Debates on Presidential Address 2009 – Translation of Mr Low’s Speech
Below is the English Translation of the Mandarin Speech delivered by
Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, in Parliament on 25 May 2009.
Mr Speaker Sir,
For several decades, the United States has been leading the global economy as the locomotive for world economic growth. America’s capitalist system creates demand and promotes production of consumer products by encouraging consumerism bringing about value added economic development; it becomes the lifeline of global economic growth. Singapore is a new developing country with limited natural resources and lacks a sizeable domestic market; hence the only rational choice is for us is to attract MNCs and to sell goods produced locally in the market set up by them. It is through such economic strategy that Singapore is linked up with the global economy. With the stability and growth of wealth of the US economy in the past several decades, Singapore has also laid down a strong economic foundation. We are lucky, as apart from the Government’s correct economic policy and the people’s hard work and solidarity in pushing forward economic development, the relatively prolonged world economic stability also made it possible for Singapore to have sustained growth, to accumulate massive reserves and to carry out various infrastructure works to make Singapore a modern country.
The stability of the global economy has provided us space and opportunity for our economic development. We seized the opportunity and hence we are in a position to weather the gloomy global economic prospects confronting us now. I am confident that Singapore will be able to deal with the challenges brought about by the new global economic situation.
Economic Model
It is correct, in my opinion, to attract foreign investments, encourage competition in a free market, and open up our market to go global as this had allowed Singapore to integrate with the global economy. Although such an economic strategy makes us vulnerable to changes in the world economy, as how we are now being burdened by the US financial crisis which has impacted us more than other countries and experienced a steeper downturn than others, I believe we shall continue to prosper and advance when the global economic storm blows over. Hence, I am of view that our economic model is a basically sound one.
However, as the global economy changes, the slowdown and the emergence of protectionism have raised the issue of reviewing our economic development strategy. We have been dependent on MNCs, especially the manufacturing sector to provide job opportunities for our people. We also depended on these MNCs to sell products made in Singapore in global market. However, the rise of China and India and the increase in costs has made us less able to compete with low-cost countries. The world economic downturn, the slow growth and the drop in demand for products worldwide, have greatly undermined MNCs except in a few sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and the cutting-edge industries. We should therefore focus on our SMEs, particularly the knowledge-based and creative sector, as they will be our sunshine industries. The Government should boldly invest in such industries which have growth potential as we have done in our R&D sector, and help them globalise.
In addition, the fact that our business costs had gone up tremendously during the period of rapid growth, but have not been able adjust swiftly in response to the downturn, is a matter for concern. Although our economic problem is not due to rising costs but to falling demand this time round, whether a company is able to swiftly cut costs during a downturn is a critical factor in determining whether the company survives or not. While this year’s Budget did help to alleviate business costs to a certain extent, we have to look into a long-term plan using both macro and micro economic measures to prevent costs from rising rapidly during boom times but remaining high during a downturn.
Protecting the Lifestyle and Employment of Singapore Workers
The President mentioned in his Speech that new immigrants and foreign workers may cause concern because of unfamiliarity with their different accents and habits and because of competition in workplaces. I believe the crux of the issue is not the different accents and habits and the competition in workplaces, but of national identity. Those Singaporeans born after the war have been instilled with our national ethos. Male citizens have to undergo tough and rigorous military training in National Service so as to undertake the duty of protecting our home, defending our nation. Everyone knows the importance and necessity of making the sacrifices. During our nation-building, all contributed without grumble. But, when this generation of Singaporeans has aged and is not able to contribute as much as they did in the past, they are compared with foreign workers and labelled as soft and choosy in looking for jobs. The Government gave Singaporeans an impression that it even thinks that the moon in foreign countries is rounder and only foreigners are talents. Many Singaporeans will ask themselves what significance there is in being a Singaporean. Therefore, to avoid turning the “Singaporeans versus foreigners issue” into a political hot potato one day, the Government should clearly state its stand on the priority of safeguarding the interests of Singaporean workers first and foremost.
Our economic development model, in keeping up with changes in the world market, has resulted in our workers being unable to catch up with the pace of development. They are willing to work but are paid wages which cannot meet our high cost of living, or they may be thought too old for the jobs. This is the problem the Government should confront.
To strike a comparison between foreign workers and Singapore workers is neither fair nor practical. Many foreign workers come here to work mainly to earn money and when they have earned enough, they will return to their homeland to live there. Their families are not here. They can accept work conditions which may not comply with our employment laws. They are prepared to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day as long as they are paid adequate wages.In contrast, Singapore workers live here, have different costs of living and require time and space for family and leisure as well. Therefore, I would like the Government to consider reserving for Singapore workers certain jobs which require special licences, such as safety management, heavy crane drivers, tractors and bulldozer drivers.
During good economic times where there is labour shortage, it is inevitable for the Government to relax rules that restrict foreign workers to meet the demand for manpower. However, when facing a prolonged economic slowdown, the Government should change its mindset and review its policies accordingly. In this way, we would be able to maintain our labour force competitiveness and ensure that those who are displaced by the economic changes would be able to find a decent job. Although SPUR and other skill training schemes had provided some assurance to our workers, this is insufficient to calm the current wave of unemployment. I was told by a furniture painter that after training his foreign worker colleagues on the relevant skills, he was retrenched by the employer. Following which, he had undergone SPUR training but was still unemployed a few weeks after the training ended. Hence, it should be the priority of the Government now to ensure that workers are employed after the training so that such skills will not be wasted after training.
A Caring Society, Enhanced Social Cohesion
Singapore is not a big corporation or a private company. It is a country. Economic development is important, but as a small state with a small population, we cannot ignore other factors that can promote the sustainable growth and development of our country. One important factor is social cohesion.
In the 2006 debate on the Presidential Address, I had pointed out in my speech that income disparity will continue to be a challenge for us. The Government has subsequently implemented the Workfare Income Supplement scheme which has narrowed the income gap to a certain extent, but this is not enough to solve the problem in the long run. As we face global economic restructuring, we are likely to face a greater disparity between the two income groups. Different jobs demand different salaries in the global market; some jobs demand a high income while others continue to lag behind. This would ultimately result in the “M” model societal structure, where the middle-income group will lose out and the cushioning effect that it offers will gradually disappear. This is the challenge that we face in maintaining social cohesion.
I am of the view that social values would form the pillar of our social cohesion; they also support sustainable growth and development of our society. The Government should place on its agenda the building of a caring society. Policies should not be solely motivated by economy incentives and a person’s worth should not be measured solely based on economic value. For example, as we face an ageing population, medical and social welfare expenditure will increase inevitably. Yet in response to this, the Government’s attitude towards the need to increase medical expenditure for the elderly is merely to describe them as a “Silver Tsunami”.
To build a caring society, the Government must be more aware of the intrinsic values of its policies. For example, the Government is generous towards allocating budget for education expenditure, but it is taken to be an investment, meaning the Government expects returns in future. This gives the people an impression that it is the not Government’s duty to provide education for the young so as to ensure they have a bright future. If the same attitude explains why we also subsidize foreign students, this can be considered reasonable in principle, but the Government should let the people know what the returns for investing in these foreign students are. As for tertiary education, the Government is not willing to increase subsidy level because it feels that graduates will earn a high income after graduation; the government also attempts to justify the affordability of tertiary education by allowing the borrowing from parent’s CPF and grant of study loans for tuition fees. As such, these graduates are in debt before they even start work – this seems to be sending a message to our young that it is alright to spend future money.
As we face the change in economic condition, is the Government’s assumption that every graduate will have a good job waiting for him, thus it is not necessary to provide higher subsidy for tertiary education still valid? Should we re-look at the affordability of tertiary education fees? It is true, however, that we cannot depend solely on the Government to foster caring social values. I am of the view that everyone should play a part in daily life, to have civic awareness and open discussion on social values. In this regard, the new media can play an active role.
A Political System Based on Power To The People
Earlier, I mentioned that Singapore is a country, not a corporation or private company. The fundamental difference is that companies will be allowed to issue shares and the one who owns the most shares will be the biggest shareholder. They naturally serve on the board of directors as its chairman or directors and in turn appoint the CEO and management staff. They can exercise control over the operations of the company, and the means of livelihood of employees lies in their hands. Besides those who believe in the political theories perpetuated in autocratic monarchic states in the olden days, I believe that no citizen of the modern state in the 21st century will agree that political leaders own the majority of the country, the way shareholders own the company.
And so, every citizen should have a stake in the country and enjoy equal basic rights. Under this premise, the political system must be people-oriented, the will of the people expressed and the leaders chosen based on the will of the people. In addition, to ensure that the will of the people is respected by the leaders, to prevent monopoly of power and authority, or even amendment of the Constitution to ensure certain political groups perpetuate themselves in power, a system of checks and balances must be set in place. The Parliament comprises of ruling and opposition parties and Constitution provides for the separation of powers – legislature, executive and judiciary. This is the concept that underlies the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Singapore adopted the Westminster model framework upon independence and several amendments have been made to our Constitution since, some of which involved fundamental changes in our political system. Examples include the Elected President System and Group Representation Constituency (GRC) System. The purpose of raising this issue is with the hope that Singaporeans will understand the present by reviewing the past and not forget the origin and meaning of our political system. It was also mentioned by the President in his presidential speech that, “Singapore’s political system must evolve over time as our society change”.
The Presidential Speech highlighted that our political system encourages a strong and effective Government worthy of Singaporeans and responsive to the people’s needs and aspirations. This is an affirmation that is taken as an honour by the ruling party, supported by the results of the last election, where the ruling party won 67% of the votes. However, I wish to highlight that under the present system, the true effectiveness of our system lies in individual political leaders and not the political system with checks and balances built in to ensure its operational effectiveness.
We have had two Prime Ministers in the past. The transition of power was smooth, and this was the internal affair of the ruling party, similar to the replacements of leaderships in China. The ruling party controls the legislative process and can amend the Constitution at any time, retaining firm control of government machinery and state resources. Its power and resources far exceeds the power of any political party or non-governmental organization in the country; this is not in line with the doctrine of separation of powers. If, one day, the ruling party abuses its powers, tramples on civil rights or is guilty of corruption, what can the people do? So far, our system is yet to be tested. One day, should we experience a political crisis similar to that of Indonesia and Philippines where a strong and effective government collapses, would Singapore be able to withstand the test and survive? I am not sure.
Some feel that PAP leadership team constantly self-renews and our leaders show great foresight and appear honest and upright. But who can guarantee that the leaders will never fall victim to corruption? Can a high salary really keep corruption away? Maybe the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has a role to play, but as the CPIB is under the purview of the PMO as well, how can the CPIB play a checking role?
Some feel that we should not entertain imaginary or groundless fears; the ruling party will self-check, and it is impossible for all PAP members to collude and congregate like snakes and rats will. Even if the party breaks up, the remaining half can still rule the country. However, if we were to allow ourselves to reach such a plight, our political system would be greatly weakened by then. Therefore, the best plan is to reinforce external checks and balances into the system to avoid such situations from happening.
The role of an opposition party is to play the role of checks and balances so as to ensure that the system is effective, but until today, our opposition parties are incapable of giving full play to this role. Even during election times, we do not have enough opposition candidates to stand for election so that Singaporeans can exercise their voting rights. Therefore, our democratic political system is like a one-legged duck.
The ruling party said that it is not her role to help sustain the opposition party, or this is like throwing stones at one’s feet. This is the mentality of “the winner takes it all and the loser is a bandit.” But we cannot solely blame the ruling party. After all, the political system is the foundation of our country. Citizens should be concerned about this. Since the people have made their choice during elections and cast their votes for the PAP candidates, allowing the PAP to have control over amendments to the Constitution and elections, the PAP is supported by the vote of the people whereas opposition parties are unable to garner enough support from the people. Who can we blame?
Some blame the opposition for not doing their job well and not having talents. Maybe this is true. But if a person of noble aspirations does not join the opposition party due to whatever reason in the face of the realities of life, where do we get the talents? Even the ruling party cannot get talents, let alone the opposition parties! Even if we can find people of noble aspirations to stand for election, they may not be elected.
Some feel that the losing candidate from the opposition party can be appointed as a Non-Constituency Member and he or she can still represent the voices of people in Parliament. However, the role of the opposition party is not merely to reflect the feelings of the people; it has a functional role in the actual operation of our political system which is based on Westminster model to ensure that the political system can function soundly. In order for the opposition party to play the role, opposition party must be elected into Parliament so that it has the mandate from the people and can have sufficient resources to build the capability of the party to enable it to play the role. Non-Constituency Member is a representative of no constituency! An elected member has the backing of his constituency, he will also have physical space to organize events to widen the network of support and strengthen the capability of his party. Furthermore, elected members will get to hear from their constituents through weekly Meet-the People (MPS) sessions. Only by doing so can the Member have a good grasp of the issues and problems faced on the ground. Through making representation to the government authorities on behalf of his constituent, he can better understand whether a particular Government policy has been effectively implemented. Such real-life grassroots experience is very important in the cultivation of a rational and responsible opposition party. If we want opposition parties to be able to play its functional role in our political system, we need to give them the space and time to grow. To provide for a rainy day, we must prepare in times of political stability.
Conclusion
For a small country like Singapore to continue to survive in the geopolitical crevice of Southeast Asia, economically, we have to be ahead of others. It would be better if we could play an important role in bringing about economic development in the region. Militarily, we should possess defence technology of the superpower, and even be capable of exporting our weapons to neighbouring countries to help strengthen their defence capability. However, these are merely the hardware. Social cohesiveness, the people’s national identity, and the solidarity as a people in times of adversity are the software that would ensure the long term survival of Singapore. Whether the software can run smoothly would depend on the operating system of our country – the political system.
