Ruling party not claiming a 'monopoly on wisdom'

Idea of a parliamentary debate must be that Opposition puts forward constructive suggestions, says Shanmugam
by Teo Xuanwei, TODAY, Oct 24, 2011

Coming off a week of intense debate in a House with an unprecedented number of Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), Foreign Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam acknowledged their role in finding improvements to government policies and programmes.

And to achieve this - which he highlighted as the purpose of parliamentary debates, in general - it is important that "constructive suggestions" are put forward.

"So all good ideas, we must take," he said, given that all elected MPs are representatives of the electorate's views and aspirations and with the ruling party not claiming a "monopoly on wisdom".

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had outlined on Thursday his administration's three broad goals over the next five years: An inclusive society where no Singaporean is left behind, a vibrant economy where growth benefits everyone and constructive politics that puts Singapore first.

Mr Shanmugam told reporters yesterday: "The Government has put forward its views, and the idea of a debate must be that the Opposition puts forward constructive suggestions on how the Government's agenda and policies and programmes can be improved."

He added: "We're facing headwinds around the world. How do we go together forward ... how do we make sure that everyone benefits from the growth, how can we increase real wages for people who have seen some stagnation in their wages?

"These are all issues, and the purpose of the whole debate is to try and bring forward constructive suggestions on how this can be done."

Extend skills upgrading to foreign workers

Extend skills upgrading to foreign workers

by Chia Siow Yue and Ng Pei Yi, TODAY, 24 Oct 2011

Foreign workers are a controversial yet essential factor in the Singapore economy. The recent General Election revealed resentment among voters over the perceived crowding-out of public spaces and services by foreigners. From a reverse perspective, there has been long-standing criticism that Singapore must do more to protect foreign workers from mistreatment.

The Government has given numerous assurances to Singaporeans that the influx of foreigners will be increasingly controlled and limited. Most recently, the Ministry of Manpower's Addendum to the President's Parliamentary Address affirmed this.

Businesses report that work permits are harder to obtain and anecdotes suggest that getting permanent residence too has become more difficult. On the supply side, there are clear signs that the traditional labour-sending countries are tightening up flows. Many other labour-receiving cities seek to attract both higher- and lower-skilled workers.

In view of both national concerns and trends from abroad, Singapore's foreign worker policies may need a relook. What would be the economic consequences? Will Singapore remain an open society that welcomes foreigners?

Amid the controversies, some realities need to be reinforced. The possible answers relate not simply to the number but also to the pace, productivity and protection of foreign workers.

HDB window retrofitting

Sers flats not exempted from window retrofitting: HDB
Letter from Heng-Ng Mien Joo Deputy Director (Projects & Development), Estate Administration & Property Department, Housing & Development Board
TODAY, Oct 24, 2011

We refer to Ms Goh Jen Loong's letter "More flexibility in retrofitting windows, please" (Oct 13), which asked about the need to retrofit the windows at her parents' flat after it was identified for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme.

Under the window retrofitting order issued on Oct 1, 2004, all home owners were required to retrofit casement windows with aluminium rivets by Sept 30, 2005. Hence, all residents, including those whose flats are announced for Sers, should have already done so.

Failure to comply is an offence, with a maximum penalty of a S$5,000 fine and/or a six-month imprisonment.

Sers flats are vacated progressively. Some windows of vacated flats may need to be opened occasionally while some residents are still living there. Hence, in the interest of public safety, we seek Ms Goh's understanding on the need to retrofit the windows.

It involves the replacement of aluminium rivets with stainless steel rivets. There is no need to replace the whole window.

Living a life with no regrets - Lee Wei Ling

When all is said and done, my father has led a meaningful and purposeful life

About 20 years ago, when I was still of marriageable age, my father Lee Kuan Yew had a serious conversation with me one day. He told me that he and my mother would benefit if I remained single and took care of them in their old age. But I would be lonely if I remained unmarried.

I replied: 'Better lonely than be trapped in a loveless marriage.'

I have never regretted my decision.

Twenty years later, I am still single. I still live with my father in my family home. But my priorities in life have changed somewhat.

Instead of frequent trips overseas by myself, to attend medical conferences or to go on hikes, I only travel with my father nowadays.

Like my mother did when she was alive, I accompany him so that I can keep an eye on him and also keep him company. After my mother became too ill to travel, he missed having a family member with whom he could speak frankly after a long tiring day of meetings.

At the age of 88, and recently widowed, he is less vigorous now than he was before May 2008 when my mother suffered a stroke. Since then I have watched him getting more frail as he watched my mother suffer. After my mother passed away, his health deteriorated further before recovering about three months ago.

He is aware that he can no longer function at the pace he could just four years ago. But he still insists on travelling to all corners of the Earth if he thinks his trips might benefit Singapore.

We are at present on a 16-day trip around the world. The first stop was Istanbul for the JPMorgan International Advisory Council meeting. We then spent two days in the countryside near Paris to relax. Then it was on to Washington DC, where, in addition to meetings at the White House, he received the Ford's Theatre Lincoln Medal.

As I am writing this on Thursday, we are in New York City where he has a dinner and a dialogue session with the Capital Group tonight, and Government of Singapore Investment Corporation meetings tomorrow. After that, we will spend the weekend at former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's country home in Connecticut. Influential Americans will be driving or flying in to meet my father over dinner on Saturday and lunch on Sunday.

Even for a healthy and fit man of 88, the above would be a formidable programme. For a recently widowed man who is still adjusting to the loss of his wife, and whose level of energy has been lowered, it is even more challenging.

But my father believes that we must carry on with life despite whatever personal setbacks we might suffer. If he can do something that might benefit Singapore, he will do so no matter what his age or the state of his health. For my part, I keep him company when he is not preoccupied with work, and I make sure he has enough rest.

Though I encourage him to exercise, I also dissuade him from over exerting himself. I remind him how he felt in May last year when, after returning from Tokyo, he delivered the eulogy at Dr Goh Keng Swee's funeral the next day.

He had exercised too much in the two days preceding the funeral, against my advice. So naturally, he felt tired, and certainly looked tired on stage, as he delivered his tribute to an old and treasured comrade-in-arms. A few of my friends were worried by how he looked and messaged me to ask if my father was OK. Now when I advise him not to push himself too hard, he listens.

The irony is I did not take my own advice at one time and it was he who stopped me from over-exercising. Once, in 2001, while I was recovering from a fracture of my femur, he limited my swimming. He went as far as to ask a security officer to time how long I swam. If I exceeded the time my physician had prescribed, even if it was just by a minute, he would give me a ticking off that evening.

Now the situation is reversed. But rather than finding it humorous, I feel sad about it.

Whether or not I am in the pink of health is of no consequence. I have no dependants, and Singapore will not suffer if I am gone. Perhaps my patients may miss me, but my fellow doctors at the National Neuroscience Institute can take over their care. But no one can fill my father's role for Singapore.

We have an extremely competent Cabinet headed by an exceptionally intelligent and able prime minister who also happens to be my brother. But the life experience that my father has accumulated enables him to analyse and offer solutions to Singapore's problems that no one else can.

But I am getting maudlin. Both my father and I have had our fair share of luck, and fate has not been unfair to us. My father found a lifelong partner who was his best friend and his wife. Together with a small group of like-minded comrades, he created a Singapore that by any standards would be considered a miracle. He has led a rich, meaningful and purposeful life.

Growing old and dying occurs to all mortals, even those who once seemed like titanium. When all is said and done, my father - and I too, despite my bouts of ill health - have lived lives that we can look back on with no regrets. As he faces whatever remains of his life, my father's attitude can be summed up by these lines in Robert Frost's poem Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening:

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute.
This article was published in The Sunday Times, 23 Oct 2011.

How Pritam got his ASS WHOOPED - 20 October 2011

Rather than fearing a "cowboy town", the Government should "consider how far the explosive popularity of the new media is partly a function of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's politics of indirect control" over the mainstream media, said Workers' Party MP Pritam Singh.

Making his maiden speech in Parliament, Mr Singh, the MP for Aljunied GRC, made several proposals, including the creation of a Freedom of Information Act, which sparked vigorous rebuttals from PAP MPs, including a 13-minute exchange with Law Minister K Shanmugam.

Responding to his speech, MP Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) asked Mr Singh if he thought there was indirect control of the mainstream media by the Government - to which Mr Singh said his speech was about suggestions for the Government to improve its communication.

This prompted Mr Shanmugam to press Mr Singh to answer Ms Indranee's question.

Opposition in 12th Parliament - any improvement?

A sign of a more open approach?

Debates in Parliament suggest more transparency by the Government

Letter from Dierdre Grace Morgan and Fong Wei Sheng

TODAY, Oct 24, 2011

WE REFER to the commentary "A promising start, but the hard work's just started" (Oct 22), which argued that one main question is whether the increased level of debate in this new Parliament would translate into better policy-making.

Apart from this, we would point out that it is interesting to note how the dynamics in Parliament may change.

With an unprecedented eight Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party, it is likely debates may inevitably highlight the different stances adopted along party lines (as how the "Happiness versus Gross Domestic Product" debate unfolded).

This raises the question of the role of Government Parliamentary Committees, which were formed in 1987 to scrutinise proposed legislations, and according to some scholars, to act as a pseudo-opposition.

In the previous Parliament, GPCs were fairly active in querying on policies and giving suggestions, with even a Private Member's Bill being moved by the GPC chair for Community Development, Youth and Sports.

Given the increased Opposition presence now, their level of prominence and manner of positing alternative views is to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is the role of Nominated MPs, when they are selected. With the Government and the Opposition singing to the same choruses respectively, how NMPs would feature in the debates in a non-partisan manner would be interesting.

In addition to proposing viable policy alternatives, as mentioned in the commentary, a priority for the Opposition would be to ensure good governance and accountability by the Government.

This may be perceived by some as trying to score political points, but the emphasis must be on the interests and welfare of Singaporeans. 

With the "co-driver" analogy from the General Election still fresh on our minds, there is perhaps already an expectation the Opposition has to live up to.

If it is anything to go by, the debates last week could be a suggestion of more transparency by the People's Action Party Government and a willingness to embrace the "new normal".

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's exposition on the Internal Security Act and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen's announcement of publishing a National Service disruption list suggests a more open approach, even in the traditionally sensitive areas of national security and defence.

On the whole, recent developments this year have paved the way for an exciting session of Parliament ahead.

A promising start, but the hard work's just started

by Eugene K B Tan

TODAY, Oct 22, 2011

It is still early days yet but this past week, Singaporeans got a glimpse of what the 12th Parliament would be like. It augurs well. The debate on the President's Address did not disappoint, but it also highlighted the realities, some harsh, that Singapore faces. 

Coming on the back of the May General Election (GE) and the August Presidential Election, expectations of the Class of 2011 MPs are naturally exuberant. Parliament now has the largest number of elected Opposition MPs (six), with three Non-Constituency MPs, since the 1968 GE. 

The various MPs' speeches have demonstrated that there is no shortage of ideas on what can be done to make Singapore better as an inclusive society and to engender constructive politics. The quality of the speeches was generally good and many MPs spoke knowledgeably, with conviction and passion. 

The speeches that connected well and left deep impressions invariably came from MPs who spoke to Singaporeans from the head and the heart. There must be the cognitive and, equally important, the affective connect.

Policy ideas and options must not only sound right, but must also secure buy-in from Singaporeans. Rhetoric and posturing will certainly be employed by politicians of all hues but Singaporeans must be alive to the reality that governance is about trade-offs. 

Certainly, the Government can be less tight-fisted. But questions of how we are going to fund cheaper public housing, expansive social safety nets and a high quality of life have to be confronted head-on at the same time. 

Here, everyone in the political realm-from the Government to political parties to civil society - has to have the moral responsibility not to present false choices to the masses. Even as we enter the supposed "new normal", Singaporeans must insist on responsible politics from all players in the political arena. 

The debates in the past week underscored that the ruling party is tuned to the evolving political landscape, and it is going to try to win back lost support. The People's Action Party (PAP) is not going cede the ground to the Opposition so easily. 

While the Workers' Party (WP) MPs have generally performed to expectations so far, the challenge for them is to go beyond critique and demonstrate the force of their policy options by having the Government refine its policies - or, better still, to adopt their views. They have to provide cogent, feasible ideas that would excite and persuade Singaporeans, and compel the Government to consider them seriously. 

For both the PAP and WP, talk is the easy part - realising the plans, the vision, the promises is the real test. 

Much as the PAP and WP offered competing narratives for Singapore, there is a middle ground. The debate over GDP or happiness is a false dichotomy. It is not an "either or" option. The fact is we need both GDP and happiness. As always, getting the balance right is key. 

This is where the imperative of inclusiveness comes in. It is clear that the emphasis on growth cannot be the be-all-and-end-all. Certainly, we will see more attention given to social issues, the post-material concerns. This is a signal to civil society to be more involved. 

There is strong agreement and renewed commitment to helping the needy and disadvantaged among us. The big question is how to help them while ensuring the dignity of those being helped is not undermined and that a crutch mentality does not develop. 

The "new normal" is a very recent but powerful meme in local political discourse. Yet it is also misleading because the geopolitical, economic and social realities facing Singapore remain fundamentally the same. 

Much as it may be normal in many other societies, perpetual politicking will only disadvantage us. And this is what MPs from both the PAP and the WP will have to bear in mind even as they seek to outdo each other in parliamentary debates. It remains to be seen if the PAP, WP and all other political parties raise their game, resulting in better policy-making, a more engaged and committed citizenry and enhanced social cohesion.

Singaporeans need to put behind them any inchoate sense of anger or over-exuberant expectations. Policy railroading or paralysis, making it all but impossible for the Government to act decisively, is not what most really want. It is time to let the Government and Parliament get down to the business of governing. 

What the PAP and the Opposition do between now and the next GE will provide a firmer indication of the direction and substance of political change in Singapore. For me, the next GE, which will have to be held by January 2017, will be the real watershed election. But now the hard work begins for all. 

Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.

Criticise only when offering alternatives? Be open then

Letter from John Chan Chi Yung

TODAY, Oct 24, 2011

I REFER to the report "Always assess trade-offs from people's perspective: Low Thia Khiang" (Oct 22) and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say's implication that criticisms should be made only when one has alternatives.

An analogy would be that if my contractor makes a mess of painting my home, I must be able to tell him how else he should do it before I think about criticising him.

Obviously, this should not be the case because the contractor is the expert hired to do that job and is privy to knowledge and skills that I am not, even though the home is mine.

A cursory examination of past Parliament debates will show how the People's Action Party Government treats most suggestions and alternative views, including those as stated in the manifestos of the Opposition parties.

Isn't this why there is now an emphasis on genuinely listening and being open to alternative views? Mr Lim's reply gives me an uneasy feeling that, perhaps, not all PAP Members of Parliament "get it".

And for those who feel that the Opposition MPs are still in campaign mode, I would like to point out that these are their maiden speeches for the first sitting of Parliament under a new term of Government.

It is not inappropriate for MPs to make reflective speeches for such an occasion.

Opposition still in campaign mode

ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011 

I AM disappointed with the quality of speeches by opposition MPs, who seem to be stuck in election campaign mode. 

Pointing out the shortcomings of People's Action Party (PAP) policies might have led to applause during the general election, but it is not for Parliament, which has a tradition of MPs articulating well-thought-through ideas supported by facts. 

Take for instance Workers' Party Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong's comments that the casinos 'can lead to long-term problems' ('Happiness index 'not a fuzzy concept''; Thursday). The introduction of casinos was widely and thoroughly debated and the trade-offs well recognised before integrated resorts were approved. 

So what was Mr Yee's rationale in raising the subject yet again? 

The integrated resorts have fundamentally changed the tourism landscape, creating thousands of jobs for Singaporeans across the hospitality, retail and other related sectors, and diversifying our economy. 

What Singaporeans expect from the opposition MPs are constructive and well-researched ideas that will raise the overall quality of the policies and benefit all Singaporeans, not pointing out the negative side of trade-offs through oft-repeated accusations. 

Bobby Jayaraman 

RAISE QUALITY OF DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

Opposition should grow out of election rhetoric

ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011 

IF THE Workers' Party wants to be a constructive force in Parliament as it has declared, Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam certainly did not do justice to its cause by peppering his speech with sarcastic asides against the Government's track record over the past decade ('Government 'seized chances for growth''; Wednesday). 

Mr Giam's repetition in Parliament of his party's election theme sounded like a broken record. 

He should offer genuine ideas for change, like how home owners can get the keys to their new build-to-order flats sooner rather than merely complain that they will be without a home during the wait. 

By contrast, the genuine effort at change by the People's Action Party is clear, such as the unprecedented step it took in offering Mr Giam's colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC), a place in the Committee of Selection. 

It cannot be that the Government can only do wrong, as Mr Giam appears to think. 

I hope the Workers' Party will stop being the pot calling the kettle black and get on with the job of offering genuine alternative ideas. 

By suggesting that Singapore owes its success to a party of 'yes men' shows Mr Chen's utter lack of understanding and respect for our founding fathers' legacy. 

Rights must come with responsibilities. 

Toh Cheng Seong

PAP MPs' knee-jerk rebuttals unproductive * 

ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011

PARLIAMENTARY debate should have been different now after the watershed general election in May. But if this week's session is any indication, it appears to be business as usual.

If People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament routinely rose one by one in rebutting the opposition in the past, the electorate, unfortunately, received more of the same this week.

So is it any surprise to find parliamentary reports describing an opposition MP's speech drawing the same, virtually automatic chorus of PAP rebuttals, such as the ones where PAP MPs 'rose to rebut', or the ones where the opposition MP's remarks 'drew quick fire'?

If the PAP government admits to not having a monopoly on knowledge and ideas, why do the party's MPs react as if their opposition colleagues have nothing of value to offer in Parliament?

Is the sole task of PAP MPs aimed at making the job of opposition MPs unpleasant in the House?

Will we inadvertently cast aside good ideas and valid concerns simply because they originate from the opposition?

I hope all political parties will set aside such politicking in the House, or weak attempts at wit such as Pioneer MP Cedric Foo's rebuttal of the opposition on Bhutan's gross national happiness concept when he said: 'So maybe (since) they only have two opposition MPs, the people are very happy' ('MPs push for change in Govt-citizen ties'; Tuesday).

Joseph Khoo

* It is business as usual in that the opposition chooses to harp on the stuff everybody already knows while continuing its mission to claim credit where none is due.

Debate on President's Address - Speech by Indranee Rajah (21 October 2011)

INDRANEE RAJAH,

MP FOR TANJONG PAGAR GRC

THE TIDE AND CROSSROADS

Mr. Speaker, Sir,

“There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune; Omitted, all voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat.

And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”1

Written hundreds of years ago, by Shakespeare in “Julius Caesar” this quote is remarkably apposite today.

Every once in a while, countries and nations come to a critical crossroads, and the 

choices we make will change our futures irrevocably.

1. Julius Caesar Act 4, Scene 3, lines 218-224, Shakespeare

Singapore is at such a crossroads today in terms of Singapore’s future, and the relationship between Singaporeans and the government. We may not have fully appreciated it, but the debate of the last few days is actually part of a much bigger global phenomenon - there is a tide that is sweeping the world. We are riding this tide better than most, but it has not left us untouched, and we have yet to plumb its depths for it’s true lessons.

It began in spring, the Arab Spring to be precise - the events in Tunisia which then spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, followed by the protests and demonstrations in Israel, the Anna Hazare protests in India, the Indignants in Spain, the riots in South London and now the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in New York, which has spread to the rest of the US, and to Europe and Australia.

For those of us who are old enough, there is a distinct sense of deja vu - it resonates of Woodstock and the 1960s hippie revolution - a movement which eventually died out, but which changed the world and left a lasting legacy in it's wake.

What is this global phenomenon about? It is in essence a collective outcry by the middle classes and the poor about economic inequality - the sense that the things they want are getting further and further out of reach, that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and wage disparity is increasing.

In the US, there is anger over income inequality, high unemployment, cuts in social spending, the stagnant economy and lack of economic growth. The post mortems of the UK riots show that the rioters did so because they lacked a belief that the political system represented their interests; they lacked hope and they did not feel that they had a future to risk. The Times of India article reported that those who hit the streets in India did so because of the sense of inchoate rage they felt at their political system which displayed contempt for their priorities. In Israel the sentiment was best captured in one of their slogans which said: "We are fighting for an accessible future."

What lessons does this hold for us, especially in the wake of the recent GE?

The first thing is that if one considers our situation against the wider backdrop of what is happening in the world, then all things considered, our government has done well.

The anger and disillusionment in other countries is accompanied by the sense that their institutions and political systems have failed them. When you consider our GE results against the backdrop of what is happening in the world, then one would realise that the 60.1 vote share is actually a testimony that our government did in fact get many things right and that unlike the other countries our institutions have not failed. It is, I believe, for these same reasons, that there has not been a similar desire to occupy Raffles Place.

However, at the same time there are many reverberating echoes of the global phenomenon in our last GE – in particular the concerns of middle class and poorer Singaporeans that things are slipping out of their reach, and becoming inaccessible to them. This manifested itself in the concerns over the shortage of affordable housing, the inability to get places in local universities and rising costs of living. 

This was despite the fact that we had record economic growth of 14.5% last year.

So in the US and other countries, there is unhappiness because there is no economic growth. In Singapore, we had unhappiness despite economic growth. What are we to make of this ? The reason was that Singaporeans felt that despite the record 14.5% economic growth in 2010, the fruits of that economic growth did not reach the ground and were not spread out equitably.

The real lesson of the global events and our GE is that we must continue to pursue economic growth but we must at the same time also ensure that it is spread out and shared equitably amongst all Singaporeans.

This question of economic growth has occupied the house over the last few days. The debate has been positioned as economic growth v. the happiness of the people. That is not accurate.

The truth is that the two go hand in hand. One can't just " Don't Worry; be Happy".2 The world does not work like that. If we want more things for ourselves, if we want the government to give more things such as transport subsidies and healthcare subsidies then that needs money. The money must come from somewhere and to get that money you need economic growth.

We have to strike a happy medium between Abba's "Money, Money, Money"3 and Jessie J's "Price Tag".4 The Abba song is about a girl who is looking for a rich man, her underlying assumption being that money will buy her everything she wants and bring her happiness. The Jessie J song on the other hand says that "It's not about the money, we don't need the money ...forget about the price tag. Money can't buy you happiness".

I saw looks of recognition when I mentioned Abba, but blank looks when I mentioned Jessie J. Jessie J. is a UK singer, with recent top 10 hits. And that, Mr Speaker, sir, I suppose contains another lesson for this chamber, which is that if the MPs wish to be in sync with the broad spectrum of the Singapore population, then you have to tune in, literally and metaphorically, not just to Gold 90.5 FM, but also to 91.3 FM!

2. Don't Worry; be Happy, Bobby McFerrin

3. Money, Money, Money, Abba

4. Price Tag, Jessie J. 

The challenge for Singapore and the Singapore government is how to calibrate growth and social spending and to get the balance just right. In the last GE, the sense was that the balance was not right, and now we need to correct this. If not, then the result will be what you see playing out in other parts of the world right now.

In recalibrating the balance, I would ask the government to look at healthcare subsidies, education assistance for disabled and special children.

Another issue surfaced in the last GE – the relationship between the government and Singaporeans. The relationship between the government and people in Singapore is not like the relationship between the governments and people in other countries. The relationship between the government and people in Singapore is a special one – founded on trust and confidence, of promises made and honoured and a sense of a partnership in a shared destiny. However, in the last GE, it was clear that this relationship was strained – there was a sense of disconnect and that the government did not care.

I do not think that the government does not care. Why does the government pay so much attention to the economy ? To ensure that Singaporeans have jobs. Why do that if you don’t care ? Why have workfare ? Why have the Jobs Credit ? Why have Comcare ? Why have the Senior’s Mobility Fund ? Why have all these things if the government does not care ? But then why is it that despite all these things and all these measures, there is this persistent feeling that the government does not care ?

Well, one, in some areas it really was the case that the government did not act, or act fast enough on feedback from the ground, leading people to think that the government was not listening to what the ground was saying.

However, I think another reason is the way in which the government has thus far communicated with people. We now have a well educated and thinking population –thanks to the PAP government education policy of the last 50 years. However, the consequences is that Singaporeans no longer simply accept something blindly or uncritically. It is no longer enough for the government to state a direction. What is imperative is the conversation that the government has with people, so that the majority understands and accepts that this is the direction that we must go. And if in the course of the conversation, the sense is that the majority of Singaporeans do not wish to go in that direction, then there must be a re-evaluation of the direction.

Then there is the question of the tone of the conversation between the government and people. In its desire to present substantive arguments, the government has over the last few decades managed to leach all emotion out of its public communications. It is all about the facts, the figures and statistics. Official replies often have a rigid pomposity about them that immediately sets backs up. This has led to allegations of arrogance and allowed detractors to paint the government as uncaring, when this is in fact not the case. It is not just about the end result but the conversation that takes place between the government and people and the tone of that conversation. It is not only what you say, but also how you say it.

We must make policies fit the people and not make people fit the policies. One example of this is in HDB rental housing. I would also like to ask the government to review its policy of insisting that rental flat lessees must have co-tenants. When rental flats were first offered, the co-tenant policy made sense as people rented with their friends or relatives. However, as they have grown older, many co-tenants may have passed on. Now they are being asked to live with strangers. This causes anxiety and fear especially among the elderly.

We should not force co-tenancies but instead build different types of rental flats e.g. some for 1 occupant, some for 2 and some for families so that there is a range of choices.

I would also urge the government to look into creative solutions to offset the rising cost of living. For example, can we explore solar power for HDB flats ? This is not as far fetched as it seems. The idea of the Marina Barrage was conceived 20 years ago. The technology for Newater was not available. At that time, turning the entire island into a reservoir to capture recyclable water to make ourselves self- sustaining in water was like an impossible dream. But today it is a reality. Solar power is already a reality. Imagine - if every HDB flat were solar powered, how much HDB residents could save in terms of costs, and how much we could add to the average family's disposable income. The question is how to make solar power for HDB flats an economically viable and sustainable long term solution to buffer Singaporeans against the inevitable rise in the cost of utilities caused by the rise in prices of fossil fuel and imported energy sources.

These are the kinds of things we have to look into to make the future accessible for Singaporeans, young and old.

This is not an easy task. It requires hard work; fiscal prudence yet creative spending; it requires government and people to work together in tandem and hand in hand; it requires the concerted energy of a nation galvanised in a common goal.

Why is the situation in the US so bad today? Why has it come to the stage of Occupy Wall Street? Just 3 years ago, President Obama swept into Capital Hill on the ringing cry of "Change" and "Yes, we can". Three years later, it is apparent that, no, the US can’t. The US is experiencing first hand, the words of Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr: "The more things change, the more they remain the same". But that is not the case in Singapore. For us, it is not a matter of "We can", but "We can, and we will".

When the PAP government pledges change, the change is real. Remember the Remaking Singapore Committee 10 years ago – at that time Singapore was criticized for not being a happening place. We were compared unfavourably to Lan Kwai Fong. Madonna could not hold her concert here because there was too much red tape. Pubs / nightclubs complained they could not open past midnight. In response to that feedback, we implemented change – so much so that now the pendulum is the other way, and I am having to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to do something about the side-effects of excessive partying at Robertson Quay. So the lesson is that if Singapore is to prosper for the benefit of all Singaporeans, we have to work in cooperation and for the common good of Singapore and Singaporeans.

We must understand what this GE is truly about. What this GE is truly about is that we are at a crossroads. The challenges for us is how to do what other countries have not been able to do, to give Singapore an accessible future and to have a relationship between the government and the people not just of trust and confidence, but also affection. If we can get this right, we will ride the tide to fortune. If we don’t then we lose all our ventures. So far, the rest of the world has not been able to get it right. The challenge for us is how to once again succeed against all odds, to do what others cannot, to not only dream that impossible dream4 but to make that impossible dream come true for all Singaporeans.

In the words of Billie Holiday:

"The difficult we'll do right now

The impossible takes a little while".5

But either way, we will do it because we are Singaporeans.

Sir, I support the motion.

4. The Impossible Dream, Andy Williams – Theme song from the Man from La Mancha

5. Crazy in Love, Billie Holiday

(It was also the WWII Slogan of the US Army Corp of Engineers/US Navy Seabees)

Heng Swee Keat: Maiden Speech in Parliament at the Debates on President's Address, 21 October 2011

Singapore needs to get three relationships right, says Heng Swee Keat

TODAY, Ong Dai Lin, 22 Oct 2011

A day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke on the need for good governance and to deepen the trust between the Government and Singaporeans, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat (picture) suggested three approaches to take the country forward on these aspects.

Speaking on the debate to the President's address, Mr Heng said yesterday Singapore would have to get three key relationships right: The relationship of self to others, the relationship of Singapore to the world and the relationship of the future to the past.

"We need to build a consensus about the values, ideas and ideals that underpin these relationships as they will frame our policies and national dialogues," he added.

To get the relationship of self to others right, Mr Heng felt Singapore must "respect the individual and affirm the worth of each citizen in an inclusive way". The education system now "provides different pathways to allow each (student) to go as far as possible", he said. "We must have good schools in every neighbourhood. For children with special needs, let us help them to achieve their best and to lead meaningful lives."

On the relationship between Singapore and the world, Mr Heng said that the Republic "must stay open in learning from others, but equally, we must be bold to be different and unique where that would be right for Singapore".

And while Singapore looks outward to learn from the best the world has to offer, it should promote its local cuisines, arts and music, said Mr Heng. He also hoped to see teachers and writers creating stories for students that they can "instinctively resonate with".

On the relationship of the future to the past, Mr Heng said: "To live well in the present, we need to know the past and have a sense of the future."

Noting that Singapore should do more to understand its history, Mr Heng said the present generation must seek to leave a legacy for the children and the best gift to them is a good education.

68,143 PR applications rejected in 2010

TODAY, 21 Oct, 2011

Last year, 68,143 Permanent Residence (PR) applications were rejected, up from 58,923 in 2009.

In 2008, 22,472 PR applications were rejected. 

The figures were contained in a written reply by Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean to MP for Aljunied GRC Pritam Singh who had asked how many applications for PR have been rejected and the specific criteria for approval of such applications.

Mr Teo said each PR application is evaluated holistically on a set of criteria which includes factors such as an individual's economic contributions, qualifications, age and family profile, to assess applicants' ability to contribute and integrate well into society.

He added that it was not appropriate to reveal specific criteria as this could encourage individuals to attempt to circumvent or abuse the system.

In another question, Mr Singh asked how many criminals have been hanged in Singapore and the breakdown in terms of foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans from 2004 to 2010.

Mr Teo said there were 26 Singaporeans and 12 foreigners who were executed. No PRs were executed during this period.

Happiness can't be measured, only felt

IS SINGAPORE the new Shangri-La? ('Sylvia Lim, PAP MPs spar over happiness gauge'; Tuesday). Well, everything is about trade-offs.

We should focus on what we are willing to give up in exchange for a happier life. Balance is key, so it boils down to the proportion of what we seek rather than a black-and-white issue.

We must also recognise that current arguments are coloured by materialism, which is transient and cannot guarantee happiness in the long term. Once we are comfortable with being moderately prosperous, we will be able to focus on family, friends, nation-building, self-worth, competence, autonomy, purpose, love, appreciation and acceptance.

That's being happier.

Our economic drivers will in turn change for jobs, immigration, productivity, technology, public policy and so on.

But the Gross Happiness Index is also something we need to be careful about.

Bhutan is inspiring but by no means a solution. We don't want to live like the Bhutanese, but we do want to be sustainably happy.

If we end up ranking countries on a happiness index, it becomes another scoreboard lifestyle.

Happiness cannot be measured but you can feel it. And you can be happy as long as you don't compare.

Jack Sim

ST Forum, 22 Oct 2011

Measures to correct lapses stated in Auditor-General's report

WE THANK Mr Ephraim Loy for his feedback on Tuesday ('Audits on govt agencies: More ways to strengthen public trust').

Mr Loy commented that while the report of the Auditor-General points out the lapses in government agencies, it should also update the public on the measures these agencies have taken to correct their internal processes.

The corrective actions taken up to the point of publication of the report are mentioned in the report itself.

In the course of audit, the Auditor-General's Office will follow up on its past findings.

The rare instance where an agency has been found tardy in rectifying a major lapse would be reported in the Auditor-General's subsequent report.

Follow-up actions taken by government agencies have also been reflected in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee submitted to Parliament.

These reports result from the committee's inquiries into selected audit findings reported by the Auditor-General.

London cabs and disabled commuters

London cabs 'not a luxury but essential'
Wheelchair-bound commuters meet govt officials over phasing-out of taxi fleet
By Maria Almenoar, The Straits Times, 4 Nov 2011

ONE by one, they arrived in London cabs, apart from one commuter who found that they were all booked and turned up in a van instead.

It was a fitting entrance for the six wheelchair-bound commuters and their caregivers, who yesterday met government officials to raise their concerns about the phasing-out of the London cabs from Singapore's roads next year.

The six, all left wheelchair-bound by a medical condition or an accident, rely on these cabs to get around for work, school or leisure activities.

They each use larger-than-normal wheelchairs which can fit only in London cabs.

But SMRT, the only taxi operator that runs them here, will discontinue its fleet of 15 when their eight-year licences expire by March next year. The firm said buying and maintaining them would not make good business sense given the high price of a certificate of entitlement - $56,112 at present.