"PAP MP Inderjit Singh confronts Singapore

[Jman888]

 

 

to me, i see it as a sign of weakness and lack of confidence to derail from the main issue and take it to a tangent to highlight on issues. WP still focusses on the key issue at hand and DRIFT. Speaks for itself who feels challenged here. Only the smaller people would say that LHL won, but in the longer term, LTK held his own pretty well and kept focus on the holistic persspective.

 

 

not many chance you can see them sparring in Parliament.

 

My feel is LTK was in fact kept a low profile in the house for a long time until 2011 where more opposition were invited in. I bet PAP is looking for a higher class of debate since more opponent now cannot just keep quiet like before. It is a disadvantage that LTK is weak in communicating in english. What about the rest of the WP?

[RadX]

 

 

not many chance you can see them sparring in Parliament.

 

My feel is LTK was in fact kept a low profile in the house for a long time until 2011 where more opposition were invited in. I bet PAP is looking for a higher class of debate since more opponent now cannot just keep quiet like before. It is a disadvantage that LTK is weak in communicating in english. What about the rest of the WP?

 

 

surely CSM can, and perhaps they are watching. Sylvia and Pritam surely are more eloquent too. To be honest, our PM is a pale comparison to his dad, who is by far one of the best in the business back then and even today, he will be!

[Evillusion]

 

 

surely CSM can, and perhaps they are watching. Sylvia and Pritam surely are more eloquent too. To be honest, our PM is a pale comparison to his dad, who is by far one of the best in the business back then and even today, he will be!

The older one if he has full control of his faculty now will have his jaw-dropped (pun intended) to see his beloved party sunk to a new low with their pettiness and tardiness!

[Ktglfc]

 

 

not many chance you can see them sparring in Parliament.

 

My feel is LTK was in fact kept a low profile in the house for a long time until 2011 where more opposition were invited in. I bet PAP is looking for a higher class of debate since more opponent now cannot just keep quiet like before. It is a disadvantage that LTK is weak in communicating in english. What about the rest of the WP?

 

You could see that LTK is wearing an ear-piece, probably hearing translation from english to mandarin for him.

 

Maybe can debate using mandarin, and see whether pm can answer as good as LTK

Or best, using hokkien !

Ho-seh lah

[Ktglfc]

 

 

surely CSM can, and perhaps they are watching. Sylvia and Pritam surely are more eloquent too. To be honest, our PM is a pale comparison to his dad, who is by far one of the best in the business back then and even today, he will be!

 

His dad is a lawyer by profession, definitely can speak very well with a clear mind :)

 

Whereas for him,

 

In 1971, he was awarded a President's Scholarship and Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship by the Public Service Commission to study Mathematics at Trinity College, University of Cambridge. He was Senior Wrangler in 1973,and graduated in 1974 with first class honours in mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science (with distinction). In 1980, he completed a Master of Public Administration at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

 

So, he is basically a mathematician, who is really good at numbers and logic

[RadX]

 

His dad is a lawyer by profession, definitely can speak very well with a clear mind :)

 

Whereas for him,

 

In 1971, he was awarded a President's Scholarship and Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship by the Public Service Commission to study Mathematics at Trinity College, University of Cambridge. He was Senior Wrangler in 1973,and graduated in 1974 with first class honours in mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science (with distinction). In 1980, he completed a Master of Public Administration at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

 

So, he is basically a mathematician, who is really good at numbers and logic

 

 

giuess we can see where the lack of EQ stems from then

[Volvobrick]

Only 1 thing you left out :

Spade = Spade

To add:

Constructive Politics = Agreeing to their policies/proposals, don't ask, don't dig holes

[Duckduck]

 

 

giuess we can see where the lack of EQ stems from then

 

before LKY became PM, he wld have sat amongst commoners n talk kok n lim kopi. LHL the moment he came out already surrounded by maids n bodyguards n directed to become occifer n general n now PM...

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1552_2009-08-28.html

Edited May 29, 2014 by Duckduck

[Mockngbrd]

sibeh funny



http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/pm-lee-low-thia-khiang-crossing-swords-parliament-13-mins-4691877

[Tigerwoods]

agree. classic example would be casino; decided to build liao then organize forum to appease non-supporters of casino.

 

democracy without "demo"?

more like long zhong kay liao (all additonal toppings - cost up, tax up (for mid-class), every $ up up)

When you buy a LED TV there is a Demo mode and you select to play the Demo to teach you how to operate the TV,

Did Samsung seek your opinion first ? hahahaaa...

This is what Demo mean to them,.

 

 

not many chance you can see them sparring in Parliament.

 

My feel is LTK was in fact kept a low profile in the house for a long time until 2011 where more opposition were invited in. I bet PAP is looking for a higher class of debate since more opponent now cannot just keep quiet like before. It is a disadvantage that LTK is weak in communicating in english. What about the rest of the WP?

The 2 top honchos debating the KaKia better Learn, Listen, Study Tactics ... in short LLST

[2BDriver]

 

His dad is a lawyer by profession, definitely can speak very well with a clear mind :)

 

Whereas for him,

 

In 1971, he was awarded a President's Scholarship and Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship by the Public Service Commission to study Mathematics at Trinity College, University of Cambridge. He was Senior Wrangler in 1973,and graduated in 1974 with first class honours in mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science (with distinction). In 1980, he completed a Master of Public Administration at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

 

So, he is basically a mathematician, who is really good at numbers and logic

I would like to conclude the above first, second and third achievements as "Singapore Kelong Qualifications"

[Maz0608]

PM remarked, ‘An eloquent explanation for why the Workers’ Party has been inarticulate’.

It sounds more personal attack on LTK Engrish...

 

Its too painful to watch.

Why dun LTK used Mandarin in his exchange with LHL.

I am sure he speaks better Mandarin than LHL.

[RadX]

Why dun LTK used Mandarin in his exchange with LHL.

I am sure he speaks better Mandarin than LHL.

 

 

come to think of it, it would show China that here in Singapore, some of us indeed are excellent at the ;anguage. Old ,man would love him

[Baal]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/28/dr-tan-cheng-bock-the-cpf-and-beyond/

 

 

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: The CPF and beyond

May 28th, 2014 | Author: Contributions

Dr Tan Cheng Bock

The current heated discussion on CPF boils down to a question of a lack of public trust.

Most Singaporeans have high expectations of realising some cash after their retirement.

Changes made to the CPF and the constant reminder that they may not have enough disposable income when they grow old, created a sense of insecurity. This is backed by the fact that only half of active CPF account holders have enough to meet the minimum sum requirement.

To add to the anxiety, the minimum sum was increased recently resulting in less disposable money for their retirement.

Human nature is such. Many live on hope and promises. How did we come to this scenario? CPF was intended to give us comfort in old age but this does not seem to be so now.

Questions were asked why CPF investment was not giving us better returns. As answers were not so forth coming, they inferred that probably there was not enough CPF fund to give back and thus the need to retain more in the minimum sum.

This may not be the case but nevertheless confidence in the system has been dented.

Younger Singaporeans, better educated, and with a more enquiring mind zoomed in on how the CPF money was invested. They raised some pertinent questions like interest rates and want to know where, how and quantum of return from investments but they got same standard answers (e.g. CPF are invested in Singapore government bonds).

This did not satisfy their young minds. They want to know whether GIC and Temasek holdings are also managing the funds. But apparently these questions were not well clarified. This created a suspicion of the government not being transparent and that the government was not revealing the true status of our money in the CPF.

As the answers were not forth coming, more pressure was exerted through the new media and some got carried away too far with allegation of wrong doings by the authorities.

So the big stick was used.

The CPF issue is but one of many such encounters that the government will have to face. It is very challenging and difficult.

There will be more such standoffs. But for now, how is the government going to manage this? Will the tough action taken, strengthen the resolve of the young or a more engaging approach be a better way for such encounters in future?

How hard the big stick is used will be carefully watched both by Singaporeans and Singapore watchers abroad.


Dr Tan Cheng Bock


* Article first appeared on Dr Tan’s Facebook page.

 

[Baal]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/29/heated-debate-between-pm-lee-low-in-parliament/

 

 

Heated debate between PM Lee & MP Low in Parliament

May 29th, 2014 | Author: Editorial

PM Lee and Mr Low Thia Khiang (Photo: TODAY)

PM Lee and WP chief Low Thia Khiang traded verbal blows in Parliament yesterday (28 May). The fiery 15-minute sparring began when Mr Low jumped up from his seat to rebut Mr Lee’s speech on the President’s address. Heated arguments ensued.

PM Lee accused WP of flip-flopping on issues and questioned WP’s performance in Parliament. Who came out looking more convincing? You decide.

Here is the transcript of the dialogue in Parliament between PM Lee and Mr Low yesterday (video can be accessed through https://zh-cn.facebook.com/workersparty):

Mr Low: Mdm, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics: Because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views, and moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspectives of Singapore. It’s important for us to move forward together as one united people.

The other MPs from the WP will be talking about different issues; they will cover ranging from social issues, social safety net to foreign workers, national security. They will cover the full range of areas. Thereby we split our jobs. I will focus on constructive politics. I thought it was an important issue and of course, it’s important to also understand what is the perspective of the PAP, in terms of constructive politics.

And from what the PM has said, it seems to me that it is more constructive debated on the terms of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward and I had affirmed my endorsement of what the president has said, that we should look at the outcome of constructive politics, that is, that we should be able to move forward together despite the differences.

Next, talking about the WP flip-flopping on foreign workers issue. I say again, I don’t think we have flip-flopped. I have explained, in this House, of some misunderstanding of the speeches (that have been) made. In any case, I also noted that when the PAP has to make a policy U-turn, they call it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or it’s a flip-flop.

Mr Lee: Mdm speaker, I think the record will speak for itself, when we make a shift we acknowledge a shift. When the WP changes position they pretend they haven’t – that is the difference.

As for delegating responsibility for different parts of the Budget speech to different MPs, that’s entirely within Mr Low Thia Khiang’s prerogative. It’s not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the WP.

But as a leader, you do have a responsibility to state where does the party stand on the big issues. Somebody can look after healthcare, somebody can take care of transport, somebody can spend all his time marking Minister Heng Swee Keat on education, but where you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right, is it doing wrong, do you agree with the Government, do you have a better view, or do you abstain or do you abstain from abstaining?

Mr Low: I think our position is quite clear on many of these issues. If the Prime Minister wanted my view on what the Government has been doing and whether he has done well. I’d say, well you’ve solved some of the problems – what the PM has mentioned – and the WP MPs also acknowledged this in their speech but also pointed out there are things that are still work in progress and the Government will have to focus on and to make it better and to improve.

That is (the) position. I don’t see the need for me to totally sum up. I think the MP should be able to do in their own view, and to give their view and their assessment and at the same time, wherever possible offer certain views and alternative suggestions to improve the policies.

Mr Lee: Mdm Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when it comes to election rallies because the WP approach has been to be extremely reasonable – indeed low profile – in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.

Mr Low: Mdm Speaker, I thank the PM for praising the WP’s ability to fight in the elections. We have no intention to hide ourselves in parliament. We seek the mandate from people to come to parliament to check against the Government.

We have done it honestly and sincerely, we have not turned this place into a theatre. That shows we are responsible and we will behave continuously as a rational and responsible party and if members would – I believe members will agree, that the WP has been rational.

We have not come here with some wild polices or wild suggestions. We debate the policies, we came up with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffer or suggesting to use the reserves.

Elections — I think we are also rational. We don’t accuse the PAP of something we cannot substantiate or I know we’d get sued. I think we’re fair. Elections are elections and I thank the PM for noting that we can fight an election, I’m sure the PAP can too.

You are the Government, you have been the governing party for 50 years and you’ve got (much more) talented people than the WP. How can you say we are tiger and we are something else in Parliament? I’m sure the PAP equally can be tiger or lions.

Mr Lee: It’s an eloquent explanation for why the WP has been inarticulate, about many things. In a serious parliament, the Government presents its policies. The Opposition presents its alternatives. The WP may not have alternatives on every issue; it may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or MediShield scheme.

You do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going. And that direction has to be set clearly – not to explain to the PAP, but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for.

And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing, and a little bit better. That means you have no stand. Where-ever the PAP is standing, ask them to do better. That’s easy, I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think, in principle, we do not want Singapore to be like this.

These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not be lidded over and avoided in the house. And that is what a first world parliament should be about.

Mr Low: Mdm speaker, again I’d like to say the PM is reasonable to say that the WP may not be able to come up with all the alternative policies. That’s true. But to say that the WP has no position on major issues, that’s not true. I think we did state our position in parliament.

We debated major policies vigorously. We don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and it concerns the future of Singapore, like the Population White Paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?

Mr Lee: I think it is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate, the position taken by the WP is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow; I have not heard the WP demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?

Mr Low: We had made a calculation at that point in time while debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers to grow it will be untenable in the future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers’ growth in numbers.

Our calculation was that probably within the existing number of foreign workers, you can still move (them) around in some sectors that don’t need so much of FWs thereby you can still get by with the zero foreign workers’ growth.

We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off. That is our position at that point in time. We have not objected subsequently, or grilled the Government, for why are (they) not doing it because that is our view, that it should have zero (foreign worker) growth, but the Government decided otherwise that’s their way of doing it.

We have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on. But our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning and I’m glad to hear today that PM is saying that the Government is taking a very serious view the about tightening and watching the growth of population.

Mr Lee: Mdm speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I don’t know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what was said in Parliament in the White Paper debate last year. Because if he really does, after all the explanation, he should say, we have too many foreign workers now, send home 70,000. Then we will know where he stands.

But after telling me you can massage this and some people can do (with) less and others will need more – that’s easy to say, who’s going to do the massaging? Of course, the Government. And that, is the mark of a sub-standard Opposition.

Mr Low: Mdm speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a sub-standard Opposition. This is the mark of a responsible Opposition not to jam up the Government; allowing the Government – after giving our view, debating it – allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government. It is a mark of a responsible Government and a mark of first world Parliament.

Mr Lee: Mdm speaker. We have to call a spade a spade. If we have changed position and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible, that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.

 

 

 

 

[Ahgong]

Sorry, since when has parliament been about discussing policies?

 

It's always been about wayang since all policy decisions are made beforehand behind closed doors. Then they kaysiao "discuss" announce in parliament for the public to see but the final outcomes are already foregone conclusions.

 

With "others" in parliament asking relevant questions and bringing up pertinent points to be considered (in a civilised manner too), they buay song and start slinging mud and obfuscating (actually they obfuscate all the time anyways).

 

Really classy yo.

 

did the corrections for you.

there is a subtle difference in the words.

[Ahgong]

that whole 15 mins of dialogue, is like all over the place leh.

hmm... i dun see where Mr lee is going with his points actually.

what was he trying to put across?

[Janling3]

 

 

not many chance you can see them sparring in Parliament.

 

My feel is LTK was in fact kept a low profile in the house for a long time until 2011 where more opposition were invited in. I bet PAP is looking for a higher class of debate since more opponent now cannot just keep quiet like before. It is a disadvantage that LTK is weak in communicating in english. What about the rest of the WP?

I saw some time back that LTK spoke Chinese in parliament,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_1RRHKvCl0&list=PL8fbjYvSrlD33sheFO-kweLkH7I2u8FSL

that whole 15 mins of dialogue, is like all over the place leh.

hmm... i dun see where Mr lee is going with his points actually.

what was he trying to put across?

that's how he leads our gov,,, rudderlessly in a very subtle way possible