Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (in Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in its policy speech delivered in magnificent words on 12th January, the PAP Government portrays a utopian phantasm aiming to confuse the people's attention while remains indifferent to the hardship presently facing them. As the Government was trying to mislead the people into believing an illusive vision, it so happened that the Lianhe Zaobao carried an article on 13th January by Wu Weicai, which promptly pull them back to the reality.

Titled "Poor People in a Paradise", this article succinctly reflected an important issue that people are concerned about. The people are concern about their livelihood problem, and this is exactly what the policy speech has glossed over.  Therefore, It is necessary for me to quote a few paragraphs to remind us that to many people, burdened as they are by hardship and lacking in economic freedom, the country which the policy speech tried to paint as a land of immense opportunities is a mere "castle in the air".

The writer began by saying that many Singaporeans are asking the same question: "Though I belong to the middle income group, why do I still feel the immense pressure of life?  I barely make ends meet.  If anything untoward happens, then I would definitely be plunged into dire straits.

After getting up in the morning, one finds that it costs money to pay for everything - medicine, education, transport, social amenities, utilities etc and the costs for all these are of such a high standard. Though our incomes are not meagre, a great chunk of it goes to pay for all these."

According to the author, although we may not have many poor people theoretically, for sure there are many people who have to pay a high price for a basic life-style.  As such, he said that, apart from the high income groups, the great majority of people are equally poor.  Why are we then landed in this so-called bizarre and absurdly poor condition?  His conclusion was that in a short span of time, the Government has raised the living standard indices too high. We strive for an advanced standard in everything. Hence, the cost for everything has gone up. Adding up the so called small adjustment here and there, of course people find it very stressful to live here.

What about social welfare? The writer points out that social welfare is not simply waiting to be fed by the society when you are old.  Transport, education, healthcare, communications, social services, culture, etc. - these are all part and parcel of the social welfare which are to be provided by the society. They are also the people’s basic rights. Let alone breakeven,, even if they are run at a loss such basic social amenities must be provided for adequately.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what the writer states in this article is exactly what the Workers’ Party refers to – "the phenomenon of the new poor".  If the Government does not face up to this problem and choose to talk grandiloquently about a promised land brimming with opportunities instead, what good would it do to the people who are struggling to make a living?

The Government has been very meticulous in its calculation. Public services are priced at a level "which the authorities assume that people are affordable to pay". Over-emphasising economic efficiency as the ultimate objects have driven people to bizarre poverty. It is a fact of life that they have to toil day in and day out just to sustain a bare minimum existence. Once they stop working, they go hungry. Having been guiled by the PAP Government’s publicity about asset enhancement schemes, many people have today become owners of negative assets.

  The Government has portrayed a so-called paradise, but there is no indication that the Government has any intention to help lighten the burden of the people's livelihood.  And faced with the uncertainties brought about by fierce global competition and more drastic economic fluctuations, many middle aged and elderly people are worried about their jobs.  Apart from the so-called training and retraining schemes, the PAP Government does not show any intention to review the current social safety net to better safeguard the people’s livelihood. Instead, we have seen that the labour law has recently been amended. The amendments to the legislation allow employers to ask for an exemption from paying overtime pay to workers. It is obvious that workers’ rights have been sacrificed under the pretext of "saving jobs". When such a thing happens people should stay vigilant against all the beautiful slogans which are sham and be prepared to safeguard and fight for our own rights.

The Government has turned public services into something driven purely by market forces and demonised social welfare. Such arbitrary actions not only harm the people’s livelihood, in the long run they will also hurt our nation-building and social development.

As our economy is being restructured, the Government constantly urges our people to be creative and innovative. Let me ask, "When the people are struggling hard to make a living and when they are uncertain about their jobs, will they have any spare energy, time, zest and courage to be creative and innovative? Will a society whose members are constantly worried about where their next meal will come from be conducive to encourage people in pursuing a career of their interest and talent but lack in economic values so that the talent of everyone will be best utilised?

Though an extremely liberal social welfare system has its pitfalls, a social welfare policy that centres on the needs of the people is not something that is as fearful as what the Government has all along tried to drum into the people’s mind. It may not undermine the people’s positive work ethic. For example, Finland in Northern Europe has been basically a social welfare state. Yet in a recent world economic competitiveness survey, it ranks number one. Its Nokia hand-phones are the world’s best. Will this serve as a wake-up call for the Government to break out from its rigid mindset and rethink about the need for safeguarding the welfare of the people?

To remake Singapore into a vibrant society filled with opportunities for all, the Government must first of all review our social welfare system and to have in place a social safety net for our people. Instead of giving out paltry sums of money like the New Singapore Shares and the Economic Restructuring Shares, why can the Government not make an all-round effort to reduce the burden of their livelihood and dispel their worries? A policy that allows them to have a respite and to keep their wealth with them instead of the government will produce the necessary conditions conducive to releasing their vigour and creativity. To build a compassionate society in which people mutually support one another, the Government should set a good example by forsaking the tenet that whatever services provided by the Government must be profit-oriented and based on cost recovery. The policy tenet should be people-oriented. Regrettably, we do not find the provision for any such possibility in the policy speech. People should therefore be prepared to keep on working like oxen and horses, and be fagged out to death in serving the Government .

Another topic which is not mentioned at all in the policy speech is the issue of political openness. All along in politics, the PAP Government has always maintained that " Liberty and rights impede economic development", thus emphasising the need for discipline and order, and the so called "Asian values". Under the guile of creating the necessary conditions for economic development they have suppressed the development of a civil society. But now it is obvious that, faced as we are with an ever increasingly fierce economic competition and the urgent need in transforming our economy, the PAP government has tacitly acknowledged that a vibrant and innovative society is a pre-requisite for our survival and continuous success. For the need of economic development, the PAP Government has no other alternative but to loosen its grip on society. But to maintain its power, the PAP has been hesitant and tentative in its approach. What measures that have been implemented are trivial things like permitting bar-top dancing, bungee jumping, extension of business hours of the night spots, etc. Real hallmarks of a free society, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the media and freedom of political action, are still regarded as out of bound. This policy speech of the third generation political leaders shows that they are still not able to break out of this narrow sense of party politics.

It cannot be denied that unbridled freedom could lead to disastrous consequences. But the problem we have now is that there are too many restrictions so much so that the society has lost its verve and vitality. People are too afraid to act. To reverse quickly such a mindset in our people we need to free ourselves from the fear of disorderliness and allow people the avenues to boldly show their views on the Government and its policies such as peaceful demonstrations. The Government should be bold enough to "cross the river by feeling the rocks" and not be hesitant at the riverbank. I believe our society can withstand any shocks that may come about as a result of such opening-up at the initial stage.

Viewed from the perspective of long term stability of a nation, I would say that an open and strong civil society will be a positive asset. Social supervision and citizens’ active participation would prevent the Government from being corrupt and help to improve the efficacy of Government policies. They may not necessarily lead to the weakening of Government functions. One example is Taiwan. To us, the Taiwanese democracy may look chaotic. But then why has the Taiwanese society not collapsed? Not only does its economy grow, its world ranking in competitiveness is as good as any nation. This is because there is a strong civil society there. It acts as a check and balance on politicians and takes on the key role of supporting the economy in Taiwan.

Of course, no one can rule out the possible turbulence that may result from the opening up of a society. To reduce such risks, we can enhance the people’s understanding of democracy through national education so that they learn to respect divergent views and be aware of the rights and privileges the Constitution confers on them and how to exercise such rights and privileges and to give them the confidence in exercising such rights.

The policies of a government are usually formulated on its assumptions of the people’s needs. But such assumed needs are not necessarily what the people really need. Just look at the present policy speech which does not take cognizance of the people’s real needs - their strong desire to lessen their life’s burden, If the people can effectively exercise their political rights, they could exert pressures on the Government to response to their needs. In this respect, things like public discussions, debates, criticisms and the protection of those who hold divergent views have significant roles in our participatory form of government. Therefore, the Government should further expand the space for citizens to take part in the political process, particularly for the intellectuals.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the new political and economic situation brought about by globalisation has posed a grave test for Singapore. While we may have more resources than we did when we were newly independent, the strong-arm governance by the PAP Government in the past has tended to make people timid and passive. Together with the weak civil society and a closed political environment , they have become a hindrance to further development.

The Government should boldly forsake its past thinking and allow a strong and vibrant civil society to emerge so that together we could face the challenges ahead. If we are not able to change Singaporeans’ mental attitude, we would not be able to overcome crises. At the same time, the Government should realise that economic development should not be our sole objective. The Government should alleviate the people’s burden in their livelihood so that upon meeting their basic need, they will still have the ability and energy and the freedom to pursue their interests in keeping with their talents and inclinations. This will help to raise the quality of their life, not just the standard of living.

The Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Prof. Amartya Sen, has said "Economic and political freedom help to reinforce one another, rather then being hostile to one another (as they are sometimes taken to be), …individual opportunities of economic and political participation help to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivation."

For the complete absence of political reform in the policy speech prepared by the new generation of leaders, I express my regret and worry.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (clarification): Thank you, Sir. I wish to clarify that I am fully aware of the pitfalls of a welfare state. Neither am I proposing a welfare state, as what the Prime Minister has said and he presumed it is from cradle to grave, from the moment you were born, you are there. Sir, I am sure that we can learn something from the Finland government, how they look after their own people, especially those who are unemployed. Currently, those who are unemployed are not under any kind of help schemes. They are left high and dry. With the Government resources, I am sure that the Government can provide a better social safety net to help those who are in need of help, thereby the people at least have some sense of security being a citizen of Singapore.

议长先生， 1 月 12 日行动党政府的施政方针，措辞堂皇，勾画出一幅乌托邦情境来模糊人民的视线，但却无视人民目前所面对的生活困境。当政府企图把人民导入一个子虚乌有的远景时，事有凑巧，《联合早报》在 1 月 13 日刊登了吴韦材先生的一篇文章，及时地把人们重新拉回现实的生活状态。

这篇名为《天堂花园里的“穷”人》的文章，言简意赅地反映了人民关心的一个重要课题，那就是民生的问题，而这也正是施政方针选择以轻描淡写来加以回避的问题。我有必要在这里引述几段，点醒大家在沉重的生活负担下，施政方针里那个充满机遇的家园对于许许多多缺乏经济自由的国人来说，到头来只会是一个空中楼阁，可望而不可即。

首先，文章的作者问：

“不少国人肯定都有同感：为何我的收入与一般人相比其实已属中等，却还是感到生活压迫极重，每月只能够勉强维持开销，而只要一旦发生事故就肯定会陷入困境？”

“早上刷了牙样样就是钱，医药、教育、交通、社管、能源，这些方面收费都“水平到位得很”，大家收入虽不算卑微，但薪水的一大块去了那里？”

作者的观察是：“新加坡也许真的没有那么多贫穷理论上的穷人，但肯定有着许许多多为基本生活付出高昂代价的人。”

他说：“除了尖端高收入者，我们大部分人的境况都是挺一致的，一样的“穷”。”

那又是什么原因导致人民陷入作者称之为“没有理由的荒诞贫穷”呢？

作者的结论是：“很简单，国家在很短时间内就将生活水平指数推得太高了，样样讲求先进水平，样样提高收费，处处涨一点，累积计算起来人民当然感觉吃力。”

那么，社会福利呢？

作者指出：“不是要老了等社会来喂饭才叫社会福利。交通、教育、医药、通讯、社管、能源、文化等等，这些都是社会福利的一部分，是社会的责任，也是人民的基本权利，别说“无偿”了，就算是“亏本”，这些基本条件社会也该做到位的。

议长先生，作者在这篇文章中所说的，就是工人党所提出的“新穷人”现象。如果政府不正视这个切实的问题而漠然视之，那高谈阔论建立一个充满机遇的家园对许多在生活线上挣扎的国人来说，又有什么意义呢？

政府一向来精打细算，斤斤计较，以“人民负担得起”为收费准则，以经济效益为最高目标的公共服务政策已将人民推向“荒诞的贫穷”，人民得终日劳劳碌碌，为生活奔波。手停口也停是我们当前现实的生活状态，更有不少人在行动党政府资产增值的宣传下，成为今天的负资产者。

政府在施政方针里只顾描绘一幅美丽的人间仙境，却没有蛛丝马迹显示出它有减轻人民生活压力的意愿，而面对全球化所带来的不确定性和更激烈的经济波动，中上年龄的国人更面对工作保障的问题，行动党政府除了高唱培训再培训之外，也丝毫没有要检讨当前的社会安全网，以更好地保障人民生活的迹象。有的是在这之前，我们看到的劳工法令的修订，修改后的条例允许企业申请豁免付给员工超时津贴。工人的权利和保障，已在“挽救工作机会”的前提下被牺牲了。面对这种具体的政策，人民应该了解一切再漂亮的口号都是虚假的，我们应该保持清醒，准备维护和争取自己的权益。

政府将公共服务市场化和社会福利妖魔化，一意孤行，不只祸及民生，长远来说也将会损害我们国家社会的发展。经济转型，政府天天高喊人民应该发挥创造力，但试问一个终日为生活奔波，手停口停，基本生活没有保障的社会能让民众有剩余的精力、时间、热情和勇气来释放他们的创造活力吗？一个生活上充满后顾之忧的社会能激励人们选择自己感兴趣和才华，但缺乏经济价值的道路，以达致人尽其才的社会吗？

虽然过度宽松的社会福利政策有其陷阱，但以国民福祉为中心的福利政策，并不一定就是行动党政府一路来在人民脑海中建构的如洪水猛兽般的恐怖，并不一定就会损害人民的工作积极性。举个例子，北欧的芬兰基本上是一个福利国家，但它在近日的一项环球经济竞争力调查中高踞榜首，而它的手机公司诺基亚更是国际手机业的佼佼者。这是否可作为一个让政府打破既定思维的案例，重新省思保障人民福利的政策的起点呢？

要打造一个充满机遇的家园，要新加坡成为一个充满活力和朝气十足的社会，行动党政府首先就应该检讨我们的社会福利保障制度，设置足够的社会安全网。与其发放杯水车薪似的所谓与民分享经济成长的新新加坡股票，经济重组股票等，为何不全面减轻人民的生活负担，消除人民在生活上的后顾之忧，采取让人民能修生养息，藏富于民的政策？这样才能创造条件让人民释放他们的活力和创造力。而要建立一个能互相扶持的温馨社会，政府更应该以身作则，放弃以功利和经济回收效益为目标的政策基调，树立以民为本的施政原则。

遗憾的是，施政方针很显然地排除了这种可能性，人民应该有继续做牛做马，为政府鞠躬尽瘁的心理准备。

另一个施政方针中选择只字不提的重要课题就是政治开放的问题。

长久以来，行动党政府在政治上坚持的是“自由与权利阻碍经济增长和发展”和强调纪律和秩序的所谓“亚洲价值观”；在经济发展所需条件的幌子下压制民间社会的发展，而今，很明显的，在面对日益激烈的经济竞争和经济转型的需要下，行动党已经默认一个具有活力和创意的社会是我们能否继续生存和成功的前提。为了经济发展的需要，行动党政府没有选择的余地，唯有替社会松绑，然而为了保护自身政权的利益，我们看到的依然是“欲拒还迎”，“犹抱琵琶半遮面”式的扭扭捏捏，其落实在政策上的就只是允许吧台跳舞、高空绑紧跳、延长夜店的营业时间等小动作，而真正体现一个自由社会的言论自由、结社自由、媒体自由、政治行动自由等依旧被视为禁区。第三代领导人的施政方针显然的也未能突破这种狭隘的政党思维。

无可否认，放纵的自由将导致灾难性的后果，但我们目前面对的问题是因过度管制而其积极性和活力被严重扼制的社会以及因众多顾忌而不敢放胆行动的民众。要迅速扭转这种不利于我们长远发展的国民心态，我们必须摆脱畏惧乱象，迷信秩序的老信念，进一步开放政治，容许人民以各种形式和行动来表达他们对政府及其政策的意见，包括示威游行，政府应该大胆的摸着石头过河，而不是老在岸边流连徘徊。我相信我们的社会能够承受得起进一步开放初期所带来的一些震荡。

而从确保国家长期稳定的角度出发，一个开放和强大的民间社会其实是正面的资产，社会的监督和积极的参与能防止政权的腐化以及协助改进政策的效果，而不一定会削弱政府的功能。举个例子，在我们的眼中，台湾的民主政治充满乱象，但为什么台湾的社会并没有因此而垮下来，其经济不只有增长，而且在环球竞争力报告中排名也不逊色？这全是因为台湾有一个力量强大的民间社会，它有效地制衡了政客以及主导和扶持了台湾的经济命脉。

当然，没有人能排除社会因开放而导致动乱的可能，要减低这风险，我们可以进行国民教育，加强人民对民主的认识和对不同言论立场的互相尊重，让人民理解宪法赋予他们的权利，以及如何在该权利的范围内履行国民的义务和维护自己的权益，加强人民行使政治权力的信心。

政府政策的拟定，建立在政府对人民需要的假定之上，而政府的假定并不一定就是人民的真正需要，例如眼前的施政方针就没有顾及人民减轻生活负担的强烈愿望，人民若能有效地行使其基本的政治权利，将能促使政策更有可能对人民的需要做出回应，而那些保障公开的讨论、辩论、批评以及保护持有不同意见者的权利的法律和政策，对于产生知情的、反映民意的政策选择过程，具有中心的意义，因此，政府应该进一步扩大国民参与政治的范围与性质，尤其是知识分子的参与。

议长先生，全球化带来的政经新格局使新加坡面对严峻的考验，尽管比起独立初期，我们有更充裕的资源，但过去行动党威权政治下塑造而成的被动和畏怯的人民心态、微弱和被动的民间社会以及闭塞的政治环境却是我们进一步发展的障碍。

政府必须大胆的打破过去的思维模式，容纳和促成一个强大和富有活力的民间社会，共同面对挑战，如果我们无法改变国民的精神面貌，我们将难以克服危机。同时，政府也应认识到经济发展不应是我们的唯一目标，政府应尽力减轻人民的生活负担，让人民在生存和温饱之余有能力和有精力，有经济的自由来发挥个人的潜能和才华，寻求个人的发展，提高生活质量而不只是生活水平。

诺贝尔经济学奖得主阿马蒂亚。森教授 (Amartya Sen) 曾指出；“经济自由和政治自由是相互增强，而不是相互对立的，经济和政治参与的个人机会，有助于培育我们的能动性来排除我们各自面临的剥夺。”

我对行动党政府这个跨世代的施政方针完全排除了政治上必要的改革，感到遗憾和担忧。