Rilek1Corner

Tag: WP

  • What I Like And Don’t Like About The Workers’ Party Manifesto

    What I Like And Don’t Like About The Workers’ Party Manifesto

    He Ting Ru, one of my favourite new politicians, partly because she puts paid to the notion that opposition candidates are necessarily substandard. But more importantly, because she is a “crazy cat lady” with eight!

    “The opposition has nothing new or concrete to offer.”

    I am tiring of this lazy, ignorant, biased statement. So I have put my unemployment to good use and done some homework.

    Having just gone through the WP’s manifesto, I have selected here the many statements that I like and also the three that I don’t like—including the one that I REALLY dislike. (Scroll to the bottom for those.)

    I have selected policies that I believe are significantly different from PAP policies. Like political parties everywhere, they both indulge in a lot of waffle—so forgive me for not humouring vapid commentary about helping SMEs, boosting productivity, broadening our definitions of achievement, encouraging flexible work arrangements, enhancing healthcare systems, strengthening regional stability, assisting Singaporeans abroad, etc. etc.

    Those are all noble, lofty pursuits. Below are the ones I believe are practical and implementable. (Caveat: as with many of the PAP’s proposed policies, a more thorough analysis of the trade-offs and fiscal impact is necessary.)

    Note: I have read up on the WP, since it is shaping up to be the most likely opposition in a putative bipartisan system; if, however, I detect enough interest in this post, I’d be happy to glean the other opposition parties’ manifestos.

    What I like

    Immigration and workforce
    “Foreign spouses of Singaporeans should be given priority for citizenship, as they naturally integrate with a Singaporean family.” (p.8)

    “Targeted Training and Job-Matching Schemes for Female Workers. The labour force participation rate is significantly lower for women than men…we propose targeted training and job-matching schemes be introduced for women 30 years of age and older. Additional cash grants and special employment credits…” (P.10)

    “We propose it be made mandatory for large companies to implement workplace and job redesign for senior workers. We also propose targeted measures and incentives for SMEs.” (P.11)

    My thoughts: I hear too many stories of foreign spouses having immigration trouble. This is completely unacceptable. The focus on boosting female and senior labour force participation is also great, and something the PAP has been very late to the game with. More broadly, I like that the WP is eager to recast many of these constituencies—the elderly, single mums, the poor—as active, economic contributors to our society. Rather than “policy problems” that must be managed, as is the PAP’s way.

    Employment/jobs
    “Employment Security Fund (ESF). We propose a mandatory unemployment insurance scheme similar to schemes in other developed countries. The ESF would require an additional 0.1% of basic salary to be paid into it….” (P.12)

    “National Minimum Wage. We propose a national minimum wage be established and pegged to the Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs, so that workers can earn a living wage to meet the needs of their family.” (P.13)

    “Educational Credential Assessments (ECA). We propose all Employment Pass and S Pass applicants with university degrees and diplomas earned outside Singapore be subject to mandatory ECA. The cost of the ECA should be borne by the applicant…..” (P.13)

    My thoughts: The ESF would go some way towards compensating the losers from globalisation, something essential for an open economy like ours. Similarly, while I used to be strongly opposed to a minimum wage—on the grounds of market distortion—I am increasingly of the view that we need to consider a well-thought out policy. Tim Harford, “the undercover economist”, has written a good piece about minimum wage misconceptions.

    Finally, there is a lot of dissatisfaction about foreigners supposedly lying to gain employment. The ECA will sort the wheat from the chaff and thus, among other things, go some way towards improving foreigner integration.

    CPF
    “Transparency in CPF Monies Investment Returns. CPF monies are currently used by GIC for investment, while the government guarantees returns back to the CPF. We propose CPF members be given full transparency on the nature and performance of their CPF monies that have been so invested. We further propose that the difference between the investment returns of GIC and the net interest payable on CPF member balances, on a 10-year moving average basis, be reported to CPF members. The government could return one third of this difference to CPF members’ Special Accounts as special dividends to enhance retirement adequacy when the difference crosses a predetermined threshold in years of high return.” (P.13)

    Taxation
    “Progressive Top-bracket Income Tax. We propose personal income tax be made more progressive, as our effective top tax personal income rates are significantly lower than almost all locations with which Singapore competes for offshore banking and similar economic activities. We propose further tiering above $320,000 (currently at flat rate of 22%). This cut-off has not been adjusted for more than a decade even though incomes at the higher end have soared.” (P.14)

    Education
    “10-Year Through-train School Programme (10 YTS). To offer more diversity in the education system, we propose a 10-Year Through-train School programme from Primary 1 to Secondary 4 as an option for parents who wish for their child to bypass the PSLE…The 10 YTS will pair up existing primary and secondary schools and therefore complement, not replace, these primary and secondary schools.” (P.20)

    “Equitable funding for schools. There is a gap in disposable funds between elite schools and neighbourhood schools. This is because elite schools usually charge higher fees, enjoy greater economies of scale and have wealthy alumni….We propose neighbourhood schools receive additional government funds in order to ensure that all schools are adequately funded to become good schools.” (P.21)

    “Equitable Support for Single Parents. We reiterate our call to grant single unwed mothers the full 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. In addition, single mothers should be made eligible for both the Working Mother’s Child Relief as well as the Foreign Maid Levy Relief. Excluding single mothers from these schemes unnecessarily penalises vulnerable children and single mothers. The government should extend the same help to single fathers.” (P.22)

    My thoughts: Yes, Yes and Yes. Judging by my peers, PSLE has proved to be a very poor indicator of future success. Or anything else. And we need to do a LOT more to ensure our children compete on a level playing field.

    Social protection
    “Social Protection Steps. We should move towards measuring relative poverty to provide a clearer picture of low-income families who are unable to keep up with the living standards of the majority of society. We reiterate our proposal to establish Social Protection steps pegged at 30%, 50% and 80% of the annual median monthly household income per member….” (P. 25)

    “Caregivers Support Scheme. Full-time informal caregivers who fall in the lower socio- economic stratum should be given yearly CPF top-ups to reduce the pressure of being underemployed and less prepared for retirement. More research should also be done to find out how to improve utilisation of formal care services such as senior day activity centres to augment informal care.” (P.25)

    My thoughts: One of the PAP’s biggest sins is its refusal to establish a poverty line in Singapore; and thus effectively keeping the pretense that poverty doesn’t exist. Tissue sellers are “entrepreneurs”??? The greatest euphemism for beggars ever.

    Healthcare
    “Enhanced Primary Care Subsidies. We propose the monthly household income cap to qualify for subsidies for primary care at general practitioner (GP) clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) be raised to the median monthly household income per member….” (P.26)

    My thoughts: Sensible. The current CHAS cut off is $1,800. Makes sense to keep it in line with median monthly income (S$2,380 in 2014). If anything, could go even further.

    Housing
    “20-25 BTO Pricing. We propose HDB flat ownership should be delinked from land costs by adjusting the debt service ratio formula for calculating BTO selling price to 25% of median monthly household income of applicants servicing a 20-year mortgage after the 10% down payment….” (P.28)

    “Removing the Ethnic Quota. As our society has now attained a level of multi-racial integration, we propose the ethnic quotas governing citizens’ home ownership of HDB flats should be removed to allow all Singaporeans freedom of choice of home locations, regardless of race.” (P.29)

    Transport
    “Government Contracting Model. The government has been moving away from the profit-based privatisation model of running public transport towards the WP’s National Transport Corporation (NTC) proposal to run public bus and MRT operations on a not- for-profit basis of maintenance and cost recovery…”

    “Promoting Bicycle Sharing and Car Sharing. We propose a bicycle-sharing scheme to be developed for short journeys where bicycle-docking stations can be set up between residential areas and transport nodes, and within heritage trail and park connector routes. The scheme should be integrated with mobile applications and EZ- Link cards for registration and payment purposes.” (P.33)

    My thoughts: The government is slowly nationalising our public transport system. At least the WP has always been consistently honest about the need to. Meanwhile, cyclists are not going to disappear. We need a better plan.

    Town management
    “A Unifying People’s Association. The People’s Association (PA) should be depoliticised and reorganised to serve as a unifying institution….Government grassroots serving as eyes and ears of the ruling party cripple the growth of natural community leadership and hinder the development of community living.” (P.34)

    Culture
    “Mandatory Impact Assessments. We propose Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Social Impact Assessments (SIAs), and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) should be made mandatory by law for all development projects affecting green areas, existing infrastructure and the building of new infrastructure before those projects are approved.” (P.35)

    Democracy
    “Single Constituency Members of Parliament. We propose Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) be abolished, as they dilute the individual voter’s voice. Instead, the elections should be run on single seats, with individual MPs fully accountable to constituents. The Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme would then be unnecessary. The Nominated MP scheme should be abolished.” (P. 36)

    “Fixed-Term Parliaments. We propose the term for Parliament between elections be fixed. The Prime Minister should not have the unfettered discretion to dissolve Parliament and call for elections before the end of the fixed term. Early dissolution of Parliament should be allowed under special circumstances such as a vote of no confidence or with the assent of a two-thirds majority in Parliament.” (P.37)

    “Strengthening the Franchise. We propose lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This will encourage young people to have an early interest in political governance.” (P.37)

    “Independent Election Commission. To ensure political neutrality, parliamentary elections should not be organised by the Prime Minister’s Office. Instead, we propose an independent Election Commission….” (P.37)

    “Independent Electoral Boundary Review Committee. To ensure political neutrality, the delineation of electoral boundaries should not be done under the Prime Minister’s Office. We propose an independent committee…” (p.37)

    Governance
    “Enhanced Gateway Process. We propose the current threshold of $500 million threshold of the Gateway Process to monitor capital expenditure for public infrastructure projects be reduced to $100 million. The results of these approvals should be made public, as should regular reports and updates after approvals. Non-infrastructure projects with budgets of more than $100 million, such as the Youth Olympic Games and the SEA games, should also go through the Gateway Process. (P.38)

    “Office of Ombudsman. We propose the independent Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman be established. Any citizen aggrieved by the action of any public servant may, instead of commencing an expensive lawsuit, lodge a complaint with this office…” (P.38)

    Justice
    “Judicial Discretion for Capital Cases. We propose trials for capital cases should be conducted by a tribunal of two judges whose decision to impose the death sentence must be unanimous. On appeal, the death sentence should be upheld only if all three judges in the Court of Appeal confirm it unanimously….” (p.39)

    “Dedicated Anti-Terrorism Law. We propose the Internal Security Act, which provides for detention without trial in cases of alleged subversion, be abolished. Singapore shall be brought in line with international practices to try such cases, including espionage, with modified procedures to protect official secrets if necessary. In cases of alleged terrorism, the government should be enabled by a dedicated anti-terrorism law to make swift arrests and detain suspects without trial. However, these suspects must be afforded real avenues to challenge the legality of their arrests through the courts and an advisory board. These bodies should be empowered to order the person’s release if not satisfied as to the legality of the detention.” (P.39)

    My thoughts: I would prefer if we abolished the death penalty, but this is one small step. Second, throughout my life, there has always been one point on which I fervently disagree with most liberals I know: the need for some sort of detention without trial, purely because of the terrorist threat. The WP’s proposal here appeals to my inner Rumsfeld.

    Public sphere

    “Free and Competitive Local Newspaper and Broadcasting Companies. We propose the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act be amended to abolish clauses giving the government powers to approve the holders of management shares and to control the shareholdings and voting power of newspaper companies….” (P.40)

    “Internet Regulation. We propose the repeal of the Broadcasting (Class License) Notification – which requires websites that report regularly on Singapore to register and post a bond of $50,000 subjecting them to government regulation of content – that was gazetted in 2013 without public consultation….” (p.40)

    “Review of Public Order Act. We call for the repeal of the sections of the Public Order Act (POA) that govern the right to public assembly, issuance of move-on orders, and restrictions on filming of law enforcement operations, to remove obstacles to the promotion of an active citizenry. We propose peaceful demonstrations be allowed subject to prior notification to the police to ensure minimum disruption to traffic and public convenience….” (p.41)

    “Independent Body for Arts Licensing. We propose an independent body with representation from the arts community should be set up to oversee arts licensing….” (p.41)

    “Declassification of Archives. We propose a structured de-classification system for archived material where material in the National Archives will be automatically declassified after 25 years of the date of record. In the interest of national security, material marked “Secret” will still be subject to requests and approval. All cabinet papers should be automatically released after 40 years. A panel of experts should be set up to consider requests for early declassification.” (P.41)

    Defence
    “National Service for First Generation Citizens. We propose first generation male citizens between 21 and 40 years of age who have not served full time national service should be required to serve up to 40 days a year over 10 years in the SAF, SPF, SCDF, public hospitals or the social services….” (p.46)

    What I don’t like

    Immigration
    “Our approach involves keeping the non-resident population constant at around 1.5-1.6 million as long as we achieve the 1%. This allows for a temporary addition of foreign workers to make up for shortfalls if we are not able to achieve the 1% target.
    In the best-case scenario that we have modelled (details available in our Population Policy Paper), the trade-off compared to the government’s policy would be 0.5% less in annual GDP growth but 1 million less in population. This prioritises long-term economic stability over short-term economic growth.” (p. 9)

    My thoughts: Zero foreigner growth (is what the WP wants, assuming Singapore achieves 1% resident population growth).

    I remember when Lee Hsien Loong grilled Low Thia Kiang in parliament about this, I was too occupied to think too much about it. On hindsight, I’m glad he grilled him.

    Zero foreigner growth would be the death of Singapore.

    I have been as critical as anybody of the PAP’s ultra-liberal immigration policies of the past twenty years, simply because they have failed to manage inflows and integration and social equities. All that has directly led to the worst xenophobia I have ever seen in Singapore. (To put things in perspective, from 2001-2010, Singapore had SIX TIMES the immigration rate of the UK. And just look at what’s happened there. I have written more extensively about racism and xenophobia here.)

    However, the answer to all that is not to close our doors completely—which is what the WP is proposing if Singapore achieves 1% resident population growth. Yes, we must make it harder for foreigners to come here, bringing Singapore in line with the immigration practices of other developed countries. But we must never have zero as stated policy.

    Let me give you three reasons why this is wrong. The first is moral. If a person from another country absolutely needs to move here—perhaps because he/she has been banished from Malaysia or if it is a family member of somebody in Singapore—we cannot make that person’s move contingent on one foreigner leaving Singapore.

    The second is economic. There will always be jobs for which a company needs to hire an able foreigner, whether head of a media organisation or brain surgeon. We can never assume that there will be a Singaporean who can simply step up. Globally-competitive companies need to have the option to bring in a foreigner IF no local can be found.

    The last, and possibly most important, is the signalling effect. Singapore’s success has always been dependent on us being open. Already some foreign businesses, investors and residents feel that Singapore is anti-foreign. We must never develop that reputation. If we prevent other country’s people from moving here, what if those countries decide to stop selling us food?!?

    I like the WP. I want to see more of them in parliament. But I hope that this zero foreigner growth is not a firm policy. I hope they are just politicking, the same way the PAP has been politicking on this issue—tightening immigration post-2011, when everybody knows post-GE2015 it is going to open the gates again.

    CPF
    “Lower CPF Payout Eligibility Age. We propose lowering the CPF Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the option to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65….” (P.13)

    My thoughts: I’m not sure this CPF change is prudent or necessary.

    Social policies
    “Stop at Two. We opposed the legalisation of casinos in 2005. We propose there be no more casinos built beyond the existing two. A permanent moratorium on new casino licences should be implemented after the current 10-year moratorium expires in 2016. Casinos should not issue annual levy passes, and the cost of entry should be kept at $100 for every 24 hours. These annual levy passes incentivise frequent gambling, which should be discouraged.” (P.24)

    My thoughts: Stop treating Singaporeans like children. That ship has sailed: we have the casinos, now we have to deal with them. Singaporeans should not be discriminated against. We need to manage any negative externalities in other ways, just as we do with other “sins” like alcohol.

     

    Source: http://sudhirtv.com

  • Low Thia Khiang: Towards A First World Parliament

    Low Thia Khiang: Towards A First World Parliament

    At the last General Election in 2011, I urged Singaporeans to vote Workers’ Party to move Singapore Towards a First World Parliament.

    I thank voters who have supported this call. We have seen the outcome of moving Towards a First World Parliament. Today, we have a more responsive government that is more sensitive to the needs and struggles of the people. The ruling party has also openly admitted that the Cabinet has shifted more to the left to be more focused on the livelihood concerns of ordinary Singaporeans.

    Some Singaporeans asked what the Workers’ Party has been doing in the last four years with the call Towards A First World Parliament. I present here“The Workers’ Party in Parliament, 2011-2015” for your information.

    The government has responded to the voters of Hougang, Aljunied and Punggol-East who returned 7 elected WP members to Parliament, which is 8% of the total of 87 elected members in Parliament.

    A Landmark Election 2015

    This election is a landmark election in a new era in Singapore, because your vote will set direction for the future of our nation.

    First, do you want to send a signal to the ruling party that the government should continue to be transparent, accountable and responsive to the needs of the people?

    Second, should you empower yourself to participate in the decision-making process to shape your own future and the future of your children and grandchildren in the next era of Singapore?

    Build a Balanced Parliament

    Parliament is the supreme representation of the People; it derives its legitimacy in making policy and laws for Singapore on your behalf via elected Members of Parliament. You have to decide whether having more ruling party MPs in Parliament resulting in an imbalanced Parliament is in the best interest of the future of Singapore and your children.

    More importantly, your vote is a signal to the ruling party that it cannot do what it deems fit without taking you seriously. It will signal to what extent the ruling party can deprive you of your power to participate in the policy-making process without consulting you, in the name of acting in your best interest.

    There are trade-offs to every policy. Singaporeans entrusted the ruling party to decide on the trade-offs in the last 50 years of nation building; will it continue to work well in the next 50 years? How many more trade-offs should Singaporeans tolerate?

    The talent pool Singapore has today and what is required for Singapore to succeed are vastly different from the past. Many talented Singaporeans today excel in their own fields and gain international recognition. The ruling party’s mindset of monopolising power to exercise control over almost every aspect of our society and to set direction for all endeavours is a hindrance to the continuing development of Singapore in achieving excellence to become an outstanding nation.

    People must be freed from the political net-trap where talented Singaporeans in management and the professions have to worry about political correctness in decision-making and the reaction of our political leaders. Our political leaders should serve the people, not be our political masters.

    To be creative and to be able to think out of the box, people should feel free to express themselves and debate issues within known limits as a multi-racial and multi-religious society. People must also feel secure and be assured of their rights against unreasonable and disproportionate actions from the government and our political leaders.

    We must build confident professional, business and people sectors to enable Singapore to continue progress in the next 50 years. This requires checking the power of the government and empowering the people via a more balanced Parliament representing the diversity of Singapore society.

    Why Vote Workers’ Party?

    The Workers’ Party (WP) is a Rational, Responsible and Respectable party with a long history and established track record.

    • WP has been offering Singaporeans a choice at every General Election since 1957. WP has been the voice of the people in Parliament since 1981.
    • WP engages the government in policy making in a rational manner, and it does not oppose for the sake of opposition. When the policy is clearly not in the interest of the nation and the people, WP engages the front bench in debate and opposes it. WP supports policies that are beneficial to the people and the nation.
    • WP articulates balanced views and takes into consideration our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual context as a society in our political discourse.
    • WP has managed Town Council well despite many challenges and hurdles along the way in managing a much bigger town from about 9,000 units at Hougang Town Council to over 70,000 units at Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. Apart from a number of procedural and accounting lapses pointed out in the Auditor-General’s report, which by now have mostly been addressed, the other important aspects of town management such as cleanliness, lift breakdowns and maintenance are comparable to other Town Councils. WP now has more MPs experienced in Town Council management.

    Vote Workers’ Party – Empower Your Future

    Your vote is your power. To exercise the power of your vote, you need to have an alternative party deserving your support. I have put in my best efforts for over a decade to build The Workers’ Party to be your credible choice.

    Before 2011, the ruling party cruised along with policies that led to escalating cost of living, employment and retirement insecurity, and strained infrastructure due to runaway immigration. Your vote changed the course and led to U-turns; change for the better is only beginning. We need to continue the change by sending more Workers’ Party candidates into Parliament.

    You can empower yourself to make decisions for your own future.

    Vote Workers’ Party; use the power of your vote to empower your future.

    Message from Mr Low Thia Khiang
    Secretary-General
    The Workers’ Party

     

    Source: www.wp.sg

  • NSP: Workers’ Party Left Us With No Choice, We Had To Enter Into 3-Cornered Fight In MacPherson

    NSP: Workers’ Party Left Us With No Choice, We Had To Enter Into 3-Cornered Fight In MacPherson

    In the wake of a frantic few hours on Nomination Day, which saw three multi-cornered fights emerge in the General Election, the leaders of the National Solidarity Party came forward to say they were “the most active party promoting Opposition unity”.

    NSP candidate Cheo Chai Chen will face a three-cornered fight in MacPherson SMC, where he will come up against the People’s Action Party’s Tin Pei Ling, 31 – the incumbent after the ward was carved out of Marine Parade GRC – and the Workers’ Party’s Bernard Chen, 29.

    Said party Acting Secretary-General Lim Tean, at a press conference where the party’s Tampines GRC team was introduced: “I believe to a very large extent we have avoided multi-cornered fights but for MacPherson we had to do it. MacPherson used to be part of Marine Parade. We did very well in the last GE and we have already made a huge concession to WP there.”

    An NSP team featuring Ms Nicole Seah took 43.36 per cent of the vote against the PAP in 2011.

    “If WP wanted to avoid a three-cornered fight they should have allowed us to fight with PAP in MacPherson,” said Mr Lim.

    “That decision to contest in MacPherson was made a few weeks ago, and we’ve never departed from that decision. NSP has been the most active party promoting Opposition unity. We initiated talks to avoid three-cornered fights.”

    The decision to contest in the SMC led to fissures within the party, including the departure of then-Acting Secretary-General Hazel Poa. Mr Lim said that the lessons learnt over the past few weeks will make the party “stronger for the battle ahead”.

    “We are a democratic party and in a democratic party run on democratic principles you’re going to have a difference in opinions. I think that’s healthy,” said Mr Lim.

    “As for party members who have left, we cannot stop people from leaving – it’s their right to join any party they wish. And as for why we have been so quiet in the last couple of weeks, I think the media made a lot of the disunity and turmoil, so we decided that it’s best not to add to the frenzy, and instead regroup to prepare for the coming GE.”

    NSP President Sebastian Teo – part of the party’s Tampines GRC team that includes Mr Lim, Ms Nor Lella Mardiiah Mohamed, 41, Mr Fong Chin Leong, 46, and Mr Choong Hon Heng, 45 – said that if elected, the party did not think think it would face any problems running a Town Council in Tampines.

    Said Mr Teo: “It’s not that difficult to run a Town Council. I’m sure we have all that we need to put in place and to run a Town Council. It’s not difficult like the PAP say. You need capital, you need manpower. So I don’t understand – what’s so difficult about running a Town Council?”

    The NSP will face a People’s Action Party team led by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat at the polls on Sep 11.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • How Worker’s Party’s Bernard Chan Worked To The Top

    How Worker’s Party’s Bernard Chan Worked To The Top

    The Workers’ Party has unveiled grassroots organiser, political activist and recent Oxford graduate Bernard Chen as a candidate for the Sep 11 general elections in Singapore. In an interview conducted by Bryan Kwa in early July 2014, Bernard said he did not harbour intentions in being a Member of Parliament but that politics should be about selfless service and that the Singapore narrative should include the peoples’ history.

    This interview is republished with permission and edited to reflect accuracy in dates. The original interview can be viewed here.

    —

    Bernard Chen is a walking contradiction in terms. He has spent close to a decade as a political activist and speaks like a wise statesman even though he is still in his twenties. Moreover, he has just graduated from the University of Oxford despite failing his GCE ‘A’ levels.

    Bernard, who is 29 this year, enrolled in Temasek Polytechnic after his National Service in 2006 for his “last ticket to university”. In 2013, he graduated with honours from the National University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts in History. He then went on to pursue a Masters’ degree in Global and Imperial History at the University of Oxford on a Tan Ean Kiam postgraduate scholarship in the humanities.

    On Grassroots Politics

    He joined The Workers’ Party (WP) when he was 21, as he believed that political competition is needed in Singapore and “it’s the most credible and responsible opposition party around”.

    “I wasn’t pissed off with something that compelled me to join the WP. And I don’t think we should wait for the chance for it, for the moment that you get disappointed with the government.”

    He feels that a culture of service “should permeate throughout society” so that Singapore will be “robust, dynamic and sustainable”.

    Bernard wishes to see the zeitgeist of the first generation of Singapore leaders — that is the willingness to sacrifice personal time and serve just for the sake of service — in today’s generation. He feels that there is a need to “cultivate” such a “mindset”.

    “Where is the public-spiritedness? Where is the ability to see things above and beyond themselves?” he asks.

    Bernard has been a legislative assistant since May 2010. It is a part-time job and he is paid a monthly stipend. His main focus is on the Meet-the-People sessions where he helps the Member of Parliament (MP) draft letters based on the constituents’ complaints.

    “It’s very down-to-earth, very ground work. You just have to be there, speak to people, and understand what their needs are,” he says.

    He started as the legislative assistant to Low Thia Khiang, who was the MP for Hougang and subsequently for Aljunied GRC. Since February 2012, he is the legislative assistant to the MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal.

    Bernard harbours no aspirations to be a minister or MP. Instead, he hopes that his story of a 21-year-old with “no job security, no educational security, no achievements to date” devoting his time to politics can inspire others to come forward to serve, and that “anybody can do it”.

    “You don’t have to wait until you are 50, you are super established, and you have a lot of money,” he says.

    He hopes that his “little act of service… can inspire more intelligent young Singaporeans to come forward” to be “politically-involved, whether it is WP or PAP”. PAP refers to the People’s Action Party, which is the ruling party of the day.

    Moreover, he wants Singaporeans to see that politics can be “responsible, constructive and beneficial”. He contends that politics needs not be adversarial and confrontational.

    Bernard thinks Singapore has the potential to have a “number one” political system, one where “national interest is above partisan interest”. He acknowledges that some see this as empty rhetoric but he thinks that Singapore “can actually” make this a reality.

    “We can. But it is difficult. It is challenging because the ball is not only in the court of the political parties, it is also in the court of the electorate,” he opines.

    “Singapore has always prided itself on our airport, shipyards, efficiency, of our standing in the corruption index or what forms of education index. Why can’t our politics be a shining example to the rest of the world?”

    Bernard Chen - Copy

    On Singapore Narrative

    Given his academic training as a historian, Bernard thinks the Singapore narrative is “quite problematic”. He cites the title of former prime minster Lee Kuan Yew’s memoir “My Singapore Story” as an example of a “problematic” phrasing of the narrative.

    “It serves a very political purpose to once and for all put the nail into the coffin saying that this is the narrative that we want to have,” he suggests. While he does not think it is wrong, he “thinks it is not fair, from the view of a historian”.

    “This is what people usually call the elite discourse. So people who wins power, gets it. So just as someone below should not totally dismiss the Singapore narrative, people on top should also not dismiss subaltern history or peoples’ history of Singapore.” Subaltern history refers to history told by people outside the hegemonic class. (See Singapore Memory Project below)

    “The study of history is never meant to be politicised. It’s meant to be enlightening, to bring light to grey areas, to bring light to areas that are totally dark. That’s history’s contribution. If I can shine a light into a corner, it may not be complete, but someone after me will shine another light to bring out the issue. That’s my contribution. My contribution is to shine the light, his contribution is to shine the light from a different perspective.”

    He posits historians should not “make moral value judgments” but “see where it’s lacking and try to fill it”. He points out that we lack a “comprehensive history of the PAP from a non-Lee Kuan Yew perspective”.

    This is significant. Tham Yuen-C writes in a commentary published in The Straits Times on February 16, 2014 that “a new narrative… forged together by the masses… reminds us that Singapore got to where it is today through the efforts of an entire generation”.

    Bernard continues, “Have we actually asked about the grassroots worker standing beside LKY when he first won Singapore from the government of the British? No. Is it valuable? Yes. What was he thinking? Where does he come from? What is the occupational make up of LKY’s first group of volunteers? It tells a lot about the kind of Singapore we have and how far we have come.”

    Fortunately, a step in this direction has been taken. During the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the contributions by Lee Kuan Yew’s former driver Rahmat Yusak, who drove the former prime minster around the island in the 1960s to rally support for the battle against the communist.

    His Singapore Dream

    For Bernard, an ideal Singaporean society is “one that Singaporeans are able to see things above and beyond themselves. A society that is fair and just”.

    “One that a person like me who is born into a working class family, whose father has a secondary three education, whose mother has a secondary four education, has never achieved anything much in life, can still ensure that their children can have a brighter future than they do.”

    At the heart of all his grassroots and political work is his wish to leave a stronger Singapore that is better than the one he inherited.

    “I inherited a good Singapore and it is a privilege to give back to what this country has given me. So for those who have been given much, I think much should be given back to the country by them,” he says.

    Singapore Memory Project

    The Singapore Memory Project (SMP) is a nationwide movement, created with the objective of documenting and collecting noteworthy memories associated with Singapore. Established in August 2011, the objective of the project is to gather five million personal memories and a significant amount of published materials on Singapore by 2015.

    One recent campaign by the SMP, titled A Tribute To Our Pioneer Generation, ran from February to June. It focused on preserving stories of the Pioneer Generation, where thoughts and reflections of nation builders such as hawkers, teachers and builders are collected and showcased to the public – thereby ensuring that the people’s history is included in the Singapore narrative.

    Featured photo: Courtesy of Bernard Chen for Bryan Kwa
    In-line photo: The Workers’ Party

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Accountant Questions Sylvia Lim’s And AHPETC’s Accounting Practices

    Accountant Questions Sylvia Lim’s And AHPETC’s Accounting Practices

    As an Accountant, here’s my argument with you Sylvia Lim!

    You said “We emphasise that AHPETC has ensured that payments made to FMSS are in line with and within the budget provided under the tender awarded.”

    So that means when you awarded the contract, you MUST know that the Town Council will run into deficit, shouldn’t you ALERT your residents at some point in 2012-2014 and look for solution (which is to increase the TC rate again) instead of keeping quiet?

    You have failed to understand the very basic of budgeting!

    Next, you want to build a 1st world parliament, but you can’t even attract enough people to clean your town, have you asked yourself why?

    And the only MA who bid must be your supporter, wouldn’t you be able to negotiate with them since you know their rate is going to almost “bankrupt” your beloved Town and affecting no one else but only your dear supporters?

    What business logic is this?

    $300k flat professional fees?? That’s $25k per month! Why do they need to factor this in their cost before bidding for the job?

    Don’t you think 在情在理，you should be questioning them for your own people’s sake?

    And lastly I sincerely hope the cleaners employed by FMSS are paid at least 50% above the market rate as compared to all cleaners employed by PAP TC’s MA, since your MA is charging in accordance to the comparison, almost 50% more than other MAs, technically they must have bid at this rate due to cost roll up which means their cost must be higher.

    Don’t worry Sylvia Lim, MND’s letter will not be putting you in disadvantage position.

    Your supporters have compared this to the like of our Ministers’ pay and Our CPF scheme, so you have successfully convinced your supporter that you are a good opposition to vote into parliament. They will continue to support you de!

    Nothing will change their mind and simply we couldn’t be bothered to do that either.

    We are only interested in the people sitting on the fence!

    People who will ask, am I important if I am a resident of Aljunied?

    Do I want to vote in someone who cannot even run a TC well!

    So let’s leave it to the people in Singapore to judge whether have Workers’ Party run the TC well since GE2011!!!

     

    Source: http://sghardtruth.com