaks and watches only Chinese programmes, it is important that all political parties be allowed to reach out to these voters.
As such the SDP would like to be invited to speak at this Chinese programme, if there is indeed one.
Thank you.
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party(Translation of CNA's reply)
1 April 2011
Dear Mr Chee Soon Juan,
I am the producer of CNA's political forum: Singapore's Future. I am replying to your email sent to our executive editor of our news' desk, Ms Lee, on 28 March 2011.
The production of our political forums are in both English and Chinese. The PAP, SPP and WP were invited for both the English and Chinese forums, because there are elected representatives in the Parliament for these parties.
Attached you could find a Today article (dated 25 March 2011) with detailed background information about these 2 political forums for your references.
Thank you.
Yong Yih Min
(Reply from Mr Yong Yih Min)尊敬的�顺全先生，
æˆ‘æ˜¯æ–°ä¼ åª’èŠ‚ç›®ã€Šæ”¿æ²»è®ºå�›-æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„未æ�¥ã€‹å�Žè¯ç‰ˆçš„制作人，谨æ¤ç”å¤�您在2011å¹´3月28æ—¥å�‘给亚洲新闻å�°æ‰§è¡Œç¼–辑æ�Žç§€èŠ¬å°�å§�的电邮。
我们制作的政治论å�›èŠ‚目分为英è¯ç‰ˆå’Œå�Žè¯ç‰ˆã€‚由于人民行动党ã€�æ–°åŠ å�¡äººæ°‘党和工人党在国会ä¸æœ‰æ°‘é€‰ä»£è¡¨ï¼Œå› æ¤è¿™ä¸‰ä¸ªæ”¿å…šå�Œæ—¶å�—é‚€å�‚与å�Žè¯å’Œè‹±è¯è®ºå�›ã€‚《今日报》已ç»�于2011å¹´3月25日报é�“我们主办这两个政治论å�›çš„背景。谨æ¤é™„上报é�“，供您作å�‚考。
谢谢。
�毅� 敬上
制作人
ä¸æ–‡æ—¶äº‹ç»„
æ–°ä¼ åª’ç§�人有é™�å…¬å�¸ -
Dr Chee pls. Not Mr
-
Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:
Dr Chee pls. Not Mr
Pple fm d sinkapo medias when addressing others' salutation (esp opp members) wrongly, intentionally or otherwise, nid not / wldnt care 2 put it right.unlike:
mr jayakomar ........ im sorry, prof jayakomar ....etc etc
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Just watched the repeat telecast. Tharman and Josephine Teo brought up a lot of statistics about how they're helping the poor....it's such a different picture from the ground.
Tharman says that 85% of the bottom 20% own their flats. Yes, the reason why they own their flats is because all their savings have gone into these housing and that's why we still see old old $600 a month cleaners and old aunties and uncles picking cardboards.
JosephineTeo misses the point and says that 80% of the production operators in manufacturing are foreigners while 80% of managerial positions are singaporeans. If they were to remove foreigners, these foreign companies would move elsewhere. For fuck's sake, I think she completely missed the point. Nobody's asking for these unskilled or semi skilled workers to go, it's just that the managerial and professional positions....a lot are taken by pple from india, china and the phillippines. That's why there are so many unemployed PMETs.
Josephine Teo also mentioned that unemployment rate is very low at 2.1%. Well, if the sampling for the stats are based on residents, which includes PRs, then how many jobs are actually created for Singaporeans? We could have had a lot of locals unemployed but the percentage is mitigated by many other new PRs getting the jobs. The negative thing about such public debates is that they can quote any kind of figure they want and god knows it it's true?
yes, they are excellent in selective quoting. when discussing about unemployment, we all know what we are interested is unemployed singaporeans/total singaporeans. the way they dodge here a bit, there a bit, we know the truth may be this; oh this data is better there - got it; resident unemployment/total residents (includes PR as we know). and since some PR are from JB but work here so have no local address but with employment records.
when comparing public transport costs, they will quote hong kong, london. when talking about GST, suddenly hong kong (which has no GST) is not there anymore.
she was already caught once by the online citizen on selectively quoting germany unemployment benefits disadvantages to support claims of not favouring such benefits. as for the old uncles and aunties cleaners, we should also pity them. they also face competition of $300/month bangladeshi workers for their jobs. we may be facing same problem as them in future.
-
I dont like Dr Che but then I would love to see how he put his messages and debate across to the mps. Why they are not included by telling them they are not representative?
Maybe pap prefer those that is not too outspoken or dare not to question them out of the box? Or pap prefer to see the questions first then decide whether they can go on live debate so pap can prepare the script and read from the script?
-
Basically Dr Vincent brought up their team's plan accurately. If Dr Chee was there, he'll be the strongest speaker among all.
-
Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:
Basically Dr Vincent brought up their team's plan accurately. If Dr Chee was there, he'll be the strongest speaker among all.
He may ruin the opposition altogether, he would had shouted "BOTAK!! come here, tell the audiences where is our money you lost during the financial crisis!!"
