Translation by Donaldson Tan / Head, TOC International / London
This is a non-verbatim translation of the original Mandarin speech. The videos of Mr Low’s speech can be viewed here. You can find the Mandarin Transcript here.
Mr Speaker Sir,
For the past few decades, the USA has been in the driver’s seat of the World’s economic engine. Under Consumerism-led Demand and American Capitalism, the production of consumer goods has not only stimulated value-added growth but also established itself as the heart of global economy.
As a small island-state, Singapore lacks natural resources and a robust domestic market. Hence, the only rational economic strategy is to attract Multi-National Companies (MNC) to set-up their bases in Singapore. This allows the Singapore Economy to leverage on the MNCs’ access to global markets for the sale and marketing of products made in Singapore.
This economic strategy has coupled the Singapore Economy to the Global Economy. While the trajectory of the USA and the World Economies stabilised in the past few decades, Singapore built a strong economic foundation at the same time. Singapore has been fortunate on 4 counts:
· Singapore is home to a hardworking population.
· The Government has pursued sound economic policies.
· The People and the Government are united in the pursuit of economic growth.
· The long-term relative stability of the world economy allowed Singapore to undergo rapid modernisation while sustaining development and accumulating substantial reserves.
Singapore successfully capitalised on the global economic opportunities in the past. This is why we now have the necessary capability and conditions to overcome the current bleak outlook of the global economy. I am confident that Singapore can overcome current and future economic challenges.
Singapore’s Economic Model
I am of the view that our economic policies for attracting foreign investment, encouraging enterprises to compete in free market and expand abroad, liberalising domestic market have led to the coupling of the Singapore Economy to the Global Economy. Although these policies caused Singapore to be particularly sensitive to the global economic climate, the same economic polices are also responsible for the success of the Singapore Economy. I believe as soon as the Global Economic Crisis blows over, Singapore will continue its road towards progress and prosperity. The model of the Singapore Economic System is fundamentally correct.
However, given the rise of protectionism and slowing global economic growth, we should tweak the current economic strategy to meet the challenges of an evolving global economy. Singapore has been particularly reliant on MNCs for employment in the manufacturing sector and the marketing of products manufactured in Singapore. Escalating business and labour costs in Singapore is further exacerbated by the rise of India and China to the point that Singapore can no longer compete with low-cost countries as a commercial hub.
In view of the Global Economic Crisis, slow economic growth and drop in global demand, many MNCs have been damaged substantially, with notable exception to highly specialised sector such as the Pharmaceutical Industry and the High-Tech Industry. Singapore should focus on local SMEs in its economic strategy, especially knowledge-based and creativity-based enterprises which will be tomorrow’s stars of the Singapore Business Community. The Government should be bold in the investment of these high-potential enterprises, just as it did in the investment of Life Science R&D, and the assistance of these enterprises to target international markets.
In addition, business cost in Singapore grows exponentially during good economic times but does not adjust itself rapidly during bad economic times. Although the main problem now is that there is a sudden substantial drop in global demand and not high business cost, the survival of the private sector depends on the enterprise’s ability to contain its business cost. Budget 2009 is a step in the right direction in reducing business cost, but we should not stop short of exploring long-term solutions such as the adoption of macro-and micro-economic control mechanisms to cap business cost during good economic times and facilitate timely adjustment of business cost during bad economic times. In this way, enterprises are less likely to collapse during bad economic times.
Protect the Jobs and Livelihood of the Singaporean Worker
President Nathan said, “New arrivals and foreign workers may cause concern because of our unfamiliarity with their different accents and habits, and because of competition in workplaces.” I disagree because the situation is further complicated by our national identity. National Service (NS) has instilled a sense of nationality among male Singaporeans who were born after WWII. Every Singaporean understands the importance of NS and the need to make sacrifices for the defence of Singapore.
In the process of nation-building and economic development, every Singaporean contributed without a word of complaint. Yet when the Singaporean ages and is unable to contribute to the economy efficiently, he finds himself only to be compared to foreign workers, ridiculed for being unable to endure hardship and very picky about job opportunities. The impression that the Government gives to the People is that the pastures is always greener on the other side and that foreign talent is an elevated status. This resulted in many people pondering whether it remains meaningful to be Singaporeans. In order to prevent foreign workers and new immigrants to become a future hot-button issue, the Government must clearly prioritise the principle of protecting the Singaporean worker in its policy.
Singapore’s Economic Model, in adapting to changes in the international markets, has marginalised middle- and lower- tier workers to the point that they are unable to cope with the pace of development. While they are just as willing to work, employment opportunities available either offer salaries that cannot meeting the national standard of living or prefer young workers. The Government must tackle this challenge in revising the Singapore’s Economic Model.
It is unfair and unrealistic to compare Singaporean workers to foreign workers. Many foreign workers come to Singapore to make money and return home after making enough money. Their family members are not in Singapore. They can accept working conditions that contravenes the Employment Act, working 12h a day 7 days a week as long as they deem the salary adequate. On the other hand, Singaporean workers need to support their family and require space and time for their personal lives and leisure. The needs of both categories of workers are vastly different.
Therefore, I think the Government should consider the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to approve special licenses for jobs such as safety management, crane operators, excavation machine operators to only Singaporeans. Such a move protects both the jobs and livelihood of Singaporeans.
In the face of rapid economic development, if human resource shortage results in employers unable to find workers, nobody will fault the Government for relaxing its restrictions on foreign workers. However, in the face of faltering global economic outlook the Government should re-consider different policies that on one hand maintain the competitiveness of the competent Singaporean workers and on the other hand ensure lower tier workers have acceptable jobs.
Although SPUR and other skills training program has eased the unemployment wave, they remain inadequate to solve the unemployment problem. Employers are still not employing. I was informed about a group of retrenched foreign workers still remained jobless for a long time despite received few weeks of training under SPUR. The government ought to focus on getting retrenched workers, who were retrained under SPUR, re-employed so as to minimise the resource wastage of SPUR.
Building a Caring Society, Strengthening Social Cohesion
Singapore is neither an enterprise nor a commercial entity. As a small country, prioritising economic development is still no reason to overlook other elements that contribute to survival and long-term sustainable growth. Social cohesion is one such element.
I had highlighted the growing income gap between the Rich and the Poor in my speech on the 2006 Presidential Address. Although the implementation of income assistance and employment support programs have narrowed the gap between Rich and Poor to a limited extent, it remains unlikely for the income of the poor to catch up as the international market values certain jobs very highly while some other jobs will always be valued lowly. Society thus becomes M-shaped while the middle-class social buffer disappears. Managing social cohesion will be an emerging challenge for the Government.
I believe that Society’s values are the pillars of social cohesion that also support the continued development of Society. The Government’s agenda should include how to build a caring society. The Government’s policy cannot put the economy first by measuring the value of individuals according to their economic contribution. As the population ages, the increase in medical and social welfare spending is inevitable. Hailing the increase in such expenditure as Silver Tsunami speaks volume of the Government’s attitude towards the elderly.
The Government refuses to increase the subsidy of tertiary education by citing that the income of university graduates will be higher, while whitewashing tertiary education as affordable by providing bank loans and allowing students to use their parents’ CPF money for tuition fees. Tertiary students assuming debt burden prior to graduation also propagates the misconception among young people that it is okay to take out a loan. In view of the current economic climate, is it still right for the Government to assume that a college graduate will have a high pay job waiting for him? Is this assumption still correct? Perhaps it is time for Parliament to debate the real affordability of tertiary education for Singaporeans.
We cannot rely solely on the Government and publicity to cultivate a caring society. Everyone should play a role in our daily lives by displaying civic conscience and engaging in open discussion of what values Society should embrace. This is one area where New Media can play an active role.
People-Oriented Political System
I had previously mentioned that Singapore is a nation, not an enterprise or a commercial entity. It is essentially different from the structure of a company, of which shares is the fundamental unit. The most well-off naturally becomes a major shareholder, while the major shareholder is very likely to become a Board member or the Chairman who deputises the running of the company to the managerial staff headed by the CEO. No modern citizens of the 21st century will accept that the nation’s leaders own a big part of the country in the same fashion major shareholders own a big part of the company.
Every citizen has an equal stake in this country. Every citizen has equal rights in this country. Under the premise that the political system serves the People, political leadership is born to reflect and exercise the will of the People. Moreover, there should be checks and balances in the political system to ensure political leaders to respect public opinion and the People’s will and to prevent political leaders from monopolising power and amending the political system to entrench their positions. Parliament should consist of a Ruling Party and Opposition, while the exercise of power is separated into 3 branches – the executive, the judiciary and the administrative service. This is the design and the concept of the political system installed by the British at the time of Singapore’s independence.
Singapore’s parliamentary democracy has undergone a lot of modifications since Independence , including fundamental changes such as the Elected Presidency and the Group Representative Constituency (GRC). I implore Singaporeans to review these fundamental changes while taking account of the background and the history of our parliamentary democracy. This is in line with one of the the President’s policy objectives – the political system must adapt to social change.
President Nathan said, “Our political system encourages strong and effective government, worthy of Singaporeans, and responsive to the people’s needs and aspirations.” These are also the proud words of the ruling party on its re-affirmation of the current political system. Although the ruling party won 67% of votes in the last General Election. I would like to point out that our political system can only be effective if it is People-oriented and not solely through oversight and a series of checks and balances to ensure the effectiveness of governance.
Singapore has transitioned peacefully during the twice replacement of the Prime Minister. This process is an internal PAP matter, just like how China renews its central leadership. PAP’s filibuster-proof majority in Parliament gives it extensive legislative power to the point that not only it can amend the Constitution any time, but also full control of the state machinery and its resources. There is no separation of powers in Singapore today. If the ruling party abuses power one day, tramples on civil rights, or becomes corrupt, who can stand up against the atrocity? Up to now, our political system has yet to stand up against a real test. I am unsure whether the political system will remain viable after the overnight collapse of government as seen in the cases of Indonesia and Philippines.
Some people think that the PAP has foresight, it constantly renews itself and that its leaders are honest and credible. Yet who can guarantee the PAP’s ministers and political leaders will never be free from corruption? Can honesty really be paid for? Perhaps the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) can be useful in this aspect, but it is also under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office – how can it suppress corruption?
Some even thinks this is an undue cause because the PAP has internal monitor mechanism and that is impossible for all PAP MPs and cadres to be corrupt. If corruption leads to the secession of half of the talent that would still be ruling the country, Singapore remains a damaged good. The best policy is still external monitoring, supplemented by checks and balances to prevent this.
Although Opposition Parties by design provides parliamentary supervision and checks and balances to ensure the effectiveness of the political system, there are no Opposition Parties in Singapore that has the strength to play this role. The Opposition does not even have the resources to send a sufficient number of candidates for the General Election so that all Singapore citizens can exercise their voting rights. Therefore our parliamentary democracy is no more than a lame duck.
PAP says it has no responsibility to make things difficult for themselves by supporting the Opposition. This is reflective of PAP’s winner-takes-all attitude but this is not solely PAP’s fault. Every citizen should be concerned of the political system because it is the foundation of this country. While citizens have voted PAP into Government, it does not mean that PAP is given mandate to invoke fundamental changes to the Constitution and the Electoral System such that the PAP monopolises the People’s trust, resulting in today’s situation. Who is to be blamed?
Some people blame the Opposition for its lack of talent and failing to live up to expectation. Perhaps, but if individuals with lofty ideals face practical barriers to participate in Opposition politics, where can the Opposition find people? Even PAP faces difficulty in recruiting political talent. Even when the Opposition finds ambitious people willing to run for General Elections on its platform, these people may not necessarily enjoy support.
Some people think that is okay for an unelected Opposition candidate to become a NCMP as long as he can speak up and reflect public sentiment in Parliament. However, the role of Opposition also includes the responsibility to ensure the sound operation of the democracy. To do this, the Opposition candidate must enter Parliament on the basis of public opinion. This also enhances the political capital of the Opposition party the candidate comes from. Without the backing of constituency, a NCMP does not have the space to expand the network and enhance the strength of his political party.
In addition, an elected MP is required to not only hold a weekly audience with his constituents, but also petition the government departments to more accurately grasp the ground-level issues that affect the livelihood of ordinary people while building a comprehensive understanding of Government’s policy and its administration. Such grass-roots exercise not only contributes to the political standing of a political party but also develops a rational and responsible Political Opposition in Singapore.
It takes time and space to develop an effective political opposition under a democratic political system. A good time to do it is when there is political stability in the country.
Conclusion
Singapore is a small country that exists in the delicate geopolitical balance of Southeast Asia. Its survival depends on its ability to play a significant role in regional economic development and to export military technological prowess to assist the strengthening neighbouring military forces. But such roles are only hardware. It has to be complemented by software components such as social cohesion, national identity and national solidarity. The interoperability between hardware and software will depend on the effectiveness of the parliamentary democracy as the operating system.
A healthy operating system also requires a credible , independent and high integrity , unadulterated (by virus or spyware) System Monitoring software to check on the system and detect faults early and stop spread of malicious diseases in the O/S. Anti-Virus and Spyware and spamware are also needed in this highly integrated world where users can access the system from all over the world.
LTK for president!
The PAP may have understimated the fury of the winds of change coming in this new season of winter of discontent. The New Media will continue to fan the flame, we just have to adjust accordingly. Otherwise, like the Roman Empire, the PAP Empire too will extinguish.
Do not be stupid Sam Tan MC, if and when the Empire decline, no one will notice it till it’s too late….
aiyoyo
commoners need more elites like LowTK!!
aiyoyo
The whole system here has already created more and more problems to the nation and its people. As long as the problems do not affect the pockets of those who created them, they just don’t give a shit whether you live or die. Don’t forget they are letting in more and more FT with easy PR options (who will ultimately be able to cast votes in the next GE) to replace you people in no time to come.
i am just a commoner singapore struggling to make ends meet. though i am not belong to elites or highly educated group, i understand simply and truly well as far as political is concerned through all these 50 years living in sg.
my sincerce wish is people out there who is qualify and educated enough to take the challenge in political areana in sg, think seriously and bravely to take part in it.
this is not about fame or status, it is got to do with our future generation. if those who can qualify and good enough but fear of deprivity in terms of wealth and status, you may have your due at the present moment but your future generation may not the have same treatment if situation is going like this for long to come.
those who qualify but quit the country, i wish you consider a second thought to come back and do your part. singaporean no matter who needs united and served to the level of fair democracy with united strength. one or just few will not work.
I wonder how would they generally decide based on the pro-biz policies so benefitial to them ? many singaporeans are employers large or small.
A good speech by LTK. Thank you TOC for posting his speech here. Now I know that in comparison to the rebuttal from the 2 female PAP MPs…. They really looks stupid. LTK has laid out truly the needs of the nation if we are to move forward from now on. Singapore is no longer the same since PAP took power, if PAP do not change their strategies and ways, they will become irrelevant.
It is selfish for a government to ignore the true needs of the people for their own power thirst. We were a generation who were afraid to speak out thanks to the government!!!!
We need new blood and relevant people to run the country. WE NEED CHANGES.
7) how singaporean employers decide? on May 28th, 2009 1.27 pm
singaporean businessmen can still enjoy probiz policies even if there is change.
but then this is just me think.
good work Donaldson Tan. the English translation in text will definitely reach out to more readers.
A very sound speech by LowTK….feet firmly on the ground.
Should send it around to the UN, USA administration and EU….but I’m sure, they already got a copy by now.
I think there is pressure from all corners for Singapore’s democratisation to mature. But eventually, we as Singaporeans need to carry ourselves.
The choice is Ours to make.
aiyoyo
not sure for those bla bla bla elites
do they perform like LowTK & Chiam?
aiyoyo
“Every citizen has equal rights in this country ……… the political system serves the People, political leadership is born to reflect and exercise the will of the People.”
A very thoughtful speech.
Donaldson Tan – a very commendable job, translating this piece. Thank you on behalf of non-Mandarin speaking readers.
LTK can be PM if PAP looses the next election. All opposition parties should combine their resources and contest every constituency…. Time to be united and make a change in Singapore. Forget about the so-called “stability” that PAP talked about. Every change will cause a temporary unstable situation but it will settle down. Changes is needed for Singapore to move on.
Impressive and right to the points. I think LTK hit the nail when he says : “What is the meaning of being a Singaporean” referring to the government’s perception that Singaporeans are choosy about jobs and so on. I certainly hope PAP-back-benchers take note and get more in touch with ground sentiments before uttering any rebutal to his points made. Those two MPs simply reflect the ignorance and arrogance chracteristics and I think it gives a bad name to your own party. so much for your talent and I think there are plenty out there to supersede you.
here is a leader with conscience!
Thank you Donaldson Tan for the translation.
LTK plays his cards very near to his chest. i can’t really figure out who he is.
He is a businessman but leading a workers party.
In SG, if you want to be in the opposition politics, you have better be your own boss and not be employed. (That’s why i’m amaze Slyvia Lim can “tong” at her job for so long. I can imagine everyday she has to be very very very careful in her work.)
Being his own boss running his comapny, his financial source is independent. And also with this, he is able to demonstrate to the public that, as with majority of seious business man, he is rational and within logic and reason and therefore dependable.
But as a businessman, he is naturally pro business/ pro employer but he is also leading a workers party.
His speech gives me the impression that he is also living “in the box”. He too concurred that the export model is the best way to go for SG. He might have other ideas but i can’t see his cards at the moment.
He knows that to continue surviving in SG politics, he accepts the reality that at the end of the day, he needs the approval of LKY to carry on (whether you agree or not is up to the reader). And so he is very cautious. Playing by the system, by the rules.
Bidding his time? How genuine is he to care for Singaporeans or is he also just like all of us, trying to survive, to make a living? Though no fault of his. Only human. I guess a bit of both. Again he hold his cards tightly to his chest.
Amongst the opposition parties, the Workers Party is seen to be the most likely contender against the PAP. Only relatively speaking. Is like firing an M16 rifle against a tank, wherelas other oppositions got only sling shots, alas.
He runs a tight ship with the WP. He is cordial towards his fellow oppositions but stop short of forming any meaningful coalition. He might have some ideas on how to go about this when the time is ripe but i don’t know. He holds his cards tightly.
At times he make some remarks and got shot down by PAP MPs. He keep a dignifiged silence. Concede this trivial verbal battle and appearing not too clever so as not to alarm PAP too much. He survived. Bidding his time.
LTK is chinese educated. Is bilingual though. He knows his ground. He is consistant. For so many years. Is he a Ho Chi Minh?
Given the current political atmosphere in SG. He cannot really show his true colours. The stage still belongs to the PAP. He bids his time.
Our next Prime Minister?
It just shows that the statement “there is no credible opposition” is very much played out by the Govt controlled media. Chiam and Low have never been given media coverage by Straits Times and also Mediacorps, if any they portray them badly.
I believe there are more credible opposition members, they just lack PR for obvious reasons including funding.
folks dun get your hopes too high, with the current rate of spending on JCS & Spur. even if LTK become PM he may not have much options finance any aid.
that is if the 2nd key is willing to turn…
besides, a lost PAP have many chances to fan the flames of resentment (for not being able to hit the groud running from day 1) under LTK. but PAP forgot they got so many years of experience which amounted to little at their obscene pay cheque.
17) radlife66 on May 28th, 2009 5.46 pm
LTK learned from his peers. In Singapore, if you want to make a difference the game has to be played right. I respect Dr. Chee and his cause, but he has fought blindly and give PAP many opportunities to make a fool out of him. The way to make changes is FIRST… get into parliament and stay in it. Speak and comments on anything and everything but play it within the rules. Then wait for opportunity to hit below the belt. LTK knows what he is doing. He has prepared his path in the event of a opposition taking over.
He only need to make that speech, no need to debate the rebuttal by the 2 useless speeches. He wants the public to hear what he has said, if Donaldson has not translate it here, he would have it done in his party’s website. He played his game well.
However, I agreed that he is leader with conscience. I rather have him as a PM. About PAP experiences, most of the policy planning and work is done by the PS of the various ministries and departments. They give advise to the ministers, even the public news release or speeches they spoke. I used to be a civil servant. Even without the ministers, Singapore can still function well. I have no problem having new ministers running the ministries, give them time and they can get the hang of it. We cannot be afraid of changes, safe zone does not mean best zone, you never know unless you give it a go.
Thanks TOC for posting LTK speech – which is heavily weighted with alot of worthy substances : unlike silly rebutals by those 2 nitwit female MPs – they and their fellow colleagues do not have accurate grasp of the ground level as mentioned by LTK – not to mention empathy.
Very well phrased ‘ can honesty be paid for and also the usefulness of the CPIB under the jurisdiction of the PM office and the limited role and constraint of NCMPs – not to mention the farcical affordabilty of tertiary educations when young people have to take loans or use the CPF savings of parents to finance their studies.
Well ! when everything was handed on platters to them like GRC MPs through walkovers and their needless to fight as in a single seat constituency position – here we do not need further elaboration.
#21…concerning CPIB…i actually know of an interesting case…The director of a certain SME has being held by the CPIB for the past 2 years…every month he needs to “report” at the centre with a gaurantor on hand…seems like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel for him! Nobody…yes…NOBODY can touch them! A sheer waste of time for everyone!
You mean the mafias called ‘The Untouchables’? Who is the God-father?
is it true?
Good efforts, Donaldson Tan. Well done. Thank you. That is a good speech.
LTK and Cheam should take the initiative to reach out to the other opposition parties and organize an “opposition caucus” with a view to pool resources to take on the ruling party in the next GE which should be around the corner, if not early next year.
The ground is not sweet and this is the chance of a lifetime for them to claw back many seats not only in SMCs but also in GRCs where some deadwoods are hiding behind their heavyweights to pull them into Parliament.
They should also issue a press release to reject the govt’s proposed increase in the number for NCMPs which is just a tokenism.
All Singaporeans should give the opposition the chance to enter into parliament.
If they do not have a sound mandate, it is unlikely that the alternative party can form a 2nd govt effectively. LTK mentioned that they do not have the resources to do so unlikely pap. This could be partly because they lack mandate in every election, and talented people are afraid to join alternative camp because of image. With mandate given, image will be developed and go at speed after that. Let’s vote oppositions in the coming election if we want to see change. And effective govt is somone who have Singaporeans support, let’s give it to LTK and others. LHL is not a talent, he is a bum that should step down immediately.
The Straits Times and Zao Bao, reported only briefly of Low’s speech, they are mouth and tongue of govt
Hi radlife66 #17,
WP is a major opposition party in Singapore. Its focus should be Singapore at large and it would be very myopic of WP to focus solely on workers.
Many serious businessman are logical thinkers who bound their action within rationale. Low Thia Khiang is definitely one of them. But is inappropriate of you to say that he would naturally be pro-business without differentiating the flavours of pro-business policy.
Even workers have to pro-business to the extent that allows their employer to operate a profitable business otherwise they will loose their jobs by virtue of the company’s collapse.
The export model is the only rational choice for an economic model of Singapore. The issue here is how should the export model be tweaked to maximise economic benefit for all Singaporeans, especially those who work in the middle and low tier job sector.
You are right Low Thia Khiang is a survivor in Singapore politics. But in order to effect change, one has to survive first. You rather him to be a martyr who die trying? There is nothing wrong being cautious because politics is a dirty game.
PAP may be a tank now while WP is a M16. It definitely takes time and resource for WP to grow from a M16 into a anti-tank RPG but do take heed that it is cheaper to destroy a tank than to build a tank.
Why do you have prejudice against the Chinese-educated? They played a far bigger role in building this country than PAP and they have started long before PAP even exists. Why do you think LKY is particularly paranoid of the Chinese-educated class?
I wonder how and when could the naive, uneducated and 2nd language or dialect-speaking elderlies understand what they need to understand especially when that may be coming soon.
Hi smallvice585 #30
On the contrary, perhaps i din take the effort to expand on that paragraph. When i mentioned that he is chinese educated, it goes to show that he may be in a better position to engage china in the coming times. I have no other meaning.
secondly, i mention that he is a businessman leading a workers party. To me, this is one of those contradictions in life. Just a poetic observation. No malice.
you mention: “The issue here is how should the export model be tweaked to maximise economic benefit for all Singaporeans, especially those who work in the middle and low tier job sector.” I am sure he is thinking hard on this one but not showing his cards.
I would like to think that my comment #17 is a compliment to Mr Low than anything else. However, i do notice that immediately there are ppl coming in and started “hanging dirty laundry”. But as you said: “There is nothing wrong being cautious because politics is a dirty game.” Totally agree.
Now, let us give him room to do his work for the benefit of Singaporeans.
ZL, your comments are disallowed as they make specific allegations against another.
Please refrain from doing so.
Thank you.
I would to ask the PM,SM and the great MM if they really believe that they have the people’s support, trust and mandate. If they claim so than they should put their money where their mouth is and fight fair and go back to single seat wards. However a check with history will tell you politicians especially those who have enjoyed the spoils of power will compromise honour for power
Hi radlife66,
I say no worker association would be more pro-Business than NTUC. They even have a song for it now. Check out the “Upturn the Downturn Song” featuring Lim Swee Say, Minister (PMO) and Secretary General of the NTUC.
I appreciate LTK’s contributions. Passion is important for those who are the people’s representatives. It makes people feel good that there is a sincere voice that represent many heartlanders. Many times i see foreigners working here in jobs that possibly could have been done by Singaporean such as a coffee shop assistance. And I feel sad for those jobless Singaporean aunties who need to struggle and compare in monetary terms with these foreigners in their own country.
A good job of TOC in posting the translation.
Time for our PAP government to get good PAP MPs. Abolish the GRC system and let MPs be truly representative of the people; this happens when the MP has fought one-on-one in a single constituency.
The current crop of PAP ministers and MPs (except for one or two) are a pathetic lot. They do not inspire confidence in the people, lost billions of the nation’s reserves and blaming the world economy for their failed economic policies.
We need more Low Thia Kiangs.
people really no memory always kenna conned.
like people talked about being LowTK in business, therefore not worried of gahmen.
u forget how come Sylvia Lim can still poly lecturer, haha
u people forgot that Low & Sylvia Lim voted FOR the gahmen’s law on the use of POLITICAL FILMS, even as TOC and other NGOs spoke out strongly, including made submissions to AIMS.
the WP also voted for gahmen laws severely limiting civil liberty also against democratic rights to air grievance….like law giving police to deem a ONE man protest illegal
got ask how come people get angry with gahmen policies if not for people like Leong Sze Hian etc (except the WP MPs/members) and internet forums even befor TOC? did WP help to spread those internet sites..surely no right?
have you ask what has been WP doing all these years BEFORE what Low Thia Kiang had spoke of in his speech above?
aiya, not so difficult to gather info on TOC & blogoshpere to make speech lah……….boh original leh.
like dat how to becum PM…………..already not really becum MP quality
36) Jude Li on May 31st, 2009 5.57 pm
As far as I know the WP voted for the Films Act because it was a liberalization, albeit a limited one. But when did it vote for laws severely limiting civil liberty also against democratic rights to air grievance??? WP debated fiercely against the Public Order Bill and voted against it.
Hi JD #37,
Misinformation, Misinformation, Misinformation. Sigh….
WP’s own translation can be found here:
http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/2009/06/debates-on-presidential-address-2009-translation-of-mr-lows-speech/
Protect the Jobs and Livelihood of the Singaporean Worker
Problem 1:
“The impression that the Government gives to the People is that the pastures is always greener on the other side and that foreign talent is an elevated status. This resulted in many people pondering whether it remains meaningful to be Singaporeans. ”
Low’s proposal:
“In order to prevent foreign workers and new immigrants to become a future hot-button issue, the Government must clearly prioritise the principle of protecting the Singaporean worker in its policy.”
Fully agree!!
Problem 2:
“While they are just as willing to work, employment opportunities available either offer salaries that cannot meeting the national standard of living or prefer young workers.”
Low’s proposal:
“The Government must tackle this challenge in revising the Singapore’s Economic Model.”
Can sg govt do it? Will they do it? How fast can they do it?
If they can’t do it, they must be sacked, like in the corporate world.
Problem 3:
“It is unfair and unrealistic to compare Singaporean workers to foreign workers. Many foreign workers come to Singapore to make money and return home after making enough money. Their family members are not in Singapore. They can accept working conditions that contravenes the Employment Act, working 12h a day 7 days a week as long as they deem the salary adequate. On the other hand, Singaporean workers need to support their family and require space and time for their personal lives and leisure. The needs of both categories of workers are vastly different.”
Low’s proposal:
“… the Government should consider the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to approve special licenses for jobs such as safety management, crane operators, excavation machine operators to only Singaporeans. Such a move protects both the jobs and livelihood of Singaporeans. ….in the face of faltering global economic outlook the Government should re-consider different policies that on one hand maintain the competitiveness of the competent Singaporean workers and on the other hand ensure lower tier workers have acceptable jobs.”
Again, can sg govt do it? Will they do it? How fast can they do it? Do they have better solutions?
If they can’t do it and have no solution, they must be sacked, like in the corporate world, since they are drawing world class salaries.
Problem 4:
“Although SPUR and other skills training program has eased the unemployment wave, they remain inadequate to solve the unemployment problem.”
Low’s proposal:
“The government ought to focus on getting retrenched workers, who were retrained under SPUR, re-employed so as to minimise the resource wastage of SPUR.”
On the contrary, sg govt is making more revenue in the name of “re-training”. Imagine the number of people who signed up for the courses even when are are jobless, hoping that the courses would help them find jobs after training, to their disappointment.
Building a Caring Society, Strengthening Social Cohesion
Problem 1:
“Singapore is neither an enterprise nor a commercial entity. As a small country, prioritising economic development is still no reason to overlook other elements that contribute to survival and long-term sustainable growth. Social cohesion is one such element… Society thus becomes M-shaped while the middle-class social buffer disappears. Managing social cohesion will be an emerging challenge for the Government.”
Low’s proposal:
“I believe that Society’s values are the pillars of social cohesion that also support the continued development of Society. The Government’s agenda should include how to build a caring society. The Government’s policy cannot put the economy first by measuring the value of individuals according to their economic contribution. As the population ages, the increase in medical and social welfare spending is inevitable. Hailing the increase in such expenditure as Silver Tsunami speaks volume of the Government’s attitude towards the elderly.”
Though I must give credit to MM LKY for what he had done for sg, his new team now is giving us the impression that when we are old and have no more economic value (instead, become a burden to them), we should be abandoned to fend for ourselves. In fact, we are not allowed to even fend for ourselves, since our savings are locked in the form of CPF.
Have we no right to our own saving? Have we no right to vote out those who cannot help us?
Problem 2:
“The Government refuses to increase the subsidy of tertiary education by citing that the income of university graduates will be higher, while whitewashing tertiary education as affordable by providing bank loans and allowing students to use their parents’ CPF money for tuition fees. Tertiary students assuming debt burden prior to graduation also propagates the misconception among young people that it is okay to take out a loan. In view of the current economic climate, is it still right for the Government to assume that a college graduate will have a high pay job waiting for him? Is this assumption still correct? ”
Low’s proposal:
“Perhaps it is time for Parliament to debate the real affordability of tertiary education for Singaporeans.
We cannot rely solely on the Government and publicity to cultivate a caring society. Everyone should play a role in our daily lives by displaying civic conscience and engaging in open discussion of what values Society should embrace. This is one area where New Media can play an active role.”
Will sg govt allow free speech and debates without threats to the speakers? I am not sure.
Are our media fair? I am not sure.
People-Oriented Political System
Problem 1:
“…Singapore is a nation, not an enterprise or a commercial entity. …No modern citizens of the 21st century will accept that the nation’s leaders own a big part of the country in the same fashion major shareholders own a big part of the company.”
Low’s proposal:
“Every citizen has an equal stake in this country. Every citizen has equal rights in this country. Under the premise that the political system serves the People, political leadership is born to reflect and exercise the will of the People…
Moreover, there should be checks and balances in the political system to ensure political leaders to respect public opinion and the People’s will and to prevent political leaders from monopolising power and amending the political system to entrench their positions…
Parliament should consist of a Ruling Party and Opposition, while the exercise of power is separated into 3 branches – the executive, the judiciary and the administrative service. This is the design and the concept of the political system installed by the British at the time of Singapore’s independence.”
There should be no fear of Low’s proposal if sg govt is transparent.
Problem 2:
“PAP’s filibuster-proof majority in Parliament gives it extensive legislative power to the point that not only it can amend the Constitution any time, but also full control of the state machinery and its resources. There is no separation of powers in Singapore today. If the ruling party abuses power one day, tramples on civil rights, or becomes corrupt, who can stand up against the atrocity? Up to now, our political system has yet to stand up against a real test.”
Low’s proposal:
“The best policy is still external monitoring, supplemented by checks and balances to prevent this.”
If the Code of Governance has been installed recently to keep non-profit-organizations under checks and balances, why not the nation? All the more so it requires such check and balance before it is too late.
Problem 3:
“who can guarantee the PAP’s ministers and political leaders will never be free from corruption? Can honesty really be paid for? Perhaps the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) can be useful in this aspect, but it is also under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office – how can it suppress corruption?”
Low’s proposal:
“While citizens have voted PAP into Government, it does not mean that PAP is given mandate to invoke fundamental changes to the Constitution and the Electoral System such that the PAP monopolises the People’s trust, resulting in today’s situation.”
I don’t think many Singaporeans are aware of the above situation. More need to be said publicly so that people are aware of it and voice their rights, or vote out party that doesn’t practice fairness to Singaporeans.
Gosh! I seem to have done a critique of the speech thesis. Hope more readers will join in.
It’s sad that nobody can resolve those problems cited by Low. Can we count on WP? I don’t think so.
A stronger Singaporeans Action Party need is needed.
Thank you TOC and Mr Low. Give them a run for their exhorbitant pay! Our country cannot go on like this.
Mr Low – thank you for your speech. Well said.
“In the process of nation-building and economic development, every Singaporean contributed without a word of complaint. Yet when the Singaporean ages and is unable to contribute to the economy efficiently, he finds himself only to be compared to foreign workers, ridiculed for being unable to endure hardship and very picky about job opportunities. ” LTK
Very well said Mr. Low.
Singapore abandoned true free market principles with the passing of the 1st generation old guards PAP. From the late 1980s onwards they practiced crony capitalism whereby those in power and their very close supporters stand to benefit.
No amount of speech is going to change the mindset of the PAP.
Singaporeans have to vote them out to have real change.