The cursing on him and his family starts and will stop only when he ends his premiership.
====
.
A capable government is one that will grow the economy and the National Reserves, and most importantly keep the Cost of Living down, way down for all, and for all to live well, comfortably, peacefully and safely.
What are the solutions? Do not leave any stone unturned in seeking solutions.
. ======= .
Possible solutions, and my suggestion how to keep our cost of living and cost of doing business down:
1. Energy – within the next 10 years have JVs in Asean to generate clean and green electricity to replace our use of LNG, and aim to bring down cost of electricity by 50%;
2. Aim to have fusion nuclear plants on floating platforms and anchor it some 500km far from the shores of any country;
3. Use the clean electricity to desalinate water and aim to bring down the cost of water by 50%;
4. Have JVs in Asean to produce crops and farm products;
5. Have a huge seawater lake by linking Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong to the mainland for large scale fish farming;
6. To reduce our construction cost, have JVs and import precast concreted beams, walls and viaducts from Asean countries;
7. To reduce our defence spending on expensive military hardware, use more self-propelled and automated defence equipment and weapons, and have more VTOL fighter jets to reduce the size of our airbases;
8. Use more automated machines and robots in the health, transport and education sectors to keep rising costs down;
9. For transport safety and efficiency on the roads and expressways, build separate or elevated 2m wide driveways for motorbikes at expressways and roads where there have been repeated incidents of fatal accidents;
10. Free up our expensive land space for better economic use; Use the airspace above expressways, and below viaducts, or build underground to provide for vehicle parking, overnight heavy-vehicle parking, bus and train depot. Build windowless high-rise auto car parking facilities in overbuilt areas and in HDB estates [please check this out in big cities in Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and China how they use such facilities].
=======
.
Some suggestions to save on manual labour costs:
11. Save on labour by not clearing rubbish using rubbish trucks. [Please learn from Madrid. Their old city roads are too narrow for rubbish trucks to enter the old city districts to collect the rubbish. They have disposal underground tunnels for residents to drop the rubbish]. We should use the same system when building new HDB flats [and even the new eastern general hospital that will be built at Bedok North] for the residents and the hospital to drop the rubbish into the sewage tunnels, which are for disposal of rubbish for it to be incinerated at the underground waste disposal centres. This will mean there is no need to use labour and rubbish trucks to collect the waste from the new HDB flats and the new Bedok general hospital.
12. Save on labour for the sweeping of fallen leaves along our roadsides. [Learn from Haikou, Hainan Island as they have planted trees along their road dividers in the city, and there are no massive fallen leaves for the road sweepers to clear the fallen leaves everyday.] Please check it out in Haikou what are the types of trees that they have planted and for us to plant it along our road dividers and roadsides to save on manual labour to sweep the fallen leaves everyday.
.
===========
.
My mission is clear: To sustain this miracle called Singapore
At his swearing-in on May 15, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong called on fellow citizens to help him and his team work towards a new Singapore Dream. The text below is from the English segment of his speech at the Istana.
PM Lawrence Wong
UPDATED MAY 16, 2024, 05:58 AM in Straits Times.
Today marks a significant milestone – a passing of the baton, not just between leadership teams, but also across generations.
I am the first Prime Minister of Singapore to be born after independence. Almost all my colleagues in the 4G team were also born after 1965.
My generation’s story is the story of independent Singapore. Our lives are testimony to the values that forged our nation: incorruptibility, meritocracy, multiracialism, justice and equality.
These principles are deeply ingrained in all of us.
We understand the vital importance of good leadership, political stability and long-term planning.
We ourselves are the beneficiaries of the imaginative policies of our founding fathers, pursued resolutely and patiently over decades.
Shaped by these experiences, our leadership style will differ from that of previous generations.
We will lead in our own way. We will continue to think boldly and to think far. We know that there is still much more to do.
For the story of our island-nation continues to unfold. There are many more pages to write. And the best chapters of our Singapore Story lie ahead.
Standing on the shoulders of giants
As we write the next chapters, we are not starting from scratch. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team led us through independence and established the key pillars of governance.
Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team took us through the next lap, and nurtured a kinder and gentler society.
These are important foundations we will build on.
Tonight, I record our nation’s gratitude – and my own – to Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
Over a lifetime of public service, stretching over half a century, he devoted every measure of his being to the service of our country and people.
Under his stewardship, Singapore navigated external as well as domestic changes, and overcame multiple crises.
Mr Lee spoke often of the need to keep Singapore exceptional. He was exceptional himself – in his devotion, his selflessness, and his dedication to serve.
We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I am grateful that Mr Lee and the more experienced ministers will continue to serve in my Cabinet.
They will provide continuity, as I renew and strengthen the team with new members.
One of my key priorities is to identify and persuade younger Singaporeans – men and women in their 30s and 40s – to join our team.
So I call out tonight to all my fellow citizens: Help me to provide Singaporeans with the government they deserve. Let us make a difference and serve our nation together.
A different world
Singapore’s position is strong. But the world around us is in flux.
For 30 years since the Cold War ended, we enjoyed unprecedented peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific.
Unfortunately, that era is over. It will not return.
Now we face a world of conflict and rivalry.
The great powers are competing to shape a new, yet undefined, global order. This transition will be marked by geopolitical tensions, as well as protectionism and rampant nationalism everywhere. It will likely stretch for years, if not decades.
As a small country, we cannot escape these powerful cross-currents.
As an open economy, our livelihoods will be hit when multilateralism fractures.
As a diverse society, we will be vulnerable to external influences that tug us in different directions.
We must brace ourselves to these new realities and adapt to a messier, riskier and more violent world.
Fortunately, our international standing is high, and the Singapore brand is admired and trusted worldwide.
We seek to be friends with all, while upholding our rights and interests.
We value the centrality of Asean and its efforts to foster regional cooperation and integration.
We hope for stable US-China relations and will continue engaging both powers, even as issues inevitably arise between them.
We will strengthen our partnerships, near and far; and advance Singapore’s interests, so as to better shape outcomes for ourselves as well as the world.
Building on our strengths
This is not the first time that we’ve had to confront tough external circumstances.
We have done so repeatedly over the last six decades. Each time, we have weathered the storms and emerged stronger.
The key to our success is our high level of trust in each other, and our ability to work well together.
Singapore has always been a diverse country – many races, many religions, many languages – and more so now than before.
Yet we’ve strengthened our bonds as one people.
We have achieved this not by denying our differences, but by embracing them. We have ensured that every community, every religion and every linguistic group, big or small, feels included, respected and valued.
When issues arise between communities, and from time to time, they will – we do not accentuate our differences. Instead, we accept them.
We seek pragmatic compromises and find as much common ground as possible. We do so always in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. This is the ethos that will guide me and my team. This is how we will continue to evolve and strengthen our Singapore identity.
It’s never about subtracting, but always about adding. It’s never about contracting, but always about expanding.
So from our diversity, we forge unity. From many, we become one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.
This collective striving for unity saw us through the Covid-19 pandemic, the crisis of our generation.
We responded effectively to the pandemic because we trust one another.
The way we dealt with the crisis – together, saving lives and livelihoods – deepened our social capital, and made us a better and stronger people.
Covid-19 was a baptism of fire for me and my team. It reinforced my conviction that our exceptional performance as a nation lies not in any one person or any single institution, but in how well we can work together as one Team Singapore.
As Prime Minister, I will lead and bear responsibility for the decisions I take. But I will also engage and maximise the combined energies, imaginations and strengths of all Singaporeans.
That is how we take our nation forward in this dangerous and troubled world.
Forward Singapore
Today, Singapore is at a high economic level, compared with most other countries.
By international standards, we have built excellent systems of education, housing, healthcare and transport.
But our circumstances are changing, technology is advancing and our population is ageing fast.
So we cannot afford to cruise along.
We must continue to do our best – to improve, upgrade and transform Singapore.
I am convinced we can, and we must, do better.
This is why I launched the Forward Singapore exercise.
We listened to and spoke with many of you; we distilled your aspirations into a shared vision for our future.
Forward Singapore represents the ambitions of our generation. It expresses our resolve to keep our society strong and united; to share the benefits of progress with all, not just some; to uplift all Singaporeans, and not just a few.
Younger Singaporeans in particular have spoken clearly.
They will strive and work hard for their goals. But they do not wish to be trapped in an endless rat race of hyper-competition. They want a refreshed Singapore Dream – one that is not defined by material success alone, but also offers meaning and purpose in their careers and their lives.
I am determined to help Singaporeans realise your dreams.
With our tripartite partners, we will continue to build a vibrant economy and create good jobs for all.
We will find new ways to be more productive and innovative, and achieve a better balance where work is purposeful, and life is meaningful.
We will foster a fairer, more just and more equal society.
We will look after our seniors, the vulnerable among us, and those with special needs.
We will support all Singaporeans, regardless of their start points, age or ability – to uplift themselves and lead fulfilling lives.
My team and I will do more in all of these areas.
We need your help too – to support our fellow citizens, and to renew our commitment to each other.
Then we can build a Singapore where everyone succeeds in being the best possible versions of themselves.
We can be a people who are more inclusive, gracious and big-hearted.
We can be a society where every Singaporean matters. And a Singapore that matters to every Singaporean.
These are ambitious goals. There are no easy formulas to apply, nor available models to follow. We will have to experiment, discover fresh solutions and blaze new paths.
There will be voices that doubt our ability to go further. This scepticism has been with us since the beginning.
Along the way, many have said that Singapore won’t make it. Yet time and again, we have proved the doubters wrong. And we will do so again.
As Singaporeans, we all know what it means to exceed expectations – to go beyond what others think we are capable of, or even what we ourselves thought we could do.
When the going gets tough, we do not crumble. We press on, with faith in our fellow citizens and in Singapore’s future.
We strive harder, reach further, and prove that with determination and hard work, there is no challenge we cannot overcome. I will bring this same spirit to my new role.
This is my promise to all Singaporeans:
I will serve you with all my heart. I will never settle for the status quo. I will always seek better ways to make tomorrow better than today.
My mission is clear: to continue defying the odds and to sustain this miracle called Singapore.
So that we can reach even greater heights. So that we can be a beacon of hope and unity for ourselves and our children.
Taking Singapore forward together
My fellow Singaporeans, I ask you to join me and my team in our journey forward.
Everyone will have a stake in our nation’s progress. Everyone will play a key role in shaping our future.
Let us unite with common purpose and shared resolve. Let us take Singapore Forward – Together.
=======
.
The nation is in good hands as we create a new chapter of the Singapore story
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam says the new PM Lawrence Wong will be his own person, with his own approach to building consensus and finding the best way forward for the country. Here is the text of the President’s speech at the swearing-in ceremony at the Istana on May 15, 2024.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam
UPDATED MAY 16, 2024, 05:57 AM in Straits Times.
Tonight, we begin a new chapter in Singapore’s history, as the baton of leadership is passed from our third to our fourth prime minister.
I speak for all Singaporeans in thanking Mr Lee Hsien Loong for a life dedicated to the service of our country, and his exceptional leadership as prime minister over the last twenty years.
In 2004, when Mr Lee was sworn in, he promised to “be a prime minister for all Singaporeans”, and to leave no one behind. He delivered on this promise.
Today, Singapore has a transformed economy, with good jobs in every sector and substantially higher real incomes across the workforce.
We have a more inclusive society, from assuring every child a good start in life to affording our seniors greater peace of mind.
Income inequality has eased, and community contributions to uplift every group with disadvantage have expanded significantly alongside the Government’s.
Mr Lee also kept the population’s spirits intact through the global financial crisis and Covid-19 pandemic, the major crises that divided many other societies. And he steered us through contentious issues like the repeal of Section 377A, strengthening understanding and acceptance of one another and preserving cohesion.
Much can be recalled about Mr Lee’s leadership in these areas, and in foreign and security policies. But it is, above all, the norms and standards that Mr Lee upheld and reinforced – the intangibles of political leadership – that define his most important legacy.
His selflessness and personal integrity, and the expectations of high standards of conduct that he set for those in political office. His making time to listen to people from all walks of life, and different points of view, in making decisions that are fair and in the best interests of Singaporeans. His resolve to tackle difficult issues early, never leaving them to future leaders to resolve, even if it means paying an immediate political price.
Government policies will be reviewed from time to time, improved, and even revised fundamentally as circumstances change.
But while governments can reverse policies, there is no reversing when standards slide, as unfortunately illustrated by many other countries.
Public distrust grows, political leaders respond by avoiding essential decisions for the country’s future, those who enter politics lack conviction, and the downward spiral continues.
We must never let slide the expectations of integrity, incorruptibility and conduct that Mr Lee and his predecessors established.
As prime minister, leadership succession has been at the top of Mr Lee’s mind. In his own words, his service as prime minister is now made complete with the appointment of Mr Lawrence Wong as his successor.
This is once again a smooth and orderly transition in political leadership in Singapore, and only the third in our six-decade history.
No lengthy defence is needed for this, because it has worked well for Singapore. It has preserved political stability and allowed Government to plan for the long term, while enabling a new team to adjust policies to fit the changing times.
Mr Lawrence Wong takes over as prime minister in a period of growing global fractiousness and big power contestation, and a weakening international order.
Mr Wong and his team, comprising both experienced hands and 4G ministers who have had several years of engagement with their international counterparts, are well placed to secure our national interests amid these unpredictable geopolitical currents, and to help advance Asean unity.
Domestically, Mr Wong and his 4G team are determined to refresh our social compact. They have laid out their Forward SG road map for a more inclusive, resilient, and united Singapore.
They will have to find creative ways to deepen our connections as fellow Singaporeans, as our society continues to evolve and people have more diverse views and interests.
Those who have worked with Mr Wong, in government and in the community, know that he brings his own package of convictions, life experiences and skills.
He is first and foremost someone who listens, as he did in the Forward Singapore exercise.
He has played a key role in shaping our economic, fiscal and social policies. He has worked with the labour movement to advance the interests of workers.
As co-chair of the Covid-19 task force, he was calm and decisive under pressure. And on the global stage, he holds his own with international leaders.
I have full confidence in Mr Lawrence Wong’s ability to lead Singapore as we venture into uncharted waters internationally, and to rally Singaporeans from all walks of life to create the next chapter of the Singapore story together.
He will be his own person, with his own approach to building consensus and finding the best way forward for the country. And he will no doubt do so to his own rhythm and beat.
As President, I am committed to working with the Prime Minister and his Government.
Mr Lee and I embarked on a constructive and harmonious relationship since I took office as president eight months ago. We met regularly and had candid private discussions on key developments, plans and the international challenges Singapore faces. We have had a shared understanding of our respective roles and responsibilities in Singapore’s system of governance.
I look forward to maintaining this close and productive relationship with Mr Wong.
Singaporeans can be assured that our country is in good hands. Mr Lawrence Wong and his team will build on the strong foundations laid by previous prime ministers and governments, and keep our little red dot shining ever more brightly. Our best years still lie ahead of us.
I now ask Mr Lawrence Wong to come forward and take his oath of office as Prime Minister, followed by the ministers he has designated as members of his Cabinet.
======
.
PM Lawrence Wong to S’poreans: ‘Join me and my team in our journey forward’
Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong shaking hands with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong after receiving the instrument of appointment from President Tharman Shanmugaratnam during the swearing-in ceremony at the Istana on May 15. ST PHOTO: KEVIN LIM
Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent
UPDATED MAY 16, 2024, 08:19 AM in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Prime Minister Lawrence Wong called on Singaporeans to join him in the ambitious goal of building a society where everyone matters “and a Singapore that matters to all Singaporeans”.
There will be no easy formulas to apply, and no models to follow in this task, he said on May 15 after being sworn in as Singapore’s fourth prime minister at the Istana.
But he and his fourth-generation political leaders, together with the help of Singaporeans, will experiment to discover fresh solutions and blaze new paths.
“Everyone will have a stake in our nation’s progress. Everyone will play a key role in shaping our future,” he said in his inauguration speech.
Addressing Singaporeans for the first time as their prime minister, he promised to serve with all his heart, to never settle for the status quo, and to “always seek better ways to make tomorrow better than today”.
As prime minister, his mission was clear: To continue defying the odds and to sustain the miracle of Singapore.
“So that we can reach even greater heights. So that we can be a beacon of hope and unity for ourselves and our children,” he added.
Laying out his plans to take Singapore forward amid a more challenging world, PM Wong said there will be those who doubt Singapore’s ability to go further.
But he was sure they would be proven wrong as they have been in the past.
“When the going gets tough, we do not crumble. We press on, with faith in our fellow citizens and in Singapore’s future. We strive harder, reach further, and prove that with determination and hard work, there is no challenge we cannot overcome,” he said.
This is the spirit he will bring to his new role, he added.
In a ceremony before an audience which he said embodied the “rich fabric of our nation”, he solemnly took his affirmation of allegiance and of due execution of office.
Led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, he swore to bear faith and allegiance to Singapore and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He also swore to faithfully discharge his duties according to law to the best of his knowledge and ability, and without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
Watching on at the Istana lawn were students, teachers, unionists, business leaders, athletes, artists, community volunteers and the front-liners PM Wong had thanked tearily in Parliament in 2020 for their contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
When he was done, he was handed a scroll, the instrument of appointment, by President Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam (centre) hands Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (left) the instrument of appointment at the Istana on May 15. With them is Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. ST PHOTO: KEVIN LIM
Then, in order of seniority, Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as senior minister, Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Heng Swee Keat as deputy prime ministers, and Mr Teo Chee Hean as senior minister.
This was followed by 14 ministers, nine senior ministers of state and five ministers of state.
PM Wong, who has been taking classes in Malay and Mandarin, spoke first in the two languages before moving on to English.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Recap: Highlights from PM Wong’s swearing-in
High standards in politicians must be kept: President Tharman
The ceremony, held at the Istana at night after a heavy afternoon downpour, marked not just a change in leadership but also in generations.
Mr Wong is the first prime minister of Singapore to be born after the country’s independence in 1965, as are most of his colleagues in the fourth-generation (4G) team.
(Front row, from left) DPM Heng Swee Keat, SM Lee Hsien Loong, PM Lawrence Wong, DPM Gan Kim Yong, SM Teo Chee Hean with the new Cabinet at the Istana on May 15. PHOTO: MCI
Citing this, he said his generation have been shaped by their experiences, having seen the vital importance of good leadership, political stability and long-term planning, and have also benefited from the imaginative policies of Singapore’s founding fathers.
Their leadership style will differ from previous generations’, he said.
“We will lead in our own way. We will continue to think boldly and to think far,” he added.
He also pledged to build on the foundations laid by the earlier generations, acknowledging that he and his team stood on “the shoulders of giants”, such as Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and his team who led the country through independence and established the key pillars of governance; and second prime minister Goh Chok Tong and his team who took the country through the next lap, and nurtured a kinder and gentler society.
For his predecessor, SM Lee, PM Wong reserved a special tribute.
He thanked the outgoing prime minister for his guidance and mentorship, and on behalf of the nation, for his devotion to the service of the country and people, and his stewardship of Singapore.
“Mr Lee spoke often of the need to keep Singapore exceptional. He was exceptional himself – in his devotion, his selflessness, and his dedication to serve,” said PM Wong.
A smiling SM Lee leaned forward in a bow in his front-row seat, to applause from the audience.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Lawrence Wong vows to realise ‘refreshed S’pore dream’ in maiden speech as PM
Interactive: Who’s who in S’pore’s new Cabinet
President Tharman, in a speech before the swearing-in ceremony, said much could be recalled about SM Lee’s leadership in areas from foreign to security policies. “But it is above all the norms and standards that Mr Lee upheld and reinforced – the intangibles of political leadership – that define his most important legacy,” he added.
“His selflessness and personal integrity, and the expectations of high standards of conduct that he set for those in political office. His making time to listen to people from all walks of life, and different points of view, in making decisions that are fair and in the best interests of Singaporeans. His resolve to tackle difficult issues early, never leaving them to future leaders to resolve, even if it means paying an immediate political price.”
Singapore should never let slide these expectations of integrity, incorruptibility and conduct that SM Lee and his predecessors have established, as there will be no going back when standards slide, said Mr Tharman.
Even as he started out in his new role, PM Wong, who had emerged as the front runner for the role of prime minister in 2022 after the 4G’s earlier choice, DPM Heng, stepped down, had succession on his mind.
One of his key priorities is to identify and persuade younger Singaporeans, men and women in the 30s and 40s, to join his team, he said.
“So I call out tonight to all my fellow citizens: Help me to provide Singaporeans with the government they deserve. Let us make a difference, and serve our nation together,” he said.
Later in the night, PM Wong arrived to an enthusiastic reception in Yew Tee where more than 1,000 people had gathered to watch his swearing-in ceremony.
PM Wong, who has been an MP for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC since 2015, said to them: “The best days of Singapore are still ahead of us, the best chapters of our Singapore story lie ahead – let’s work together to build a better Singapore together.”
======
.
Forum: Respect and trust needed to strengthen Singapore identity
UPDATED MAY 17, 2024, 05:25 AM ST Forum.
The inaugural speech made by newly appointed Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shows he is not a taskmaster but a dedicated and committed leader (PM Lawrence Wong to S’poreans: “Join me and my team in our journey forward”, May 15).
He shows he cares for every Singaporean when he says: “Everyone will have a stake in our nation’s progress. Everyone will play a key role in shaping our future.”
Singaporeans like this leadership style where their views can be heard and acted upon.
PM Wong also believes in mutual respect and trust to continue to develop and strengthen the Singapore identity. I agree with him – without trust, every word is misunderstood and it is difficult to unite the people.
PM Wong has pledged to foster a fairer, more just and more equal society by looking after seniors, the vulnerable, and those with special needs. A government that cares will always get the support of the people.
As Singaporeans, we wish PM Wong success in achieving his vision to reach greater heights for a better Singapore so that we all can have more good years.
We should be mindful that we do not have natural resources and our survival is never assured unless we make ourselves and Singapore relevant to the rest of the world by supporting good leaders who have the integrity, wisdom, courage and determination to ensure Singapore forges ahead.
Unfortunately in my interactions with Singaporeans, I have found that many are unfamiliar with the Singapore story and take our current economic success and way of life for granted.
I’m concerned that future generations will feel even more entitled and complain about setbacks instead of working to improve and overcome them. Singaporeans should know who we are, where we come from, how we got here and where we are heading.
I suggest raising more awareness of the Singapore story so people can appreciate more the struggles, contributions and trials and tribulations of past generations.
I wish SM Lee – who handed over the reins to our new Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G team – good health and many more good years.
Yeow Hwee Ming.
=============
.
.
Singapore in a phase where ‘we have to do more together’: PM Lee
Published Wed, Nov 08, 2023 · 10:26 pm in businesstimes.com.sg
Singapore is “sailing carefully to a more comfortable place”, says PM Lee, who was asked if the country is “drifting to the left” given the increase in social transfers in recent years.
PHOTO: DESMOND WEE, ST
SINGAPORE must now “do more together” to help those who fall behind, compared to the “very rigorous” approach of earlier years, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on the first day of the Bloomberg New Economy Forum on Wednesday (Nov 8).
He was in conversation with Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, who asked if PM Lee has been “drifting to the left” in his two decades of leadership, given recent programmes of handouts.
PM Lee replied that Singapore is “sailing carefully to a more comfortable place”, drawing a contrast to what the country did for “a very long time”.
“When the economy is growing and all boats are lifted by the tide, we can afford to be – and we need to be – very rigorous in how we help those who are not quite catching up,” he said. “We can tell them, ‘Run faster, work harder, here’s a bit more incentive, go ahead’, and mostly it works very well.”
But as the race goes on, the field spreads out: some are further forward, others less so, and their children lag behind too. “You have to think, how are you going to hold this team together?”
Those who are doing well may also fall behind when the world changes, he noted. “Do you say that’s just the way the world is? Or is there something I can do to help him get back into the race again and be contributing again?
“We are in a phase where we have to do more together, where we have to help each other, and the government has to be there. And we have to try very hard to avoid the government being this sole solution to all problems.”
While the government maintains a lean budget, pressures such as ageing and social costs are pushing this up. The challenge is how to fund this, PM Lee said: “And that means, from time to time, uttering the forbidden word: taxes.”
Singapore is in the midst of doing that, including hiking the goods and services tax to 9 per cent in January, he noted.
PM Lee recalled having both his predecessors in his Cabinet meetings, noting that “it worked quite well”.
“It’s a very delicate thing to be overwatching but not overbearing,” he said, adding that he would be “at the disposal” of Wong.
As for whether global developments prompted the intended timing of his handover – by November 2024 – PM Lee replied: “The world is a difficult place. Whether I hand over next year or in five years’ time, there will be things outstanding and there will be clouds on the horizon.”
Global troubles
With US-China ties, “the climate is very difficult on both sides”, PM Lee noted. Very entrenched views have taken root: “In America, the only thing the two parties agree on is that China is a grave threat, and in China, there’s also a very strong consensus that America is out to block them, and it’s difficult to coexist with America.”
US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a good meeting on the sidelines of the G20 in Bali last year, but “events happened and things went off track”, he added.
Reports have said the two could meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in San Francisco next week, but Xi’s attendance has not been confirmed. Said PM Lee: “You need a meeting to head in the right direction, but you do not expect a meeting to make everything sweetness and light again. It’s not possible.”
The conversation also covered two major conflicts: Israel-Hamas and Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Asked why Singapore has taken “a slightly different position to America” in coming down harder on Israel in recent days, PM Lee replied: “We have to take a principled position, considering our national interests and considering also the sentiments and human reactions of our people.”
Singapore fully understands how the Israelis feel about the Oct 7 terrorist attack by Hamas, he said. “But what has happened since then in Gaza, as a consequence of Israeli operations, is an enormous human tragedy.”
“The numbers keep on ticking up every day, but it’s many times as many as what happened on Oct 7,” he said. “Everybody around the world looks at this and, in despair, says: ‘Surely this has to stop’.”
He added: “We have to exhort the Israelis and everybody else to abide by international norms and have consideration for innocent civilians.”
As for the war in Ukraine, it will be a long and difficult fight as “Russia is not going to declare that they have lost”, PM Lee said – even though Russia has already failed to overcome Ukraine.
Russia’s failure is “a great plus for the world” because if they had succeeded with a sudden takeover and created a new border, “the world would have been much the more dangerous place”, he said.
=============
.
Cabinet reshuffle on the cards after PM Lee unveils handover timeline: Political analysts
PM Lee Hsien Loong and DPM Lawrence Wong mingling with party members after the PAP’s convention on Nov 5. ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG Goh Yan Han and Jean Iau UPDATED 5 NOV 2023, 11:18 PM SGT in Sunday Times.
SINGAPORE – Now that it has been announced that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong will take over the reins ahead of the next polls, the next milestone to expect is Cabinet movements, said political observers.
When this happens, DPM Wong will likely play a key role in the decision-making, they added.
The announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday answered a key question many have been asking: When will DPM Wong and his fourth-generation (4G) leadership team take over?
At the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) convention, PM Lee said he would hand over the baton by the party’s 70th anniversary, which falls on Nov 21, 2024.
Political observer and former Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharudin told The Straits Times that he expects a reshuffle “sooner rather than later”. “The starting gun has been fired, you’ve got to start running,” he said.
Explaining his thinking, Mr Zulkifli said the 4G leadership will need enough time and exposure to win the confidence of Singaporeans. It will also need enough experience to anchor group representation constituencies, especially those that are expected to see a tough fight in the next general election, like Marine Parade and West Coast.
The election has to be held by November 2025.
Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said the reshuffle could happen even before the end of 2023, with no more movements from then until after the election.
This would give ministers and other key political office holders about a year to roll out policy changes, especially those related to Forward Singapore, he said.
Forward Singapore, a nationwide engagement exercise led by DPM Wong, culminated in a road map for Singapore’s future, the details of which were released in end-October.
On whether the leadership transition announcement has thrown up any clues on when the election may be held, the political pundits concurred that there was no ideal time for this.
Political observer Felix Tan said there is a high chance it could be called in 2024, though the exact date would still depend on when the handover takes place.
Professor Eugene Tan said an election could be called as early as the first half of 2024 after the Budget, or in the last quarter of the year.
An election held after Budget 2025 cannot be ruled out either, though that would be the last viable window, he added.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC PM Lee says he will hand over leadership to DPM Wong by Nov 2024 if all goes well, before next GE.
Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior international affairs analyst at Solaris Strategies Singapore, said it is possible that DPM Wong could take over after PM Lee delivers his swansong National Day Rally in 2024. This would then leave the new leader to set the election date.
Having an election so soon after the leadership transition, though, may not be the most prudent, so there needs to be some runway to prepare for the election, he added.
Mr Zulkifli said it would not be in the PAP’s interest to delay the election, given that economic conditions are unlikely to improve in the next one to two years.
“There’s no such thing as good timing for elections any more. Contestation and appetite for opposition are stronger than in the past,” he said.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC ‘I am ready for my next assignment’: DPM Wong at PAP conference.
On what could derail PM Lee’s plans for a handover by November 2024, the experts pointed to worsening geopolitical tensions, a severe economic downturn, a health crisis, or a major security incident such as a terrorist attack.
Another question that has now come up is who DPM Wong will appoint as his deputy or deputies when he takes up the top job.
Dr Felix Tan said Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Education Minister Chan Chun Sing, who were both in the running for the prime minister post some time back, could be possibilities.
“But we might also see our very first female DPM”, he said, without naming anyone.
DPM Wong may also want to select from the current 3G leaders to ensure some continuity in leadership despite the transition, he said.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC ‘We’ll never let standards slip, system go corrupt’: PM Lee on need for clean governance. PAP will win back opposition constituencies ‘sooner or later’: PM Lee.
Prof Eugene Tan said that apart from Mr Ong and Mr Chan, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee’s name is also in the mix.
While Sunday’s announcement reiterates PM Lee’s confidence in the 4G team, the observers said DPM Wong still has his work cut out for him in getting Singaporeans’ buy-in.
“It is very likely that PM Lee wanted to be certain that DPM Wong’s vision for Singapore and the PAP is well established and clearly articulated – through the Forward SG report – before handing over the reins,” said Dr Felix Tan.
Dr Gillian Koh, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said it is important for DPM Wong to stay connected to the ground during the transition process.
This is important as he seeks the trust of Singaporeans to implement the Forward Singapore agenda and help everyone ride through the difficult conditions that the world and therefore Singapore will see in the days ahead, she said.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC Embracing diversity key to S’pore’s success, say young PAP activists. Will you be my MP? PAP, WP unveil new faces, recruit candidates ahead of next GE.
Unlock unlimited access to ST exclusive content, insights.
.
==============
.
PM Lee says he will hand over leadership to DPM Wong by Nov 2024 if all goes well, before next GE.
PM Lee noted that the ministers had already chosen Mr Wong to be their leader, a choice endorsed by the PAP MPs.ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
PM Lee said on Sunday: “Lawrence has told me that he is ready… I have full confidence in Lawrence and his team, there is no reason to delay the political transition.”
He was speaking at the party’s biennial convention held at the Singapore Expo Convention and Exhibition Centre, addressing more than 1,000 party members.
He said that while he did not manage to pass on the baton before his 70th birthday as hoped, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, “if all goes well, I will hand over by PAP’s 70th birthday next year”. The party was set up on Nov 21, 1954.
The major decision that was left to make was when the handover should take place, before or after the next GE.
Handing over to DPM Wong before the GE would mean he would be the one leading the party in the campaign, and would win his own mandate and take the country forward with the full backing of the nation, said PM Lee.
“Leadership transition for any country is always tricky. Many things can go awry. Both Singaporeans and people outside Singapore, near and far, are watching very closely. Everything depends on the success of this third transition in our history,” he added.
He said that he had thought over the decision carefully and discussed it thoroughly with DPM Wong and ministers from the 3G and 4G.
He acknowledged that DPM Wong and the 4G team have been serving for many years now, and have taken on greater responsibilities.
They are preparing well to take the helm and earned their spurs during the Covid-19 pandemic, he added.
Increasingly, they are setting the national agenda, such as through the Forward Singapore exercise, he said.
“Therefore, I intend to hand over to DPM Lawrence before the next GE,” said PM Lee.
“After that, I will be at the new PM’s disposal. I will go wherever he thinks I can be useful,” he added.
“I will do my best to help him and his team to fight and win the next GE, and to fulfil their responsibilities… I want to help him fulfil his responsibilities, leading the country, so that Singapore can continue to succeed beyond me and my 3G minister colleagues, for many, many more years to come.”
Fighting back tears, PM Lee said: “It has been my great fortune and honour to have served the country, first in the SAF, and then in the party and government, for all of my adult life.”
As he paused to compose himself, loud cheers erupted around the hall as party members stood to applaud him.
Noting that Singapore and the PAP have been thoroughly transformed through his time as PM for almost 20 years, he added: “Some things never change… We remain dedicated to Singapore, we still feel the call of duty to serve the people, we still have a duty to future generations to keep this island safe and secure.”
“These things have not changed under my watch, and they will not change under the 4G team. I ask each of you to give Lawrence and his team your full support, help them win a strong mandate, and work with them to take Singapore to greater heights.”
DPM Wong, in his speech earlier, spoke of how he had been working hard to get ready to receive the baton from PM Lee.
“I will not be in this alone. I will have a team of 4G leaders whom I have worked closely with over the years. We are ready to lead,” he said, adding that he is ready for his next assignment.
On his leadership approach, DPM Wong said he does not start with the assumption that he knows everything or has all the answers.
Instead, he prefers to begin by listening to a diverse range of perspectives and views and staying open to different ideas.
“I’ve been in Government long enough to know that I cannot please everyone. But I will do my best to explain my decision, to be upfront about the problems and trade-offs, and win the support of the broad majority of Singaporeans,” added DPM Wong.
Three young party activists also spoke on various topics. Associate Professor Elmie Nekmat, branch chairman of the Sengkang Central division, stressed the need to address the segregation and fragmentation brought about by digital technologies and social media.
Organising secretary of the Young PAP Chua Wei-Shan spoke on the challenges for a political party to self-rejuvenate, which involves attracting committed and forward-thinking individuals as well as fostering a conducive environment for diverse perspectives.
Assistant branch secretary of the PAP’s Jurong Spring division Hamid Razak added that recognising and valuing different perspectives can lead to more comprehensive policy solutions, and called for more collaborative decision-making.
At the event, 415 activists also received party awards as recognition for their dedication and service to Singapore.
In his speech, PM Lee also spoke of the need for high quality leadership for the PAP to govern competently, keep clean and win elections.
Right now, the party has a strong and capable top team that is in touch with Singaporeans, that has shown what it can do, he said.
“Singapore needs an outstanding ‘First Team’ of leaders – who, on top of mastering the politics, can deliver good government for Singapore,” he said.
Singapore has a good public service, noted PM Lee.
“Sometimes people argue that Singapore civil servants are so good, that we don’t need ministers who are so competent or experienced… It’s a crazy argument,” he said.
“The civil service didn’t create itself out of thin air. We have a good civil service precisely because we have had good political leadership who built up a world-class civil service.”
Civil servants can only deliver good results if led by competent ministers who understand the issues, make good decisions and command their respect, said PM Lee.
Only then can ministers guide and complement the civil servants in their work and deliver on their political promises, he added.
He likened it to an orchestra, which could be composed of the best musicians in the world, but without a good conductor, it cannot produce good music.
“In fact, if the players are not impressed with their conductor, they may leave the orchestra to perform under some other maestro’s baton, and we will be left with a mediocre orchestra,” he said.
This was seen vividly in the pandemic, where ministries and agencies performed magnificently, but without the ministers to make big, risky decisions and take political responsibility, Singapore would not have come through as it did, said PM Lee.
“Remember – if we have ordinary political leaders, we’re going to have an ordinary public service, and this is going to become an ordinary country. For other countries, it’s fine,” he said.
“But if one day this little red dot no longer shines brightly and is exceptional, if it cannot stand out compared to other countries in the world, you are nobody, you are sunk.”
PAP will work harder to win votes from Singaporeans
PM Lee also spoke of how conviction, support and votes are now harder to win.
While the party’s policies may be working and arguments may be logical, Singaporeans must be convinced that the PAP is on their side.
The party must engage widely, present and communicate its policies well, and help Singaporeans understand how they can benefit from them.
It also needs to counter opposition moves to undermine the government, show them up when they are less than upfront, and defeat their tactics to create doubt and sow confusion, said PM Lee.
Describing briefly the party’s history, PM Lee noted that the PAP was not born dominant, but has won every election since independence decisively.
“But with each successive election, the PAP’s task has become harder… Singaporeans’ expectations have evolved. They hope to do much better for themselves, they expect much more from the government,” he said.
He acknowledged that “quite a few” hope to see more alternative voices in Parliament, even though an overwhelming majority agree that the PAP should continue to govern Singapore – “in fact, even the opposition parties think so, and say so”.
The PAP hence faces a unique political quandary, said PM Lee.
While an overwhelming majority want – and expect – the PAP to form the government, a significant proportion also wants the party’s opponents to do better, he said.
In working harder to win elections, the party’s politicians will have to spend more time and energy on politics, inevitably at the expense of policies, he added.
While constructive and responsible political debate is good and necessary, actual debate in Parliament does not always reach this ideal, said PM Lee.
“Not infrequently, it becomes a political brawl. The opposition tries to score political points, the government does its best to explain its considerations and constraints, and why the opposition’s proposals may not work. And so it goes, in a repeated cycle,” he said.
While some of this is to be expected, if it goes too far, more energies will be spent debating and manoeuvring for political advantage, leaving problems unsolved and society divided, said PM Lee.
“Having more opposition MPs doesn’t necessarily make for a better government,” he said.
He noted how other countries, even those who call themselves “mature democracies”, have seen increasingly polarised politics.
For example, the United States was recently at a political stalemate when the previous Speaker of the House was kicked off his role, and the election for a new speaker saw bitter political infighting among the Republicans.
“As Singaporeans, we must manage our politics better, and at all costs we must avoid running into such problems,” said PM Lee.
Emphasising his experience in government for almost 40 years, PM Lee said there was no way PAP governments could have planned for the long-term and adopted tough but necessary policies if they had to constantly worry about being around after the next election.
“Today’s Singapore could not have been built by a weak government hanging on to power by a slim majority, or with the governing party and policies chopping and changing after each election,” he said.
“This is a nation of lions led by lions. If we have a nation of lions disunited and led by unworthy leaders, we would have come to grief a long time ago.”
He acknowledged that the possibility of the PAP being challenged is always there, and must always be there, as the essence of democracy.
Hence the party must continue to do a good job and make sure Singaporeans continue to have a good choice when they cast their votes.
While opposition parties may tell voters not to worry as they do not aim to form the next government, and that the PAP can continue to think long term even with a majority of just one seat, or that neighbours will not think the country is weak – “with lives and futures at stake, voters must worry”, said PM Lee.
“Give (your vote) to the party you trust to keep us together, to build a Singapore fit for your kids and that will be there for their kids.”
PM Lee gets emotional while reflecting on leadership transition and a lifetime of service to the nation during People’s Action Party convention. (PHOTO: Screengrab/PAPFBlive) (PM Lee)
In an emotional speech at the PAP’s convention at the Singapore Expo Convention and Exhibition Centre on Sunday (5 November), PM Lee added that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is set to lead the party in the next general election (GE), which must be held before November 2025.
“Because of the COVID-19 (pandemic), I did not manage to pass on the baton by my 70th birthday as I had hoped to do. But if all goes well, I will hand over by PAP’s 70th birthday next year,” the 71-year-old said.
PAP was set up on 21 November 1954.
‘Full confidence’ in DPM Wong taking over the reins
PM Lee’s speech marks the clearest indication of the impending transition of leadership within the PAP, as he expressed full confidence in handing over the reins to DPM Wong at the convention, which was attended by over 1,000 party members.
“I intend to hand over to DPM Lawrence before the next GE,” he said.
“After that, I will be at Lawrence’s disposal. I will go wherever he thinks I can be useful, I will do my best to help him and his team to fight and win the next GE, and to fulfil their responsibilities leading the country.
“Lawrence has told me that he is ready… I have full confidence in Lawrence and his team, there is no reason to delay the political transition.”
PM Lee emphasised that the ministers had already chosen DPM Wong to be their leader, and the PAP Members of Parliament have also endorsed this choice.
This content is not available due to your privacy preferences.
Strategic considerations, leadership transition, and the road ahead
PM Lee explained that if the handover is to take place before the general election, DPM Wong would lead the party in the campaign, securing his own mandate and taking the country forward with the full backing of the nation.
He acknowledged the significance of leadership transitions, highlighting the scrutiny from both Singaporeans and international observers.
He stated, “Leadership transition for any country is always tricky. Many things can go awry. Both Singaporeans and people outside Singapore, near and far, are watching very closely. Everything depends on the success of this third transition in our history.”
He added that he had carefully considered this decision and thoroughly discussed with DPM Wong and ministers from the 3G and 4G leadership generations.
He praised Wong and the 4G leadership team for their years of service and increased responsibilities, especially amid the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He said they have played a pivotal role in shaping the national agenda, exemplified by initiatives like the Forward Singaporeexercise.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, dedicated to assuming leadership, emphasises a collaborative approach. (PHOTO: Screengrab/PAPFB) ((PHOTO: Screengrab/PAPFB))
Wong’s vision for inclusive leadership and effective communication
In his speech at the convention, DPM Lawrence Wong expressed his commitment to taking on the leadership role from PM Lee and emphasised that he won’t be working in isolation.
He highlighted the collective strength of the 4G leaders he has closely collaborated with over the years, stating, “I will not be in this alone. I will have a team of 4G leaders whom I have worked closely with over the years. We are ready to lead.”
DPM Wong also urged the party’s activists to expand their outreach efforts and diversify the demographics of the individuals they engage with. He stressed the importance of connecting with Singaporeans through various platforms.
“We must engage a wider range of groups, and grow the diversity of people we bring into our PAP,” he said.
Furthermore, DPM Wong, who also serves as the party’s deputy secretary-general, stressed the need for the party to enhance its communication strategies.
He highlighted the importance of clearly articulating the party’s core values, long-term plans, and activities across the board. He also underlined the need for the party to communicate effectively not only through actions but also through improved messaging, especially via social media.
Policy clarity, organisational strengthening, unity in the party’s mission
DPM Wong called for the party to explain how its policies differ from those proposed by the opposition. He noted that while some similarities exist, the PAP must clarify why its approach is better for the benefit of Singapore and its citizens.
He also highlighted the necessity of reviewing and strengthening the party’s organisational structure. He recognised the dedication of party activists across different branches and emphasised the potential of young members brimming with innovative ideas. He expressed his commitment to providing resources and support to help activists turn their ideas into action and engage the Singaporean population.
DPM Wong highlighted the party’s dedication to the mission of uniting Singaporeans and working together to build a shared future, stating, “Together, we will demonstrate our resolve and dedication as a party, fully committed to the mission of uniting Singaporeans and building our shared future together.”
==============
.
Lawrence Wong promoted to Deputy Prime Minister as part of Singapore Cabinet changes
Finance Minister Lawrence Wong’s appointment as Deputy Prime Minister comes two months after he was named leader of PAP’s 4G team.PHOTO: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
SINGAPORE – Finance Minister Lawrence Wong will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister from June 13, 2022 in a move that cements his standing as the successor to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
He will be the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of PM Lee, 70.
Mr Wong will also continue as Minister for Finance, and assume responsibility for the Strategy Group within the Prime Minister’s Office, taking over this role from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat.
The Strategy Group oversees key priorities and issues facing Singapore over the medium to long term, such as population and climate change.
DPM Heng, 61, will remain as Deputy Prime Minister.
He will also continue as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, and oversee the Future Economy Council as well as assist PM Lee in overseeing the National Research Foundation and Productivity Fund Administration Board.
PM Lee said in a Facebook post on Monday (June 6): “The next generation leadership is taking shape. I ask everyone to give your full support to this important transition, to steer Singapore safely out of the pandemic and into a brighter future.”
DPM Heng added in a Facebook post: “We took another important step towards leadership renewal today, with the appointment of Lawrence Wong as DPM.
“Lawrence has our fullest support. I will give my all to help him succeed, while serving alongside him as DPM and as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies,” he added.
The Cabinet has traditionally had two deputy PMs since the 1980s, with the exception of a short period in the 1990s when PM Lee was the only DPM on board, and since May 2019, when DPM Heng was the only person holding the post.
Besides Mr Wong’s promotion, eight officeholders will be promoted or given new portfolios and responsibilities.
Minister of State for National Development, and Communications and Information Tan Kiat How will be promoted to Senior Minister of State.
Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, Community and Youth and Social and Family Development Eric Chua will be promoted to Senior Parliamentary Secretary.
Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will also be promoted to Senior Parliamentary Secretary. She will remain at the Ministry of Health and take up a new appointment in the Ministry of Law, and relinquish her appointment at the Ministry of Communications and Information.
Meanwhile, Senior Minister of State for Transport Chee Hong Tat, who joined the labour movement last year, will relinquish his role as deputy secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress and return to government full-time. He will be given an additional portfolio in the Ministry of Finance.
Senior Minister of State for Manpower and Health Koh Poh Koon will give up his Health portfolio and join the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment.
Minister of State for Social and Family Development and Education Sun Xueling will relinquish her Education portfolio and join the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Minister of State for Home Affairs and Sustainability and Environment Desmond Tan will relinquish both portfolios. He will be appointed Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, and take on Mr Chee’s role in the labour movement.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Baey Yam Keng will take on an additional portfolio in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment.
At that time, Mr Wong was given the key finance portfolio.
In April this year, PM Lee announced that Mr Wong had been selected as leader of the 4G team by his peers and that Cabinet ministers had affirmed the choice.
The decision was then endorsed by all PAP MPs in a party caucus.
Mr Wong was a senior civil servant before contesting the 2011 General Election, and became minister of state for defence and education. He was acting minister for culture, community and youth in 2012, and promoted to full minister in 2014.
He became national development minister in 2015, took on an additional role as second minister for finance in 2016, and was made education minister after the 2020 General Election. He became finance minister in May last year.
Finance Minister Lawrence Wong will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister from June 13, and will act as PM in Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s absence. Here’s how the Cabinet will look.
Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
PROMOTED
Lawrence Wong
Deputy Prime Minister; Minister for Finance
Heng Swee Keat
Deputy Prime Minister; Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies
Teo Chee Hean
Senior Minister; Coordinating Minister for National Security
Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Senior Minister; Coordinating Minister for Social Policies
Ng Eng Hen
Minister for Defence
Vivian Balakrishnan
Minister for Foreign Affairs
K. Shanmugam
Minister for Home Affairs; Minister for Law
Gan Kim Yong
Minister for Trade and Industry
S. Iswaran
Minister for Transport
Grace Fu
Minister for Sustainability and the Environment
Chan Chun Sing
Minister for Education
Masagos Zulkifli
Minister for Social and Family Development; Second Minister for Health
Ong Ye Kung
Minister for Health
Desmond Lee
Minister for National Development
Josephine Teo
Minister for Communications and Information; Second Minister for Home Affairs
Indranee Rajah
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office; Second Minister for National Development and Finance
Maliki Osman
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office; Second Minister for Education and Foreign Affairs
Edwin Tong
Minister for Culture, Community and Youth; Second Minister for Law
Tan See Leng
Minister for Manpower; Second Minister for Trade and Industry
Source: Prime Minister’s Office
.
=============
.=
Do you see what we see in the Cabinet reshuffle? Yup, that’s a 4G team right there.
June 7, 2022 in petir.sg
In what many analysts and opinion writers described as “non-disruptive” and “minimalist”, we see the latest Cabinet reshuffle as “crystal clear”.
That’s right, it is clear that the 4G team is crystallising, with leader Finance Minister Lawrence Wong as primus inter pares. He will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister on Jun 13, 2022 and importantly, he will be Acting Prime Minister in the absence of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Now, you are probably thinking: the only thing that is clear is that Mr Lawrence Wong is on track to take over the reins from PM Lee in the future.
Before we go into the main gist of this article, we’d like to say that Mr Wong’s appointment as DPM is a major advancement of the succession plan and this development shouldn’t be taken for granted. Indeed, this point was noted by Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser of the Department of Sociology at the National University of Singapore, who told CNA that the reshuffle “cuts out the uncertainty and speculation”.
Ok, end of important digression.
You see, in this “minimalist” reshuffle, what’s important is not who is moving where but who is staying put.
And who’s staying put?
All the ministers.
This is the surest sign of the formation of a 4G team with support from the experienced ministers like Senior Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, plus experienced heads like Ministers Ng Eng Hen and K Shanmugam continuing to steady the ship in their respective Defence and Home Affairs portfolios.
Yes, it must be said that stability within the Cabinet in this increasingly unstable world Singapore is operating in is important.
But beyond that, the lack of any major moves allows the current 4G ministers the opportunity to flourish in their own roles and create a brand new social compact, referred to as Forward Singapore by Mr Wong, for Singapore.
Mr Wong said in the May Day Rally this year: “The 4G team and I will lead an exercise to refresh our social compact. We will engage stakeholders from every sphere: unions and people in private sectors. We will seek to hear your thoughts on the economy, healthcare, housing, education and many other areas including how we can continue to support and uplift every worker.”
Be it Education Minister Chan Chun Sing changing the education landscape with continual learning; Health Minister Ong Ye Kung’s ambitious Healthier SG that looks at preventive care; or National Development Minister Desmond Lee’s hands on and ground approach to policy making, the fact remains that we are witnessing the formation of a strong 4G team.
By staying put, it also signals that they are on the right track and PM Lee’s intentions of allowing the ministers continue and advance their good work.
Mr Lawrence Wong had, in more than one occasion, said about the heavy responsibilities as the PM-in-waiting and the importance of a strong 4G team.
He said in his May Day rally speech that the 4G team will do whatever it takes to keep Singapore special.
This Cabinet reshuffle is the first step towards a special Singapore.
.
=
.
Cabinet reshuffle likely in early June 2022, says PM Lee
The move will likely see Finance Minister Lawrence Wong (right), PM Lee Hsien Loong’s successor, promoted to deputy prime minister.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
WASHINGTON – Singapore’s upcoming Cabinet reshuffle is likely to take place in early June, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The move is likely to see Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, PM Lee’s successor, promoted to deputy prime minister.
PM Lee said the Cabinet changes were in the works and added that he expected them to be announced after his upcoming overseas trips.
He is scheduled to speak at the 27th International Conference on the Future of Asia on May 26 and 27, organised by the Nikkei business media group. The conference, titled “Redefining Asia’s role in a divided world”, will be streamed online and held in Tokyo.
“I am working at it. I had to focus on this trip, and I have another trip coming up in two weeks’ time, going to the Nikkei conference,” said PM Lee on Friday (May 13, US time). He had been asked by Singapore reporters for updates on Cabinet movements.
“But I am working at it and hope I shall be able to do it once I am done with my trips, which means early June,” he added.
MPs will lose their seat if fined at least $10,000, up from current $2,000
Parliament on Monday (May 9) unanimously approved amendments to the Constitution to update the disqualification criteria for MPs who were convicted and fined.PHOTO: GOV.SG FILE
SINGAPORE – MPs who are convicted and fined for an offence will now lose their seat only if the fine amount is at least $10,000, after Parliament on Monday (May 9) unanimously approved amendments to the Constitution to update the disqualification criteria.
This increase in the fine quantum, from the existing $2,000, takes into account inflation over the years, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing, who is also Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, told the House.
He noted that the quantum has not been reviewed since independence, and $2,000 then would amount to about $8,000 today.
The change also takes into account the sentences handed down by Singapore’s courts today for committing serious tax evasion and corruption offences, which are relevant to the integrity of a person, he added.
In a Facebook post on Feb 10, Mr Singh had brought up the prospect of losing his parliamentary seat if he is fined $2,000 or more, referring to the existing threshold.
Mr Chan did not refer to this on Monday, but said the changes are part of the Elections Department’s (ELD) broader review of election processes and legislation undertaken after General Election 2020.
How to grow your money and career
“ELD noted that the MP disqualification criteria has not been revised since independence,” he said.
He noted that some other changes the ELD had proposed, such as the possible introduction of postal voting for overseas Singaporeans and special arrangements for voters living in nursing homes, had been discussed in Parliament in March this year.
Besides amendments to Article 45 of the Constitution, which sets out the criteria for the disqualification of an MP, corresponding changes to Articles 37E and 72, relating to the disqualification of members of the Council of Presidential Advisers and Presidential Council for Minority Rights respectively, were also approved.
WP chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) described the increase of the fine quantum to $10,000 as “an attempt to retain the same standards of eligibility that existed when the law was originally enacted”.
While she said it was a move in the right direction, she questioned if an MP should even be disqualified over a fine.
In Australia and Britain, for instance, candidates at a national election are generally not disqualified if they are merely fined in court, whatever the amount, she noted.
She said fines may sometimes be imposed for infractions which many do not consider criminal in nature, citing a court case in which a member of an opposition party was fined $5,000 for contempt of court. The 2019 case involved Singapore Democratic Party member John Tan.
Ms Lim added that given the multitude of regulatory laws in modern society, there was always a risk that people involved in business or in certain industries may be fined for non-compliance.
Suggesting that future reviews could remove fines as a reason for disqualification, she said the setting of the criteria “affects the fundamental right of citizens to participate in public life, and also the right to continue in office after being duly elected by the people”.
She added: “Some may wonder why we need to be so concerned, since the disqualification based on a court sentence lasts for only five years, after which the person can stand for election again.
“While five years is, no doubt, just one election cycle, five years in a person’s life is not a short time; nor should we discount how society could lose from the contributions of an otherwise capable citizen banished to the political wilderness, even if temporarily.”
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten) and Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) said deciding on disqualification based on the fine quantum alone may be too blunt a tool.
They suggested specifying the offences that would disqualify someone as an MP, to better signal undesirable behaviour.
Mr Murali noted that some people guilty of dishonesty or moral turpitude, such as those who have committed fraud or sexual crimes, may not be disqualified if they were given fines that do not cross the threshold.
Mr Lim said there may be those who are disqualified just because of minor technical mistakes, such as not noticing a blind spot while driving, if their fines meet the threshold.
“We ought to set a bar in the Constitution that disqualifies a person from being an MP if that person is convicted of any offence that relates to dishonesty, fraud, corruption or bribery or sexual misconduct but not for careless driving,” he added.
Mr Murali also suggested that sitting MPs should be held to a higher standard than those who want to run in elections.
He said uniformed officers who have committed offences that gravely violate acceptable standards can be dismissed, irrespective of the sentence.
Responding, Mr Chan said the changes were intentionally kept narrow, in keeping with the democratic idea that a person’s right to participate in the political process and to stand for public office should be unfettered as far as possible.
“While we need to ensure fitness of individuals to be parliamentarians, the bar cannot be so high that we undermine our parliamentary system, which is founded on representative democracy,” he said.
“Keeping the disqualification criteria to a reasonable threshold also allows voters broad discretion to choose whom they wish to represent them.”
He said it was fair that the electorate gets to choose from the widest possible slate of candidates with a minimum level of checks for integrity, and that a person’s previous disqualification should reset after a period of five years.
He added that Singapore’s practice is no different from that of many other jurisdictions that disqualify MPs based on the fine quantum or jail sentence, as it is inherently challenging to list specific offences and have to frequently amend the Constitution to keep the list updated.
Other changes endorsed included extending the disqualification criterion to cover MPs who are convicted in any foreign country, and removing an outdated clause that excludes disqualification for those who have become citizens of a Commonwealth country or of Ireland.
Mr Chan said prior convictions which meet the new thresholds will apply even if they happened before the date the amendments kick in, as the changes are meant to ensure the fitness of those in office.
He also said that the Constitutional ineligibility covered by the Bill, “simply sets the minimum threshold” for those wanting to run for office and addresses a parliamentarian’s “minimum moral aptitude”.
Beyond this, political parties must continue to ensure that their candidates are people of integrity who adhere to the highest standards of conduct, he added.
He also said there are several other levers to ensure MPs are people of integrity: the standard that political parties hold themselves to; the standard that each MP holds himself or herself to; and the standards which the public holds MPs to.
While rules are needed to balance the need for democratic participation with the standards expected from public representatives, these three levers are also important, he added.
“Ultimately, our voters will decide at the ballot box the fitness of the persons seeking to represent them in Parliament.”
.
===================
.
From 1G to 4G: How the PAP selects its leaders
Mr Lee Kuan Yew (right) and Mr Goh Chok Tong at a post-General Election press conference on Sept 3, 1988.PHOTO: THE NEW PAPER
Here’s a look at how the party’s past successions were decided, based on what was revealed on Saturday and in earlier reports.
From 1G to 2G
In 1984 after the general election that year, then Minister for Defence and Second Minister for Health Goh Chok Tong was chosen by his peers to lead the PAP’s second-generation team at an informal meeting. A small group of about six ministers had met and made the decision. Mr Goh was made First Deputy Prime Minister in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet in 1985.
He took over as Prime Minister on Nov 28, 1990. On the same day, Mr Lee Hsien Loong was appointed DPM alongside Mr Ong Teng Cheong.
From 2G to 3G
Mr Lee Hsien Loong (centre) at his swearing-in as PM with Mr Goh Chok Tong (left) and then president S R Nathan on Aug 12, 2004. PHOTO: ST FILE
In the middle of 2004, a group of ministers decided on then DPM Lee Hsien Loong as the third-generation leader.
This decision was made at a lunch hosted by then Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng. The ministers came to a conclusion quickly as they felt that it was a straightforward matter.
On August 12, 2004, then DPM Lee took over as Prime Minister from Mr Goh.
On Saturday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: “I was very moved that everybody felt that it was a straightforward matter, and then we came to a conclusion very quickly.”
From 3G to 4G
PM Lee with then Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat (right) and then National Development Minister Lawrence Wong at an event in Gardens by the Bay in March 2016. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO
After the ministers had decided on him, he talked to the ministers of state and other office-holders to get their support before going to the caucus of PAP MPs.
Mr Heng also asked for then Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing to be his deputy.
Earlier that day, the PAP had named Mr Heng as its first assistant secretary-general and Mr Chan as its second assistant secretary-general.
After the Budget debate ended in March, Mr Khaw took a month to speak to all the stakeholders individually. The views of all the Cabinet ministers – save for PM Lee and Senior Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam – were sought, as well as that of NTUC secretary-general Ng Chee Meng and Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, who were former 4G ministers.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Saturday (April 16) held a press conference at the Istana to share details on how Finance Minister Lawrence Wong was chosen as leader of the ruling People’s Action Party’s fourth-generation team.
PM Lee was joined by Mr Wong and former minister Khaw Boon Wan, who was tasked with overseeing the political succession process.
Mr Khaw shared that of the 19 people interviewed as part of the decision-making process, 15 chose Mr Wong as the preferred leader.
Political editor Zakir Hussain discusses the details of the selection process, and whether the handover of the PAP leadership to Mr Wong will take place before the next general election.
.
================
.
FM Lawrence Wong has not been given the opportunities to enhance and demonstrate his abilities until recently.
Let us continue to give opportunities to exposure and train our people to the fullest potential.
But we know there is no opportunity when others place obstacles or shut the door on them.
.
.
========
.
A happy run as PM will need to be well blessed with less major upsets and crises. We call it a smooth run. Not all are that blessed to be free of tensions and crises to govern well and leaving a big name and legacy. And that will include a stronger GDP, higher national reserves, stronger exchange rate, low inflation, lower COL, no crisis in unity love and harmony, and better standard of living comparing day one in office and at the time of handling the post over to the next pm.
..
=============
.
The demagogues will hound him and curse till he leaves the PM post. The cursing has started now before he is pm. A thankless job. Hair will turn white super fast.
.
==============
.
.
Forum: Wishing Lawrence Wong and 4G team all the best
PUBLISHED 6 HOURS AGO on 16th April 2022 in ST Forum.
The selection of the next 4G leader has been announced (Lawrence Wong endorsed as leader of PAP’s 4G team, April 15).
Cabinet ministers affirmed their choice of Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, 49, as the leader of the 4G team. All PAP MPs have given him their strong support.
Mr Wong has shown outstanding leadership qualities in handling the pandemic, as co-chair of the multi-ministry task force tackling Covid-19 . He also presented a well rounded Budget 2022 speech.
He is pleasant, humble and down to earth yet firm in the way he presents himself. He will win the hearts of Singaporeans as an ideal leader.
I wish Mr Wong and the 4G team all the best to lead Singapore in the next phase of development, to bring about stability, prosperity and unity here.
Jeff Tan Hong Liak
.
==========
.
A ‘magic formula’ for the 4G leadership and beyond
Consider the strengths of collective leadership at a time of complex challenges.
Parag Khanna
PM Lee Hsien Loong and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong during a press conference at the Istana on April 16, 2022.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
PUBLISHED
APR 19, 2022, 5:00 AM SGT in Straits Times.
In 1968, Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart considered a puzzle: How is it that countries with ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions remain stable despite the likelihood of undesirable outcomes such as communal violence?
Focusing on his native Netherlands, he concluded that if leaders are cognisant of such negative scenarios, they pre-emptively overcompensate through inclusive policy-making and power-sharing agreements. The process of anticipating worst-case outcomes and taking premeditated steps to avoid them is now known as the “Lijphart effect”.
I was reminded of Singapore’s penchant for this combination of premeditated paranoia and collective leadership as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sat together with the People’s Action Party (PAP) fourth-generation (4G) leader Lawrence Wong and former party chairman Khaw Boon Wan at the Istana to discuss the party’s succession process.
At the heart of PM Lee’s comments was not his apparent successor but the process of designing and building a team to grapple with increasingly complex challenges. He spoke of a world that is getting more complicated, and a leader as someone who “maximises the abilities and experiences and instincts of a wide range of backgrounds to get them to work together and deliver an outstanding result that no individual can achieve alone”.
As both PM Lee and Mr Wong pointed out, this is manifestly true of every generation of Singapore’s leadership. Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was not only a charismatic statesman but also a team captain and institution builder. Otherwise people would praise only Singapore’s leaders rather than the state’s governance capacity in all spheres from infrastructure to education.
When the 4G team began to crystallise after the 2015 election, Singapore society was consumed with placing bets on who PM Lee’s anointed successor would be. But Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s selection before the last election and then recusal in 2021 inadvertently desensitised the public to uncertainty about who was to come next.
The episode taught citizens to be less obsessed with the magisterial trappings of high office and to embrace openness and flexibility. The 4G members’ teamwork managing the Covid-19 pandemic also encouraged citizens to focus less on personality politics and popularity contests and more on collective leadership, which Mr Wong – the Finance Minister chosen as the PAP’s fourth-generation leader – also emphasised at the press conference last Saturday.
The Swiss model
There is only one country in Singapore’s tier of stability and prosperity that enshrines collective leadership to such an extent: Switzerland. There, four of the country’s seven leading political parties are ritually represented among the members of the seven-member Federal Council, effectively the steering committee for the nation. So successful is this consensus-building practice that the Swiss have come to call it their “magic formula”.
Unlike Singapore, however, surveys suggest that most Swiss citizens cannot even name more than four of the seven members at any given time.
This is remarkable: Switzerland is a wealthy and transparent democracy with a strong culture of national service and an educational system that has produced countless innovations, world-leading companies and more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any other state. But its people confidently know something Singaporeans have also now internalised: Their system is robust even as leadership changes become more frequent.
The rotation among portfolios of 4G leaders and circulation of 5G up-and-comers has already broadened and deepened the national leadership bench. In Switzerland, the formal post of president of the Federal Council rotates annually with little fanfare, giving numerous ministers active experience with the daily consensus-building and decision-making process among their peers – who may come from diverse backgrounds and parties.
The 4G leadership and beyond will need to continue Singapore’s tradition of hard-nosed policy while also navigating increasingly competitive democratic politics. At last weekend’s press conference, Mr Wong recognised the general desire for more diversity in Parliament, and acknowledged that there is no guaranteed victory in any future election.
As the democratic marketplace evolves, will there come a time when an adapted form of Switzerland’s “magic formula” or European-style multi-party coalition politics arises in Singapore? Whatever the future holds, adapting to evolving political realities will require the same pragmatism and rigorous foresight that Singapore has brought to all other challenges it has faced. After all, while diversity and inclusion are virtues, the flailing populism also witnessed in Europe should be avoided at all costs.
Competence is crucial
The best antidote to the uncertainties of democratic liberalisation is the vigorous maintenance of meritocracy. Competence must be demonstrated and trust earned to the highest degree by any individual seeking to advance across portfolios. It should matter less who leads than that they are thoroughly prepared to lead. No matter what surveys say, competence is the only character trait that never goes out of style.
Singapore has officially matured from expecting a singular leader to possess an intrinsic aura to focusing on the collective leadership’s capacity to manage constant complexity. The current 4G members have turned the talking point of teamwork into a genuine norm, and Singapore will be better off as a result. Many heads are better than one.
Dr Parag Khanna is founder of FutureMap and the internationally bestselling author of seven books, most recently MOVE: The Forces Uprooting Us.
The 4G refresh of the social compact should include politics
Recent policy changes helmed by 4G ministers point to a move towards a more equitable society. That should beextended to the way domestic politics is carried out too
It will be decided in due course whether Mr Lawrence Wong is to take over as Prime Minister and fight the next election.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
PUBLISHED
2 HOURS AGO on 22nd April 2022 in Straits Times.
With the thorny issue of political succession more or less settled, it is time for the 4G or fourth generation of political leaders to consolidate the team and show Singaporeans what they really stand for.
Both PM Lee and Mr Wong said at a recent media conference that they will decide in due course whether Mr Wong is to take over as Prime Minister and fight the next election, which is due by 2025, or whether PM Lee should fight one more election and if the PAP wins, hand over to Mr Wong as PM.
Mr Wong will also decide “in due course” when he would be ready to step up as PM. He is also to decide on his choice of deputy and core team members “in due course”.
One hopes “in due course” means sooner rather than later.
If the next election is held in 2025, five years after the last election in July 2020, Mr Wong has about three years to consolidate his team and lead them to build their own rapport with voters.
Typically, elections have been held earlier, rather than leaving it too close to the end of the term, to provide some leeway for unexpected events. That means that time is short, and will go by in the flash of an eye. It has already been a long, winding road to this point of certainty over political succession.
One positive thing that emerged is that the journey took the country down a global pandemic that has helped the team gel together, and provided a crucible from which a leader emerged.
Mr Wong is the choice of most of his peers – 15 out of 19 PAP leaders named him their first choice of leader in a series of confidential meetings with former PAP chairman Khaw Boon Wan. Mr Wong’s selection was affirmed by Cabinet ministers and endorsed by all PAP MPs in a party caucus.
Now that the successor has been anointed, so to speak, attention should go to what is required of the new 4G leader, and what the team should do, to lead the nation.
Already, Mr Wong has sketched out a major agenda item for his team: reviewing and renewing the social compact.
When he delivered the 2022 Budget as Finance Minister in February, Mr Wong said the measures were a first step in a multi-year plan to renew and strengthen Singapore’s social compact. He reiterated this last week, saying that the 4G ministers had been discussing these issues both before and in preparing for the Budget, and had some ideas on additional steps on this front.
He added: “We do intend to engage the public later on and comprehensively review our policies to see what needs to be adjusted and improved.
“So this will be a major agenda for the 4G team.”
More equitable society
A scan of recent fiscal and social policy changes reveals the shape of this new social compact.
In my view, the 4G agenda that is emerging is promising and has the potential to soften the capitalist hard edge of Singapore, with a more equitable, caring heart. I hope the momentum to renew the social compact continues in the direction of greater equity.
To be sure, the 3G under PM Lee and his team have done a great deal to level the playing field and provide more help in social services for the middle class and the disadvantaged.
The move has been towards a more equitable, as opposed to a numerically equal, distribution of resources. So rather than give everyone more or less the same funding, more subsidies are now tiered by income, for example.
This is seen in the way many subsidies – eldercare, childcare, long-term care- are means-tested by per capita income. Importantly, even middle-income households get subsidised care, but the quantum of subsidy is lower.
Recent policy changes under the charge of 4G ministers have been along that trajectory.
In fiscal policy, for example, Mr Wong’s first Budget was notable for raising taxes on the wealthy – higher-income individuals and owners of higher-end homes and luxury cars.
While the goods and services tax will be raised, its impact will be cushioned by a package of offsets that will benefit the lower and middle income more. Such offset measures have been a staple of the government.
Fiscal policy under the 4G is thus likely to continue along this vein – the better-off to bear a bigger burden of taxes and enjoy less subsidies, so that more can be given to the rest.
There are also promising moves to help low-wage workers, improve housing options and put healthcare on a more sustainable basis.
On low-wage workers, the 3G Cabinet had introduced the Progressive Wage Scheme (PWS), which raises incomes of low-wage workers sector by sector.
The 4G will extend this to more sectors. More importantly, the recent Budget introduced the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme.
This mouthful of a scheme sounds dull, but it is actually quite significant: the Government will help companies pay salary increases for low-wage local workers.
It will co-fund 50 per cent of salary increases for local workers who earn up to $2,500 in 2022 and 2023, and tier it off to 30 per cent for the next two years, and 15 per cent in 2026.
Extending the PWS and adding this salary top-up will ease low-wage workers’ financial burdens, and at the society level, reduce income inequality.
In housing, the introduction of the prime location public housing (PLH) model recalibrates housing subsidies with a claw-back element to take back some of the gains when owners sell these Housing Board flats. Such flats also can’t be rented out fully, so they will no longer be attractive as an income-generating asset. The rules essentially put HDB flats back on track to be long-term family homes, not assets to be flipped for gain.
In health, the shift to preventive care has been welcomed by health experts who have long lamented that there is too much emphasis on illness-based hospital care in Singapore, with insurance and financing perversely encouraging hospitalisation when outpatient care is under-financed.
This is illogical, when more attention to primary healthcare and preventive care can prevent illness and reduce hospitalisation needs. For example, investing in health clinics that help masses of high blood pressure and diabetes patients control their symptoms and remain healthy can reduce the need for more hospital beds.
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung has made it clear that the strategy, called Healthier SG, to emphasise preventive care, will be a major priority for his ministry.
In coming up with such initiatives which have generally been well received, the 4G team has no doubt built on the process of consultation launched by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who initiated the Our Singapore Conversation and then the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger series of conversations. Some of these spawned task forces and groups called alliances for action to tackle specific issues.
I have been involved in some of these as a citizen and as a journalist, and have found them useful avenues to galvanise people to try out ideas and to create change. Compared with 2G and 3G dialogues I attended in the past, the new conversations are less top-down; and when led by 4G ministers like National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who listens more than he speaks, are focused on hearing from participants, not preaching to them. In some groups, I also get the sense that fellow participants are genuinely interested in doing, not just talking.
I hope that spirit of humble listening, openness to ideas and willingness to experiment will continue to be a hallmark of 4G consultation.
All eyes on the next election
Apart from renewing the social compact, it is clear that the attention of PM Lee and Mr Wong is very much on the next election.
In his first media conference to address Singaporeans as de facto 4G leader and possible future PM on April 16, Mr Wong highlighted domestic politics as a key challenge.
After a brief introduction joking about how he had never looked for additional work, but work had a way of finding him, Mr Wong said of his new position as 4G leader: “Now I will be taking on what would possibly be the biggest responsibility of my life. I am under no illusions about the demands of the job.
“It will get more challenging with greater political contestation and a growing desire for diversity in Parliament.
“And as the PM said in Parliament recently, we do not assume that the PAP will win the next general election. Every GE from now on will be about which party will form the Government – not just how many seats the opposition wins, or what percentage of the votes the ruling party gets.”
In other words, the PAP is fighting for the right to form the government – for its continued survival as the incumbent government.
It may seem a tad over-hyped to speak in such terms, when the PAP won 83 of the 93 seats with 61.24 per cent of the votes in 2020. But then again, Singaporean voters are a restive lot, and prone to tactical voting, calibrating their support election by election.
Recent elections have seen significant swings in some constituencies. For example, the PAP had 78.6 per cent in West Coast GRC in 2015 against the Reform Party; but its vote share fell to 51.7 per cent in 2020 against the Progress Singapore Party led by former PAP veteran Tan Cheng Bock.
The prevalence of swing voters is borne out by an Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters after the 2020 GE.
The survey asked people for their views on the need for change in the electoral system, checks and balances, or different voices in Parliament.
Those who disagreed with the need for such change were classified as conservatives; those who wanted more diversity were considered pluralists; while those with mixed views were swing voters.
Compared with 2015, the proportion of those categorised as politically conservative shrank from 44.3 per cent to 18.5 per cent.
Pluralists, or those who desire more political diversity, rose slightly by around 4 percentage points to 22.4 per cent.
Significantly, those in the swing category rose by more than 20 percentage points to 59.2 per cent.
That suggests that political change matters to six in 10 voters.
If so, reforms in the area highlighted in the survey – having checks and balances, or different voices in Parliament – may be vote-getters in future elections.
This should be an incentive for the 4G to also renew the social compact in the arena of electoral politics.
Past generations of PAP leaders have tended to be rather high-handed in the way they deal with political opponents, and with political dissent.
All eyes will now be on how the new 4G leader and his team treat political opponents and dissenters. Like in a boxing ring, they may want to deliver a crushing blow to knock off their opponent, but they have to be careful that the injury caused does not lose them the support of the spectators.
In this respect, Mr Wong himself may be a good role model to his team: in recent debates in Parliament on the Budget, he has been civil, clear and firm in rebuttals, without talking down to opponents.
I hope he continues with what PM Lee did after the 2020 GE, to do his best as leader of Singapore to help the opposition become more responsible.
PM Lee had put it this way in a speech in February this year, debating a Committee of Privileges’ report on former MP Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament: “I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation, and I accept that. I expect that this is the way Singapore will go, in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves.
“And it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the WP (Workers’ Party) won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr (Pritam) Singh the Leader of the Opposition, and equip him with the resources and support to play his role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge, and contribute to the maturing of our political system.”
There are many things the 4G can learn from the past three generations of government leaders: the pioneering, bold spirit of 1G; the economic management of 2G; the shift to a more inclusive society of 3G.
But there are also old habits the 4G should discard. In the approach to political opposition, 1G’s response can be characterised as nuclear detonation; 2G used tactical warfare to demolish the opposition; 3G tried to fight elections more fairly but preserved some tactics from old playbooks.
The 4G team has to decide whether it wants to continue with such political tactics of marginalising elected opposition, or look to the future, and learn to work together to create a more equitable society, including in politics.
All these have to be done while ensuring Singapore’s continued economic prosperity; navigating the geopolitical shoals; preparing Singapore for climate change risks; managing an ageing population; and maintaining social cohesion.
No one said it will be easy. As Mr Wong himself noted, he has his work cut out for him.
Precisely because the challenges ahead are so daunting, it is crucial for the 4G team to get their bearings right politically and behave in a way that will get Singaporeans on board with them.
.
==================
.
Lawrence Wong’s deputy will be decided later by him, says PM Lee
President Halimah Yacob (centre) with PM Lee Hsien Loong (second from left), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (second from right) and Cabinet members who were sworn in at the Istana on July 27, 2020. PHOTO: ST FILE
SINGAPORE – The decision on who will be Mr Lawrence Wong’s deputy will be made later by him in due course, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Saturday (April 16).
PM Lee said the exercise was to choose the leader of the 4G team.
“It was not to choose his deputy. It was not to choose a 5G leader. Therefore, there was no decision made on the deputy.
“And in due course, Lawrence will decide who will be his deputy and who will be in his core team. And I hope he and his colleagues will work hard to identify and induct more promising leaders into the team to build up the 5G team for Singapore,” PM Lee said.
Mr Wong will be Singapore’s next prime minister if the PAP is voted into power at the next general election, said PM Lee.
When current Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat was selected to be the 4G team’s leader in 2018, he had asked then Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing to be his deputy. Mr Heng stepped aside from this role last year to pave the way for a younger person with a longer runway to lead the country when PM Lee retires.
When it came to selecting Singapore’s second prime minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong was clearly identified as Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s successor when Mr Goh was made first deputy prime minister. Mr Ong Teng Cheong was second deputy prime minister.
“In my case, the ministers settled on me and, later on, I appointed deputy prime ministers, a series of them,” PM Lee said.
“In the case of Mr Heng Swee Keat and Mr Chan Chun Sing, on that occasion, the ministers who caucus, who were involved, thought that they wanted to have a pairing and that would be the best choice.”
During the press conference, Mr Wong was asked about how the 4G team was working together, especially over the past year, and what were its strengths and weaknesses.
“I value this diversity in our team greatly. And you see this not just in the 4G team, but also in our team of elected MPs. They have their own constituencies, but they champion a range of important causes and issues,” he said.
“So collectively, we have a strong team and I will continue to work on strengthening the team. And amidst this diversity, in the end, it is about all of us working together.”
He added that as the leader of the team, he will do his best to ensure that contributions from the entire team will be greater than the sum of the individual parts.
“So this is what Singaporeans can expect from me and my team – that collectively, we will always do our best for our people and our nation.”
SINGAPORE – Finance Minister Lawrence Wong has been selected to be the leader of the PAP’s fourth-generation (4G) team, paving the way for him to be Singapore’s next prime minister.
Cabinet ministers affirmed their choice of Minister Lawrence Wong as the leader of the 4G team on Thursday (April 14), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a statement.
This decision was endorsed by all Government MPs in a party caucus, it added.
This is the full statement from PM Lee, who is secretary-general of the People’s Action Party:
After a process of consultation, Cabinet ministers affirmed today their choice of Minister Lawrence Wong as the leader of the 4G team. This decision was endorsed by all Government MPs in a party caucus this evening.
The 4G team has worked closely together through the past two years of the pandemic, and had the opportunity to better understand each other’s strengths. With the pandemic situation stabilised, we are now able to relook the issue of succession.
After consulting the Ministers, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asked former Cabinet Minister and People’s Action Party Chairman Mr Khaw Boon Wan to start a process involving the Ministers, as well as Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng. Mr Khaw met each one of them individually, to sound out their personal views in confidence and to facilitate a new consensus on a 4G leader. The views of the Prime Minister and the two Senior Ministers were not sought.
Mr Khaw found that the overwhelming majority of those consulted, supported Minister Wong as the leader. Earlier today, Mr Khaw briefed Cabinet Ministers, as well as the Speaker and NTUC Secretary-General, on his findings, and all endorsed the decision for Minister Wong to lead the team. This decision was subsequently presented to and endorsed by People’s Action Party MPs this evening.
With this decision, the Prime Minister will make adjustments to Cabinet appointments. These will be announced in due course.
This decision on succession is a crucial one for Singapore. It will ensure the continuity and stability of leadership that are the hallmarks of our system. The Ministers recognise that the right to lead cannot be inherited. Mr Lawrence Wong and his younger team will continue to give their best to Singaporeans, and justify their trust and support.
SINGAPORE – Before the media conference on Saturday (April 16) on the choice of Mr Lawrence Wong to helm the People’s Action Party’s fourth-generation (4G) leadership, three questions some Singaporeans might have had were:
– Who, and how many, in the Cabinet voted for and against the choice of Finance Minister Wong?
– Why was former PAP chairman Khaw Boon Wan needed to facilitate the process of choosing the next 4G leader – and how was the approach different from the one used to select the 2G and 3G leaders?
– Will it be Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong or Mr Wong leading the ruling party in the next general election, and when will it be held?
Answers from the conference at the Istana to the first two questions were clear; the third, less so.
On the first two, the general thrust of Mr Khaw’s reply was this: The process had to not only ascertain who had the strongest support from the ministers, but also do so in such a way as to foster a consensus and bring the team together.
The 19 leaders Mr Khaw spoke to were all the Cabinet ministers, excluding PM Lee and the two senior ministers, and included Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and NTUC secretary-general Ng Chee Meng, both former 4G ministers.
Each was interviewed separately over the past month after the Budget debate in March. They were asked for their preferred choice – other than themselves – and had to rank potential candidates in order of their preference.
Contrast this with the process for Mr Goh Chok Tong. A small group of ministers met informally after the 1984 elections, in what former senior minister S. Jayakumar described in his book Governing: A Singapore Perspective, as a “coffee/orange juice session at (then minister Tony Tan’s) home”.
In PM Lee’s case, some time in mid-2004, then Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng organised a lunch among ministers at his office, and the matter was settled over lunch as everyone felt it was straightforward.
The subtext to the first question, really, was this: Was there disagreement among the ministers to the extent that a neutral “mediator” such as Mr Khaw was needed?
Well, the numbers do not bear this out, since 15 out of 19 chose Mr Wong as their preferred leader.
Some will, of course, speculate over who did not. Mathematically, this would be three of them, since Mr Wong could not vote for himself.
But let’s not forget the bigger picture: 15 out of 19 is an overwhelming majority of 79 per cent, way above the traditional supermajority benchmark of two-thirds. None of the other names garnered more than two votes.
And when this was presented both to the Cabinet and the caucus, everyone unanimously agreed and supported the choice of Mr Wong.
The process stemmed from a desire to find a more systematic and thorough way that would encourage candour, introspection and objectivity, without impairing mutual relationship and trust among the team.
Here, it is worth citing more fully what PM Lee said: “People must be able to speak honestly to express their views of the strengths and weaknesses of the different potential candidates and speak frankly… then their concerns can be surfaced without it being personalised…
“We want you to be in a collected, dispassionate, almost Zen state of mind, when you said, I think for Singapore, this is the best choice, putting aside personal preferences, ambitions and biases. We felt that a more systematic way of doing this rather than all sit down, and then we nod our heads politely, is to have a process.”
Already, some netizens are saying that the party is “ownself support ownself”.
But think about the last time you and I “nodded our heads politely” in a meeting room full of people, because we felt the pressure to agree with the majority.
Then you and I can perhaps begin to understand why the process is actually fair and sensible.
Anonymised findings? Check. Objective assessment of key political leadership attributes? Check.
If this wasn’t to determine the next 4G leader, it could have been a properly conducted performance appraisal, paired with a 360-degree assessment where peer feedback is actively solicited and thereafter anonymised.
So one should not confuse form and process – of which there has been variation through the years – with function, which has always been to coalesce a team that will make sure Singapore continues to do well.
For previous generations of leaders, the issue of a successor was settled early on, to allow them a clear runway and period of understudy as deputy prime minister – a runway which both PM Lee (1990-2004) and Mr Goh (1985-1990) had.
Mr Wong has a shorter runway of up to 3.5 years, with the next general election due in November 2025 and more likely to be held before then.
The only thing certain at this point is that he is slated to be the next PM, if all goes according to the PAP’s plans. But a few things could throw a spanner in the works.
A sudden downward turn in the Ukraine crisis – and any other crisis, or black swan event, for that matter – could make the domestic and global situation so untenable that a speedy transition, even if desired, would be difficult.
Or the PAP may not win the next general election (GE), or not win it convincingly. As Mr Wong said, it will get more challenging with greater political contestation and the growing desire for diversity in Parliament. “Every GE from now on will be about which party will form the Government, not just how many seats the opposition wins or what percentage of the votes the ruling party gets.”
PM Lee had previously said he wanted to relinquish his current post before he turned 70 on Feb 10 this year. He later said he would stay on to see Singapore through the Covid-19 pandemic.
He also had this to say in 2018 about the 4G team taking shape and learning to work together: “They need a bit of time for Singaporeans to get a feel of them – not just to be known as public figures, but to be responsible for significant policies… carrying them, justifying them, defending them, adapting them, making them work, and showing that they deserve to lead.”
Obviously, the PAP’s political strategy for the next general election has to factor in more than just Singaporeans’ feelings.
But I would like to think that the 4G team Singaporeans saw in 2018 is very different from the one that they have come to know, four years on.
Week after week, month after month, they have appeared on our doorsteps, our telephones, our computer and television screens to exhort, explain and cajole.
They have taken up policy reforms that would have been inconceivable more than a decade ago, from the broadening of social support schemes, to more pathways in education, uplifting wages and calibrating foreign manpower.
Of course, nothing is ever enough. But one only has to look around at how the rest of the world has dealt with Covid-19 and the economic downturn so far, to admit that not only has the team not dropped the ball, it has even managed to lob it over the net despite significant obstacles.
Mr Wong signalled on Saturday that more is to come: This is a first step in a multi-year plan to renew and strengthen the social compact, and comprehensively review policies to see what needs to be adjusted and improved.
He also made a clear statement of intent and guiding principles, which I think captures the zeitgeist quite well: “We will, as a team, continue to work hard to win the trust and support of every Singaporean – to create bonds and connect with them and to develop new ideas that will resonate with Singaporeans and especially with a new generation of Singaporeans.
“I fully recognise the growing diversity of experiences and perspectives amongst Singaporeans. I would like every Singaporean to know and feel that they will always have a stake in our society, even as we chart our new way forward together.”
Giving details of how he went about his work at a press conference on Saturday (April 16), the former PAP chairman said he spoke to the ministers individually and each interview took up to an hour. The whole process took three weeks.
The former minister said that when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asked him to take charge of the process, PM Lee told him to find a way to bring the team together while doing so.
“He stressed that we approach this choice in the right spirit. We are trying to make a very consequential choice: who would be best able to unite the team, make the most of the different strengths of the ministers, provide the leadership to both the team and to Singapore, and give ourselves the best chance of continuing to succeed,” said Mr Khaw.
He added: “PM told me that my task was not only to ascertain who has the strongest support from the ministers, but to do so in such a way as to foster a consensus and bring the team together.
“I therefore took a team-building approach to facilitate forthright and candid discussions of each potential candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Our overriding objective is to promote unity, and to ensure a strong 4G team to lead Singapore forward.”
Mr Khaw spoke to Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and NTUC secretary-general Ng Chee Meng, who were former 4G ministers; and Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat as well as the following ministers: Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr K. Shanmugam, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr S. Iswaran, Ms Grace Fu, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Mr Ong Ye Kung, Mr Desmond Lee, Mrs Josephine Teo, Ms Indranee Rajah, Dr Maliki Osman, Mr Edwin Tong and Dr Tan See Leng.
During the interviews, Mr Khaw assured them of full confidentiality and told them that only the overall results and anonymised findings of the discussions would be shared with only those who needed to know them.
He took the leaders through key political leadership attributes in order to encourage them to make a considered and dispassionate decision.
They were asked for their views on their preferred choice, other than themselves, and to rank their potential candidates in order of preference.
Mr Khaw said the leaders were emphatic in wanting to pick someone with unquestionable commitment to Singapore, who inspires trust in Singaporeans, colleagues and MPs, who has the backs of his colleagues and is most able to unite them to serve the nation.
Asked who they will choose as their leader, bearing in mind the need for the leader to bring others together and to win elections, 15 of the 19 voted for Finance Minister Lawrence Wong as their top choice. None of the other choices for the 4G leader received more than two votes.
Asked to give details of how the voting went, Mr Khaw said that there was already a clear outcome on who the next 4G leader is.
“Now that we have a clear outcome, there is really no need for me to discuss who was the second or the third choice. Suffice to say that Lawrence was the first choice of an overwhelming majority,” he said.
This process of forging a consensus on who should lead the party, and Singapore should the PAP win the next general election, was undertaken in a systematic and thorough way, to allow for candour, introspection and objectivity, and to help forge unity and support for the outcome.
Mr Wong, 49, emerged as the top choice of 15 out of the 19 stakeholders involved.
The 19 were all the Cabinet ministers excluding Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the two senior ministers, and included Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and NTUC secretary-general Ng Chee Meng, both former 4G ministers.
Each of the 19 was interviewed separately by former PAP chairman Khaw Boon Wan over the past month after the Budget debate in March. They were asked for their preferred choice – other than themselves – and had to rank potential candidates in order of their preference.
None of the other names garnered more than two votes, said Mr Khaw, indicating a clear majority of 79 per cent for Mr Wong.
This was more than a super-majority, he added.
Details of the vote were disclosed at a media conference held at the Istana on Saturday (April 16, 2022) morning, chaired by PM Lee and attended by Mr Wong and Mr Khaw, to elaborate on Thursday’s announcement of the party’s choice of its next leader.
PM Lee said this was a major step forward in the political succession process, which he felt could not be delayed much further, as the uncertainty was not good for the country, given the many challenges ahead.
Now that the 4G choice was made, he would discuss with Mr Wong on the timeline and next steps, with a view to handing over when Mr Wong and the 4G team is ready. This process would be done “carefully and deliberately”, he said.
This might include handing over to Mr Wong and his team ahead of the polls to allow them to contest and seek a fresh mandate from the electorate. Alternatively, Mr Lee could lead the PAP team to fight the election, and if the PAP wins, Mr Wong would step up as PM some time thereafter.
“It will depend on how things evolve, it’s something which we’ll decide later on. But either way, our plan is for Lawrence to be the next PM, if the PAP wins the next GE. That has been settled.
“And the reaction from the public over the last two days shows that many people are happy we have taken this decision, and are happy with the decision.”
This process of forging a consensus around the next leader was important, he added, since as first among equals in Cabinet, the PM must have the support of his ministers, who bear collective responsibility for their decisions.
“Otherwise, the Government cannot function,” said PM Lee, adding that the process was to pick the 4G leader, not his deputy or a 5G leader. It would be up to Mr Wong to pick his choice of deputy and his team later.
“To be effective as a PM, he must be able to trust and rely on his ministers, and his ministers must also be team players, supporting the PM, their PM, and supporting the team. And they all have to help the team to score goals collectively for Singapore.”
“We do intend to engage the public later on and comprehensively review our policies to see what needs to be adjusted and improved. So this would be a major agenda for the 4G team.
“But beyond that, we will as a team continue to work hard to win the trust and support of every Singaporean, to create bonds and connect with them, and to develop new ideas that will resonate with Singaporeans, and especially with a new generation of Singaporeans.”
He added: “I fully recognise the growing diversity of experiences and perspectives amongst Singaporeans, and I would like every Singaporean to know and feel that they will always have a stake in our society, even as we chart our new way forward together.
“And as leader of the team, that will be the approach, the attitude and the spirit I will adopt.”
Acknowledging that he had his work cut out for him as he embarked on “possibly the biggest responsibility of my life”, he added that he was “under no illusions about the demands of the job”.
“It will get more challenging with greater political contestation and the growing desire for diversity in Parliament.
“And as PM said in Parliament recently, we do not assume that the PAP will win the next general election. Every GE from now on will be about which party will form the Government, not just how many seats the opposition wins or what percentage of the votes the ruling party gets.
“Knowing full well that we will have to earn the right of leadership, I will continue with the same principles that have guided me all these years, which is to give of my best, to engage and listen, and to learn and improve continually.”
.
=================
When will Lawrence Wong take over from PM Lee: 5 key questions
SINGAPORE – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Saturday (April 16) held a press conference to elaborate on how Finance Minister Lawrence Wong was chosen as leader of the ruling People’s Action Party’s fourth-generation (4G) team.
He was joined by Mr Wong, 49, and former minister Khaw Boon Wan, who had been tasked with overseeing the selection process to pick PM Lee’s successor.
Here are five key questions that PM Lee, Mr Wong and Mr Khaw addressed at the press conference.
1. How was Mr Wong chosen as 4G leader?
Towards the end of 2021, PM Lee and some of the ministers decided that the selection process would need to be done in a more systematic, thorough way that “encourages candour, introspection and objectivity, yet without impairing mutual relations and trust amongst the team”.
PM Lee said he wanted the choice of Singapore’s next prime minister to be made in a “collected, dispassionate, almost Zen state of mind” – one that puts aside personal preferences, ambitions and biases.
He approached Mr Khaw, a former PAP chairman with a “Mr Fix-It” reputation for taking on challenging portfolios over the years, to kick-start the process in March after the Budget debate.
Over three weeks, Mr Khaw did hour-long interviews with 17 Cabinet ministers, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and labour chief Ng Chee Meng. PM Lee and Senior Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam were not involved in the selection process.
He asked those he interviewed about their preferred choice – other than themselves – and to rank the potential candidates in order of preference.
Said Mr Khaw: “PM told me that my task was not only to ascertain who has the strongest support from the ministers, but to do so in such a way as to foster a consensus and bring the team together.”
Besides Mr Wong, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing and Health Minister Ong Ye Kung had been identified as front runners in the race to succeed PM Lee, after DPM Heng stepped aside last April.
Given that candidates were not allowed to vote for themselves during the selection process led by Mr Khaw, this means that three individuals out of the 19 did not name Mr Wong as their next PM of choice.
Mr Khaw further revealed on Saturday that none of the other candidates who were named during the selection process garnered more than two votes.
Stakeholders were assured of “full confidentiality” in casting their picks so they could be candid and, in the end, only overall results and anonymised findings were shared, Mr Khaw added.
“Now that we have a clear outcome, there is really no need for me to discuss who was the second or the third choice,” he said. “Suffice to say that Lawrence was the first choice of an overwhelming majority.”
Separately, PM Lee said: “The reaction from the public over the last two days shows that, I think, many people are happy we’ve taken this decision and are happy with the decision.”
PM Lee, who turned 70 in February, had previously said he wanted to hand over to his successor and step down by that age. But with the onset of the pandemic, he said he would delay his retirement to see Singapore through the crisis.
After DPM Heng stepped aside, PM Lee said he would stay on until the 4G team selected a new leader.
“I’m looking forward to handing over to Lawrence once he is ready,” said PM Lee on Saturday, adding that the transition would be done “carefully and deliberately”.
One factor to consider would be the next general election, which is due by 2025, he noted.
PM Lee said he would discuss with Mr Wong the best strategy to approach this – whether it will be to conduct the handover ahead of the polls, or for PM Lee to fight and win the election first before doing so.
“It will depend on how things evolve, it’s something which we’ll decide later on,” said the Prime Minister.
“But either way, our plan is for Lawrence to be the next PM if the PAP wins the next GE. That has been settled.”
Noting that PM Lee had raised the handover of power to him more than once, Mr Wong said: “I will bear that in mind as I embark on my new responsibilities… I will certainly let the Prime Minister know when I’m ready. And I am also very sure that before too long, he will be reminding me and chasing me for a response, and I will do so in due course.”
No decision has been made, said PM Lee, noting that the exercise that concluded on Thursday had been to choose the 4G leader and not his deputy nor the next 5G leader.
“In due course, Lawrence will decide who will be his deputy and who will be in his core team,” said PM Lee. “And I hope he and his colleagues will work hard to identify and induct more promising leaders into the team to build up the 5G team for Singapore.”
He said the ethos of teamwork among the ministers has already been emphasised by Mr Wong, and that Singapore has for years now avoided “destructive dynamics” of rivalries and internal politics.
“That has been a very important factor in the PAP’s success and in Singapore’s success,” said PM Lee. “And for Singapore’s sake, we must ensure that the PAP government always continues to work like this.”
5. When will the next general election take place?
At the press conference, Mr Wong was asked if he felt the need to secure a mandate from the electorate sooner rather than later; and whether a GE could be held as early as in a year’s time.
The question elicited a chuckle from PM Lee, who quipped “you surely don’t expect an answer, right?”, before Mr Wong stressed that he would not take for granted that the mandate “ultimately comes from the people”.
Echoing PM Lee’s earlier points, Mr Wong said the strategy to fight the next GE would, in due course, be discussed and worked out.
“For now, I will need time to consolidate, to discuss with the team to see what next steps we might take,” said the Finance Minister.
Earlier in the press conference, Mr Wong had acknowledged that the demands of the top job would get more challenging with greater political contestation and growing desire for diversity in Parliament.
“We do not assume that the PAP will win the next general election. Every GE from now on will be about which party will form the government, not just how many seats the opposition wins or what percentage of the votes the ruling party gets,” he noted.
“Knowing full well that we will have to earn the right of leadership, I will continue with the same principles that have guided me all these years, which is to give of my best, to engage and listen, and to learn and improve continually.
“And as I have repeatedly emphasised, leadership, and political leadership, is never about one person, it’s always about the entire team,” said Mr Wong.
SINGAPORE – Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said he was “humbled and grateful” for the trust and confidence of the People’s Action Party’s fourth-generation (4G) team, which chose him as their leader.
“It is my privilege to be called upon to lead this team. I will do my utmost to uphold this responsibility,” Mr Wong, 49, said in a Facebook post, adding he was also deeply grateful for the support of his fellow PAP MPs, who have endorsed the decision.
Mr Wong, who co-chairs the multi-ministry task force handling the pandemic, said the party’s 4G leaders have “stood shoulder to shoulder with each other” in the fight against Covid-19.
“The experience of the past two years has cemented our cohesiveness and strengthened our resolve to steward Singapore safely through this crisis and beyond,” he added.
He noted that since the PAP came to power in 1959, its model of political leadership has never been about one person, but the team.
The 4G team’s decision comes a year after Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, 60, announced he had decided to step aside as their leader, so that a younger person with a longer runway can lead the country when PM Lee retires.
Mr Wong was appointed to the key finance portfolio at the last Cabinet reshuffle in May 2021.
He was a senior civil servant before he entered politics at the 2011 General Election, holding the post of chief executive of the Energy Market Authority. Mr Wong was previously the principal private secretary to PM Lee as well.
After the election, he became minister of state for defence and education. He was appointed acting minister for culture, community and youth in November 2012, and promoted to full minister in May 2014.
He became minister for national development in 2015, and took on an additional appointment as second minister for finance in 2016, and was made education minister after the 2020 General Election. He became finance minister in May 2021.
In his post on Thursday, Mr Wong said: “As we have been reminded many times, the right to lead cannot be inherited.
“Together with the rest of the 4G team, I will continue to serve Singaporeans wholeheartedly, and strive to earn the trust and support of each and every one of our fellow citizens.”
Residents in Mr Wong’s Limbang ward in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC said he has taken care of their estate well, and is friendly and approachable.
Mr Rusman Lamri, 56, said he met Mr Wong at a bursary award ceremony, when his son received an award.
“He’s very friendly and I think the estate is managed well under him, I have no issues here as a resident,” said Mr Rusman, a driver.
Others like forklift driver Ng Ah Huat, 57, who has lived in Yew Tee for about a decade, said Mr Wong helped to resolve issues raised at Meet-the-People Sessions.
“As a resident here, I am happy that he has been chosen to lead. I feel he has looked after our needs well,” said Mr Ng in Mandarin.
Engineer Matthew Ong, 51, said it was possible that Mr Wong’s co-chairmanship of the multi-ministry task force battling Covid-19 has raised his profile, and led to his peers selecting him as their leader.
Citing the task force’s decision to live with Covid-19 and treat it as endemic, Mr Ong said he hoped that Mr Wong and the 4G leaders would continue to make “bold and right” decisions for the country.
Lawrence Wong has displayed leadership in crisis, say observers on the PAP 4G leader
Mr Lawrence Wong (second from left) assumed the role as co-chair of the multi-ministry task force tackling Covid-19 in January 2020.PHOTO: MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
He will be regarded as a pair of safe hands with his crisis management and policy experience.
But with about three years to go before the next general election is due, Mr Wong will have his work cut out for him to cement his political support among the Singapore electorate, the observers added.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced on Thursday (April 14) that Mr Wong, 49, has the support of the “overwhelming majority” of the Cabinet ministers to lead the 4G team. The decision was also endorsed by all government MPs in a party caucus on Thursday.
Dr Woo Jun Jie, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said Mr Wong’s role as co-chair of the multi-ministry task force – which he assumed in January 2020 – placed him in the spotlight and allowed him to exercise leadership in a crisis.
In shaping this year’s Budget as Finance Minister, said Dr Woo, Mr Wong also demonstrated the high-level leadership required of a prime minister, as the Budget involves strategic planning that includes allocating resources across the Government. Some also said he made a strong case for the goods and services tax (GST) hike when he explained that the move would not hurt the poor, and unveiled substantial measures to cushion the blow.
Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh said Mr Wong has handled his Covid-19 and finance minister roles well.
He argued that the contest was a close one, but given the “urgency to select a leader, Mr Wong benefited most as he had the most results to show over other potentials”.
Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior international affairs analyst at Solaris Strategies Singapore, said that besides Mr Wong’s contributions in steering Singapore during Covid-19, his effective political communication skills made him stand out among his ministerial peers and earned the respect of the people.
Formerly a senior civil servant, Mr Wong was elected MP in 2011 and was promoted to full minister in 2014. Since then, he has helmed the culture, community and youth; national development; education and finance portfolios.
National University of Singapore (NUS) associate professor of sociology Tan Ern Ser said Mr Wong will likely be well received on the international stage, given his temperament, eloquence and knowledge of global trends.
“I think he is pragmatic, yet firm with a soft touch. I don’t think he is a populist, as demonstrated in his stand on the GST and on not yielding to calls for lower energy prices,” he said.
Ms Nydia Ngiow, managing director at strategic advisory consultancy BowerGroupAsia Singapore, said Mr Wong is unlikely to deviate much from other PAP leaders – a point that Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan also made.
“Singapore can continue to be a reliable global partner whether it’s in economic or security matters. Mr Wong can rely on the Singapore branding,” said Associate Professor Tan.
Mr Wong will also have to play a key role in leading the PAP into the next general election, which must be held by November 2025.
With only 3½ years to the polls, Mr Wong “does not have the luxury of time” to gain the support of voters, said Prof Tan.
While some might see the runway to the next GE as short, Mr Wong’s role in leading during the Covid-19 crisis has required him to navigate a steep learning curve, noted Dr Woo.
“Compared to ordinary times, the Covid-19 pandemic represents a baptism by fire that requires significantly higher levels of policy leadership than usual,” he said.
Nanyang Technological University political analyst Felix Tan said Mr Wong would have to make the best use of his time to galvanise support and resources to form a strong team.
Associate Professor Chong Ja Ian, a political science professor at NUS, added: “Mr Wong’s main challenges would be to navigate an increasingly uncertain world, as Singapore tries to exit Covid-19 and manage the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All these will also occur against the backdrop of intensifying US-China competition.”
They spoke of their experience working with the man who is now effectively the heir apparent to succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
PM Lee announced on Thursday evening that Cabinet ministers have affirmed their choice of Mr Wong, 49, as the new leader of the 4G team, a decision later endorsed by all PAP MPs.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who had been slated to take over the reins before he stepped aside in April last year for a younger leader with a longer runway, wrote on Facebook that he was glad that Mr Wong has accepted the responsibility.
“What we need is a next leader who has the well-being of Singaporeans and Singapore at heart, who has the integrity and commitment to serve, and the ability to forge new paths and bring people together. I believe that Lawrence has these qualities,” said Mr Heng, 60.
Mr Heng said he has found Mr Wong to be a leader who considers things carefully, is able to bring people together, and has the conviction to do what is right for Singapore.
“As importantly, Lawrence has the runway to eventually succeed PM. We have had a challenging few years. In the coming years, we will need to navigate even more changes that will affect Singaporeans,” he added.
Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said he deeply appreciated the camaraderie he shared with Mr Wong over their years in politics together, and that he looks forward to continue working closely with him and the rest of the team to tackle the challenges facing Singapore.
“While Singapore is cautiously emerging from the worst of the pandemic, there remain many geopolitical and economic uncertainties and social challenges that we have to overcome together,” said Mr Chan.
“The 4G team will continue to work closely together with Singaporeans to improve their lives while seizing opportunities to leave behind a better Singapore for future generations.”
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung also congratulated Mr Wong on his selection and endorsement as the leader of the PAP’s 4G team. He said that it was clear since the start of the succession planning process that the goal is to select someone who can bring out the best in the team to collectively serve Singapore.
“We now have a good outcome,” said Mr Ong, who noted that he has known Mr Wong since they were both principal private secretaries to PM Lee, and later as Cabinet colleagues and co-chairs of the multi-ministry taskforce tackling Covid-19.
“I have worked with him up-close and witnessed his dedication and commitment to Singapore and Singaporeans,” said Mr Ong. “He puts his heart and soul into what he is doing and is never a seeker of credit or fanfare.”
Mr Ong added that he will do his utmost to support Mr Wong, and looks forward to being part of his team.
Minister for National Development Desmond Lee thanked Mr Wong for stepping forward and taking up the responsibility of leadership, and called on the team to continue working hard for Singapore.
Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin wrote: “May our leaders and team be blessed with wisdom, courage and love. May we all be united as we continue to strive as one people, one nation.”
Mr Wong also received a strong endorsement from Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who called him an excellent leader for a changing Singapore.
He cited the challenges of holding a country together in a troubled world while making room for different and new voices, and the unending work of making life better for ordinary citizens.
“He is down to earth, has his heart in the right place, and has the steel to make tough decisions,” said DPM Tharman.
“And knowing Lawrence, I’m sure he will earn the trust of Singaporeans in his own way and be a PM with his own character.
“That must be the case – each future leader must be their own man or woman.”
Here are eight things to know about the 49-year-old, who is now heir apparent to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
1. Marine Parade boy…
Mr Wong grew up in what he has described as an “ordinary family” in the Marine Parade Housing Board estate.
His father, who died in August last year at age 86, was born in China’s Hainan Island and left for Ipoh in Malaysia as a young boy. After completing his secondary education, the elder Mr Wong moved to Singapore to work in sales for Sime Darby.
It was also here where he married Mr Wong’s mother, now 82 years old.
She started work at the age of nine – helping to wash neighbours’ clothes and look after their babies – while pestering her initially reluctant parents to let her go to school, against the gender bias of the time. She eventually became a teacher and taught for 40 years.
Mr Wong also has a brother, older by two years, who is an aerospace engineer at DSO Laboratories.
2. … and neighbourhood schoolboy
Mr Wong attended a PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergarten in Marine Parade before going to Haig Boys’ Primary, where his mother taught.
He remembers her as being a disciplinarian both in school and at home, and how that gave him “a strong sense of responsibility”. It also ingrained in him the ethos of making sure he does something well once he commits to it.
In school, Mr Wong was more bookish than sporty. He would hang out at the old Marine Parade library to borrow science fiction books and guitar tomes.
After Haig Boys’, he went to Tanjong Katong Secondary Technical School. Mr Wong has spoken of people asking him why he did not go to an “elite” school such as Raffles Institution instead.
He said it was only natural to continue his education in a school near home, where all his friends were and where he ultimately enjoyed himself.
Mr Wong went on to Victoria Junior College, where he got a government scholarship to study in the United States. He obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and also has a Master in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School.
3. Becoming PPS to PM Lee
After he returned to Singapore, Mr Wong was posted to the Ministry of Trade and Industry and did economic modelling.
He then rose through the ranks in the finance and health ministries. As director of healthcare finance at the Ministry of Health, he implemented reforms to MediShield to provide Singaporeans with better protection against large hospital bills.
Mr Wong then became principal private secretary (PPS) to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2005.
Three years later, he was appointed chief executive of the Energy Market Authority. After a 14-year career in the public service, he left to contest the 2011 General Election and was elected as an MP for West Coast GRC. He is currently an MP for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.
4. Reputation as policy wonk
Early in Mr Wong’s career, he rebuffed offers from the private sector, and stayed on in the Government, which he felt allowed him to do different projects and shape schemes that could help Singaporeans.
He said he found it meaningful going down to the ground to explain policies – which could be why he has garnered a reputation for being a policy wonk, or someone with a particularly keen interest in the finer details of policy.
When pressed on the label in an interview with The Sunday Times in 2020, he said: “It’s partly what I was brought up with… That when you do anything, you have to put everything into it, you have to really want to excel.”
He added: “Whatever you do on a day-to-day basis, if you do it well, if you take responsibility, that in itself is a testimony of how you as a person are an example, you know, a light for the world.”
5. Thrust into the Covid-19 spotlight
In 2020, then Health Minister Gan Kim Yong had an idea to assemble a group to lead Singapore’s fight against an emerging pandemic. Mr Wong was his pick to co-chair what would eventually be the multi-ministry task force on Covid-19.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who was acting prime minister while PM Lee was away, called Mr Wong to tell him about his appointment.
Mr Wong’s response was “Okay, if you think I can help, I’ll be happy to support and I will do my best”.
<p>CMG20210119-KwongKC02/邝启聪/王康威, 刘智澎/Embargo Timing to 21 Jan, 6.30pm/Interview with Co-Chairs of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce for COVID-19/Minister Gan Kim Yong and Minister Lawrence Wong[MCI]</p>PHOTO: CMG
In the book In This Together: Singapore’s Covid-19 Story written by The Straits Times, he acknowledged that the role was not something that would naturally fit into his portfolios at the time – National Development Minister and Second Finance Minister – even though those ministries would have to be involved in managing the unfolding crisis.
Publicly, he was not seen as the most obvious choice as well.
But Mr Wong would go on to make his mark at media briefings for his calm, clear explanation of policies, grasp of detail and steadying presence overall.
Mr Gan and Mr Wong have both used the same word – enjoyable – to describe what it was like to team up.
After nearly two years of frequent appearances as co-chairman of the multi-ministry task force on Covid-19, Mr Wong put on a different hat in February 2022, delivering his first Budget statement since assuming the portfolio of Finance Minister in May 2021.
It was a significant Budget, packed with progressive tax measures aimed not only at generating revenues to fund major programmes needed over the next few years, but also at addressing social inequalities.
It fell on Mr Wong to outline the Government’s vision of a “fairer, more sustainable, and more inclusive society” and he did so in his usual unruffled way.
“Looking back at what we have been through during these Covid-19 years, we have nothing to fear. We will always overcome. We will always prevail,” he concluded. “We will chart a new way forward together. We will see through the pandemic today, and build a better Singapore tomorrow.”
7. Music and dogs
Mr Wong’s Instagram bio still reads “bookworm, guitar player and dog lover”.
His father gave him a guitar when he was eight, and he still speaks about music with real enthusiasm.
Where schoolmates had pictures of their favourite celebrities in school files, he had a picture of Eric Clapton’s guitar.
Mr Wong loves rock, blues and soul, and jazz singers such as Nina Simone and Ella Fitzgerald.
He picked the US to further his studies because it was home to his favourite musicians.
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he even went busking with his American roommate.
Mr Wong’s other great love: dogs. His 16-year-old golden retriever, Summer, died in July 2020.
In 2011, he wrote about his “golden girl” in a Facebook post, saying: “There’s something wonderful about the way dogs behave – they eat with gusto, play with exuberance, and love extravagantly. In many ways, they help to restore our own sense of wonder, inspire us to look at things from new perspectives, and enable us to better appreciate the many simple blessings of life.”
He is a member of the party’s top decision-making central executive committee, and adviser to the PAP Policy Forum, which organises regular dialogues for rank-and-file party members to engage government leaders on policies.
“I’m doing it today but it could have been any one of us. I don’t think you need to read too much into who is the spokesperson,” he said then, reiterating that the Government’s focus was on getting Singapore through the Covid-19 crisis, and that the question of political succession would be dealt with later.
<p>Finance Minister Lawrence Wong speaking at the IPS-RSIS Forum on Race and Racism in Singapore, on June 25, 2021. </p>PHOTO: INSTITUTE OF POLICY STUDIES
His June speech in particular was lauded in some circles for presenting a more forward-thinking and progressive approach than usual, to an often contentious topic.
Then, he pledged that the Government would continue to engage Singaporeans and update its policies on race and racial harmony.
“No community has gotten everything it wanted, but collectively, we have achieved more together than what we would have otherwise by just focusing on our individual agendas,” said Mr Wong.
Lunch With Sumiko: 2020 feels like a lifetime for Lawrence Wong
Thrust into the spotlight as co-chair of the government task force on Covid-19, Lawrence Wong has come into his own. Executive Editor Sumiko Tan sits down with the Education Minister, whom some pundits think could well be a contender for prime minister one day.
Sumiko Tan meets Lawrence Wong, Education Minister and co-chair of the multi-ministry task force tackling Covid-19. They discuss the events of the past year and Mr Wong’s hopes for Singapore’s future.
PUBLISHED
NOV 1, 2020, 5:00 AM SGT in Straits Times.
Midway through my lunch with Lawrence Wong, I feel a sneeze coming. The air-con has been blowing on my back and my nose is, suddenly and ominously, tingling.
We’ve both taken off our face masks and are dissecting our main course of poached sea bass.
Sneezing during a meal is not the done thing in these Covid-19 times. Sneezing over the food of the co-chairman of Singapore’s multi-ministry task force fighting the pandemic? I don’t want to go there.
I swallow. Sip water. Push a finger against the side of my nose and, luckily, the moment passes. He is spared my aerosol spray.
This is my first in-person lunch interview since Singapore declared war on the pandemic in January. With fewer new cases, it seemed the right time to resume the series and the Education Minister has agreed to be my guest.
He’s chosen Chez West, an elegant training restaurant at ITE College West in Choa Chu Kang. Our French dishes will be prepared and served by culinary students.
We wave hello when we meet and as we settle down at our table – we’re the only guests – I wonder if I should take my mask off. But he keeps his on and so I do the same. We chat but sound muffled.
A student, John, fills our glasses with water. The minister removes his mask to drink and I gratefully follow suit.
Mr Wong listens encouragingly as John recites our set menu. We’ll start off with vichyssoise but instead of soup, it’ll be done as a foamy ball with caviar. Next will be tortellini, then sea bass rounded off with banana mousseline.
Wine? John asks, hopefully.
“Unfortunately, we won’t be having it today. Too early,” Mr Wong says. John looks disappointed and we let him practise describing the options to us anyway.
We’re meeting in mid-October and Mr Wong is looking more rested than during the early days of the pandemic when cases were shooting through the roof.
“You know, the saying, right?” he says when I ask him to describe 2020 for him.
“There are decades when nothing happens and then there are weeks when decades happen. So this year feels like one of those times when everything happens. Like a lifetime has passed.”
It’s certainly been an exhausting year for him.
Together with Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, the other task force co-chair, he has been in the thick of managing Covid-19.
Then, as Second Minister for Finance, he was involved in the unprecedented four Budget packages of economic relief.
The 47-year-old former civil servant has been in politics since 2011, steadily climbing up the ministerial ranks without attracting – or courting – much media attention.
Given his low profile, some were surprised when he was named co-chair of the task force. But, thrust into the spotlight, he has come into his own.
He and Mr Gan, 61, have been a calm and steady presence at the many media conferences they have held. While Mr Gan deals with the medical aspects, Mr Wong focuses on the nuts and bolts of managing the pandemic, including the circuit breaker.
His answers have been clear and persuasive and his manner unruffled. He doesn’t grate or get in the way of the message.
He has a reputation among civil servants for being a smart, serious guy who gets the job done. A teary moment in Parliament in March, while he was paying tribute to front-liners, humanised him.
Some political pundits now say he could well be a contender for prime minister one day.
In our two-hour-plus conversation, he’s straightforward and has a bit of a no-nonsense air. But when he talks about more relaxed topics, the minister, whose Instagram bio reads “bookworm, guitar player and dog lover”, shows a warmer side.
Marine parade boy
By his own account, his was “just an ordinary family in Marine Parade”.
His father, who’s 85 and has dementia, was born in Hainan, went to Malaysia as a boy then came here to work and had a sales job in Sime Darby. His Singapore-born mother, 80, was a primary school teacher.
He has a brother, older by two years, who’s an aerospace engineer at DSO Laboratories. Both attended Haig Boys’ Primary where their mother taught. She was a disciplinarian in school and at home.
Education Minister Lawrence Wong, who is co-chair of the task force tackling Covid-19, says the pandemic has brought out the best of Singaporeans. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN
“I suppose that shaped me in a certain way,” he says. “To have a strong sense of responsibility, of making sure that if I commit to something, I do it well.”
He enjoyed school where he was more bookish than sporty. Weekends were a happy routine of “Saturday library, Sunday church”.
He loved the old Marine Parade library where he would borrow science fiction and guitar books. His Sundays were spent at Bedok Methodist Church where he was a youth leader.
After Haig Boys’, he went to Tanjong Katong Secondary Technical School, or TK Tech.
“Sometimes, some people will ask me, strangely, ‘You know, why didn’t you go to other schools?’
I suppose the presupposition is that you did well enough, why didn’t you go to…,” he trails off.
“RI?” I offer, referring to the elite Raffles Institution.
“Yah,” he laughs. “I get that. But why? It was very natural to continue my education in a school that was near to home and where all my friends were, and I enjoyed myself tremendously.”
After Victoria Junior College, he got a government scholarship to university. He chose the United States as it was home to his favourite musicians.
His father had given him a guitar when he was eight and he speaks about music with real enthusiasm. While schoolmates had pictures of their favourite celebrities in their school files, he had a picture of Eric Clapton’s guitar. He loves rock, blues and soul, and jazz singers like Nina Simone and Ella Fitzgerald.
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he did economics, he and his American roommate went busking.
“I’ve never had, you know, huge ambitions as a child. I just went through the education system, enjoying the time with friends.”
He sailed through his first two years in the US. Around his third year, he got a wake-up call.
Someone asked him to explain Singapore’s economic model and he realised that while he knew textbook stuff, he didn’t know much about Singapore.
“I thought, wow, this cannot be, right? I’m going to graduate in a subject without a mastery of the subject.” He began reading anything he could get his hands on.
When he returned, he was posted to the Ministry of Trade and Industry and did economic modelling. Working with graduates of British universities, he realised other gaps in his education.
“I could run models and spreadsheets that they couldn’t, but they had exposure to that wealth of literature, philosophy, political economy, which I had not been exposed to as a student.” Again, he caught up by reading.
Mr Wong, who was divorced with no children, spent 14 years in the public service, including as CEO of the Energy Market Authority. He has since remarried and his wife is in the private sector.
Mr Wong has a reputation among civil servants for being a smart, serious guy who gets the job done. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN
Policy wonk
Early in his career, he had offers from the private sector which he turned down.
He liked how the civil service allowed him to do different projects and shape schemes that could help Singaporeans. He found it meaningful going down to the ground to explain these policies.
I tell him he has a reputation for being a policy wonk. “Apparently,” he says with a shrug. “I don’t know how that happened.”
Why do you think people say that?
“I don’t know,” he says, not willing to be drawn into this.
I say I’ve heard he’s very on top of his subjects and can’t be smoked.
He smiles but doesn’t reply.
Changing tack, I ask how he took on the Covid-19 challenge. Did he, say, read a lot?
“Well, like I said, right, it’s partly what I was brought up with,” he relents. “That when you do anything, you have to put everything into it, you have to really want to excel.”
He elaborates: “I suppose in the Methodist tradition, you would say your work is your worship, right? You don’t delink faith from day to day. Whatever you do on a day-to-day basis, if you do it well, if you take responsibility, that in itself is a testimony of how you as a person are an example, you know, a light for the world.”
He was also shaped by mentors like former top civil servant Lim Siong Guan, who would relate what it was like to work for Old Guard leader Goh Keng Swee.
“Siong Guan would say Dr Goh’s philosophy was if Mr Lee (Kuan Yew) were to call him with any question, and if he doesn’t know the answer to that question, it’s an indication that he has not done his work well because he’s not on top of the issues.
“And even if he doesn’t know immediately, he has to know within a few hours, right, and he will make a point to try and master the issue and stay on top of it. I think that’s a very inspiring example.”
What we ate
Chez West, ITE College, West 1 Choa Chu Kang Grove
Two set lunches (vichyssoise, tortellini, sea bass, banana mousseline), $50; one coffee, $2; one tea, $2.
Total: $54
As Education Minister, a priority will be to broaden the concept of merit beyond academics. Covid-19 has been a good reminder of “the way we value contributions from all sectors to our society”.
I ask if Singapore’s leadership transition to the fourth generation (4G) will be affected if the pandemic drags on. His answer is not unexpected. The priority is to overcome the crisis. “At some stage, there’ll be a time to talk about leadership transition. But let’s get over this hump first.”
Has the thought occurred that we might be overreacting to Covid-19?
“Nobody said that at the start,” he counters. “Everybody was telling us to do more aggressive measures and we were telling everyone, yes, but let’s look at the science, let’s look at the evidence, and let’s understand that we are in it for the long haul. Now, the question is the opposite, that, oh, maybe you’re overreacting.”
He acknowledges that Covid-19 fatigue is real and the economic impact very serious, which is why the task force looks carefully at data to see what restrictions can be lifted, even as safe distancing, testing and tracing continue.
As we wrap up, I ask what he thinks the world will be like this time next year.
There is a good chance there will be a safe and effective vaccine by then, he says. “But how much of it is available, and whether or not we can distribute it to many people in the world, I doubt very much that would be possible by next year, which means that the world will still not be safe from Covid.”
He adds this depressing news: “That means Singapore will still be vulnerable. And it also means that I doubt international travel will resume back to pre-Covid-19 levels by this time next year.”
Before he goes off to thank the culinary students (service has been earnest and the vichyssoise especially delicious), I ask how Covid-19 has changed him, as a person and politician.
“I’m not sure that it has changed me personally. But I would say it has given me renewed confidence and hope about Singapore,” he says.
Amid the noise and complaints, one sees the best of Singaporeans shining through during this period, he says. “It gives me a lot of hope and faith that we as a nation can rally together and can do well for the future.”
This might sound like what a politician would say, but coming from someone who has spent the last nine months down in the trenches fighting the horror that is the pandemic, you believe he really means it.
.
====================
.
.
What a WP political mess in Parliament? What next? We wait.
.
=================
.
Would it be political defiance to the end no matter what the cost, the price, the outcome and consequence, be it a sweet or bitter ending.
.
==============
.
The fines…Peanuts. No pain. No suffering. Remember crowd funding? Has been proven that many demagogues have very deep pockets, and will give no matter what is the case so long as it is an act of political defiance.
.
======
.
What are probity and integrity in politics? What are politics of defiance and deception to the bitter end? What is confrontational politics to the bitter end though looking harmless, docile and even acting like stupid when challenged?
. =========
.
Integrity must form bedrock of politics in Singapore.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke in Parliament yesterday on the Committee of Privileges’ report on complaints about untruths told by former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan. Here is an edited excerpt.
PM Lee Hsien Loong
The quality of a country’s democracy hinges on its people’s values like what they judge to be right or wrong and the ideals they embrace, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. PHOTO: MCI
PUBLISHED 3 HOURS AGO on 16th Feb 2022 in Straits Times.
According to the Order Paper, we are debating what actions Parliament should take, having received the report of the Committee of Privileges (COP). But as the Leader of the House told us just now, the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in Singapore. What are the institutions, the norms, the values, that are essential for our democratic system to function properly? How do we apply these general principles to specific cases, like the one before us now, so as to protect these institutions, norms, and values? And how can we secure our democracy for the future, so that it can long deliver happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation? These are the three more fundamental questions that I wish to discuss today. Bedrock of state institutions The quality of a country’s democracy hinges on its people’s values: what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, the ideals they embrace. Whichever example you look at, at whatever point in history, you will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day. That is how healthy democratic systems can elect good, incorruptible people with the right values, and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics. This cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. It is where the most important matters of state are discussed; laws are enacted; supplies of money are voted, with the Government setting the direction and proposing policies, while answering to the public through Parliament, and the opposition holding the Government to account, while also being a government-in-waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people. To fulfil its vital role, Parliament must be respected, and its members, processes and proceedings must be trusted. Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protect the dignity and standing of Parliament. The system cannot work if the standing of Parliament is called into question. This is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among parliamentarians, and guard them carefully. Tell the truth always, and do the right thing by Singapore, even when it is hard or awkward – in fact, especially when it is hard or awkward. If something goes wrong, or something wrong has been done, own up and take responsibility – do not hide, dodge, or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib. The right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance’s sake. They have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear. MPs must be people with integrity at their core, who speak and act in an upright manner, always putting duty before self, and country before party. And our highest duty – our ultimate loyalty – is not to our party, but to Singapore. That is why when taking office, MPs swear “to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore”. In fact, this applies to everyone engaged in Singapore politics, MP or not. As Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Loh Pei Ying, who was Mr Pritam Singh’s former assistant, told the committee: “It pains me greatly, but to me, beyond anything else, it’s important to be truthful to my country.” I believe every member of this House will agree with her. Our democratic system also depends on the people of Singapore – voters – endorsing, insisting on and backing the same norms and values. So, they can discern for themselves – as Ms Loh did – when something is wrong, and hold accountable those in power, or aspiring to power, when their actions fall short of these high standards. That is how a democracy can function properly. Parliament in session yesterday. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that for Parliament to fulfil its vital role, it must be respected, and its members, processes and proceedings must be trusted. Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protecting the dignity and standing of the House, he added. PHOTO: MCI Public trust Inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades. It takes unremitting effort and passion, and it does not always succeed. Most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values. But more often than not, beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation, over decades and generations, gradually things change. Things start off with passionate intensity. The leaders, who fought for and won independence, are often exceptional individuals of great courage, immense culture, and outstanding ability. They came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations. They are the David Ben-Gurions, the Jawaharlal Nehrus, and we have our own too. Imbued with enormous personal prestige, they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world, and shape a new future for their peoples, and for their countries. But beyond that initial fervour, succeeding generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive. They start out as healthy democracies, with idealism and zeal. But over time, the tone of the society changes. All too easily – a slip here, a blind eye there, a fudge, a trim – and gradually things go downhill. The texture of politics changes, respect for politicians declines. After a while, the electorate comes to think this is the norm, and you cannot expect better. So, standards get debased, trust is eroded, and the country declines further. Many political systems today would be quite unrecognisable to their founding leaders. Ben-Gurion’s Israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government, despite four general elections in two years. Meanwhile, a stream of senior politicians and officials in Israel face a litany of criminal charges, some have gone to jail. Nehru’s India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder. Though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically motivated. What is to prevent Singapore from going down the same road? Nothing. We are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries. Modern Singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism. Our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions. Even after the Barisan Sosialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our parliamentary democracy and multi-party system. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained, at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state. But he deliberately chose not to, because he knew that without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would over time become complacent and flabby, and that would be disastrous for Singapore. So the founding fathers took the more robust way. They kept politics contestable. They built up institutions – Parliament, the judiciary, the civil service, the police and armed forces, and later the elected president and the Council of Presidential Advisers – to enable Singapore to operate on a more resilient basis, not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers, pushing all the buttons, making everything work. Still, to operate these institutions you need good people, and they needed to recruit, train and deploy ministers, MPs, judges, civil servants, experts in many fields. People of ability and commitment, with a sense of public service, and above all with honesty and integrity, whom Singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty, put Singapore first, and make this country succeed. And that is how the system we have today came to be. It is incumbent on all of us – each succeeding generation – to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited. This requires us to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law. If we can do that – consistently, persistently, unflinchingly – then we have a shot at making things work. People can trust our leaders, our systems, and our institutions. Our democracy can mature, deepen and grow more resilient, as both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values. Singapore can continue to flourish. But if we allow ourselves to slacken – loosen standards here, just a bit; overlook a lie there, just this time – the virtuous cycle will stutter and start to fail. What is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going, that keeps Singapore on the up and not on the down? It is trust. On his 100th birthday, former US secretary of state George Shultz reflected on this. This was a year and a bit ago, December 2020, he wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said one of the most important lessons in his long life is: “Trust is the coin of the realm.” “When trust was in the room,” he wrote, “good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.” We saw how this worked in the Covid-19 pandemic. Trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others. I have been saying this for two years, but recently there was a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, which confirmed this, studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and together with low corruption saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage. Because the people’s trust in government, and in each other, made much more difference to the outcome even more than the resources spent on healthcare, and even whether they had a universal healthcare system or not – what mattered most was: “Did they trust each other? Did they trust their leaders?” MORE ON THIS TOPIC Pritam rejects COP findings, says Raeesah was disenchanted with WP Significant issues arose during COP’s proceedings and its recommendations are best way forward: PM Lee Singapore is fortunate to be one of these high-trust societies. We have tried to build upon it during the pandemic, but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently, assiduously, step by step, never allowing it to be eroded, and therefore, having this with us when we go into battle – an enormous asset. The opposite happened in other countries, for example, in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the US, trust in the political system has all but broken down. Three-quarters of Republican voters have been made to believe the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen, that Mr (Joe) Biden is not a legitimate president and Mr (Donald) Trump should be the president today. How do you uphold a system, when a large segment of the population is convinced the elected government is illegitimate? Every issue is politicised; government becomes gridlocked; the country suffers. That is the key reason why many Americans refuse to be vaccinated, or to wear masks; why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe; and why they have suffered so many Covid-19 deaths. Or look at the ongoing uproar in Britain about the “Partygate” scandal in Westminster, the “Mother of Parliaments” no less. The scandal has been attributed to “failures of leadership and judgment” in an official government report. By ignoring its own rules, the current UK government has caused a severe breakdown of trust, and lost credibility in its Covid-19 controls. Singapore may be a high-trust society today, but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one. It is essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards, ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values, call out wrongs when wrongs are done, mete out punishment when punishment is due, preserve the sanctity of our institutions, never take the public trust for granted, and never allow lies, half-truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics. Events leading to COP That is what is at stake as we deliberate Parliament’s response to the Committee of Privileges report. Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament – twice on Aug 3 last year, and a third time when questioned two months later on Oct 4. Subsequently, she admitted to lying to Parliament. To deal with this breach of parliamentary privilege, we convened the COP. Ms Khan was called up, as were other witnesses. The COP deliberated extensively, before reaching a reasoned conclusion: that Ms Khan was guilty, and should be fined for each occasion she lied. But in the process of the COP’S deliberations, two other significant issues arose. The COP has drawn them to Parliament’s attention and suggested to Parliament how to deal with them. First, whether the three WP leaders – Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim – had instructed Ms Khan to continue with her lie in Parliament. If they did, this is surely as serious or more serious a misconduct as Ms Khan speaking an untruth in Parliament. Parliament will need to deal with this, but only after we have cleared the second, even graver matter. This graver matter is, as the Leader explained, whether after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth, the three WP leaders told untruths to the COP, in order to cover up their instructions to Ms Khan to continue lying. It became clear to the COP that there were striking contradictions between what the three MPs claimed to the committee were their honourable intentions, and the hard evidence of what they actually did, or very often, failed to do. And there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the WP leaders. Being untruthful under oath is no small matter. It means lying, despite solemnly affirming you will tell the truth. In this case, not once, not twice but repeatedly, over many hours of extensive questioning, and on several days. The COP’s assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors, but deliberate, premeditated acts, done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive. They are not just breaches of parliamentary privilege, but if proven in court, they amount to perjury – lying under oath. And perjury is a serious criminal offence. So, there are two distinct problems. One, whether the three MPs instructed Ms Khan to lie; and two, whether the three MPs themselves lied under oath. Both, if established, reflect very badly on the WP leaders, and in particular, on the Leader of the Opposition. Both issues, if not dealt with properly, will dishonour Parliament, and bring this august institution into disrepute. MORE ON THIS TOPIC Honesty of opposition no longer inconsequential in a more contested landscape: PM Lee ‘Integrity is the linchpin of democracy’: PM Lee’s full speech at COP debate in Parliament Some ask: “Wasn’t Ms Raeesah Khan the one who lied? Why are the WP leaders being treated more harshly?” As the Leader of the House noted just now, if the committee is right, then Mr Singh and his fellow WP leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the COP. They lied under oath to protect themselves, to cover up their role, and to push the blame solely onto Ms Khan, claiming that she and other witnesses, like Ms Loh, had lied to the COP. This is indeed more serious than what Ms Khan did, if it is so. By lying under oath, they sought to frustrate the COP process. They displayed the same kind of misconduct that the COP was set up to address. They betrayed the trust reposed in them as MPs – not least Mr Singh, the Leader of the Opposition. This, if true, is a very grave matter. So, MPs must decide what Parliament will now do about this. Can we pretend nothing happened? Or if that is too much to stomach, given the strong evidence laid out by the COP, perhaps we lower our standards just a little, note that untruths were told, but argue that it was after all not so serious a lie, and no harm was done? If we do either of these things, we too would become complicit in dishonouring and demeaning Parliament. We must take the transgression seriously, and act on it. And I am glad that is the conclusion the COP has come to and recommended to the House. What alternative choices did the COP have? It could have recommended to Parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist. But that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly. Worse, by lowering our norms, we would be telling Singaporeans that it is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie. Alternatively, the COP could have recommended that Parliament itself mete out an appropriately heavy penalty. This is something that Parliament has the power to do. But had the COP recommended that, and Parliament decided on the penalty itself, the opposition would surely have cried foul, and accused the PAP of using its majority to persecute the opposition. In fact, they are already insinuating this, as a smokescreen to obscure the real issue – that the WP had lied while under solemn oath. I believe, therefore, that what the COP recommends is thus the best way forward. Since a criminal offence appears to have been committed, let Parliament refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let the Public Prosecutor consider the evidence afresh, let the system work. If charges are filed, Mr Pritam Singh and also Mr Faisal Manap can defend themselves in court. The court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. I commend this course of action to the House. And if I were Mr Singh, I would vote in favour of both motions. Fine Ms Khan, because she is guilty beyond doubt. In fact, Mr Singh’s own party member, Mr Dennis Tan, who was on the COP, thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offence. And if Mr Singh maintains that he and his fellow WP leaders have done nothing wrong, he should also vote in favour of referring his own case, and that of Mr Faisal Manap, to the Public Prosecutor. Indeed, he should demand a court trial, in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself, vindicate his reputation, and clear his name. That is what I would do if I were Mr Singh. Regrettably, pro-Workers’ Party voices on social media have taken quite a different tack. Before the matter can be conclusively determined, if necessary in court, they are doing their best to confuse the issues and rouse sympathy. They are asking the public to clear the names of the three MPs, suggesting that referring their case to the Public Prosecutor is political persecution. What they are really saying is this: Don’t look too carefully at what Mr Singh did, just remember who he is: he is the opposition that you voted for; he is the Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of his position, he should not be referred to the Public Prosecutor; and any action against him must, by definition, be politically motivated; because who he is, is more important than what he has done – even if he may have committed a crime. Some people may be taken in, and sympathise with this story. They say, why not just let the matter rest? Can’t we find a compromise solution? After all, it would be easier for the Government not to have to pursue this matter against the three MPs. We have a full enough agenda. But as long as the PAP is the Government, we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this House, and to imbue Singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system, and critical to our success. Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Khiang as secretary-general of the Workers’ Party. Mr Low served for a very long time – 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the WP. He said he hoped the WP could help to build a First World Parliament for Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done. Because what has happened is a betrayal of what WP claimed it stood for. But judging by Mr Low’s public comments, he is confident the party can ride this out. And it need not be a setback for our democracy either, provided we hold Mr Singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonouring the standards of this House, and also for possibly breaking the law. MORE ON THIS TOPIC 5 things to note from the Committee of Privileges report on Raeesah Khan Committee of Privileges report on Raeesah Khan probe: Timeline of events since August Future of Singapore’s democracy We are all engaged in the same project – to build up Singapore’s democracy and create a political system that will serve Singaporeans well for many years to come. And to do that, we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values. I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation, and I accept that. I expect that this is the way Singapore will go, in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves. And it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the WP won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition, and equip him with the resources and support to play his role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge, and contribute to the maturing of our political system. But the office of the Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities – setting the tone for opposition MPs, enforcing standards of conduct on his own party, and above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque. Integrity is the linchpin of democracy. The stakes of today’s debate might have been lower if the opposition were a negligible presence, as they were from 1966 until the 1980s. The PAP was overwhelmingly dominant, the public generally had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians, the tone of the country and its governance was set by the PAP, and the high standards that the PAP imposed on itself. But with Singapore heading towards a more contested landscape, the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter. The question of “what are the right values and how should we uphold them?” becomes of fundamental importance for both the opposition and the governing party. Every election henceforth would be about who wins the mandate to run this country. If the system is working properly, the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest, competent, and trusted. If the governing party falls short, and Singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible, more competent, and more trustworthy, then the governing party should be voted out, and that opposition party should be voted in, to form the next government. We cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in government. Nor can we assume that the WP, or some other opposition party, or any other opposition party, will always stay in the opposition. I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible. But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain because a small island city-state like Singapore – the only one in the world like this – needs a strong, effective and good government, whoever leads it. With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards. There can be no excuses, no double standards, and no pardoning of inexcusable behaviour, just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog. Mr John Major, the former British prime minister, recently made a speech, triggered by Partygate I am sure, lamenting the state of British politics today. It was a cri de coeur, a cry from the heart. Let me read you a few excerpts: “There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are ‘all the same’, and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life.” “But politicians are not ‘all the same’. And lies are just not acceptable.” “To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life, and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead.” “But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.” “If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is… nothing and no one. And where are we then?” “If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in government will be lost too.” John Major’s is a Western view, but in Eastern society too, norms and values are crucial, in fact even more than in Western philosophy, because Western philosophy says checks and balances, but Eastern philosophy says your virtues, your moral standing – that is what give you the right to govern. In Confucian thought, there are four social guidelines (si wei) that hold a state together: rituals, righteousness, probity, and shame (li yi lian chi). Probity, or desisting from corruption, is about upright behaviour; it is a norm that can be enforced using laws. But shame, a reaction to wrongdoing, is a moral disposition; it is about one’s own sense of right and wrong, whether we know we have done the right thing, or we know we have fallen short, even when nobody said so. That has to come from within ourselves, from our own values, and our own consciences. Absent that sense of shame, people may comply with laws for fear of punishment, but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, and to take responsibility when they have fallen short of the standards expected of them. What I personally find most disappointing in the WP narrative and in their response, including in this House today, is the complete absence of any admission that the three MPs have done anything wrong. There is no contrition. Whether you take a Western or Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly. The public will mistrust not only individual leaders, or particular political parties, but the whole political system. And this has happened too often elsewhere. If that happens, what do you do? What can you do? How can democracy function when there is no one we can trust to put in charge? How do you put Humpty Dumpty together again? How do you restart from zero? Press reset? A democracy not founded on integrity stands on shaky ground, and will sooner or later totter. If instead of trust being “the coin of the realm”, as George Shultz puts it, lies become “the accepted currency of public life”, as John Major said, all the sound and fury of contestation and debate will signify nothing good for the country. As Singapore politics grows more competitive, we must make sure that the competition is honest, impartial, and above board. Where the system runs properly, and our institutions remain sacred and respected by all. Where good people work together constructively to serve Singaporeans, wherever they stand on the political spectrum. And, most basic of all, where Singaporeans can trust those who represent them to conduct themselves honestly and honourably, and act on behalf of the public, and of Singapore. The COP report is long and detailed, but the core issues are few and stark. We have scrutinised Ms Khan’s actions, and the rights and wrongs. She has admitted her wrongdoings, and will be punished appropriately for them. We thought the matter could be closed off straightforwardly. But there turned out to be a much larger problem. Online, people call this Raeesah-Gate, after Watergate. And just like in the original Watergate affair, while investigating Ms Khan’s transgressions, the COP unexpectedly stumbled upon a cover-up by WP leaders, even more serious than the original offence. The COP did not expect this. But now with the findings before us, it is our responsibility, Parliament’s responsibility, for the MPs to take the necessary and appropriate course of action. Trust is crucial for democracy to work well. Being truthful is fundamental to establishing trust. Honesty is non-negotiable. If you tell lies, how can the public trust you? If someone in a position of responsibility tells lies, and visibly gets away with it, how can the public trust the system? And if Parliament condones lying among its own members, how can Singaporeans trust the institution of Parliament? If we let flagrant, egregious transgressions pass, it will erode trust in our leaders, respect for Parliament, and support for our whole political system, and Singapore will be heading for trouble. As the longest-serving member of this House, I feel a greater responsibility for this than most. When I first entered this House 37 years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S. Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr E.W. Barker and Mr Jek Yeun Thong were still members. Six of the 10 who signed the Separation Agreement on Aug 9, 1965. I have witnessed first-hand how the founding generation built up this place, handed it to us in good shape. For me, this is a sacred trust. And it should be a sacred trust too, for every MP. We must all never fail to serve Singaporeans to the best of our ability, responsibly and honestly, and uphold this institution of Parliament, as the foundation of a robust and healthy democracy.=
.
=============
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial says
A necessary process to get to the truth
PUBLISHED 3 HOURS AGO on 12th Feb 2022 in ST.
Parliament’s Committee of Privileges released its report on Thursday, recommending that Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations and that former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan be fined a total of $35,000 for their involvement in lies told by Ms Khan in Parliament in August and October last year. Mr Singh’s referral is with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted regarding his conduct before the eight-member panel. The committee recommended that WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap, an MP for Aljunied GRC, also be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations over his refusal to answer relevant questions during its hearings, and to also consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.
As the report makes clear, there were two central issues for the committee to consider: First, whether Ms Khan had lied and repeated the lie; and, should she have lied, the penalty that should be imposed on her. There is no dispute over the liability issue since she admitted to having lied and to having repeated the untruth. Given the admission, the committee then had to determine the penalty. That determination would have to reflect her level of responsibility, which would, in turn, depend on what she had been told to do by three senior WP leaders. The final recommendations are severe sanctions that reflect the importance attached to the issue of parliamentary integrity and what is expected of Members of Parliament.
The report revealed the detailed process that the committee went through to arrive at its conclusions, based on its assessment of the testimony and evidence before it. Those called up for the hearings also had the fullest opportunity to present their case so that the panel could come to a proper determination of the facts, what transpired, when and how. The hearings in December also saw the release of no fewer than six special reports and more than 30 hours of video recordings of testimonies – a move which reflected that the committee was conscious about the importance of transparency in what many have come to regard as a politically charged hearing. A fuller airing, and a further opportunity for the WP leaders to argue their case, will come next week when the report and recommendations will be debated in the House. Whatever the final outcome, this has been an important and necessary process to get to the truth; one that signals that individuals must be held to account for their utterances, actions, and inactions, particularly so when this involves an institution like Parliament and its MPs. The privilege of speaking freely and fearlessly in the House must come with a solemn duty to speak truthfully, and to uphold the integrity of the institution. Meaningful debates on crucial matters of state depend on these principles being honoured, and enforced.
.
===
.
Who next?
.
========
.
Pofma office to issue correction direction to Wake Up, Singapore over COP statements
Wake Up, Singapore will have to carry correction notices stating that the posts contain a false statement of fact. PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM WAKE UP, SINGAPORE/FACEBOOK
Sue-Ann Tan
Business Correspondent
PUBLISHED 1 HOUR AGO on 12th Feb 2022 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House has instructed the Pofma Office to issue a correction direction to alternative news site Wake Up, Singapore.
The current Leader of the House is Ms Indranee Rajah.
The correction is in relation to its Facebook and Instagram posts dated Feb 10 on the Committee of Privileges’ (COP) probe into the conduct of former MP Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to lying in Parliament last year.
The posts said that the COP recommended that Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap be “referred for criminal proceedings”, even though there was no finding by the committee that they had lied.
Mr Singh is Workers’ Party’s (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition. He is also an MP for Aljunied GRC. Mr Faisal is also an MP for Aljunied GRC and is WP’s vice-chair.
“In making this false statement, the posts suggested that the Committee had recommended referring Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor without basis,” a media release from The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House said on Saturday (Feb 12).
The Pofma Office administers the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).
Get Singapore Budget 2022 newsletter in your inbox
Read e-mail alert on key highlights from Budget 2022. Also, get ST Evening Update.
Enter your e-mail
Sign up
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
Wake Up, Singapore will have to carry correction notices stating that the posts contain a false statement of fact, according to the media release.
“The posts published by Wake Up, Singapore misrepresent the Committee’s findings and muddy the waters as to the proper role of the Committee.”
An article on the Gov.Sg website added that the committee expressly found that Mr Singh, WP chairman Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal had lied in their evidence before the committee.
“The Committee’s recommendation that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor was based on this finding which it made, that Mr Singh had lied on oath (which is a possible offence of perjury),” the article said.
“The Committee did not recommend referring Mr Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor for lying to the Committee. The Committee recommended referring Mr Faisal for repeatedly refusing to answer relevant questions put to him by the Committee,” it added.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Honesty is foundation of democracy, not debates that include lies: Ong Ye Kung on COP report
Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap to speak in Parliament debate on COP report next week
.
=============
.
What is truth to some, and untruth to others?
Only God knows.
Some believe their god/s are different from the god/s of others.
.
=============
.
Sylvia Lim disputes COP findings, says her handwritten notes not damaging to Pritam
Parliament’s Committee of Privileges interpreted the notes provided by WP chairman Sylvia Lim as “damaging” to her party leader. PHOTOS: GOV.SG
Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim has disputed a parliamentary committee’s interpretation of evidence she had submitted to it as “damaging” to her party leader.
In its report released on Feb 10, Parliament’s Committee of Privileges (COP) said a set of handwritten notes provided by Ms Lim supported its finding that Leader of the Opposition and WP chief Pritam Singh had guided former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan to continue to maintain an untrue narrative she had shared in Parliament on Aug 3 last year.
“I take a different view,” Ms Lim told Parliament on Tuesday (Feb 15).
“If read in the proper context, my evidence is not inconsistent and not damaging to Mr Singh. In fact, it is consistent with his evidence that he was telling her she had to tell the truth.”
The notes, taken by Ms Lim during a meeting between herself, WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap, Mr Singh and Ms Khan, reflect that Mr Singh had said to Ms Khan: “Before Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?”
Ms Khan replies: “Yes but consumed with guilt + own experience. Thought it wouldn’t come up.”
Mr Singh then asks: “Can’t lie right?”, to which Ms Khan responds: “Yes.”
Ms Lim said this exchange shows that Ms Khan had accepted that she could not lie and understood that she had to tell the truth.
She added that she was “baffled” by the committee’s conclusion that she had recognised Mr Singh acted contrary to an MP’s duty to tell the truth. Ms Lim said her evidence did not support this finding, and that the committee did not quote her testimony accurately.
“I’d also stated, at the same time, that I could not imagine Mr Singh giving Ms Khan a choice, and I do not believe it. That puts a totally different complexion to the paragraph cited by the COP,” said Ms Lim.
Mr Singh then asks: “Can’t lie right?”, to which Ms Khan responds: “Yes.”
Ms Lim said this exchange shows that Ms Khan had accepted that she could not lie and understood that she had to tell the truth.
She added that she was “baffled” by the committee’s conclusion that she had recognised Mr Singh acted contrary to an MP’s duty to tell the truth. Ms Lim said her evidence did not support this finding, and that the committee did not quote her testimony accurately.
“I’d also stated, at the same time, that I could not imagine Mr Singh giving Ms Khan a choice, and I do not believe it. That puts a totally different complexion to the paragraph cited by the COP,” said Ms Lim.
In her speech, Ms Lim also said she found the composition of the committee “unsatisfactory” as it is “overwhelmingly dominated by ruling party members” and includes just one opposition WP MP – Mr Dennis Tan (Hougang) – out of eight members.
She suggested that the committee should include at least three members from opposition parties.
Ms Lim also asked why lawyers are not allowed to represent those who are summoned before the committee.
She also complained of the lengthy and “oppressive” process of questioning witnesses for long hours, noting that the process took nine hours in a single day for Mr Singh and six hours for Mr Faisal, while her own questioning took nearly three hours.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah later responded to several of Ms Lim’s points.
She said the committee had taken Ms Lim’s interpretation of the notes into account and noted her position in its report.
Ms Indranee also said Ms Lim’s questioning of the committee’s composition was a “strategy to cast aspersions” on the committee.
“When we had to determine who would be the opposition representative on the Committee of Privileges, Mr Dennis Tan was nominated by Mr Singh, and he certainly did not complain at that time, or say that he should have more opposition members,” she said.
“So it just really rather does sound as though, if you don’t like the outcome of the Committee of Privileges, then you complain about how it is composed when it was never an issue before.”
On the length of the questioning process, Ms Indranee said the length of time it takes to question a witness depends on whether they answer questions straightforwardly.
She also noted that lawyers are not allowed before the committee by default, but exceptions can be made by special application when there are good reasons to do so.
Added Ms Indranee: “Mr Singh is a lawyer, and so is Ms Lim. I don’t think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them, which were not particularly difficult, well within their ability to understand and respond to.”
Mr Faisal also spoke briefly in Parliament on Tuesday, stating that he will cooperate with investigations if he and Mr Singh are referred to the Public Prosecutor.
He also assured Aljunied GRC residents that services such as house visits and Meet-the-People sessions will not be affected, and that he will continue to support the remaining Sengkang GRC MPs with issues related to the Malay-Muslim community.
.
=========
.
Our politics today: Is it to engage in bitter contest, distract, deceive, defy, attack, defend, destruct, construct, or in perpetual conflict? Is it politics of persecution or prosecution?
Strictly politics?
Choose wisely in uncompromising defiance?
.
=======
.
Pritam Singh to face biggest political test as Parliament debates and votes on COP report
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh speaking at the Committee of Privileges hearing on Dec 15, 2021. PHOTO: GOV.SG
Justin Ong
Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO on 15th Feb 2022 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh is likely to face his biggest political test yet as he addresses Parliament on Tuesday (Feb 15) on the lying saga triggered by Ms Raeesah Khan, a former MP from his Workers’ Party (WP).
The House is scheduled to debate and vote on a parliamentary committee’s recommendations to fine Ms Khan, and for Mr Singh to be referred to the Public Prosecutor for possible criminal charges.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah has filed two motions related to the Committee of Privileges’ report released last Thursday (Feb 10), to be debated simultaneously.
The first motion calls on the House to agree with the committee’s finding that Ms Khan was guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege by lying in August and October last year, and its recommendation of a $35,000 fine.
The second motion calls on Parliament to agree to refer Mr Singh as well as party vice-chair Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor. It also seeks to defer any parliamentary sanctions on the duo and party chairman Sylvia Lim with regard to Ms Khan’s lie, until the conclusion of any investigations and criminal proceedings against Mr Singh.
Following the release of the committee’s report, the WP had said the three leaders will be expressing their views on it in Parliament.
Observers say their speeches will likely prove a defining moment for both Mr Singh, who was given the official title of Leader of the Opposition after the general election in 2020, and the party, which has made electoral gains in recent years as a self-styled check on the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
Get Singapore Budget 2022 newsletter in your inbox
Read e-mail alert on key highlights from Budget 2022. Also, get ST Evening Update.
Enter your e-mail
Sign up
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
The case centred on a speech Ms Khan gave in August last year where she said she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to the police station and alleged that the police were insensitive to the victim. The police said they could find no such case.
In November, she admitted to the House that she had lied. She had never accompanied a victim to the police station. She said the account was something she had heard from a victims’ support group, which she was part of as a sexual assault victim herself. She resigned from her MP seat and from the party.
The matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges, which comprised seven PAP MPs and one WP MP. After a three-month probe where the three WP leaders, among others, gave evidence, the committee concluded that Ms Khan should be fined $25,000 for her first lie. For repeating the lie, the committee called for a $10,000 fine as it said she was then acting under the guidance of the three party leaders.
The panel also said Mr Singh and Mr Faisal – both Aljunied GRC MPs – should be referred to the Public Prosecutor for investigations to consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.
The panel had determined that Mr Singh had lied while giving evidence under oath and that this could amount to perjury, and that Mr Faisal’s refusal to answer questions could amount to contempt of Parliament.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Workers’ Party: A watchdog that is now under scrutiny
COP report damaging to WP, will shape political perceptions: Experts
Tuesday’s debate could yet shape views on the ground in the WP-run GRCs – Sengkang and Aljunied.
Over the weekend and in the wake of the committee releasing its report, The Straits Times spoke to 100 residents in each constituency.
Most believe Ms Khan and the party’s leaders should be held equally responsible for the unfolding saga.
Several said the episode amplified the importance of integrity and honesty as qualities in MPs they vote for.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
What’s next in the Raeesah Khan saga, and what could happen to Pritam Singh?
Yet many were wary of dismissing the WP as a whole over the mistakes of a few key people.
Saleswoman Clara Chong, 29, a resident in Ms Khan’s former constituency, Sengkang GRC, said: “As an MP, it should be common sense not to lie… She could have admitted to it the second time, regardless of whether her leaders told her to continue lying or not. It’s her own responsibility.”
Mr Raja Muthu, 26, said that as WP secretary-general, Mr Singh should be held just as accountable. “Maybe he didn’t ask his party member to lie, but he should have told her to come clean when she confessed to him,” added the fresh graduate who lives in Sengkang GRC.
The committee had found that Mr Singh and WP leaders had taken no action for some three months after Ms Khan first came clean to them.
SPH Brightcove Video
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Committee of Privileges report on Raeesah Khan probe: Timeline of events since August
In Aljunied GRC, student Charissa Loo, 23, said: “The WP leaders and a member are at fault here, but the others should not be boycotted. Perhaps they can have a change of leadership and rework the party instead.”
Retiree Kim Lay Sin, 78, said it was “ridiculous” for one member’s mistake to bring down an entire party that has otherwise functioned as a strong opposition worth supporting. “The others have served well and I still have faith in them,” added Madam Kim, who lives in Aljunied GRC.
Some felt the entire episode had affected the WP’s reputation, especially among new and middle-ground voters, and that the party would have to play catch-up to “make things right”, as one said.
“Because of this big hoo-ha, it’s natural for people to feel a bit wary of the party now,” said engineer Shafeeq Hussein, 29, who lives in the Compassvale ward previously under Ms Khan.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Low Thia Khiang says up to residents to ask him if he will return to politics to help WP
Raeesah Khan’s version of events more credible than WP leaders’: Committee
Student Gerald Tan, 25, added: “Moving forward… they will have to work extra hard to prove themselves worthy of a vote in the next election.”
In both Sengkang and Aljunied GRCs, over seven in 10 residents agreed with the fine for Ms Khan.
When asked about Mr Singh facing additional investigations with the possibility of criminal charges, some four in 10 residents in Aljunied disagreed with the recommendation. In Sengkang, three in 10 disagreed.
Across the two areas, close to four in 10 said they were unsure about voting for the WP at the next polls. But Aljunied residents were noticeably more bullish about the party’s future prospects, with four in 10 saying the saga would affect the WP’s chances at the next election, compared with over half in Sengkang.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Sylvia Lim’s notes from WP meeting damaging to Pritam’s testimony: COP
Committee explains why Pritam’s serious misconduct deserves further probe
As to whether the entire episode had changed their view of the party, four in 10 in Sengkang said yes. In Aljunied, four in 10 said it had not.
Sengkang resident and retired educator Melissa Chew, 67, said the whole “blame game” has wasted both time and resources for all involved.
“This is an episode worth remembering as it highlights the importance of honesty and character in leaders,” she added.
Additional reporting by Bryan Cheong, Cheong Chee Foong, John Elijah Gan, Kolette Lim, Gena Soh
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
5 things to note from the Committee of Privileges report on Raeesah Khan
COP’s final report on Raeesah is not final chapter to saga
.
===============
.
What is the reason he stepped down as SG of WP in the first place?
Forum: Low Thia Khiang can still contribute as a leader of Workers’ Party
Mr Low has vast experience as an opposition leader, and has strong connections with the ground. His friendly and approachable personality has been instrumental in engaging the public on national issues that affect them.
I am sure that Mr Low can still contribute to the WP cause.
His service is needed to navigate the WP through its current trials and tribulations.
Jeffrey Law Lee Beng
.
=======
=
.
Some will say rule by Referendum. Let the people vote on it whether to close the case in Parliament, no persecution, no prosecution.
Will the fines be enough to pay for the Referendum?
===========
.
.
Commentary: What debate on privileges committee report means for WP and Singapore
Parliament screengrabs
The author believes that the WP’s response in Parliament on Feb 15 was an unequivocal demonstration that it has chosen to bury its head in the sand.
What transpired in Parliament on Tuesday (Feb 15) during the four-hour debate on the Committee of Privileges (COP) report on the lies told by former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan was a defining moment — not just for the WP but for Singapore as well.
It raises questions whether Singapore is ready to transition to a two- or multi-party democracy. More importantly, it invites Singaporeans to consider and demand what standards of conduct and probity are expected of our parliamentary democracy and of our parliamentarians.
To be clear, one-party dominance will weaken in Singapore in the longer term, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged when he joined the debate on Tuesday.
Singaporeans desire more political diversity and contestation and it is vital that there is a political party ready to form the government should the ruling People’s Action Party be voted out of office.
Thus, the competence and honesty of our leaders are critical to our governance.
The WP’s response in Parliament on Tuesday was an unequivocal demonstration that it has chosen to bury its head in the sand.
It regards the COP inquiry as a politicised witch hunt and that its Members of Parliament (MPs) were being dealt with for their “political work”.
Such a disconnect from reality was baffling as much as a wasted opportunity for the WP.
Tuesday’s debate could have been a chance for the leading opposition party to rise like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes of the sad saga, staunching the inevitable bleeding of public trust and confidence.
Instead the WP MPs demonstrated that under the current leadership, building a First World Parliament is low on their priorities and that it was more a slogan for electioneering. They are also relying on having a perceived free pass by virtue of being the leading opposition party for the last two decades.
WP secretary-general and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, while defiant, offered a tame and half-hearted defence.
He began by repeating the specific sexual assault on former Sengkang Group Representation Constituency MP, Ms Raeesah, which she had shared in confidence with her party leaders.
Mr Singh did not make any serious effort at discrediting the COP findings and recommendations. Instead, he opted to limit his remarks on the COP report on the basis that his actions before the COP would be examined by the Public Prosecutor when Parliament refers his conduct to the Public Prosecutor.
However, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 provides that there shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament and such freedom “shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court …”. There should be no concerns about self-incrimination.
Mr Singh’s speech set the tone for the other WP MPs, including party chairperson Sylvia Lim, and party vice-chair, Mr Faisal Manap, who the COP had found stating untruths to the COP while on oath or affirmation.
In other words, had the WP leaders been so minded to persuade the non-government MPs to vote against or abstain on the second motion that was about their conduct in the saga, they did not make much headway.
Their silence on the material parts of the charges was telling. That they have so far opted not to address the essence of the very serious charges is perplexing.
Worse, the WP has opted to play victim, hinting that the COP process is political persecution. Mr Singh alluded to this when he questioned how the COP process which was originally about Ms Raeesah’s misconduct had instead become centred on him and his party leaders.
The remaining six WP MPs did not participate in the debate on Tuesday. Going by the WP MPs’ collective response in Parliament, it is clear that they have closed ranks, digging in their heels further for now.
In the months ahead, possible law enforcement investigation and further action by Parliament will legitimately raise credibility issues for the party leaders and cast a dark cloud not just over them but the party as a whole.
WP cadres, members and volunteers are likely to re-examine, in their own way, their association with the party and their views on the party leaders.
The party has other legal woes. There is the Aljunied Hougang Town Council lawsuit where the WP leaders and town councillors are appealing against the High Court decision which had found them liable for breaching their fiduciary duties in town council matters.
With lots on their plate, the reality is that their resources, time and energy will be spent dealing with these issues which could otherwise be deployed to walking and working the ground.
The COP report raises the legitimate question of whether Mr Singh should step aside as Leader of the Opposition in the meantime. The COP’s finding that Mr Singh had been instrumental in the plot to mislead Parliament is a grave charge and a stain on the office.
To recap, in the 2020 general election where the WP won an unprecedented 10 seats, Prime Minister Lee announced that formal recognition would be accorded to Mr Singh as Leader of the Opposition.
To this end, the Leader of the Opposition office seeks to institutionalise the Opposition’s role in Singapore’s system of constitutional checks and balances.
It also recognises the imperative of socialising the Opposition and Singaporeans to the importance of clean politics and good governance in Singapore.
Parliament did right on Tuesday in voting to refer the conduct of Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor. It is a wise and prudent move.
It is noteworthy that a fresh investigation will be conducted for the Public Prosecutor to decide if a criminal case is made out. Both WP MPs will have their day in court, if they are charged, and they can clear their names.
They will be entitled to legal counsel and examination of prosecution’s witnesses. The standard of proof required for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases.
The WP’s star had been rising significantly since the 2011 general election. Another breakthrough was made in the 2020 general election.
Now it has been rudely brought down to earth through the conduct of the party leaders, which had not only severely aggravated the breach of parliamentary privilege by Ms Raeesah but is also conduct unbecoming.
Mr Singh’s response and those of his fellow WP MPs in Parliament on Tuesday is defining for him and his party.
On Tuesday, Singapore also marked the 80th anniversary of the fall of Singapore during the Second World War.
It was a sombre reminder that not only must we not take our defence and sovereignty for granted but also that Singaporeans must fervently want to uphold and defend the type of parliamentary democracy in Singapore.
It must be one characterised by the values and norms of integrity, trust, and moral courage to do right by Singapore and Singaporeans.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Eugene K B Tan is an associate professor at the Singapore Management University’s Yong Pung How School of Law. He served as a Nominated Member of Parliament from 2012 to 2014.
.
=========
.
What a political mess in our Parliamentary democracy.
Some will want a Referendum to decide whether to persecute or prosecute.
Will the fines be enough to pay for the R?
.
==========
.
A defining moment for the future of contested politics
The opposition must raise the bar to meet high standards of integrity. And the PAP must raise the bar to behave better and act fairly as the dominant party in a contested system.
Chua Mui Hoong
Associate Editor
PM Lee Hsien Loong speaking on the Committee of Privileges report in Parliament on Feb 15, 2022. PHOTO: GOV.SG
UPDATED 3 MINS AGO on 18th Feb 2022 in Straits Times.
A lie told by a rookie opposition MP in Parliament has morphed over the past six months into a tale involving her party leaders, a parliamentary committee hearing spanning weeks, and, on Tuesday, an intense four-hour debate that saw the Prime Minister step in to deliver a rare, and vitally important, speech.
Ms Raeesah Khan has since apologised for her lie uttered on Aug 3 and for repeating it on Oct 4, when queried. She had made up an anecdote about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station, where officers had been insensitive. In fact, she had heard the account at a support group meeting, and had not received permission to share the story.
On Nov 1, she confessed in Parliament that she had lied, and resigned from the Workers’ Party (WP) and from her seat in Sengkang GRC on Nov 30.
A complaint about her untruth was made and a Committee of Privileges (COP) was convened to investigate. On Feb 10, the COP released its final report recommending that Ms Khan be fined $35,000 for her lies. It also wanted to refer two WP leaders to the Public Prosecutor to ascertain if their own conduct before the committee warranted criminal prosecution: perjury or lying under oath in WP secretary-general Pritam Singh’s case; or contempt of Parliament for refusing to answer relevant questions in the case of WP vice-chair Faisal Manap. Parliament accepted the recommendations this week.
The COP report essentially concluded that while Ms Khan was responsible for her lies, party leaders had also guided her to cover up those lies.
Mr Singh has repeatedly denied asking her to continue lying in Parliament. More than 30 hours of video recordings of the proceedings, and a series of reports totalling 1,181 pages, including transcripts and screenshots of text messages, were released over the weeks to a public at times riveted, at times satiated, by the deluge.
Some Singaporeans think the issue is a political ploy to distract attention from an expected impending rise in the goods and services tax. Others lament the waste of extensive public resources to chase down the details of whether the WP leadership encouraged, or guided, Ms Khan in continuing to lie to Parliament.
Beyond the specific circumstances of this case – she said, he said, they said – the ongoing saga is most interesting as a case study of what to expect as politics gets more contested.
The politics of contestation
Singapore politics is at an inflexion point.
With rising political contestation, the conduct of both the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) and of the main opposition party WP will shape the future of Singapore democracy.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s 40-minute speech in Parliament on Tuesday was a rallying call to both voters and opposition members to uphold high standards of integrity in politics established since the founding generation.
Singaporean voters are used to giving a mental discount to opposition candidates and parties, viewing them as underdogs operating under a system with rules set by the PAP.
But such double standards are not healthy for a maturing democracy. As PM Lee said on Tuesday, “with Singapore heading towards a more contested landscape, the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter”, but is of “fundamental importance”.
He said: “With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards.”
PM Lee clearly set out expectations for MPs: preserve the sanctity of Parliament; uphold values of integrity and honesty; and when mistakes are made, “own up and take responsibility – do not hide, dodge, or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib”.
His speech spelt out a vision of politics based on shared common values of integrity and incorruptibility.
For Singapore voters, this means demanding that opposition MPs, candidates and parties be held to at least the same high standards as those demanded of the PAP.
Mr Singh as WP leader has already said its candidate selection can be better, even as he denied personal wrongdoing, and added that he would fight to clear his name if prosecuted.
But voters will demand more than these of the WP.
Questions are already being asked about WP’s internal party processes. Two issues have emerged: Why party leaders gave Ms Khan several months to set the record straight on her lies, and why a disciplinary panel on Ms Khan’s behaviour was made up of precisely the three leaders who had been told about Ms Khan’s lies since Aug 8?
To be taken seriously as a party, the WP will need to institute party processes that can withstand scrutiny.
Conduct expected of a dominant party
As politics gets more contested, no less important than raising the bar for the opposition is raising the bar for the PAP’s behaviour as the dominant party.
Voters will demand that the PAP behaves as its ideals require. Observers will be reminded of past incidents when PAP leaders seemed to give themselves an easy pass over mistakes.
For example, as Mr Singh has highlighted to the COP – and as many others outside the House have noted – the Government took months to correct a statement made in Parliament by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, minister in charge of the Smart Nation drive, that TraceTogether data would be used only for contact tracing purposes.
He had said this in June 2020, but found out in October that the Criminal Procedure Code allows TraceTogether data to be used for police investigations. This fact was made known publicly only in a January 2021 parliamentary reply.
Dr Balakrishnan eventually took responsibility for and apologised for his mistake. Importantly, the Government did its best to make good on the promise. It passed legislation in February 2021, under a certificate of urgency, limiting the use of TraceTogether data to investigations for specific, serious crimes such as murder and terrorism. And so trust, broken, could be mended.
Even if it rectified the situation eventually, the fact remains that government leaders allowed a false promise to the public to remain on the record, uncorrected, for months.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
MPs have duty to be responsible when speaking in Parliament: Indranee
Parliament votes to refer WP leaders Pritam, Faisal to prosecutor
While no one is suggesting lies were involved, similar questions now being asked of WP leaders can be levelled at PAP leaders then. When did party leaders realise a false promise of data privacy had been made (even if unintentionally)? Why the delay in clarifying the statement?
But because Parliament is PAP-dominated, the issue was not blown up, and the political agenda moved on. But such murmurings inevitably arise again when the PAP, rightly, insists on holding everyone to the highest standards.
Beyond expecting PAP leaders to behave as high-mindedly as their rhetoric requires, voters will also want to see the PAP behave in a fairer and more equitable manner to its political opponents than it has tended to in the past.
While the hurly-burly nature of politics means political parties will do what they can, legally, to entrench their power and curb opponents, some of the PAP’s tactics from the 1970s to the 1990s have been described as “knuckleduster” actions – from defamation suits to putting opposition constituencies last in the queue for state-funded upgrading works, among two oft-cited examples.
Those moves had lasting impact, putting many off the idea of engaging in politics, and avoiding partisan activity of any stripe.
Thankfully, to be fair to PM Lee and the current batch of leaders, these tactics are much less used today.
In life, as in politics, it is important, even as we take stock realistically of the past, to look forward and to press for positive change. In this respect, I cheered PM Lee’s speech for elaborating on the values and democratic ideals expected of all in politics, especially when he made an explicit commitment to principled behaviour.
Notably, he acknowledged the desire for more contestation and pledged to do his best as leader of Singapore to help the opposition become more responsible: “I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation, and I accept that. I expect that this is the way Singapore will go, in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves.
“And it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the WP won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition, and equip him with the resources and support to play his role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge, and contribute to the maturing of our political system.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
S’pore’s system will fail if trust is eroded and lost: PM Lee
Singapore not immune to decline if it lets political standards slide: PM Lee
Conversely, what does a responsible government look like in an age of contested politics? What must it do, to make sure the system is in place for a peaceful change in regime when the time comes?
This is what PM Lee said on this: “I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible.
“But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain.”
Mr Lee differentiated between his job as party leader and his duty as the leader of the country. I am glad for his choice of words: one is a “job”; the other is a higher “duty”.
Likewise, opposition leaders have to answer the call to a higher duty than as party leader. As Leader of the Opposition, for example, Mr Singh’s first duty is to his country, not his party.
Going forward, leaders of political parties, including the PAP, must operate more like country leaders and less like party leaders. For the party in government, this means taking steps to make sure Singapore’s politics, policies and processes are based on the right values, and conducive for an ethical, peaceful transition of power should that day arrive.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam rejects COP findings, says Raeesah was disenchanted with WP
Up to S’poreans to hold all political parties to high standards: Observers
Good norms being created
As a perpetual optimist in Singapore, I am hopeful that in recent political events, and in Raeesah-gate and its fallout, we are seeing the creation of good norms in the new politics of contestation.
Making Mr Singh Leader of the Opposition with an office, and higher allowance to hire staff, was a good norm. It boded well for Singapore’s political future.
Appointing a COP to investigate Ms Khan’s lies was a good norm to uphold the integrity of Parliament.
The COP could have meted out penalties to the WP leaders it said had lied under oath, or acted in contempt of Parliament by refusing to answer questions.
COP members have explained that it chose to refer the WP leaders to the Public Prosecutor to avoid accusations of political bias, as seven of the eight members of the COP are from the PAP; and so that the WP leaders can defend themselves in court if the matter comes to a trial.
The explanation is reasonable, and indeed a court trial may be able to shed more light on whether WP leaders egged Ms Khan to perpetuate her lies.
Yet, questions have also been raised about whether the COP process too could be improved.
Both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Singh said some of their evidence had not been taken into consideration or recorded, although their statements were rebutted by COP members, who argued that all available evidence was considered and factored in the report that ran beyond a thousand pages.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Sylvia Lim disputes COP findings, says her handwritten notes not damaging to Pritam
Parliament responds to Sylvia Lim’s remarks on ‘oppressive’ protocols for COP witnesses
The COP’s long-drawn hearing has also struck some as being more adversarial than might be expected from a fact-finding parliamentary committee. Widely shared scenes of the committee en masse on benches set up high, with the witness seated on a lower level, alone, with no lawyer – looked inquisitorial. Some witnesses, especially Mr Singh, were subject to a questioning style that was more akin to hostile cross-examination by a legal adversary.
The whole point of having the COP process on the public record is to let Singaporeans see first-hand the workings of parliamentary democracy in action. The aim is to raise confidence in our political system. If the COP process has raised questions and is seen by some as partisan, then it should be overhauled.
In fact, I hope PM Lee – or his successor – as country leader sees it as his duty to review the political landscape to strengthen systems and processes that stand in the way of a credible, responsible opposition emerging.
Creating a more bipartisan COP that has fair, robust processes in place, might be a start.
SPH Brightcove Video
As PM Lee has said, this episode can be a plus for democracy if it results in MPs being held accountable for their words and actions in Parliament.
I would say that the episode can strengthen Singapore democracy, if the party in power also takes a hard, honest look at itself, reviews political processes it has inherited, and removes or improves those which impede the growth of a responsible opposition.
If there is one takeaway from this episode, it is the need for external checks and balances. The WP won votes in the 2020 General Election on its platform of being a check on the Government. But the party that wanted to deny a “blank cheque” to the PAP (in the words of WP MP for Sengkang GRC Jamus Lim), also needs checking. It cannot expect a “blank cheque” simply for being the underdog.
Parliamentary processes like the COP are deemed to benefit from calling in the Public Prosecutor and the public justice system. The legislature, in other words, needs to be checked by the judiciary.
As politics gets more contested, the PAP is doing the right thing by insisting on high standards of integrity for the opposition and of acting as a check on the growth of unruly opposition.
But this cuts both ways. Both a dominant PAP and opposition parties must be held to the same high standards that voters, and the country, deserve.
Correction note: An earlier version said the COP report was released on Feb 11. It should be Feb 10.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Workers’ Party: A watchdog that is now under scrutiny
What’s next in the Raeesah Khan saga, and what could happen to Pritam Singh?
.
=======
.
.
ST Explains: What’s next in the Raeesah Khan saga, and what could happen to Pritam Singh?
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh at the Committee of Privileges hearing on Dec 10, 2021. PHOTO: GOV.SG
Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO on 11th Feb 2022 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Parliament’s privileges committee on Thursday (Feb 10) submitted a 1,180-page report of its investigations into the conduct of former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to lying to the House.
The eight-member panel, which listened to the evidence of nine witnesses over 31 hours of hearings in December last year, called for Ms Khan to be fined a total of $35,000 for lying in Parliament last August and October.
The committee, which had heard evidence from WP chief Pritam Singh and party vice-chairman Faisal Manap, also concluded that Mr Singh had lied under oath and Mr Faisal had flagrantly refused to answer relevant questions, which could possibly amount to criminal offences.
The report called for Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations.
1. What are the powers of Parliament’s privileges committee?
Based on the Standing Orders, or rules of Parliament, the committee’s deliberations are confined to the matter referred to it, unless Parliament decides to extend or limit its remit.
In this case, the committee was convened to look into Ms Khan’s repeated lie to the House.
The committee noted in its report that it does not have the purview to specifically recommend penalties for Mr Singh, Mr Faisal as well as party chairman Sylvia Lim. Nevertheless, it set out recommendations related to the three after finding that they had played a role in Ms Khan’s continued lie.
Besides calling for Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to be referred to the Public Prosecutor, it said the three WP leaders had also been dishonourable in conduct and were in contempt of Parliament.
Ultimately, though, it is Parliament, and not the committee, that will decide on the actual sanctions to be meted out.
SPH Brightcove Video
2. Why did the committee recommend that the WP leaders be referred to the Public Prosecutor, and not Ms Khan, who told the lie?
Singapore Management University Associate Professor Eugene Tan said Ms Khan had breached parliamentary privilege by lying in Parliament during her speech.
In contrast, the committee concluded that Mr Singh had lied on affirmation – or oath – to the committee. This goes beyond breaching parliamentary privilege and moved “into the realm of criminal wrongdoing”, he said.
Under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Parliament can refer a matter to the Public Prosecutor when an MP has committed 18 specific offences listed in Section 31. Among them is “wilfully (making) a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before Parliament or a committee”.
Breach of parliamentary privilege is not included in the list.
Hence, he added, Mr Singh’s misconduct “is far more serious” compared with Ms Khan’s.
Assoc Prof Tan also noted that Ms Khan had admitted to lying in Parliament, whereas Mr Singh had maintained during the hearings that he was telling the truth.
He said going through a prosecutorial process would be seen to be fairer by the public, since Mr Singh would have the opportunity to defend himself in court, rather than be subject to a parliamentary process in a People’s Action Party-dominated Parliament.
Meanwhile, Mr Faisal had refused to answer relevant questions during the committee’s hearings, despite being reminded that doing so could amount to an offence and contempt of Parliament.
Under Section 31 of the Act, it is an offence to refuse to answer any lawful or relevant question put by Parliament or any committee, and to prevaricate as a witness before Parliament or a committee.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Committee recommends Pritam face further probe, $35k fine for Raeesah
COP’s final report on Raeesah is not final chapter to saga
3. What happens now?
The committee’s report will be debated when Parliament sits next week. Word has it that this will take place next Tuesday.
WP’s leaders have said they will speak at the debate. At the end of it, Parliament will have to decide if it accepts the committee’s findings and conclusions, and the matter will be put to a vote by the House.
Parliament can choose to accept or reject the recommendations, or opt to amend them before accepting them.
For such a vote on the committee’s report, only a simple majority is needed.
4. What happens if Parliament accepts the committee’s recommendations?
The committee has recommended that Ms Khan be fined $25,000 for stating an untruth in Parliament on Aug 3 last year, and $10,000 for repeating it on Oct 4, and Parliament will impose these fines.
Parliament will also refer Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor – that is, the Attorney-General’s Chambers – for further investigations into whether there ought to be criminal proceedings against them.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap to speak in Parliament debate on COP report next week
Raeesah Khan’s version of events more credible than WP leaders’: Committee
5. What will the Public Prosecutor do?
The Public Prosecutor has a constitutional duty to investigate if criminal wrongdoing is suspected.
Criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan said this makes for a more thorough investigation process, as the Public Prosecutor will be able to, say, direct the police to collect more evidence by looking through phone or e-mail records.
After investigations are complete, the Public Prosecutor will then have to decide if the case is compelling enough to proceed with a charge, he said.
6. What happens if the men face criminal charges?
If Mr Singh and Mr Faisal are eventually charged, they will get to defend themselves in court with legal counsel.
SMU’s Assoc Prof Tan said that based on the committee’s findings, Mr Singh could have committed an offence under Section 193 of the Penal Code, which deals with false evidence.
Under the law, a person who intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence can be jailed for up to three years and fined.
Meanwhile, SMU Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin Joshua Ong said the Public Prosecutor could decide to charge Mr Faisal with offences under Section 31(m) and 31(n) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which the committee had mentioned in its report.
These parts deal with the refusal to answer questions put by Parliament or any committee, and prevarication as a witness before the committee.
Prof Ong added that the Public Prosecutor is not obliged to charge Mr Faisal, and even if it does, the court is not bound by any findings made by the committee.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam the ‘operating brain’ behind Raeesah’s repeated lie: Report
Faisal’s refusal to answer committee’s questions suggests he wanted to hide truth: Report
7. Can Parliament also take action against the three WP leaders?
Under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Parliament has the powers to deal with unacceptable conduct on its own, and can impose sanctions, including jail sentences, fines and suspensions or even expulsions.
The committee said in its report that the actions of Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim could amount to dishonourable conduct or contempt.
For these offences, Parliament can order an MP to be jailed for a period not more than his remaining term, impose a fine of up to $50,000, suspend him for a period not more than the remainder of the current session of Parliament, and ask the Speaker of Parliament to reprimand or admonish him.
The committee has recommended that Parliament consider deferring any action with regard to the three MPs’ conduct until any criminal proceedings are complete.
SMU’s Prof Ong said whether Mr Singh and Mr Faisal can be punished further by Parliament after the matter is referred to the Public Prosecutor is a novel legal issue in Singapore.
He added: “If Parliament refers a matter to the Public Prosecutor, and the person is prosecuted in court, I believe there is a case for arguing that Parliament cannot inflict further punishment on the person. That is so whether or not the person is found guilty by the court.”
He said Section 21 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act could limit Parliament to either referring the matter to the Public Prosecutor or inflicting its own punishment.
Meanwhile, Article 11(2) of the Constitution states that “a person who has been convicted or acquitted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence”.
Citing this, Prof Ong said: “The precise scope of this rule is not entirely clear: It is an open question whether the words ‘tried again’ include proceedings by Parliament.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Sylvia Lim’s notes from WP meeting damaging to Pritam’s testimony: COP
Committee explains why Pritam’s serious misconduct deserves further probe
8. How different is the public prosecutorial process versus the parliamentary process?
Parliament can summarily decide on the punishments to mete out to the three WP leaders, based on the committee’s findings and conclusions.
It can also convene the committee again to look into their conduct, similar to the process Ms Khan went through. Once the committee has made its findings, it will then recommend a course of action to take, and Parliament will have to debate the matter.
The worst punishment that Parliament can mete out is jail or suspension for a term not exceeding the session of Parliament. But the MPs will not lose their seats or be disqualified from standing for elections in future.
If referred to the Public Prosecutor, and charged, Mr Singh and Mr Faisal will go through a criminal trial, and the courts will decide if they are guilty or innocent. They can be represented by legal counsel in this process, which they do not have under the parliamentary process.
The punishments they are subject to will depend on what offence they are charged with.
However, if they are convicted of an offence in court and jailed for at least one year, or fined at least $2,000, they will lose their parliamentary seats and also be disqualified from standing as an MP for five years.
The disqualification ceases at the end of five years from the end of the jail term, or from the date the fine was imposed.
See the full report released by the Committee of Privileges.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
5 things to note from the Committee of Privileges report on Raeesah Khan
WP’s Dennis Tan calls for higher fine for Raeesah Khan’s repeated lie
.
===============
.
Pritam Singh to continue work, says ‘unknowns’ remain even if he faces probe for conduct before committee
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh said he will address Parliament’s Committee of Privileges report next week when the House sits.PHOTO: ST FILE
WP leader Mr Faisal Manap – whom the committee also recommended face further investigations for refusing to answer questions it put forth to him – will do the same, said Mr Singh in a Facebook post on Thursday (Feb 10).
His post came in response to the committee’s report, which it presented to Parliament and made public earlier on Thursday.
In its report, the committee had recommended Mr Singh be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigations “with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the COP”.
The committee had said it was satisfied, on the evidence, that Mr Singh had lied on affirmation. Parliament is set to debate the recommendations when it sits next week.
In his statement, Mr Singh said there remain a number of unknowns, assuming Parliament adopts the committee’s recommendations.
“These include the eventual decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more,” he added.
“Until there is some resolution to these matters which may take some time yet, Faisal and I will continue our work – including but not limited to Meet-the-People Sessions, estate walks, house visits and other parliamentary commitments – as per normal.”
The Workers’ Party will likewise continue its activities, including outreach efforts in previously contested constituencies, Mr Singh said.
“I will speak more extensively on the COP report in Parliament when it is tabled for debate, expected to be sometime next week,” he added.
It is how not to fool Singaporeans with deception, or how to play idiotic politics [to look stupid] in Parliament seeking voters/viewers/readers’ sympathy.
Winning the hearts and minds of voters to win big at the GE to govern needs more skills than this.
Why?
.
=======
.
What does the future hold for the Workers’ Party?
Those who urge the Workers’ Party to form an opposition coalition may well be the ones who fracture it when they realise they cannot move the WP towards their own political vision for Singapore.
Grace Ho
Opinion Editor
Workers’ Party secretary-general Pritam Singh in a 2020 photo with party chairman Sylvia Lim (right) and central executive committee members Nicole Seah (left) and Louis Chua. PHOTO: ST FILE
PUBLISHED 3 HOURS AGO on 21st Jan 2022 in Straits Times.
Can the Workers’ Party (WP) gain even more ground in the next general election, after having won 10 out of 93 parliamentary seats in 2020? What is the likelihood of an opposition coalition in Singapore?
These and other questions are the subject of political observer Derek da Cunha’s book Breakthrough 2.0: Singaporeans Push For Parliamentary Democracy, published in January by World Scientific Publishing, in which he makes the case for why the WP must continue to position itself as politically moderate.
Following the 2020 General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that WP chief Pritam Singh would be formally appointed as the Leader of the Opposition. The title first surfaced almost 30 years ago to refer to then leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Chiam See Tong, whose party held three opposition seats in Parliament in 1991.
Dr da Cunha says that even amid an extraordinary pandemic election, Singaporeans were mostly prepared to vote only for the most “proximate” alternative to the PAP – the WP – where it was available. Hardcore opposition supporters who want the WP to be more radical lose sight of the fact that most Singaporeans are economically motivated, and socially and religiously conservative.
Here are the four things the book says the WP should do to continue to perform well at the polls:
1. Seize the middle ground
Dr da Cunha divides the Singapore electorate into four voting blocs:
A: Bedrock of PAP voters (35 per cent)
B: Moderate PAP voters (15 per cent)
C: Wavering middle ground voters (25 per cent)
D: Irreducible core of anti-PAP voters (25 per cent)
The path to victory for the WP is through B. What it achieved in Aljunied GRC – seizing D and C, and converting two out of three moderate PAP voters in B – it can scale up elsewhere, he says.
“Through growing its presence in Parliament, the WP can temper PAP policies… In other words, by proxy, the WP can gain ownership of the Government’s policies.”
Moderate PAP voters do not fancy an overhaul of the system, but do not mind minor changes to how Singapore is governed. What this means is that the WP should stay focused on issues that affect the majority of the voting public.
These are primarily economic in nature: Housing Board flat lease decay, the loss of jobs by Singaporeans to foreign nationals, rising cost of living, retirement adequacy, and the grievances of those living in private housing who feel neglected by government policies.
2. Be visible on the ground
Singapore’s electoral system, which is first-past-the-post and involves compulsory voting, means that any challenger is forced into a resource-intensive effort of cultivating the ground over many months, even years.
Retail politics and “conversion by conversation” are still key, such as house visits, meet-the-people sessions, and food distribution to needy families. Dr da Cunha cites as an example the WP’s free-of-charge Lasting Power of Attorney services to residents in Hougang and Aljunied GRC in 2019, though I note this was already started in March 2017 by the current grassroots adviser in Paya Lebar.
The fundamental point is this: Politicians must demonstrate their ability to solve problems on the ground, they must commit a meaningful amount of manpower and money, and they have to do this visibly.
The election expenses filed in 2020 by WP candidates demonstrate this. Notwithstanding a widely praised online campaign, a large part of the money went to print advertisements such as posters, which provide powerful visual and spatial cues in the community that project an image of electoral strength.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
GE2020, one year on: 8 highlights of S’pore’s political landscape
GE2020, one year on: 6 key issues to look out for ahead of next general election
3. Maximise the spillover effect
With Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat having ruled himself out of the running to be PM, East Coast GRC is “firmly back into play” for the WP, says Dr da Cunha. The party could contest constituencies adjacent to its strongholds, and field candidates in Jalan Besar GRC, Tampines GRC and Potong Pasir SMC.
Such a move would surely cause minor parties contesting there to cry foul. But today, the WP is the only alternative party with a reasonable chance of winning.
In any case, it did not dissuade any other party from engaging in the four-cornered fight in the 2013 Punggol East by-election.
4. Think twice before recruiting civil society activists
Before former WP Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament spawned countless armchair lawyers and memes, the former social activist headlined another controversy – her online remarks alleging bias by the police on matters of race and religion.
Dr da Cunha posits that civil society activists tend not to make for successful politicians. One factor is the lack of appetite among Singaporean voters for non-material issues such as civil liberties and human rights.
But some activists have made the transition successfully, such as Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng. Perhaps the pertinent issue is not whether someone is an activist, but whether he has been put through the necessary background checks before standing for election.
Even in 2020, netizens had wondered why the WP did not run background checks on Ms Khan’s social media posts. Fast forward two years, and the issue has come back to haunt the party.
Former Workers’ Party Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan appearing before Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on December 2, 2021. Ms Khan was a social activist before she joined politics. Dr Derek da Cunha posits that civil society activists tend not to make for successful politicians. PHOTO: GOV.SG
Unrequited love
Readers will enjoy the book’s fly-on-the-wall accounts of the WP fending off overtures from other parties. Here is what WP leader Mr Singh had to say to Dr da Cunha about the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 2019: “There’s a good reason why we’ve avoided any invitations from the SDP. (The SDP) had sent us an invitation about discussions for a coalition. They invited Tian Chua from PKR and asked us to come down for a general discussion. I won’t touch them with a 10ft pole.”
Mr Chua Tian Chang is a vice-president of PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat), a party belonging to the Pakatan Harapan coalition that formed the Malaysian government in 2018.
Former Progress Singapore Party (PSP) secretary-general Tan Cheng Bock (TCB), the book asserts, was also eager to establish in the public’s minds that he had a personal connection with Mr Singh.
At a fund-raising dinner for the now defunct website The Online Citizen, Dr da Cunha was told by one of his sources in an alternative party there would be an attempt to “orchestrate a photo” showing all the opposition personalities present with Dr Tan in the centre, to give the impression that he was at least nominally the head of some sort of anti-PAP coalition. The final photo was noticeably absent of any WP representatives.
A month later at the WP’s National Day dinner, Dr Tan’s presence gave rise to public speculation that the WP wished to cultivate the PSP.
When Dr da Cunha e-mailed a WP source to clarify, he got this response: “On the WP National Day Dinner, TCB bought a table (of) his own volition. Tickets for the event are open for sale to all our residents, volunteers, supporters and the public at large. A table was $450. Hope this clarifies.”
Call the WP anti-social if you want, but groups that come together quickly can also fall apart quickly due to differences over ideology and individual ambitions.
As the book puts it: “Those political personalities outside the WP who urge the formation of a coalition might well be the very ones who then fracture that coalition when they conclude that they cannot move the WP towards their own political vision for Singapore. Whatever guarantees that they give to the WP in advance would be worth nothing because that is the nature of politics.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
GE2020, one year on: Stakes raised for Workers’ Party as it seeks to grow roots as ‘loyal opposition’
Pritam Singh: What has changed, must not change and should change in S’pore
Same but different
On matters of policy, although the WP, PSP and the SDP have on various occasions proposed a minimum wage and debated cost of living, healthcare and retirement issues, there have been more divergences than similarities. The PSP has taken a decidedly more strident tack than the WP on foreign nationals, free trade agreements and vaccination-differentiated safe management measures.
As for the SDP, some lingering questions are: If it were in Parliament, would it persistently raise issues of civil liberties? Would it speak on the need to do away with the Internal Security Act and bring restorative justice to former ISA detainees, of which a number have become party members since Dr Chee Soon Juan took the helm?
So what does the future hold for the WP?
Some say the Raeesah Khan saga has muddied its brand and maybe it has, but I am not so sure it matters to the party’s most ardent supporters. I hold the view, perhaps cynically, that only the things which directly affect voters’ pockets will stick in their memory.
Dr da Cunha seems to think that only at least a doubling of the WP’s existing parliamentary numbers will show that Singaporeans are truly ready to embrace deep-seated change, both in their psychological outlook as well as political culture. I think we can all agree that if that happens, it would be worth a whole other book.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Why did it take so long for Raeesah Khan and the WP to tell the truth?
Lunch With Sumiko: WP chief Pritam Singh on the need to keep calm and stay grounded.
.
===========
.
Do they ever learn in Parliament?
Or is it strictly politics even to the point of making deception as an art no matter at what cause or consequence?
.
=======
.
Parliamentary privilege: What it is and why it matters in the Raeesah Khan saga
Parliamentary business can only be properly conducted without fear or favour and hindrance, including from the other branches of Government.
Eugene K. B. Tan
Former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan giving evidence before Parliament’s Committee of Privileges, on Dec 2, 2021. PHOTO: GOV.SG
PUBLISHED FEB 8, 2022, 5:00 AM SGT in Straits Times.
The next few weeks promise to be significant for the 14th Parliament. It will deliberate the Budget Statement and fiscal allocations for the upcoming financial year, amid inflationary pressures and the pandemic still ravaging lives and livelihoods. Also much anticipated is Parliament’s report bringing to a close the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan, the former Workers’ Party (WP) MP for Sengkang GRC, which is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by Parliament’s Committee of Privileges (COP).
The hearings in December 2021 had captivated the public with competing and conflicting accounts of what transpired leading to Ms Khan resigning her party membership and, consequently, vacating her parliamentary seat last year.
The COP made available to the public six special reports, accompanied by video recordings, of all the testimonies relating to Ms Khan’s admission that she had lied to Parliament in her speech on Aug 3, 2021. She had shared her anecdote of the police mishandling a sexual assault case she apparently witnessed, when accompanying a rape survivor to make a police report.
The complaint of an MP breaching parliamentary privilege is a serious charge, especially that of Ms Khan lying to Parliament on three occasions. Most had expected the COP’s investigation to be straightforward, but her revelation during her testimony that the WP top leadership had been complicit in her lies was explosive.
If Ms Khan’s allegation of a concerted attempt by the WP leadership to hide the truth is established, it will be a very sad day for parliamentary democracy in Singapore, given that the WP is the leading opposition party.
Parliamentary privilege
The primary purpose of parliamentary privilege is to protect the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament.
The origins of parliamentary privilege can be traced to the United Kingdom’s Bill of Rights, enacted in 1689, which stipulated that things said in Parliament cannot be the subject of legal proceedings, such as for defamation.
The idea of MPs being free to express their views, without the threat of litigation or even criminal action, is absolutely essential for Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions. This privilege extends to papers published by order of Parliament.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (PPIPA) provides Parliament with the relevant powers to keep its house in order. It codifies and governs the legal regime on parliamentary powers, privileges, and immunities in Singapore, and enjoins the courts to judicially recognise them.
The PPIPA emphasises the centrality of freedom of speech and debate and of proceedings in Parliament, which shall not be impeached or questioned in any law court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other body outside of Parliament.
But such an immense privilege comes with an equally heavy responsibility of Parliament and its members to not abuse it. Despite its name, parliamentary privilege does not confer special rights or protections on MPs; they are certainly not above the law.
Role of the C.O.P.
The COP, as one of Parliament’s seven standing Select Committees, is established specifically to deal with “any complaint alleging breaches of parliamentary privilege”.
Parliament can order by summons any person to attend, produce documents, and answer questions before Parliament or its committees, as was the case for the recent COP hearings. Witnesses are examined on oath or affirmation, and are granted immunity from any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of their evidence – except for giving false evidence.
The nature of the COP’s investigation is inquisitorial. Hence, there is no right to cross-examination or representation by counsel. The inquisitorial process is the case for most, if not all, of Parliament’s functions, especially in the performance of its legislative functions.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
askST: What happens when parliamentary privilege is breached
Special report on Raeesah Khan released to keep Parliament informed: Office of Clerk of Parliament
The COP will make its findings known to Parliament. It will also recommend the sanctions and other measures. But it is Parliament that decides on the actual sanctions to be meted out.
The PPIPA provides for Parliament’s punitive powers, which can be applied on MPs and non-MPs alike. Parliament can impose one or more of the following punishments for “dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt” by an MP:
Commit him to prison for a term not extending beyond the current session of Parliament
Impose a fine not exceeding $50,000
Suspend him from Parliament for the remainder or part of the current session of Parliament
Direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place by the Speaker.
In the most egregious of misconduct by an MP, expulsion is the ultimate power available under the PPIPA to Parliament, to remove those it considers unfit for membership. For example, British MPs had in the past been expelled for such crimes as perjury, forgery, fraud and corruption.
Such sanctions are internal disciplinary measures of Parliament; they should not be equated with punishments meted out by a court of law on persons convicted of criminal offences.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Special reports on Raeesah Khan saga: Amid the emotion and noise, let’s go back to first principles
Why did it take so long for Raeesah Khan and the WP to tell the truth?
Do the courts have a role?
One might wonder why the complaint against Ms Khan was not brought before a court of law to determine the truth. There have also been unfair accusations that the COP’s findings and recommendations would be partisan or even biased, as seven of its eight members are from the ruling People’s Action Party.
In Singapore, the executive, legislature, and the judiciary are co-equal branches of Government. Under the separation of powers doctrine, each branch is recognised as possessing the requisite competence and institutional capacity to fulfil its constitutional functions. Parliament, the executive, and the courts respect each other’s sphere of responsibility and authority.
The Constitution provides for Parliament to make standing orders “for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the despatch of business”.
A fundamental principle of parliamentary privilege is that parliamentary business can only be properly conducted without fear or favour and hindrance, including from the other branches of Government.
While the courts have a legal and constitutional duty to protect freedom of speech as well as Parliament’s powers, rights, privileges and immunities, they do not have the power to regulate and control how Parliament conducts its business.
Similarly, Parliament does not interfere with the way the judges discharge their judicial responsibilities. Parliament enacts the laws, but the courts are then left to interpret and administer them without interference by Parliament.
Simply put, parliamentary privilege is meaningless without parliamentary independence. No branch of Government has an overruling influence over the others, and each has the necessary means to resist encroachment from the others.
On the whole, it can be said that Parliament is held accountable for the conduct of its affairs to the public.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
MPs must be able to substantiate what they say in the House, says Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin
Lying in British Parliament rarely draws liability
When can courts intervene?
The courts may intervene in relation to a COP inquiry when the COP and/or Parliament has flagrantly breached the fundamental rules of natural justice, namely, the right to a fair hearing and the absence of bias.
Even then, they do not make any determination on whether parliamentary privilege has been breached. That is a matter which the courts cannot decide upon.
This COP’s final report is much anticipated. Much is at stake for the PAP-dominated Parliament, as well as the leading opposition party WP and its top leadership. The COP’s findings must be sound and persuasive and the recommendations well-articulated.
Ultimately, whatever Parliament decides in relation to the complaint against Ms Khan must prevail in the court of public opinion. It will also have to adroitly manage any fallout arising from this sad saga and reaffirm public confidence in Parliament.
Eugene K. B. Tan is a former Nominated Member of Parliament and Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University’s Yong Pung How School of Law.
.
==========
.
Madness…. Or, strictly politics of deception…?
We are in very severe times, a time of worldwide emergency.
All things will be exposed in this age and time very fast.
There will be no place to hide, and there will be great anguish and resistance. All struggles of resistance by man against the odds, evilness, hatred, grudges, and negativity will be in vain and futility.
.
=======
.
Lies at the COP, who will bring it to the grave?
Human beings’ deception…? We are in very severe times, a time of worldwide emergency. All things will be exposed in this age and time very fast.
There will be no place to hide, and there will be great anguish and resistance. All struggles of resistance by man against the odds, evilness, hatred, grudges, and negativity will be in vain and futility.
.
======= . Many will bring their lies with them to the grave.
Truth can hurt badly…and not everyone can handle the truth…
Who knows the truth?
Some say only God knows.
Some believe that their god/gods are different from the the god/gods of others.
How does god/gods know and record everything 24/7 x 7.5 billions of us on earth?
What is the system of recording that is in use by god/gods?
Ask your religious gurus.
The super smart might easily know the answer too.
Using human logic will not get to the answer.
.
=========
.
Forum: Lessons to be learnt from COP hearings on what values society wants to uphold
PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO on 29th Dec 2021 in ST Forum.
It has been rather distressing to keep up with the Committee of Privileges’ investigation of former MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament.
However, through it all, one observation persists – Ms Khan’s choices have been disappointing.
Ms Khan made a conscious decision to lie, twice.
Even if she was in dire need of direction from her party’s leadership on how to admit to the lie and then tell the truth in Parliament, no one has the ability and power to take over another person’s autonomy over his speech and decision-making process.
To lie twice demonstrates a choice, and Ms Khan is an adult who is free to make her own choices.
If there is any lesson that we could learn from all of this, it could be that the public has a responsibility to assess candidates running for leadership positions more stringently.
And while those who are more sympathetic towards Ms Khan may appeal for compassion and forgiveness due to her exceptional circumstances, we should use this experience to evaluate the importance of integrity and honesty to us.
Isabella Ow.
.
.
==========
.
Forum: Suggesting trauma had led Raeesah Khan to lie is a disservice to survivors of sexual assault
PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO on 29th Dec 2021 in ST Forum.
Just a few months back in August, the Workers’ Party (WP) introduced a motion on gender equality in Parliament.
WP MPs delivered various speeches on empowering women (WP MPs call for greater efforts to bring about gender equality, Aug 4).
The latest developments in the Committee of Privileges’ investigation of former MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament seem to show that WP leaders have not lived up to their public rhetoric.
When asked by members of the committee to explain how they dealt with Ms Khan’s lie, they maintained that she was mentally unwell as a result of being sexually assaulted which in turn caused her to lie.
This is a huge disservice to Ms Khan and the many survivors of sexual assault.
When psychiatrist Christopher Cheok testified before the committee on Wednesday, WP MP Dennis Tan persisted in a line of questioning that tried to get Dr Cheok to conclude that Ms Khan’s trauma had affected her decision-making process, caused memory impairment or had led her to create false memories.
This continued even after Ms Khan was assessed to be of “sound mind” and not suffering from dissociation (Raeesah didn’t have any mental disorder that would lead her to lie: IMH expert, Dec 23).
Dr Cheok even had to point out to Mr Tan on several occasions that it was normal for a sexual assault survivor to be psychologically traumatised when related incidents were brought up, but this did not equate to a loss of ability to function normally.
Sexual assault survivors often face many psychological and physical traumas. Many choose not to come forward to report their assailants as they fear they will not be believed or do not want to relive the trauma of the assault.
As a society, we must continue to create an environment that supports these survivors and does justice by them. The WP’s actions and words sadly do not.
I hope the WP MPs involved in the investigation will reflect upon their actions, and be responsible allies who support sexual assault survivors instead of casting doubt on them.
Cai Huijie.
.
.
===========
.
.
Where does the truth lie? Comparing the accounts of Raeesah Khan and WP chief Pritam Singh By DARYL CHOO Published DECEMBER 04, 2021 Updated DECEMBER 04, 2021 34 SHARES Gov.sg/YouTube and CNA Former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan (left) testifying before Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on Dec 2, 2021. WP chief Pritam Singh (right) speaking at a press conference on the same day. Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates. A special report by Parliament’s privileges committee on Dec 3 revealed what transpired in the run-up to former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan’s resignation This was over a lie she made in Parliament on Aug 3 In several areas, however, Ms Khan’s account to the commitee differed from assertions made by WP chief Pritam Singh at a press conference on Dec 2 TODAY sets out a comparison of their accounts SINGAPORE — New revelations emerged late on Friday (Dec 3) in a special report by Parliament’s Committee of Privileges that shone a light on what transpired in the run-up to former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s resignation over a lie she made in the House. ADVERTISEMENT The report, presented to Parliament on the same day, set out Ms Raeesah’s testimony that WP’s leaders had told her to stick to the lie she made during a sitting of Parliament on Aug 3. Testifying under oath before the committee on Thursday and Friday, Ms Raeesah said that she was told by WP chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. In several areas, her account differed from assertions made by Mr Singh at a press conference on Thursday — raising fresh questions over what led Ms Raeesah to persist with the lie before she made her confession to Parliament on Nov 1. Here is a comparison of their accounts, based on what Mr Singh said at the press conference and what Ms Raeesah told the committee: READ ALSO WP leaders should have come clean sooner about knowing Raeesah Khan’s lie, party members tell Parliament committee WHY SHE DIDN’T CONFESS SOONER What Mr Singh said: He told a press conference at WP’s headquarters on Thursday that when he first asked Ms Raeesah about the incident, she stuck to her initial account — that she had gone with a survivor of a sexual assault to a police station to report the incident and that the victim was treated insensitively by police officers. Subscribe to our email newsletter SUBSCRIBE By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis. He said that it was only after she was pressed repeatedly that she confessed that she had been untruthful. This was about a week after her Aug 3 parliamentary speech. Ms Raeesah revealed that she had been a victim of sexual assault and other related matters “of a deeply personal nature”, Mr Singh said, adding that these were unknown to the party leadership up until that point. He said that WP did not act on the matter earlier because he wanted to give her time to talk to her family about the matter, and because she had to be the one to correct the untruth in Parliament. Mr Singh, who is also Leader of the Opposition, said: “In my judgement, it was important that she did so before she could fully address the reasons behind her untruthful conduct in Parliament and to correct the record.” READ ALSO Raeesah Khan testifies to privileges committee that WP leaders told her to keep to lie made in Parliament Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were also made aware of her untruths at the same time. Mr Singh said that Ms Raeesah repeated the untruth on the parliamentary record at a sitting on Oct 4 that was “wholly inconsistent with the revelations she had shared with the party leadership after Aug 3”. Nevertheless, Mr Singh said that before that parliamentary session, it had been made known to Ms Raeesah that “any parliamentary clarification on this matter was hers to make in her capacity as an elected Member of Parliament”. “Almost immediately after Parliament adjourned in October, Raeesah agreed with the party leadership that she had to set the record right forthwith. I shared with her that it was the correct thing to do.” What Ms Raeesah said: In her testimony to the Committee of Privileges, Ms Raeesah said that she called Mr Singh on Aug 7 to come clean on the matter after he pushed her to substantiate the anecdote she recounted in Parliament. She said that she met Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal the next day to discuss the matter. READ ALSO Analysts disagree with WP’s handling of Raeesah Khan matter, but some party members say leaders did what they could The three party leaders reacted with “incredible disappointment”, “a lot of anger” but also compassion, she told the committee. “The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August,” she said. In response, Mr Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and a member of the parliamentary privileges committee, asked Ms Raeesah if this meant that “if you can get away with it, we don’t have to clarify the lie”. Ms Raeesah replied that this was correct. Mr Tong then asked if the WP leaders’ initial reaction to being told that there was a lie was to “try and duck the issue if possible, and if it doesn’t come up, then the truth may not be told eventually”. Ms Raeesah replied: “I have to say, though, that Pritam Singh’s initial response was that I should go to the Committee of Privileges. But after discussions and me explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place, that changed.” The next time she spoke to Mr Singh about the matter was nearly two months later, on Oct 3, when Mr Singh visited Ms Raeesah alone at her home, she said. He was expecting that she would be pressed on the matter in Parliament the next day, when members of the House would sit. “The conversation was that if I were to retain the narrative, or if I were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgement,” she told the committee. “My interpretation was that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun in August.” She told the committee that Mr Singh did not ask her to clarify the matter in Parliament. On Oct 4, she repeated the lie in the House when questioned by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam. Ms Raeesah also told the committee that no senior party leader or activist had told her to correct her lie before the Oct 4 sitting. She said that at a meeting with Mr Singh and Ms Lim in Mr Singh’s Parliament House office after the sitting that day, there were no discussions on why she did not comply with any apparent instruction or order to clarify the truth. Had there been such an order, Mr Tong asked: Would Ms Raeesah have expected to see Mr Singh confront her to ask why she did not follow the order to clarify the truth? She replied: “I cannot assume what he would have done, but that was not what was done.” On Oct 7, Ms Raeesah received an email from the police inviting her to assist them in investigating the matters that she raised in Parliament, and Mr Singh and Ms Lim advised her to ignore it. It was only on Oct 12, after Mr Singh and Ms Lim had come to the view that the matter would not be dropped, that the three of them decided in a meeting that she would come clean about the matter. WP’S SPEECH-VETTING PROCESS What Mr Singh said: At Thursday’s press conference, Mr Singh said that there had been a vetting process for Ms Raeesah’s speech and that it was made known to her that she had to be ready to substantiate her anecdote about accompanying the victim to the police station. The process did not fail in that regard, he said. “Why did she not take heed of the instruction, why did she ignore it? That’s not a question I can answer.” What Ms Raeesah said: She told the committee that WP MPs have to submit the speeches that they would be delivering to an internal portal a week before each sitting. All MPs had access to the portal and could leave comments on one another’s speeches. She submitted her Aug 3 speech late, only two days before the sitting. She included the anecdote about the sexual assault survivor one day before the sitting. Ms Raeesah said that after she did so, Mr Singh circled the portion of the speech and commented: “Substantiate?” She said that she did not understand what the comment meant at that point and did not reply to it. After she delivered the speech, Mr Singh raised this issue to her and expressed his disappointment that she did not place importance on his comment. WAS SHE TOLD THAT SHE WOULD BE EXPELLED IF SHE DIDN’T RESIGN? What Mr Singh said: On Nov 2, WP said that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into Ms Raeesah’s admissions in Parliament the previous day. On Nov 30, before party leaders announced the actions they would take against her, Ms Raeesah handed her resignation to Mr Singh. He replied to it the next day. At Thursday’s press conference, Mr Singh revealed that because WP’s central executive committee (CEC) had not received her resignation in writing by then, it proceeded to deliberate the recommendations of the disciplinary panel. The CEC voted “overwhelmingly” that she would have been expected to resign of her own accord, failing which she would be expelled from the party. What Ms Raeesah said: At the hearings before the committee, Ms Raeesah, as well as her secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying and WP volunteer Yudhisthra Nathan, said that they were surprised to learn that the party had formed a disciplinary panel on Nov 2. Ms Raeesah said that at the Oct 12 meeting, where she decided with Mr Singh and Ms Lim to correct her lie in Parliament, she had asked them if any disciplinary action would be taken. “The answer was no,” she said. She said that when she met the disciplinary panel on Nov 29, Mr Singh and Ms Lim suggested to her that she should resign for her well-being and because she had lost the support of her fellow MPs in the Sengkang Group Representation Constituency. She said that she was not told she would be expelled if she did not resign of her own accord. ======= Raeesah Khan testifies to privileges committee that WP leaders told her to keep to lie made in Parliament Published DECEMBER 04, 2021 Updated DECEMBER 04, 2021 590 SHARES Gov.sg/YouTube Ms Raeesah Khan at a hearing by Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on Dec 2, 2021. Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates. Speaking under oath, former MP Raeesah Khan said she was told by WP leaders to keep to a lie that she had made in Parliament They also told her that if she and the party “could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie” WP volunteers who testified said the party’s disciplinary panel was “self-serving” This was because it was made up solely of the same WP leaders who knew Ms Raeesah had lied Ms Raeesah also disputed assertions by WP chief Pritam Singh that she was ordered to clarify the truth and that she would be expelled from WP if she didn’t resign SINGAPORE — Former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan has given evidence to the Committee of Privileges that she had been told by WP leaders to stick to a lie she had made in Parliament on Aug 3. ADVERTISEMENT She also testified under oath that she was told by the leaders — WP chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap — that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. These were detailed in a report that the Committee of Privileges has submitted to Parliament and made public on the Parliament website. Apart from the report, the video recordings of all the hearings were also made available publicly. The committee, chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, was looking into Ms Raeesah’s conduct after she admitted on Nov 1 that she had lied in Parliament. This was over a claim that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively. Ms Raeesah, then an MP for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), made the claim about the sexual assault victim in Parliament in August. After that, she turned down the repeated requests by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the police to provide more information so that they could identify the case. READ ALSO Analysts disagree with WP’s handling of Raeesah Khan matter, but some party members say leaders did what they could During her admission on Nov 1, Ms Raeesah said that she was a survivor of a sexual assault herself and had heard about the alleged victim’s experience during a women’s support group she attended. On Thursday, Mr Singh revealed in a press conference that WP leaders knew in August that Ms Raeesah had lied. However, the party did not act on it any earlier because he had wanted to give her time to talk to her family about the matter, and because she had to be the one to correct the untruth in Parliament. Subscribe to our email newsletter SUBSCRIBE By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis. This account was disputed by Ms Raeesah, who gave evidence to the Committee of Privileges on Thursday and Friday. She also disagreed with Mr Singh’s assertion during the press conference that she was ordered to clarify the truth in Parliament in October but she had acted contrary to it. Ms Raeesah told the Committee of Privileges that there was no order for her to clarify the facts in October and no one from WP advised her to tell the truth. During the WP press conference, Mr Singh also said that the party’s disciplinary panel had told Ms Raeesah that if she did not resign of her own accord, she would be expelled from WP. READ ALSO Raeesah Khan’s Compassvale ward to be divided up, looked after by remaining WP MPs in Sengkang GRC Ms Raeesah said that this was not said to her. When she met the panel on Nov 29, it was suggested to her that she should resign, “as it was for her well-being and because she had lost the support of her Sengkang GRC MPs”, the Committee of Privileges’ report stated. WHAT WP LEADERS SAID WHEN THEY FOUND OUT SHE LIED Based on the video recording of the hearings, Ms Raeesah said that on Aug 7, she spoke briefly with Mr Singh on the phone and informed him that her statement in Parliament on Aug 3 was untrue. The next day, she met with Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. She said that the three WP leaders reacted with “incredibile disappointment” and “a lot of anger” but there was “some compassion as well”. She noted that Mr Singh’s initial reaction was for her to come clean to the Committee of Privileges but he changed his mind after she explained the circumstances that led her to lie. In the end, the three WP leaders told her that: The best thing for her to do would be to continue with the narrative that she had already given in Parliament on Aug 3 (meaning, keep to the lie) If Ms Raeesah and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told READ ALSO WP leaders knew Raeesah Khan lied months before public admission, but decided to let her talk to family first: Pritam Singh On Aug 8, Ms Raeesah also told Ms Loh Pei Ying, her secretarial assistant, and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, what had transpired at her meeting with the three WP leaders. She told them in a WhatsApp message that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal “agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”. On Oct 3, Mr Singh visited Ms Raeesah at her home and told her that if she kept to her existing narrative, there would be no judgement by him, Ms Raeesah said. Ms Raeesah told the Committee of Privileges that she received an email from the police dated Oct 7, inviting her to assist them in investigating the matters she had raised on Aug 3 in Parliament. She testified that she then sought advice from Mr Singh and Ms Lim, and they “directed her not to respond to the police and to ignore the requests, as the police could not compel (Ms Raeesah) to speak with the police”. Ms Raeesah told the committee she was concerned that she would be giving a statement without privileges if she had gone to the police, “as opposed to making a clarification in Parliament, where she would have privileges”. READ ALSO WP leaders should take some responsibility for allowing Raeesah Khan’s ‘transgression to persist’, says party’s ex-NCMP Daniel Goh ‘SELF-SERVING’ DISCIPLINARY PANEL Ms Loh and Mr Nathan also testified at the Committee of Privileges hearings. The committee’s report stated that Ms Loh said she and Mr Nathan were surprised when the WP set up a disciplinary panel on Nov 2. Ms Loh felt that the panel’s composition was “self-serving” given that it was made up solely of the same three WP leaders — Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal — who “were the very people… who had known that what Ms Khan had said was untrue”. On his part, Mr Nathan agreed that the panel “was self-serving, and that it had contributed to an uninformed, biased and jaundiced view of the incident, because it had invited WP members and volunteers to give their views on the incident without revealing that Ms Raeesah had acted with the guidance of senior WP leaders (who were precisely the members of the panel itself)”. The report said Ms Loh testified that it “pained her to have to say all this” about WP. It added: “She had no agenda, and had been a member of the Workers’ Party for 10 years and gave the cause a reasonable amount of her personal time and youth. She appreciated the ramifications of what she shared but to her, beyond anything else, she felt that it is important to be truthful to the country. Ms Loh was tearing as she said this.” A summary of the key points from evidence given by Mr Yudhishthra Nathan to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on Dec 3, 2021. Source: Committee of Privileges report The full report by the Committee of Privileges is available on the Parliament website.=
.
.
======
.
Do they ever learn in Parliament?
======
Three ways to improve deliberation in Singapore’s Parliament
To strengthen Singapore’s political institutions, have more select committees, lift the whip more often, and encourage private member’s Bills.
Chirag Agarwal
The year end is a good opportunity to reflect on the country’s politics and see how it can be strengthened, says the writer. ST PHOTO: GIN TAY
PUBLISHED 8 HOURS AGO on 28th Dec 2021 in Straits Times.
Parliament in Singapore saw significant action this year. Ministerial statements were delivered to dispel false allegations made about free trade agreements; a controversial law was passed to prevent foreign interference in the country’s politics; and a scandal broke out after a Workers’ Party MP, Ms Raeesah Khan, admitted to lying in Parliament, and subsequently resigned from her position.
The year then ended with Singapore not being invited by the United States to its Summit for Democracy. While we probably should not make much of the snub, the end of 2021 is nevertheless a good opportunity to reflect on our politics and see how we can strengthen it.
One area for improvement for the Government is transparency. This includes providing timely information, taking on board feedback and concerns, and having a more open and inclusive deliberation process.
For instance, the Workers’ Party has argued that the Government’s decision to, over the years, withhold data on intra-corporate transferees from India approved under the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, or Ceca, has allowed misinformation about the agreement to proliferate.
There is also room for improvement when it comes to addressing feedback. Despite concerns raised by corporations, lawyers and academics alike about the recent Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, it was passed into law within a month of being introduced in Parliament. The 189-page law, which had been in the works for more than two years, surely deserved a more lengthy public debate, especially as it was developed in private by government bureaucrats.
On having a robust deliberation process, government backbenchers and opposition MPs currently have limited sway in crafting legislation and influencing policymaking. For all the questions asked, speeches made and alternatives put forward publicly, once a Bill is introduced in Parliament, it is nearly always passed practically untouched – such is the dominance of the ruling party in Singapore.
So, what can be done to strengthen our political institutions and improve the policymaking process? Here are three suggestions.
Increase number of parliamentary select committees formed
Singapore’s Parliament currently has seven standing select committees appointed in each term to undertake various functions. These are the committees of selection, estimates, house, public accounts, public petitions, standing orders, and one which we are all familiar with now, the Committee of Privileges.
According to the Parliament website: “Besides the standing select committees, Parliament sometimes forms ad hoc select committees set up on a motion approved by the House to deal with Bills or other matters referred to it.”
In the past two decades, Parliament has formed these ad hoc select committees a grand total of four times. These include the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods formed in 2018 which subsequently informed the drafting of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).
In contrast, an ad hoc select committee was formed 30 times by Parliament between 1981 and 2001. Matters including amendments to the Women’s Charter, review of land transport policy, the goods and services tax, and the Human Organ Transplant Bill were referred to a select committee for further scrutiny.
Why have the number of such committees formed reduced radically, even as public policy issues have become more complicated?
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Singapore’s approach on judicial review allows Govt to act swiftly, says Edwin Tong
askST: What happens when parliamentary privilege is breached
One explanation could be the introduction of government parliamentary committees (GPCs) in the 1990s, which serve as a backchannel for the Government to consult its backbenchers on legislation and programmes of the various ministries.
There are, however, two drawbacks of the GPCs. First, its deliberations and consultations are informal and private with no reports issued. Second, it is ultimately an internal consultation mechanism of a political party consisting only of People’s Action Party backbenchers and is not a formal part of Parliament.
The recent select committee inquiry into Ms Khan’s conduct has garnered significant attention, especially with the video recording of proceedings made public. Its content, however, does not deal with broader issues of public interest. It also does not help and may even, in the long run, hurt efforts to support sexual assault victims or those suffering from mental health issues.
I, for one, was left wondering how much more we could achieve if a fraction of that attention was also given to raising awareness of broader issues facing our society, such as family violence. This could be done by forming a select committee to speak with victims, academics, non-governmental organisations and professionals instead.
Hopefully, any proposal coming out of the Government’s White Paper on women’s development (expected early next year), or the proposed conversion of Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices guidelines into workplace anti-discrimination legislation, will be referred to a select committee for close consideration.
Lift the whip more often
Second, both the ruling PAP and opposition MPs should be allowed to vote freely on various Bills and motions put forward in Parliament.
Currently, the Government has a longstanding policy of lifting the whip only occasionally to allow MPs to “vote according to their conscience”. For instance, the whip was last lifted when Parliament debated the Oxley Road saga in 2017, and before that for the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill in 2010.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Special reports on Raeesah Khan saga: Amid the emotion and noise, let’s go back to first principles
8 highlights from parliamentary debate on FTAs, Ceca
In the presence of the whip, not only is the passage of any legislation a foregone conclusion, but constituents are also unable to assess their MPs’ true position on any given issue and to have a shot at persuading them and influencing their vote, one way or the other.
Furthermore, one must look at the voting record of Nominated MPs (NMPs), who are not bound by anything, to understand how divisive or contentious an issue really is. For example, three NMPs abstained from voting for Pofma while two abstained on Fica. Three NMPs also voted against the Government’s Population White Paper back in 2013.
Encourage more private member’s Bills
Third, more private member’s Bills should be introduced and debated in Parliament. Most Bills that become law are government Bills introduced by ministers, but any MP can also introduce his own Bill.
This will have two benefits. First, government backbenchers will be able to go further in influencing legislation by setting the agenda, and drafting new laws and amendments that they feel passionately about.
Second, opposition parties can also demonstrate the depth in their alternative views by translating some of their policy positions into legislative Bills that would require more detail and explanation. This increases every MP’s individual accountability to their constituents as well.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
10-hour debate in Parliament over foreign competition in job market ends past midnight
Select Committee on fake news: A look at key issues that emerged during hearings
Perhaps, to encourage this, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which supports the Government in drafting legislation, could allocate dedicated resources to Parliament that would support government backbenchers and opposition MPs who wish to propose private member’s Bills.
The last private member’s Bill was PAP MP Louis Ng’s amendments to the Wild Animal and Birds Act last year. Before that, Mr Christopher de Souza had introduced the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill in 2014.
At the Bali Democracy Forum in 2008, an event Singapore did get invited to, then Foreign Minister George Yeo said: “When all is said and done, democratic systems which create a good balance between the short term and the long term, and between the individual and the community, will be better able to achieve economic growth and security.”
I would add that a good balance should also be created between efficiency and transparency as our democracy and politics continue to mature.
Chirag Agarwal is a former Singaporean diplomat and public policy consultant.
.
========
.
.Raeesah did not suffer from mental disorder that predisposed her to tell untruths: IMH expert
SINGAPORE – Former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan did not suffer from any significant psychiatric disorder that would have impaired her ability to speak truthfully in Parliament, a medical expert testified before the Committee of Privileges on Wednesday (Dec 22).
Instead, Ms Khan was assessed to be of “sound mind” and “mentally fit” and “present” to make the statements that she had in Parliament and before the committee between Aug 3 and Dec 3, said Dr Christopher Cheok, who is acting chief of the department of forensic psychiatry at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).
In a sixth special report released by Parliament on Wednesday (Dec 22), Dr Cheok said Ms Khan did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder that would predispose her to telling untruths.
Dr Cheok, who is a senior consultant at IMH and a psychiatrist by training, assessed Ms Khan on Dec 17 and 20 with her agreement, after the committee invited her for a psychiatric assessment.
This came after Leader of the Opposition and WP chief Pritam Singh suggested in his testimony last week that the committee call for a psychiatric evaluation of Ms Khan, who he said may be predisposed towards lying due to her mental condition of “disassociation”, and that important parts of her evidence before the committee might have been unreliable, the committee noted.
Other WP leaders – chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap – had also made several assertions with regard to Ms Khan’s mental condition in their evidence to the committee, said the report.
Thereafter, the committee decided to accede to Mr Singh’s request for a psychiatric evaluation.
In his evidence, Dr Cheok said that it was a normal reaction for someone who had gone through a traumatic experience to continue to have some anxiety when speaking about the topic. This did not mean that the person would be mentally impaired or incapacitated.
In Ms Khan’s case, while she might have continued to feel upset about some of these memories, her judgement and decision-making capacity were not impaired and she was of sound mind.
Dr Cheok also said that Ms Khan did not have post-traumatic stress disorder and did not suffer from dissociation between Aug 3 and Dec 3.
Besides the two occasions when he assessed Ms Khan, Dr Cheok also interviewed her husband and reviewed the relevant recordings of Ms Khan speaking in Parliament on Aug 3, Oct 4 and Nov 1, as well as her testimony before the committee on Dec 2 and 3.
When asked about Ms Khan’s mental state on Aug 3 when she first mentioned the anecdote that contained untruths in Parliament, Dr Cheok said the speech was neither delivered impulsively nor as a result of dissociation or any psychiatric disorder.
It was possible that such untruths could be told as a result of bad judgement rather than because of any mental illness, he added.
The report added that Dr Cheok testified that Ms Khan did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder that would predispose her to telling untruths.
“I have been in practice for more than 25 years and I found that actually many people with mental psychiatric disorders do not tell untruths more than any normal human being,” said Dr Cheok.
In his assessment, Ms Khan also did not suffer from any significant or material dissociation between Aug 3 and Dec 3.
He explained that in layman terms, dissociation is a symptom, not a medical diagnosis. It refers to the loss of the integrative function of the human mind and may also be experienced by normal people in different situations such as deep prayer meditation, hypnosis or a trance in a religious ceremony.
Ms Khan had told him that her psychotherapist said she had dissociation.
“Based on his conversations with Ms Khan, Dr Cheok did not believe that she fully understood what dissociation was,” said the report.
When asked about dissociative identity disorder, Dr Cheok said that it is a different and very rare disorder.
Commonly called multiple identity disorder, those who suffer from this disorder would have typically gone through repeated childhood trauma, and would switch between different identities or even speak in different voices.
“In my career, I can’t recall seeing any patient that fits dissociative identity disorder… So, this is a very rare condition, and certainly, Miss Khan does not fit this description,” said Dr Cheok.
Asked by WP MP Dennis Tan how to reconcile his findings on Ms Khan’s mental health with the evidence of WP leaders that she would get emotional whenever her sexual assault was mentioned, Dr Cheok said a sexual assault is “one of the most traumatic experiences someone would ever go through”.
Dr Cheok added: (Being emotional) is a very understandable, very normal reaction from a survivor of a sexual assault.
“I would be very surprised if anyone can speak about their sexual assault, plainly, carelessly, without emotion, I think that’s even more abnormal than being emotional when talking about their sexual assault.”
While Dr Cheok did not deny that Ms Khan had some symptoms of being psychologically traumatised, he was of the view that the symptoms did not reach the threshold of a psychiatric disorder.
He was also asked by Mr Tan whether a person who is suffering from trauma, while still generally high functioning, could be capable of sending out a message that selectively contained a lie.
Dr Cheok said that while possible, there also may be other explanations why a person may give a falsehood. In the specific context of Ms Khan, Dr Cheok disagreed with this possibility.
WP leaders had, in their evidence, agreed that most of a message Ms Khan had sent to her aides following a meeting they all attended on Aug 8 was true but also contained an untruth – specifically that they had told her to take her lie in Parliament “to the grave”.
Truth can hurt badly…and not everyone can handle the truth…
Who knows the truth?
Some say only God knows.
Some believe that their god/gods is different from the the god/gods of others.
How does god/gods know everything 24/7 x 7.5 billions of us on earth?
What is the system of recording that is in use by god/gods?
Ask your religious gurus. The super smart might easily know the answer too. Using human logic will not do.
.
=======
.
Forum: Singaporeans deserve to know the truth in Raeesah Khan saga
PUBLISHED 6 HOURS AGO on 20th Dec 2021 in ST Forum.
I agree to a certain extent with Mr Brian Seah (Move on from Raeesah Khan saga, Dec 17).
As Mr Seah says, “we have bigger fish to fry”.
But I believe that if there are any “rotten fish”, they have to be removed, and truths and untruths unearthed, before we can move on.
The people involved are not private individuals acting in their personal capacity. These are elected MPs, and the Workers’ Party is the biggest opposition presence in Parliament.
Either Ms Raeesah Khan has lied again, or the party’s leaders are lying, and only the Committee of Privileges has the capability and resources to find the answer.
All Singaporeans, not just supporters and critics of both political parties, deserve to know the truth.
Goh Khang Khai
.
==========
.
.
Lies at the COP [Conference of Privileges], who will bring it to the grave?
==========
Liars and lies….who?
Who will bring it from the COP to the grave?
========
Someone among them lied to the COP…who?
Only God knows.
Some believe their god/gods are different from the god/gods of others.
How does God record everything 24/7 x 7.5 billions of us on earth?
The religious leaders and the super smart should know the answer easily.
Raeesah Khan is no longer an MP and therefore no longer enjoys the privilege of parliamentary immunity. She gave evidence at the COP under oath. If she lies again under oath, the consequences for her this time will be severe.
Two conflicting accounts emerged at the COP, one from RK and the other from PS, SL and FM.
The COP is compelled to find out which account to believe in order to reach a verdict.
.
=======
.
What is dissociation, which Raeesah Khan says she suffers from, and what causes it?
Dissociation is a common defence mechanism for people under immense stress, experts say.PHOTO: ISTOCKPHOTO
SINGAPORE – Dissociation, a mental phenomenon in which a person detaches from reality, is so common that experts say at least half of the population might have experienced it at some point.
The term has surfaced in a recent hearing of a parliamentary committee looking into the conduct of former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan, as a possible explanation for why she might have reported conversations differently from her colleagues’ accounts of the same event.
Dissociation is a common defence mechanism for people under immense stress, experts say. Frequent and recurring dissociative episodes can impair functioning and require medical treatment.
Dr Cyrus Ho, a consultant at the National University Hospital’s department of psychological medicine, says that dissociation occurs when a person suffers from immense stress and is overwhelmed.
“The brain thus will need a period to ‘cool down’ and it does so by means of ‘dissociation’,” he says. “A simple analogy is that of a computer that is overworked and malfunctions with the screen freezing, flickering lights or it starts making warning sounds.”
Symptoms of dissociation include memory loss, or the inability to recall important autobiographical information, usually of a stressful or traumatic nature, says Dr Ho. This memory loss (dissociative amnesia) is not the same as ordinary forgetting.
A person may feel that he is an external observer of his own thoughts, feelings, sensations and actions (depersonalisation) or perceive his surroundings as unreal (derealisation).
Clinical psychologist Annabelle Chow of Annabelle Psychology says a person experiencing dissociation may feel detached from his body or as if he is floating above it.
The person might not have a sense of who he is, or might not remember how he ended up somewhere, she says. A person who becomes “physically or emotionally numb after a traumatic event” is also experiencing dissociation.
“Anyone who has gone through chronic periods of overwhelming stress can get dissociative episodes,” says Dr Ho.
However, if dissociative episodes persist for prolonged periods, become more frequent and impair one’s functioning, medical attention is required, he adds.
He estimates that 50 per cent of the general population has had “at least one transient experience of depersonalisation or derealisation in their lifetime” but only about 2 per cent meet the criteria for having depersonalisation or derealisation disorder.
Dr Lim Boon Leng, a psychiatrist at Gleneagles Hospital, says dissociative disorders such as dissociative amnesia, depersonalisation-derealisation disorder and dissociative identity disorder “involve severe patterns of dissociation, often with memory losses”.
In dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder, patients have alternate or multiple identities and personalities. “They also have amnesia and cannot remember their alternate identities,” says Dr Lim.
Dissociation needs to be treated if it causes significant distress or impairs a person’s ability to work or function socially. Dr Lim says that dissociation is often a symptom of conditions such as depression, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, epilepsy, and migraine, and treatment focuses on the underlying conditions.
He recalls a patient who complained of feeling that his environment was unreal and suffered from anxiety as a result. The patient received medication for the anxiety and cognitive behavioural therapy to help him accept the dissociation. “By improving his acceptance of and anxiety about the dissociation, his fixation on the dissociation decreased and it gradually disappeared,” says Dr Lim.
Dr Ho from NUH says that people with dissociation can still function professionally and should be encouraged to work in order to build social connections and skills, and be self-empowered. “However, it is important for them to choose a job that is suitable for them and get the necessary support as needed,” he adds.
Apart from taking medication and psychotherapy treatment under the guidance of a psychiatrist and psychologist, patients can seek help from counselling support centres in the community.
“Family and social support play a pivotal role in helping people with dissociation recover. People with dissociation need to be aware that they are safe and supported by their loved ones,” says Dr Ho.
Forum: Misperceptions, stereotypes can negatively affect people who have mental illness
PUBLISHED
DEC 25, 2021, 12:00 AM SGT in ST Forum.
On Wednesday, the Committee of Privileges heard the expert testimony of Dr Christopher Cheok, a psychiatrist, on whether former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan’s psychological faculties were impaired when she made her statements in Parliament (Raeesah didn’t have any mental disorder that would lead her to lie: IMH expert, Dec 23).
While he assessed her to be of sound mind, many misperceptions and stereotypes were put forth to him over the session.
As co-founder of the Total Wellness Initiative Singapore, and a mental health researcher, I feel it would be pertinent to expand upon some of the issues that surfaced.
First, dissociation is not a mental illness. It is a symptom that may be an indicator of a mental illness.
In the case of Ms Khan, Dr Cheok said she did not have post-traumatic stress disorder and did not suffer from dissociation between Aug 3 and Dec 3.
The more significant issue here was the multiple attempts to associate dissociation with lying and false memory creation, or characterise it as something which could be turned off and on at will.
These suggestions do a genuine disservice to individuals who experience dissociation and who may suffer from its effects.
It further stigmatises and casts unfair aspersions on them as individuals.
Second, symptoms of a mental illness do not equate to having a mental illness. To preface this statement, it should not matter if you have a mental illness, but symptoms alone are not sufficient for a diagnosis of one.
When psychological or psychiatric assessments are conducted, function is often a critical variable considered in deriving a specific diagnostic outcome. Dr Cheok put it best when he said “many people living in our urban society would undergo different stressors from work, family life and society in general, but just because you have certain stress and emotional symptoms doesn’t mean you have a psychiatric disorder”.
Lastly, high-profile cases such as this – in which the entire nation and perhaps even people outside of Singapore are watching – tend to influence the existing narrative regarding mental health and illness disproportionately.
I hope that people who write about such issues, talk about them or even consider using them in such situations, will do so responsibly.
We should be careful of colouring other people who experience mental health conditions in a particular light for the sake of furthering our agendas.
People consuming related media should also be critical and make their own decisions only after they have gone through the source.
Mental illnesses do not discriminate or stigmatise, and neither should we.
Jonathan Kuek Han Loong
.=
=======
.
.Does the Parliament ever learn?
When MPs make wild and unsubstantiated allegations agains the public services and agencies in Parliament, what should be the reaction in the august Chamber?
Should the Speaker of Parliament or the Leader of the House have it recorded in the Hansard to mark it as ‘unsubstantiated lacking credibility’?
.
==========
.
Significant resources spent to probe Raeesah Khan’s allegations: Police respond to Pritam Singh’s remark
WP chief Pritam Singh told a parliamentary committee that he felt the lie told by Ms Raeesah Khan did not cause the police much harm.PHOTO: GOV.SG
Goh Yan Han
PUBLISHED10 HOURS AGO on 14th Dec 2021 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Significant resources were dedicated to investigating former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan’s allegation in Parliament about a sexual assault case, the police said on Monday (Dec 13).
After she made the claim, police officers went through two rounds of checking their records, including all records of visitors to all police stations in the country since Jan 1, 2017.
The aim was to identify the alleged visit, said the police in a statement on Monday evening (Dec 13).
Ms Khan in a speech on Aug 3 said she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, but the victim later came out crying after being asked by the police about her dressing and whether she had been drinking.
She has since confessed to lying about the case and admitted that she had not accompanied the victim to the police station.
On Friday, Workers’ Party chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, appearing before the Committee of Privileges, said he felt the lie told by Ms Khan did not cause the police much harm.
He also questioned the amount of work put in by the police to investigate her allegations.
Not much impact on police work as Raeesah Khan’s allegations were not substantiated: Pritam Singh
On Monday, the police said: “A substantial amount of resources was dedicated to this, because it was a statement made by an MP in Parliament, and was taken seriously and at face value.”
They added that their officers also considered the possibility that Ms Khan had accompanied a victim, without entering a police station.
As such, they also combed through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases from 2018 to 2021, and narrowed this list down to cases which appeared to somewhat match Ms Khan’s description in Parliament.
The police said: “The investigation officers in charge of these cases were all asked to check through their investigation records in detail. Other details were also checked with the officers.
“Police officers also checked through all the feedback received from members of the public in 2018, relating to sexual assault, but could not link any feedback to the case mentioned by Ms Khan.”
The police said they had dedicated significant resources to investigate into Ms Khan’s claims and many police officers had been involved in the investigations into the false claims.
They added that the quantitative impact of such falsehoods is not just in terms of the man-hours lost.
“There were also delays in handling other matters and cases, with impact on members of the public – whose cases could have been handled faster had the time and resources not been wasted trying to investigate an incident which never happened.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Not much impact on police work as Raeesah Khan’s allegations were not substantiated: Pritam Singh
Pritam denies telling Raeesah to lie, but says he took no steps to correct untruth for 2 months
According to a special report released on Sunday, Mr Singh, in testimony to the Committee of Privileges, said Ms Khan had not been able to substantiate the allegation. He also disagreed that the false anecdote would have had an adverse impact on the work of the police.
He said: “The police is not some broken-back organisation… I solemnly and sincerely believe if you speak to any senior police officer worth his salt, he or she will tell you that in the course of investigations there can be a number of situations where certain questions are put to a witness which are uncomfortable for that person.”
Culture, Community and Youth Minister Edwin Tong replied that a wrong was done to the police as time had been wasted by the police “chasing their tails for three months” in order to find the case Ms Khan was talking about.
Mr Singh disagreed.
He pointed out that Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan said at the same session of Parliament that the police could not find any case resembling what Ms Khan had described.
“So what work was actually done? I am not aware. I am not saying no work was done, obviously work must have been done, done to check,” said Mr Singh.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
‘You’re a good lawyer… I’m a good listener’: 6 instances Pritam Singh, Edwin Tong clashed in committee hearing
‘Not relevant’ for the public to know WP leaders’ knowledge of Raeesah’s lies: Pritam Singh
When Mr Tong suggested that the police would have had to go through all its cases to check, since the allegation made in Parliament was serious and had to be addressed, Mr Singh replied: “I do not believe I heard that from the police. I did not hear anywhere that they’ve gone through all the cases.”
In the statement on Monday, the police said public trust in the police force is integral to the officers’ ability to carry out their mission effectively, to ensure the safety and security of the people.
The statement said: “If the public whom we serve do not trust us, it would be difficult to secure their cooperation, which is often critical to prevent, deter and detect crime and security incidents.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
WP chief says Raeesah Khan in ‘dazed, distraught’ state after repeating lie in Parliament
Raeesah Khan may have lied in WhatsApp message due to dissociation: Pritam Singh
False accusations against the police also have an impact on victims’ trust and confidence in the police, and may deter victims from coming forward to seek help.
“The police therefore take all allegations against our professionalism seriously. When allegations are made, we investigate carefully, and if they are true, we take steps to rectify the mistakes, and minimise the possibility of them recurring.”
It added that false anecdotes such as the one told by Ms Khan, will cast doubt on, and over time, erode public trust in the police.
“Comments that downplay or dismiss the impact of false allegations against the police, are discouraging. They can also affect the morale of our officers, who work hard every day to keep Singaporeans safe and secure.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Special reports on Raeesah Khan saga: Amid emotion, noise, let’s go back to first principles
Pritam Singh’s testimony to parliamentary committee: Timeline of events since August
.
=======
..
Are there SOPs in Parliament when MPs attack the civil service and agencies in Parliament with unsubstantiated allegations?
Should the Hansard mark it as “unsubstantiated lacking credibility” to prevent any wild-goose chase outside Parliament because of the wild allegations?
.
=========
.
Forum: Reputation of police took an undeserved hit from allegations in Parliament
PUBLISHED DEC 15, 2021, 1:00 AMin ST Forum.
FACEBOOKTWITTER
I was very disappointed to hear Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh say that the false allegation made by former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan did not do much harm to the Singapore Police Force (False allegation did not do much harm to police: Pritam, Dec 13).
The false statements were not corrected for three months, putting the honour of the police force on the line during that time.
Coming from an MP, the allegation would have generated much publicity.
The words and actions of MPs carry weight, much more than any member of the public.
Time and resources were expended by the police to look into the allegation.
These efforts could have been better utilised in other law enforcement areas.
We want your opinion
What topics and commentaries would you like to read more of?
Tell us more
There was also online criticism unfairly levelled at the police force. This was inexcusable, unwarranted and unfair to the police.
The police were a victim in this whole fiasco.
We must have a sense of justice and be able to distinguish right from wrong.
I am very thankful that the Singapore Police Force maintained its composure and worked relentlessly to seek the truth.
I hope that Singaporeans will not prejudge public servants when accusations are made against them.
Seek the truth and let justice prevail.
Foo Sing Kheng.
.
=======
.
.The heat has increased…
Who among them have been having sleepless nights lately?
.
=========
.
Is it strictly politics of deception…?
We are in very severe times, a time of worldwide emergency.
All things will be exposed in this age and time very fast. There will be no place to hide, and there will be great anguish and resistance.
All struggles of resistance by man against the odds, evilness, hatred, grudges, and negativity will be in vain and futility.
.
======
..
Has been confirmed at the COP hearings that the top three leaders of the WP knew in August 2021 that Raeesah Khan on 3rd August had lied in Parliament.
The three adamantly held on to their political judgement for more than two months not to take action or help her out/bail her out knowing she was a rookie MP.
Did their inaction embolden her to continue/perpetrate with the lie two more times in Parliament?
On hindsight, if the LO had written to the Speaker in August, and cc copy to the Leader of the House, also Sylvia Lim, and Raeesah Khan stating that the latter had lied in Parliament on 3rd August 2021 [he did not write], it would probably not have caused this political mess today.
This political chaos by WP is of their own making. Or, is it strictly politics, trying to raise the art of deception in politicking in Parliament to destroy the credibility of the present Government whatever the cost or political risk to themselves?
.
======
.
Special reports on Raeesah Khan saga: Amid the emotion and noise, let’s go back to first principles
Grace Ho
Opinion Editor
Former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan at a Committee of Privileges hearing on Dec 2, 2021.PHOTO: GOV.SG
PUBLISHED DEC 13, 2021, 12:40 AM SGT in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Relevance, reasonable supposition, level of culpability, state of mind. These are terms which, to most Singaporeans, are incomprehensible legalese.
But the Committee of Privileges (COP) exchanges with Workers’ Party (WP) vice-chairman Faisal Manap last Thursday (Dec 9) and WP chief Pritam Singh on Friday were precisely about what logical conclusions and next steps they should have drawn from Ms Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament; the apportionment of responsibility to each of the leaders; their state of mind when deciding how to engage her; and what relevant information to divulge to their party members and the larger public.
Early on in Part A of the video recordings released on Sunday as part of the third special report on the COP’s ongoing proceedings, Mr Singh was asked about the untruth that Ms Khan spoke in Parliament on Aug 3 in relation to the police.
Shocked emojis popped up on my WhatsApp when acquaintances watched the part of the video where Mr Singh denied that the police would be adversely impacted by former MP Raeesah Khan’s lie that accused them of mishandling a rape victim’s case.
That got me thinking: Most of us do not understand how adverse impact is legally determined, how one’s state of mind is legally assessed, or how the degree of responsibility is legally weighed. But all of us instinctively react to things in a certain way based on our values and principles.
So let’s go back to first principles. Here are five things that stood out for me.
One hour of being overwhelmed
In Mr Faisal’s evidence given to the COP last Thursday, he spoke of being “overwhelmed” by the revelations of Ms Khan’s sexual assault, when the three leaders and Ms Khan were at Mr Singh’s house on Aug 8.
I get that their main concern was Ms Khan’s well-being. But instead of discussing what to do about the lie, it is said in the COP report that they tried to console and comfort her, and the discussion moved on to what she had said in Parliament about female genital cutting and polygamy.
We cannot judge what exactly went down in that meeting. But let’s say you are a boss, and your employee admits to a wrongdoing. How would you apportion the time spent in the meeting with her?
Would you express sympathy for her personal situation, and then take some time to work out how to deal with it according to the proper procedures? Or would you not speak further about the issue, and jump to a discussion on tomorrow’s assignment?
Relevance to the public
The report noted that after Ms Khan delivered her statement in Parliament on Nov 1, Mr Singh did not disclose, in his Facebook post, that Ms Khan had confessed the lie to Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Faisal and himself much earlier on Aug 8.
His explanation was that it was not important for Parliament, and not relevant for the public to know this.
Here, it is worth noting that the impact of the lie went beyond one person and had persisted for nearly three months.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam denies telling Raeesah Khan to lie, but says he took no steps to correct untruth for 2 months
Pritam Singh says Raeesah Khan’s suggestion that he told her to lie is a ‘complete fabrication’
For the sake of argument, let’s leave aside the impact on WP, Parliament, and the police. But what about other sexual assault survivors? Other women?
Is this still irrelevant to the public then?
Clarifying an important issue
Following his Oct 3 meeting with Ms Khan, Mr Singh did not inform the WP central executive committee (CEC) that she might make a clarification in Parliament the next day admitting that she had lied, nor did he seek their approval or consensus.
There was also no draft of her statement prepared, or any discussions or comments sought on a possible draft.
This is different from the approach taken to the Nov 1 statement by Ms Khan in Parliament: There were several meetings to discuss the draft personal statement, Mr Singh and Ms Lim gave comments to Ms Khan’s draft statement, even Ms Khan’s father gave input on the draft, and the WP CEC was told on Oct 29 and they reviewed her draft.
A host of explanations were given for this. Mr Singh was not sure whether the matter would come up during the Oct 4 sitting, and if it did not come up, then Ms Khan may not have clarified.
If the matter did not get raised, then he had no plans to voluntarily get the issue clarified, because it was Ms Khan’s responsibility.
WP chief Pritam Singh says he expected Raeesah Khan to take responsibility to clarify truth
The question hanging over all this was whether she had told her parents about her sexual assault. Mr Singh said, in the context of this unanswered question: “My words to her was to take ownership and responsibility of the matter, which extends to telling the truth.”
Culture, Community and Youth Minister Edwin Tong argued: “Which, in fact, must fundamentally include telling the truth. That’s the whole raison d’etre behind making a clarification, correct?”
If the issue of Ms Khan’s disclosure to her parents was so important, why did Mr Singh not simply ask her about it – especially if it was, as the report also said, in his mind a precondition before she clarified the truth in public?
Taking responsibility
Mr Singh said a party leader does not take an oath on behalf of all of his MPs, who take their oaths on their own standing and merit.
“Every WP MP is a leader, they have to take responsibility… if you honour the oath you’ve taken, it is your prerogative to set the record right,” he added.
Now, put this side by side with what Mr Faisal said on Dec 9.
In an exchange between Mr Tong and Mr Faisal on Ms Khan’s repetition of the lie on Oct 4, and why he still did not ask Mr Singh what was going on given that the lie had remained on record for eight weeks then, Mr Tong asked: “What is to stop you from asking Mr Singh what is happening?”
Mr Faisal replied: “Trust.”
Mr Tong went on to say: “So you trust his judgment. If that is the case, why don’t you leave everything to him, the way you run your party, the way you run your CEC, the way you run Aljunied GRC?”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
‘Not relevant’ for the public to know WP leaders’ knowledge of Raeesah’s lies: Pritam Singh
Not much impact on police work as Raeesah Khan’s allegations were not substantiated: Pritam Singh
So here we have the vice-chairman of the WP, who repeatedly cites “trust” as the reason why he does not ask his leader what is being done even when something is amiss.
We also have a leader who, according to the report, said he had not directed former MP Raeesah Khan to lie, but also took no steps for more than two months to get her to correct her false statement.
Then we have Ms Khan herself, who doesn’t own up until a late stage.
Even if we accept that this is the WP’s modus operandi, what does it say about the party’s decision-making processes and controls?
When individuals in any organisation do not own up to a material lie that has been repeated, should people further along the chain of responsibility not actively take steps to resolve the problem?
Composition of disciplinary panel
In relation to the WP putting out a media statement on the formation of a disciplinary panel (DP) on Nov 2, Mr Singh said that he did not think that it was relevant that he, as the leader of WP and a member of the DP, had been aware of Ms Khan’s falsehood much earlier, according to the report.
Mr Singh was asked if the suppression of the fact that Ms Khan had told some of the WP leaders on Aug 8, and that Mr Singh had spoken with her on Oct 3, would give the impression that it was all Ms Khan’s doing. He said that it was irrelevant to mention these facts in the two press statements the WP had put out.
The report also said that according to Mr Singh, the involvement of himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the events that unfolded would only become relevant if they could be shown to have directed Ms Khan to lie – and no such direction to Ms Khan had been given.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
WP chief says Raeesah Khan in ‘dazed, distraught’ state after repeating lie in Parliament
Raeesah Khan may have lied in WhatsApp message due to dissociation: Pritam Singh
Now, I’m not a lawyer. But as someone trying to make sense of the technicalities of what is relevant or not, why is the leaders’ involvement only relevant if they could be shown to have directed Ms Khan to lie, given that the larger issue is that they knew about the lie since August?
Shouldn’t the full facts of the case be presented so that the CEC, party members and the public can come to an unbiased and informed view?
In addition, the DP comprised the very persons – and crucially, the only persons – whom Ms Khan says had told her to continue with the lie.
Again, I’m not a lawyer. But is there a potential issue of conflict of interest here?
Take company boards for example, which some of us may be more familiar with. Isn’t it the case that board directors should not vote in respect of any arrangement where they have any personal material interest, direct or indirect?
And even if the three leaders continued to be on the DP by virtue of their seniority and position in the party, why were there not others on the panel who could also weigh in? And if they were on the panel, surely the full facts of the case should be made known to them too?
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam Singh’s testimony to parliamentary committee: Timeline of events since August
3 key areas Raeesah Khan’s testimony differs from Pritam Singh’s account
Some Singaporeans will understandably be upset by the temperature of the exchange, especially the one with Mr Singh on Dec 10. But as far as process is concerned, the facts of the matter must be uncovered, and probing questions must be asked.
It is not for us to make any judgment either way at this point. Nonetheless, the past week has been a confusing one for many.
What is the difference between telling the truth, and “extends” to telling the truth? What is logical or illogical? When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?
Where does trust end, and credulity begin?
Right now, there do not seem to be unequivocally convincing answers.
.
===
.
So much time and effort spent on this matter. Is this what is meant by ” having to spend more time to fix them when more opposition MPs are voted into Parliament” instead of spending more time on governing, and in this present time, managing the pandemic?anging what I wrote a few days ago, to: “
.
======
In August 2021 [confirmed true, they knew in Aug], when he was told of the lie by Raeesah Khan, his political judgement should have been to write to the Speaker immediately, and cc copy to the Leader of the House, Sylvia Lim, and Raeesah Khan stating that the latter had lied in Parliament on 3rd August 2021 [he did not write], and that she would make a statement [and also by him as LO] on this at the next sitting of Parliament. Sadly, he has chosen not to write [it is true that he was told by Raeesah Khan that she had lied in Parliament on 3rd August]. What a political mess by WP. Or, strictly politics, trying to raise the art of deception in politicking? =============== “When the LO did not take action to help her out/bail her out [she is a rookie MP], did it embolden her to continue/perpetrate with the lie two more times in Parliament?”
.
=
.
If Mr Faisal had asked for permission to speak in Malay, the hearing would have gone way past nine hours and into the night, past midnight. Would Ms S.Lim ask for a Mandarin interpreter at the hearing?
.
=====
.
The heat has increased…
Who among them have been having sleepless nights lately?
.
=========
.
Is it strictly politics of deception…?
We are in very severe times, a time of worldwide emergency.
All things will be exposed in this age and time very fast. There will be no place to hide, and there will be great anguish and resistance.
All struggles of resistance by man against the odds, evilness, hatred, grudges, and negativity will be in vain and futility.
.
=======
.
The untruth…who is telling the truth?
Will the truth go to the grave?
Who knows the truth? Some say God knows everything. How? 6.5 billion of us. Possible? What method is used to record it, 24/7 x 6.5 billion?
Some believe that their gods are different from the gods of others.
The truth from God/gods when revealed will mean more than half of the 6.5 billion would go into depression and mental anxiety in disbelief.
Beware, and be aware.
.
=
.
Nine long hours…very tiring…
If Mr Faisal had asked for permission to speak in Malay, the hearing would have gone way past nine hours and into the night, past midnight.
Would Ms S.Lim ask for a Mandarin interpreter at the hearing?
.
=========
.
WP chief Pritam Singh denies telling Raeesah Khan to lie, but says he took no steps to correct untruth for 2 months
Justin Ong
Political Correspondent
PUBLISHEDDEC 12, 2021, 6:08 PM SGT in Straits Times.
FACEBOOKTWITTER
SINGAPORE – Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Friday (Dec 10) told the Committee of Privileges that he had not directed former MP Raeesah Khan to lie, but took no steps from August to October to get her to correct her false statement.
According to a special report released on Sunday (Dec 12), the second this weekend and the third so far, Mr Singh told her to take ownership of the issue if it came up, and left it to her as it was her responsibility to do so.
“Mr Singh also said that if the matter did not get raised, then he… had no plans to voluntarily get the issue clarified, because it was Ms Khan’s responsibility,” the report said.
The WP chief also told the committee that he chose not to disclose her confession to party leaders or the public as he felt it was not important to do so. He also did not think much harm had been done to the police by the lie.
The report also disclosed that Ms Khan had sent Mr Singh a text message on Oct 4 asking what she should do, while Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam questioned her account in Parliament. Ms Khan repeated the lie in her response to the minister, and the committee raised questions about whether she was clear that he had wanted her to tell the truth, as he had said.
During a hearing over nine hours long, Mr Singh said “the truth of the matter” was that Ms Khan had been told to take responsibility and ownership of an untruth that ultimately led to her resigning from both party and Parliament.
The report said Mr Singh agreed that the issue the committee was investigating – Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament about the details of a sexual assault case – was a very serious case.
Raeesah Khan may have lied in WhatsApp message due to dissociation: Pritam Singh
Ms Khan, a first-term MP who resigned from the WP and as MP for Sengkang GRC on Nov 30, had admitted to fabricating details that implicated the police’s handling of a sexual assault case, during a parliamentary speech on female empowerment on Aug 3.
But the report said Mr Singh did not specifically tell Ms Khan to clarify the truth at the next available Parliament sitting she attended, on Oct 4, even if the issue was not raised.
Based on Mr Singh’s advice to Ms Khan to take ownership and responsibility, he had an expectation – as opposed to an understanding – that Ms Khan would clarify the truth, if the matter was raised, the report said.
And as Mr Shanmugam made a ministerial statement on Oct 4 on Ms Khan’s anecdote, she sent Mr Singh a message, asking: “What should I do, Pritam?”
Mr Singh agreed that Ms Khan’s message was completely at odds with his expectation to tell the truth if the matter came up, said the report.
He believed that telling her to take personal responsibility – and that he would not judge her if she did – meant that she knew that she had to tell the truth, if the matter came up.
“It is at odds with his understanding, because the matter did come up on Oct 4 and yet she was asking him for instructions on what she should do,” the report said.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Raeesah Khan may have lied in WhatsApp message due to dissociation: Pritam Singh
WP chief says Raeesah Khan in ‘dazed, distraught’ state after repeating lie in Parliament
The report also noted that when told by the committee that Ms Khan’s false allegation “painted a picture of the Police”, Mr Singh denied that the police would be adversely impacted by such a lie.
Asked if it was “okay to have a lie in Parliament where the lie relates to the reaction of the Police, bad reaction… to a complaint by a sexual assault victim”, Mr Singh replied that the police were not a “broken-back” organisation, the report added.
“He questioned the amount of work put in by the Police to check on the allegation,” said the report. “Mr Singh also said that he didn’t feel that a wrong had been done to the Police by Ms Khan’s untruthful allegations against the Police.”
Not much impact on police work as Raeesah Khan’s allegations were not substantiated: Pritam Singh
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Not much impact on police work as Raeesah Khan’s allegations were not substantiated: Pritam Singh
Pritam Singh says Raeesah Khan’s suggestion that he told her to lie is a ‘complete fabrication’
In his testimony, Mr Singh also denied asking Ms Khan to take her untruth “to the grave”, echoing WP vice-chairman’s Faisal Manap’s statement which was released the day before on Saturday (Dec 11).
Mr Faisal had also acknowledged it was hard to explain rationally why he, Mr Singh and chairman Sylvia Lim had not reacted sooner to set the record right, and that the trio had chosen not to disclose Ms Khan’s act to other party leaders, even during disciplinary hearings into the matter.
Earlier, on Dec 3, the committee had issued a first report presenting Ms Khan’s side of the story, where she alleged that WP leaders had advised her to keep up a lie that ultimately brought about her resignation from both party and Parliament.
Her account to the committee was at odds with the version of events laid out by WP leaders at a press conference on Dec 2. Then, Mr Singh said he had directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and own up to her lie in Parliament.
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 – Ms Raeesah Khan
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
‘Not relevant’ for the public to know WP leaders’ knowledge of Raeesah’s lies: Pritam Singh
Special reports on Raeesah Khan saga: Amid emotion, noise, let’s go back to first principles
Mr Singh reiterated this in his testimony to the committee, according to the special report. It said that in August, after learning of the lie and giving Ms Khan time to deal with the matter and speak to her parents, he did not take any steps to speak with her to get the issue clarified during the next Parliament sitting in September.
“Mr Singh said it was Ms Khan’s responsibility to speak to him about the matter, after she had settled things with her parents. He said that he was in no position to know when that would happen,” the report said, adding that he had not checked with her if she had done so.
It noted that in October, Mr Singh told Ms Khan that if the issue were to come up in Parliament, she had “to take responsibility and ownership of the issue”, and if she did so, he “will not judge” her.
Mr Singh also said that Ms Khan had to clarify the truth, even if the matter was not raised; though the report noted Mr Singh saying that if the matter did not come up, then Ms Khan would not need to.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Pritam Singh’s testimony to parliamentary committee: Timeline of events since August
3 key areas Raeesah Khan’s testimony differs from Pritam Singh’s account
The WP, Singapore’s largest opposition party, has refrained from officially responding to the committee’s reports, saying it would be only prudent to do so at an appropriate forum and juncture as the investigation is still ongoing.
See the full report released by the Committee of Privileges.
Watch videos of the nine-hour hearing:
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 – Mr Pritam Singh (Part A)
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 – Mr Pritam Singh (Part
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 – Mr Pritam Singh (Part C)
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 – Mr Pritam Singh (Part D)
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Faisal Manap worried about Raeesah Khan’s lies, but left matter to WP chief Pritam Singh: Report
6 main points from WP cadre Loh Pei Ying’s testimony on Raeesah Khan incident
.
====
.
The untruth…who is telling the truth?
Will the truth go to the grave?
Who knows the truth? Some say God knows everything. How? 6.5 billion of us. Possible? What method is used to record it, 24/7 x 6.5 billion?
Some believe that their gods are different from the gods of others.
The truth from God/gods when revealed will mean more than half of the 6.5 billion would go into depression and mental anxiety in disbelief.
Beware, and be aware.
.
==========
.
Do they ever learn in Parliament from this saga?
What will they learn?
Hope this is the existing procedure in Parliament: Whenever a wild allegation has been made in Parliament, the Leader of the House or the Speaker of the House should put it on record and mark it in the Hansard that the allegation has been “unsubstantiated and lacked credibility”.
.
After PS, who will be the next LO for WP in Parliament? Of course, the MP has to be the SG of the WP first.
.
=======
.
What next? Strictly politics…?
Refused to answer questions?
Also a freedom to speak or not to speak…?
Some prefer to bring with them what they know to the grave…?
That is also freedom….Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Speech?
.
=========
.
Top leaders knew of Raeesah Khan’s lies but chose not to disclose to others in party: WP vice-chairman
Royston Sim
Deputy News Editor
PUBLISHED9 HOURS AGO on 12th Dec 2021 in Sunday Times.
FACEBOOKTWITTER
SINGAPORE – Workers’ Party vice-chairman Faisal Manap told the Committee of Privileges it was hard to explain rationally why he and other party leaders had not reacted sooner to set the record right when they were aware for months that former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan had lied to Parliament.
He acknowledged that he, WP chief Pritam Singh and party chairman Sylvia Lim had known about Ms Khan’s repeated lying in Parliament, but had chosen not to disclose this to other party leaders, even during disciplinary hearings into the matter.
In his testimony to the committee on Thursday (Dec 9), he disclosed that he had met Mr Singh and Ms Lim twice ahead of the hearings, but refused to reveal what had transpired during those sessions.
He also disputed Ms Khan’s account that they had told her that the best thing to do was to take the lie she told in Parliament on Aug 3 “to the grave”.
But Mr Faisal agreed that everything Ms Khan had done after her Aug 8 meeting with WP leaders would be consistent with her account to two party members of the meeting, if that account was true.
Workers’ Party leaders did not tell Raeesah Khan to take her lie ‘to the grave’: Faisal Manap
According to a special report released by the committee on Saturday (Dec 11), Mr Faisal said Ms Khan was lying about this part of a text message that she had sent to two other WP members, but he could not explain why she would do so.
He had told the committee that neither he, Mr Singh nor Ms Lim – all of whom are MPs for Aljunied GRC – had reacted or discussed what to do when Ms Khan confessed to them on Aug 8 that she had lied in Parliament, as they had been overwhelmed after hearing about her sexual assault.
Their main concern was for her well-being, he added.
When asked by the committee, Mr Faisal said he understood that it would be hard to understand why the three WP leaders did not react to Ms Khan’s confession that she had told an untruth in Parliament.
He accepted that it was bad to lie to Parliament, and agreed it was equally wrong to allow a lie to carry on in Parliament.
“He also agreed that if one knew of a true fact which would correct a deception on Parliament, keeping quiet would also be a problem, and could possibly amount to an offence,” said the report.
The report said Mr Faisal also agreed that it would have been logical for him to have asked questions about Ms Khan’s intention to clarify the lie after he became aware of it. But he said he had left it to Mr Singh to handle the matter because he trusted the Leader of the Opposition, having worked with him for more than 10 years as a fellow MP.
He believed that Mr Singh had the information to make the judgment call on the matter, and trusted Ms Khan to do the right thing, the report said.
Mr Faisal also said that the timing of when to have Ms Khan correct the record in Parliament would depend on Mr Singh’s judgment.
Committee of Privileges Hearing on 9 December 2021 – Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Part
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
WP’s Faisal Manap refuses to answer committee’s question on his meetings with Pritam, Sylvia last week
Faisal Manap worried about Raeesah Khan’s lies, but left matter to WP chief Pritam Singh: Report
The report said Mr Faisal did not communicate further with Ms Khan, Mr Singh or Ms Lim on the lie Ms Khan had told after the Aug 8 meeting, till Oct 29. He was neither involved in nor aware of any discussions that the others might have had among themselves on the issue during this time.
The special report is the second one released by the Committee of Privileges, after it presented an initial report to Parliament on Dec 3.
That report, published on Parliament’s website along with video footage of the committee’s hearings, was based on testimonies from Ms Khan, her former secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying, her former legislative assistant Lim Hang Ling and party member Yudhishthra Nathan.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
WP CEC voted to expel Raeesah Khan over Parliament lie without full facts: Committee of Privileges
WP leaders did not react to Raeesah Khan’s confession, did not ask her to lie: Faisal Manap
Ms Khan had told the committee that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had known early on about her lie in Parliament on Aug 3 about having accompanied a rape victim to make a police report.
She also said party leaders had advised her to stick to the lie.
Raeesah Khan on WP leaders’ reaction to admission of lie
In her Aug 3 speech, Ms Khan said she had accompanied a 25-year-old rape victim to a police station to make a report, and that the officer who interviewed the victim had made inappropriate comments about the victim’s dressing and the fact that she had been drinking.
But Ms Khan never accompanied the victim to a police station.
She later admitted that the victim had shared the account in a support group for women, which Ms Khan herself was in, and said she did not have the victim’s consent to share the story.
Ms Khan subsequently resigned from the WP on Nov 30 and stepped down as an MP.
Raeesah Khan: WP leader said if she ‘continued the narrative, there would be no judgment’
The WP had said it will respond to the allegations against its leaders in the first special report at an appropriate forum and juncture.
The committee also heard from Mr Singh on Friday, and said it will also speak to Ms Lim, as well as Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim.
Meanwhile, it met on Saturday to discuss the second special report, and is scheduled to meet again on Sunday.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
3 key areas Raeesah Khan’s testimony differs from Pritam Singh’s account
WP leaders told Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told Parliament: Committee of Privileges
.
====
=
.
In August 2021 [if true], when he was told of the lie by Raeesah Khan, his political judgement should have been to write to the Speaker immediately, and cc copy to the Leader of the House, Sylvia Lim, and Raeesah Khan stating that the latter had lied in Parliament on 3rd August 2021, and that she would make a statement [and also by him as LO] on this at the next sitting of Parliament. Sadly, he has chosen not to [if true that he was told by Raeesah Khan that she had lied in Parliament on 3rd August]. What a political mess by WP. Or, strictly politics, trying to raise the art of deception in politicking?
.
======
.
It is the time for righteousness, not evilness. Exposure will come in all forms and super fast. We are in the WWW age for this purpose, and all forms of deception will fail big time.
.
In this age, all forms of resistance and anguish will fail. No place to hide. It is the age and time for full exposure, which no one can counter or obstruct.
======
.
What a political mess… Strictly politics?
Will the COP call her husband and the three top leaders of WP to appear before the Committee?
.
========
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial says
Answers needed on unedifying WP saga
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 9th Dec 2021 in ST.
The Committee of Privileges is looking into a complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan, who admitted to lying in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, and resigned last week from the Workers’ Party (WP) and her position as a Sengkang GRC MP.
A special report the committee released last Friday contained several revelations, including Ms Khan’s statement that WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, party chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap told her to stick to the lie she told in Parliament on Aug 3. This contrasted with statements at a WP press conference last Thursday, when Mr Singh said he directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and admit to her lie in Parliament.
Questions have also been raised about the timing of the report’s release, as well as discrepancies between Ms Khan’s and Mr Singh’s narratives. Parliament Standing Orders do say that the committee may, at any time during its proceedings, make a special report to Parliament on any matter which it may think fit to bring to the notice of the House. Certain allegations were made at the proceedings – serious enough that the majority of the committee must have felt strongly about flagging them to Parliament for its attention, even though proceedings are ongoing.
It is precisely because the allegations appear serious that it is important for the public, analysts and commentators to hear all sides. No one should rush to judgment at this point, as it has, thus far, been mainly information from Ms Khan’s narrative. Her former aide and a WP member who also spoke to the committee also relayed their views based largely on what she had told them. While their version of events has drawn much public speculation, and the disclosures thus far have cast WP leaders in a certain light, the reality is that the full picture has yet to emerge. The leaders too have not yet responded fully to the specifics of the allegations in the special report – although a WP statement on Sunday did say that as the work of the Committee of Privileges is in progress, it is prudent for the party to respond to the allegations against its leaders at an appropriate forum, sooner rather than later. This is vital, as Parliament cannot function effectively if doubts linger about the integrity of its members and the reliability of their statements during its deliberations.
Mr Singh has made clear at a WP press conference on Dec 2 that he is prepared to give evidence before the committee. That is only to be expected; there was hardly any other alternative to doing so. Indeed, the WP party leadership should come out categorically to confirm or deny the serious allegations made. Voters of Sengkang GRC, and the wider public, will want answers to the many questions raised. Not least as the integrity of a major parliamentary party is at stake.
.
======
.
140 words….short and direct…
What next and when?
.
=========
.
‘Prudent’ to respond to Raeesah Khan’s allegations at ‘appropriate forum and juncture’, says Workers’ Party
By NG JUN SEN
Published DECEMBER 05, 2021 in Today newspaper
Updated DECEMBER 05, 2021
Ms Raeesah Khan at a hearing by Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on Dec 2, 2021.
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) sought to explain on Sunday (Dec 5, 2021 ) why it has yet to respond to the allegations by its former member Raeesah Khan to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges in an interim report on Friday, stating that it is “prudent” for a response to be given “at the appropriate forum and juncture”.
In a 140-word statement to the media, WP said it has noted that the special report by the committee did not take the evidence of WP leaders, even though “serious allegations have been made”.
Among other claims, Ms Raeesah had testified to the committee that she was told by WP chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap that there was no need to clarify her lie in Parliament if she and the party could get away with it.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on Dec 2, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges. Some members of the public have asked why Workers’ Party leaders have not responded thus far to the interim report,” said WP.
“We understand that the Committee’s work remains in progress. It is thus prudent for a response to be given at the appropriate forum and juncture.”
The opposition party then thanked those who have sent messages of encouragement, including residents, party members, volunteers and members of the public.
.
=========
.
The untruth…who is telling the truth?
Will the truth go to the grave?
Who knows the truth? Some say God knows everything. How? 6.5 billion of us. Possible? What method is used to record it, 24/7 x 6.5 billion?
Some believe that their gods are different from the gods of others.
The truth when revealed will mean more than half of the 6.5 billion would go into depression and mental anxiety in disbelief.
Beware, and be aware.
.
=======
.
Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim did not advise ex-MP Yaw Shin Leong to stay silent over alleged affair: WP
Then WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and chairman Sylvia Lim at a press conference in 2012 to announce the expulsion of former MP Yaw Shin Leong.PHOTO: ST FILE
Justin Ong
Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED DEC 7, 2021, 12:20 PM SGT in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – The Workers’ Party (WP) on Tuesday (Dec 7) dismissed its former MP Yaw Shin Leong’s claim that he had been hushed by party leaders in the lead-up to his expulsion from the opposition party in 2012 over allegations of extramarital affairs.
In a media statement, the WP said its then secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and chairman Sylvia Lim “categorically state that they did not advise Mr Yaw to stay silent”, and that Mr Yaw had been summoned to appear before the party’s central executive committee (CEC) to account for the matter “but chose not to do so”.
Mr Yaw had posted on Facebook under the alias of “Amos Rao” on Monday, disputing WP chief Pritam Singh’s account of his departure from the party in 2012 – a year after he won the Hougang single seat.
The issue was raised during a WP press conference last week on former Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan’s resignation.
Mr Singh had said that the party had sacked Mr Yaw for failing to “account himself to the party” in the wake of the rumours of his personal indiscretions.
Former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong in 2012. He had posted on Facebook under the alias of “Amos Rao” on Monday, disputing WP chief Pritam Singh’s account of his departure from the party that year. PHOTO: THE NEW PAPER FILE
Mr Yaw disagreed, writing on Facebook on Monday that he had in fact spoken to Mr Low and Ms Lim and “was advised to stay silent”.
He said he had placed “party first before self”, and kept mum and resigned from the CEC to minimise the fallout to the WP.
Mr Yaw’s broadside came as the WP remains embroiled in an ongoing political saga over Ms Khan, who is being investigated by the Committee of Privileges for lying in Parliament about a rape victim’s experience at a police station.
The committee released a special report last Friday after hearing testimonies from Ms Khan and two WP members that party leaders had told her to continue the lie. This contradicts statements made by WP leaders at a press conference the day before, with Mr Singh saying they had given Ms Khan time to deal with the matter after being told she was a sexual assault victim herself.
Mr Yaw successfully defended Hougang and was MP there from 2011 to 2012, after Mr Low left the seat to contest Aljunied GRC.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong disputes Pritam Singh’s account of his sacking
WP to respond to privileges committee report on Raeesah Khan at ‘appropriate juncture’
.
======
.
What next?
Will the COP call the three top leaders of the WP and her husband to appear before the Committee?
.
=======
.
Special report on Raeesah Khan released to keep Parliament informed, says Office of Clerk of Parliament
Former WP MP Raeesah Khan at the Committee of Privileges hearing on Dec 2, 2021.PHOTO: GOV.SG
Goh Yan Han
PUBLISHEDDEC 6, 2021, 6:47 PM SGT in Straits Times.
FACEBOOKTWITTER
SINGAPORE – The Committee of Privileges decided to present its special report in its investigations of the complaint against former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan last Friday (Dec 3) based on the oral evidence it heard on Thursday and Friday, said the Office of the Clerk of Parliament on Monday (Dec 6).
Responding to queries over the committee’s decision to release the special report before it called WP leaders for their testimonies, the Clerk’s Office said the committee will keep Parliament informed of the progress of its investigations “in a timely manner when appropriate” and present its final report in due course. It did not elaborate further.
The Clerk’s Office cited Standing Order 105 (2), which states that the committee may, at any time during its proceedings, make a special report to Parliament on any matter that it may think fit to bring to the notice of Parliament.
It added that special reports had been issued in the past.
The Committee of Privileges is looking into a complaint against Ms Khan, who had admitted to lying in Parliament and resigned last Tuesday from the party and her position as Sengkang GRC MP.
The Straits Times had asked Parliament why it decided to release the special report and for details on further witnesses and hearings, among other questions.
The Clerk’s Office said meetings of select committees are held in private unless resolved otherwise, and details regarding meetings or hearings as well as potential witnesses “will therefore remain fluid”.
It added that the committee’s mandate is to thoroughly look into any matter pertaining to the complaint, and will be reviewing the evidence and submissions put before it on an ongoing basis.
The Clerk’s Office also said the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act regulates the conduct of MPs and other persons in connection with its proceedings, and can summon any person to appear before the committee to give evidence at any time before the conclusion of its report.
The committee will continue its investigations into the complaint and will hear further evidence if it sees fit, it added.
Last Friday’s report had said the committee was adjourned to Monday.
The report contained several revelations, such as Ms Khan’s statement that WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, WP chairman Sylvia Lim and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap had told her to stick to the lie she had told in Parliament on Aug 3.
This contrasted with the WP’s press conference last Thursday, when Mr Singh said he had directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and admit to her lie in Parliament.
In a speech on Aug 3, Ms Khan said she had accompanied a 25-year-old rape victim to a police station to make a report, and that the officer who interviewed the victim had made inappropriate comments about the victim’s dressing and the fact that she had been drinking.
But Ms Khan never accompanied the victim to a police station.
She later admitted that the victim had shared the account in a support group for women, which Ms Khan herself was in, and said she did not have the victim’s consent to share the story.
On Sunday, WP said that since the work of Parliament’s Committee of Privileges is still in progress, it is prudent for the party to respond to the allegations against its leaders at an appropriate forum and juncture.
It also reiterated that Mr Singh had made it clear at the party’s press conference on Dec 2 that he is prepared to give evidence before the committee.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong disputes Pritam Singh’s account of his sacking
3 key areas Raeesah Khan’s testimony differs from Pritam Singh’s account
Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh (centre) is flanked by Sengkang GRC MP He Ting Ru (left), and Aljunied GRC MP and WP chair Sylvia Lim (right). (PHOTO: Nicholas Yong/ Yahoo News Singapore)
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) on Sunday (5 December) said that the interim report by the parliamentary Committee of Privileges (COP) was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made.
The statement comes two days after the release of the report in which former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan testified to the COP that WP chief Pritam Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges,” said the WP in a statement.
The party noted that some members of the public have asked why its leaders have not responded thus far to the report.
“We understand that the Committee’s work remains in progress. It is thus prudent for a response to be given at the appropriate forum and juncture.
“We thank all who have conveyed messages of encouragement to the Party, including residents of Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Sengkang GRC, Party members, volunteers, as well as members of the public.”
Three other witnesses also gave evidence to the COP: Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament, would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
Hope this is the existing procedure in Parliament: Whenever a wild allegation has been made in Parliament, the Leader of the House or the Speaker of the House should put it on record and mark it in the Hansard that the allegation has been “unsubstantiated and lacked credibility”.
.
After PS, who will be the next LO for WP in Parliament? Of course, the MP has to be the SG of the WP first.
.
In August 2021 [if true], when he was told of the lie by Raeesah Khan, his political judgement should have been to write to the Speaker immediately, and cc copy to the Leader of the House, Sylvia Lim, and Raeesah Khan stating that the latter had lied in Parliament on 3rd August 2021, and that she would make a statement [and also by him as LO] on this at the next sitting of Parliament. Sadly, he has chosen not to [if true that he was told by Raeesah Khan that she had lied in Parliament on 3rd August]. What a political mess by WP. Or, strictly politics, trying to raise the art of deception in politicking?
.
It is the time for righteousness, not evilness. Exposure will come in all forms and super fast. We are in the WWW age for this purpose, and all forms of deception will fail big time.
.
In this age, all forms of resistance and anguish will fail. No place to hide. It is the age and time for full exposure, which no one can counter.
.
What a political mess… Strictly politics?
Will the COP call her husband and the three top leaders of WP to appear before the Committee?
.
====
.
I asked in 2020: Will there be changes in the 4G leadership before 2025?
We received the news yesterday, 8th April, 2021.
.
Moving the big pieces….a new Cabinet has been announced on 23rd April, 2021, Friday.
.
Good, the move of two big pieces: Chan Chun Sing from MTI to MOE; Ong Ye Kung from MOT to MOH. MOE and MOH have not much of a connection, like miles apart.
.
——–
.
The magnificent seven in the new Cabinet:
.
SINGAPORE: Seven ministers will switch portfolios in a major Cabinet reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced on Friday (Apr 23), two weeks after Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had said that he will step aside as the leader of the fourth-generation People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership team.
Mr Lawrence Wong, 48, who was just appointed Education Minister last July and has also been Second Minister for Finance since 2016, will take over the Finance Ministry from Mr Heng.
Mr Heng, 60, remains Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for Economic Policies.
PM Lee added that he is moving the ministers for health, manpower, and trade and industry, which he had considered making after last year’s General Election, but did not at the time as Singapore was still “in the thick” of fighting COVID-19.
Mr Chan Chun Sing, formerly Minister for Trade and Industry, will be appointed Minister for Education.
Mr Ong Ye Kung will move from the transport ministry to take over as Minister for Health.
Mr Ong will co-chair the COVID-19 multi-ministry task force, together with Mr Wong.
Mr Gan Kim Yong, who has been the Health Minister for almost a decade, will be moved to lead the Ministry for Trade and Industry.
The transport ministry will now be helmed by Mr S Iswaran, while Mrs Josephine Teo will step down as Manpower Minister and take over the Ministry of Communications and Information.
Dr Tan See Leng will be Manpower Minister in her stead.
All the new appointments take effect on May 15, after the next Parliament sitting on May 10, 2021.
.
=====
.
I believe few commentators could see these changes coming:
[1] Gan Kim Yong from MOH to MTI. MOH is in the heat.
[2] Josephine Teo from MOM to MCI. MOM is in the heat.
[3] New face in politics Dr Tan See Leng will helm MOM, and instantly into the heat.
[4] S Iswaran will helm MOT. A big ministry and transport is in the heat in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic where cross-border transport is in a fix due to lockdowns worldwide.
Tan Chuan Jin remains as Speaker of Parliament. No change for him.
.
=====
.
New Finance Minister Lawrence Wong may face hard decisions on taxes, more Budget measures for Covid-19 relief
Lawrence Wong will continue to co-chair the Covid-19 multi-ministry task force.ST ILLUSTRATION: CHNG CHOON HIONG
SINGAPORE – Mr Lawrence Wong takes over from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat as Finance Minister. Having assisted Mr Heng as Second Minister for Finance since 2016, he has, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, the experience and is a “natural fit” for the job.
Ms Indranee Rajah supports Mr Wong as Second Minister.
Mr Wong will continue to co-chair the Covid-19 multi-ministry task force together with new Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Trade and Industry Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The increase will help Singapore meet its rising recurrent spending needs, especially in healthcare.
The impact will be cushioned by a $6 billion Assurance Package, which delays the effect of the hike for most households by at least five years. The offset is higher for lower-income Singaporeans, with those living in one- to three-room HDB flats receiving about 10 years’ worth of additional GST expenses incurred.
• Ensure Singapore remains conducive to business
International tax developments could affect Singapore, whose tax incentives have been instrumental to its investment promotion efforts.
United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has proposed a global minimum corporate tax rate of 21 per cent – higher than the speculated 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent under base erosion and profit shifting (Beps) 2.0 proposals mooted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
All eyes are on how the US proposal could impact ongoing Beps 2.0 discussions, which are set for an agreement in July.
Whether Mr Wong has to make adjustments to Singapore’s tax system remains to be seen. But other factors such as infrastructure, a skilled labour market, and sound financial and legal systems still make the Republic an attractive investment destination.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
• Stay fiscally prudent and sustainable
With major highways, the Cross Island and Jurong Region MRT lines and climate adaptation structures in the works, Singapore expects a hump in annual development expenditure of around 5 per cent of gross domestic product, higher than the baseline of 3.7 per cent.
Aside from funding long-term infrastructure, the Government must also remain fiscally prudent in order to build back the reserves – totalling up to $53.7 billion over last year and this year – which are expected to be drawn down during the Covid-19 pandemic.
While it is expected that expenditure for the remainder of this term of government will be funded without a further draw on past reserves, the global outlook remains murky.
At home, while enhanced support measures have been announced for eateries in view of tightened measures to stem the growing number of community cases, should the situation deteriorate, Mr Wong may need to even consider a second Budget sooner.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
• Make opportunities available to all Singaporeans
The pandemic has given rise to calls for more redistributive policies. Some suggestions include making use of existing levers such as the past reserves, and tweaking the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework.
The NIRC framework allows the Government to spend up to 50 per cent of the net investment returns on net assets invested by GIC, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Temasek, and up to 50 per cent of the net investment income derived from past reserves from the remaining assets. Since 2016, the NIRC has been the single largest contributor to government coffers.
Other suggestions include getting those who are more well-off to give back more to society, such as by paying more personal income tax.
These are difficult decisions which Mr Wong does not have to make now, thanks to Singapore’s strong fiscal position. But he may have to grapple with them in future as his ministry tries to strike a balance between the public’s demands for more social equity and the potential impact this could have on Singapore’s competitiveness.
.
===
.
PM Lee announces Cabinet reshuffle: Lawrence Wong to be Finance Minister, Ong Ye Kung goes to Health and Chan Chun Sing to Education
PM Lee noted that he is making a more extensive reshuffle than is usual this early in the term of government, which began last July after the general election.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
SINGAPORE – Education Minister Lawrence Wong will helm the Ministry of Finance, in the latest Cabinet reshuffle announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Friday (April 23) that will take effect from May 15.
Replacing him at the Education Ministry will be Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, who in turn will relinquish his portfolio to Health Minister Gan Kim Yong.
Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung will take over from Mr Gan as Health Minister, and co-chair the multi-ministry task force handling Covid-19 with Mr Lawrence Wong.
The Cabinet reshuffle will see seven of the 15 ministries helmed by new ministers.
Communications and Information Minister S. Iswaran will be Minister for Transport, with Manpower Minister Josephine Teo replacing him at the ministry.
Second Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng will move up to helm the Ministry of Manpower in her place. He will continue as the Second Minister for Trade and Industry.
Speaking at a press conference, PM Lee noted that he is making a more extensive reshuffle than is usual this early in the term of government, which began last July after the general election.
There are two reasons for this, he said.
First, there are many repercussions with Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat relinquishing the key portfolio of finance.
Second, he is moving the ministers heading the frontline ministries dealing with Covid-19 – Health, Manpower and Trade and Industry.
PM Lee said he had considered making these changes after the general election, but the country was still in the thick of battling Covid-19.
He added that he is now able to do so as the Covid-19 situation is more stable.
Noting that most of the fourth generation ministers have already accumulated experience in a wide range of portfolios, he said this round of Cabinet changes will allow them to gain new experience and exposure.
In other changes,Ms Sim Ann will be appointed Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, replacing Mr Chee Hong Tat.
She will continue as the Senior Minister of State for National Development, but relinquish her appointment as Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information.
Mr Tan Kiat How will take over as Minister of State for Communications and Information, among other new postings.
.
====
.
4G leaders…
No leader is a know-all.
What should a not-a-know-all leader know or should know?
.
=======
.
Goh Chok Tong story: Lessons for 4G leaders
Four episodes that revealed what sort of leader he was.
Then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the National Day Parade in 1997. His biography, Standing Tall: The Goh Chok Tong Years, contains valuable insights to help Singaporeans understand the job of a prime minister and what qualities are called for to do it well. BERITA HARIAN FILE PHOTO
Han Fook Kwang
Editor-at-Large
PUBLISHEDMAY 9, 2021, 5:00 AM SGT in Sunday Times
What qualities should a prime minister possess?
The question is pertinent as Singapore awaits who the ruling party anoints to succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
When the choice is not obvious, there will be different views about what to look out for and which quality counts the most.
Should it be the ability to inspire Singaporeans through great communication skills? Or the person best able to work the team and get the most out of every minister? Or is it critical for the man to have the temperament to make tough decisions and carry the people along?
Ideally, all of the above.
But there is no ideal candidate, and the choice might depend on which of these qualities is seen as most important.
Singapore’s three prime ministers were all different, with unique strengths and weaknesses.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a very determined person with a commanding intellect and great oratory.
Mr Goh Chok Tong declared famously when the baton was passed to him that Mr Lee’s shoes were too big for him and that he would be his own person – gentler and more consultative.
But he was also capable of implementing unpopular policies which he believed were right for Singapore, such as paying ministers market wages and linking HDB upgrading to the votes received at general elections.
When looking back for answers to what makes a good leader, perhaps Mr Lee is less relevant because he was such a giant of a man and impossible to emulate.
No one should try to act like him.
But Mr Goh is good material to study. He too was a civil servant persuaded to enter politics, and there were question marks about his leadership qualities as well early on.
Reading his biography Standing Tall: The Goh Chok Tong Years by my former colleague at this newspaper, Mr Peh Shing Huei, and which was launched on Friday, I was struck by how Mr Goh was tested in so many different ways and how his response to these challenges revealed what sort of leader he was.
These insights are especially relevant in the discussion today on leadership succession because they are real-life examples in uniquely Singaporean circumstances.
PM Lee Hsien Loong (left) and ESM Goh Chok Tong at the book launch of Standing Tall: The Goh Chok Tong Years, at the National Gallery on May 7, 2021. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
I have shortlisted four episodes from the book, and they are as good case studies as any on how and what leadership qualities matter here.
(Disclosure: I was involved in the book, sitting in at all the interviews the author had with Emeritus Senior Minister Goh.)
The first is about the ill-fated attempt to hijack a Singapore Airlines plane by four Pakistani terrorists.
When it landed at Changi Airport in the evening of March 26, 1991, with the terrorists holding the crew and passengers hostage and making their demands known, Mr Goh was at home.
His phone rang just before 11pm and Mr Lim Siong Guan, the most senior civil servant of a group formed to deal with such crises, briefed him on what happened.
It was not a long conversation but, in Mr Lim’s words, it “left me the impression that he (Mr Goh) noted it, he said to carry on and we knew what to do – that was it”.
After he had put down the phone, the PM went to bed.
It might seem unthinkable for the PM, barely four months into the job, facing an unprecedented hijacking with so many lives at stake, to call it a night.
Why were you not pacing up and down your house nervously, or rushing to the airport? the author asked.
Mr Goh explained: “I made a conscious decision not to go because my presence would affect the focus of those in charge of the operations. When you manage a crisis, you must know when to intervene and when you must be present at the scene. That is important.
“If I were there, the ones in charge would not have dared to make decisions without first consulting me… They would be looking over their shoulders at me.”
Mr Goh knew the men in charge, he trusted them to get the job done, and he knew the preparations that had been made to deal with such matters.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Of hijackings and military generals: 5 insights from new book on former PM Goh Chok Tong
Public calm, private anguish: PM Lee on ESM Goh’s handling of 2003 Sars crisis
Leaders have to take a step back sometimes and let the people who are closest to the problem handle it.
I think ministers today are overly involved in too many aspects of their ministry’s work, so much so that some critics call them “super permanent secretaries”. The problem with this is that you might not have time to think about the really important issues. Also, those under you might be inclined to always check back or second guess you.
In the book, Mr Goh put it this way: “If you had a PM who was jumping up and down asking many questions… the whole thing would collapse. So, as the leader of the government, you do not intervene unless it is really necessary. If you are prepared, and you trust that the matter is in good hands, then just monitor and observe.”
My second example from the book is drawn from the controversial purchase of a luxury apartment in 1996 by Mr Lee Kuan Yew at a discounted price from the developer who was also his friend, Mr Ong Beng Seng.
When the matter was reported to the PM amid market talk of the purchase, Mr Goh was put in the awkward position of having to investigate his mentor.
Could he not have settled the matter quietly since the discount offered was not unusually large and there was no hint of corruption?
“No, there was no other way than to call him up in person. If I had taken the easier way out, I would be opting out of my duty as PM, and my fiduciary duty of governing Singapore. As I have said before, it goes back to the heart of what we believe in, the value of integrity. And integrity means you have to have the political courage to do painful things.
“This was a painful episode. If you did not have the political courage, because you thought Lee Kuan Yew would come and hammer you after that, then you do not deserve to be the Prime Minister,” Mr Goh declared in the book.
In the end, the probe cleared all parties of any wrongdoing.
Political courage to do the difficult thing, including standing up to the Lees if necessary – I would put it at the top of my list of what the next PM should demonstrate.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Next 4G leader must bring team together and can take reference from ESM Goh: PM Lee
Hiccups in Singapore’s political transition process are to be expected: ESM Goh
The third example is about how Mr Goh managed to get President Bill Clinton to agree to a US-Singapore free trade agreement (FTA), a landmark breakthrough at the time.
US officials were not keen on the idea and had blocked it from reaching the White House.
Mr Goh knew he had to get close and personal with President Clinton and the opportunity came at the Apec meeting in Brunei in 2000. At the end of dinner as the leaders were leaving the banquet room, Mr Goh made his move and told the President that he was planning to play a round of golf after the dinner.
President Clinton replied: “I was thinking of looking for someone to play with. Let’s play.”
But the plan was almost scuttled when moments later, a loud thunderclap shook the place and heavy rain poured down.
A US security officer turned to Mr Goh and told him that it did not look like game-on.
This is how the author recounted what happened next in the book:
“Without missing a beat, Goh replied very assertively: “No, it is on. I know my weather. This is a tropical storm. It will pass within half an hour. The golf course is half an hour from this place. So, by the time we arrive, the rain would have stopped.”
To be safe, he raised the odds. He told the US Secret Service officer: “Anyway, I’m going. But the President does not have to go if he thinks the weather is bad.”
The one-upmanship paid off.
“If I’m going, how could he not go?” said Goh with a grin.
The rest, as they say, is history. The two played golf that night and after the game, over drinks, the Singapore Prime Minister made his FTA pitch which his golfing partner promptly agreed to, and the breakthrough was achieved.
A leader needs to be able to think and act on his feet and to seize opportunities when they present themselves.
Officials can do detailed ground work, but without political leaders to act decisively at the right moment, the best-laid plans may come to nought.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside: What lies ahead for PAP’s 4G in electing its new leader and team builder
4 key challenges ahead for Singapore’s next 4G leader
My final example from the book is on how Mr Goh developed personal relationships with other leaders, a skill which will become increasingly important for any future PM to possess because of the changing geopolitical balance.
There are numerous stories in the book of how he was able to break the ice with his foreign counterparts, including advising Chinese President Jiang Zemin not to speak so fast so that the audience could better understand his speech, offering a hand warmer to Indonesian President Suharto during an Apec meeting in Seattle, and playing tennis with Chinese Premier Li Peng.
Singapore is likely to face many external challenges in the years ahead that will test its leaders’ ability to read the other side’s intention and game plan.
Mr Goh put it this way in the book: “Personal familiarity plays a very important part. When you suggest an idea or when you agree to an idea by the other side, you would know where the person was coming from. I think that is key. You have to know the other person’s thinking and establish trust, before you even ask for something.”
Standing Tall contains valuable insights to help Singaporeans understand the job of a Singapore PM and what qualities are called for to do it well.
There are many other examples dealing with tricky situations apart from the four I have highlighted.
Read it to better understand why the choice of who to become the next PM is a big deal.
Getting enough able Singaporeans interested in politics in the first place is an even bigger deal.
• Han Fook Kwang is also senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
.
=
.
Why search…?
Some say let it come naturally.
But the PM post is not hotly sought and keenly contested as it is a thankless job.
The leader of the 4G team will be decided by them, not by the 3G team or PM Lee.
We have to: ‘cut your coat according to your cloth’ …. as what we have and given.
We follow the UK system of government.
We cannot co-opt non MPs to be in Cabinet like the American system.
Is the American system any different compared with the communist system of government when the US president can pick his own kind and own people to be in the White House?
Who will want a Cabinet, WH, Kremlin, or the Great Hall of the People at TianAnMen, etc. that is filled with people who are working against the government and the man at the helm?
.
======
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial says
Much still to deal with after Cabinet reshuffle
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 28th April 2021 in ST
Last Friday’s major Cabinet reshuffle will see changes affecting the helm of seven of the 15 government ministries. Yet inevitably, attention focused on a group of fourth-generation leaders: Mr Lawrence Wong, who takes over as Finance Minister from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat; Mr Chan Chun Sing, who replaces Mr Wong as Education Minister; and Mr Ong Ye Kung, who will lead the Health Ministry.
An extensive reshuffle this early in the term of government is unusual. But so are the circumstances under which it was made. Mr Heng was due to relinquish the Finance portfolio after Budget 2021. This had consequential repercussions for other ministries including those in the front line dealing with Covid-19.
Mr Heng’s announcement that he is stepping aside as leader of the 4G team has, not unexpectedly, stoked interest as to his successor. Hence the speculation about whether the Finance post hands Mr Wong the advantage; and talk that the different but higher public profile role in Education means Mr Chan is still in the running. Similar musings surround Mr Ong helming Health amid a new phase of the pandemic and his co-chairing of the Covid-19 ministerial task force with Mr Wong.
Inevitable as the interest is, it also detracts from the underlying rationale for the reshuffle.
Cabinet changes made by the Prime Minister immediately after the July 2020 general election were but interim moves as Singapore was still in the thick of battling Covid-19. With the situation more stable, and with most ministers having accumulated experience in a range of portfolios, the latest changes provide different experiences and broaden exposures.
With almost every social and economic sector closely linked and impacted by the pandemic, political leaders must continue to develop the breadth of experience needed to deal with fresh challenges from a still-volatile global environment. Add to that the evolving interests and concerns of Singaporeans, whether it be housing, preservation of green spaces, or more diverse political representation. Singapore is by no means out of the woods, and disparate speculation about succession, which will continue to swirl, could prove to be unproductive and a distraction from the challenges at hand.
While portfolios may change to stretch and test individuals in different areas, there must be a continuity of purpose that drives the team. The more critical race that they and Singaporeans must focus on is that which involves keeping Singapore stable and competitive enough to stay in the front ranks, even if it is not leading the pack. That includes ensuring that public health measures are not derailed by a Covid-19 resurgence, that economic recovery stays on track and key sectors like aviation and tourism can turn around. The challenges ahead call for teamwork and close collaboration all round.
.
=
.
Search for new Singapore PM: Start with a rethink
It could be time to focus less on the age of a candidate and more on how long he stays in office if Singapore is to have more options
PM Lee Hsien Loong, DPM Heng Swee Keat and 4G Ministers at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
Han Fook Kwang
Editor-at-Large
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 25th April 2021 in Sunday Times
By some observers’ reckoning, Mr Lawrence Wong’s appointment as the new Finance Minister might have propelled him into the position of front runner to succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
But don’t hold your breath that the matter will be settled any time soon.
If the intent of the move is to expose him to a new area, he will need to plan the next Budget statement, and perhaps the following one, so his colleagues can have a fuller measure of the man.
This would take at least one to two years.
In the meantime, there are still Mr Ong Ye Kung, the new Health Minister, and Mr Chan Chun Sing, who will move to Education.
The three remain the likeliest to take over the mantle from PM Lee, with the advantage seemingly with Mr Wong, for now at least, although politics is inherently unpredictable, as recent events have made clear.
As many have observed, this unpredictability in who might be the country’s fourth prime minister is very un-Singapore-like.
One other departure from convention: All the talk about why this was not about one man becoming leader but about the team, and that the PM, whoever he was, was a first among equals.
This is a far cry from the past. When founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was asked how he saw his role as PM, he said he was like a conductor in an orchestra.
That is a completely different imagery – someone in command who tells the musicians when to start playing, how loudly or softly, and with one swift jab of his baton instructs the whole ensemble to stop playing altogether.
How times have changed.
The problem today is that no one has so far stood head and shoulders above the rest and been acknowledged as the undisputed leader.
When no one is the most outstanding, and all are considered just as suitable, it is going to be difficult to make the call.
It will not be any easier in one to two years, as people at this leadership level do not change much.
What you see now is what you get.
Eventually, though, I have no doubt they will settle on one person – they have to – and the team will have to rally around him as the country’s fourth prime minister.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
S’pore’s Cabinet reshuffle: Major changes but it’s not time to read the tea leaves
Only if you believe this leadership setback is a one-off, the result, perhaps, of a miscalculation or a stroke of misfortune that happens to the best-laid plans.
What if it is not, and it is a more serious permanent problem that, if not addressed, will continue to bedevil the ruling party, and Singapore?
The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) approach is based on cohort renewal, a younger generation of leaders taking over from their senior colleagues.
The script calls for inducting men and women in their 30s and 40s who, if all goes according to plan, would select a leader by the time they are in their 50s.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
PM Lee held off on major Cabinet changes last year as S’pore was in the thick of Covid-19
4G leaders set out aspirations for new roles after Cabinet reshuffle
The Goh Chok Tong cohort entered politics in their 30s, and by the time they were in their 40s, had selected Mr Goh.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong entered politics at an even younger age, at 32, and was recognised and acknowledged as the heir apparent to Mr Goh when he was not yet 40.
But the PAP has found it increasingly difficult to recruit those in their 30s and persuade them to join politics, especially people with leadership potential.
This has a serious knock-on effect on succession, which was what happened under PM Lee’s watch.
When he became PM in 2004, he really had only the 2006 and 2011 elections to attract the next cohort from which his successor might be found.
In the 2006 General Election, these were the names said to be potential office-holders at the time: Ms Grace Fu, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Mrs Josephine Teo, Mr Masagos Zulkifli and Mr Lee Yi Shyan.
Mr Lui and Mr Lee quit politics, in 2011 and last year, respectively.
The 2011 General Election produced a larger pool: Mr Heng Swee Keat, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, Mr Desmond Lee and Mr Ong Ye Kung, who did not make it, losing in Aljunied GRC to the Workers’ Party.
Looking back now, it would appear the party knew it had a problem and redoubled its efforts to make up for the shortfall.
That would explain why, despite concerns over diversity and groupthink, all of the above names were from the public service.
The poor numbers in 2006 forced the party’s hand in 2011.
Therein lies the problem.
If the PAP continues to follow its succession playbook, every succeeding PM will have only one to two general elections to move the plan forward.
Miss one, as happened in 2006, and it goes off-kilter.
On the other hand, had the 2011 batch been persuaded to enter politics in 2006, they would have had four to five more years to decide the issue, and the present impasse might have been avoided.
It shows what a difference one general election makes with this particular leadership succession model.
It is an issue that will recur in the future.
Whoever becomes the next PM has to induct the next group of successors in the 2025 General Election, and at the latest, by 2030.
Not an enviable job, given the problems with recruiting candidates, especially from outside the public service.
The fundamental problem isn’t one of not knowing who the next PM might be with as much certainty as in the past.
The real problem is the difficulty in attracting enough people of ability and character into the party, especially those in their 30s and 40s.
This isn’t a new issue, but it is now working its way up to the highest level of the leadership, perhaps sooner than anyone had anticipated.
When the recruitment pipeline slows down, it will eventually affect the choices available for the premiership.
That’s what has happened today.
But it is a problem that is also self-inflicted, because of the ruling party’s adherence to its longstanding playbook.
For example, the idea that the PM should step down by 70 is so 1970s and is outdated in today’s world, when people are working and living longer.
More pertinent is not age but how long a PM stays in office, as this affects the succession plan of the team.
Another one to rethink: Potential ministers should be mainly drawn from those inducted in their 30s and 40s.
Once you accept that a PM can continue into his 70s, you immediately open up the field to recruiting those in their 50s.
If they make it, they have 20 more years of political life left to aim for the highest office of the land.
It also opens up the possibility of appointing ministers who are in their late 50s and early 60s as PM.
When this happens, both the pipeline and timeline will look quite different.
Time for the PAP to embrace a new age of politics?
• Han Fook Kwang is also a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
.
=
.
7 ministries get new ministers in major Cabinet reshuffle
PM Lee reshuffle Apr 23 (1)
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaking on changes to his Cabinet and other appointments in a virtual press conference on Apr 23, 2021.
SINGAPORE: Seven ministers will switch portfolios in a major Cabinet reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced on Friday (Apr 23), two weeks after Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had said that he will step aside as the leader of the fourth-generation People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership team.
“Today I am announcing my new line-up. It will be a more extensive reshuffle than is usual this early in the term of government,” said Mr Lee.
“Two reasons: One, the Minister for Finance is changing. Following Budget 2021, DPM Heng is relinquishing the Finance portfolio. Finance is a key ministry, so when the Finance Minister changes, it has many repercussions.”
Mr Lawrence Wong, 48, who was just appointed Education Minister last July and has also been Second Minister for Finance since 2016, will take over the Finance Ministry from Mr Heng.
Mr Heng, 60, remains Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for Economic Policies.
READ: DPM Heng says he is stepping aside as 4G leader for younger person to become future PM
Commentary: Challenging task ahead for 4G leaders to resolve succession question, as pace of transition weighs heavy
Advertisement
Design Business Chamber Singapore
Sponsored by Design Business Chamber Singapore
A mark of design distinction
Made with polycarbonate, a sustainable material, this sleek surveillance robot won an SG Mark 2020 in the Product category
SEE MORE
Mr Lee added that he is moving the ministers for health, manpower, and trade and industry, which he had considered making after last year’s General Election, but did not at the time as Singapore was still “in the thick” of fighting COVID-19.
“With these major moves, inevitably there are other consequential adjustments to appointments,” said Mr Lee. “I am therefore taking this opportunity to redeploy some of the other ministers, to give them fresh responsibilities, and gain different exposure and experience.”
Mr Chan Chun Sing, formerly Minister for Trade and Industry, will be appointed Minister for Education.
Mr Ong Ye Kung will move from the transport ministry to take over as Minister for Health.
Mr Ong will co-chair the COVID-19 multi-ministry task force, together with Mr Wong.
Mr Gan Kim Yong, who has been the Health Minister for almost a decade, will be moved to lead the Ministry for Trade and Industry.
The transport ministry will now be helmed by Mr S Iswaran, while Mrs Josephine Teo will step down as Manpower Minister and take over the Ministry of Communications and Information.
Dr Tan See Leng will be Manpower Minister in her stead.
All the new appointments take effect on May 15, after the next Parliament sitting on May 10.
This reshuffle comes nine months after a new Cabinet was formed following the July 2020 General Election.
READ: PM Lee announces new Cabinet; 6 office holders promoted, 3 retirements
NEW APPOINTMENTS
Mr Chan Chun Sing will be appointed Minister for Education. He will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Trade and Industry.
Mr Lawrence Wong will be appointed Minister for Finance. He will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Education.
Mr Ong Ye Kung will be appointed Minister for Health. He will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Transport.
Mr Gan Kim Yong will be appointed Minister for Trade and Industry. He will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Health.
Mr S Iswaran will be appointed Minister for Transport. He will continue as Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, but relinquish his appointment as Minister for Communications and Information.
Mrs Josephine Teo will be appointed Minister for Communications and Information. She will continue as Second Minister for Home Affairs, but relinquish her appointment as Minister for Manpower.
Dr Tan See Leng will be appointed Minister for Manpower. He will continue as the Second Minister for Trade and Industry.
OTHER APPOINTMENTS
Ms Sim Ann will be appointed Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She will continue as the Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of National Development, but relinquish her appointment as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Communications and Information.
Mr Chee Hong Tat will continue as the Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Transport but relinquish his appointment as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Dr Koh Poh Koon will be appointed Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower and continue as the Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Health.
Mr Tan Kiat How will be appointed Minister of State in the Ministry of Communications and Information. He will continue as the Minister of State in the Ministry of National Development, but relinquish his appointment as Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam will be appointed Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Communications and Information and continue as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Health.
ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mrs Josephine Teo will also be appointed as Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Initiative, taking over from Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, and Minister-in-charge of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, taking over from Mr S Iswaran.
Mr Edwin Tong will also be appointed Deputy Chairman of the People’s Association, taking over from Mr Chan Chun Sing.
The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has accepted the proposal for Mr Chee Hong Tat to join the NTUC, as Dr Koh Poh Koon will be returning to the Government full-time.
.
====
.
UK system and US system. UK system does not co-opt anyone from the outside of Parliament to be ministers. We can only pick from among the MPs to become ministers. Not all MPs can be ministers. Many will remain as MPs until they quit. Dr TCB was MP for 26 years. He was never in the Cabinet. Many MPs will be like him remain as MP and cannot make it into Cabinet.
.
=====
.
Tan Chuan Jin remains as Speaker of Parliament. No change for him.
5 major factors.. God disposes easily even though humans’ intelligence and plans can propose at will.
.
=======
.
Heng is out.
It is not a bombshell.
Some must have expected his letter as this pandemic madness has thrown many off the paths.
He has stepped aside from the thankless job. A job that will continue to receive day and night cursing and swearing ….
.
=====
.
Heng has stepped down from his post to be the next PM. Man proposes but God disposes. So let us wait… who will be next for this thankless job as PM.
Any person who stays calm and carry out his plans and thinking in an orderly fashion will decline the post of PM. It is not worth it.
.
========
.
Stepping aside as leader of 4G…
Many factors for sure…likely ones: worldwide pandemic, uncertainties, stress, own health [has a stroke], next GE [nearly lost four GRCs] ? It is a thankless PM job as the cursing continues day and night. It is not worth it. A person who knows how to think and act in a calm and orderly manner will decline the pm job. Many have. Many world leaders in the past were over 60 some over 70 but they did not have the above five issues to be concerned with as governing red dot is not like a stroll in the Istana. Comparing them with Heng without the 5 in focus will not be appropriate bases for comparison.
.
=====
.
The PM role is international as well and a thankless job where cursing and swearing continue day and night.
Is it worth it? Some have declined the pm post. Why? They know governing red dot is not like a stroll at the Istana. It is a stressful job.
The hair turn grey fast. Unless the person is in for one term and grab all there is in the coffer for personal gain.
New Cabinet in two weeks…. who will be in? We wait.
When persons A and B are decided as first and second among equals by the 4G team, DPM Heng should be appointed as a minister in the PM’s Office.
He should remain in the 4G team not as the foreword striker to give a steady hand and added strength either as a defender or goalkeeper.
The PM post is an international role. It is not a stroll in the Istana in governing red dot.
It is a thankless job. The cursing continues day and night.
Some have turned down the post of PM.
Those who think and act in a calm and orderly manner will not take up the PM position.
It is not worth it. A demanding and stressful job on the PM and the person turns grey fast.
.
=======
.
Not a surprise to some, not me too. Why?
I posted in my Blog last year asking: will there be changes to the 4G leadership before 2025? We heard the news on 8th April, 2021, seven months out of the 60 to end of 2025 GE.
.
====
.
Stepping aside as leader of 4G…
Many factors for sure…likely ones: worldwide pandemic, uncertainties, stress, own health [has a stroke], next GE [nearly lost four GRCs in 2020] ?
It is a thankless PM job as the cursing continues day and night. It is not worth it.
A person who thinks and acts in a calm and orderly manner will decline the pm job. Some have.
Many world leaders in the past were over 60 some over 70 but they did not have the above five issues to be concerned with as governing red dot is not like a stroll in the Istana.
Comparing them with Heng without the 5 in focus will not be appropriate bases for comparison.
.
======
.
Within two weeks..a new Cabinet?
We wait.
Will it clear and lift the mist of uncertainty in this political crisis of 4G leadership?
What are the SWOTs in this crisis?
.
=======
.
Cabinet reshuffle by end next week ending 25th April 2021? Who will be in and who will be out? We wait.
.
New appointments for the following positions? Or, only for Minister for Finance? Or, new ministers for the following: Minister for Finance? Minister for Trade and Industry? Minister for Transport? Minister for Education? Minister for National Development? Minister for Health? Speaker of Parliament? We wait.
.
New ministers in PMO? Who?
.
Less disruption in the reshuffle is to have Lawrence Wong as the MOF.
.
Who should be MOE? I do not know. Let the king maker move the final pieces.
.
Not all MPs can be minister. They will remain as MP. Dr TCB was MP for 26 years.
.
=========
.
Uncertainty will be a bigger feature of Singapore’s political successions
Rather than hark back to a mythical period of certainty, Singaporeans can learn to become used to ambiguity. It’s fine not to know who the next PM will be.
Chua Mui Hoong
Associate Editor
DPM Heng Swee Keat (left) speaking at a press conference with PM Lee Hsien Loong at the Istana on April 8, 2021.PHOTO: ST FILE
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 16th April 2021 in Straits Times
Depending on who you talk to, the news about Mr Heng Swee Keat stepping aside as future leader of Singapore was either to be expected, or so shocking as to be seismic.
Various media outlets reported it differently. Bloomberg said Mr Heng’s decision meant the People’s Action Party (PAP) faced a “suddenly unpredictable scenario” and called it “a seismic shake-up for the party.”
The Economist Espresso morning briefing note described it in less dramatic terms as a “jolt” in Singapore politics.
Mr Heng had been chosen as the leader by the so-called 4G or fourth generation of PAP leaders. He was made first assistant secretary-general in November 2018 and became Deputy Prime Minister in April 2019.
On April 8 this year, he announced he would step aside so that a “younger leader who will have a longer runway can take over”.
This threw open the question of who would take over when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong steps down.
One week on, many Singaporeans are settling down into business-as-usual mode. Initial excitement over the news is fading.
For, apart from the suddenness of the announcement – why now, rather than time it when a Cabinet reshuffle is expected – not much has really changed.
Singaporeans have known since the July 2020 election that PM Lee intends to stay on till Covid-19 is brought under control. This is likely to be beyond his 70th birthday which is in February next year, which he had earlier indicated he would like to retire by.
If PM Lee stepped down in, say, 2023, Mr Heng as heir apparent was then expected to take over. But from 2021 to 2023 is two years, and two years are a very long time in politics.
Many observers would have found news of Mr Heng stepping aside surprising but not shocking. Indeed, my colleague Han Fook Kwang had written a day after the election, suggesting that the issue of leadership succession be reviewed, given how much the world has changed with Covid-19 and the (relatively) poor election result. And with PM Lee hinting he might delay the handover, Mr Han asked: “If the timing of the handover changes, should there also be a change of leader?”
Others said the news of Mr Heng stepping aside was not too surprising, given his medical history. He suffered a stroke in 2016.
While he made a full recovery from the stroke, a few incidents where he stumbled verbally in public have been remarked upon.
In his letter to PM Lee explaining his decision, Mr Heng said he was in good health today but also acknowledged the demands of leadership: “Having worked with you, ESM (Emeritus Senior Minister) Goh Chok Tong and MM (Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew, I know that the top job imposes exceptional demands on the office-holder. In a very different post-Covid-19 world, the demands will be even more exacting. While I am in good health today, it is in the best interests of the nation for someone who is younger to tackle the huge challenges ahead.”
ILLUSTRATION: MIEL
I’ve met Mr Heng on the job quite a few times, heard him at forums, and had a one-on-one interview with him before he entered politics. He comes across as equable and likeable. He exudes competence, and I recall his interview as one laden with solid insights, not hyperbole.
My own reaction to the news was one of relief, for his sake, and for his family. Singapore can have another PM. Mr Heng is irreplaceable to his family.
He is slated to remain as Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies but will give up the finance portfolio in the coming Cabinet reshuffle.
The myth of a highly controlled succession
A long view of political succession in Singapore helps put current events into perspective.
The PAP’s successful political transitions from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, to Mr Goh, to PM Lee Hsien Loong, have been described as smooth, predictable, meticulously planned, and controlled.
While true in broad strokes, that version ignores the friction that is inherent in all succession planning, corporate or political.
That version suffers from bias of victors’ history. It prioritises the narrative of those who succeeded, and ignores the alternate versions, the teams and individuals who were tried, tested and sifted out.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself became PM in 1959 only after a split vote within the PAP was broken by party chairman Toh Chin Chye who cast his deciding vote in Mr Lee’s favour.
The transition from 1G to 2G was long and chequered, with some false starts. The older generation will remember the experiment in the 1970s, when Mr Lee brought in a group of highly qualified people with doctorates, who were supposed to form the core of future leaders. Dr Tan Eng Liang and Dr Ong Leong Boon were among those inducted into politics. Much was expected. Dr Tan became senior minister of state for national development and then finance from 1975 to 1979. But for various reasons, the individuals did not take to politics. Dr Tan went on to make significant contributions in the sporting community; Dr Ong, who was MP for Kim Seng from 1972 to 1980, continued with his active orthopaedic surgeon practice.
Then there was Mr Lim Chee Onn, who was described as of prime ministerial calibre by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and tipped the man likely to lead the 2G team. He was made National Trades Union Congress secretary-general in 1979, but left after some problems with unions in 1983, effectively scuppering leadership plans.
He stayed on as a PAP MP till 1992; I remember because I was at Changi Airport to ambush him to confirm his departure – a move that paved the way for a by-election in Marine Parade GRC, Mr Goh’s own constituency, on Dec 19, 1992.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside: A look at political transitions in S’pore
What’s next with DPM Heng stepping aside: All you need to know
In the end, it was not one of the PhD holders, or Mr Lim, or Mr Lee’s other preferred choices, who became his successor. It was Mr Goh, who was selected by his peers.
It is true that after being named the successor in December 1984, Mr Goh went on to assume the post years later, in November 1990. Even then, the handover, meant for 1988, was delayed by two years as Mr Lee felt Mr Goh was not yet ready.
So the whole process, from 1G to 2G, was quite protracted, littered with the (political) corpses of quite a few men.
The transition from 2G to 3G was smoother, as Mr Lee Hsien Loong emerged as a front runner early on, and there appears to have been no strong competitor. He was made deputy PM in 1990.
And then came the health scare. In November 1992, the Government announced on the same day that both Deputy PMs Lee Hsien Loong and Ong Teng Cheong had lymphoma. Then Prime Minister Goh had to persuade former ministers S. Dhanabalan and Tony Tan to return to the Cabinet.
Luckily both DPMs recovered. Mr Lee went on to become PM in 2004. (Mr Ong later became president.)
What the above events show is that political succession is inherently uncertain and full of drama. While PAP leaders may propose; the people – and the gods – can dispose.
Leaders anointed by the party leadership may not gel with their own team; or may fail to win over party cadres; or can’t build rapport with voters. Or they may suffer ill health or other personal crises.
Hence it is not accurate to keep harping on past successions as being predictable and tightly controlled. Doing so creates unrealistic expectations for Singaporeans.
As the protracted transition to 4G already indicates, succession will become more challenging.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
What’s next for PAP and S’pore with DPM Heng stepping aside as 4G leader
Observers express surprise at DPM Heng stepping aside but say policies on track
First, party consensus is fraying, even at the top. This is why the group of 30 or so 4G leaders still can’t decide definitively who among them should lead.
Mr Heng, who turns 60 this year, is more 3.5G than 4G and was widely viewed as a holding PM-designate till a clear 4G leader emerges. He picked Mr Chan Chun Sing, 51, to be his deputy, which the rest must have agreed to. Other contenders are Mr Ong Ye Kung, 51; Mr Lawrence Wong, 48; and Mr Desmond Lee, 44.
And yet, when Mr Heng stepped aside, it was not Mr Chan who is named the next in line. Mr Chan himself said, during the April 8 press conference, that the 4G must relook the question of succession “holistically”. Mr Ong asked for time for the team to “regroup”.
Both men emphasised that the issue was not choosing one leader, but building the best possible team. Mr Ong put it thus: “When it is a race, you only have one winner at the end.” But when leadership is viewed as a team, “we fight heart and soul on the field, and if we win, we have a trophy for the nation. And in that winning team, you will have a captain that can bring out the best of everybody”.
The question of who will become PM is less important than whether the rest of the team support their leader.
In other countries, unpredictable political succession can mean citizens don’t know which party will be in power, if different political coalitions are formed. Here, the only unknown is which one among a group of highly capable, already tested men, takes over.
As I wrote in a 2018 commentary, the period before the transition to a 4G PM is one of bounded uncertainty: “That uncertainty is a controlled one, bounded by some certainty. The likely successors are known, and capable. The PAP remains a dominant party with a good team at its helm. The fundamentals of Singapore remain strong: We are a successful, prosperous state with a cohesive, intelligent citizenry.”
Living with ambiguity
Still, some Singaporeans are uncomfortable with ambiguity and would like to see a leader emerge quickly.
But politics is entering a different phase now, when we must all learn to live with uncertainty and build the processes to manage ambiguity better.
Future transitions – including the current one from 3G to 4G – will be defined by greater uncertainty.
The profiles of future contenders are likely to be more varied than those of the 4G, judging from the profiles of those who are MPs today.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Who will be S’pore’s next PM with Heng Swee Keat stepping aside?
Covid-19 crisis a chance for 4G to step up
As millennials step up, with their high level of social consciousness, we can expect more contenders for power to emerge.
Those contending have to work well not just within the party, but must also have the charisma to build up a public profile. Electability is a key trait for any future PM, even though citizens have no direct say over who becomes PM in a parliamentary system where the party in power chooses its leaders.
The above factors mean more jostling for intra-party leadership can be expected.
Inter-party electoral politics is also getting more contested, so a future PM can be from any party that wins enough seats in Parliament to take power. While so much angst is being felt over the 4G succession today, who is to say the 5G leader won’t be from a different party?
Singaporeans should get used to not knowing who the next PM is going to be. This is likely to be the new normal.
Living with ambiguity and remaining open to whoever emerges as future PM means making sure our institutions and decision-making processes in government and organs of state remain robust to transitions and change.
I also believe that having a long-term PM who stays on for decades is a bad idea. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was PM for 31 years, Mr Goh for 14, and Mr Lee Hsien Loong has been PM for 17.
Listed company boards now have a nine-year limit for independent directors, after which they are subject to a two-tier vote by all shareholders excluding directors, CEO and associates. Some rules on term limits can be considered for the Cabinet, including the top job. Some churn keeps a leadership team on its toes and prevents stagnation.
While Singaporeans are used to leadership teams coalescing around one strong individual, a more complex, uncertain world requires a more networked, collaborative style of leadership that develops leaders across different sectors.
Mr Heng’s leadership style – his penchant for holding conversations and building alliances or partnerships – is actually well-suited to this and his successor would do well to learn from it.
The truth is that Singapore can do well, regardless of whether PM Chan, PM Lee, PM Ong or PM Wong (listed in strict alphabetical order) takes over.
This is provided the leader is gracious and the others have the personal discipline and moral fibre and most of all, enough love for Singapore, to set aside disappointment and swallow their pride, and stay united to pull together.
.
======
.
Who next? We wait.
Time and Tide do not wait for man.
.
========
.
Heng Swee Keat steps aside as 4G leader: What comes next for PAP and Singapore?
Members of the PAP’s 4G leadership team after a press conference at the party’s headquarters in Bedok in 2018. From left: Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Dr Maliki Osman, Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Heng Swee Keat, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (back to camera) and Ms Grace Fu. ST PHOTO: ARIFFIN JAMAR
What are the implications of his move? We tackle the key questions.
1. How did the 4G get its name?
From the 1G to the 4G, the “G” was coined by political observers to denote each generational change in leadership for different prime ministers’ Cabinets.
The term is inexact, given that each of Singapore’s three prime ministers so far has had a mix of ministers who were new to politics and young, as well as older and more experienced. Several ministers also served in the Cabinets of more than one PM.
Founding PM Lee Kuan Yew’s team was the 1G leadership, though that term is seldom used. Mr Lee’s key Cabinet colleagues, more commonly referred to as the Old Guard, included Messrs Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye.
In the latter half of the 1970s, Mr Lee – who became PM at the age of 35 – brought into his team younger people whom he hoped to test out to form the next generation of leaders, such as Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Mr Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Goh became PM in 1990 when he was 49 and stepped down in 2004. His generation of leaders became known as the 2G.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who entered politics in 1984 and became PM in 2004 at the age of 52, would go on to form his 3G team of key ministers, including Mr Teo Chee Hean, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Mr Lim Hng Kiang.
2. Who are in the 4G?
Key 4G leaders include Mr Heng Swee Keat, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Ms Grace Fu, Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Ong Ye Kung, Mr Desmond Lee and Mr Masagos Zulkifli.
Mr Heng and Mr Chan are the first and second assistant secretaries-general, respectively, of the People’s Action Party’s 36th and current central executive committee (CEC), the party’s top decision-making body.
The composition of the CEC after its 2018 internal elections signalled to observers that 4G leaders were coming into their own, with then deputy prime ministers Teo and Tharman no longer standing for election.
3. What are the implications of DPM Heng stepping aside?
The PAP’s leadership transition has been set back and the succession question blown wide open with Mr Heng bowing out as successor to PM Lee – an unprecedented move, and which came 2½ years after ministers and Members of Parliament issued a joint statement of support for him.
Speculation is rife as to the reasons for Mr Heng’s decision.
PM Lee, in a letter to Mr Heng, said: “I thank you for your selfless decision to stand aside. Your actions now are fully in keeping with the spirit of public service and sense of duty that motivated you to step forward when I asked you to stand for election in 2011.”
Mr Heng had cited the long-term and profound challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, his age, the demands of the top job and the need for a younger leader with a “longer runway”, as reasons for stepping aside. But some wonder if a lacklustre 2020 General Election showing played a part.
The last elections saw Mr Heng making a last-minute move from Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC) – where he had been an MP since 2011 – to East Coast GRC. The latter has been one of the most hotly contested seats in recent elections, and was won by the PAP in 2015 with 60.73 per cent of the vote.
A stumble in a speech he made on Nomination Day about plans for East Coast went viral and dogged his campaign. The PAP’s five-member team he led clinched 53.41 per cent of the vote against the Workers’ Party, holding on to the seat, but more narrowly than some had anticipated.
Political analysts say the front runners for the 4G leader post are (clockwise from far left) Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, National Development Minister Desmond Lee and Education Minister Lawrence Wong. PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG, LIANHE ZAOBAO, DESMOND FOO, SGINNOVATE
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
4. How did the PAP’s 4G team respond to DPM’s decision?
The key question now is how quickly the 4G leadership team can band together and act decisively to choose PM Lee’s successor.
The 4G leaders said they respect and accept Mr Heng’s decision, and that he “made the decision with Singapore’s long-term interests at heart”.
“I think (the 4G team will) take longer than a few months, but I hope that they will reach a consensus and identify a new leader before the next general elections. I have no intention of staying on longer than necessary,” he said.
The next general election must be held by November 2025.
The sooner the 4G team decides on its new leader, the longer the runway he will have to work with PM Lee towards the next general election.
6. Who are the front runners?
As PAP second assistant secretary-general and Mr Heng’s chosen deputy, Mr Chan Chun Sing, 51, will once again be among the front runners to lead the 4G team.
Political analysts consider Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, 51, Education Minister Lawrence Wong, 48, and National Development Minister Desmond Lee, 44, as the other contenders.
Noting that a collective decision on the next 4G leader would be made in due course, Mr Chan said leadership succession plans go beyond just choosing a leader, to finding and forming the strongest possible team for Singapore.
Mr Ong said this process of developing a strong team and rallying around the first-among-equals leader takes some time. “What we have just learnt is a big change, a big reconfiguration. So we seek your understanding and support to give us some time to regroup,” he added.
The various national initiatives that Mr Heng shepherded to help workers master new skills and capabilities, as well as build new industries and sectors for the future, will continue.
In his letter to Mr Heng, PM Lee wrote: “I look forward to you carrying on this work as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, and setting Singapore on the path to emerging stronger from Covid-19.”
Mr Heng also spearheaded the Singapore Together movement, where Singaporeans partner the Government to co-create policy solutions. This will continue under 4G ministers such as Mr Desmond Lee.
Mr Heng said he and his team in East Coast GRC remain committed to serving their residents in the coming years, and that they would fulfil promises made when they were voted in at the polls last year, including working to build a vibrant, caring and green East Coast.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
8. Will the economy and investor confidence be affected?
Business confidence does not seem to have been rattled, and Singapore’s economy is on track to grow in tandem with global recovery.
For the whole of last year, the Republic’s gross domestic product contracted 5.4 per cent. It is forecast to grow 4 per cent to 6 per cent this year.
Said Mr Chan: “We will continue to work hard to distinguish ourselves as a safe harbour for investors to mobilise their capital, aggregate their talent, protect their intellectual property amid the global uncertainties.”
Industry observers say Singapore will have little trouble retaining its top-notch sovereign credit ratings, so long as its economic fundamentals remain sound and there is policy continuity and political stability.
“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and senior members of his cohort are likely to remain in advisory positions in Cabinet and help guide the next generation of leaders, making up for the likely significant lack of experience the fourth PM will have compared to their predecessors,” said Fitch Solutions in a report last Friday.
The market seems to agree. The Singapore dollar was steady following the announcement last Thursday, made after the close of trading in the stock market.
.
=====
.
Observers express surprise at Heng Swee Keat stepping aside as 4G leader but say policies on track
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced his decision to step aside as Singapore’s potential prime minister on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
SINGAPORE – While Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s decision to step aside as Singapore’s potential prime minister came as a surprise, industry watchers said it should not rattle investor and business confidence or affect the timeline for implementing key policies such as the goods and services tax (GST) hike.
Speaking to The Straits Times on Friday (April 9), Singapore Business Federation chief executive Lam Yi Young said that like the rest of Singapore, the business community here was surprised by the announcement.
“But they continue to have trust in the Government and the stability of its policies. Confidence in Singapore as a business destination remains high,” said Mr Lam.
Mr Heng will stay on as DPM and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies but relinquish the finance portfolio at the next Cabinet reshuffle. He had cited the long-term and profound challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, his age and the demands of the top job, as reasons for his decision.
At a press conference on Thursday, the party’s fourth-generation (4G) leaders said they would need more time to select another leader from among them.
Business confidence will not be hit
Mr Kurt Wee, president of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, said the 4G leaders had “thoroughly proven themselves” in ushering the country through the Covid-19 crisis.
“They have gained the trust of Singaporeans, and the team of political leaders and Cabinet members. I’m sure they will select a leader who will be able to make good calls and lead Singapore over the next decades.”
Echoing his sentiments, Singapore International Chamber of Commerce chief executive Victor Mills said the announcement was surprising but would not negatively affect business and investment confidence in Singapore.
“The same political team is in place and we do not expect any policy changes,” he explained.
The assurance of policy continuity was a factor highlighted by many other observers.
Deloitte Singapore indirect tax leader Richard Mackender said the announcement should not change these plans “as the decision to increase taxes is not a personal mission of the Finance Minister, but an agreement by the whole of Government that tax revenue needs to be secured for the future of the country”.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
CIMB Private Banking economist Song Seng Wun said Mr Heng’s stepping down “came earlier than (I) expected”, but noted that policies such as the GST hike are about fiscal sustainability and have little to do with who is the finance minister of the day.
“It is about when the economy is ready and the time is right for the necessary policy tweaks,” he said, adding that while the announcement makes for good coffeeshop talk, it is “life as per normal” for the market and businesses.
“Singapore remains AAA-rated, and our sovereign credit rating unaffected,” he said. “The bonds will see a lot of demand.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Most likely successors for PM Lee
DBS senior economist Irvin Seah stressed that there should be clarity on the next prime minister by 2023 – the mid-point of the current term of Government, and well before the next general election due in November 2025.
The longer the uncertainty persists, the more concerns will surface, he said. “While I don’t foresee a marked change in policies which have already been announced, I do think that we are at a stage where execution is very important.”
Nailing down the post of finance minister is important, he added, as the Government has just introduced a slew of post-pandemic transformational policies, from its sustainability agenda to infrastructure financing.
“At the core of these measures is fiscal policy, and it is important that whoever is going to assume the role of finance minister must be familiar with these policies and able to carry through all these measures.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
A Fitch Solutions report released on Friday said it expected the ruling People’s Action Party to maintain the high standards of governance that Singapore has become known for, despite disruption to its leadership renewal plans.
“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and senior members of his cohort are likely to remain in advisory positions in Cabinet and help guide the next generation of leaders, making up for the likely significant lack of experience the fourth PM will have compared with their predecessors,” it said.
Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing and Minister for Education Lawrence Wong during a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021. ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
The Economist Intelligence Unit Asia country analyst Yu Liuqing also flagged Mr Chan and Mr Wong as the two most probable candidates for the country’s top post.
Speculation aside, continuity and clarity are hallmarks of Singapore-style governance which are unlikely to go away any time soon, said CIMB’s Mr Song.
“As long as there is continuity and clarity in policy execution, life goes on. We want Singapore Inc. to be like this, where changes at the top can happen without creating anxiety and uncertainty among businesses.”
.
=====
.
8 in 10 polled feel PAP should pick its 4G leader in next 2 years
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, flanked by National Development Minister Desmond Lee (left) and Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, after a news conference on April 8, 2021.PHOTO: ST FILE
SINGAPORE – Eight in 10 Singaporeans polled by The Straits Times felt that the People’s Action Party (PAP) should pick its next fourth-generation leader within two years, a result which political observers said points to a desire for greater clarity and certainty on the ruling party’s leadership transition.
About half the respondents also said they were at least somewhat concerned about succession in Singapore, given Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s decision to step aside as leader of the PAP’s 4G team and take himself out of the running to become Singapore’s next prime minister.
The straw poll of 160 people aged between 21 and 90 was carried out on Friday (April 9) afternoon, a day after DPM Heng’s shock announcement.
Respondents were asked how soon they thought the next 4G leader should be chosen, and for their thoughts on the PAP’s leadership transition process.
Four in 10 people said the PAP’s next-generation leader should be selected within a year, while another similarly-sized group felt that this should be made clear within one to two years. Some 13 per cent said this should take place within two to four years, while the remainder said there was no hurry.
When asked for their thoughts on Mr Heng’s explanation of his decision, respondents’ reactions were mixed. Around 45 per cent agreed with him, but 29 per cent did not. The rest said they had no opinion on the matter.
About half the people polled said they were at least somewhat concerned with recent developments, while a third were not concerned and the rest had no opinion.
Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior international affairs analyst at consultancy firm Solaris Strategies Singapore, said the survey results came as no surprise given that Singaporeans have become accustomed to an “orderly and neat” leadership succession process, in which the ruling party’s next leader is definitively identified early on.
“Singaporeans would want to see greater clarity and certainty in leadership transition… to know what is going to happen in the political future of Singapore, and particularly in the post-pandemic future,” he said.
Political observer Felix Tan, who is based at the Nanyang Technological University, added it is only natural that many Singaporeans want to know as soon as possible who the next leader will be.
“More than just knowing the person, they want to know whether this person is suitable enough,” he said. “There are going to be a lot of questions about the capacity and capability of the next person.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Asked about the sizeable proportion of respondents who said Mr Heng’s decision did not worry them at all, the analysts suggested that this group could be either politically apathetic or confident in the PAP’s abilities to manage the situation.
“They may feel that the government is still strong enough, and that there are good people who are able to step up and fill the void,” Dr Mustafa said.
Some Singaporeans expressed consternation over the news. “It appears that the 4G does not have a suitable candidate to represent Singapore,” said 38-year-old Jeffrey Lim, a project leader.
Lawyer D. Vivekananda, 53, added that he was “very concerned” and felt that the 4G leaders have not walked the ground enough to make decisions for the majority of Singaporeans.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Retiree Kwek Nei Lin, 66, believes that the new leader of the 4G team should be chosen within a year. “This is an important post… not everyone can lead the country,” she said.
Others felt confident that the PAP would be up to the task. Associate senior marketing director Ricardo Goh, 60, said he approves of the PAP’s criteria for choosing its leaders.
He added that he understands Mr Heng’s decision to step aside: “For people our age, health is the most important.”
.
=======
.
Heng Swee Keat steps aside: What lies ahead for PAP’s 4G in electing its new leader and team builder
(From left) MPs Christopher de Souza and Sitoh Yih Pin, Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office Maliki Osman and Indranee Rajah, Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Sustainability and the Environment Minister Grace Fu and Education Minister Lawrence Wong in a 2018 photo.PHOTO: ST FILE
PUBLISHED
APR 9, 2021, 1:24 AM SGT in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – Two-and-a-half years after Singapore’s fourth-generation (4G) ministers named him their leader, and just under two years since he was named Deputy Prime Minister in preparation for the top job, Mr Heng Swee Keat has decided to step aside.
The announcement shocked – and saddened – many Singaporeans on Thursday (April 8), as it did his ministerial colleagues who heard the news for the first time at a meeting on Wednesday afternoon.
“This unexpected turn of events is a setback for our succession planning. We recognise that Singaporeans will be concerned,” the 32 office-holders present said in a statement they co-wrote at that meeting and made public on Thursday.
“We seek your support and understanding as we choose another leader from the team. We will continue working as a team to serve our people and to earn the confidence and trust of all Singaporeans.”
The People’s Action Party (PAP) has long held succession planning as a key priority. But just as the coronavirus pandemic has upended entire sectors, its impact on Singapore politics did not stop at the outcome of last year’s general election, which saw an 8.7 percentage point vote swing away from the ruling party.
DPM Heng’s decision to step aside as leader of the 4G team a week before his 60th birthday to make way for someone younger and who will have a longer runway was crystallised by the pandemic.
Even as they deal with the fallout from the latest development and select their next leader, his colleagues are keen to stress that the crisis will not rupture their unity and cohesion as a team, especially as fractiousness and jostling are common in many political systems elsewhere when succession is unclear.
Mr Heng, who will stay on as DPM and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies but relinquish the finance portfolio at the next Cabinet reshuffle, said on Thursday that he had mulled over succession for some time. He started thinking about it when he was appointed, he said, “because I do not want to take on any job which I cannot deliver”.
“As those of you who have worked with me know, I am a workaholic, and I put my heart and soul into what I do. And therefore, I’ve been thinking about… am I the right person? Last year’s pandemic was a real turning point,” he said, citing the five Budgets he had to deliver in 2020 to support firms and workers.
Shortly after Parliament ended its debate on the Feb 16 Budget statement – Mr Heng’s 10th, including last year’s five – and spending plans of the various ministries, he spoke to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong about the succession issue.
Giving an insight into the process at an Istana press conference on Thursday, PM Lee said of his response to his deputy: “I told him that I understood and respected his views. However, as he was chosen as the leader of the 4G team by the younger ministers, it was best for him to speak to the ministers himself.”
PM Lee then called the Wednesday meeting – attended by ministers, senior ministers of state and ministers of state, and Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and National Trades Union Congress secretary-general Ng Chee Meng.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng explained the thinking behind his decision to them. He noted that he turns 60 this year and, given that the current crisis will be prolonged, he will be close to his mid-60s by the time of a handover.
In his letter to PM Lee, DPM Heng said that should he become the next PM then, he would have too short a runway at a time when Singapore needs a younger leader who can tackle the huge challenges posed in a post-Covid-19 world.
He said he carefully deliberated and discussed the matter with his family and decided to step aside so that a younger member of the team with a longer runway can take over.
After DPM Heng informed his fellow political office-holders, the younger ministers met among themselves to decide how they would respond.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, as PAP chairman, led the session as PM Lee, DPM Heng and Senior Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam left the room.
Said Mr Gan: “We discussed among ourselves with regard to our collective response, as well as the next steps.”
He added: “We accepted DPM’s decision, regrettably, and agreed that it is in the interest of Singapore. We are glad that he has agreed to stay on as part of the team.”
Elaborating, Education Minister Lawrence Wong said: “We appreciate what a difficult decision it must have been, but no one could have foreseen the disruption brought about by Covid-19.”
Noting DPM Heng’s critical role in leading the team, and in efforts such as economic restructuring and the Singapore Together movement to encourage citizen participation in policymaking, Mr Wong added: “He has left a strong imprint on all of us in terms of his collaborative and consultative style of leadership.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
The commitment to working as a team was underlined by National Development Minister Desmond Lee: “Since he became the leader of the 4G, we have coalesced around DPM, we’ve gelled with him, we gelled as a team, most obviously in the last one year, during the crucible of Covid.”
He added: “It’s not just bringing us as younger ministers together, but bringing together captains of industry, leaders of the labour movement, academics, SMEs, associations, all coming together in this very new style of collaborative governance.”
PM Lee said the 4G’s selection of their next leader is a process that will take more than a few months, but should not be more than a couple of years.
The process, added Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, “is always about finding and forming the strongest team possible… so that Singapore has the best chance to defy the odds of history to not only survive, but to thrive”.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Neither is it the PAP way to look at who is in front, or behind, or the relative competitive position of each individual, said Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung.
“We look at the team, how the team works together, how we complement each other’s strengths. And where we have shortcomings, which we all do, how do we support each other,” he added.
“Over time, the individual members rally around someone who will then emerge as the leader, first among equals. First among equals doesn’t mean the person is the boss that directs people to do work, but (is) the person that can best bring out the talent and strengths of everybody else, and be a team builder.”
As the 4G deliberates on its next leader, PM Lee’s words in a Facebook post last night reiterate what they should also bear in mind: “Swee Keat, you have always served Singapore with sincerity and diligence. Your decision today is a good reminder that Singapore is not about any one person – it depends on all of us, working together, to get the best results for Singapore.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
.
======
.
Forum: Selfless leaders set Singapore apart
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 14th April 2021 in ST Forum
I think Singapore is probably one of the few countries in the world where you do not see leaders fighting to stay in power, unlike in many other countries.
I don’t think Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat is being ageist for stepping aside, and we should not treat this instance as a microcosm of society (Don’t assume that older adults have shorter career runways, April 12).
As founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew said many times in the past, Singapore could quickly derail if we have the wrong person at the helm.
The gargantuan role of the prime minister is not an easy one, especially from the perspective of people like DPM Heng who had the opportunity to work with Mr Lee in the past.
I think Singaporeans can count their blessings that our leaders are selfless enough to step aside for younger leaders to step up to the challenge.
Let’s hope this political culture continues to be the tradition for our leaders here.
Seah Yam Meng
.
=======
.
Forum: Don’t assume that older adults have shorter career runways
PUBLISHED7 HOURS AGO on 12th April 2021 in ST Forum
.
I read with much concern Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, indicating his intention to step aside as leader of the fourth-generation (4G) team (DPM Heng’s letter to PM, April 9).
While I respect his motivations for stepping aside, using age as the primary reason for doing so seems to undermine Singapore’s efforts to combat ageist mindsets.
First, Mr Heng highlights the issue of a short “runway”. The role of prime minister is unique, but that reason unfortunately perpetuates the impression that older workers necessarily have shorter career trajectories and are therefore not worth investing in.
The Ministry of Manpower’s report on boosting support for older workers already points out that a lack of support for training older workers may arise from this perception that younger workers have “longer career runways”.
Yet, older adults retain considerable neural plasticity, and can draw from their wealth of experience to better deploy new skills and information.
Second, Mr Heng implicitly points out that his current good health may not last.
But there remains great diversity in health trajectories in later life, and it is not helpful to assume old age necessarily comes with debilitating illnesses that prevent meaningful or important work.
In any case, as Singapore ages and chronic conditions become more commonplace, the onus is on society and policymakers to accommodate workers’ needs rather than write them off.
Third, Mr Heng compares his own age with those of past prime ministers when they first took up the mantle, but this ignores the fact that people are living longer today compared with then. The life expectancy at age 65 during the time previous prime ministers took over was approximately 8.3 (1960), 15.7 (1990) and 18.4 (2004).
In 2019, it was 21.3.
There is little reason to believe that Mr Heng’s “runway” will necessarily be shorter than that of previous prime ministers, even if he takes over in his mid-60s.
It is also worth remembering that United States President Joe Biden is 78, and Malaysia’s Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad served as prime minister in his 90s. Their ages say nothing about their ability to lead a country.
The reasons given for such a huge decision send signals about the expectations we should have and the kind of society we want to live in.
As it is, it seems that Mr Heng’s reasons for stepping aside contradicts the civil service’s efforts to combat age stereotypes and promote working till older ages.
I do not think Mr Heng is intentionally being ageist, so I hope that he can clarify his thinking here.
Shannon Ang (Dr)
.
=======
.
Heng out..
Not a surprise to some, not me too. Why?
I posted in my Blog last year asking: will there be changes to the 4G leadership before 2025? We heard the news yesterday.
.
====
.
Stepping aside as leader of 4G…Many factors for sure…likely ones: worldwide pandemic, uncertainties, stress, own health [has a stroke], next GE [nearly lost four GRCs in 2020] ?
It is a thankless PM job as the cursing continues day and night. It is not worth it.
A person who thinks and acts in a calm and orderly manner will decline the pm job. Some have.
Many world leaders in the past were over 60 some over 70 but they did not have the above five issues to be concerned with as governing red dot is not like a stroll in the Istana.
Comparing them with Heng without the 5 in focus will not be appropriate bases for comparison.
.
======
.
Who next? We wait.
Time and Tide do not wait for man.
.
========
.
ST Editorial says:
4G leaders must show unity of purpose
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 10th April 2021 in ST
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s decision to step aside as the leader of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) fourth-generation team, announced on Thursday, has come as a shock to those accustomed to the smooth leadership transition in Singapore. Mr Heng, who turns 60 this year, cited the long-term and profound challenges ahead wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, his age and the demands of the top job as being among the reasons for his decision. His announcement paves the way for a younger person with a longer runway to succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and lead the country.
The decision comes as a shock as it breaks with past experience of political succession going largely to plan. Singaporeans, already worried about their economic future during the Covid-19 crisis, would be taken aback by this unexpected development. True, transitions are not guaranteed to be smooth, but it has been a hallmark of the PAP Government to make them as unsurprising as possible. Singaporeans’ expectations of the succession process are high precisely because it is institutionalised and meant to function seamlessly. While personal health and external circumstances are imponderables even in the most well planned processes, many have come to expect that the PAP will stick to its choices once they are made and disclosed publicly. Mr Heng’s decision will leave many unsettled. Given the ongoing pandemic and huge challenges thrown up by the crisis, uncertainties about political succession are the last thing the country needs now.
Yet, while a setback to the succession process, Singaporeans will be reassured that they will continue to be led by the existing team, including Mr Lee as PM, and Mr Heng, who remains DPM. No less important, the principles and policies that govern Singapore and determine its economic and social life remain the same. In that sense, there is no change to the political and institutional structure of Singapore’s dealings with foreign states and investors.
This situation is very different from what happens in states where policies are tied to individual leaders so closely that any change in the balance of forces in the Cabinet or in the line of succession spells uncertainty. The Singapore system is different because the Cabinet works as a team and speaks with a unity of purpose. That, hopefully, will not change. Unlike in many other countries, Singapore has been blessed in having smooth political transitions in the last few rounds. But this is neither a given, nor even a natural state of affairs. The country looks to the 4G leaders to make it so. They will need to stay focused on the task of governing, work closely together, and unite behind a leader in good time. They cannot tarry in this for too long, or risk losing the people’s trust and confidence
.
=====
.
Forum: DPM Heng Swee Keat a good, selfless leader
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 10th April 2021 in ST Forum
It is a pity that Singapore will lose a good leader whose heart is with Singapore and all Singaporeans, as good leaders are hard to find (4G ministers to pick new leader as Heng Swee Keat steps aside, April 9).
While I respect Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s personal and selfless decision for the good of Singapore, I do not think he should consider his age a factor for him to step aside.
Mr Heng will turn 60 this year, and given Singapore’s life expectancy of around 83, he has many good years ahead of him.
There are many leaders in the world who are much older than him.
Fortunately, Mr Heng will stay on in the Cabinet as DPM and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies and that will give him an opportunity to continue providing his good service to Singaporeans.
I want to thank Mr Heng for his contributions to Singapore, especially during the Covid-19 crisis.
Ng Choon Lai
.
Forum: Confident of smooth leadership transition
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 10th April 2021 in ST Forum
I have had the opportunity to mingle with Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat on several occasions and found him to be a good-natured man who is well versed in a number of topics.
He has been humble and accommodating on several issues. He is also a person who listens to our problems attentively and offers solutions.
To me, he was the best man for the leadership post.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will turn 70 soon. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong stepped down as prime minister at 63 years old, and Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at 67.
Ensuring a smooth leadership transition has been a key tenet of governance by the ruling party to ensure that good people will always be at the helm of the nation.
Now the question is who will be taking over the role of leader of the 4G team? There should not be a continuity problem.
We are expecting a Cabinet reshuffle in two weeks.
I am confident that good and capable young leaders will be filling the hot seats and that the new prime minister-designate will be supported by fellow Cabinet members and everyone will rally around him.
Singaporeans will give our support wholeheartedly.
Balu Visvanathan
.
Forum: Challenges ahead an important consideration
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 10th Apri 2021 in ST Forum
I am sure many Singaporeans, myself included, are saddened by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s decision to step aside as leader of the People’s Action Party’s fourth-generation (4G) team (4G ministers to pick new leader as Heng Swee Keat steps aside, April 9).
However, we need to understand, respect and accept his decision, based on the facts and future challenges that were spelt out during the announcement on Thursday.
As we are still battling the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic and slow economic recovery, it is an important consideration that the next prime minister should be someone who is younger than Mr Heng, and who has had the opportunity to be in charge of several key ministerial portfolios before he takes on the top job.
I am confident and reassured that we have the same government leadership, policies, systems, plans and infrastructure firmly in place to handle geopolitical issues and foreign investment.
I hope that Singaporeans, regardless of background and political affiliation, will continue to support and cooperate with the next generation of leaders, as we sail out of this uncertain time together.
Muhammad Dzul Azhan Sahban
.
=========
.
DPM Heng Swee Keat steps down as 4G leader: Read his letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat speaking at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO:
DESMOND FOO
UPDATED35 SEC AGO on 8th April 2021 in Straits Times
8 April 2021
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minister,
More than two years ago, the fourth generation (4G) PAP leadership chose me to lead the team. We have bonded as a team and have worked well together since.
Covid-19 struck last year. The crisis has disrupted lives and livelihoods around the world, and created profound uncertainties. The virus has also accelerated significant structural shifts, such as strategic competition between major powers, discontent with globalisation and the digital revolution. Also, we must deal with the challenges of an ageing population, and a desire for greater diversity in politics.
Our top priority is to deal with the immediate crisis and keep our people safe. I thank you for your commitment to stay on as Prime Minister until the crisis is over, so that you hand over a Singapore that is in good working order to the next leader. Notwithstanding the roll-out of vaccinations, the pandemic is still raging worldwide. With new variants emerging, many expect this to be a prolonged crisis.
The next prime minister should have a sufficiently long runway – to master the demands of leading our nation; formulate and see through our longer-term strategies for our country; and win the confidence and support of Singaporeans to build this shared future together. This long-term orientation of successive PAP governments and the support of our people have been critical to Singapore’s success.
This year, I am 60. As the crisis will be prolonged, I would be close to the mid-60s when the crisis is over. The 60s are still a very productive time of life. But when I consider the ages at which our first three prime ministers took on the job, I would have too short a runway should I become the next prime minister then. We need a leader who will not only rebuild Singapore post-Covid-19, but also lead the next phase of our nation-building effort.
When I had a stroke in 2016, you and Cabinet colleagues were unstinting with your support. With the great work of my medical team, and the care and encouragement of my family, friends and fellow Singaporeans, I was able to recover fully. Having worked with you, ESM Goh Chok Tong and MM Lee Kuan Yew, I know that the top job imposes exceptional demands on the office-holder. In a very different post-Covid-19 world, the demands will be even more exacting. While I am in good health today, it is in the best interests of the nation, for someone who is younger to tackle the huge challenges ahead.
After careful deliberation and discussion with my family, I have decided to step aside as leader of the 4G team, so that a younger leader who will have a longer runway can take over. It will be for the 4G team to choose this person, and I stand ready to support the next leader.
I appreciate the support of Singaporeans and have made the decision with the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart.
I will continue to do my best, to support you, Cabinet colleagues and the party, so that we can continue to improve the lives of Singaporeans and emerge stronger post-Covid-19.
Let me express my deep appreciation to you, Cabinet colleagues, and my 4G team for your confidence in me, and for the privilege and honour to serve Singapore together with you. I also thank ESM Goh, who has been my mentor since my time at the MAS.
Yours sincerely,
Heng Swee Keat
cc:
Ministers
Speaker of Parliament
Secretary General, NTUC
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside as leader of 4G team, setting back S’pore’s succession plan for next PM
DPM Heng says East Coast GRC election result not the reason he is stepping aside as 4G leader
.
=======
.
Cabinet reshuffle to be announced in two weeks; DPM Heng to give up finance portfolio
PM Lee Hsien Loong, DPM Heng Swee Keat and 4G Ministers at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
Rei Kurohi
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – A Cabinet reshuffle will be announced in about two weeks’ time, which will see Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat relinquish his portfolio as finance minister.
There will also be “consequential moves” in other ministries, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during a press conference on Thursday (April 8).
Mr Heng will continue to serve as DPM and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, as well as chairman of the National Research Foundation under the Prime Minister’s Office.
PM Lee said he had discussed Mr Heng’s future role in Cabinet with him following the DPM’s decision to step aside as leader of the People’s Action Party’s fourth generation (4G) leadership.
The decision to have Mr Heng give up the Ministry of Finance (MOF) portfolio was discussed last year, when PM Lee and Mr Heng decided on Cabinet appointments following the July 10 General Election.
“We agreed that Budget 2021 would be an important Budget, not an emergency Budget, like the five in 2020, but a Budget to take Singapore beyond Covid-19,” said PM Lee.
“I told him it would be good for him to see through Budget 2021, and then he could give up the MOF portfolio to concentrate on the broader coordinating responsibilities.”
PM Lee added that he looked forward to Mr Heng continuing to make broader contributions to government policy and to party work.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside as leader of 4G team, setting back S’pore’s succession plan for next PM
Who will be Singapore’s next PM?
.
=======
.
$370 million in wage support wrongly paid out to companies; Government to recover monies
The mistakes occurred in applications submitted by companies in the construction, marine and process sectors. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED4 HOURS AGO in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – An excess of $370 million in wage support was erroneously paid out last year after the Government used the wrong dates to determine the amount that 5,400 companies should get.
The same error also resulted in an excess of $1.2 million being paid out in foreign worker levy waivers and rebates to 360 companies.
Announcing the erroneous Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and levy waiver and rebate payments on Thursday (April 8), the ministries of trade and industry, finance, and manpower said the mistake was discovered in November last year when the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) found anomalies in its regular processing checks on the JSS.
At the same time, Iras had also received calls from several businesses which had received extra JSS payouts.
This sparked an investigation, which eventually traced the overpayments to an error in the compilation and processing of the reopening dates used to calculate how much JSS payouts a company should get.
The JSS, first introduced in February, provides subsidies for wage costs based on which sector a company is in.
During the circuit breaker period from April to June, all companies were given the highest tier of subsidies.
How long they were paid this enhanced subsidy depended on how long they had to remain shut.
The mistakes occurred in applications submitted by companies in the construction, marine and process sectors. These companies had to get permission to restart projects, and would include its subcontractors, clients and other partners in its applications.
Due to the compilation error, the dates for the restarting of the projects were taken as the reopening dates for all the companies linked to the applications.
As a result, some companies were deemed to have been closed longer than they actually were, and received higher wage subsidies.
In explaining this, the ministries said in a statement: “Government agencies received and reviewed more than 1.8 million applications from businesses to resume their operations. These were then consolidated by MTI.
“As the processes for the resumption of business activities had to be implemented at short notice MTI used existing systems and manual processes to grant approvals for businesses to reopen. Unfortunately, in so doing, mistakes were made with the reopening dates and concomitantly the JSS payouts and foreign worker levy waiver and rebates payable.”
The ministries added that they expect to recover all the overpaid monies within the year.
About $140 million of the JSS overpayment will be offset against future payments, and another $200 million will be returned by companies that have promised to do so after being contacted by MTI.
The remaining $30 million is spread out over 1,000 companies, and the Government will work with the companies on repayment, said the ministries.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Govt to recover excess Jobs Support Scheme payouts through deductions, cash payments
Timeline: A look at how the Jobs Support Scheme payout errors occurred
Meanwhile, the foreign worker levy waiver will be automatically offset from the future levy bill of businesses.
The mistake had also resulted in some companies being underpaid for JSS and foreign worker levy waivers, the ministries said.
Some 1,000 businesses were found to be eligible for additional JSS payouts, amounting to $5.5 million, and the sums due will be credited by the end of April.
About 1,200 businesses are also entitled to additional foreign worker levy waivers, totalling $6 million, which will be credited to the businesses directly.
To prevent future mistakes, MTI has worked with MOF, MOM and IRAS to fix the processes and put in additional checks to detect possible errors, the ministries said.
An external auditor has also been hired to conduct a thorough check on the reopening dates used in the computation of JSS payouts, they added.
The ministries said affected companies were not required to take any action for now, and will be notified via letters and e-mails. They will also be contacted by MTI and MOM of any actions required by May.
Companies can log in here using their CorpPass to check if they are affected from Saturday onwards.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
What is the Jobs Support Scheme?
Firms prepared for easing of support measures such as JSS, credit relief schemes
.
========
,
Who will be Singapore’s next PM with DPM Heng Swee Keat stepping aside?
4G ministers (clockwise from top left) Chan Chun Sing, Ong Ye Kung, Lawrence Wong and Desmond Lee.PHOTOS: ST FILE
Justin Ong
Political Correspondent
UPDATED30 MIN AGO on 8th April 2021 in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – With Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announcing on Thursday (April 8) that he will step aside from the helm of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) fourth-generation leadership, four men have emerged as likely candidates to fill his shoes.
They are Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Ong Ye Kung, Mr Lawrence Wong and Mr Desmond Lee – with one of them possibly succeeding Mr Lee Hsien Loong as Singapore’s prime minister.
All four are full ministers in PM Lee’s Cabinet, and were present at Thursday’s press conference on DPM Heng’s decision. They are also key members of the PAP’s 4G core and its central executive committee.
Mr Wong and Mr Desmond Lee were newly elected to the ruling party’s top decision-making body in November last year.
Within the party, Mr Chan, 51, ranks highest among the four as second assistant secretary-general. He was appointed deputy to Mr Heng, who is first assistant secretary-general, in 2018.
Currently Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, Mr Chan first joined politics in 2011 after 24 years in the Singapore Armed Forces, where he rose to become chief of army.
He was elected MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC and appointed acting minister for community development, youth and sports; and minister of state for information, communications and the arts.
Mr Chan was then promoted to full minister in 2013, with the social and family development portfolio. He was also second minister for defence then.
Mr Chan has been deputy chairman of the People’s Association since 2015.
Mr Ong, also 51, was to have joined the Government in 2011 – the same year as Mr Chan – but he was part of the PAP team in Aljunied that lost to the Workers’ Party at the 2011 General Election.
The current Minister for Transport successfully ran for election in Sembawang GRC in 2015, and was appointed acting minister for education (higher education and skills). He was promoted to full minister the next year and made Second Defence Minister.
Mr Ong is concurrently a board member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Prior to politics, he worked at Keppel Corporation and the National Trades Union Congress, and was chief executive of the Workforce Development Agency. Mr Ong was also principal private secretary to PM Lee from 2003 to 2005, and his press secretary before that.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and 4G ministers at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside as leader of 4G team, setting back S’pore’s succession plan for next PM
Cabinet reshuffle to be announced in two weeks; DPM Heng to give up finance portfolio
Mr Wong, 48, is also a former principal private secretary to PM Lee. He then headed the Energy Market Authority before entering politics in 2011.
Now Minister for Education and Second Minister for Finance, he was made full minister in 2014 and has held positions in the defence; communications and information; national development; and culture, community and youth portfolios.
Mr Wong has been in the spotlight due to his role in the Government’s pandemic response. He is co-chair of the multi-ministry task force on Covid-19.
He chairs the PAP Community Foundation and Singapore Labour Foundation, and sits on the boards of several organisations, including GIC and the Future Economy Council.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps down as 4G leader: Read his letter to PM Lee
PM Lee’s letter to DPM Heng on his decision to step aside as 4G leader
The youngest of the four is Mr Desmond Lee, 44, who is Minister for National Development and Minister-in-Charge of Social Services Integration.
He was elected MP for Jurong GRC in 2011, and in 2017 was appointed minister in the prime minister’s office, minister for social and family development, and second minister for national development.
He moved to West Coast GRC for the 2020 general election.
Mr Lee co-chairs the Singapore Together movement that encourages people to partner the Government, as well as the Emerging Stronger Taskforce charting the Republic’s post-pandemic economic recovery.
Before politics, Mr Lee, who is the son of former Cabinet minister Lee Yock Suan, served as a deputy public prosecutor and state counsel in the criminal justice division of the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
He also previously headed the Ministry of Health’s legal department and was Temasek’s in-house counsel.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
PAP 4G team says more time needed to pick new leader after DPM Heng steps aside
4G leaders should be given chance to relook succession plan holistically, says Chan Chun Sing
.
======
.
.
===
.
PM Lee Hsien Loong to stay on until new 4G leader is chosen to replace DPM Heng Swee Keat
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
Grace Ho
Senior Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 8th April 2021
SINGAPORE – With Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat stepping down as the fourth-generation leader, Mr Lee Hsien Loong will stay on as prime minister until the 4G team chooses a new chief.
At the press conference announcing the move on Thursday (April 8), PM Lee called Mr Heng’s decision to stand aside a “selfless” one.
“His actions are made with the best interests of Singapore in mind, and they are fully in keeping with the spirit of public service and sense of duty that motivated him to step forward and stand for election when I asked him to do so in 2011,” he said.
“Nevertheless, as the 4G statement acknowledges, this is a significant setback to our succession plans.”
In a statement issued on Thursday, the 4G team called the unexpected turn of events “a setback for our succession planning”.
Mr Heng was managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore from 2005 until 2011, when he stepped down to contest in the general election that year. On May 18, 2011, Mr Lee appointed him to the Cabinet as the education minister.
Noting that the 4G team want to give themselves more time to work out new succession arrangements, Mr Lee said he had therefore agreed to stay on “until such time as the new 4G leader is chosen and ready to take over”.
He added that while the Government’s immediate focus is on the health and economic crisis, succession remains an urgent task and cannot be put off indefinitely.
“I think (the 4G team will) take longer than a few months, but I hope that they will reach a consensus and identify a new leader before the next general elections. I have no intention of staying on longer than necessary.”
Mr Lee previously said that he hopes to step down before his 70th birthday, which would be in February 2022.
But after the pandemic hit, he pledged to see Singapore through the Covid-19 crisis before handing over the reins of the country to the next generation of leaders.
“You have my word: Together with my older colleagues like Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as well as our younger fourth-generation (4G) ministers, I will see this through. I am determined to hand over Singapore intact and in good working order to the next team,” he said in an online rally in July 2020.
On Thursday, he stressed that choosing a leader is not just about ranking people and saying who is going to be the best choice.
“It’s really about team-building and developing the team, and developing the relationships amongst the team members – so that over time, from that balance and that chemistry, you’re able to identify who amongst the people can most maximise the performance of the team, make all the pieces fit together, and end up with more than the sum of its parts.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside as leader of 4G team, setting back S’pore’s succession plan for next PM
Who will be Singapore’s next PM?
He called the next general election a reasonable timeframe to work towards, and this timeframe was also the reason why the team decided to come out with this issue now rather than wait until a new leader is identified – “because the neatest thing to do would be one person steps aside while another person immediately steps into place, and it’s seamless”.
He added: “And if it was something which you could do within a few days or weeks, or even a couple of months, I think it’s something which we would have seriously considered – in that case let’s finish a process, line up everything neatly and go then go out with one announcement.
“But if we are talking about a process which is likely to take a few years, then once the first development has taken place – that you know that the minister is stepping aside – I think that is important material information which is our responsibility to tell our stakeholders. They have to know, the ministers have to know, the public has to know.
“And amongst the ministers, amongst the team, knowing this, you will have to re-shape and reconfigure the relationships and responsibilities in order that a new balance will be struck, and a new person can emerge and not be frozen into an old position which is no longer reflective of what is actually going to happen.”
The public also has to know what the real status is, he said, in order to know what progress is being made and where they stand.
This is akin to a listed company, he added, which would have clear obligations to make such information public within a quick time, which is what the Government has done.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Cabinet reshuffle to be announced in two weeks; DPM Heng to give up finance portfolio
DPM Heng steps down as 4G leader: Read his letter to PM Lee
While he acknowledged that there are different models for different countries, he said that in Singapore, it is not just about wanting a younger minister with energy and a long enough runway, but also a system “where we are able to carry this from PM to PM, from government to government, and have a system which will provide high quality government for the long term for Singapore”.
“And that’s what I would like to be able to do.”
Mr Lee stressed that the Cabinet will continue to work as one united team, to overcome the challenges and lead the country forward.
“That’s what Singaporeans expect of us, and rightly so. It’s also the only way to maintain confidence in Singapore, and to keep our country succeeding year after year.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
PM Lee’s letter to DPM Heng on his decision to step aside as 4G leader
PAP 4G team says more time needed to pick new leader after DPM Heng steps aside
.
======
.
PM Lee’s letter to DPM Heng on his decision to step aside as 4G leader
PM Lee Hsien Loong speaking at a press conference at the Istana on April 8, 2021.ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
UPDATED34 MIN AGO on 8th April 2021 in Straits Times
8 April 2021
Mr Heng Swee Keat
Deputy Prime Minister
Dear Swee Keat,
Thank you for the letter informing me of your decision to stand aside as the leader of the 4G team of ministers. I understand and respect your decision. We discussed the matter, and I am glad that you have agreed to stay on in Cabinet as Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies. We also agreed that you will relinquish finance at the next Cabinet reshuffle, as we had earlier planned.
You have done exceptional work as Minister for Finance, especially during the past year in the trying circumstances wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic. Within twelve months, you delivered an unprecedented five Budgets that supported Singaporeans and their families, helped businesses to survive, and kept everyone safe. Indeed, in the five years you have been Finance Minister, you have delivered a record 10 Budgets.
When I asked you to take on the finance portfolio in 2015, we both knew that you had a difficult job. Even before Covid-19 hit, Singapore had reached a crossroad. We had to overcome fiscal challenges while strengthening social safety nets, as well as transform our economy in the face of seismic global disruptions. You did not hesitate to take up the challenge, putting heart and soul into the task. Your work co-chairing the Committee on the Future Economy, and chairing the Future Economy Council, will help our workers to master new skills and capabilities, and build new industries and sectors for the future.
I look forward to you carrying on this work as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, and setting Singapore on the path to emerging stronger from Covid-19. This dovetails with your role as chairman of the National Research Foundation, where under your guidance, we are making steady progress developing research, innovation and enterprise.
Before you went to finance, you spent five fruitful years in the Ministry of Education. There, your inclusive vision of excellence in every school inspired educators and students alike. You proposed raising government-funded university education to 40 per cent of each cohort, which Cabinet approved. This paved the way for us to create two new universities – the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Singapore University of Social Sciences. You also made bold moves to widen the definition of success, which led to the national SkillsFuture programme. Your belief in the holistic development of our young led you to place particular emphasis on character and values. The result is an education system that not only prepares our young to access good jobs, but also nurtures upright, public-spirited citizens.
Beyond your portfolio responsibilities, I am confident that you will continue to contribute actively to all our Cabinet deliberations, and to the work of the party.
I thank you for your selfless decision to stand aside. Your actions now are fully in keeping with the spirit of public service and sense of duty that motivated you to step forward when I asked you to stand for election in 2011.
Together with the senior ministers, you will help me mentor the younger ministers as the team develop and identify from among themselves another leader, in order to make a smooth and timely leadership transition. By working closely together, we will steer Singapore safely through this health and economic crisis, and secure our future for many years to come.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Hsien Loong
cc:
Ministers
Speaker of Parliament
Secretary General, NTUC
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
DPM Heng steps aside as leader of 4G team, setting back S’pore’s succession plan for next PM
Who will be Singapore’s next PM?
.
========
.
Teo Chee Hean will be Acting Prime Minister in PM Lee’s absence until 4G team picks a new leader
Teo Chee Hean at swearing-in ceremony (2)
Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean signing the affirmation of allegiance at Parliament House on Jul 27, 2020. (Photo: Hanidah Amin)
SINGAPORE: If Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is on leave, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean will be appointed Acting Prime Minister.
This will be the interim arrangement until the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) fourth-generation team chooses its new leader, said Mr Lee on Thursday (Apr 8) following Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s decision to step aside.
Mr Teo, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security, was Acting Prime Minister in Mr Lee’s absence – until Mr Heng was chosen as leader of the 4G and became Deputy Prime Minister in 2019.
“Now that DPM Heng has stood aside as leader of the 4G, I am reverting to the previous arrangement, and will in future appoint SM Teo Chee Hean as Acting PM in my absence,” said Mr Lee in response to media queries.
“This is the interim arrangement until such time as the 4G chooses a new leader from among themselves.”
READ: DPM Heng says he is stepping aside as 4G leader for younger person to become future PM
SEE MORE
READ: PM Lee thanks DPM Heng Swee Keat for ‘selfless decision’ to step aside as leader of 4G team
Mr Heng announced on Thursday that he is stepping aside as the leader of the 4G team, paving the way for a younger person to lead the country and succeed Mr Lee as Prime Minister.
“I have decided to step aside as leader of the 4G team, so that a younger leader who will have a longer runway can take over,” he wrote in a letter to Mr Lee.
“While I am in good health today, it is in the best interests of the nation, for someone who is younger to tackle the huge challenges ahead.”
Mr Heng will remain as Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, but will step down as Minister of Finance at the next Cabinet reshuffle, which will take place in about two weeks.
Source: CNA/nh(gs)
.
======
.
Lawrence Wong outlines ‘resetting’ for a fairer, greener, more united Singapore
Education Minister Lawrence Wong spoke at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Singapore Perspectives conference which is themed “Reset”. There, the minister detailed each of the three resets that should take place.
SINGAPORE – The Covid-19 pandemic has set the stage for Singapore to “reset” itself, emerging from the crisis a fairer, greener and more united country.
This means combating inequality and ensuring social mobility, said Education Minister Lawrence Wong on Monday (Jan 25). It also means building a greener economy that is more environmentally sustainable, and fostering a renewed sense of solidarity, he added.
Speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Singapore Perspectives conference which is themed “Reset”, the minister detailed each of the three resets that should take place.
Inequality and meritocracy
First, Singapore has to reset its social compact by tackling inequality and keeping society fluid and mobile.
Mr Wong noted that the pandemic has widened the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, with poorer segments of society paying a higher price all over the world.
In Singapore, a balance has been struck between free markets and state intervention, with policies tilted towards the lower-income households.
These temporary measures will taper down this year as the economy improves. But the pandemic has created added impetus to strengthen the social support system, Mr Wong said.
“There will be a permanent shift towards further strengthening of our social safety nets in Singapore to protect the disadvantaged and vulnerable. And we will have to work out how this can be done in a sustainable manner, over the long term.”
Mr Wong also highlighted the importance of uplifting children from birth, pointing out that Singapore is making substantial investments in pre-school education to ensure that children of all income groups can benefit from quality programmes.
Schools with a larger proportion of children from lower-income families are getting more resources, so that these children get more support.
“Meritocracy in Singapore must not ossify into a hereditary system, where the outcome of your birth determines the outcome of your life,” he said.
In Singapore, merit has become narrowly defined by one’s academic and cognitive abilities. But societies require a wide range of abilities to thrive, Mr Wong added.
He noted that the pandemic has again thrown the spotlight on essential workers, and that the country must ensure that remuneration is fair for people in these roles.
“If we attach more value in terms of prestige and income to people who excel across a wide range of fields and not just cognitively, incomes will naturally spread out more evenly across society,” he said. “And we will go a long way in advancing our cause towards a fairer and more equal society.”
Already, the country is one of the greenest cities in the world, he added. It is also the only one to completely freeze the growth of its vehicle population, and one of the few to have closed its water loop.
“But we must go further and build on what we have done to achieve cleaner growth and greener mindsets,” he said.
Sustainability can also be a source of competitive advantage for Singapore globally, he added.
“The greatest promise of going green, however, is not about what it will mean for us today,” he said. “It’s about building for the future – for our children, and the next generation.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Strengthening solidarity
The pandemic has intensified divisions in many countries, with falsehoods and conspiracy theories gaining circulation over facts, Mr Wong said.
He added that there has been a downgrading of expertise, with expert knowledge sometimes portrayed as a conspiracy by the elites to perpetuate their dominance.
While easy access to information has contributed to healthy questioning of expert advice at times, it has also led to people viewing expert advice from the “narrow prism” of their own social and political tribes, he said.
“We end up self-selecting information to support and reinforce our own points of view… As a result, it’s very hard to find consensus; you see in many places a hollowing-out of the centre as extreme views gain ground, and it makes societies very hard to govern.”
Yet, societies can also gain renewed strength from the pandemic by forging a sense of solidarity and cohesion in the face of difficulty, Mr Wong said.
“I am confident that we will prevail and emerge stronger from this crucible. And I do not say this lightly,” he added.
“I speak from my own conviction of seeing the best of Singaporeans over the past year, in the face of adversity and very tough conditions.”
Education Minister Lawrence Wong speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Singapore Perspectives conference on Jan 25, 2021. PHOTO: INSTITUTE OF POLICY STUDIES, NUS
Front-line workers have given their all, with many ground-up initiatives emerging to help the vulnerable and those in need.
This renewed sense of solidarity is critical as Singapore recovers, Mr Wong said, adding that this is why the Government is intentionally creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to take part in the decision-making process.
In the Emerging Stronger Conversations, for instance, Singaporeans have shared their hopes for a post-coronavirus society, while the industry-led Alliances for Action have been set up to move quickly for Singapore’s economic recovery.
Mr Wong was also asked how the Government reconciles greater diversity with greater unity.
The key is to build consensus around the common good – regardless of one’s own political or individual differences, he replied. This strong sense of consensus is especially important for Singapore, given its small size. It cannot have individuals or groups lobbying only for their own interests and neglecting what is at stake, he said.
“I think that gives us purpose. It gives us that sense of a common destiny for the future, and it will enable Singapore to continue thriving and doing well in the future.”
.
======
.
Following his speech in Parliament on Wednesday (Sept 2, 2020), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had a lengthy exchange with Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.
Among other things, they argued about PM Lee’s “free rider” description of voters who cast the ballot for opposition candidates while hoping that the People’s Action Party continues to run the government.
.
=======
.
From 1G to 4G – Singapore’s leadership transitions
In his latest book, former senior minister S. Jayakumar shares his thoughts on how Singapore handles the issue of leadership succession in government. Here are excerpts from the book, Governing: A Singapore Perspective
by S. Jayakumar
Quite apart from the pandemic, the coming four or five years will see a volatile external environment, especially with tensions rising between the United States and China, and Singapore will need a pair of safe, experienced hands during this period, says former senior minister S. Jayakumar. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
PUBLISHEDNOV 7, 2020, 5:00 AM SGT on 7th Nov 2020 in Straits Times
Some readers who are not Singaporeans might understandably be puzzled by references to “3G” or “4G”, which means third generation and fourth generation respectively. Therefore, before I discuss the transition to the 4G leadership, it may be useful to quickly recap the different generations of leadership.
A different “G” label – indicating a distinct generational change – for different prime ministers’ Cabinets is somewhat of a misnomer, and perhaps even misleading.
This is because each prime minister had a mix of ministers who were new and young, as well as older and more experienced. Several ministers served in the Cabinets of more than one prime minister.
For example, I was one of the few ministers who had the unique privilege of having served all three prime ministers. I was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1980, appointed as a minister of state in 1981, and became a full minister in 1984, and I stepped down in 2011.
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s Generation of Leaders (1G)
Looking back, PM Lee Kuan Yew’s team was the 1G leadership, although hardly anyone uses that term to refer to the founding fathers’ group. PM Lee Kuan Yew’s key Cabinet colleagues included Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye, Eddie Barker, Ong Pang Boon and Othman Wok.
PM Lee Kuan Yew served as PM for 31 years. In the latter half of the 1970s, he brought into his team younger people whom he hoped to test out to form the next generation of leaders. They included Goh Chok Tong, Tony Tan, Ong Teng Cheong,
S. Dhanabalan, Lim Chee Onn and myself.
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s Generation of Leaders (2G)
Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister in 1990 and stepped down in 2004, serving as PM for close to 14 years.
The process by which the 2G leaders selected him has been recounted, first by myself and later, by Goh Chok Tong himself.
In December 1984, Tony Tan organised a coffee/orange juice session at his home, attended by Ong Teng Cheong, S. Dhanabalan, Yeo Ning Hong, Ahmad Mattar, Lee Hsien Loong and myself. Chok Tong himself joined the meeting later. Several ministers of state were also present.
It was not a lengthy meeting and we decided that the leader of the team should be Goh Chok Tong.
PM Goh Chok Tong’s team of key ministers included those present at that meeting, as well as Wong Kan Seng, Lim Hng Kiang and Lim Boon Heng.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Generation of Leaders (3G)
Lee Hsien Loong, who entered politics in 1984, became Prime Minister in 2004, and at the time of writing, he has served 16 years as Prime Minister.
Before that, he was Deputy Prime Minister for almost 14 years in Goh Chok Tong’s Cabinet.
PM Lee Hsien Loong’s 3G team of key ministers included Teo Chee Hean, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Ng Eng Hen, K. Shanmugam, Lim Hng Kiang, Wong Kan Seng, Vivian Balakrishnan, Khaw Boon Wan, George Yeo, Yaacob Ibrahim, Mah Bow Tan and myself.
The process of selecting Lee Hsien Loong as PM was simpler. He had been appointed as DPM in 1990 and his performance as DPM had been outstanding. None of us in PM Goh Chok Tong’s Cabinet had any doubts that he should succeed Goh Chok Tong as Prime Minister.
Sometime in mid-2004, Wong Kan Seng organised a lunch among ministers at his office and as Lim Boon Heng recalled it, the meeting was short because “the choice [of Lee Hsien Loong] was clear”.
How did the 4G decide on new leaders?
The process of selecting the 4G leaders was also different.
In December 2017, Goh Chok Tong, who was then Emeritus Senior Minister, nudged the 4G team to settle the question of leadership early so that PM Lee Hsien Loong could settle on his successor by the end of 2018.
However, the 4G team did not want to be rushed into a decision and on Jan 4, 2018, 16 ministers from the 4G issued a joint statement that they were “conscious of their responsibility, are working closely together as a team and will settle on a leader from among us in good time”.
On Nov 23, 2018, almost 11 months later, 32 ministers and Members of Parliament issued a joint statement: “Now we have a consensus that the team will be led by Swee Keat.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
If Covid-19 crisis goes on, PM Lee may have to consider staying on to lead PAP in next GE, says S. Jayakumar
Nation’s top civilian honour for Jayakumar
They also noted that Heng Swee Keat had asked Chan Chun Sing to be his deputy, and Chun Sing had agreed to this.
In their joint statement, they said: “We endorse and support Swee Keat and Chun Sing as our leaders.”
This ended months of speculation at that time on who the next PM might be.
On April 23, 2019, PM Lee appointed Heng Swee Keat as his DPM with effect from May 1, 2019.
This reinforced the expectation that he would become Singapore’s next prime minister sometime after General Election 2020 (GE2020). It seemed that the only question was when PM Lee would step down.
.
.Before 2020, PM Lee Hsien Loong had hoped to step down by his 70th birthday
In mid-2017, PM Lee Hsien Loong set out his thoughts on how long he planned to remain as Prime Minister.
He said that the next general election (which was held on July 10, 2020) would be the last that he would lead as Prime Minister, and added that he hoped to step down before he turned 70 years of age (which would be in February 2022).
Going by this, Singaporeans expected to have a 4G prime minister sometime in 2021 or 2022.
Many Singaporeans expected and hoped that after stepping down as PM, Lee Hsien Loong would continue to be in the Cabinet, just as former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong did after they stepped down as PM.
I asked PM Lee Hsien Loong if he had announced his intentions prematurely
After PM Lee announced his intention to step down after the following general election (held in July 2020), many people were concerned and disappointed. They included not only my friends but also some taxi drivers with whom I sometimes had interesting conversations during taxi rides.
They wondered why he made that announcement when the identity of his successor was not yet known, and even if it was known, such a person would have to be tested.
They asked: “Why could PM Lee not have waited?” After all, he was young and fit enough for at least two, if not three more terms. They hoped PM Lee would change his mind and urged me to persuade him to do so if I should meet him.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Getting Singapore through Covid-19 comes first, succession matters will be dealt with later, says Lawrence Wong
These concerned people agreed that the key members of the 4G – Heng Swee Keat, Chan Chun Sing, Tan Chuan-Jin, Ong Ye Kung and Lawrence Wong – all appeared to be capable and competent, but still, they expressed some reservations.
Some were concerned about Heng Swee Keat’s health, as he had suffered a stroke in May 2016 because of an aneurysm. He was tipped to be the leader of the 4G. Fortunately, Heng Swee Keat made a complete recovery after immediate surgery.
Other typical comments they made were: “they are not ready” or “they do not have enough experience in politics”.
I reminded them that I myself had been pulled out from the university with zero experience in politics and after one year of being a Member of Parliament, I was appointed to political office, first as minister of state, then as full minister. The only non-academic experience I had was serving as Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1971 to 1974.
There were several others in the 2G team who also became ministers without any prior political experience.
PM Lee Hsien Loong used to invite me to lunch periodically, mainly to discuss our preparations for Malaysia’s application to revise the International Court of Justice’s 2008 Judgment on the Pedra Branca case. (I was chairman of the Inter-Ministry Committee preparing for that case.)
During one such lunch in the later part of 2017, I told him about the feedback I had received.
He said he was aware and, in fact, had also received such feedback. However, he had clearly given the matter careful thought.
He explained that if he postponed the timeline, it would not be good for Singapore. He would be much older, and so too would be his successor.
It would be better if the new PM and his key team members were to take over earlier. I found his explanation persuasive.
He was determined in not wanting to stay on as the nation’s leader longer than necessary.
All this was, of course, before Covid-19.
Revisiting PM Lee Hsien Loong’s timeline on succession during the Covid-19 pandemic and post-GE2020
After the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and after GE2020, the views that PM Lee should remain longer at the helm have intensified.
When PM Lee had earlier expressed his thoughts about when he would step down, nobody had expected the tumultuous calamity that Covid-19 would inflict upon Singapore and the world.
It is Singapore’s worst crisis. It has had grave consequences for the health and lives of the people as well as Singapore’s economy.
All signs point to a long-drawn-out crisis. PM Lee has clearly realised that we are in an extraordinary situation.
At his online Fullerton Rally Speech on July 6, 2020 during the election campaign, he said he had not expected to encounter such “an overwhelming crisis” in the last stretch of his premiership, and added: “You have my word: Together with my older colleagues like Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as well as the 4G ministers, I will see this through. I am determined to hand over Singapore intact and in good working order to the next team.”
He repeated this assurance almost verbatim in his televised comments on the GE2020 results in the early hours of July 11, 2020.
He put it another way at the press conference on July 25, 2020 on the new Cabinet line-up: “I do not determine the path of the Covid-19 pandemic, and a lot will depend on how events unfold.”
I am glad that PM Lee has given himself some flexibility on the succession timeline. In my view, however capable the 4G leaders, we should not change horses in midstream.
Another question further down the road is this: what if the crisis takes even longer to abate? What if Singapore is still in dire straits in four to five years’ time closer to the next general election?
Would PM Lee also be prepared to revisit his earlier intention not to lead the next general election as PM?
Of course, if “normalcy” has been restored before the next GE, I think the public will support his desire to step down as PM. However, if the crisis persists, I believe many Singaporeans will want him to reconsider that aspect of his timeline as well, and hand over only after Singapore has turned the dangerous corner.
It is, of course, still early days, but that scenario has to be considered.
Much will depend on the success of measures taken to address both the health and economic fronts.
Quite apart from the pandemic, the coming four or five years will see a volatile external environment, especially with tensions rising between the United States and China. Singapore will need a pair of safe, experienced hands during this period.
Whether one or both aspects of PM Lee’s timeline are adjusted, there will likely be some slippage in his schedule for handing over the reins to the 4G team.
The 4G leaders have shown a steady hand under very difficult circumstances. I and many other Singaporeans were encouraged by the calm and unruffled manner in which they tackled the many twists and turns of the Covid-19 crisis. In their regular TV briefings, they were transparent in setting out the facts, and confident in making and explaining decisions as the outbreak progressed.
.
However, PM Lee’s indication that he will see the crisis through, in my view, gives a valuable opportunity to the younger 4G ministers (and even some of those newly elected MPs who were also made office-holders) to learn from PM Lee and the more senior ministers.
It is just like how I and my generation of ministers consider ourselves most fortunate to have learnt from the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, S. Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee.
Viewing political succession in context
I have alluded to the possibility that PM Lee’s earlier planned schedule for handing over the reins to his successor may have to be adjusted.
Whenever any succession looms on the horizon, it is inevitable that there will be speculation, concerns and even anxiety. It is therefore important to view the issue of political succession in context.
With that in mind, let me make the following general observations.
Firstly, Singapore is fortunate in that all three prime ministers carefully planned for succession. Such succession planning has brought about many years of stability and continuity for Singapore.
In this regard, I recall that at the swearing-in ceremony of his eighth Cabinet in 1988, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that one of the important qualities by which political leaders are judged is “by the way they have provided for continuity so that a successor Government will continue to protect and advance the interests of their people”.
Secondly, leadership succession is never any easy task in any country. Some countries do not consciously plan for it. Even when they do, things do not always go according to plan.
The next leader may emerge unexpectedly from nowhere with little or no experience in government. Sometimes, even a well-known figure, like Winston Churchill who enjoyed enormous personal prestige after leading Britain to victory in World War II, can be booted out from office.
Thirdly, even in countries like Singapore where leaders systematically plan for and groom successor teams, there can be bumps and hiccups along the way.
For example, it is well known that there were strong disagreements in the transition to 2G. Some of the old guard did not agree with the pace set by PM Lee.
More complications arose when PM Lee Kuan Yew publicly said that Goh Chok Tong had not been his first choice as his successor. Furthermore, to prod Chok Tong into improving his public speaking skills, PM Lee Kuan Yew described him as “wooden”.
To his credit, Goh Chok Tong took all this in his stride. He proved to be a good prime minister, and he and the 2G ensured that the transition worked smoothly.
Fourthly, whether PM Lee Hsien Loong retires two years from now or a few years later, the exact timing is not the critical issue. What is important for Singapore is that there is no abandonment of the strategic impulse to plan for and execute an orderly succession.
The timing of handing over to the new team is a tactical decision, which will depend on many factors that every prime minister will have to weigh carefully, but hanging on to power cannot be a consideration.
Fifthly, for effective succession planning, we need to have a sizeable core of young capable leaders who have the potential to take over the reins. A prerequisite is that committed and competent people who care deeply about Singapore’s future must be prepared to come forward and take on responsibility.
Of course, today, with social media’s relentless and sometimes unfair scrutiny of the minutiae of a political candidate’s personality, credentials as well as his past, it will be more difficult to persuade such good people to serve. However, if good people shy away, then even the best of succession planning will produce poor results.
I must confess that I too was nearly guilty of not agreeing to serve. In 1974 when the chairman of the People’s Action Party, Dr Toh Chin Chye, first broached the idea of my entering politics, I demurred and said that I was not ready. He did not press me.
Later, in 1979, when Goh Chok Tong, through S. Dhanabalan, asked me to stand in the next general election, my first response was that I preferred to continue teaching law at the university.
But they asked me this question: “Supposing you are on the top of our list, and if you say no, and we have to go down the list and everybody else keeps saying no. We then go to the bottom of the
list and then later, would you regret it if things went awry in Singapore?”
When it was put in that way, I found it very difficult to refuse.
I urge every Singaporean who may be approached to serve, and who find themselves reluctant, to carefully ponder over the same question that was put to me decades ago.
.
.
=========
.
Governing red dot is a thankless job. It is not an easy task and the cursing continues day and night.
I believe few want to be pm of this rock if they have the choice.
The man at the helm is not a know-all individual, not even the late LKY. He had a team to support him to transform this rock that few former British colonies could match in achieving peace, stability and economic progress.
What are the yearly roadmaps from now to 2031?
Will the 10 WP MPs ask for it in Parliament?
Do the 4G leaders have their yearly roadmaps to lead the way in governing red dot post-COVID-19 in the next five and 10 years?
.
=========
.
Covid-19 crisis a chance for 4G to step up
The pandemic was a baptism of fire for the 4G leadership, who helmed the country’s response.ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
by Chua Mui Hoong
Associate Editor
UPDATED6 MIN AGO on 13th Nov 2020 in Straits Times
The issue of political succession has cropped up again, after former deputy prime minister S. Jayakumar urged the Prime Minister to stay on to lead Singapore, if the Covid-19 crisis continues.
In a new book on governance (Governing: A Singapore Perspective) and in media interviews to promote the book, Prof Jayakumar said: “If ‘normalcy’ has been restored before the next GE, I think the public will support his desire to step down as PM.
“However, if the crisis persists, I believe many Singaporeans will want him to reconsider that aspect of his timeline as well, and hand over only after Singapore has turned the dangerous corner.”
It is still early days, but that scenario has to be considered, Prof Jayakumar added. “Much will depend on the success of measures taken to address both the health and economic fronts.”
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who became Prime Minister in August 2004, has said he hopes to step down as PM by the time he turns 70, which would be in February 2022.
Prof Jayakumar is articulating a view commonly held among a segment of Singaporeans. Even before the pandemic struck, I’ve heard people – mostly from the Pioneer or Merdeka generation – ask how Singapore will fare when PM Lee steps down.
The 4G team is led by current Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, 59, who was endorsed as their leader in November 2018. He in turn chose Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, 51, as his deputy.
Singaporeans understandably want a smooth political succession, to reduce the potential for surprises or conflict, especially in the middle of a global pandemic. But Singaporeans should also not become too overwrought over who the future prime minister should be, or when he should assume power.
Singapore has survived two changes of PM and will survive a third. Many parliamentary democracies see much more frequent rotations of PMs – Australia, Japan, Britain – and remain high-functioning societies, partly because of strong institutions.
So with all due respect to Prof Jayakumar and those Singaporeans who urge PM Lee to stay on for another term or so, I must say I disagree.
PM Lee should not tarry too long. Instead, he should hand over to the next team soon after the Covid-19 situation has been brought under control.
After the Covid-19 crisis hit and he was asked if he saw himself continuing as PM beyond 70, he had said this depended on how the pandemic can be brought under control. He had promised to see through the Covid-19 crisis and to “hand over in good shape as soon as possible to the next team, and into good hands”.
This is not because he has been a poor leader; or because others are snapping at his heels; but simply because it is vital for political leaders to be renewed to keep pace with generational change in the population.
Singapore’s population is changing rapidly. The July 10 general election is a vivid example of how fast the electorate’s expectations are changing.
The People’s Action Party (PAP) government had incumbency advantage; a massive war chest to fight Covid-19; and ran a relatively clean campaign that toned down its usual hardball politics. And still it lost Sengkang GRC, a new estate that is the bellwether of the future electorate. It could not take back Aljunied GRC. It nearly lost West Coast GRC. It got 61.2 per cent vote share, the third lowest since independence.
Elections are like a family crisis – they have a way of clarifying matters and bringing to the surface latent unhappiness and resentments otherwise buried in daily life. While the PAP won a clear mandate, the election also showed that some voters feel a disconnect with the party.
As a government, PM Lee and his 3G team have presided over an economy that has grown healthily, expanded social safety nets generously, and built an amazing cityscape. Yet, it is also during their watch that income inequality has deepened; class divides have become more pronounced; and anti-foreigner sentiments have risen.
Meanwhile, disruption caused by technological change is hastening as digitalisation takes root across workplaces, thanks to Covid-19. The disrupted future is here among us, but many local enterprises and workers, trapped by inertia or ignorance, are not ready.
Passing on the baton to the 4G decisively allows a new generation of leaders to rethink possibilities, question past assumptions and forge a new social compact with a new generation.
Team dynamics
Some of those who want PM Lee to stay on for another term or more, prefer a longer runway to allow the 4G to decide among themselves who should be their leader.
Mr Heng suffered a stroke in May 2016, and the concern is who can take over as PM should his health fail, although he has made an excellent recovery.
Will there be rivalry and political contest, leading to policy disruption and bureaucratic infighting? While Mr Heng has described Mr Chan as his deputy, there are other prominent members of the 4G team such as Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, 51 this year, and Education Minister Lawrence Wong, 47.
The thinking is that a longer timeframe gives the 4G team time to work out its dynamics and iron out any latent rivalries.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
If Covid-19 crisis goes on, PM Lee may have to consider staying on to lead PAP in next GE, says S. Jayakumar
Excerpts from Jayakumar’s new book, including on Lee Kuan Yew not being ‘a panda in the zoo’
This is a reasonable hope, except that it ignores the fact that the 4G has in fact already picked its leaders, the way past generations did. The 2020 election results did not fundamentally change those dynamics.
.
As is common in parliamentary systems, Singapore’s first three PMs were chosen by peers within their party, not by voters. Mr Lee Kuan Yew became PM after a split vote within the PAP was broken by party chairman Toh Chin Chye who cast his deciding vote in Mr Lee’s favour.
Mr Lee’s top picks to succeed him did not include Mr Goh Chok Tong; Mr Goh was picked by his peers and became PM in November 1990.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong took over from Mr Goh as PM in August 2004. PM Lee was both Mr Goh’s choice, and the choice of his peers.
Mr Heng too is the choice of the 4G and he has picked Mr Chan to be his deputy. So the issue of succession to the PM post should be settled for now.
In any case, the focus on who should be PM should not be overblown.
Singapore is not run by an individual. Even the strong-willed Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not operate alone; he had a strong team to back him. Together, they steered Singapore safely through the shoals of existential crises, and laid the foundation for its success.
Today’s far more complex world requires an equally strong team. PM Lee has reminded Singaporeans of this, when he said in January 2018: “Maybe it’s the way that the media and public politics is played in many countries nowadays, it’s personalised as one person. And the face becomes familiar. And you think that everything is done by that person. Actually it’s not… there’s a team.
“The team works together and they have one, as Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, striker. Now you have to strike from time to time, but you’re really also sometimes spokesman on behalf of the team, bringing together a collective wisdom and giving voice to that. And I think in the next team, that aspect of it will have to be even more important.”
The 4G team is already taking shape, with Mr Heng as leader. He was made first assistant secretary-general in November 2018 and became Deputy PM a few months later, in April last year.
For continuity, and to retain ballast to the new team, a few key 3G ministers can remain in Cabinet and be activated when needed, the way Senior Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam were roped in to help fight Covid-19 after having given up their deputy PM posts and ministerial portfolios. Mr Teo was called in to help advise an inter-agency task force set up to deal with the massive outbreak of Covid-19 in foreign worker dormitories; and Mr Tharman heads the National Jobs Council. When he steps down, PM Lee should stay on as SM in a 4G Cabinet to share his experience and to guide the team.
The 3G showed their confidence in their younger colleagues by ceding the front line of the Covid-19 fight to 4G ministers – Health Minister Gan Kim Yong and Mr Lawrence Wong, who co-chair the ministerial task force on Covid-19 and front the regular media conferences – and it has paid off well, as Singaporeans have a chance to hear from, assess and form a rapport with them.
Such bonds are formed only in the crucible of crises.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Singapore GE2020: 4G leaders stepped up, and did very well in Covid-19 crisis, says PM Lee
As it is, Singaporeans are coming to accept the 4G crop of leaders, who are doing a creditable job leading the nation’s fight against Covid-19.
A clear road map from lockdown to business-as-usual was planned months before, and is slowly being rolled out as indicators are met. Infection numbers are down to single digits daily, mainly from imported cases which are quickly quarantined and ring-fenced.
An election took place without sparking a community outbreak. The economy is opening up, while infection numbers remain low. Borders are slowly reopening. Public compliance with mask wearing and social distancing is high, suggesting strong support for such measures.
Thanks to the 3G stepping aside to let the 4G lead, Singaporeans have a reservoir of new images to add to the political memory, such as Mr Lawrence Wong tearing up over the sacrifices of front-line staff.
It is from such shared moments that genuine connections are made, and understanding grows.
The coming slew of conversations, and the active agenda of policy changes in the works, will give many Singaporeans the chance to hear from, meet, see and otherwise experience the 4G leaders.
As a team, they must gel together, manage personal competitiveness, work to each other’s strengths, and tap the wisdom and experience of the 3G senior ministers in their midst, to position Singapore smartly for the post-Covid-19 world.
Delaying the process of political transition longer than necessary to tackle the pandemic crisis will hamper the ability of the 4G to connect with Singaporeans – to listen to them, to understand their aspirations, and to prove to them that they can deliver.
Correction note: In an earlier version of this article, we said PM Lee took office in 2014. It should be 2004. We also said PAP had 61.2 per cent vote share in the recent general election, the second lowest since independence. It should be the third lowest. We are sorry for the errors.
.
========
.
Want to be PM… ?
First get own party’s CEC to vote the person as the SG.
Next, win big at the GE for the party as the SG.
LO P. Singh is the SG of WP as the WP CEC voted for him.
Next, he has to lead the WP as the SG to win big at the GE to form the govt.
Yes, he as SG for WP will become the pm. So easy. Two steps to be the pm.
.
=====
.
2021 Budget debate: S’pore should not pick 5G, 6G prime minister based on race considerations: Chris de Souza
Mr Christopher de Souza said race should not be used as a trump card or disqualifying criterion.PHOTO: GOV.SG
Justin Ong
Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED36 MIN AGO on 26th Feb 2021 in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – One day, when deciding on Singapore’s fifth- or sixth-generation prime minister, race should not be used as a trump card or disqualifying criterion.
This was a wish expressed by Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) on Friday (Feb 26), as he delivered the last of MPs’ speeches on the Budget statement.
“When it comes to leadership of government, we should not discount anybody because of their race, but instead evaluate the candidate based on who is best for the job,” he said. “I hold this belief. I know many in my age group and younger hold this belief firmly too.”
But he also stated that he categorically believed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is “the best man for the job”.
“And I also do believe that the 4G ministers have chosen the best man for the job to eventually lead their team. So nothing in my speech should distract from those conclusions.”
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat was chosen by his fourth-generation peers to be their leader in an announcement first made in late 2018.
Mr de Souza said that when evaluating a candidate to lead the Government, more robust factors such as the person’s character, abilities, values and experience could be considered instead.
“If there is a Singaporean Chinese candidate of the right age and with the right character and the right skill set making him the best man for the job, he should be chosen for the job,” he said. “If there is a Singaporean of a minority race of the right age and with the right character and right skill set to be the best man for the job, then he should be chosen for the job.”
Mr de Souza added that a woman with outstanding leadership ability should not be discounted either, pointing to the example of German leader Angela Merkel.
“Singapore is small. If we were to straitjacket our perception of talent, we could very well lose out on the best person for the job,” he said.
Mr de Souza noted that political leaders in Singapore come with years of experience and of being elected members within the House.
“It could easily be 20 years before an elected member becomes a prime minister, and by that time the familiarity and connection that people would have with the minister would count for more than just his race,” he said. “Covid-19 has shown, more than ever, the need for good government and good leadership of and in government.”
While the decision on Singapore’s 5G or 6G PM could be 15 to 20 years away, this should not deter Singapore from having such conversations now, said Mr de Souza.
“Some may say I am being overly idealistic to the discount of pragmatism,” he said. “I beg to differ. Why? Because the very idea of a multiracial, multicultural Singapore was an ideal, an aspiration… And inch by inch, year by year, we grow closer to making it a reality. Are we there yet? I believe we have some way to go.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
IPS conference: Racial, social identities will continue to pose a challenge, observers say
Covid-19 crisis a chance for 4G to step up
Race to unite, not divide
Mr de Souza added he was not saying that race was unimportant, nor that it should be used to dichotomise and polarise.
“Being a Singaporean is the key identity marker in Singaporeans of my age group and younger. The second identity marker – that of race – comes after the first identity marker – which is, being Singaporean.”
This, said Mr de Souza, spoke to deep, personal beliefs of his.
He shared with the House how his second daughter, adopted at birth, is of ethnic Chinese lineage, and is today completely part of his family.
“To pre-empt her wondering why she looked a little different from her older sister, my wife and I told her when she was very young: ‘You came from your tummy mummy; but you were born in our hearts’,” said Mr de Souza.
“It is the same way I view Singapore – we are all given life from our mother’s wombs but we are all born with Singapore in our hearts.”
He later added that in discussing what it means to be Singaporean, the Government should also look at vulnerable groups like the stateless living here – by giving them citizenship or at least permanent resident status, so they have something to be rooted in.
And as Singapore strives to become a more united country regardless of race, it should discard a binary view where race either completely doesn’t matter or always matters, to the discount of everything else, said Mr de Souza.
“It is a spectrum… within which my daughter, of Singaporean Chinese lineage and living in a Singaporean Eurasian home, is completely comfortable.
“Race is an asset to make the tapestry of Singapore culture richer and our identity fuller, so let it not divide us but unite us in always choosing the right person to lead our government.”
.
========
.
Lunch With Sumiko: WP chief Pritam Singh on the need to keep calm and stay grounded
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh believes that when things are going good, it’s best to keep your feet grounded and not get overly exuberant
Sumiko Tan meets Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh, six months into his appointment as Leader of the Opposition. They discuss governance in Singapore, his leadership style and the role of politicians in the future.
Two framed photographs hang on the walls of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s new office in Parliament House. They were given to him by a friend who got them at an auction.
The one on the left near the door shows a very large crowd at a Workers’ Party (WP) rally in the 2011 General Election.
The one on the right, above his desk, depicts a paltry turnout at a People’s Action Party (PAP) rally that same year.
There’s an irony to the photos, he points out. “The one with the smaller crowd is in power, a reality all of us in the WP must reflect upon and never look past.”
We’re having lunch at his office on the second floor of the House. He moved in last November and comes in two, three times a week.
It is a longish, well-lit, medium-sized space with a sofa and a meeting table for six. His secretary has a room next door.
Taking pride of place on his desk is a small, framed painting of a ballerina done by his wife.
They had gone for an oil painting course. “I painted a black box and I thought it was very meaningful but it looked horrible. This was her first try but it looks so beautiful.” It is the image he uses on his various social media profiles.
In 2018, Mr Singh, an MP for Aljunied GRC, took over as WP secretary-general from Mr Low Thia Khiang, who had been at the helm for 17 years.
In the general election last July, the party won 10 out of 93 seats in Parliament – the largest win by an opposition party ever.
He would be given an office, staff support and resources, as well as a salary, later revealed to be $385,000 a year, double what a regular MP gets. He has the right of first response among MPs, gets more time to speak and also gets confidential briefings from the Government.
Our lunch is three years in the making. I’d first WhatsApped Mr Singh in 2018 but he declined. Four more tries over the years finally netted a “yes” and we’re meeting in early January.
I’d told him that the format is The Sunday Times pays for the meal. He says he would like a six-inch tuna sandwich from Subway. I get this from Funan Mall, order the same for myself, and walk over to Parliament House.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has the right of first response among MPs, gets more time to speak and also gets confidential briefings from the Government. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
Relaxed and candid
His public persona is serious and cautious and he is measured with his words. Over lunch, a more relaxed, candid and humorous side emerges.
When preparing him for the video segment, my colleagues get him to adjust his position until they are satisfied with the angle. To signal the start of the shoot, one of them stretches out his hands and makes a loud, clapping motion in front of Mr Singh’s face. Tickled, he spontaneously imitates the action, cracking everyone up.
Mr Singh, 44, shares that Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin had shown him two rooms for his office. One is the one we are in and the other is three times the size.
“That room I found incredibly large. I mean, you could grow plants in there,” he says. “This room felt a lot more fit-for-purpose. So I said, ‘I think this is a better choice.’ And so, yes, I was given a choice.”
That, by the way, is an insider joke. “Old WP slogan: You Have A Choice,” he reminds me.
The first guest at his office was Mrs Lorene Nalpon, his former teacher from his alma mater St Thomas Secondary School whom he invited along with her husband.
“She truly loved all her students and I was quite blessed to be one of them,” he says.
When I do a Google search, I find that he had written about Mrs Nalpon in a Facebook post in 2018. She taught him in Secondary 1 where he was in the Normal stream and she was very kind to his “gone case” class.
You sense there is still a part of him that marvels at how his life has turned out. But instead of making him arrogant, his success has kept him grateful and modest, one feels.
At one point, I remark that with all that has happened, he must be in a happy place now.
ST Executive Editor Sumiko Tan’s lunch interview with Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Jan 7, 2021. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
Mr Singh, who says he is probably more spiritual than religious, replies that life is a mix of ups and downs.
“While today it may be an up – or you perceive it to be an up – don’t be too excited or too happy because there will be a down. But when that happens, don’t be too sad either. Think of the recovery.
“I think a lot of life is like that. So when things are going good, keep your feet grounded, don’t get too exuberant, because these things come in cycles.”
Late bloomer
He grew up the younger of two children in a close-knit family. His sister, older by two years, teaches in a junior college. His mother is a housewife and his father, Mr Amarjit Singh, is now a consultant at law firm Donaldson & Burkinshaw.
His father had come to Singapore from India in the early 1960s with two brothers. He joined the Singapore Armed Forces and later became a lawyer, then a district judge and a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He retired in 2012 as deputy senior state counsel.
Mr Singh’s mother, who was born in India, made it a point to take him and his sister to India to visit relatives and learn Punjabi. “That was her great hope. My sister is much better at languages. I don’t think my mother’s wish was actually sufficiently fulfilled with me.”
Up till he was 10, the family lived in Block 44 Sims Drive. They later moved to Jalan Kayu, then Normanton Park, and later Jurong.
After Jurong Junior College, he entered the National University of Singapore. A late bloomer, he graduated as the top history and political science student.
He was on a Singapore Armed Forces scholarship and served as a career commissioned officer till he was 26. He went on to get a master’s in war studies from King’s College London and when he returned, was a research associate at a think-tank and founded a commentary syndicate focused on Asian issues.
In 2009, he enrolled in the Singapore Management University’s two-year Juris Doctor programme. He refers to himself as “legally trained” rather than a lawyer because with his MP work since 2011, he hasn’t been able to develop his law career. When he became party secretary-general, he basically turned full-time MP.
His CV lists him as a locum solicitor at Donaldson & Burkinshaw and he shares that he’s not sure if he will renew his practising certificate.
He got married in 2012 and his wife, Ms Loveleen Kaur Walia, 37, is a former theatre practitioner who now teaches speech and drama. Their daughters are aged five and two and they live in a condo in Eunos.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Luck helps
He joined the WP in 2010 because he was inspired by Mr Low and party chairman Sylvia Lim. He didn’t expect to be elected into Parliament the following year.
In fact, in 2009, he started a blog called Singapore 2025 to house the current affairs articles he had written. 2025 was the target date he hoped to be involved in active politics. “It happened much quicker,” he notes.
His entry into opposition politics was low-key though. At GE2011, the focus was on another new face, Aljunied GRC colleague Chen Show Mao, a high-flying corporate lawyer with degrees from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford.
Was there any competition between you and Mr Chen, I ask.
“No, no, not at all,” says Mr Singh. “He was in a different league altogether.”
But Mr Chen didn’t stand out in Parliament, either in his first term or his second. He didn’t contest last year but remains in the party.
Mr Singh will not be drawn into discussing Mr Chen’s performance. It is party policy that “in public we never run down or criticise our running mates no matter what other people may feel about it”.
But he says he will always remember Mr Chen for “the incredible shot in the arm that he gave the WP by virtue of his participation in 2011”.
In his earlier MP days, Mr Singh had a more strident style. He has toned this down considerably, to the point, some say, he is too careful and overly politically correct.
On why he has become less confrontational, he says: “Sometimes the more you learn, the more you also reframe how relevant you can be. If you know one track is not working or has reached the limits of its usefulness or utility, then you choose another approach.”
He won’t talk about the process by which he became party secretary-general in 2018, when Mr Low put in place his plan to not contest the post.
But in the book Journey In Blue, party member and former Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong writes that the biggest criterion for the position was “how the person could stand up to attacks by the PAP”. He also had to inspire confidence in members and preferably be an elected MP. Mr Singh was “the best fit”.
Card-carrying members number in the hundreds and they are the party’s core, Mr Singh says. “It is the volunteers and the movement that we call it which gives us a certain heft.”
I wonder what it was that got him to be where he is. He says he believes in hard work but luck can sometimes play a part too, and shares an anecdote.
When he was in Basic Military Training, he was very skinny and could run quite fast. One of his good friends was very fit and Best Recruit, and they were quite competitive when they ran.
During a race, Mr Singh was lagging behind. “At the last 50m or 100m, my platoon commander, this Malay gentleman, 2WO Abdul Razak, glares at me purposefully and shouts, ‘Singh! Come on! You better overtake him!’
“I don’t know what it was but the fact that he was there giving me that motivation gave me extra energy. He was a good leader, at the right place, at the right time.” He beat his friend by mere metres.
The lesson he took away was that a person’s success isn’t a solo effort but because “many stars and moons came into alignment for that to happen”.
ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
What We Ate
One 12-inch Subway tuna sandwich: $9.40
So who gave you that push to ace the race in politics?
He says Mr Low’s leadership by example rubbed off on him in a significant way, and he is grateful Mr Low remains in WP’s central executive committee.
Does he feel bad that he, rather than Mr Low, got the LO title?
“Most definitely because many of us basically grew out of the crucible of his vision. It would have been more fitting for him to have been LO before me.”
Does he signal a new era for the WP, the way Mr Low did when he took over from Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam?
No, Mr Singh says. A lot of what the WP is today started from Mr Low and “this is the right track” for an opposition party that seeks to institutionalise the idea of a responsible opposition in Singapore politics.
The WP cannot be a party that doesn’t take into account the sentiment of Singaporeans, he argues.
“On certain issues, certainly, Singaporeans call for a more robust form of opposition, and on other issues, I think, they would be more satisfied if you took a more check-and-balance approach. Mr Low distinguished between a mad dog and a watchdog… it goes to the nub of what I think society would regard as sensible.”
The PAP’s comeback has been that the WP doesn’t come up with real policy alternatives and its manifesto is PAP-lite.
What does he say to those who feel the WP doesn’t take on the ruling party robustly enough?
People are entitled to say that the party should be more combative, he says. “But ultimately, the party has to make a cold, hard calculation as to what is required to ensure that the opposition grows from strength to strength, bearing in mind what is the threshold that Singaporeans can accept of an opposition in Singapore.”
He admits that, internally, it is difficult to make everyone sing from the same song sheet as motivations for joining the opposition vary. Some are more angsty, some have a longer vision and an open mind, and others are more hasty for change. The party, though, is known for its discipline.
We’ve been talking for nearly two hours and move on to do the video.
When he’s done with the last question, he does that clapper motion in front of the camera, wrapping up the shoot and sending everyone laughing again.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
.
=======
.
Nine new Nominated MPs to be appointed from Jan 21, 2021.
(Top row, from left) Mr Abdul Samad Abdul Wahab, Ms Janet Ang Guat Har and Mr Mark Chay. (Middle row) Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, Professor Hoon Hian Teck and Professor Koh Lian Pin. (Bottom row) Mr Joshua Thomas Raj, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Dr Tan Yia Swam.PHOTOS: ST FILE, KOH LIAN PIN, JOSHUA THOMAS RAJ, KTPH, SMU, THOMSON MEDICAL
UPDATED
37 MIN AGO on 14th Jan 2021 in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – Olympic swimmer Mark Chay, conservation scientist Koh Lian Pin, and security industry association head Joshua Thomas Raj are among the nine new Nominated MPs (NMPs) who will be appointed by President Halimah Yacob for a 2½-year term starting next Thursday (Jan 21).
The others are union leader Abdul Samad Abdul Wahab, Sistic chairman Janet Ang, GuocoLand group managing director Cheng Hsing Yao, Singapore Management University professor and economist Hoon Hian Teck, dental surgeon and National Youth Council member Shahira Abdullah, and Singapore Medical Association president Tan Yia Swam.
All are first-time NMPs, and their names were announced by Parliament on Thursday (Jan 14).
They were chosen by a Special Select Committee of Parliament, chaired by Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, from a total of 61 nominated candidates.
Mr Tan said: “With many high-calibre candidates stepping forward for consideration, it was not an easy task for the select committee to nominate the maximum of nine NMPs.”
“After careful deliberation, we have determined that the nine nominees have fulfilled all constitutional criteria and are eligible for appointment,” he added.
“Collectively, they also have creditable accomplishments in their individual fields and a good grasp of issues they are passionate about. I thus look forward to the rich diversity of insights and experiences they can bring to the House when we debate matters concerning Singapore and Singaporeans.”
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and was also on the eight-member committee, said it had been a difficult task to shortlist these nine out of 61 applicants.
“We have a good slate of nine NMPs who have distinguished themselves through their contributions to society or in their respective fields, and whose specialised knowledge will add to the depth and breadth of the debates in Parliament,” she said.
“I look forward to the fresh perspectives and ideas the new NMPs will bring to Parliament as we work to help Singapore navigate the Covid-19 pandemic and emerge stronger.”
Also on the committee were ministers Chan Chun Sing, Gan Kim Yong, Maliki Osman and Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State Gan Siow Huang, and Workers’ Party MP for Aljunied GRC Leon Perera.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Here are more details about the nine new NMPs, provided by the committee.
As NTUC vice-president, Mr Abdul Samad guides the work of NTUC committees. He represents the trade union movement on the boards of SkillsFuture Singapore and the NTUC Learning Hub and is part of the NTUC team in the National Wages Council. Mr Abdul Samad was a recipient of the Public Service Medal in 2020.
Ms Ang also chairs the boards of the NUS Institute of Systems Science and Singapore Polytechnic, and is the deputy chair of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) Foundation. In SBF, she chairs the digitalisation committee that works closely with government agencies, trade associations and chambers of commerce to address the digital needs of Singapore businesses. She was conferred the Public Service Medal in 2019.
3. Mr Mark Chay Jung Jun
PHOTO: ST FILE
Mr Chay is director of the secretariat of the Global Esports Federation and a national para swimming coach at the Singapore Disability Sports Council. He was a national athlete and represented Singapore in swimming at the Olympic Games in 2000 and 2004.
Mr Chay is a multiple gold medallist and a record holder at the South-east Asian Games. He was named Sportsboy of the Year in 2001 and Sportsman of the Year in 2002. He was appointed chief de mission at the 2014 Youth Olympic Games and the 2018 Commonwealth Games. He continues to contribute by serving as chairman of the Singapore National Olympic Council Athlete’s Commission.
4. Mr Cheng Hsing Yao
PHOTO: ST FILE
Mr Cheng is currently group managing director at GuocoLand Singapore. He is also first vice-president of the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore and executive committee member of the Urban Land Institute Singapore.
Mr Cheng is a board member in the National Parks Board and serves as a member of the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Design and Advisory Committee and the Heritage and Identity Partnership. He is also co-chairman of BCA’s integrated digital delivery steering committee and the central procurers panel. Mr Cheng received the Public Administrative Medal (Bronze) in 2006 during his service with URA.
5. Professor Hoon Hian Teck
PHOTO: SMU
Prof Hoon is currently dean of the School of Economics at the Singapore Management University. He has published widely in macroeconomics, international economics and the Singapore economy and brought recognition to Singapore through his many book publications and academic journal articles as well as his visiting professor appointments at Columbia University and Harvard University.
Prof Hoon was the recipient of the Fulbright Research Scholarship in 2001 and was a member of the Tripartite Committee for Low-wage Workers and Inclusive Growth from 2015 to 2017.
He is the sixth recipient of this scheme, which seeks to attract overseas-based Singaporean research leaders back to Singapore to take up leadership positions in Singapore’s research institutes.
Prof Koh is currently professor of conservation science, technology and policy at the NUS’ Department of Biological Sciences and a member of the Emerging Stronger Taskforce to guide Singapore’s economic recovery out of the Covid-19 pandemic.
7. Mr Joshua Thomas Raj
PHOTO: COURTESY OF JOSHUA THOMAS RAJ
Mr Raj is a partner at law firm Tang Thomas and director of TwinRock, a security agency. He is currently serving as president of the Security Association Singapore (SAS). During his tenure as SAS president, the association was recognised by the labour movement for its contributions to workers when it received two May Day Awards (Partner of Labour Movement) in 2018.
He also serves as a volunteer lawyer under the Law Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. As chairman of the NUS Political Science Department’s Singapore Forum on Politics and Policy, Mr Raj contributed in encouraging dialogue and engagement with policymakers.
8. Dr Shahira Abdullah
PHOTO: KTPH
Dr Shahira is an associate consultant with the dental surgery team in Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. She is also serving her first term as a member of the 16th National Youth Council (NYC). Prior to her involvement in NYC, Dr Shahira has been a dedicated youth leader and was the immediate past vice-president of Mendaki Club, with a focus on enhancing career development opportunities for youth.
In 2019, she was appointed by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth as one of the SG Youth Action Plan members to reach out to the youth on their vision for Singapore 2025.
9. Dr Tan Yia Swam
PHOTO: THOMSON MEDCIAL
Dr Tan is a medical doctor and currently clinical director at Thomson Breast Centre. She is one of the youngest persons and the first female to be elected president of the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) in 2020 and is also a member of Singapore’s Academy of Medicine.
She has been a member of the SMA’s editorial board and council member since 2008 and the SMA news editor from 2014 to 2020. She is also a member of the Association of Women Doctors, Singapore.
Dr Tan received the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine dean’s award for teaching excellence in 2013 and the Singapore Health Quality Service Award (Gold) in 2018.
.
=======
.
From Oxley Road dispute to PM Lee’s handover, ex-DPM S Jayakumar’s new book offers behind-the-scenes look at governance By NG JUN SEN
Veteran statesman and diplomat Professor S Jayakumar during a media interview for his new book: Governing: A Singapore Perspective. Published06 NOVEMBER, 2020UPDATED 06 NOVEMBER, 2020 in Today newspaper
Governing: A Singapore Perspective by former Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar was launched on Friday
The book covers contemporary political issues including the 38 Oxley Road saga, PM Lee Hsien Loong’s handover timeline, and the PAP’s future post-GE2020
Also in the book are his interactions with the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other world leaders, and an inside look into the Government in his time
Revealing how he nearly decided against entering politics, he wanted to write the book to encourage other potential leaders to step up
SINGAPORE — Stuck at home during the Covid-19 circuit breaker period earlier this year, Professor S Jayakumar, 81, decided to use the downtime to complete a book that had been long in the making, Governing: A Singapore Perspective, which was launched on Friday (Nov 6).
The veteran statesman and diplomat served in the Cabinets of all three Singapore Prime Ministers from 1981 to 2011, helming ministerial portfolios in Foreign Affairs, Law and Home Affairs, as well as serving as Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 to 2009. He currently serves as Senior Legal Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Reflecting on recent and more distant political affairs, Prof Jayakumar tells all about his time in government in the book, offering his observations on tricky legal matters like Section 377A and the death penalty, and his personal thoughts on the fourth-generation People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders and the party’s future following the recent General Election (GE).
There are numerous revelations too, including how he questioned Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on his “premature” announcement that he would step down following GE2020, his past interactions with world leaders such as Malaysia’s Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and a lengthy behind-the-scenes look at the Lee family feud over 38 Oxley Road.
Published by the Straits Times Press, the 191-page book was conceived in 2016 but required a long gestation period due to Prof Jayakumar’s other commitments. The circuit breaker period was a “blessing in disguise” that helped him finish the book.
Read also: Former DPM S Jayakumar heads list of National Day Award recipients
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, who spoke at the book launch at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), said: “This book does not shy away from provocative issues, as long as they are core to Singapore’s existence and well-being… (It) is not just tales of a raconteur but an exegesis of past events and present challenges that we must confront to chart the best way ahead.”
Prof Jayakumar, who was Senior Minister before retiring from politics, said his motivation to pen the book in the first place came from the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who told him to keep Singapore’s success story going. Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015, the year before Prof Jayakumar conceived the idea for the book.
“One of those attributes (of keeping Singapore’s success story going) will be getting good people, not just as ministers or prime ministers, but in all sectors in professions, public service and private sector,” Prof Jayakumar said in response to a question from TODAY in a group interview at MFA.
Read also: PM Lee says whether he can step down by 70 depends on the path of Covid-19
He recounted his guilt in rejecting a request to enter politics when he was first approached in 1974 as a law academic with zero political experience, only changing his mind in 1979 when then-Minister for Trade and Industry Goh Chok Tong asked him whether he would regret declining again if things went awry for Singapore.
“It was difficult in my time, but now with social media and a magnifying glass looking at every aspect of your past life, your family, and being scrutinised, there is a reluctance for people to come in.”
On those considering a political career, he said: “I thought I should just tell the story… I hope they will consider the same question that was put to me, and maybe they will change their minds.”
Read also: Lee Kuan Yew’s Oxley Road home has ‘architectural, heritage and historical significance’
4G POLITICAL SUCCESSION
When PM Lee said in mid-2017 that GE2020 would be his last as Prime Minister and that he hoped to step down before he turned 70, which would be in February 2022, Prof Jayakumar had wondered if he had announced his intentions prematurely.
After all, many people had thought PM Lee was young and fit enough for “at least two, if not three more terms”, he wrote in the book, attributing these thoughts to friends and taxi drivers.
Read also: 4G leaders back Heng Swee Keat as their leader ‘in absolute unity’: Vivian Balakrishnan
These people were also concerned that the 4G leaders — namely Mr Heng Swee Keat, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, Mr Ong Ye Kung and Mr Lawrence Wong — while capable and competent, may not have been ready or did not have sufficient experience.
Prof Jayakumar would remind these people that he, too, did not have political experience when he was appointed to political office.
Still, he decided to take these concerns to PM Lee during a lunch in 2017. In response, Mr Lee said he was aware of such feedback and noted that if he were to postpone the timeline, he and his successor would be much older.
Read also: Singapore, Malaysia continue discussions on implementation of international court ruling on Pedra Branca
With Covid-19 spurring Mr Lee to announce during GE2020 that he would stay on to see the crisis through, Prof Jayakumar wondered again what Mr Lee would do if Singapore were in dire straits in four to five years’ time — when the next GE is nearing.
He wrote in the book: “In my view, however capable the 4G leaders, we should not change horses in midstream.”
When asked about this in the media interview, Prof Jayakumar said his central point was that with the pandemic, this is not the time to talk about succession plans.
“So, I’m posing the question: What if this difficult scenario continues? Would he be prepared to revise that second aspect of the timeline and lead the General Election?” he told reporters.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE GOVERNMENT
One chapter of the book focuses on the independence of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) from the Government, a matter that has received renewed attention due to parliamentary questions from the opposition Workers’ Party, as well as the case involving ex-maid Parti Liyani.
The Attorney-General (AG) in Singapore plays four roles: As a public prosecutor independent from the Government, as the Government’s legal adviser, as a drafter of laws, and as Singapore’s international lawyer. The current AG is Mr Lucien Wong.
Prof Jayakumar, realising that many people did not know how the role worked, decided to pen his experiences in the book. While he did not serve as AG, Prof Jayakumar was Law Minister from 1988 until 2008.
He recalled how during his time in Cabinet, senior ministry officials would question why the AG was being difficult after the AGC flagged potential legal pitfalls that meant policies or decisions could not be implemented.
Prof Jayakumar explained that it is by design that the AGC’s job may constrain the Government from implementing certain policies.
“I should stress that in my experience, no PM had ever gone against the advice of the AG, even if he or his ministers might have disagreed with or been unhappy with the advice they received,” he wrote.
The same went for decisions to prosecute: No PM or minister had interfered with prosecutorial decisions by the AGC.
38 OXLEY ROAD
Prof Jayakumar gave a behind-the-scenes look at the Lee family feud over 38 Oxley Road — the residence of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
When asked why he included this section in the book, he said he wanted to cover major contemporary issues and that no one could deny the feud was an issue that occupied the media and people’s minds at the time.
In the book, Prof Jayakumar recalled his astonishment over the events when they first emerged, as well as the contents of allegations made by two of Mr Lee’s children, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lee Wei Ling.
Referring to families in general, he wrote: “We do not know the simmering feelings of rivalry and jealousy among the children and their spouses. When a dominant patriarch or matriarch is alive, such feelings are bottled up. When the parents pass away, these problems come to the fore.”
Besides offering his personal thoughts on the matter, he described how he and then-Emeritus Senior Minister Goh had discussed how to protect the Government from being dragged into the Oxley Road issue. Both were concerned about the collateral damage to the Government and Singaporeans.
Prof Jayakumar’s name was also floated by several people as possibly playing a mediation role, which he had been willing to take on if all three parties had agreed. The suggestion did not materialise.
“I was hugely relieved when it did not go further than that. But I thought if approached, I could not say no,” he told reporters.
LEE KUAN YEW
A significant portion of Prof Jayakumar’s book was devoted to his encounters and interactions with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, as well as the latter’s approach to governance and diplomacy.
Personal anecdotes in the book include:
The way Mr Lee and Prof Jayakumar had a huge disagreement over how Singapore-Philippines relations were handled following the case of Flor Contemplacion, a Filipina domestic worker given the death penalty in 1995 for murder
How Mr Lee was against the idea of chartering a Singapore Airlines plane for diplomatic travels
An episode when Mr Lee’s confidence in Singapore’s legal arguments over the territorial dispute with Malaysia over Pedra Branca was nearly shaken by Malaysia’s foreign counsel
How Prof Jayakumar had to read the National Day Message in Tamil, a language in which he was not proficient, at the urging of Mr Lee and his spouse, Madam Kwa Geok Choo
One anecdote described how Mr Lee once turned up at a Cabinet meeting with a plaster on his head.
When he asked what happened, Mr Lee said he had momentarily dozed off and hit his head on a lectern while reading to Mrs Lee some poems at night. Mrs Lee was suffering the effects of a second stroke then.
Wrote Prof Jayakumar, who also began reading books and interesting news articles to his spouse nightly: “I was very touched. That account has had a special impact on me personally, especially after my wife Lalitha developed disabilities as a result of Parkinson’s disease (in 2014).”
The book is dedicated to his wife Lalitha Rajahram. Proceeds from the book will go to MFA’s adopted charity The Rainbow Centre, which helps children with special needs. .
=======
.
Lunch With Sumiko: 2020 feels like a lifetime for Lawrence Wong
Thrust into the spotlight as co-chair of the government task force on Covid-19, Lawrence Wong has come into his own. Executive Editor Sumiko Tan sits down with the Education Minister, whom some pundits think could well be a contender for prime minister one day.
Sumiko Tan meets Lawrence Wong, Education Minister and co-chair of the multi-ministry task force tackling Covid-19. They discuss the events of the past year and Mr Wong’s hopes for Singapore’s future.
PUBLISHED
7 HOURS AGO on 1st Nov 2020 in Sunday Times
Midway through my lunch with Lawrence Wong, I feel a sneeze coming. The air-con has been blowing on my back and my nose is, suddenly and ominously, tingling.
We’ve both taken off our face masks and are dissecting our main course of poached sea bass.
Sneezing during a meal is not the done thing in these Covid-19 times. Sneezing over the food of the co-chairman of Singapore’s multi-ministry task force fighting the pandemic? I don’t want to go there.
I swallow. Sip water. Push a finger against the side of my nose and, luckily, the moment passes. He is spared my aerosol spray.
This is my first in-person lunch interview since Singapore declared war on the pandemic in January. With fewer new cases, it seemed the right time to resume the series and the Education Minister has agreed to be my guest.
He’s chosen Chez West, an elegant training restaurant at ITE College West in Choa Chu Kang. Our French dishes will be prepared and served by culinary students.
We wave hello when we meet and as we settle down at our table – we’re the only guests – I wonder if I should take my mask off. But he keeps his on and so I do the same. We chat but sound muffled.
A student, John, fills our glasses with water. The minister removes his mask to drink and I gratefully follow suit.
Mr Wong listens encouragingly as John recites our set menu. We’ll start off with vichyssoise but instead of soup, it’ll be done as a foamy ball with caviar. Next will be tortellini, then sea bass rounded off with banana mousseline.
Wine? John asks, hopefully.
“Unfortunately, we won’t be having it today. Too early,” Mr Wong says. John looks disappointed and we let him practise describing the options to us anyway.
We’re meeting in mid-October and Mr Wong is looking more rested than during the early days of the pandemic when cases were shooting through the roof.
“You know, the saying, right?” he says when I ask him to describe 2020 for him.
“There are decades when nothing happens and then there are weeks when decades happen. So this year feels like one of those times when everything happens. Like a lifetime has passed.”
It’s certainly been an exhausting year for him.
Together with Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, the other task force co-chair, he has been in the thick of managing Covid-19.
Then, as Second Minister for Finance, he was involved in the unprecedented four Budget packages of economic relief.
And amid all this, his beloved 16-year-old golden retriever died in July.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
The 47-year-old former civil servant has been in politics since 2011, steadily climbing up the ministerial ranks without attracting – or courting – much media attention.
Given his low profile, some were surprised when he was named co-chair of the task force. But, thrust into the spotlight, he has come into his own.
He and Mr Gan, 61, have been a calm and steady presence at the many media conferences they have held. While Mr Gan deals with the medical aspects, Mr Wong focuses on the nuts and bolts of managing the pandemic, including the circuit breaker.
His answers have been clear and persuasive and his manner unruffled. He doesn’t grate or get in the way of the message.
He has a reputation among civil servants for being a smart, serious guy who gets the job done. A teary moment in Parliament in March, while he was paying tribute to front-liners, humanised him.
Some political pundits now say he could well be a contender for prime minister one day.
In our two-hour-plus conversation, he’s straightforward and has a bit of a no-nonsense air. But when he talks about more relaxed topics, the minister, whose Instagram bio reads “bookworm, guitar player and dog lover”, shows a warmer side.
Marine parade boy
By his own account, his was “just an ordinary family in Marine Parade”.
His father, who’s 85 and has dementia, was born in Hainan, went to Malaysia as a boy then came here to work and had a sales job in Sime Darby. His Singapore-born mother, 80, was a primary school teacher.
He has a brother, older by two years, who’s an aerospace engineer at DSO Laboratories. Both attended Haig Boys’ Primary where their mother taught. She was a disciplinarian in school and at home.
Education Minister Lawrence Wong, who is co-chair of the task force tackling Covid-19, says the pandemic has brought out the best of Singaporeans. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN
“I suppose that shaped me in a certain way,” he says. “To have a strong sense of responsibility, of making sure that if I commit to something, I do it well.”
He enjoyed school where he was more bookish than sporty. Weekends were a happy routine of “Saturday library, Sunday church”.
He loved the old Marine Parade library where he would borrow science fiction and guitar books. His Sundays were spent at Bedok Methodist Church where he was a youth leader.
After Haig Boys’, he went to Tanjong Katong Secondary Technical School, or TK Tech.
“Sometimes, some people will ask me, strangely, ‘You know, why didn’t you go to other schools?’
I suppose the presupposition is that you did well enough, why didn’t you go to…,” he trails off.
“RI?” I offer, referring to the elite Raffles Institution.
“Yah,” he laughs. “I get that. But why? It was very natural to continue my education in a school that was near to home and where all my friends were, and I enjoyed myself tremendously.”
After Victoria Junior College, he got a government scholarship to university. He chose the United States as it was home to his favourite musicians.
His father had given him a guitar when he was eight and he speaks about music with real enthusiasm. While schoolmates had pictures of their favourite celebrities in their school files, he had a picture of Eric Clapton’s guitar. He loves rock, blues and soul, and jazz singers like Nina Simone and Ella Fitzgerald.
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he did economics, he and his American roommate went busking.
“I’ve never had, you know, huge ambitions as a child. I just went through the education system, enjoying the time with friends.”
He sailed through his first two years in the US. Around his third year, he got a wake-up call.
Someone asked him to explain Singapore’s economic model and he realised that while he knew textbook stuff, he didn’t know much about Singapore.
“I thought, wow, this cannot be, right? I’m going to graduate in a subject without a mastery of the subject.” He began reading anything he could get his hands on.
When he returned, he was posted to the Ministry of Trade and Industry and did economic modelling. Working with graduates of British universities, he realised other gaps in his education.
“I could run models and spreadsheets that they couldn’t, but they had exposure to that wealth of literature, philosophy, political economy, which I had not been exposed to as a student.” Again, he caught up by reading.
Mr Wong, who was divorced with no children, spent 14 years in the public service, including as CEO of the Energy Market Authority. He has since remarried and his wife is in the private sector.
Policy wonk
Early in his career, he had offers from the private sector which he turned down.
He liked how the civil service allowed him to do different projects and shape schemes that could help Singaporeans. He found it meaningful going down to the ground to explain these policies.
I tell him he has a reputation for being a policy wonk. “Apparently,” he says with a shrug. “I don’t know how that happened.”
Why do you think people say that?
“I don’t know,” he says, not willing to be drawn into this.
I say I’ve heard he’s very on top of his subjects and can’t be smoked.
He smiles but doesn’t reply.
Changing tack, I ask how he took on the Covid-19 challenge. Did he, say, read a lot?
“Well, like I said, right, it’s partly what I was brought up with,” he relents. “That when you do anything, you have to put everything into it, you have to really want to excel.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
He elaborates: “I suppose in the Methodist tradition, you would say your work is your worship, right? You don’t delink faith from day to day. Whatever you do on a day-to-day basis, if you do it well, if you take responsibility, that in itself is a testimony of how you as a person are an example, you know, a light for the world.”
He was also shaped by mentors like former top civil servant Lim Siong Guan, who would relate what it was like to work for Old Guard leader Goh Keng Swee.
“Siong Guan would say Dr Goh’s philosophy was if Mr Lee (Kuan Yew) were to call him with any question, and if he doesn’t know the answer to that question, it’s an indication that he has not done his work well because he’s not on top of the issues.
“And even if he doesn’t know immediately, he has to know within a few hours, right, and he will make a point to try and master the issue and stay on top of it. I think that’s a very inspiring example.”
WHAT WE ATE
Chez West
ITE College
West 1 Choa Chu Kang Grove
Two set lunches (vichyssoise, tortellini, sea bass, banana mousseline), $50; one coffee, $2; one tea, $2.
Total: $54
As Education Minister, a priority will be to broaden the concept of merit beyond academics. Covid-19 has been a good reminder of “the way we value contributions from all sectors to our society”.
I ask if Singapore’s leadership transition to the fourth generation (4G) will be affected if the pandemic drags on. His answer is not unexpected. The priority is to overcome the crisis. “At some stage, there’ll be a time to talk about leadership transition. But let’s get over this hump first.”
Has the thought occurred that we might be overreacting to Covid-19?
“Nobody said that at the start,” he counters. “Everybody was telling us to do more aggressive measures and we were telling everyone, yes, but let’s look at the science, let’s look at the evidence, and let’s understand that we are in it for the long haul. Now, the question is the opposite, that, oh, maybe you’re overreacting.”
He acknowledges that Covid-19 fatigue is real and the economic impact very serious, which is why the task force looks carefully at data to see what restrictions can be lifted, even as safe distancing, testing and tracing continue.
As we wrap up, I ask what he thinks the world will be like this time next year.
There is a good chance there will be a safe and effective vaccine by then, he says. “But how much of it is available, and whether or not we can distribute it to many people in the world, I doubt very much that would be possible by next year, which means that the world will still not be safe from Covid.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
He adds this depressing news: “That means Singapore will still be vulnerable. And it also means that I doubt international travel will resume back to pre-Covid-19 levels by this time next year.”
Before he goes off to thank the culinary students (service has been earnest and the vichyssoise especially delicious), I ask how Covid-19 has changed him, as a person and politician.
“I’m not sure that it has changed me personally. But I would say it has given me renewed confidence and hope about Singapore,” he says.
Amid the noise and complaints, one sees the best of Singaporeans shining through during this period, he says. “It gives me a lot of hope and faith that we as a nation can rally together and can do well for the future.”
This might sound like what a politician would say, but coming from someone who has spent the last nine months down in the trenches fighting the horror that is the pandemic, you believe he really means it.
.
=====
.
Forum: Ruling or opposition party, mandate is the same – serve the people
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 9th Sept 2020 in ST Forum
A new age has dawned on Singapore with the election of 10 opposition MPs for the first time since independence.
We are seeing the beginning of participative contribution to governance, which will bode well for our future (House sees spirited debate on issue of minimum wage, Sept 4).
We must acknowledge that those committed to serving the larger public good cannot be prejudged as unwholesome when they speak up to debate and deliberate on matters that concern citizens’ well-being.In some countries, we see dysfunctional politics, while in others, those who persist in perpetuating oppositional politics for their self-interest risk destroying themselves and their nation’s future.
Democracy, in particular the kind of parliamentary democracy that we have in Singapore, cannot be a personality cult or a one-person show.
For a democracy to truly reflect the will of the people, those elected to represent them must work for their well-being and serve as partners, not rulers and lords.
Whether they are MPs of the ruling party or the opposition, they share the same mandate of serving the public good.
Singapore can show the way towards enlightened governance when ruling party MPs, entrusted with the fundamental responsibility of nation building, collaborate with opposition MPs for the good of the nation.
This is how the citizens of Singapore would like to see a citizen-centred government work.
by Thomas Lee Hock Seng (Dr)
.
======
.
Are we ready?
Ready for the pristine chamber to be in the coffee shops, living and bed rooms as a sitcom for many?
Forum: Consider live webcast of parliamentary proceedings
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 4th Sept 2020 in ST Forum
With the convening of the new Parliament, there have been great expectations about improvements in the quality of parliamentary debate. The debate so far has not disappointed.
I would like to raise the issue of live telecast of parliamentary proceedings again. Each time this was brought up, it was dismissed on grounds of cost, especially if an entire free-to-air TV channel is devoted to it.
A simple alternative would be webcasts. We already have OneMotoring showing road cameras 24/7, live. I have no doubt that with a small capital investment, it is possible to install cameras in Parliament that would automatically capture the person who is speaking, especially since he or she can do so only at specific microphone positions and must turn on the microphone to be heard.
The latter action can then trigger pre-programmed camera settings that would capture the speaker, and with the appropriate routing, the audio can be easily integrated into the video.
All this can then be properly archived as well as streamed live.
There are significant advantages to a live webcast and providing the recording of an entire day’s proceedings online. The most important of these would be full transparency.
Singaporeans can view the entire process, removing any doubt about media bias. Quoting ministers or MPs out of context on social media would also be a thing of the past. It will also educate Singaporeans about our democratic process, and the performance of the various MPs will be open for all to see.
As we tackle difficult questions such as the nature of citizenship, race, religion and so on, the proceedings and what our representatives say in Parliament will be an important input in any discussion.
It is also an important way to definitively combat fake news, thus ensuring that any discussion is conducted in an open, responsible, constructive and objective fashion.
by Wong Weng Fai
.
=========
.
Forum: Come up with a vision to unite citizens in a shared destiny
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 2nd Sept 2020 in ST Forum
The good life as encapsulated by the Singapore Dream of the 1980s and 1990s – material pursuits, the five Cs – is over (What dreams for Singapore, in these gloomy times?, Aug 30).
It was made possible in large part through the ingenuity of our first-generation political and economic leadership.
Given the present-day complexities and diverse aspirations of our society, whether the fourth-generation leadership can deliver a new dream is still up in the air.
Will citizens play their part and contribute towards a new dream with the passion and commitment of the past?
We need to come up with a vision that unites citizens of this compact city state in a shared destiny.
I am optimistic our city state can ride out the challenges from Covid-19 and the economic downturn, generate the next wave of economic growth and bring about a new Singapore Dream.
by Hua Tye Swee
.
======
.
Forum: Set stage for more constructive national dialogue
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 2nd Sept 2020 in ST Forum
Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong’s proposal to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to express their views on core issues that affect their lives, as well as on Singapore’s future direction, will be welcomed by many (Opportunities to give views without being shouted down to be created, Aug 29).
Mr Tong highlighted how people with different and strong views may become “abrasive”. To avoid such a destructive outcome, certain preconditions must prevail.
First, all participants must think rationally in the best interests of Singapore and its citizens. Alternative views and proposals must be constructive and fact-based.
While participants are entitled to their opinions, they should not be manipulating and manufacturing information, like what happens with fake news.
Second, alternative views, especially those different from the Government’s, should not be presumed to be inferior. Different views can represent the “yin and yang” of the ancient Chinese philosophy of dualism, which describes how seemingly opposing or contrary forces may actually be complementary and interdependent, leading to balance and harmony, thus strengthening the whole.
Third, the Government should be willing to share relevant non-publicly available information so that non-governmental dialogue participants are engaged on a level playing field and do not make inaccurate or wrong inferences or estimates in their analyses.
The Government must be ready to disabuse Singaporeans of their misguided notions or misunderstanding with facts and figures, not just unconvincing rhetorical statements.
Fourth, there should be a freer media to provide objective reporting. In fact, in today’s political climate in which Singaporeans are clamouring for fairness, the media must take on the bigger roles of fact-checking and investigative journalism.
This year’s general election showed that there is a growing desire for greater diversity of views. During the campaign period, many genuine grievances and anxieties were raised, with calls for greater accountability and transparency, and space and tolerance for divergent views.
In this context, the national dialogue can tap the fresh ideas of many citizens who sincerely wish to be involved in the affairs of the state.
Properly managed, such a robust contest of ideas augurs well for Singapore and should be encouraged.
by Ang Ah Lay
.
======
.
Forum: Present worries make it hard to articulate a Singapore Dream
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 2nd Sept 2020 in ST Forum
Straits Times enterprise editor Li Xueying is right in stating that “most are hard put to articulate a Singapore Dream or to even say if we have one today” (What dreams for Singapore, in these gloomy times?, Aug 30).
The social divide is so wide and varied that the definition of a Singapore Dream depends very much on who and when one is asked what his idea of that dream is.
Some Singaporeans may be worrying about future employment prospects, retirement, outstanding mortgage liabilities, obligations to ageing parents and the financial obligations of a young family, among other things.
Their daring to dream may be inhibited by a fear of not having a social safety net, and some might instead feel a constant need to work hard and to save diligently for their retirement years and to keep up with rising healthcare costs.
Even the premiums for healthcare and hospitalisation insurance cover are rising, imposing a burden even on those who prudently plan their finances.
If Singapore citizens are granted free education up to tertiary level, free healthcare at polyclinics and free hospitalisation (in C-class wards), I am sure more of them will feel the serenity to truly think about what they want the Singapore Dream to be.
Furthermore, having long-term financial assistance of $800 a month per household for the poorest families will help to narrow social inequality and also provide more hope for them to dream.
by Sum Kam Weng
.
========
.
Past, Present and Future…
Do we ever learn?
The present is to have three meals on the table. Solution?
S$93.9b are not enough and so it will be for the S$8b.
How to create the jobs or have the jobs for all to have tummy full?
The pressure is great on all in the Pandemic.
Should we have shorter working hours, like 3 or 4 days, and lower wage for more people to be employed until the rebound when danger is over?
Will it be 12, 24 or 36 months? What will be will be.
Do we have plans for a strong recovery if this pandemic were to prolong more than 24 or 36 months?
What are the plans?
Are we ready for it?
Failure to plan will be planning to fail.
.
===========
.
Economic Affairs: The why and how of ‘building back better’
by Vikram Khanna
Associate Editor
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 16th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
There is a green revolution in finance, but there are also risks
The US states of California, Washington and Oregon are suffering their worst wildfire season in history. Australia had its turn last year.
This year, there have been floods in parts of Bangladesh, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Africa, among other places.
Europe is enduring a scorching heatwave. The US state of Louisiana has just had its worst hurricane in more than 160 years.We’re getting used to events such as these becoming more frequent. It’s as if nature is reminding us that Covid-19 is not the only crisis we face and is repeatedly drawing our attention to its ultimate source.
We have, by now, connected the dots between the emergence of pandemics, deforestation and the loss of biodiversity, which have driven animals and birds out of their natural habitats, closer to humans and thus more easily able to infect us with their viruses.
We have been jolted into accepting the reality that environmental destruction and pandemics are two sides of the same coin.
So when we yearn for a return to “normal”, what kind of normal should we be talking about? Should it be simply a return to the pre-Covid-19 era?
For growing numbers of people, the answer is no. We don’t want to go back to a world of recurring extreme weather events and the increasing danger of still more pandemics, some of which may be even worse than Covid-19.
And so, the new chorus is that we should not just build back, but “build back better” – that is, build back so that, among other things such as less inequality, better healthcare and stronger safety nets, our economies and societies are more resilient and less vulnerable to the havoc that nature can unleash.
Related Story
MAS invites feedback on proposed green finance guidelines
Related Story
Temasek may get ‘more aggressive’ on green goals
Related Story
Singapore to invest US$2 billion in green funds to drive climate action
But that will need a reordering of priorities, challenging the status quo and managing new risks. It will also need more money, channelled to the right places.
BUILDING BACK WORSE
The temptation to do otherwise – that is, “build back worse” – has proved compelling. Soon after the outbreak of Covid-19 in the United States, for instance, the Trump administration announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would suspend environmental regulations in response to the pandemic, to help the economy get moving again.
It was a similar story in some other countries that are big polluters.
When China moved out of its crisis phase and began stimulating its economy, it reportedly relaxed the enforcement of environmental controls.
India is doing the same, judging by a notification from its Environment Ministry in March, which proposed that some projects be exempted from environmental appraisal and others that are operating without approvals be legalised.
How temporary these retrograde provisions will be remains to be seen.
.
A GREEN REVOLUTION IN FINANCE
But meanwhile, the call to build back better has got through to the world of finance and investment, where a green revolution of sorts is under way.
The amount raised from green bonds issued globally (bonds which finance investments that are considered to be environmentally friendly) have soared from a paltry US$11 billion in 2013 to more than US$258 billion (S$351 billion) last year, about 50 per cent more than in 2018.
Climate bonds. net, which tracks the green bond market, projects that the figure for this year will rise a further 36 per cent to US$350 billion.
Surveys show that hedge funds and other institutional investors are also getting green-friendly.
A report by KPMG and the Alternative Investment Management Association published in February noted that 72 per cent of hedge fund managers cited growing interest among institutional clients in investments that incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.
Covid-19 has turbocharged the demand for ESG products issued by money managers. The Financial Times reported that this year, to the end of July, global exchange-traded funds in ESG-related investments garnered US$38.8 billion of net new money, compared with US$26.7 billion in all of last year.
A report by JPMorgan in June described Covid-19 as a “major turning point” for investors, who are wising up to the parallels between pandemics and climate change.
In his annual letter to chief executives this year, Mr Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, one of the world’s largest money managers, wrote: “Climate change is almost invariably the top issue that clients around the world raise with BlackRock.”
PROACTIVE SINGAPORE
Singapore has been proactive in promoting ESG-related finance and investments.
Since at least 2017, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been working to position Singapore as a hub for green finance in Asia. It provides subsidies for the issuance of green bonds in Singapore.
City Developments, DBS Bank, Oxley Holdings, the SoilBuild Group and the National University of Singapore have already issued such bonds.
The MAS has also released a consultation paper on environmental risk management for the banking, insurance and asset management sectors with a view to setting standards on governance, risk management and disclosure, so that the financial system can be more resilient to environmental risk.
And the Singapore Exchange requires listed companies to disclose their ESG practices.
These are early steps, but more needs to be done.
For example, what constitutes green investing is not clearly defined.
A report by the Asian Development Bank points to public perceptions that Singapore is engaging in “greenwashing”, with money being raised for purportedly green purposes, but in reality, being deployed elsewhere – although this perception also applies to other countries where green finance is gaining traction.
Green investing has also not yet percolated to the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, whose involvement in green projects is limited.
Singapore also lacks a market like Luxembourg for the trading of green securities.
While filling these gaps will take time, the more short-term challenge, including in Singapore, is how to build back better once economies open up again.
Observers point out that some opportunities have already been missed in the early responses to Covid-19 crisis. For example, most of the economic stimulus packages rolled out across the world have placed little or no emphasis on sustainability issues.
High-carbon sectors have received bailouts and subsidies without any emission-reduction conditions. Quantitative easing – provisions of liquidity and bond-buying by central banks – has been broad-based, with no preference given to green sectors. Ditto for many of the massive fiscal packages, the European Union’s “green new deal” being a standout exception.
To some extent, this is understandable. The first-round responses to the Covid-19 outbreak were focused on restoring financial market confidence and creating or protecting jobs. But as economies reopen, priorities will need to change. Sustainability issues will need to be brought front and centre.
.
.WHAT IT WILL TAKE
All future infrastructure – whether energy, transport or construction – will need to take greater account of climate risks, with companies being held accountable for the environmental effects of their investments and encouraged to accelerate decarbonisation of their production processes and products – for example, through carbon taxes.
Financial institutions can also play a key role by conducting environmental risk assessments for projects they finance – already a routine practice among large banks in Singapore – although not in the region, which creates a loophole.
There will also need to be subsidies and loan guarantees to support the growth of innovative green technologies.
At the social level, consumers should be nudged to adopt habits that support sustainability, such as more recycling and sharing of resources, eschewing single-use plastics and even changing diets – trends that are already incipient in many parts of the world.
The shift to more green finance will create new risks, including financial risks. Banks making 30-year mortgages or other term loans will need to take account of climate risks over such a long period. Likewise for insurance companies, whose historical underpricing of climate risks has already cost them billions in recent years.
As more resources shift to renewables, legacy loans made to the fossil fuel sector may come under stress, and there will be a rising danger of companies, as well as banks, being left with “stranded assets” on their books – that is, assets that once produced a return but can no longer reliably do so, and can in fact become liabilities.
Companies that are forced to decarbonise will face transition costs. Some, whose business models are built around fossil fuels, may go out of business.
These are some of the risks that will need to be managed in the post-Covid-19 world. Some may prove costly. But in the long run, it will be a small price to pay for the benefits of building back better.
.
=========
.
Forum: Are we mature enough to hold open discussions?
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 2nd Sept 2020 in ST Forum
Recently, there have been calls to be “more open” and to have a better framework to discuss politics, race and religion in Singapore (Opportunities to give views without being shouted down to be created, Aug 29).
In one sense, this is a positive development for the nation. But we should not forget what is unique to Singapore.
This uniqueness is something that has made the city state a multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural nation that is admired by other nations, some of which have even viewed Singapore as a mini-United Nations.
At the same time, this uniqueness can put the city in a fragile, vulnerable state if the discussion of race, religion and other sensitive issues is not done in a wise and mature manner.
We have seen such issues causing riots, anger, deep misunderstandings and polarisation in many societies and countries, and much of such damage is not easily reparable.
If citizens do not approach such issues as Singaporeans, and instead do so as members of different races, religions and cultures, the possibility of things going drastically wrong is not far-fetched.
I am concerned whenever I browse social media and notice the angst in the language used, whenever I perceive xenophobia on the rise especially when one’s own affairs are threatened, and whenever I notice a lack of understanding of the beliefs, culture and peculiarities of those who are different.
I feel rather disturbed by what I have read on social media, and realise that we may still be far from a situation where we can debate and discuss such issues in a calm and positive manner.
by Quek Koh Choon (Dr)
.
=====
.
It is all about money..
S$93.9b are not enough and it will be too for the S$8b…
Do we know how much the WP will want as salaries for the ministers to govern red dot?
Leader of the Opposition, LOTO wants S$1000 per day or 365,000 per year.
Will it be x 2 for ministers, and x 4 as PM?
The envy of high pay will continue.
.
======
.
Forum: Shadow ministry by WP will show its mettle
PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 3th Sept 2020 in ST Forum
It is disappointing that after all these years in Parliament, having 10 elected MPs and having Mr Pritam Singh appointed Leader of the Opposition, the Workers’ Party (WP) still has not designated at least one shadow minister (WP intends to scrutinise policies and offer alternatives, Sept 1).
Having a shadow minister would help with the WP’s scrutinising of policies and presenting of alternative views, and demonstrate a genuine intention to run the country in the future.
Mr Singh says the WP does not have the resources. But the WP does not need to have the whole civil service at its disposal.
All it needs is a small group of people to do in-depth research, seek feedback from constituents and come up with good alternatives.
With the existing 13 legislative assistants at the WP’s disposal, there are enough resources to form at least one shadow ministry.
If this shadow minister does a good job, Singaporeans can then entrust the WP with more responsibilities in future elections. The WP cannot continue to run “by-election” strategies for future general elections.
by Colin Loh Yoon Fui
.
===
.
S$320m….all about money.
It helps but will it be enough? Should it be S$1b and not S$320m for it to be enough to help the local tourist industry?
Are the vouchers transferable? Believe some will sell it at a discount on Internet soon.
========
How many of the powerful, rich, learned and the infirm will bother to go on the Internet with SingPass to collect the vouchers?
How much of the S$320m will not be disbursed and therefore will not benefit those in the tourist industry as intended?
.
======
.
Will there be loopholes, and what are the controls?
Can someone print fake to beat and cheat the system?
.
======
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial Says
Vouching for the tourism sector
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 21st Sept 2020 in ST
Singaporeans aged 18 and above this year will receive $100 each to spend on staycations, tickets to leisure attractions, and local tours. This is a practical move to stimulate domestic spending and save jobs in the tourism sector. It is practical because the duration of the voucher programme is timed to coincide with the March, June and December school holidays, and to spread out demand in between. It coincides with the announcement that tourist attractions can apply to increase their operating capacity to 50 per cent – up from the current 25 per cent. The $320 million SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme should help attractions to carry over their capabilities, built up over the years, and look ahead, even as they consolidate capacity in the interim.
The severity of the downturn that marks the interim cannot be overstated. The coronavirus pandemic has all but decimated the industry after four years of consecutive growth. In February, the Singapore Tourism Board said the sector was facing its biggest challenge since the occurrence of Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003. The extent of that challenge became clear in subsequent months as Covid-19 ravaged globalised economies, including Singapore’s, particularly in sectors associated with international travel. Unlike Sars, whose lethality proved to be relatively short-lived, the economic after-effects of Covid-19 could be expected to linger for quite some time.
Meanwhile, domestic consumption can go some way towards meeting the precipitous decline in international demand. This is not an unreasonable expectation. Last year, visitors spent $27.7 billion here. While that figure is impressive, it is smaller than what Singapore’s resident population spent on overseas travel last year: $36.5 billion. But if even a fraction of that spending could be channelled into domestic tourism, the sector would benefit considerably. Admittedly, Singaporeans would not want to spend large amounts within their own country, which they know.
Indeed, even their foreign travel plans would have shrunk during a job-eating recession. However, they are likely to give domestic tourism a chance if the attractions are safe, not too expensive, and encourage interaction between family and friends. Also, they expect their tourism experiences to be authentic, in the sense that they are not treated like foreign tourists but as insiders who are offered deeper insights into the flora, fauna, history and architecture of the country.
Companies in the tourism business could collaborate to provide Singaporeans with that quality experience. The vouchers could spur discretionary spending that is required to give tourism and those working in the sector a boost. Innovative packages that combine different experiences, from hotel stays to tours of attractions, are one way to turn Singaporeans into local tourists.
.
======
.
All adult S’poreans to get $100 tourism vouchers in December for staycations, attractions and local tours
The vouchers will be accessible via SingPass and can be used to offset ticket purchases to leisure attractions and hotel stays.PHOTOS: CHONG JUN LIANG, ST FILE
PUBLISHED50 MIN AGO on 16th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
by Tiffany Fumiko Tay
SINGAPORE – Singaporeans aged 18 and above this year will each receive $100 in digital vouchers to spend on staycations, tickets to leisure attractions and local tours.
The SingapoRediscovers Vouchers will be accessible via SingPass from December and can be used to offset ticket purchases and hotel stays until the end of June next year. Permanent residents will not be eligible for the vouchers.
Adult Singaporeans will also be able to purchase up to six subsidised tickets for attractions and tours – each at $10 off – for those under 18 from December to the end of next June.Announcing the details on Wednesday (Sept 16), Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing said the duration of the voucher programme is timed to coincide with the June and December holidays and to spread out demand in between.
The initiative is not a social assistance scheme, he added.
“This is an economic scheme to help our tourist attractions preserve their capabilities that have been built up over their years while they consolidate the capacity in the interim,” Mr Chan told reporters during a visit to the Jurong Bird Park.
The $320 million SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme was first announced last month and forms part of the Government’s efforts to prop up the tourism sector, which has been decimated by travel restrictions amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The vouchers, which will come in denominations of $10, can be used at all licensed hotels, leisure attractions and for local tours by operators that have received approval from the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to reopen or resume.
There are currently 214 hotels, 40 attractions and 438 tour itineraries that have been given the green light to resume operations with safe management measures in place. They include Singapore’s four wildlife parks, a number of activities and hotels on Sentosa and guided tours of Pulau Ubin.
The vouchers complement the $45 million SingapoRediscovers marketing campaign, launched in July to encourage locals to holiday at home and support local businesses.
More than 200 deals and packages have been launched so far, and the vouchers will give Singaporeans more incentive to rediscover their backyard, STB said on Wednesday.
The tourism board said specific details on how the vouchers can be redeemed will be announced in November.
While STB expects that the redemption process for the vouchers “will adopt a digital mode by default”, it will provide support for those who have difficulties using such methods.
Related Story
Bundle deals part of $2 million tie-up between STB and Klook to boost local tourism
Related Story
SIA eyeing ‘flights to nowhere’ to give a lift to ailing business
Industry players have said that the vouchers will act as a form of indirect discounting for businesses, as lowering prices is a challenge with capacity limits on their operations in place.
HIGHER CAPACITY LIMITS FOR ATTRACTIONS
However, tourist attractions – which are currently restricted to 25 per cent of their operating capacity at any one time – can apply to increase this to 50 per cent from Friday.
Adult Singaporeans will also be able to purchase up to six subsidised tickets for attractions and tours for those under 18 from December to the end of next June. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
They can also seek STB’s permission to scale up the capacity at their outdoor shows to 250 people, up from 50 currently. But shows must be split into five zones with a maximum of 50 people in each, with safe distancing between groups as well as zones.
Related Story
Staycations under $180: Explore trendy locales while staying at these chic boutique hotels
Related Story
Tourist at home: Explore Singapore with cool local tours
This means the limit for outdoor shows at attractions will be in line with the maximum number of participants soon to be allowed at approved Mice (meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions) events.
STB said on Wednesday that the easing of rules for attractions comes as operators have been effective at preventing and dispersing crowds, as well as maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
All attractions have also introduced online booking systems for timed entry or pre-booking of activities to monitor and control visitor numbers, it said.
.
====
.
.
Five things you need to know about the SingapoRediscovers vouchers
The vouchers can be used at all licensed hotels, leisure attractions and for local tours by operators that have received approval to reopen or resume.PHOTO: RESORTS WORLD SENTOSA
PUBLISHED32 MIN AGO 16th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
by Wong Shiying
SINGAPORE – From December this year, Singaporeans aged 18 and above will be given $100 worth of vouchers to spend on local attractions, Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing announced at Jurong Bird Park on Wednesday morning (Sept 16).
Here is all you need to know about what these vouchers are for and how you can use them.
WHAT IS THE SINGAPOREDISCOVERS VOUCHERS SCHEME?
The vouchers initiative is part of the Government’s efforts to revive local tourism, which has been hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and travel restrictions.
It complements the $45 million SingapoRediscovers marketing campaign, which was launched in July to encourage locals to holiday at home and support local businesses.
HOW MUCH IN VOUCHERS WILL BE GIVEN?
About $320 million worth of vouchers will be given out. Adult Singaporeans are given $100 in digital vouchers each and these come in denominations of $10.
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE VOUCHERS?
All Singaporeans aged 18 and above this year are eligible for the vouchers. For those under 18, adult Singaporeans will be able to purchase up to six subsidised tickets for attractions and tours – each at $10 off – for them. Permanent residents will not be eligible for the vouchers.
WHERE CAN THESE VOUCHERS BE USED?
They can be used at all licensed hotels, leisure attractions and for local tours by operators that have received approval from the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to reopen or resume.
Related Story
All adult S’poreans to get $100 tourism vouchers in December for staycations, attractions and local tours
Related Story
Bundle deals part of $2 million tie-up between STB and Klook to boost local tourism
There are currently 214 hotels, 40 attractions and 438 tour itineraries that have been given the green light to resume operations.
These include Universal Studios Singapore, Jewel Changi Airport’s Canopy Park, as well tours of Pulau Ubin and Kampong Glam.
A more comprehensive list of attractions and activities can be found on STB’s website.
HOW CAN THE VOUCHERS BE REDEEMED?
They will be accessible via SingPass from December and can be used to offset ticket purchases and hotel stays until the end of June next year.
Related Story
SIA eyeing ‘flights to nowhere’ to give a lift to ailing business
Related Story
Staycations under $180: Explore trendy locales while staying at these chic boutique hotels
STB said the redemption of vouchers “will adopt a digital mode by default”, but it will provide support for those who have difficulties using such methods.
More details will be announced in November.
.
=======
.
Did any MP ask the PM in Parliament today:
1. What are the Govt’s contingency plans if the Pandemic continues pass 12 months, and 24 months?
2. How much more will the Govt draw from the NR, and the cap on it to fund the economic downturn when the Pandemic goes beyond 12 months, and beyond 24 months?
3. How many Singaporeans out of job will be considered a matter of grave concern to the Govt, and what are the Govt’s plans to meet the crisis when the number of jobless Singaporeans cross that line?
4. How much will the Govt fund Changi Airport to keep it operational if the economic downturn goes beyond 12 months, and beyond 24 months?
.
========
.
It is all about money and jobs.
S$93.9b are not enough and it will be too for the S$8b.
Solutions, solutions, solutions? Job is a hot political issue.
Did any MP ask the minister to disclose in Parliament the escape or force majeure clause in the FTA agreements including the CECA when there is a natural disaster or by act of God?
Did any MP ask for the release of the clause regarding the cap on the total number of PMETs by the various business sectors and/or categories or by company?
=====
What are the top five issues to be debated in Parliament to come up with effectively and first-world Parliament solutions?
When will the blank cheque be given to the opposition to govern? Why? When the PAP Govt has failed to use the BC well, efficiently and effectively.
=====
Below are national-level issues, but what are the solutions?
Does the PM intend to wait for the WP to table their solutions in Parliament for debates?
Will the WP have the means and abilities to score political points against the PAP Govt by addressing the top five key issues first and within the first 100 to 700 days of this 14th Parliament? We wait.
.
====
.
After this pandemic is over and when economic recovery is on the way, will the new Cabinet address the long-term national issues [not local issues]?
1] foreign workers [also dormitory issues?] and PMETs;
2] Minimum Wage vs Wage Supplementary Income and Progressive Wage for foreign and local workers;
3] CPF at age 55;
4] GST and Sales Tax;
5] rising Cost of Living; income inequality and wealth inequality to become a fair and just society for all;
6] rising healthcare costs;
7] HDB prices of new flats, upgrading older flats, and 99-year lease going to zero;
8] million dollar salaries of Cabinet ministers;
9] transparency and accountability to prevent conflict of interest that could undermine efforts in achieving the highest standard of governance;
10] creating quality jobs for Singaporeans for the post-Covid19 economic recovery and for Singapore to have a bigger share of the world’s economic pie;
11] setting a cap for the National Reserves at 3 times our GDP;
12] setting the direction on Singapore’s identity as there are many undertones both locally and internationally that could affect our solidarity and cohesiveness.’
.
13] Start now to provide and able to cater for and meet some 30% of our basic daily food consumption by having home-based production to rely less on imports.
.
======
.
Solutions, solutions, solutions?
Did any MP ask the minister to disclose in Parliament the escape or force majeure clause in the FTA agreements including the CECA when there is a natural disaster or by act of God?
Did any MP ask for the release of the clause regarding the cap on the total number of PMETs by the various business sectors and/or categories or by company?
.
=========
.
Releasing information in Parliament to the WP…?
It will be PAP Govt making the bed for the WP to lie on.
Or, like giving WP the weapon for them to slice the PAP Govt.…
Or, to help the WP to score political points against the PAP Govt.
.
=========
.
Having a Leader of the Opposition is a paradigm shift and dynamic change of the landscape at Parliament, and we expect changes for the better, but what kind of changes will it help bring about a First World Parliament?
Will our Parliament be like Taiwan, UK, S. Korea or Malaysia where the debates are fast and furious, and many are debates filled with lots of hot air but issues not tackled and the nation remains in limbo?
Will LOTO Pritam Singh make the difference from now to 2025?
We wait.
.
======
.
Let the debates begins in earnest.
It is all about money. S$93.9b not enough and so will be the S$8b.
We wait for the weeks ahead.
.
======
.
Parliament: Workers’ Party’s Sylvia Lim files adjournment motion to discuss enhancing equity in criminal justice system
The Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim has filed an adjournment motion for the coming Parliamentary sitting next month.
In a statement on Wednesday (16 September), WP said that the motion aims to discuss aspects of Singapore’s criminal justice system with reference to the recent case of former domestic worker Parti Liyani.
The motion filed by the Aljunied GRC will also entail examining challenges faced by underprivileged Singaporeans in navigating their way through the criminal justice system, and subsequently putting forth “specific suggestions” to improve the said system.
The motion, titled “Justice For All: Enhancing Equity in the Criminal Justice System”, was filed on Monday.
Separately last week, Progress Singapore Party chief Tan Cheng Bock on Sunday called for the Government to convene an independent review body to “critically and holistically assess” the authorities’ responses to Ms Parti’s case.
In a Facebook post, Dr Tan said that the body needs to be set up to evaluate the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) version of events and “what went wrong”.
The review body should also then “make recommendations to prevent the same wrongs from re-occurring”, he said.
“Proper accountability demands that we find the root causes for these lapses. Not just whether mistakes were caused by individual human errors.
“We must examine if there are underlying systemic faults – whether there are any failures in safety processes, protocols, checks and balances. If not, we risk repeating the same mistakes again,” he wrote.
Other alternative party figures have also called for the AGC to explain its decision to prosecute Ms Parti, given the kind of evidence that was presented.
Singapore People’s Party’s Khan Osman Sulaiman urged the AGC to “review its decision process to avoid such cases from happening again”.
People’s Voice Party chief Lim Tean called for the issues present in Ms Parti’s case to be debated in Parliament.
Background of the case
Ms Parti was convicted in March last year of stealing items belonging to her former employer — the previous Changi Airport Group (CAG) chairman Liew Mun Leong — and his family, particularly his son Karl Liew.
Ms Parti’s employment was abruptly terminated on 28 Oct 2016.
Mr Liew had asked Mr Karl to oversee Ms Parti’s termination and repatriation process to Indonesia, as the former was abroad at the time.
Prior to being sent back to her home country, Ms Parti was given only three hours to pack her belongings despite having worked for the family for almost nine years.
Mr Liew subsequently reported the purported theft on 30 October the same year after returning to Singapore.
Less than two months later, Ms Parti was arrested at Changi Airport on 2 December upon her return to Singapore.
Ms Parti was charged with stealing items totalling S$50,000.
The amount, however, was reduced to S$34,000 when District Judge Olivia Low removed several items from the charge sheet and reduced the estimated value of certain items, such as knocking down the value of a damaged Gerald Genta watched from S$25,000 to S$10,000.
Judge Low sentenced Ms Parti to two years and two months of jail after removing items from and reducing value on the allegedly stolen items that Mr Anil had successfully disproved in the State Courts hearing.
The prosecution originally sought a three-year jail sentence.
Earlier this month on 4 September, Justice Chan Seng Onn of the High Court overturned the conviction and 26-month jail sentence passed down by Judge Low to Ms Parti last year in the State Courts, effectively clearing the Indonesian national of all charges made against her.
Justice Chan found that Mr Liew and Mr Karl’s actions demonstrated “improper motives” in terminating Ms Parti’s employment and making the police report against her.
He stressed that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that there was no improper motive by Mr Liew and Mr Karl in making the police report against Ms Parti “just two days” after she made an express threat to alert the Ministry of Manpower about her illegal deployment to the latter’s residence and office.
.
======
.
Pritam Singh: What’s changed, must not change and should change in S’pore
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 1st September 2020 in Straits Times
The Workers’ Party chief spoke at length yesterday in his new role as Leader of the Opposition during the debate on the President’s Address. The following excerpts are highlights of his speech.
My speech will cover a variety of topics organised into three main areas. First, I will speak about certain things that have changed in Singapore. Second, I will talk about things that must not change, and third, I will suggest that some things should change.
First, let me speak about a few things that have changed in Singapore in the aftermath of the last elections.
Immediately after the results
of the general election were known, the Prime Minister announced the position of Leader of the Opposition (LO) and that this would come with support and resources. It would be an understatement to say that this announcement came as a surprise to the WP and to members of the public.My view is to take the appointment of the LO and the motives behind it positively. The PM has signalled a change in the narrative and culture of how politics and government is to be conducted, and I thank him for that.
We look forward to a different tone of political engagement, and the WP accepts the change as another step towards a First World Parliament.
This appointment has already created expectations. My personal expectation is that my WP colleagues and I will have to work extra hard. We will have to ask ourselves tough questions before critiquing government policy – the chief of which is, what would we do if we were in charge?
With the new changes, it needs to be clear what the Opposition can and cannot do.
The appointment of the LO is an opportunity for citizens, and indeed politicians, to educate ourselves and understand better what exactly it is that the Opposition does and what its purpose is. What does it mean to be a check and balance on the Government, and how exactly can the Opposition propose alternative policies?
My assessment is that the public expects the WP and the Opposition in general to play a constructive role in Singapore politics. It should advance the interests of all Singaporeans, whether they may be in the majority or minority on any particular issue, without fear or favour.
For opposition parties to make greater headway in Parliament, we have to understand that today’s political context necessitates the development of a rational and responsible approach to opposition politics that places not just the Singapore citizen, but Singapore at the core.
Mr Speaker, my WP colleagues and I will set our own standards and chart an independent course… The road ahead will not be easy but anything worthwhile never is. We will do our best by Singapore and Singaporeans.
Related Story
Parliament sets out duties and privileges of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh
Related Story
Opposition leader role a sign of maturing political system: Observers
Related Story
Leader of the Opposition – a double-edged sword
But how much we can do and how much our political conversation evolves for the better will be driven by three things:
One, by the quantity and quality of information that is shared by the Government in Parliament and separately, released to the public more generally; two, by the resources given by the Government, to analyse and use that information for the benefit of the public; and three, by the willingness of the Government to listen to, and implement, the alternative ideas suggested.
As far as information is concerned, the Opposition’s output will depend very much on whether we can get the input we ask for. We intend to make targeted inquiries of government departments and public agencies, as such information is essential for crafting alternative policies.
On its part, the Government should consider how it can put out more information without being asked, particularly information and indicators benchmarked against other countries.
In early 2018, I asked a parliamentary question about the number of permanent residents or PRs who remained PRs for more than 10, 15, 20 and 25 years respectively, and the common reasons cited by these individuals for not taking up Singapore citizenship. The information provided was far narrower – specifically that about 15 per cent of PRs have been PRs for 20 or more years.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh said that as far as information is concerned, the Opposition’s output will depend on whether it can get the input it asks for. PHOTO: GOV.SG
Sir, the additional details that were not provided are important so the Opposition can consider and put forward alternative approaches to population and immigration policies. The data would also put into stark relief the relevance of referring to someone as a local in our statistical data when it is clear either that some PRs do not want to become Singapore citizens or the state has no plans to extend citizenship to them.
Mr Speaker, I accept that such matters are sensitive, and the Government’s unwillingness to provide the data in the format or detail requested may arise not because of an unwillingness to disclose information. Instead, there could be genuine concerns about how the information will be used, or perhaps misused, to rile pockets of the population, since PR policy is closely tied to immigration and jobs.
But it is my case that the Government will have to find a new way of dealing with such difficult matters. And I strongly believe Parliament is an important safety valve and potential moderator of the extreme conversations found offline and online on immigration and population issues.
As for resources, I would like to share my understanding of the resources that will be provided to the LO.
Every elected MP is given a budget to hire a legislative assistant and a secretarial assistant. The legislative assistant is paid an allowance of $1,300 per month and the secretarial assistant is paid an allowance of $500 a month. Based on these sums, these positions are, of necessity, part-time ones.
By contrast… a sitting Government has at its disposal the resources of a Singapore Public Service of 146,000 full-time officers. Of these, 85,000 are members of the civil service.
The LO’s office will not have the breadth and depth of the party in government in coming up with alternative policies. Nonetheless, the WP will continue pursuing alternatives we feel are important for Singapore, an example being the proposal for redundancy insurance for workers…
With just 10 MPs… it is not feasible for the WP to set up a shadow Cabinet in the tradition of Westminster Parliaments. There are 16 ministries, including the Prime Minister’s Office.
Despite not being able to shadow each ministry, we intend to organise our MPs to look into five areas that are critical for Singapore and of huge importance to Singaporeans.
The five areas are: one – health, ageing and retirement adequacy; two – jobs, businesses and the economy; three – education, inequality and the cost of living; four – housing, transport and infrastructure: and five – national sustainability.
THINGS THAT MUST NOT CHANGE
First, Singapore’s historical position as a trading nation. Second, the Government’s policies and actions on defence and foreign policy. And finally, certain things that are now synonymous with Singapore – multiracialism, the greening of Singapore, the quality of our public libraries and our culture of abhorring corruption.
Singapore has always been a trading nation and open borders are a fact of our lives. Investors should know that Singapore will never close for business no matter how many WP MPs are in Parliament. We make a living by being relevant to the world and separately as a trustworthy and reliable interlocutor.
Opposition politics and advocacy for Singaporeans cannot ignore Singapore’s place in the world and what we offer to the world. We must still look outward, even as we continually search for a lasting modus vivendi which accommodates the domestic pressures of being economically open, and the reality of a Singapore identity that evolves and crystallises as our nation matures.
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY
Moving on to the second thing that must not change. The WP supports the Government’s positions on defence and foreign policy. These must continue as they are. These policies are well considered and they place primacy on Singapore’s interest while seeking long-term mutual cooperation with other countries and international organisations. They also take into account the realism of the international politics and the reality of not just a small state, but our peculiar circumstances too.
The WP backs the Government in involving Singapore in United Nations initiatives, and those of the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, Unesco, the International Labour Organisation and other multilateral initiatives. We support the Government’s efforts in working with our neighbours to bolster Asean.
In particular, we support Singapore’s efforts to work with Asean and other countries to finalise the South China Sea Code of Conduct. As a small maritime nation and, separately, a trading nation, the sanctity of international agreements and adherence to the rule of law are necessary to discourage arbitrary behaviour by more powerful states.
THINGS THAT ARE A PART OF SINGAPORE
Next, we support the Government’s work in continuing various things that have become a part of Singapore’s DNA.
Singapore’s position on corruption must not change.
Equally important is Singapore’s emphasis on racial and religious harmony. These words are almost a cliche in Singapore, and we should be grateful for that, because in many other countries, it is a source of intractable problems. The WP strongly believes in Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural community. It is important that all communities support, respect and accommodate each other.
THINGS THAT SHOULD CHANGE
It is my conviction that these changes would improve governance and better look after the needs of Singaporeans.
First, to leverage an independent organ of state, namely Parliament, the WP proposes the formation of more Select Committees.
Some conversations in Singapore can continue to be divisive unless we decisively create a framework for reasoned conversation. Parliament, using the platform of Select Committees, can operate as an important safety valve and agent of positive conversations that ought to have a direct impact on policies and laws.
More significantly, in the information ecology of today’s world, misinformation and disinformation campaigns are run online and offline, usually in combination, to manipulate content and hijack narratives. This House and the Government need to reframe the public narrative on our more pressing issues.
In many countries today, even the mainstream media cannot moderate the conversation without significant public funding. A recent headline from the magazine Current Affairs put it starkly: the truth is paywalled and the lies are free – an apt description of the dilemma facing the mainstream media in the face of some aspects of social media. By forming Select Committees that meet regularly on the most sensitive and difficult issues for Singapore, Parliament can play a bigger role in leading the conversation and championing the truth.
FOREIGNERS IN THE ECONOMY
The next thing we need to change in Singapore is how we manage and accommodate foreigners in our economy. Their presence gives Singapore a vitality that keeps us economically relevant and also provides jobs and opportunities to our fellow Singaporeans.
Many of us count the foreigners in our midst, regardless of race, language or religion, as our friends. That openness and friendly attitude must continue as a manifestation of the Singapore spirit and the Singapore we leave behind for future generations of Singaporeans.
But it is precisely because we need foreigners to power our economy that we need to pay more attention to Singapore workers who feel excluded from opportunities created in their homeland.
In recent weeks, letters in the Straits Times Forum have been published, one by a retired senior Singaporean banker and another by the managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore in reply. These appeared after the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) placed 47 companies on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist. Of the 47 companies, 30 were financial and professional services institutions. On the MOM’s website, examples are given of one wealth management firm where almost three-quarters of its PMET – or professional, manager, executive and technician – jobs are held by persons of the same nationality. Another example is given of a bank where almost two-thirds are of the same nationality.
The obvious question is: How did those two companies get to those stages without MOM taking action before this?
To be fair, this is a complex issue. For example, there may be some justification if the bank’s customers are not in Singapore, but are from the same country as the PMETs, and if these customers do not speak any of the languages widely used in Singapore. Some have argued that this is what it takes for Singapore to become a global financial hub.
The problem is that we simply do not know enough. And the vacuum has given space for a more toxic conversation to ferment. We should nip this forthwith and some of the details earlier this week from the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) about inter-corporate transferees and remarks by the Minister for MTI have been important. To this end, more information, and not less, is certainly most helpful.
One way for us in Parliament and for the public to know is for MOM to publish the names of recalcitrant employers.
We can then understand the operating paradigm of such businesses and how they intend to make the transition to fair hiring practices.
The Government needs to raise its signature in this regard, especially since the issue is such a hot-button one, often generating a lot of heat but very little light. To assist, a Parliamentary Select Committee can investigate the limitations of the workforce and the needs of the economy on the one hand; and the reality of the Singaporean worker in the face of competition and the constraints faced by employers on the other.
Beyond this, a far more purposeful way to prevent companies from hiring unfairly would be for Parliament to pass anti-discrimination legislation and impose penalties for discriminatory practices by egregious offenders. This should be considered alongside a more activist approach by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices or Tafep in the immediate term.
Tied closely to the issue of the hiring of foreigners is whether the education system is adequately preparing our citizens for the jobs that are available.
The big banks – OCBC, UOB and DBS – all have workforces that are made up of at least 90 per cent Singapore citizens and permanent residents. It is unclear what proportion are Singapore citizens. Standard Chartered has said that 70 per cent of its local subsidiary’s staff are Singapore citizens. Are these really high numbers?
What are the reasons why these banks cannot be staffed by even more Singaporeans?
The two main justifications given for the hiring of foreigners are first, that they are unable to find Singaporeans with the expertise; and second, that foreigners do jobs that are undesired by Singaporeans.
As it is unlikely that well-paying banking jobs are undesired by Singaporeans, the justification of these banks in hiring foreigners must be that they are unable to find enough Singaporeans with the needed expertise.
If that is true, then we need to ask where the gaps are in our education and lifelong learning training systems. These gaps must be found and plugged as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker, I have spent some time on these matters which are on the lips of many Singaporeans because I believe that in spite of Covid-19 and the changes taking place in the world, opportunities are arising that Singapore can take advantage of. For example, the seismic political changes in Hong Kong may prompt some international businesses to move to other jurisdictions. We should aim to welcome those looking to move. But if we do not move purposefully to consolidate and position the Singaporean PMET in a competitive position vis-a-vis the work pass holder, the Government will not be able to secure support for its economic agenda and take advantage of opportunities while maintaining social harmony.
TRADESMEN
Another thing that should change in Singapore is raising of the value of the work of Singapore tradesmen.
In places like Australia, New Zealand and Germany, tradesmen make good wages that match or even outstrip those of university graduates.
In Singapore, although our educational institutions train our citizens for such vocations, not enough is done to protect their trades. The way to protect our tradesmen is to regulate who can practise each trade.
Medical professionals, accountants, quantity surveyors, insurance practitioners and real estate sales professionals have to be properly qualified and certified. This enables them to earn a wage that is protected from undercutting by the unqualified. However, for trades such as air-conditioner servicing and plumbing, for example, anyone can offer such services.
Uplifting our tradesmen will require a paradigm shift in how workers are viewed and trained. If it succeeds, it will raise the self-esteem and incomes of Singaporeans who may not be academically inclined but who have acquired valuable skills that many of us in this House would not be able to fully master. It is my view that such a decisive shift will fundamentally alter our understanding of meritocracy.
A KINDER, GENTLER SINGAPORE
The final point I would like to make on things that should change is on greater help for those who need it most.
The WP believes that the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation schemes are good ones. However, we believe more can be done.
We know that there are trade-offs. Extending more health and other social benefits comes with a cost. Could this result in higher income taxes for many Singaporeans and those who work here, for example? Yes. But the benefits will go beyond mere financial help for those who need it.
Will there be a price to pay in terms of higher costs for the end-consumer? This must be expected. Increasingly, there will be a price to pay if we wish to be “one united people” and move beyond the phrase as an aspiration or worse, a platitude.
Many Scandinavians are content to pay higher taxes because they know this means that others in their society will be able to live with greater dignity. For those who earn higher incomes, to pay higher taxes is a point of pride for many of them.
The Singaporean identity which sees community as a central pillar of its DNA should imbibe such thinking with those better-off paying more. Let us build a kinder and gentler Singapore.
CONCLUSION
As history tells us, change can be for the better or for the worse. Around 50 years ago, some Asian countries were prosperous and thriving. Fast forward to today, as a direct result of bad choices and in spite of the best intentions, things have gone awry.
However Singapore pivots or evolves in the years to come, I believe a reasoned conversation before choices and decisions are made, or not made, will be critical. These will take time and consume much energy, and we will have to guard against conversations which are hijacked to advance sectional interests that demonise those who have reservations or a different perspective.
The WP will seek to play a positive role in the national conversation both in and out of Parliament, to leave behind a Singapore our children and future generations can be proud of.
.
=========
.
Sleeping in Parliament…
In the public galleries, you are not allowed to close eyes.
Live telecast will mean proceedings including close-eyes going into the coffee shops, living and bed rooms.
The Parliament staff will wake you up those in the public galleries.
What is the solution against MPs closing eyes?
The comfortable seat should be wired where the staff can switch on the seat warmer to wake up the sleeping MPs.
I hope the Speaker of Parliament will look into this.
.
====
.
DPM Heng: S’pore must adapt to change but stay true to its values
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 1st September 2020 in Straits Times
Singapore can survive and thrive despite the current global crisis if it embraces change with courage and confidence, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said yesterday during the debate on the President’s Address. Here are excerpts from his speech to Parliament.
In my maiden speech in Parliament in 2011, I said that all debates in this House will always be guided by one question: “How can we best ensure the survival and success of Singapore, and improve the lives of Singaporeans?”
We have over the years examined this question in different ways.
The question has now become more critical than ever. We began 2020 full of hope, having just commemorated our Bicentennial last year. None of us could have foreseen what was to come – the whole of humanity locked in by a virus; millions of people infected, and lives upended; the global economy plunged into the worst recession since the Great Depression; and the ways we earn a living, go about our lives, and interact with one another turned on their head.In Singapore, we mounted a swift and robust response. To protect lives, we imposed the circuit breaker.
To protect livelihoods, we are doing all that we can to keep our workers in jobs, preserve the core capabilities of our businesses and support households during this difficult period. We committed around $100 billion to fight the pandemic and safeguard our people and businesses from the fallout.
But as a small and open economy, we cannot defy the full force of this global crisis.
We have to tackle these challenges amid the underlying shifts that predated Covid-19.
There is a backlash against free trade and sharpening nativist instincts, because the costs and benefits of globalisation have been unevenly distributed. Technology and innovation are reshaping the nature of work, disrupting jobs and businesses. These stresses have in turn caused societies to be polarised…
The uncertainties created by Covid-19 have only accelerated these shifts.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat yesterday said Singapore must take a more integrated approach to economic transformation, redouble efforts to develop every Singaporean to his fullest potential, boost pathfinding capacity to find new bright spots and seek new ways to be a vital node in the world. PHOTO: GOV.SG
To compound matters, governments around the world have financed massive stimulus packages through borrowing, putting an even greater burden on future generations.
It is against this sombre backdrop that we open our 14th Parliament. As the President said in her speech, we are at an inflection point in our history. Now, more than ever, we must ask: How can we best ensure
the survival and success of Singapore, and improve the lives of Singaporeans in these unprecedented times?
We can answer this in one line: Adapt to change, but stay true to our values.
Change will leave us behind if we stand still. That we must adapt is a given.
What will define this term of Government is how we will adapt, that will build a better life for our people. Even as we keep pace with change, we must stay true to the values that have enabled us to progress all these years.
By embracing change with courage and confidence, we build our capacity to adapt. By staying true to our values, we strengthen our sense of common purpose. By working in close partnership, we advance as Singapore Together.
I will speak about how we need to adapt as an economy, a society and a people.
ADAPTING AS AN ECONOMY
Singapore’s economic story over the decades has been one of constant adaptation, restructuring and transformation. Our latest refresh started in 2016, with Industry Transformation Maps to spur sector-specific adaptation throughout our economy.
The effort has borne fruit. Productivity and wages were going up before Covid-19 struck. Industry players have also found new ways of working together to raise the competitiveness of their industries.
Indeed, bearing fruit is not just a metaphor here. I met a fruit seller Jun Sheng, better known as “Ah Boy” at Block 58 Marketplace in Bedok. In addition to operating a physical stall, he sells fruits online and even takes orders via WhatsApp. Many hawkers and small businesses islandwide are also going digital. We must do what we can to support our workers and business, big and small, and make such innovation pervasive.
While we have made progress in industry transformation, we must look ahead and prepare ourselves for even faster and more disruptive change. To emerge stronger as an economy, we must strengthen our capacity in four areas.
First, we must take an even more integrated and coordinated approach to economic transformation.
The economy is very complex, with multiple stakeholders.
In our system, tripartism – the Government, businesses and the labour movement working together – has been a tremendous source of strength.
Two years back, as chairman of the National Research Foundation, I visited the Netherlands to learn more about its “triple helix” model of innovation – where government, businesses and academia work together to build knowledge, test prototypes and scale innovation.
Like some research triangles in the United States, the Dutch have done well. This model is being expanded to incorporate other dimensions such as societal responsibility and environmental protection.
In essence, the economy is very complex in how it allocates resources, generates innovative ideas, and in how returns are distributed across multiple stakeholders. While there is a competitive element in this, there are also benefits to be gained from working together for shared prosperity.
Singapore can build on our tripartite partnership to be a test bed that creates deeper linkages with an expanded set of stakeholders – including our education and research institutions, our community groups, and interested partners from around the world. By doing so, we can create good jobs for our people and new opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Second, we must redouble our efforts to develop everyone to his or her fullest potential. In this way, our people can take on new opportunities and flourish in their chosen pursuits. We need a holistic approach for this that spans the lifetime of individuals, from birth to pre-school to schools, all the way to lifelong learning as part of SkillsFuture. I am glad our workers are embracing upskilling, with about half a million taking part in SkillsFuture programmes last year.
And we have to explore new possibilities for developing our people fully.
Third, we must strengthen our pathfinding capacity to find new bright spots amid economic disruption.
SEEKING NEW PATHS, NEW CONNECTIONS
Four months ago, we set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce to identify and seize new opportunities in emerging trends. The task force has made good progress and commissioned seven Alliances for Action. These industry-led coalitions to pilot ideas quickly represent a new, action-oriented approach to pursue specific growth areas.
The ideas being explored are promising. They range from environmental sustainability to smart commerce, supply chain digitalisation and the use of robotics. These can create new growth markets for our businesses and good jobs for Singaporeans.
We will invest in incubating and accelerating start-ups, and supporting established companies to expand their R&D to build competitive strengths. Such a vibrant innovation ecosystem will build up our path-finding capabilities.
Fourth, we must find new ways to be a vital node, with rich and deep interconnections with the rest of the world.
As a small city-state, being open is our strength and opportunity. Unlike other major cities, we do not have domestic hinterlands that buffer us against shocks. We cannot take for granted that, in a post-Covid-19 world, we can continue to be the same kind of hub that we used to be.
We must therefore forge new forms of connections, such as digital economy agreements, while deepening our linkages with regional markets to ride on Asia’s potential.
Related Story
Addendum to President’s Address: Singapore to continue investing in technology and innovation to fuel growth
Related Story
Addendum to President’s Address: Help must be provided in sustainable, equitable way, says Heng Swee Keat
Related Story
Mindset shift needed in upskilling and digitalisation for workers
We must also remain open to investment and talent from around the world. In this economic climate, we understand that many Singaporeans are anxious about their livelihoods. Our starting point is that our economic strategies must serve the interests of Singaporeans. The foreign investments we attract must create meaningful jobs for our people and strengthen our corporate ecosystem. Singaporeans must receive fair consideration at the workplace.
We are therefore adapting our manpower policies, including our Employment Pass and S Pass policies, to the changing circumstances, to ensure that Singaporeans’ interests are upheld. But to emerge stronger, we must resist any temptation to turn inwards. We cannot close ourselves to the world, or make foreigners unwelcome in our society.
We must always serve the interest of Singaporeans. The best way is to ensure that this little red dot – with no natural resources of any kind, but with a determined, hardworking, forward-looking people – is to remain useful and relevant to the world.
We do this by keeping our economy vibrant and competitive, so that Singaporeans and other people choose to be here, to invest and do business, thereby creating good jobs and opportunities for all of us.
Mr Patrick Tay (a labour MP who is National Trades Union Congress assistant secretary- general) is right that we should create even stronger linkages in the form of skills maps, job redesign, and the retraining and reskilling of our workers, to take on new jobs.
In particular, we must also make a deliberate effort to develop Singaporeans for leadership roles in companies, so that they can take Singapore forward. Singapore, as a regional operational headquarters, has what it takes. Singaporeans, in a multiracial, multi-religious, multicultural environment, can connect with people all around us and build deep linkages with our friends in the region. This is something that we will pursue.
.
At the same time, we must not undermine the essence of what has made us successful. Even as we adapt to a changing world, we must stay true to our values – our sense of unity as a people, our composition as a multicultural society. We must stay true to our value to the world, as an oasis of harmony in this fractious world.
ADAPTING AS A SOCIETY
Even as we evolve our economic strategies, our society too is facing new challenges and needs to continue to adapt, to sustain the promise of progress for every Singaporean. We must not let change lead to polarisation.
In the early days of our development, our economy was growing strongly. A rising tide lifted all boats, and most Singaporeans saw their lives improve by leaps and bounds.
We invested in our people so that they could adapt and grow with our economy.
As our economy matured, we also strengthened our social safety nets. For example, we improved healthcare affordability, through MediShield Life and Chas (Community
Health Assist Scheme), and provided extra support for the Pioneer and Merdeka generations.
We uplifted the wages of our lower-wage workers through Workfare and the Progressive Wage Model. Our social spending has tripled over the last 15 years and this is set to rise further as our population ages.
Looking ahead, our economy will change at a much more rapid pace.
Disruption to jobs will be more common with the greater adoption of technology, such as automation and remote work. We must therefore take an integrated view of our economic and social policies. As our labour movement puts it, a job is the best form of welfare for our people. The Government will continue to invest in our people, match them to new opportunities and bring out the best in all Singaporeans. This way, we will keep social mobility alive.
At the same time, with major changes in the economy and labour market, we will need to adapt our social safety nets and keep inequality in check.
More workers will fall on hard times and we need to enable them to adjust and bounce back through this crisis and beyond. Some Singaporeans are also taking part in the “gig” economy, taking on a wide range of jobs, either part-time or full-time. So our support for self-employed persons will have to evolve accordingly. We must continue to uplift our lower-wage workers and enable our older workers to continue working, if they wish to.
DEMANDS ON SOCIAL SAFETY NETS
Various ideas have been proposed on how we can do this, such as a minimum wage, universal basic income and unemployment insurance. The Government will keep an open mind to all these ideas. But we must also recognise there are no magic bullets. Each of these ideas has its merits as well as unintended effects. We have to consider the trade-offs and be clear about what works for our context and our times.
Demands on our social safety nets are increasing, at a time when our revenue base is growing more slowly and with sharper competition for tax revenue across countries. So I must caution against looking for what may appear to be “costless solutions” – somehow, someone else will have to pay for these schemes.
There are trade-offs. If we want higher social spending, taxes will have to go up. Or it will mean spending more at the expense of future generations, like what many countries are doing by raising debt. We must never forget that we have provided almost $100 billion of support for our people and businesses this year, without incurring a single cent of debt, because we were able to fund more than half of this using past reserves.
At the same time, while we must strengthen our social safety nets, we must do so in a way that reinforces, and not undermines, an individual’s efforts. A strong compact maintains a balance between the roles of the individual, family, community and the Government, and helps us better cope with change together.
Indeed, a social safety net cannot become a set of shackles. It should not hold down those who started with less. It should not create dependency such that people who get fish for today never learn how to fish for food tomorrow. It should not breed an entitled class who asks: “What more can you do for me?”
A well-designed social safety net protects the vulnerable, invests in human and societal capital, and provides a means for those who fall down to bounce back. It gives hope and builds confidence. It believes in people and lifts the human spirit. It supports every generation to have aspirations and dreams, and for everyone to ask: “What more can we do for one another?”
As MPs debate how we can strengthen our support for Singaporeans, let’s keep in mind how new enhancements can be funded equitably and sustainably over time, and strengthen our people’s capacity to not only succeed throughout life, but also help others succeed too. These are the values we must strengthen even as we adapt.
AFFIRMING OUR VALUES AS A PEOPLE
How we can best ensure the survival and success of Singapore, and improve the lives of Singaporeans depends on how well we adapt to change. As we adapt, and in some cases make major adjustments because the circumstances we face have changed significantly, we must stay rooted to our values and identity, and above all, our unity as one people.
I have been encouraged to see how Covid-19 has strengthened our sense of common purpose and brought out the best in us. Many have stepped up to support others. One example is the Masks Sewn With Love project, a community effort that has sewn more than 250,000 masks for vulnerable families.
This sense of unity, through both good times and bad, is rooted in the values enshrined in our Pledge and the distinct Singaporean identity we have evolved through the years.
It will take more effort to maintain this sense of common purpose as our society becomes more diverse. Our society will face new differences along the lines of identity, socio-economic status and political beliefs. There will always be different perspectives on subjects like race, language and religion, and the rights and obligations of citizenship.
It is essential that we rise above our differences and find common ground.
Occasional setbacks need not trip us in our perseverence to continue to make progress. Harmony in diversity will always be a work in progress. We may not always agree, but we cannot afford to let our disagreement turn into division.
Otherwise, change will cause a rupture in society, as we have seen elsewhere.
The better we adapt to change and stay true to our values, the stronger we can emerge from this and future crises. The stronger we are at home, the more confident we can be to stake our place in the world and create value with others. This has been our formula for survival and success.
We are determined to uphold a rules-based global order, which has taken us to where we are today.
As a small nation that threatens no country, we want to be friends with all and to work with all.
We are both a city-state and a global metropolis. Maintaining this “dual identity” will not be easy. But as long as we are clear about our values and what holds us together, it will be a source of strength that opens up new opportunities. This is our Singapore premium. Let us continue to work with like-minded partners to build a better world, for Singaporeans, for people around the world and for our future generations.
CONCLUSION
Since our independence, we have weathered one crisis after another, from the withdrawal of British forces and the ensuing massive unemployment, to the 1973 oil crisis, Asian financial crisis, Sars, 2001 IT bubble collapse and the global financial crisis.
All of us in our 50s and older would have lived through these turbulent periods. Each time, Singaporeans would have been called upon to show fortitude and resilience, and work in unity with our fellow citizens. And each time, we have risen to the challenge, adapted and emerged stronger.
The Covid-19 pandemic could be our most severe test so far. To overcome this crisis, we will have to once again draw upon and build on this capacity to adapt and remain united and stand true to our values. We can navigate this period of great uncertainty and change, but our politics must set the right tone for the rest of society
This House must fulfil its duty to articulate and debate policy options, to build a better life for our people and to advance Singapore’s place in the world. This is the mandate that has been entrusted to us by Singaporeans. I trust that all of us, whether in Government or the Opposition, will share this common sense of mission, to serve in the best interests of Singaporeans and Singapore.
My colleagues and I in Government have listened to the voices of our people. We have heard and share our peoples’ anxieties. We acknowledge the concerns and unhappiness that some have voiced. As the world and our society changes, there will be a greater divergence of views.
We will continue to understand your concerns and improve your lives. We will have to adapt to these changes but stay true to the values. The same values that have enabled us to stay united and succeed against the odds.
.
========
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial says
Parliament: More debate, less division
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 2nd Sept 2020 in ST
MPs in Parliament have got down to business to tackle the country’s worst crisis since independence. Issues crucial to Singapore’s economic and social future are being addressed with the urgency and deliberation that they require at this critical juncture.
The need to sustain a Singaporean labour core, the need to balance the greater demands on social security with fiscal sustainability and responsibility to future generations, and adherence to societal values are themes around which the Government and the opposition have found common ground to unite on at a time when the country needs constructive politics of the highest order. This ensures that people’s concerns are clearly heard, and addressed.
The Singapore core is not a new idea, of course. It has been at the heart of policymaking since independence. However, a growing global economy has necessitated the entry of foreign labour on a large scale to help power the country’s capacity for the export of goods and services. gn labour.
It will still be needed, although Singaporeans must not be unfairly disadvantaged in an increasingly competitive labour market. The sentiments raised in Parliament – on the need to prevent errant employers from getting around already enhanced entry requirements for foreigners – are an indication of shifting public mood.
Beyond the issue of foreign workers, the notion of social security will need to be reconceptualised, not only in the light of the coronavirus pandemic but also because of longstanding job disruptions caused by widespread adoption of technology across economies.
It is important for MPs to have an open mind on proposals, whether on a minimum wage or unemployment insurance. Ideas may appear feasible, but will come at a cost. In keeping with the fiscal prudence practised since independence, Parliament will need to attune its decisions and its responsibilities not just to the current generation of Singaporeans, but also to future generations, who must not be left with a legacy of painful debt to pay off.
MPs seem alive to the desire among Singaporeans for more debate on the best way forward. Thankfully, though, the leaders of all parties have made plain that they will uphold the national interest, rather than engaging in partisan one-upmanship.
The new Leader of the Opposition, Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh, also spelt out not only what he thought should change in the country, but also what should not, including its commitment to multiracialism and a firm stance against corruption.
That is for the good. The broader and deeper the consensus on Singapore’s political realities and core interests, the more room there might be for reasoned and robust debates on how best to secure its future.
.
========
.
3.30pm on CNA today…2nd Sept 2020
No National Day Rally Speech. So this could be it. We wait. …60 minutes?
Hope it is positive and motivational, offering solutions [plans and actions] and the policy directions to take going forward in the next 12 months.
It is all about money. The S$93.9b are not enough and it will be too for the S$8b.
.
This is how Singapore will face its challenges
by PM Lee Hsien Loong
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 3th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke on the guiding principles that will shape the Government’s policies in the post-Covid-19 world. Here is the edited text of his speech in Parliament yesterday.
This year, we opened Parliament sooner than we usually do after a general election, because we have urgent business dealing with Covid-19 and the economy.
Covid-19 has caused a massive upheaval in our lives. After eight gruelling months, we have stabilised our situation. But it has taken a tremendous effort to get here.
From the very beginning when Covid-19 hit us, our overriding consideration was to protect the lives of Singaporeans. Many countries talked about flattening the curve, infection curve, of letting the disease burn through the population until herd immunity developed. But that would have meant many Singaporeans getting ill, and perhaps thousands dying, especially the old and vulnerable. We were determined right from the very beginning not to go down that route.Implementing the circuit breaker in April was a very big move. We knew that it would cause extensive social and economic disruption and demand major sacrifices from Singaporeans. But we decided, Cabinet decided we had to go ahead to slow down the infection rate and get things firmly under control, buy us time.
Fortunately, we timed the circuit breaker right and luckily it worked. Each of these operations was huge and all of them had to be done in parallel. Thanks to the heroic efforts of many unsung heroes working quietly behind the scenes, we’ve got here today.
SUCCESSES AND SHORTCOMINGS
Judging by the health outcomes we’ve done well so far. Our fatality rate and absolute numbers are one of the lowest in the world. New infections in the community are down to just a handful a day. Fewer than 100 patients remain in hospital. And this has given us the confidence to reopen our economy and society gradually and carefully.
Of course, our Covid-19 response was not without shortcomings.
With hindsight, we would certainly have done some things differently.
For example, I wish we had known earlier that people with Covid-19 were infectious even when they were asymptomatic, didn’t show any symptoms. Then when we brought Singaporeans back home from all over the world in March, we would have quarantined all of them earlier, instead of only those returning from certain countries, so that the virus did not spread to their family members or their colleagues and friends.
And we would have tested all of them before releasing them from quarantine whether or not they showed any symptoms, instead of assuming that no symptoms meant no infection.
We would also have recommended that everyone wear face masks sooner than we did. But at the time we took the best available scientific advice. Once the World Health Organisation recognised that asymptomatic transmission was a major problem, we changed our policy and distributed face masks to everyone.
Related Story
Recap: PM Lee’s speech in Parliament on S’pore’s response to Covid-19
We would also have acted more aggressively and sooner on the migrant worker dormitories. We knew that communal living in the dorms poses an infection risk. Communal living in any form poses risks, on board ships and army camps and student hostels, nursing homes.
We stepped up precautions. For a time, these seemed adequate. But then bigger clusters broke out in the dorms, which threatened to overwhelm us. All this is wisdom after the fact. We must learn from these errors and do better the next time. But in the fog of war, it’s not possible always to make the perfect decisions. Yet we have to decide and move. We cannot afford to wait.
The key is to watch things closely, learn from experience, and adapt our responses promptly as new information emerges and as the situation changes.
I know we have made things more difficult and burdensome for employers, especially the contractors and sub-contractors. They have found it frustrating to deal with all the new rules, approvals and inspections, even as they try to get their businesses up and running again. But I hope that they understand that we are doing our best to smooth things out for them, and are doing all this in order to keep our people safe.
Related Story
S’pore has done well in fighting Covid-19, though Govt would have done some things differently with hindsight: PM Lee
It’s better that we make these measures work and get businesses to operate safely than to suffer a new outbreak and have to shut down again.
Overall, we’ve been able to deal with Covid-19 only because the public service, the political leadership, our businesses, and the Singapore public have worked closely together, each doing their part and more.
The situation is currently stable but we must not let our guard down. A recent Straits Times survey showed that almost half the respondents were weary of the safety measures. The irony is the more successful we are in keeping cases low, the more people wonder whether all these painful measures are necessary.
.LESSONS FROM COVID-19
I recently received an e-mail from a university student. His socialising had been disrupted.
He complained that our reaction to Covid-19 was one of the greatest overreactions to a public health issue. As proof he pointed out that our hospital systems were far from overwhelmed. He said that instead, we should let young Singaporeans do us the service of achieving herd immunity.
You only have to look at the situation in other cities that have let this happen to imagine how this could have turned out for us.
Jewel Changi Airport in May, during the circuit breaker period. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says Jewel will shine again, Changi Airport will thrive again, and Singapore Airlines will be a great way to fly once more. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
The Covid-19 virus remains as infectious and potent as it was before. This has not changed. What has changed is that we have taken measures and we have built up our capabilities to contain it. If we relax these measures now because the numbers have come down, we will have a resurgence. Just look at Europe and many other places in the world.
Covid-19 will not be our last public health crisis. Sars was 17 years ago in 2003. After Sars we knew that sooner or later, another novel pathogen would appear and pose a threat to humanity.
So we had better learn from Covid-19, how to deal with a pandemic and be as ready as we can through the worst one when the worst one befalls us. Even as we manage the immediate situation, we must look forward and prepare for life after Covid-19.
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS
Let me start with social safety nets. In our early decades of nationhood, we did not need extensive social safety nets. We had high gross domestic product and income growth, jobs were aplenty for a young population. The economy was buoyant, unemployment after the first few years was very low. If you lost your job, a new one was just around the corner. Now, we’ve moved into a different phase of development. Our economy is maturing, incomes are growing less rapidly. There is a higher premium on specialised skills and education. As a result, when someone loses his job, especially as a mature worker, it’s harder for them to move to another job, especially across different sectors.
Therefore in the last 15 years or so, we shifted our approach and progressively strengthened our social safety nets.
We introduced many schemes in these last 15 years – ComCare in 2005, Workfare in 2007, Silver Support in 2016. These schemes and many others are targeted at the lower income, and those who have fallen on hard times. They supplement their wages and Central Provident Fund contributions, so that the recipients gain both current income and also retirement security.
As we expanded our social programmes, we’ve also extended the coverage of other schemes and subsidies beyond the lower income to include middle-income households too.
We also give special support to our Pioneer and Merdeka generations to help them see through their retirement years. Altogether, we now spend three times as much on social programmes every year as we did 15 years ago. These are all peacetime measures. But when Covid-19 hit us, they could not be enough.
We had to draw on our past reserves to fund them. These are emergency measures. They are crucial for now, but they cannot continue indefinitely. We have to start thinking about what comes after them, about the level of social support we will return to after Covid-19 is over.
In the new normal, we fully expect more economic uncertainty and turbulence and the longer-term trends of an ageing population and rising healthcare costs remain unchanged. So we’ll certainly need to strengthen social support for our people during and after their working lives.
How will we do this?
Related Story
S’pore will need to strengthen social support amid greater economic uncertainty: PM Lee
Several ideas have been raised, including in this House in this debate. The Government is not ideologically opposed to any proposed solution. Our approach has always been pragmatic and empirical; make the best use of our resources to meet the needs of different groups in our society in a targeted manner, because if we help everyone equally, then we are not giving more help to those who need it most.
Take, for example, older workers. Older workers are valuable and experienced. Having been in the workforce for longer, they tend to draw higher salaries than younger workers. But their skills may be less current. If they lose their jobs, they find it harder to find another similar job, particularly at the same pay. So they are at greater risk of long-term unemployment.
Solutions like unemployment insurance can offer older workers transient relief at best. But retraining and upskilling older workers will enable employers to continue finding value in them and to be less likely to make them redundant. And if the older worker does get retrenched, with these skills he or she can find a new job more readily.
The best unemployment insurance is in fact the assurance of another job.
.Another group is the low-wage workers. We need to support them to improve their lives, so that they can catch up and narrow the gap with the rest of society. The Workfare Income Supplement has made a material difference to them, and we’ve been enhancing the Workfare scheme every now and again. And in this downturn, we made a special payment under the Workfare scheme, because we want to help those who are most in need and we don’t want to put the burden on employers. The Government takes it on.
The progressive wage model has also helped them. And we will extend the progressive wage model, as you’ve heard from Ms Josephine Teo yesterday, to more sectors over time.
We should take some time to assess the landscape after Covid-19 to see how things unfold and what specific problems develop. We must keep an open mind as we build and improve on the systems we have and consider solutions that can work in our context.
FOUNDERS AND INHERITORS
It’s not just floating ideas like minimum wage or unemployment insurance, but assessing their impact carefully – who wins and who loses within the workforce, how will our SMEs or the public be affected?
We must identify pragmatic solutions which will make a real and sustainable difference and give people justified assurance that when they need help, they will get the help that is relevant to them. And it must not create new problems in the process, for example, by eroding our spirit of self-reliance.
One permanent imperative as we think about new schemes is to keep our programmes fiscally sustainable. As a matter of principle, our social safety nets should be paid for out of current revenues. We should not draw down on what we have inherited, nor should we mortgage the future of our children.
Related Story
Debate kicks off with focus on Singapore core and values
Related Story
Parliament: Singapore must hold true to its values even as it adapts to change, says DPM Heng
Related Story
Pritam Singh: What’s changed, must not change and should change in S’pore
When our founding generation was building up our reserves, they never asked themselves whether they had too much savings. The question was whether we could steadily squirrel away a bit more in our reserves year after year, decade after decade, as protection for a rainy day.
Now the opposition says, show me how much we have in the reserves, before I decide whether I support your Budget and tax plans. Let’s have a look at the money.
Basically they’re asking, I have something in the bank already. How much of that can I touch? This was not the attitude of our forefathers, the founders who were building for the future, but the attitude of inheritors who think they have come into a fortune and want to consume the fruits of their predecessors’ labours. And this is fundamentally the wrong approach.
How much reserves are enough or too much, there can be no good answer to this question. The future is unknowable. We have no way to tell what may hit us from out of the blue.
Therefore, we should not think of ourselves as inheritors spending what we have been lucky enough to be endowed with. Rather we should take the attitude of founders, even though we may be third, fourth or fifth generation in reality, but we should think of ourselves as founders for the future generations.
Whatever reserves we have, big or small, let us not think of touching them in normal times. They are our rainy day fund, our guan chai ben. In Chinese, it sounds better. They call it a coffin fund.
Every year we live within our means. And whenever we are able to, we add a bit more to the rainy day fund to make ourselves a bit more secure for when it really pours. And that is the way to build Singapore for the long term, and secure the future for our children and grandchildren.
FOREIGN WORKERS
The second area that we will review is our foreign worker and work pass policies. This is not a new issue, but in an economic downturn, this issue becomes sharper. It’s a case not just in Singapore. All around the world, anti-foreigner sentiment is on the rise, because people are feeling worried and insecure about their futures.
Many Singaporeans are feeling anxious and pressured about their jobs. Their sense that foreigners are competing with them for jobs is palpable. Some feel unfairly treated when they see foreigners replacing them or taking up good jobs ahead of them. These feelings are completely understandable.
Singapore is a small country. Our population is small. It’s not growing very fast. Soon it’s going to level off. To grow our economy, we have no choice but to top up with foreign workers and work pass holders. And yet we cannot throw open our doors, just throw open our doors, nor have we done so.
We only have 31/2 million Singapore citizens and half a million permanent residents. In South-east Asia, there are 650 million people. In Asia, China and India alone add up to nearly three thousand million people. All can potentially come in, many would love to come.
Without tight controls we would be overwhelmed. And that’s why we have our foreign worker policies. They help us control the inflow, and ultimately ensure that the foreign workers who do come in add to the workforce in Singapore rather than substitute for them, and benefit Singaporeans rather than hurting them.
Related Story
Govt always on the side of citizens on jobs, but S’pore cannot send signal it is no longer welcoming: PM Lee
How we control the flow depends on the type of foreign worker. At the lower levels, we got work permits, and we use a mix of levies and quotas – we call them dependency ratios – to directly control their price and quantity. It’s a rough and ready approach, but it helps us deal with the large numbers and limit them effectively.
In the middle levels, we have the S Pass. Now it’s not just a matter of numbers but we also want to look at the quality. Because the S Pass (holders) are competing with people who are graduating from our polytechnic, diploma holders and slightly above that and we want to make sure that there’s a balance.
So the S Pass still has levies and quotas, but we also impose other requirements on minimum salary and on qualifications.
Then for the upper levels, the PMETs, professionals, management, executives and technical workers, we have the Employment Pass (EP). Here the key issue is about controlling the quality and making sure that people we bring in are those who are able to contribute to Singapore.
So we’ve been using salary benchmarks as a proxy, along with other qualifying criteria.
While the perception of foreign competition is sharper during this downturn, actually both Employment Pass and S Pass holders have been coming down since Covid-19 this year.
But we still have to make adjustments to our work pass schemes, because there is now more slack in the job market but also because over time, the education levels, the capabilities and incomes of our local workforce have gone up.
More Singaporeans are now ready and available to take up PMET jobs. And in fact more have done so. The proportion of PMETs in the workforce has grown steadily from 40 per cent 20 years ago to close to 60 per cent now today. And the purpose of the Employment Pass scheme is to top up at the higher end of these PMET jobs. Therefore, we need to tighten up the Employment Pass qualifying criteria.
And that is why at the lower levels of the Employment Pass holders, the proportion of Singaporeans is higher and at the higher levels, the proportion of Singaporeans is slightly lower because we’re deliberately bringing in employment holders, Employment Pass holders who are at a higher level and can contribute to us. It makes sense.
Ultimately what sort of politics Singapore has depends on Singaporeans themselves because they have a vital responsibility to engage in the public discourse, to send the right signals at the ballot box, to reward political parties that do the right thing and deliver for the people.
The standards they demand of political leaders, PAP and opposition, will influence the quality of the political leadership, the level of discussion and debate in Parliament. They will determine whether our politics enables us to thrive and prosper, or divides and destroys us.
But we need to tighten up the EP qualifying criteria and this is what we have been doing. We raised the EP entry floor from $3,600 to $3,900 in May this year. And the Ministry of Manpower just announced last week a further tightening to $4,500, with a higher floor of $5,000 for financial services. We’re raising the S Pass salary floor too.
We have to pay attention to market conditions and adjust at the right pace. But this is the correct long-term direction.
But I know Singaporeans are not just concerned about the macro overall numbers, but also at the micro individual level they are concerned about fair treatment, that Singaporeans are being considered fairly for jobs, for promotions, or when it comes time for retrenchments.
There is no comfort in knowing that the total numbers are not too many if personally we feel we have been discriminated against at the workplace or that the EP holder working beside us somehow has an inside track because of old school ties or some other personal connections.
And that is why we have Tafep, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, where Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated can seek redress. We also have a Fair Consideration Framework, which we are tightening further as you’ve heard.
And we are working with the unions to make sure any retrenchments are done fairly, and no company is retrenching a Singaporean only to fill the same post with a foreigner without very good justification.
The Government takes this issue of fairness very seriously. In evaluating EP and S Pass applications, we take into account whether the employer has kept up support of local PMETs in their employment, and has been responsive to government efforts to help them recruit and train more Singaporean PMETs. Or conversely, whether the employer has discriminated against qualified Singaporeans.
This has always been the government policy, but we particularly want to emphasise these considerations now in these uncertain times to remind all employers to play their part in building up the Singaporean workforce, the Singaporean core.
One specific red flag is when we see a company that has an over-concentration of a single foreign nationality in its ranks, especially when compared to other companies in the same sector. This concentration, if it is unchecked, can cause social resentment and workplace problems.
It makes it harder for the company to blend into and be accepted by our multiracial society. It can cause problems within the company too because employees of other nationalities, Singaporeans or others, may find it harder to fit in, to take pride in their work and see a future for themselves in the firm.
Therefore when that happens, we ask the firm to please relook their hiring practices. Most companies are responsive and work with us in good faith. In fact, many global companies understand that a diverse workforce is to their advantage and have explicit human resource policies for this.
The issue of concentration can easily be played up. And we know that there are some people who are stirring this up. For example, a Facebook page posted the wefie of DBS CEO Piyush Gupta with a room full of Indian employees last September. It was captioned “Eyesight Test. Find a Singaporean or Chinese in this DBS photo”.
The picture resurfaced recently and went viral, which just shows that during tough times this subject is more neuralgic. Last September was a different world. Many people took offence, got worked up and berated DBS, flamed them.
But it was fake news.
Why? That picture was taken in India, where DBS had opened a new office, and not in Singapore. The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the wefie to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans.
And damage was done.
The Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans. What is the point of creating jobs for foreigners if it doesn’t benefit Singaporeans? Why would we want to do that?
Ultimately, our aim is to grow the economy, create good jobs for Singaporeans and raise our standards of living. Foreign workers and work pass holders help us to achieve this.
GUARDING OUR REPUTATION
By being open to talent from all over the world, we create more opportunities for ourselves.
Singapore has succeeded by being an international hub tapping talents worldwide and serving a global market. So even as we adjust our work pass policies, we must be careful not to give the wrong impression that we are now closing up and no longer welcoming foreigners.
Such a reputation would do us great harm.
We are conscious that IT is one of the areas where we worry about an over-concentration of foreign work pass holders. But when you get a good project like this, an IT centre for a major foreign bank, major global bank, wanting to come to Singapore, and therefore going to recruit a proportion of Singaporean IT professionals and other EPs, other management staff, should we say no?
They see good prospects in Singapore. They see us as a stable base to work from. We want to talk to them, to see how they can fit in here in Singapore to create good jobs for Singaporeans.
But for them to come here, they must feel welcome and be allowed to bring in the talent that they need, because we don’t have the full complement of specialist engineers and other expertise for all these types of work yet.
And also, regional and global headquarters by design need to draw talent from around the world and to be run by international teams. That’s the nature of regional and global headquarters. And if we want good companies to come to Singapore, we must be prepared to have them come and to bring to Singapore that constellation of talent to be able to operate out of Singapore and manage activities and locations all over the world. They will employ Singaporeans too, but they cannot be staffed by Singaporeans alone.
Once these companies establish themselves here, most Singaporeans will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they create, pick up their skills and knowledge and rise up the ranks. This is how we’ve always done it.
But it’s not just global companies that need foreign manpower. Local companies also need global talent to grow and develop. Our SMEs need skills, knowledge and expertise that they may not have in Singapore, for example, to develop an external wing and to move up the value chain. And by doing so, they too create good new jobs for Singaporeans, besides, promoting entrepreneurship and making it easier and more attractive to start companies in Singapore.
So the economic benefits of our foreign worker policies are very clear. But there’s a more fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves, and that is what sort of society, what sort of people do we want to be?
We’ve always been a people open to the world, welcoming others who can add value to our society, and bring the best out of us. This is our history and our ethos from our beginnings as an open port and an immigrant nation. The bicentennial last year reminded us of that.
This generosity of spirit gives our society and economy vitality and resilience. It’s made Singapore the exceptional cosmopolitan city that we are today plugged into the global economy and making a living by making ourselves valuable to the world.
We may be under stress now but we cannot afford to turn inwards. We will adjust our policies to safeguard Singaporean jobs. But let us show confidence that Singaporeans can hold our own in the world.
NEW EXPECTATIONS
The Government will lead this conversation with Singaporeans, build a political consensus around the right solutions and move us forward. Whether we succeed depends on how well our politics work. Singapore has achieved a high degree of political consensus on many of our social and political issues, and economic issues. This is one major reason for our rapid progress and one major benefit of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) dominant position.
But our society is not static. Each new generation of Singaporeans is more educated, more connected to the world, and surer of themselves. Their attitudes and aspirations change too. They desire more diversity, alternative voices and checks and balances.
This trend is not new. The desire has always been there but it is growing.
In the last general election, many people voted for the opposition, while fully expecting that the PAP would remain in power as the Government. In fact, the Workers’ Party campaigned on this platform, if I’m not mistaken, seeking to form a strong opposition but explicitly not seeking to form the next government.
The PAP will respond to these social and political trends as we have always done. We have not stayed on top all these years by being static, but by adapting to our evolving society and changing needs. We have been assiduous in our leadership renewal. Each new generation of PAP leaders has developed their own leadership styles and their own policy priorities. They’ve created their own bonds with their generation of Singaporeans to be in sync with their mood to win their trust and support and develop new ideas that resonate with them.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his founding generation of leaders governed Singapore in a direct no-nonsense way. It was necessary and appropriate at the time, and Singaporeans then strongly supported Mr Lee. Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team had a different touch. His approach was about bringing people together and building a societal consensus on the next lap of Singapore’s growth. It was a contrast to Mr Lee’s approach, but it was appropriate for his generation of Singaporeans, and Mr Goh made it work.
My team and I are not like Mr Lee. Neither are we like ESM Goh’s teams. We found our own ways to engage with this generation of Singaporeans.
My successors will have to do things in their own different ways too, establish their own standing and build their own bonds with the next generation. The 4G leaders have been doing this for some time. They are conducting the SGTogether conversations now. They want to accommodate this growing desire of Singaporeans not only to be heard but to be involved.
In Parliament, with a stronger opposition presence, I expect the tone of the debate to shift. PAP ministers and MPs will have to raise their game, be prepared for sharper questioning and defend the Government’s policies and decisions, while speaking up for their constituents. They also must be prepared for more substantive debates and engagement with the opposition.
I hope the opposition will also step up, go beyond asking questions and criticising the Government’s proposals, which is part of their responsibility, to go on to put up serious proposals and ideas of their own to be examined and debated, and if found meritorious, adopted, to show that they are willing and able to play their part as a loyal opposition.
For our part, the Government will take an open and constructive approach. And let me explain what I mean by this bland term “open and constructive approach”.
On the specific details of policies, we can be quite relaxed about it. We will be open-minded, we’ll listen to the different voices. We can try different schemes, solutions. We will take in all constructive views and perspectives. But we of course have to make sure that the discussions are supported by facts and logic and informed by our context and experience.
But if it is a major issue which concerns the fundamental interests of the country, the Government cannot wait passively for a consensus to form. We will still have a full discussion, in fact probably an even fuller discussion. But at the end of the discussion, if there are still different views, the Government will have to make the decision it judges best and take responsibility for it. Having been elected to govern, we must govern.
WESTMINSTER-STYLE POLITICS
That’s on issues. But politics is not only about issues but also about power. And if the issue is not policies and priorities, but a challenge to the Government’s fitness to govern, then the Government will have to stand up and defend itself vigorously. It must put down the challenge and prove that it deserves to be the Government, because otherwise it must step aside and let another team take over. This is how the political system is supposed to work.
We have a Westminster style of democracy modelled on the British and adapted as we have gone along. It’s adversarial by design. In Parliament, the leader of the opposition sits on the opposite front bench directly opposite the prime minister. That’s why Mr Pritam Singh is there sitting opposite me. He is not there as a supportive cheerleader, helping the Government to perform better.
He is there to challenge the incumbent PM and the Government to point out their faults, to highlight where the Government has fallen short, to keep chipping away at the Government’s and the PM’s credibility. And so at the next general election, or sooner if the opportunity arises, the opposition can knock the Government out of power and take its place.
I’m seeing this not as a criticism of any political party in Singapore or anybody in Singapore, but I’m saying this is how the system is designed to work.
Every encounter is a gladiatorial contest. Lots of drama and theatre and prepared soundbites. The wittier and more contemptuous, the better. The British or Australian PM has to stand his ground, defend his government’s policies and maintain psychological dominance to show that he deserves to be the PM.
If not, MPs on both sides will sense it, and so will the public. And this will influence election outcomes as well as leadership contests in their parties.
I listened carefully to Mr Pritam Singh on Monday describing how he intends to perform the role of Leader of the Opposition. I applaud his tone and his approach. The government benches will do our part to work with him to keep Parliament a constructive forum for debate.
I believe that it’s good to have an adequate number of opposition MPs in Parliament. It keeps the Government on its toes. It shows the public that the Government has nothing to hide, and will answer all questions, however awkward. But that does not mean that the more opposition MPs and the more fiery the debate in Parliament is, the better. Or that the tone of our political debate cannot change for the worst.
Related Story
Good for S’pore to have adequate opposition MPs, but disagreement must not lead to polarisation, paralysis: PM Lee
The adversarial dynamic that is inherent in the parliamentary system can go wrong. We all hope that diversity will make a hundred flowers bloom. But how do we prevent diversity from producing polarisation? How do we make sure that disagreement does not result in paralysis?
It has happened in so many other countries. Politics permeates every issue. Every subject becomes partisan. Even public health issues, whether to wear a mask or not, becomes a partisan issue. If this happens to Singapore, we will not just cease being an exceptional nation, it will be the end of us.
We must not go down this path. At the most fundamental level to make our politics work, both the Government and opposition must share an overriding objective, to work for Singapore, and not just for our party or our supporters. Our debate must be based on principles and facts and guided by shared ideals and goals.
MPs must speak up for what they sincerely believe in. You are elected not just to repeat what you have heard others say, but to think on behalf of others and to make arguments which make sense, which will benefit the interests of the people you are representing, of the voters who elected you. But to think for yourself and not just to be a mouthpiece.
We must be in politics in order to protect Singapore’s security, grow our economy and secure our future. If we do that, then there’s a basis for us to manage the inherent tensions in our system and for politics to work out productively.
Ultimately what sort of politics Singapore has depends on Singaporeans themselves because they have a vital responsibility to engage in the public discourse, to send the right signals at the ballot box, to reward political parties that do the right thing and deliver for the people.
The standards they demand of political leaders, PAP and opposition, will influence the quality of the political leadership, the level of discussion and debate in Parliament. They will determine whether our politics enables us to thrive and prosper, or divides and destroys us.
PAP’S SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Speaking for the PAP, we have a special responsibility to make our system work and provide the leadership that Singapore needs and deserves. It’s a responsibility that the PAP carries, but no other political party in Singapore shares to make our system work. And let me explain why.
The PAP is inextricably linked with Singapore’s founding, its history and development. We built this place together with Singaporeans. How politics and government work in Singapore is quite unique. We have put enormous emphasis on the quality of government – the public service as well as the political leadership. We have gone to great lengths to recruit the best people we can find to enter politics, join the Government and serve Singapore.
This quality of government, coupled with the trust and support of Singaporeans, enables us to deal with problems rationally, comprehensively and effectively. Jean-Claude Juncker, he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg and more recently he was President of the European Commission, he said this about European politics and politicians: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”
But in Singapore, the PAP Government has been able to do the right thing for Singaporeans – sometimes difficult and hard things – and still get re-elected. Sometimes we pay the price in the vote but, overall, we have continued to win elections.
And therefore the Government has been able to think long term, well beyond the next general election. We have no incentive to kick the can down the road because down the road we will very likely meet the can ourselves again. And therefore we made plans over 50, 60 years, or in the case of climate change, 100 years. As a result the country progresses, Singapore benefits, and the PAP continues to win elections – so far.
It is a virtuous, self-reinforcing circle. This model has worked well for Singapore. Once broken, it will be very difficult to put it back together again.
Can it continue to work like this? With more diversity and contestation, can we keep our focus on the long term, and plan and build ahead for Singapore? How long can Singaporeans vote for the opposition in some constituencies, in the expectation that somehow, somewhere else, their fellow Singaporeans will ensure that the PAP is returned to power? Can we continue to get good people into politics, to maintain the quality of our ministers and MPs, and make things happen for Singapore, if more and more citizens prefer the PAP to form the Government and yet vote for another party’s candidates to be their MPs for diversity, for checks and balance?
At what point does a vote for a strong opposition become a vote for a different government? Is it really true that one day if there is a change of government, a new party can run Singapore equally well, because we have such a good public service, as Mr Pritam Singh suggested on Monday? It’s like saying you have the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, anybody can be the conductor.
These questions have no easy answers. In the nature of politics and of human societies, things can and do go wrong. Each successive generation of Singaporeans has to keep on doing its best to keep the system working right.
The PAP feels acutely its special responsibility to keep on doing its best for Singapore, and keep Singapore working in this unique way. That is our sacred mission. We will do our utmost to persuade good men and women to enter politics, to take over the torch and lead the next generation forward. We will fight hard to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, and win every vote and show Singaporeans that the PAP continues to deserve their support and trust.
Of course, there is no guarantee that even under a PAP Government, Singapore will forever be successful.
Now, the world is not quite the same as it used to be. Our streets and our skies are quieter. I received a foreign visitor recently, she said she felt sad when she came through Changi Airport. It used to be bustling, crowded, full of life, now it is deathly silent.
Forty years of building up our airport and airline, Covid-19 came, and all of that suddenly came to a halt.
THE SILVER LINING
So what now? We have survived many life and death crises before. Singapore was born from crisis.
But each time, we did survive, and actually came back stronger. Each time, the dire circumstances became the occasion and the platform for ambition and daring. And each time, we transcended ourselves and built again.
Related Story
‘Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again’: S’pore will prosper anew after Covid-19 crisis, says PM Lee
We should fight Covid-19 with hope in our hearts, because there is a silver lining. This searing experience will help a whole new generation of Singaporeans appreciate, treasure what we have, and what makes us an exceptional nation.
We are here by dint of will and imagination, in defiance of all the odds and of all those who said we wouldn’t make it, we did. As in all the previous crises, Covid-19 will be the occasion for us to do better, emerge stronger, and become more united.
Do not doubt. Do not fear. Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again. SIA will be a great way to fly once more. Our economy will prosper anew. Our children and our grandchildren will continue marching forward, to build a fair, ever more just and equal society.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
.
======
.
Let the debates and for winning the minds of the people proceed in earnest in Parliament.
They are in Parliament not for exchanging niceties or extending altruism but it is to contest and to score political points against one another.
Those who believe that they are in Parliament to be nice to each other must be in another world.
=======
What will replace democracy centered on human, demonstration, friction, protest and some in bloodshed?
What is Divine government?
Is DG possible or impossible?
Who will make DG impossible or possible?
.
====
.
Some do not believe there will be freak election result and free riders….?…..or rather, Russian Roulette players at GE with a six-shooter with five-empty chambers.
One loaded.
Fire. Bang.
Hope for the best outcome.
.
========
.
Challenges now and into the future post COVID-19…
Solutions, solutions, solutions…?
Did any MP ask the PM in Parliament:
1. What are the Govt’s contingency plans if the Pandemic continues pass 12 months, and 24 months?
2. How much more will the Govt draw from the NR, and the cap on it to fund the economic downturn when the Pandemic goes beyond 12 months, and beyond 24 months?
3. How many Singaporeans out of job will be considered a matter of grave concern to the Govt, and what are the Govt’s plans to meet the crisis when the number of jobless Singaporeans cross that line?
4. How much will the Govt fund Changi Airport to keep it operational if the economic downturn goes beyond 12 months, and beyond 24 months?
5. What are jobs of the future and the plans and action now to get the momentum going like planting the good seeds nurturing it well to grow into big and strong trees?
.
====
.
Across-the-board minimum wage for all where both FWs and Singaporeans will get the same MW.
Did any MP ask in Parliament today that when the influx of FWs increase to compete for jobs displacing the locals due to higher wage from having the MW policy, should the Govt increase the FW levy to discourage and make it not cost effective for employers to bring in more FWs at the expense of Singaporeans?
The inherent flaws in MW vs WIS and PW. What are the differences in all three.
Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam says no one should have a “monopoly” over compassion in the society.
He was responding to Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Jamus Lim’s maiden speech in Parliament on Thursday (Sept 3), where he touched on the issues of minimum wage and policy making.
His speech drew a fiery exchange between People’s Action Party and Workers’ Party MPs.
.
============
.
Some do not believe there will be freak election result and free riders….?…..
….or rather, Russian Roulette players at GE with a six-shooter with five-empty chambers.
One loaded.
Fire. Bang.
Hope for the best outcome.
=====
Free riding voters…..
Only God knows them and their innermost being and soul at the GE booth how and why they voted for this or that party.
All else is guessing no matter who you are whatever your belief.
.
======
.
Free rider has become a hot topic.
What is FR in LGBT…?
If more male and male relationships become free riders leaving procreation for others to bear the responsibility, it could lead eventually for mankind to perish. And more ancestral lines to end.
Same for more female and female relationships becoming free riders, mankind can eventually perish.
.
====
.
Dealing with inherent risks of Singapore’s voting system
A voter casting his ballot in the general election on July 10. In Singapore, there have no doubt been instances of tactical voting, and not only in the most recent general election, says the writer.ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 6th Sept 2020 in Sunday Times
In a first-past-the-post system, tactical voting and free riding are issues we have to live with, but voters must be aware of the risks
by Vikram Khanna, Associate Editor
In Parliament last week, we witnessed a spirited and impassioned debate between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh of the Workers’ Party on the issues of tactical voting and free riding – which subsequently became the subjects of heated debate on social media.
How can we make sense of the relevance of these concepts in Singapore politics?
In economics, a free rider is someone who does not pay for a public good that is non-excludable (because it benefits everyone in a group) and non-rivalrous (because its use by one person does not preclude others from using it) but plans to benefit from it.Free riders abound in the real world.
For example, there are workers who do not join a union, but benefit from the pro-worker policies that the union negotiates. There are people who pay no or very low taxes, but benefit from the public infrastructure that taxes finance. And there are countries that do little or nothing to mitigate climate change, but benefit from the mitigating measures of other countries.
In some of these cases, the free riders do not even know they are free riders, so free riding is not necessarily ill-intentioned, nor is the term pejorative.
But it becomes a problem when it leads to the non-production, or non-provision, of public goods or services.
Thus, in the examples above, if few or no workers join a union, it would be rendered toothless in any negotiation. If hardly anybody pays taxes, infrastructure won’t get built. And if too many countries do not do anything to mitigate climate change, a climate crisis could occur.
But while free riding is simple enough to understand in an economic context, when it gets transferred to other realms, such as politics, and especially voting, things get more complicated.
Take the case of tactical voting, which PM Lee alluded to when he pointed out that some people voted for the opposition knowing full well that most others would vote for the People’s Action Party (PAP), which would end up forming the Government – the outcome that they actually wanted.
He suggested that such opposition voters were “free riders”, which triggered much pushback from opposition MPs as well as discussion on social media.
In Parliament: Sept 2, 2020 | PM Lee, Pritam Singh cross swords over ‘free rider’ election tactics
Before examining the validity of the “free rider” claim in this context, it is worth focusing on the phenomenon of tactical voting, on which there is a rich literature in public choice economics as well as political science.
Tactical voting is a fact of life in all “first-past-the-post” electoral systems, which prevail in about one-third of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Malaysia, Singapore and many other countries of the Commonwealth.
Related Story
Parliament exchange between PM Lee and Pritam: A tour de force speech sets stage for masterclass in debate
Related Story
PM Lee and Pritam Singh’s debate on ‘free rider’ election tactics fuels discussions online
In such a system, where candidates can get elected even without winning a majority of votes – so long as they get more than the other candidates – there are countless examples of voters who opt for a party that is not their first choice, for tactical reasons. This is especially the case where voters are polarised over one or more issues.
For instance, in Britain’s Brexit-dominated general election last year, a survey by the UK’s Electoral Reform Society found that almost one-third of voters voted tactically.
Many anti-Brexit Labour Party supporters voted for Liberal Democrat candidates in their constituencies because they thought Labour had no chance, and that a vote for the Lib-Dems was the best hope of preventing the pro-Brexit Conservatives from winning, thereby reducing the chances of Brexit.
There were even websites advising voters on how to vote tactically, based on the relative strength of different political parties in different constituencies.
In Singapore, there have no doubt been instances of tactical voting as well, and not only in the most recent July 10 general election.
The motives for such voting behaviour are hard to fathom and may not always be rational.
For example, it is possible that despite wanting the PAP to win the election, a certain voter decided to vote for an opposition party candidate in a PAP-safe constituency not because he believed in the candidate or thought the candidate had a chance of winning, but because he viewed voting as an act of self-expression and wanted his vote to count (rationalising that a vote for the PAP would be a wasted vote).
But if there was a close contest, the same voter would have voted for the PAP. In the case of this voter, opting for the opposition candidate in the PAP-safe constituency could arguably be characterised as free riding.
However, other voters may have voted tactically for a quite different reason: While they may have wanted the PAP to win the election, they may have believed that it would provide a more effective and responsive government if there were more opposition voices in Parliament.
Related Story
Parliament: Issue of national reserves sparks exchange between PM Lee, Pritam Singh
Related Story
Good for S’pore to have adequate opposition MPs, but disagreement must not lead to polarisation, paralysis: PM Lee
This indeed was the electoral pitch made by opposition parties during the hustings, and several voters might have been persuaded.
They cannot be considered free riders, because they voted for an outcome that they believed would help produce not just a PAP government, but a PAP government and Parliament more in sync with their views and preferences.
Therefore motives are important in determining the extent of free riding in tactical voting behaviour.
But the problem is that we do not know what people’s motives were, or how much tactical voting took place. This also makes the results of elections in which there was tactical voting hard to interpret: Politicians don’t get a clear signal of what the electorate really wants.
Can free riding be controlled or eliminated?
One way to do this is to impose penalties on potential free riders. In economics, this usually takes the form of taxes or charges that all recipients of public goods are required to pay.
In politics, penalties could take the form of incumbent political parties withholding or delaying benefits – such as housing upgrading – for opposition-controlled precincts (which has happened before), which might have the effect of discouraging tactical voting.
But this can also have political costs and even backfire, by creating resentment against the incumbents, not only in the precincts affected but also in other constituencies.
In an ideal world, voters should, as PM Lee suggested, vote “sincerely, honestly, in accordance with what they really want, to produce a result which matches their true intentions”.
But as reasonable as this sounds, in any first-past-the-post voting system, it is a tough ask. There will always be some amount of tactical voting, and maybe even free riding.
And this does create the risk that PM Lee flagged – that if people vote tactically, “the consequence must be that one day, they will get the result which they marked the X for, but which they did not intend”.
He also posed this critical question, worth pondering: At what point does a vote for a stronger opposition result in a vote for a different government?
Related Story
Greater diversity in Parliament should not lead to polarity of country or people: Indranee
Related Story
MPs should debate robustly without being fractious, says Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin at Parliament opening
Fortunately, none of this has come to pass, not yet at least.
The only way to eliminate the problems and risks associated with tactical voting is to switch to a voting system of proportional representation, where parliamentary representation is determined by the popular vote. Only this would ensure a result that closely matches voters’ true preferences.
However, systems of proportional representation have their own problems, such as a tendency to produce indecisive, multi-party coalition governments, and can even enable extremist parties to be represented in Parliament – as has happened, for instance, in some countries of the European Union. Policy outcomes from such coalitions tend to reflect necessary compromises to form a government or get legislation passed, sometimes far removed from what any party promised its voters.
So no electoral system is perfect. Singapore’s first-past-the-post system has, by and large, worked well so far. Tactical voting and free riding are risks that it might have to live with. But voters, like buyers, would do well to be aware of these inherent risks, as PM Lee flagged, when they cast their ballots.
.
=======
.
====
.
It is all about money.
It is all about bringing in more and quality foreign investments and companies to have full employment, which must be the main aim when creating more quality and well-paying jobs for Singaporeans.
Not all countries can attain all these as there are many economic and non-economic factors to attract the best investments and companies to boost the economy. The international pie is getting smaller and competition will be keener.
What are all these factors and what changes must be made in sync with the time, changing challenges and situations, and be transparent for all to benefit from bringing in foreign investments and companies?
.
======
.
The inherent tensions in debate on foreign workers
by Prof Linda LimPUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 4th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
What’s good for business, the economy and the national interest are not perfectly alignedResolution of the current debate about jobs for Singaporean versus foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) requires explicit recognition that the needs and interests of business, the economy and the nation are not, and will never be, perfectly aligned – here or anywhere else in the world.
Hence, choices will inevitably have to be made between alternative policies that entail different costs and benefits for different entities, groups and individuals.As a US-based academic specialising in economic development, I have studied the Singapore economy and its labour markets for over 40 years.
I taught international economics (trade, investment and exchange rates) and global corporate strategy to Master of Business Administration students and business executives from around the world (most recently, China), and served for 16 years as an independent director on the boards of two Nasdaq-listed United States public companies with extensive international operations in tech manufacturing.
CONFLICTING INTERESTS
Each of these roles had a clearly defined set of responsibilities which overlapped but were not identical, and could conflict with one another.Indeed, at my university, we are required to regularly disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest between our research, teaching and external professional activities like consulting and board service.
Similar assurances were required in annual declarations for my corporate boards.Take the example of “investment incentives” offered by host governments. In the economics classroom I taught that the rationale for these is the existence of “market imperfections” that make a particular location otherwise unattractive to profit-seeking investors, because of higher costs and risks, or a smaller market, than are available elsewhere.
Subsidies to investors to compensate for these market deficiencies are more likely to be needed in developing countries, as my research on foreign investment and industrialisation in Asia documented in consultant reports for international development agencies such as the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Subsidies are also more likely to be required by foreign enterprises presumed to be both “footloose” and lacking in the “home-court advantages” enjoyed by domestic competitors.
Economists expect host countries to benefit from the injection of scarce resources (capital, skills, technology) by foreign investors, enabling higher growth rates, local employment creation, skills and technology transfer, and backward and forward linkages with local enterprises that would more than pay for the subsidies provided.
This was what I found in my research on the electronics industry in Singapore from the 1970s to the 1990s.In the business classroom, investment incentives (such as tax breaks, research and development and training grants, and infrastructure subsidies) are presented as elements of “non-market strategy” that investing firms could and should demand of host governments in exchange for their investment, with the goal of reducing risk and increasing the rate of return (profit) to the investing company’s shareholders (who, in the case of multinationals, would be foreigners).
On my corporate boards, there were a few occasions in the 2000s and 2010s when new investment in Singapore was considered, and “ask the EDB (Economic Development Board) for incentives” was already de rigueur for potential investors. Incentives, of course, come with certain “performance requirements”, such as the amount of capital to be invested and the number of jobs created locally.
But companies have many ways to meet these minimally and, in the short term, to qualify by the letter, not always spirit, of the requirement.As an economist, and particularly as a Singaporean, I was sometimes concerned about the long-term benefits to the host economy, and the opportunity costs of the state resources expended on providing such subsidies, especially to a foreign corporation.
But as a board member of that corporation, I had a single fiduciary obligation, to maximise value to the (mostly foreign) shareholder. Both the companies whose boards I served on eventually left Singapore, and while they were here, most of their employees, including senior management and technical staff, were permanent residents (PRs) or Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders.
Being “open”, as Singaporeans pride ourselves on being, does not mean unfettered openness is an unalloyed good and the best strategy for all parties, times and places – that would be answering to ideology, not the pragmatism on which we also pride ourselves, says the writer. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAHWhat has this got to do with the current PMET jobs debate?
Most obviously, the interests of different parties differ, as they must.In the current global market environment, notwithstanding pre-pandemic promises to pay more attention to “stakeholders” (employees, consumers, suppliers, host communities, government), capitalist businesses must prioritise the interests of their shareholders (the capital owners).
Host government policies that might increase costs, however marginally (like the EP and S Pass salary thresholds being raised), must be resisted.
Naturally, foreign PMETs will also oppose this policy, as will their employers, foreign or local.
Local PMETs may be expected to benefit, at least at the margins, though some may also lose their jobs if their employers shut down – an outcome which, if resulting from the salary-increase policy alone, suggests they are not very competitive in Singapore to begin with, and post-pandemic, may have been kept afloat only by government subsidies.
Related StoryParliament: Josephine Teo spars with opposition MPs in debate on PMET jobsRelated StoryParliament: Employment Pass quota not unthinkable, but probably unwise, says Josephine Teo
Related StoryParliament: Retain Singaporeans over foreigners if retrenchment needed, urges Gan Siow Huang
Without detailed data, and given the huge economic uncertainty in the short to medium term, it is impossible to determine how many local PMET jobs will be created or lost relative to foreign PMET jobs.
But policy decisions should not be made on the basis of short-term local job losses alone. In a market economy, underutilised resources will be reallocated, and in a post-Covid-19 world, in ways we may not be able to foresee for some time.
We do know from the current debate, and from the experience of the past 20 years, that Singapore is chronically short of labour and talent.
Our past economic model of extreme dependence on foreign labour and skills is already yielding diminishing marginal returns (in terms of productivity, growth, local jobs and incomes), and is unlikely to be sustainable in the medium, let alone long term.
Business and the economy are not the same thing, so the interests of particular businesses and the national economy will also not be the same.
For business, being able to hire anyone from anywhere in the world with ease of getting a work visa and PR status allows for flexibility (including in relocating an employee globally if business circumstances change).
It reduces the need and cost of having to train and retain locals, who add little value, especially to professional service businesses oriented to a global market where a “home-court advantage” is not required.
But for the national economy, developing local capabilities is critical for long-term survival, and as the pandemic has shown, even for short-term business continuity as a risk-minimising contingency (or “redundancy”).
A smaller or slower-growing economy, with a higher share of employment, skills, income, consumption and investment accruing to or undertaken by locals, could deliver a higher degree of economic welfare to Singaporeans.
It could also reduce the need for continually expanding taxpayer-funded social subsidies to compensate for inadequate “market” wages depressed by the continually expanding supply of foreign labour and talent (a de facto subsidy for employers and shareholders).
.
BEYOND DOLLARS AND CENTS
.
But the national interest encompasses more than the economy, and includes social, cultural, political, distributional, environmental, emotional and identity components, all of which are affected (in this case) by a large transient workforce.
This is why business does not, and should not, run any nation, and why we have governments.
It is the job of the government to balance the costs and benefits to different groups and make trade-offs between competing interests (such as between foreign business and local PMETs; rental property owners and young families seeking affordable housing; consumers and subsidy-providing taxpayers), and to weigh economic and non-economic considerations, to achieve an equilibrium that prioritises the overall well-being, values and wishes of citizens.
In this balancing act, it is unhelpful to pigeonhole different voices and pit people against one another as either “globalist” or “nativist”, with only the nativists castigated for being divisive.
Even a lifelong professional globalist like myself must recognise that globalism and the government policies that feed it do not deliver equal or equitable consequences for all sectors of the national economy and all segments of society.Similarly, being “open”, as Singaporeans pride ourselves on being, does not mean unfettered openness is an unalloyed good and the best strategy for all parties, times and places, including being always open to every business and every worker of every nationality.
That would be answering to ideology, not the pragmatism on which we also pride ourselves. The pragmatic and best policy solution economists favour – the “taxing of winners to compensate losers” – does not rely on a national or nationalist, much less “nativist” perspective.
It simply mirrors the “investment incentives” that traditionally compensate foreign capital for the market deficiencies of a particular host location – which, for local labour, is their home. Linda Lim is professor emerita of corporate strategy and international business at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
.
==========
.
In the public galleries, you are not allowed to close eyes.
The Parliament staff will wake you up.
What is the solution against MPs closing eyes?
The comfortable seat should be wired where the staff can switch on the seat warmer to wake up the sleeping MPs.
I hope the Speaker of Parliament will look into this.
.
.
MW, WIS and PWM….how do the three function and what are the differences?
Progressive Wage Model is for a few sectors of the workforce, not a universal MW for all workers nationwide.
PWM is for foreigners, and locals, but not for domestic helpers, many are foreigners.
On top of PWM, there is the Workfare Income Supplement, only for Singaporean workers. What are PWM and WIS, and how does it work?
Please go to gov.sg.com to read it up, and the background of the PWM and WIS.
.
====
.
It is all about bringing in more and quality foreign investments and companies to have full employment, which must be the main aim when creating more quality and well-paying jobs for Singaporeans.
Not all countries can attain all these as there are many economic and non-economic factors to attract the best investments and companies to boost the economy. The international pie is getting smaller and competition will be keener.
What are all these factors and what changes must be made in sync with the time, changing challenges and situations, and be transparent for all to benefit from bringing in foreign investments and companies?
.
======
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial saysStaying open with a Singaporean corePUBLISHEDSEP 5, 2020, 5:00 AM SGT in ST
While there was no consensus during this week’s Parliament sitting on issues such as minimum wage levels and new approaches to discussing race-related policies, one thing that both sides of the political fence could agree on was this: Singapore must remain open for business, but more effort must be made to shore up the Singaporean core in the workforce.
Public sentiment on this issue, if not carefully managed, could easily turn nativist and xenophobic. Already, many countries are reassessing the benefits of welcoming foreign talent and are turning inwards amid domestic pressure to protect businesses and workers.
Closer to home, free trade pacts like the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation
Agreement had become a lightning rod for critics, who say it opened the floodgates here for Indian nationals. But a city-state without a natural hinterland must create for itself a man-made competitive advantage. This is where the network effect of free trade pacts comes in.
The more pacts Singapore has, the more it can attract investors who wish to tap them to expand into regional markets, and the more jobs it can create. Instead of closing itself off to foreigners, a more sustainable strategy is to boost Singaporeans’ skills and ensure they have a level playing field in the job market, both in the letter and spirit of the law.
MPs also urged a more fundamental review of policy approaches, including further raising the minimum pay for Employment Pass holders in sectors like infocomm technology and professional services, which tend to have more firms on the Fair Consideration Framework watch-list for potentially discriminatory hiring practices.
Other measures proposed included imposing manpower quotas; mandatory audits on recalcitrant firms; removing preferential tax rates or not awarding them public sector contracts; and tiering economic incentives based on their commitment to transfer skills to Singaporeans.
There were also calls to reconsider the long-held notion that fair employment legislation is not investment-friendly, given that it has not stopped the likes of London and New York from being vibrant financial centres.
The issue is an emotive one for many Singaporeans, and there are no easy solutions. Choke off foreign manpower altogether, and one risks throttling companies and spooking investors.
Yet if the labour issue is left to market forces, more companies could game the system. There will need to be coordinated Government intervention. Tightening Employment Pass and S-Pass rules alone is not enough.
There must also be positive steps such as subsidised traineeships and training allowances to incentivise firms to hire more locals.
Ultimately though, there can be no pride in being a big fish in an ever-shrinking pond. Singaporeans must not give up on the longer-term fight to stay competitive on the global stage.
.
======
.
Free rider has become a hot topic.
What is FR in LGBT…?
If more male and male relationships become free riders leaving procreation for others to bear the responsibility, it could lead eventually for mankind to perish. And more ancestral lines to end.
Same for more female and female relationships becoming free riders, mankind can eventually perish.
Progressive Wage Model is for a few sectors of the workforce, not a universal MW for all workers nationwide.
PWM is for foreigners, and locals, but not for domestic helpers, many are foreigners.
On top of PWM, there is the Workfare Income Supplement, only for Singaporean workers.
What are PWM and WIS, and how does it work?
Please go to gov.sg.com to read it up, and the background of the PWM and WIS.
.
=====
S$1b Jobs Growth Incentive Scheme.
How many S$15,000 in S$1b? 66,666 new jobs for those under 40.
Hope many new jobs will be created, and that there are no fake to milk the system.
Some cheated other past schemes and they were hauled into court.
=======
Firms to get up to $30,000 for each new worker under Jobs Growth Incentive to hire more locals
Payouts for the Jobs Growth Incentive scheme will be made over 12 months from March 2021.ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONGPUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 5th Sept 2020 in Straits Times
by Charmaine Ng SINGAPORE –
Firms that hire more locals in the next six months could get up to $15,000 for each worker below 40 years old and up to $30,000 each for older workers under the new $1 billion Jobs Growth Incentive scheme.
Announcing the details in a joint statement on Friday (Sept 4), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) said the payouts, to be made over 12 months from March next year, will be automatically computed each month based on the firm’s Central Provident Fund contributions.
For the first 12 months, the Government will co-pay 25 per cent of the first $5,000 of gross monthly wages for each new local hire below 40. This will double to 50 per cent for each of those aged 40 and above.The scheme was first announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in August to boost the hiring of local workers in growth sectors, in addition to wage subsidies under the Jobs Support Scheme, which will cover wages paid up to March next year.
To be eligible for the Jobs Incentive Scheme, firms must increase the headcount of their local workforce between this month and next February, compared with August, said MOM and Iras.
They must also increase the number of jobs that pay at least $1,400 in gross monthly wages.
The scheme will only apply to firms that were set up on or before Aug 16. To receive the full amount of support, firms must continue to meet the eligibility criteria for the 12-month period.
The payout will be reduced if any of the employees hired as of August leave the firm. Related StoryJobs Growth Incentive to spur hiring of older workers Related StoryParliament: Govt and S’poreans need to work hand in hand to solve problems, says Desmond Lee
“This reduction will be computed based on the ratio of existing employees who have left the employer to the total number of existing employees as at August 2020, or 5 per cent, whichever is higher,” said MOM and Iras.
MOM and Iras added that the Jobs Growth Incentive scheme is a “step up” in terms of the level of salary support compared with the Enhanced Hiring Incentive announced earlier in May, and will replace the latter from Sept 1.
.
======
PAP cadres elect party’s post-GE2020 central executive committee By NG JUN SEN
National Development Minister Desmond Lee (left) and Education Minister Lawrence Wong were among 12 members elected by party cadres into the People’s Action Party’s central executive committee on Sunday, Nov 8, 2020. Published08 NOVEMBER, 2020UPDATED 08 NOVEMBER, 2020 in Today newspaper
SINGAPORE — The People’s Action Party has elected its 36th central executive committee (CEC), including several of its prominent fourth-generation leaders in the current Cabinet.
The party’s CEC election, which took place on Sunday (Nov 8) following its first party conference since the General Election (GE), saw 12 members elected by party cadres and two members co-opted.
.
Notably, Education Minister Lawrence Wong, who has fronted Singapore’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic along with Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, was voted into the CEC by party members without having to be co-opted — as was the case in 2018.
Likewise, National Development Minister Desmond Lee was elected into the CEC without being co-opted. He, too, has a significant role in leading an economic task force to chart Singapore’s emergence from the crisis.
.
Mr Ng Chee Meng, the National Trades Union Congress chief who contested and lost in Sengkang Group Representation Constituency in the GE, was not elected, though he could be co-opted later on. Mr Ng was among those voted into the CEC by party cadres two years ago.
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, who was also co-opted in 2018, was again not elected into the CEC. Other Cabinet ministers who are not in the CEC for now are Mr S Iswaran, Dr Tan See Leng, Mr Edwin Tong and Dr Maliki Osman — all of whom had not served in the CEC before.
Read also: PAP leaders call on activists to find new ways to win hearts and minds, while ‘vigorously’ defending party’s beliefs
The CEC is the party’s top decision-making body and is elected by party members. Up to six CEC members can be co-opted into its ranks by the elected committee members, according to the party’s constitution.
The CEC is expected to meet later to decide on the office bearers and other members to be co-opted in the new committee.
PAP’s 36th CEC (names in alphabetical order) PAP’s 35th CEC (names in alphabetical order) 36th ELECTED MEMBERS 35th ELECTED MEMBERS Chan Chun Sing Chan Chun Sing (2nd Assistant Secretary-General) Desmond Lee Gan Kim Yong (Chairman) Gan Kim Yong Grace Fu (Organising Secretary) Grace Fu Heng Swee Keat (first Assistant Secretary-General) Heng Swee Keat Indranee Rajah (Member) K Shanmugam K Shanmugam (Treasurer) Lawrence Wong Lee Hsien Loong (Secretary-General) Lee Hsien Loong Masagos Zulkifli (Vice Chairman) Masagos Zulkifli Ng Chee Meng (Member) Ong Ye Kung Ong Ye Kung (Assistant Treasurer) Tan Chuan-Jin Tan Chuan-Jin Vivian Balakrishnan Vivian Balakrishnan CO-OPTED MEMBERS CO-OPTED MEMBERS Indranee Rajah Christopher de Souza (Member) Josephine Teo Desmond Lee (Organising Secretary) Josephine Teo (Member) Lawrence Wong (Member) Ng Eng Hen (Member) Sitoh Yih Pin (Member)
.
========
.
.Prior to the GE on 10th July 2020….
Let the debates and for winning the minds of the people proceed in earnest in Parliament.
They are in Parliament not for exchanging niceties or extending altruism but it is to contest and to score political points against one another. Those who believe that they are in Parliament to be nice to each other must be in another world.
.
=======
.
What will replace democracy centered on human, demonstration, friction, protest and some in bloodshed? What is Divine government? Is DG possible or impossible? Who will make DG impossible or possible?
.
====
.
Some do not believe there will be freak election result and free riders….?…..or rather, Russian Roulette players at GE with a six-shooter with five-empty chambers.
.
Once loaded with one bullet. Fire. Bang. Hope for the best outcome. .
..
=======
.
Did WP consider registering a WP [SengKang] as an offshoot for her as a member until the term is over rather than resigning from WP and Parliament?
Not as member in WP but in WP [Sengkang], would the Constitution allow her to remain as MP for Sengkang?
========
Once resigned from the political party, the WP, the position as MP in Parliament has to end.
Unlike in Malaysia, it is not the same. No need to resign as MP. Once the MP has resigned from the political party, the person can be an independent MP, no party affiliation.
.
==========
.
Four opposition parties form coalition ahead of next GE
(From left) National Solidarity Party vice-president Mohd Ridzwan Mohammad, Red Dot United chief Ravi Philemon, Singapore People’s Party secretary-general Steve Chia and Singapore United Party secretary-general Andy Zhu. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Speaking to the press during the signing, RDU chief Ravi Philemon said: “This non-formal partnership allows the respective parties to keep their individual identities, branding, because we are all working in different constituencies and the needs of the different constituencies may be different.”
SUP secretary-general Andy Zhu said: “Respect is one of the guiding principles we have in mind. From here, we set aside diversity and have decided to come together… Teamwork is important and therefore with our coalition, we can be very productive.”
His SPP counterpart Steve Chia noted that the coalition does not have a dominant party or leader. However, RDU will perform the secretariat role for administrative purposes.
The parties had discussed the idea of the coalition after the 2020 General Election, he said.
“We feel comfortable with the principles, the philosophies, of each party, and we decided to come together to form a kind of agreement, but we are not prepared to have a formal agreement as at now where we register a party,” he added.
“That’s why we came up with this non-formal memorandum of understanding where we want to work together with the objective towards the election and beyond,” said the former Non-Constituency MP (NCMP).
The coalition said it hopes to contest in between eight and 10 constituencies.
On why the parties are announcing the coalition now, Mr Philemon said: “We know that the next GE is nearer than the previous GE (was), so we have to be prepared. I think there can be no better time than now to announce this coalition to say that we are prepared to face the contest.”
In June, PV secretary-general Lim Tean, who will also be secretary-general of People’s Alliance, told The Straits Times that the alliance had submitted its application to the Registry of Societies.
Asked if other parties such as the Workers’ Party, PSP and Singapore Democratic Party were spoken to about joining the coalition, NSP vice-president Mohd Ridzwan Mohammad said it is still open to dialogue and discussion with other parties.
Mr Philemon said the parties have always been talking to “friends from the opposition fraternity” and were not opposed to working together with other parties.
“For us, this coalition, we want to present to the voters of Singapore a credible choice as to who they can vote for as checks and balances,” he added.
He and Mr Chia said the coalition does not aim to change the Government, but will provide checks and balances and reduce the Government’s two-thirds majority.
The coalition’s manifesto will be released after the election is called and will likely focus on bread-and-butter issues, including inflation, cost of living and wages, said the leaders of the four parties.
Mr Chia said: “We realise that the Government is also addressing a lot of these issues, but how can they address it better to the desires of Singaporeans is something that we want to discuss and analyse in greater detail and… put it up at the proper time during the next coming election.”
SINGAPORE – Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan has resigned from the Workers’ Party (WP), which also means that she has resigned from her position as an MP.
The WP announced this in a Facebook post on Tuesday night (Nov 30), saying its top leadership had met at 8pm to deliberate and decide on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee that had been formed to investigate Ms Khan’s admissions in Parliament.
The matter was referred to a Committee of Privileges, which has begun its work into the complaint that she had lied in Parliament.
The WP said Ms Khan had, at 4.30pm on Tuesday, indicated to WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh her intention to resign from the party.
“She then attended the CEC meeting at 8pm and conveyed in person her intention to resign,” it added, referring to its Central Executive Committee.
The party said it will hold a press conference on Thursday to provide more information on the matter and to share its plans to ensure that Sengkang residents, particularly in Compassvale ward that Ms Khan had been responsible for, continue to be cared for and represented.
Ms Khan also posted on her social media accounts her letter of resignation as an MP, addressed to Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin.
She reiterated her apology to the House, to the people of Sengkang, and to her volunteers, and added that she would be spending more time with her family and on causes she is passionate about.
She added that she will assist with the Committee of Privileges.
Ms Khan was voted into Parliament in the July 2020 General Election as part of the four-member WP team contesting Sengkang GRC.
During a debate on empowering women brought by the WP on Aug 3, she told the House that she had accompanied a 25-year-old rape victim to a police station to make a police report three years ago. She had also said that the officer who interviewed the victim had allegedly made inappropriate comments about her dressing and the fact that she was drinking.
On Oct 4, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam asked her to provide more details about the alleged incident, saying the police had since checked their records and found no cases that fit Ms Khan’s description.https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?
In reply, Ms Khan said her account was true but repeatedly declined to reveal any further details – including the police station they went to – citing confidentiality. She added that she had not been successful in contacting the victim.
On Nov 1, she admitted that she had not accompanied the victim to the police station. Instead, she said the victim had shared the account in a support group for women, which Ms Khan herself was a part of, and that she did not have the victim’s consent to share the story.
She said she lacked the courage to admit she was in the support group, as she had been a victim of sexual assault at the age of 18.
Separately, the WP announced it had also formed a disciplinary panel to look into the admissions made by Ms Khan. The panel comprises Mr Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.
Ms Khan’s resignation means that Sengkang GRC will now have three MPs: Ms He Ting Ru, Associate Professor Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Chua.
However, under the law, there is no stipulation to hold a by-election for a GRC if a member of the team resigns. A by-election is needed only if all the MPs for the GRC vacate their seats.
Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan resigns, leaves party a month after lying admission in Parliament
By NG JUN SEN
Published NOVEMBER 30, 2021Updated NOVEMBER 30, 2021 in Today newspaper.
SINGAPORE — Ms Raeesah Khan, the Workers’ Party (WP) Member for Parliament (MP) who was caught in a controversy over lying to Parliament on a sexual assault case, has resigned from the party as well as her position as MP for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency.In a press statement on Tuesday (Nov 30) night, the party said that at 4.30pm, Ms Khan had indicated to party chief Pritam Singh her intention to step down.Later, at 8pm, she expressed the same intention to a meeting by WP’s central executive committee. The committee was meeting to deliberate on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee that the party had formed to look into her conduct. “The party will hold a press conference on Thursday to provide more information on this matter and to share its plans to ensure that Sengkang residents, particularly in the Compassvale ward, continue to be cared for and represented,” the WP statement said.Ms Raeesah, 27, who posted a letter addressed to Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin on her Facebook page, said she will be spending more time with her family and on causes that she feels passionate about.“I will always be indebted to the residents of Sengkang for giving me the honour of serving as their MP in the 14th Parliament,” she wrote.READ ALSOSengkang residents split on whether MP Raeesah Khan should quit over lying admission, with some feeling let down“In spite of my own shortcomings, I hope that we continue to work together to make Singapore a place we are proud to call home.”She had admitted in Parliament on Nov 1 that she had lied in the House about a claim that she accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively.The party later said that it has formed a disciplinary panel to look into her lying admission. Leader of the House Indranee Rajah had also referred Ms Raeesah’s conduct to Parliament’s privileges committee, which looks into any complaint alleging breaches of parliamentary privilege.On Tuesday, Ms Raeesah said she will continue to assist the Committee of Privileges that is investigating her for breaches in parliamentary privilege.
It is a joy to share, and the more I share, the more it comes back in many ways and forms. Most of what I shared are not mine. I borrowed and shared it on my Blog.
If you like any particular post in my Blog, please feel free to share it far and wide with your loved ones, friends and contacts.
You may delete my name before sending it to them.
You may also use the articles to write on the same topic or extract and paste any part of it in your article.
My posts are available to all, young and old, students too.
If they wish, they can extract or plaglarize any of the points to write their articles or essays with it. Np.
==============
I share what I wrote worldwide with Facebook friends and contacts, not with Singaporeans only.
I share it by pasting the link method as it is easier and a shortcut rather than copy paste my comments in full text.
Some want me to stop posting. I shall stop giving comments and/or my link when others stop posting. When they stop, I stop.
When they continue to give comments, I shall continue to give my short-cut link, or a short cut-and-paste comment plus the link.
If I stop giving my link or comments, it will by default be letting others a free hand to give possibly a one-sided comment without anyone giving the other perspective on an issue.
If I stay quiet, it will be considered my failure not to give the opposite perspective.
Some want me to be silent, and to stop posting.
If I accept their demands, it will be a failure to my Facebook friends worldwide by staying silent.
I owe it to my Facebook friends and to the society to comment and give an opposite perspective on an issue.
=======
My contact: tankoktim@yahoo.co.uk
tankoktim 