Below is the English Translation of the Mandarin Speech delivered by
Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, in Parliament on 25 May 2009.

Mr Speaker Sir,
For several decades, the United States has been leading the global economy as the locomotive for world economic growth. America’s capitalist system creates demand and promotes production of consumer products by encouraging consumerism bringing about value added economic development; it becomes the lifeline of global economic growth. Singapore is a new developing country with limited natural resources and lacks a sizeable domestic market; hence the only rational choice is for us is to attract MNCs and to sell goods produced locally in the market set up by them. It is through such economic strategy that Singapore is linked up with the global economy. With the stability and growth of wealth of the US economy in the past several decades, Singapore has also laid down a strong economic foundation. We are lucky, as apart from the Government’s correct economic policy and the people’s hard work and solidarity in pushing forward economic development, the relatively prolonged world economic stability also made it possible for Singapore to have sustained growth, to accumulate massive reserves and to carry out various infrastructure works to make Singapore a modern country.

The stability of the global economy has provided us space and opportunity for our economic development. We seized the opportunity and hence we are in a position to weather the gloomy global economic prospects confronting us now. I am confident that Singapore will be able to deal with the challenges brought about by the new global economic situation.

Economic Model
It is correct, in my opinion, to attract foreign investments, encourage competition in a free market, and open up our market to go global as this had allowed Singapore to integrate with the global economy. Although such an economic strategy makes us vulnerable to changes in the world economy, as how we are now being burdened by the US financial crisis which has impacted us more than other countries and experienced a steeper downturn than others, I believe we shall continue to prosper and advance when the global economic storm blows over. Hence, I am of view that our economic model is a basically sound one.

However, as the global economy changes, the slowdown and the emergence of protectionism have raised the issue of reviewing our economic development strategy. We have been dependent on MNCs, especially the manufacturing sector to provide job opportunities for our people. We also depended on these MNCs to sell products made in Singapore in global market. However, the rise of China and India and the increase in costs has made us less able to compete with low-cost countries. The world economic downturn, the slow growth and the drop in demand for products worldwide, have greatly undermined MNCs except in a few sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and the cutting-edge industries. We should therefore focus on our SMEs, particularly the knowledge-based and creative sector, as they will be our sunshine industries. The Government should boldly invest in such industries which have growth potential as we have done in our R&D sector, and help them globalise.

In addition, the fact that our business costs had gone up tremendously during the period of rapid growth, but have not been able adjust swiftly in response to the downturn, is a matter for concern. Although our economic problem is not due to rising costs but to falling demand this time round, whether a company is able to swiftly cut costs during a downturn is a critical factor in determining whether the company survives or not. While this year’s Budget did help to alleviate business costs to a certain extent, we have to look into a long-term plan using both macro and micro economic measures to prevent costs from rising rapidly during boom times but remaining high during a downturn.

Protecting the Lifestyle and Employment of Singapore Workers
The President mentioned in his Speech that new immigrants and foreign workers may cause concern because of unfamiliarity with their different accents and habits and because of competition in workplaces. I believe the crux of the issue is not the different accents and habits and the competition in workplaces, but of national identity. Those Singaporeans born after the war have been instilled with our national ethos. Male citizens have to undergo tough and rigorous military training in National Service so as to undertake the duty of protecting our home, defending our nation. Everyone knows the importance and necessity of making the sacrifices. During our nation-building, all contributed without grumble. But, when this generation of Singaporeans has aged and is not able to contribute as much as they did in the past, they are compared with foreign workers and labelled as soft and choosy in looking for jobs. The Government gave Singaporeans an impression that it even thinks that the moon in foreign countries is rounder and only foreigners are talents. Many Singaporeans will ask themselves what significance there is in being a Singaporean. Therefore, to avoid turning the “Singaporeans versus foreigners issue” into a political hot potato one day, the Government should clearly state its stand on the priority of safeguarding the interests of Singaporean workers first and foremost.

Our economic development model, in keeping up with changes in the world market, has resulted in our workers being unable to catch up with the pace of development. They are willing to work but are paid wages which cannot meet our high cost of living, or they may be thought too old for the jobs. This is the problem the Government should confront.

To strike a comparison between foreign workers and Singapore workers is neither fair nor practical. Many foreign workers come here to work mainly to earn money and when they have earned enough, they will return to their homeland to live there. Their families are not here. They can accept work conditions which may not comply with our employment laws. They are prepared to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day as long as they are paid adequate wages.In contrast, Singapore workers live here, have different costs of living and require time and space for family and leisure as well. Therefore, I would like the Government to consider reserving for Singapore workers certain jobs which require special licences, such as safety management, heavy crane drivers, tractors and bulldozer drivers.

During good economic times where there is labour shortage, it is inevitable for the Government to relax rules that restrict foreign workers to meet the demand for manpower. However, when facing a prolonged economic slowdown, the Government should change its mindset and review its policies accordingly. In this way, we would be able to maintain our labour force competitiveness and ensure that those who are displaced by the economic changes would be able to find a decent job. Although SPUR and other skill training schemes had provided some assurance to our workers, this is insufficient to calm the current wave of unemployment. I was told by a furniture painter that after training his foreign worker colleagues on the relevant skills, he was retrenched by the employer. Following which, he had undergone SPUR training but was still unemployed a few weeks after the training ended. Hence, it should be the priority of the Government now to ensure that workers are employed after the training so that such skills will not be wasted after training.

A Caring Society, Enhanced Social Cohesion
Singapore is not a big corporation or a private company. It is a country. Economic development is important, but as a small state with a small population, we cannot ignore other factors that can promote the sustainable growth and development of our country. One important factor is social cohesion.

In the 2006 debate on the Presidential Address, I had pointed out in my speech that income disparity will continue to be a challenge for us. The Government has subsequently implemented the Workfare Income Supplement scheme which has narrowed the income gap to a certain extent, but this is not enough to solve the problem in the long run. As we face global economic restructuring, we are likely to face a greater disparity between the two income groups. Different jobs demand different salaries in the global market; some jobs demand a high income while others continue to lag behind. This would ultimately result in the “M” model societal structure, where the middle-income group will lose out and the cushioning effect that it offers will gradually disappear. This is the challenge that we face in maintaining social cohesion.

I am of the view that social values would form the pillar of our social cohesion; they also support sustainable growth and development of our society. The Government should place on its agenda the building of a caring society. Policies should not be solely motivated by economy incentives and a person’s worth should not be measured solely based on economic value. For example, as we face an ageing population, medical and social welfare expenditure will increase inevitably. Yet in response to this, the Government’s attitude towards the need to increase medical expenditure for the elderly is merely to describe them as a “Silver Tsunami”.

To build a caring society, the Government must be more aware of the intrinsic values of its policies. For example, the Government is generous towards allocating budget for education expenditure, but it is taken to be an investment, meaning the Government expects returns in future. This gives the people an impression that it is the not Government’s duty to provide education for the young so as to ensure they have a bright future. If the same attitude explains why we also subsidize foreign students, this can be considered reasonable in principle, but the Government should let the people know what the returns for investing in these foreign students are. As for tertiary education, the Government is not willing to increase subsidy level because it feels that graduates will earn a high income after graduation; the government also attempts to justify the affordability of tertiary education by allowing the borrowing from parent’s CPF and grant of study loans for tuition fees. As such, these graduates are in debt before they even start work - this seems to be sending a message to our young that it is alright to spend future money.

As we face the change in economic condition, is the Government’s assumption that every graduate will have a good job waiting for him, thus it is not necessary to provide higher subsidy for tertiary education still valid? Should we re-look at the affordability of tertiary education fees? It is true, however, that we cannot depend solely on the Government to foster caring social values. I am of the view that everyone should play a part in daily life, to have civic awareness and open discussion on social values. In this regard, the new media can play an active role.

A Political System Based on Power To The People
Earlier, I mentioned that Singapore is a country, not a corporation or private company. The fundamental difference is that companies will be allowed to issue shares and the one who owns the most shares will be the biggest shareholder. They naturally serve on the board of directors as its chairman or directors and in turn appoint the CEO and management staff. They can exercise control over the operations of the company, and the means of livelihood of employees lies in their hands. Besides those who believe in the political theories perpetuated in autocratic monarchic states in the olden days, I believe that no citizen of the modern state in the 21st century will agree that political leaders own the majority of the country, the way shareholders own the company.

And so, every citizen should have a stake in the country and enjoy equal basic rights. Under this premise, the political system must be people-oriented, the will of the people expressed and the leaders chosen based on the will of the people. In addition, to ensure that the will of the people is respected by the leaders, to prevent monopoly of power and authority, or even amendment of the Constitution to ensure certain political groups perpetuate themselves in power, a system of checks and balances must be set in place. The Parliament comprises of ruling and opposition parties and Constitution provides for the separation of powers - legislature, executive and judiciary. This is the concept that underlies the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Singapore adopted the Westminster model framework upon independence and several amendments have been made to our Constitution since, some of which involved fundamental changes in our political system. Examples include the Elected President System and Group Representation Constituency (GRC) System. The purpose of raising this issue is with the hope that Singaporeans will understand the present by reviewing the past and not forget the origin and meaning of our political system. It was also mentioned by the President in his presidential speech that, “Singapore’s political system must evolve over time as our society change”.

The Presidential Speech highlighted that our political system encourages a strong and effective Government worthy of Singaporeans and responsive to the people’s needs and aspirations. This is an affirmation that is taken as an honour by the ruling party, supported by the results of the last election, where the ruling party won 67% of the votes. However, I wish to highlight that under the present system, the true effectiveness of our system lies in individual political leaders and not the political system with checks and balances built in to ensure its operational effectiveness.

We have had two Prime Ministers in the past. The transition of power was smooth, and this was the internal affair of the ruling party, similar to the replacements of leaderships in China. The ruling party controls the legislative process and can amend the Constitution at any time, retaining firm control of government machinery and state resources. Its power and resources far exceeds the power of any political party or non-governmental organization in the country; this is not in line with the doctrine of separation of powers. If, one day, the ruling party abuses its powers, tramples on civil rights or is guilty of corruption, what can the people do? So far, our system is yet to be tested. One day, should we experience a political crisis similar to that of Indonesia and Philippines where a strong and effective government collapses, would Singapore be able to withstand the test and survive? I am not sure.

Some feel that PAP leadership team constantly self-renews and our leaders show great foresight and appear honest and upright. But who can guarantee that the leaders will never fall victim to corruption? Can a high salary really keep corruption away? Maybe the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has a role to play, but as the CPIB is under the purview of the PMO as well, how can the CPIB play a checking role?

Some feel that we should not entertain imaginary or groundless fears; the ruling party will self-check, and it is impossible for all PAP members to collude and congregate like snakes and rats will. Even if the party breaks up, the remaining half can still rule the country. However, if we were to allow ourselves to reach such a plight, our political system would be greatly weakened by then. Therefore, the best plan is to reinforce external checks and balances into the system to avoid such situations from happening.

The role of an opposition party is to play the role of checks and balances so as to ensure that the system is effective, but until today, our opposition parties are incapable of giving full play to this role. Even during election times, we do not have enough opposition candidates to stand for election so that Singaporeans can exercise their voting rights. Therefore, our democratic political system is like a one-legged duck.

The ruling party said that it is not her role to help sustain the opposition party, or this is like throwing stones at one’s feet. This is the mentality of “the winner takes it all and the loser is a bandit.” But we cannot solely blame the ruling party. After all, the political system is the foundation of our country. Citizens should be concerned about this. Since the people have made their choice during elections and cast their votes for the PAP candidates, allowing the PAP to have control over amendments to the Constitution and elections, the PAP is supported by the vote of the people whereas opposition parties are unable to garner enough support from the people. Who can we blame?

Some blame the opposition for not doing their job well and not having talents. Maybe this is true. But if a person of noble aspirations does not join the opposition party due to whatever reason in the face of the realities of life, where do we get the talents? Even the ruling party cannot get talents, let alone the opposition parties! Even if we can find people of noble aspirations to stand for election, they may not be elected.

Some feel that the losing candidate from the opposition party can be appointed as a Non-Constituency Member and he or she can still represent the voices of people in Parliament. However, the role of the opposition party is not merely to reflect the feelings of the people; it has a functional role in the actual operation of our political system which is based on Westminster model to ensure that the political system can function soundly. In order for the opposition party to play the role, opposition party must be elected into Parliament so that it has the mandate from the people and can have sufficient resources to build the capability of the party to enable it to play the role. Non-Constituency Member is a representative of no constituency! An elected member has the backing of his constituency, he will also have physical space to organize events to widen the network of support and strengthen the capability of his party. Furthermore, elected members will get to hear from their constituents through weekly Meet-the People (MPS) sessions. Only by doing so can the Member have a good grasp of the issues and problems faced on the ground. Through making representation to the government authorities on behalf of his constituent, he can better understand whether a particular Government policy has been effectively implemented. Such real-life grassroots experience is very important in the cultivation of a rational and responsible opposition party. If we want opposition parties to be able to play its functional role in our political system, we need to give them the space and time to grow. To provide for a rainy day, we must prepare in times of political stability.

Conclusion
For a small country like Singapore to continue to survive in the geopolitical crevice of Southeast Asia, economically, we have to be ahead of others. It would be better if we could play an important role in bringing about economic development in the region. Militarily, we should possess defence technology of the superpower, and even be capable of exporting our weapons to neighbouring countries to help strengthen their defence capability. However, these are merely the hardware. Social cohesiveness, the people’s national identity, and the solidarity as a people in times of adversity are the software that would ensure the long term survival of Singapore. Whether the software can run smoothly would depend on the operating system of our country - the political system.

At this late stage of the debate on the President’s Address, I will focus on the coming security challenges, and evolving the political system including responding to the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday on changes to the system.

The coming security challenges

The security landscape of Singapore is set to become more demanding than ever in the coming months.

The opening of the 2 integrated resorts with casinos is just a few months away. This event has the potential to threaten the quality of life in Singapore for all of us if mishandled from a law and order perspective.

I am aware that the law enforcement agencies have been making extensive preparations for this event. The casinos will demand tremendous resources towards meeting criminal activity of an unprecedented nature in Singapore. Indeed, the MHA Addenda states that the Ministry is studying how overseas organisations deal with transnational crimes and criminal organisations, and strengthening measures against loan shark activity. It is foreseeable that police would need to have heavy presence both inside and outside the casinos, both in uniform and plainclothes, to battle the problems caused by foreign gangs, prostitution, illegal money-lending, money-laundering, casino fraud, robberies and thefts, among others. These are complex problems and our approach must be wholehearted from the beginning, otherwise it will be much more difficult to recover if organised crime takes root here.

In 2005 when the casinos were debated in the House and among the public, thousands such as the group called Families against the Casino Threat in Singapore (FACTS) campaigned against them. The government assured Singaporeans that measures would be put in place to reduce the collateral damage to society which the casinos would bring. The Home Affairs Minister told Singaporeans that the Ministry would do its best to keep Singapore safe and secure, which would need adequate resources.

Last August, when the House debated an adjournment motion on security lapses, the Second Home Affairs Minister showed a table of police-officer to population ratio in Singapore, Hongkong and New York. Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkong’s ratio and 55% of New York’s ratio. We were also told of huge numbers of ovetime hours clocked by Immigration officers. At that time, without counting the added demands of having the casinos, it was already acknowledged that the Home Team was stretched and strained, and unable to clear their leave, leading to a Human Factors study on operational fatigue within the Home Team. This study confirmed work overload and understaffing in several areas, even before the casinos are functional.

Since preparations for the casinos commenced, there has been further draw down on manpower as experienced officers have been drawn from other units to man the new units in charge of casino-related matters.

Meanwhile, our population of 4.84 million is expected to continue to grow, to a capacity of 6 million eventually. This population also has a high percentage of foreigners who bring new law enforcement challenges due to language and lifestyle differences.

In addition, on the community policing front, there is a public perception that police presence in housing estates has dropped from the levels in the 1990s when the Neighbourhood Police Posts were in full swing. This can be explained by the fall in intimate patrols such as foot and bicycle patrols, fewer house visits, and shortened NPP hours.

MHA’s Addenda states that it will recruit 1,500 additional officers into the Home Team as a whole, with these officers being spread to police, immigration and other units. Will this be sufficient to meet the challenges in the coming months and years? How does this figure compare with the findings of the Human Factors Study? Will Singaporeans find that the spillover effects from the casino were not sufficiently contained because of inadequate resources, leading to a deterioration in the quality of life in Singapore? The government must make these answers known in the coming months.

Evolving the political system

The Member for Hougang has already touched some aspects of why the existing political system cannot be said to be robust. He cited how the executive government controlled Parliament due to its overwhelming majority and why the only real check on the ruling party had to come from outside it through elected opposition Members.

Our firm belief is that it is the threatened or actual loss of elected seats which will temper the dominance of the ruling Party. More than any Parliamentary debate, this threat of loss of territory reminds the government of where its mandate comes from and that they govern at the will of the people. It also enables opposition MPs to prove that they are able to take care of constituents and work with them directly to improve their lives.

Some PAP members in this House have different views and they all believe that continued domination of the PAP in political, social and economic arenas of our society is the best way forward and best assurance of the future of Singapore. Some PAP MPs also believe that the PAP’s self checks to ensure a clean and non-corrupt government is the most viable approach, as opposition parties may becomes corrupt when they take over the government. We believe we can leave it to Singaporeans to judge and to decide whether they agree with this thesis.

I would like now to respond to the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday on changes to the political system.

Overall, my distinct impression is that the ruling party now realises that it has gone too far with the GRC system, and that this has affected the political development of its own MP s. The ruling party may also realise that the demise of the Opposition is not good for the PAP nor for Singapore.

Let me now move to the specific changes announced.

First, the proposals regarding the size of electoral constituencies. It is natural to welcome the formation of more SMCs, from the legal limit of 8 to 12. The Workers’ Party’s position still remains that we should revert the entire system to SMCs. Though the PAP’s claim is that GRCs ensure minority representation, we have seen that in Singapore’s past, minority candidates were elected as individuals, without any need for such affirmative actions. The PAP’s own minority Ministers and MP s, and the late Workers’ Party Secretary-General JB Jeyaretnam, are testament to this. Be that as it may, this increase from 8 to 12 is a step in the right direction as far as we are concerned.

Next, the indication that the size of GRCs will be reduced overall is overdue. It will ensure that each candidate identifies more with the voters and is more accountable for outcomes. It also lowers the barrier for electoral competition, which should in theory increase the likelihood of contest and enable more people to vote. However, this will mean extensive reconfigurations of existing boundaries, which will cause confusion among voters and affect the work of political parties. As such, the new configurations should be made and justified many months in advance of the elections.

I next refer to the proposal to assure at least 9 opposition members in Parliament through the NCMP scheme, up from the current legal default minimum of 3. Though this can never replace having elected opposition MPs, it is overall supportable because it will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for opposition candidates in significant numbers, which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system. It will also facilitate opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections.

Regarding the NMP scheme, the Workers’ Party continues to be against the scheme as we believe that MP s must contest the election as an essential precondition, to obtain some sort of mandate from the people.

There are still other unsatisfactory aspects of elections in Singapore which we believe should be changed. These include removing the Prime Minister’s Office from being in charge of elections and having an independent elections commission, and having greater transparency and public accountability in the way the electoral boundaries are drawn.

Nevertheless, overall, the Workers’ Party believes that the changes announced yesterday are improvements over the current system.

Finally, Sir, as the ultimate beneficiaries of such changes should be the people and not political parties, the people’s views on these changes should be actively sought before they are finalised.

议长先生，
美国在过去几十年来都是世界经济增长的火车头，引领全球经济的走向。美国的资本主义制度和以鼓励消费模式创造需求，促进消费品的生产从而拉动经济增值的方式成为全球经济的动脉。新加坡这个新兴小国，缺乏天然资源和国内市场，唯一的理性选择是吸引跨国企业，通过这些跨国企业所建立起来的市场销售在新加坡生产的产品。这个经济策略使我国的经济与世界经济接轨。在过去几十年间，随着美国和世界经济的稳定成长，我国也奠定了稳健的经济基础。新加坡的运气很好，除了政府推行正确的经济政策和人民努力工作，团结一致推动了我国的经济发展，长时期世界经济的相对稳定也使新加坡能够在过去几十年里持续发展，累积了雄厚的储备金，也在国内建设基础设施，发展成为现代化的新加坡。

全球经济环境的稳定使我们有发展的空间和机会，我国把握了这个机会，也因此使我们有条件应付未来全球经济环境充满阴霾的前景。我有信心新加坡能够应付新的环球经济环境所带来的挑战。
Read the rest of this entry »

The latest issue of the Workers’ Party Hammer (issue 0902) is published! WP members will be going to different locations in Singapore over the next few months as part of our outreach activities to bring the Hammer to members of the public. It will also be available at the Open House sessions every Monday from 8.00pm to 9.30pm (excluding public holidays) held at our Party HQ (click here for map).

The last issue, issue 0901 has been sold out and is now available online.

The Workers’ Party unequivocally condemns the fresh charges pressed by the Myanmar military regime against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Workers’ Party urges ASEAN, including the Singapore government to apply group pressure and influence on the Myanmar military regime to stop political harassment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and to free all of its political detainees.

The Workers’ Party further urges the pursuit of a peaceful and truly democratic process, to determine the collective will of the Myanmar people in their choice of government and the determination of their future.

Yaw Shin Leong
Organising Secretary
The Workers’ Party