Why I Do This – A Reflection on the CPF Forum

Hri Kumar

“Today, we are also in a war – not the conventional kind – but one for hearts and minds of Singaporeans. There are groups who view politics differently, and who want to take Singapore in a different direction. And you can tell from what you read on the Internet or otherwise that some elements do not care how they win.”

A close friend of mine looked at the hullabaloo caused by my recent CPF Forum and asked why I bothered doing it.  He had a point – it is easier to do nothing.

So why?

During the Second World War, General George Patton asked his troops to think about what they would tell their grandchildren.  Do they want to be remembered for fighting the Nazis or for digging dirt in Louisiana?

Patton’s point is clear – when times are tough, what did you do to try to make a difference? Did you do what was difficult or did you choose what was easy?

Today, we are also in a war – not the conventional kind – but one for hearts and minds of Singaporeans. There are groups who view politics differently, and who want to take Singapore in a different direction. And you can tell from what you read on the Internet or otherwise that some elements do not care how they win.

CPF matters to my residents. It is my duty to understand their concerns, clarify misunderstandings and to get everyone talking about how we can do things better. It did not trouble me that some netizens labelled the Forum a “wayang”. It did not even bother me that Kenneth Jeyaretnam wrote a post lying about what I said at the Forum – people are wise to him. Mdm Irene Yap’s speech grabbed all the attention, but it turned out that the CPF rules were applied properly and consistently in her case and she has access to her funds.

Ultimately, what was important was that the Forum helped us understand CPF better, and more importantly, to hear what others thought about it. And not surprisingly, there was a diversity of views. Most accepted that CPF was a good system, but could do with a few tweaks. Indeed, several spoke against allowing a complete withdrawal at age 55 or later. While they acknowledged the argument that people should have freedom to deal with their own monies, they countered that there is an equally strong argument that people should make provisions for their own retirement if they have the funds. Indeed, several spoke against the sentiment of one gentleman who said that it was his right to spend his money in Batam, and that if his funds run out, it was for God to help him! The reality is that it will be for the rest of us help him. So, the challenge is to find an acceptable balance between these two arguments.

Our society is evolving. We are made differently from the generation which built Singapore. We have different hopes, expectations and sense of fairness.    We want more inclusiveness, less “swim or sink” or “winner takes all”. We measure success, not just by how well we do individually, but whether society as a whole is better off. We regard each other more as equals, and are less accepting of hierarchy. These are all good objectives. Our institutions and policies will therefore have to adapt. The Pioneer Generation Package and Medishield Life reflect that change.

However, it remains unknown whether what we are doing will achieve those results, or make things worse. Do not mistake the will for the deed – good intentions do not guarantee good results.

To me, the fundamental question is this – will Singapore continue to enjoy the same success it had in the last 50 years? Will our society continue to improve?  What will it mean for my daughter’s generation, and their children?

To answer these questions, we need to understand WHY we have done well in the last 50 years. That is a question that is not discussed enough.  We tend to answer it in very superficial terms – “hard work”; “free of corruption” etc.   But there is surely more to it.   What specifically was it about our institutions, our policies, our people that enabled that success? If we do not understand this, we risk changing what works and keeping what does not.

That is why I organised the CPF Forum.  CPF is but one issue. We will have to confront a whole host of others – costs of living, minimum wage, income inequality, wealth redistribution, housing policies etc. These issues matter greatly to the future of Singapore and the well-being of our children. There are no easy answers.

I will therefore continue to urge my residents to openly share their thoughts on these and other important matters. People have the right to dismiss this or even snipe by the side. But if you care for Singapore, step forward and make a difference.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/why-i-do-this-a-reflection-on-the-cpf-forum/727811343932132?fref=nf

Overheard

“Good job sir”

“So inspiring”

“The forum was for his constituents. Being an experienced Senior Counsel, he is more than well equipped to debate with any detractors. However, we do not need to waste time justifying our noble actions to detractors who are simply out to take pot shots. We cast them aside and ignore them rather than to give them the opportunity to gain any political mileage. Their negative words are not worth the vibrations they create in the air. Focus on our tasks to serve the people and the best insult we can return to the detractors is to treat them as if they do not exist.”

It is important that we deal with facts and not speculation and conjecture – MP Hri Kumar ( The video of 76-year old Ms Renee Yap )

     Hri Kumar

The video of 76-year old Ms Renee Yap at the CPF Forum has been furiously making the rounds, and some people have made some disparaging remarks about the incident.

Let me state the facts.

1. Ms Yap is well known to me and my grassroots leaders. We have in fact visited her a few times. I recall she was kind enough in our last visit a few months ago to serve us delicious home-made drinks and cakes. You would have seen from the video that Ms Yap is a feisty lady. She displayed the same energy and passion in my very first public dialogue in 2006, when she spoke on another issue. I am glad that age has not dampened her vigour.

2. I spoke with Ms Yap both before and after the Forum. She praised what the grassroots have done.

3. Those of you concerned about Ms Yap’s difficulties with the CPF will be glad to know that MOM is now looking into the matter. I am confident matters can be clarified and resolved. Hopefully, details can be shared, but without compromising Ms Yap’s right to confidentiality. It is important that we deal with facts and not speculation and conjecture.

4. Some alleged that Ms Yap was not allowed to speak and was man-handled. That is not accurate. I have posted the video and you can judge for yourselves what happened. After the introductory talk was given by the CPF expert, questions were invited from the floor. There was limited time as we needed to proceed with the next segment. Ms Yap was the first to come forward. She first spoke at some length about her difficulties with property tax and her bank, and the organisers were therefore concerned about going off topic. No one was suggesting that Ms Yap’s issues were not real, but that this was not the proper forum. So a couple of them approached her with the intention of asking her to raise the matter separately. Nonetheless, she was allowed to go on and complete what she wanted to say.

5. She was not “man-handled”. The CCC Chairman and I separately spoke to Ms Yap at length subsequently. She shared some personal issues which I of course cannot divulge. She did not at any time suggest that she had been intimidated. On the contrary, she expressed gratitude for the support she had received.

6. Some have asked why I mentioned that Ms Yap lived in a landed house. That was in response to a question by the press. I was asked a series of questions, including where Ms Yap lived. I responded by confirming she was a Thomson resident and that she lived in one of the landed estates. I did not disclose any further details to the press or anyone else, save for to MOM. The remark was not meant to suggest that Ms Yap was not deserving of help. As I have stated, we have helped her in the past and will continue to do so.

CPF Dialogue with Hri Kumar Part 1

CPF Dialogue with Hri Kumar Part 2

*******************************************************
Comments overheard :

• Thank you for the clarification Mr Hri Kumar. Some people are really making a meal of her situation making false claims and insinuations. This shld put the matter to rest. Thks again.

• I feel sad about the lies, half-truths, and misinformation that have been circulated on the Net. We need to look at more and better ways to communicate the truth and channels to deliver it.

• Those ‘drummers’ out there, who create DRUMS despite knowing the truth, are really vicious and malicious. If they can be identified, they need to be taken to task for the damage and distress they caused to others. Sadly, most of them are cowards and do it anonymously or using some fake name or avatar.

**********************
Reference :

• CPF Forum Discussion Points – by MP Hri Kumar

**********************

image source from -> Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)

CPF Forum Discussion Points – by MP Hri Kumar

Questions and more questions on CPF

Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh  ,  The Straits Times, Sunday, Jun 15, 2014

MP Hri Kumar Nair held a dialogue on the CPF scheme with more than 100 participants at Thomson CC on Saturday. Politician Kenneth Jeyaretnam (in yellow shirt) was also present at the dialogue.

From Parliament to Hong Lim Park, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme has been closely scrutinised in recent weeks, and a dialogue yesterday showed that there are still many questions on the minds of Singaporeans.

About 120 people – from the retired to those who have just started work – turned up for a spirited three-hour session with Mr Hri Kumar Nair, an MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

The volley of questions and concerns rarely faltered, and most centred on the Minimum Sum, and the monthly payouts during retirement.

They asked for more transparency on how these are determined, and why the Minimum Sum is rising. The Minimum Sum will increase from $148,000 to $155,000 next month.

During small group discussions, participants tried to help each other understand the CPF. But, at times, one seemed as perplexed as the other.

One participant, Ms Lucy Sim, who is in her late 60s, wanted to know how she could get higher CPF Life payouts than her current monthly sums of about $100.

Another, Mr Philip Lim, 64, said the $155,000 figure is a challenging sum to achieve for most people in the low- and middle-income groups.

The retiree said: “Inflation is higher now, so a lot of people cannot reach the Minimum Sum. If you give me a goal I can’t reach, might as well don’t give me a goal.”

Other questions were on flexibility: Can Singaporeans decide for themselves at what age monthly payouts start, or draw out a larger sum from their CPF savings at the age of 55?

Currently a CPF member can withdraw up to $5,000. He can draw out more only if he meets the Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum first.

Resident Joshua Lim, 41, and his group suggested that to help more people meet the Minimum Sum, they be allowed to pledge their property beyond 50 per cent of the Minimum Sum.

In response to the questions and suggestions, Mr Nair said that meeting the Minimum Sum is not a test to be passed or failed, but rather about a need to help set aside an amount to tide a person through retirement.

“We’re not making people richer or poorer by increasing or lowering the Minimum Sum. It’s not a test, it’s not a pass or fail exam.”

He added: “Based on actuarial science, it is determined that if you have $155,000… you will have $1,200 per month for the rest of your life. And that is determined to be what a lower, middle-income person will spend in his lifetime.”

But this, said some participants, is still not enough, and they wanted more information on how the figure was determined.

Mr Philip Lim wanted complete freedom to be given to Singaporeans to manage their savings. If he spent it all before he died then “God help me” he said, which drew applause from some participants.

But it also drew a sharp rebuttal from another resident, who said that is precisely why CPF savings should be protected by safeguards like the Minimum Sum.

Mr Nair had at the start of the session likened the CPF scheme to driving.

“If I’m a safe and responsible driver, the Government shouldn’t tell me how fast I can drive. I can take care of myself,” he said. “But sometimes, the rules are there not just to protect you but to protect other people as well.”

During the dialogue, an elderly Ms Rene Yap spoke at length about her personal difficulties withdrawing money from her CPF savings and asked for help.

Later, Mr Nair told The Sunday Times: “This is a resident who has an issue. I spoke with her personally after the dialogue and I’ll be doing my best to assist her. She’s a resident in one of the landed estates in Thomson.”

Discussions on the CPF issue have become more intense of late, with a defamation suit by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against blogger Roy Ngerng for alleging that PM Lee had criminally misappropriated CPF monies, a protest against the CPF at Hong Lim Park and a debate in Parliament.

The Government has said that changes to the CPF and CPF Life schemes are in the works.

Mr Nair noted the increased attention in his session, which was organised for his residents, and had created some confusion online over who could attend.

Among the participants were about 12 who were not residents, including Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam.

Mr Nair said he will be preparing a report based on suggestions from the dialogue to submit to the Manpower Ministry.

Acknowledging the many questions asked, he said: “What’s clear to me is people need better communication. There needs to be better explanation on how things work. People should understand these things because (their) money is involved.”

He added: “What is not helpful or what is not constructive is to say, ‘Because I don’t know the answer, therefore something bad must be happening.'”

asyiqins@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on Jun 15, 2014.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Source link – > Questions and more questions on CPF

**************************************************************************************

  Facebook link  -> Hri Kumar

16 Jun 2014

CPF Forum Discussion Points

Hi Everyone,

We have collated a summary of the key points raised in the CPF Forum yesterday. The responses are organised based on the following questions:

(a) If a Singaporean runs out of retirement funds, who should take care of his needs?

(b) Should there be a Minimum Sum, and if so, how should it be calculated?

(c) What changes would you like made to the CPF System?

We will be preparing a report for submission to MOM:

**************
to continue  reading,  please click this link – > CPF Forum Discussion Points

****************

 

Constructive Politics – MP Hri Kumar Vs MP Low Thia Khiang

  ->  Hri Kumar

Constructive Politics (2)

I thank everyone for their comments on my speech.

The media did not report that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Low Thia Khiang, had asked me some questions at the end of my speech. For completeness, I set out a rough transcript of that exchange.

Low: I seek clarification from the Member. The Member talked about alternative policies from the Opposition. He does not sound as reasonable as the Prime Minister. The Member is the Chairman of a Government Parliamentary Committee. What alternative policies has he come up with? I noted he has made some criticisms but I have not heard of his alternative policies accompanying his criticism? Madam, I would like to seek clarification from the Member as to whether he thinks US President Obama is a statesman or a politician. Secondly, I would like him to say whether he has defamed by the stroke of what he said here, “Politicians in mature democracy”. And thirdly, does he think that the voters, the citizens in mature democracies are all unable to think independently and to make their own decisions, and are just simply slaves of their politicians.

Nair:  The Prime Minister is a far more polite person than I am. I will try and address all of the learned Member’s points. I am not a member of the Opposition.  I know I am dressed in blue today, but ….  The Member will know if he has read my speeches and has followed my writings, I have dealt with many policies of the Government. I have offered constructive suggestions, not just in MHA but in other Ministries as well. If he wants a list, I will be happy to send him a list tomorrow morning. For example, for the Ministry of National Development, I have suggested raising the income ceiling for Singaporeans to buy HDB flats before the income ceiling was raised. I had gone further to say that all Singaporeans should be entitled to buy HDB flats. And I can go  Ministry by Ministry – Education, Home Affairs and others – where I have made constructive suggestions with details. I think that is the difference between me and him.

Whether President Obama is a statesman or not, I am not getting into that debate. I did not say that all politicians in mature democracies were not statesmen. I said there were few and far between.

And I am not going to discuss individual politicians.

And insofar as electorate in mature democracies are concerned, I have given him the numbers. Your right to vote is the most important sacred right of any citizen but look at the numbers. People are tuning out. Half the population, the voting population are not exercising their right to vote. Why would they not do that? They do not do that because it has become to them a pointless exercise. It does not matter who they vote because they do not expect the outcomes to be any different. If we go down that path and if we come to that situation, it will be a sad sorry day for Singapore.

Low:   On alternative policies — the Member referred to and cited his own suggestions, his comments on policies and how he had made suggestions. I also invite him to check the Hansard, the Workers’ Party MPs have also made a lot of suggestions, some which were taken up. But when we say we are happy to see that the Government has taken up some suggestions, we were told the Workers’ Party is claiming credit. This is the double standards of politics.

Nair:   It can be resolved very easily. All the Workers’ Party needs to do is to produce all their proposals and all their details, and let Singaporeans scrutinise as to whether they have been constructive and whether they have offered serious, realistic proposals.   I have written about this many times and I have spoken about it many times and we are still waiting to hear from them.

Low:  I would like to let the Member know that the Workers’ Party does have a manifesto. It is published on our website. He can go and take a look at our positions on certain key policy issues, and what do we think, and whether indeed some in the manifesto has been taken up by the Government, in terms of policy shifts. I would like to inform him that yes, perhaps we are reviewing our policies, our manifesto, maybe we can come up with something more in the future but let us be patient.

Nair: I would like the Honourable Member to know that there is a difference between a detail and a motherhood statement.”

**********************************

More Readings  : Constructive Politics

***********************************

 

Image source link -> Fabrications About The PAP

****************************************************

Comments : 

• the question i would like to ask Mr. Low is: if you believe so strongly in your manifesto, why do you consistently have to tell others to ‘go and read our website’? Should you not be able to stand by your convictions right there and then? Or is it that you can’t even recall your own manifesto; side note: i don’t believe Mr. Low is giving an actual rebuttal Mr. Kumar’s statement. (Mere Cursory analysis of the given 3 pictures.)

 

• If there is ever a change in COE implementation , it is my credit ! Cause I wrote and complained about it on my Facebook status !

 

• Does he really expect to win me over to vote for him when he can’t even bloody remember his party’s manifesto? – Why absurd, “Please vote for me, go and read my website for my manifesto.” Because that sounds so assuring and competent

 

• The joke is LTK suggests that one should read WP’s manifesto and if there are any changes in government policy that is inside the manifesto , then it is WP’s credit !

 

• Only in Singapore we have voters who actually buy into the “vote for WP to make PAP work harder for you” line. That’s why they don’t expect WP to do anything and WP can sit back and enjoy the $16K monthly allowance.

********************************************

Youth Dialogue session held on 25th May 2013: Do we have a future in Singapore?

Hri Kumar  (Hri Kumar)

Hi Everyone,

Here’s a summary of the Youth Dialogue session held on 25th May 2013:

——————————————————————-
The youth dialogue session was centered on the following theme:

Do we have a future in Singapore?

Three topics were raised for discussion and are summarized below:

1. Inequalities in Education – how do we distribute educational opportunities?

– Fears were raised that inequality permeates all levels of education, starting from the pre-school a child is enrolled in.

– The tuition system further accentuates this inequality: students from more well-off backgrounds have better access to tuition.

– The participants also pointed out that the current education system may favour a certain type of student over others. For example, academically-inclined students identified at an early age in the Gifted Education Programme are allocated greater resources and funds, and have smaller classes than mainstream students. Are these discrepancies justified?

o Others rebutted that the country has limited resources and in a meritocratic system, some should be allocated these resources to ensure that returns are reaped from the resources used.

– Participants indicated that it is necessary for students to be classified and educated in ways that best suit their needs, abilities and potential.

o However, no system of classification is perfect. In deciding on one system over another, the government must make certain trade-offs.

– Some participants felt that there was a low correlation between performance in school and performance at work. Grades, while important at the entry-level, do not dictate one’s success in life. They shared empirical evidence for this in their workplaces. Balance must also be achieved between the pursuit of academic excellence and non-academic interests.

2. Cost of living – will you get married and have children in Singapore?

– The participants pointed out that a distinction had to be drawn between needs and wants. While a car is not a necessity in Singapore today, owning a car is an aspiration shared by many youth.

– The consensus reached was that the cost of housing, education and healthcare in Singapore is high, but that these costs are still somewhat manageable for the majority.

– The participants acknowledged that the government does subsidise the cost of living to cope with inflation.

o University fees, for example, are partially borne by the government.

o Similarly, healthcare subsidies are available to those who visit government hospitals.

o While these measures may be sufficient for the average Singaporean, more can and should be done to help the elderly, the disabled and the lower income group.

– With regard to marriage, some participants expressed concern about their ability raise a family and manage a career at the same time. Given the emphasis put on one’s career, it is likely that getting married and having children will take a lower priority.

– The topic of single parenthood was raised during the discussion and the following opinions were raised:

o Participants acknowledged that single parents face numerous challenges and were further disadvantaged by the lack of subsidies allocated to them.

o Some felt that their predicament was due to circumstances, and not choice. They should thus not be implicated in this way.

o However, it was acknowledged that policies need to reflect the values of the society. Participants were equally divided in their vote on extension of subsidies to single parents.

3. Immigration of foreign students & workers– to freeze or not to freeze?

– Most participants acknowledged the need for immigrants to sustain our population. In particular, foreign students do contribute certain skill sets and diversity to campuses.

– Participants raised concerns about the number of university places allocated to Singaporeans. It was opined that the large number of places allocated for foreign students has forced many Singaporean youth to seek university education at private tertiary institutions, both local and overseas.

– Some felt that priority should be accorded to Singaporeans over foreigners in terms of placement in local universities. Others were worried that universities placed undue emphasis on academic excellence in granting applicants entry.

o On the other hand, some participants raised a point that Singaporeans should not feel entitled to a spot in the local universities or be complacent– foreign students should not be viewed as a threat but seen as contributing to the competitiveness of the local universities.

o Furthermore, in order to maintain the high standards of our universities, it is necessary for the admissions criteria to be stringent.

– Some participants raised a question on the significant number of scholarships that have been awarded to foreigners and felt that these scholarships should be reduced and handed to Singaporeans

– The discussion concluded with the acknowledgement that with a limited number of university places, one needs to face the realities of the selection process

What is Meritocracy? by Mr Hri Kumar

The US Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently gave a speech to the graduating class at Princeton.    He shared 10 lessons, and it was No.3 that caught my eye.   Here is an excerpt:

“3. The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives.

But fair in an absolute sense?

Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate–these are the folks who reap the largest rewards.

The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others…”

When I was growing up, my family, like many others, was poor.   But like many others, we have seen our lot improve tremendously by reason of the education and opportunities we received.   So, I always believed strongly in the concept of “meritocracy”.   Except, I never thought deeply about what it really meant.   To me, it was always about your rewards being determined by how hard you worked.   But, it is not that simple.

Recently, some have questioned whether meritocracy is truly fair.   As Bernanke questioned: “fair in an absolute sense?”.   Of course not.   But we need to compare something with something.    To compare meritocracy with a system of absolute fairness and then criticise its shortcomings does not advance the debate because no system is absolutely fair.   At the moment, meritocracy is the fairest and most efficient system we have.

But to deal with its undesirable effects, we have to recognise its limitations.

•  One is what Bernanke pointed out – that the success of an individual may have as much to do with luck and happenstance.
• Another, as pointed out by President Obama in an election speech (for which he was attacked), is that an individual’s success is not entirely the result of his own work, but the support he receives from those around him.

I would not be where I am today but for others – the great teachers I had, the Foundation which helped pay my university fees, my mentors who taught me the practice of law, etc.    The list is long.

Everyone who has succeeded has received help, and also has had some measure of luck.    Seen from this perspective, the call for those who have done well to contribute more is a powerful one.     Such debates are often reduced to discussions on taxes and redistribution.   In Singapore, there is a good amount of redistribution.   For example:

• a)  about 70% do not pay income tax. In fact, 20% of households account for 80% of income tax paid;
• b)  about 85% of GST is paid by the top 40% earning Singaporeans and foreigners; and
• c)  middle income households will receive $1 in Lifetime Benefits for every $0.80 in Lifetime Taxes they pay.

Nonetheless, income inequality is an issue and we must do a better job of helping those who get less.   We should have constructive debates about

• whether there should be greater redistribution and, just as importantly,
•  how we should do it so that we continue to reward work, enterprise and risk taking.

But the debate should not be dictated by numbers alone.

• It should be about the kind of society we want.
• We should recognize that we become a better, stronger community where there is incentive to succeed, and at the same time, the weaker amongst us continue to have the opportunities to forge a decent living.

The problem with much debate in Singapore (and elsewhere) is that

• it often involves people criticising the current, but not dealing with, or

• being full and frank about, the risks and problems of the alternatives they are advocating. 

• They make nice-sounding statements, but avoid the difficult questions.    

• We are not dealing with academic matters, and there are no prizes for best speaker or the funniest put-down.   

Decisions we make affect the lives and futures of real people, and we must never forget that.

Link : What is Meritocracy?

White Paper – A Matter of Trust

 Hri Kumar

Hi all,

I set out below the speech I delivered in Parliament this evening on the White Paper. I look forward to receiving your views.

In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial fiasco, the editor of Newsweek International, observed that the crisis had demonstrated one thing: that democracy has a genetic defect – it emphasises the current, usually at the expense of the future. Intuitively, we all recognise this. So while politicians often speak eloquently about promises of the future, they know that what really matters is that they deliver on the real and tangible problems of the present. Policies are often driven by this reality.

Singapore is not immune to this genetic defect. It would be foolish to think we are different.

However, when we were a young nation, we showed strong resistance to it. When former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said that the Government was going to transform Singapore from a swamp to a gleaming metropolis, not many believed it could be done. The key was that Singaporeans allowed the Government time and space to embark on its vision, to effect medium and long term strategies – on the economy, housing, transport, health. Singaporeans took a leap of faith with the Government, and were rewarded for doing so.

Did some Singaporeans suffer as a result of these policies? Some clearly did.
Take land. In order to build housing and hospitals, roads and rail network, industries, the government acquired property from Singaporeans. This included farms and business premises. Some were dislocated, lost their homes, their inheritance, even their livelihoods. I have some residents who still complain bitterly about this difficult time in their lives. We can all understand why they are unhappy. But is there any doubt that these measures were necessary and have benefited the vast majority of Singaporeans? Few today would argue against it.

Today, we are the beneficiaries of these long term policies, of this long term strategic thinking and of the hard work of the previous generation, many of whom are no longer around to enjoy its fruits. But it is also common for people to view the past with rose-tinted glasses. Despite the current and legitimate unhappiness about over-crowding, high property prices and such, we are today far better off than our parents’ generation. All the objective figures – education, home ownership, employment, wealth and household income, quality of life, health and longevity – prove that.

But today, we are also an older society – less resistant to genetic defects. The current has become as important, if not more so, than the future. The White Paper is very much about the future. But its acceptance by Singaporeans will depend very much on how we deal with today’s problems. That will determine if Singaporeans will give the Government time and space to re-shape the future, like they did before.

So to persuade Singaporeans to come on this journey, we have to do two things:

(a) paint a full picture of the future for Singaporeans, highlighting both the good and the bad;

(b) give Singaporeans confidence that the Government will be able address the challenges of the future.

Chief among these challenges are the questions of over-crowdedness and the advantages of being born a Singaporean.

Some in this House and many outside have questioned the numbers and assumptions in the White Paper. They say that the Government has over-stated the problems of the elderly to working adult ratio, that we have not done enough to boost productivity and birth rates and that the elderly can retire later and work longer.

But we are all crystal ball gazing. No one wants to hit 6.9m. Every member in this House wants a stronger core of Singaporeans. Everyone supports the Government building ahead of demand. We all want the TFR measures to work so that we may have less need for foreigners. Future technology and advances in health care may well help our seniors remain active and productive longer. Other innovations and mechanisation may reduce our dependence on unskilled foreign labour. Technology can change life dramatically in the next 20 years, as it has in the last 20 years. But no one can say with any certainty what will happen.

The issue is therefore not 6.9m, 6.5m or who can assert a more acceptable number. Numbers will change over time as circumstances change, and assumptions are either confirmed or debunked. However, as DPM Teo said, we have reached a turning point, and we have decisions to make today about what we do about our future as we see it today. We have to take the next leap of faith.

The issue is therefore one of trust and confidence.

The Government has done the right thing to talk about the future, and show its vision of it. It has stuck its head up and is prepared to take the blows. As DPM Teo said, it would be far more politically convenient to do or say nothing. There are many who have written that the Government is politically naïve for doing this. But would Singaporeans be better off if the Government had kept silent? Would you trust a party that ducks difficult questions?

No one can predict the future, and as Minister Lui said, it is very difficult to visualize how the future will look. So we do what comes naturally – we project what we see today as a basis of what will happen in the future. The problem is that many Singaporeans do not quite like what they see today.

The White Paper plans for a “good quality of life”. But that means different things to different people. To most Singaporeans, day to day issues weigh most in their minds. How will the building of new MRT lines and housing make our lives better if we are, at the same time, growing the population? Will the added capacity only be sufficient to cater to the increased population? In basic terms, will Singaporeans have to wait longer, shorter or the same for their flat or the next train? Or are we, as in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast as things move, just to stay on the same spot?

The distinctions between Singaporeans and foreigners must also be carefully reviewed, as that is a matter which will have growing significance as the Singaporean core diminishes. How do we deal with the issue of PRs not doing National Service? How are we going to ensure that jobs which Singaporeans are ready, able and willing to do are not given to foreigners? How do we help our children secure places in good schools and universities? How do we ensure that foreigners do not speculate and drive up property prices, and put it beyond the reach of Singaporeans? Essentially, how do we ensure that those with no skin in the game do not walk away with all the prizes?

We need to address these and other difficult questions now. If we do not, few will trust the Government to get it right in 2020 or 2030. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member Mr Liang Eng Wah, as it puts the issue in better perspective, better context.

Just as important, we should not mislead Singaporeans by simply telling them what they want to hear. It is easy to discount projected population figures by a million or so, and then say that the work force shortfall will somehow be made up by foreign brides and productivity, that we can simply decide how many % of GDP we want (as if there is some magic machine to input numbers) and that we can all live happily ever after with lower growth. There is a difference between a vision and a fairy tale. We have to compare something with something. This debate will not be served by comparing the Singapore envisioned in this White Paper to one which exists in utopia.

Singaporeans are best served by details, not posturing. And I do not mean simply throwing numbers around. Let’s deal with the real effects on real Singaporeans. For example, what will low growth mean to employment opportunities for young Singaporeans? All around the world today, youth unemployment is increasing at alarming rates. The ILO 2012 report puts Youth Unemployment for Developed Economies and the European Union at 18% for 2011 and projected to be the same for 2012. As at July 2012, Spain and Italy had youth unemployment rates of 52% and 35% respectively. This is because businesses are not investing or growing, and cannot absorb the young who are graduating from schools each year. Why do some assume Singapore will be different? Businesses in Singapore will not invest and expand if labour is tight and growth is low. To say that we can have the same growth as other mature economies is no answer as it ignores the problems these other countries already have.

So, this is not about having good GDP numbers. Having a job makes a world of difference to a person and his family. If you have no job, no prospects, no hope, everything else is pretty much moot.

What about other effects? Will we have to pay more taxes? What will it mean to our retirement age? Willl we have enough workers in essential services, such as domestic, health and geriatric care, and construction to meet the additional infrastructure and health care services we need? These are important to the daily lives of Singaporeans.

Under the Workers’ Party plan, there will not be, and it is a pipe dream to believe that Singaporeans alone will make up the difference. These and other questions have to be answered if there is to be a credible alternative or at least, a meaningful debate. It is not enough to simply say that there has to be “structural changes”. It is clearly not enough to say you empathize with local SMEs which will be killed off by your plan, and then say your solution is for the Government to solve the problem. It is also not intellectually honest to suggest that shareholders will suffer and Singaporeans will not, when we are dealing with Singaporean businesses, Singaporean owners, Singaporean employees, Singaporean shareholders, all supporting Singaporean children and families.

Ultimately, we are engaged in this debate because we want all Singaporeans to have a better life and future, and to help Singaporeans understand and deal with the realities on the ground. We should not be disacted by numbers, nor should we use numbers to distract.

I hope the Government will deal with the issues of today and give confidence that it will be able to solve those of tommorrow. New plans, programs and initiatives, like those announced by MND and MOT are good. But Singaporeans need to see them work and feel their lives improve. That I believe is the only way to ensure that Singaporeans will take the next leap together with the Government.

A Matter of Trust (2)

Thanks to everyone who posted your views. Not surprisingly, views are divided. It shows that different people are concerned about different issues and have different perspectives. That is only natural as we are dealing with issues concerning our future.

Some have said that I was too aggressive with the Workers’ Party (WP). There is a certain amount of cut and thrust in Parliamentary debates, but anyone viewing it live will know that all speeches (both from ruling and opposition parties) are delivered in a measured way. But views have to be scrutinised, tested and challenged, so that their full implications will be understood. That is what the debate is for.

We now know that the WP’s proposal of freezing foreign worker numbers will in effect create haves and have-nots. If you have a home, good; if you do not, you wait longer to get your house. If you have a job, great (provided your employer does not fold or send his business elsewhere); if you are graduating or joining the work force, you may have to wait or leave Singapore to get one. If you have a maid, hold on to her; if you are new parents, or have elderly parents, and need someone to help you, too bad as no additional maids will be allowed in.

If your business folds, and you have to lay-off your Singaporean employees, tough, but the Government should think of a solution to help you. And we all have to wait much longer for more trains, buses, hospitals and other public services.

If you put aside all the rhetoric, this is really what it amounts to. The WP then glosses over the ill effects of its proposal by arguing that only businesses will be hurt, and Singaporeans will not. Everyone can see how absurd that is. The simple truth is that the WP is advocating a figure of 5.8m, not because there is any logical basis, but because it sounds better.

One thing the Government keeps getting blasted for is that it appears to rule with its head and not its heart. That is a valid point. But that does not mean it should completely swing the other way. I think both head and heart are equally important, and must feature in every policy decision. So while we should formulate policies with the aim of helping Singaporeans (heart), there must be logic to that policy and its implementation so that Singaporeans are in fact helped (head).

The Government has much to do to re-capture the hearts of Singaporeans. The best way to do that is for Singaporeans to feel that the Government’s plans and initiatives have meaningfully improved their lives and give them confidence for the future.

 

image source : The Idealist

Crime and Punishment ( re : Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined S$1,000 )

I must admit I was surprised by the fine of $1,000 imposed on Woffles Woo for paying someone to take a speeding rap for him.

Such offences are undoubtedly serious, as they seek to undermine the course of justice. Others who have committed similar offences have been jailed. I do not know what the Judge took into account in making his decision, and I accept that no two cases are the same. However, I hope there will be an opportunity for the court to explain its reasons and how other cases where jail terms were imposed were distinguished. That will promote transparency and confidence in our legal system, and deal with allegations of unfair treatment, which have already appeared on the net.

I believe that part of the problem is that most times, the law gives judges very little discretion in sentencing – it is usually a fine or jail or both. There may be occasions where a fine is too lenient, while jail may be too harsh. Further, if an offender cannot pay a fine, jail is the default. That creates two problems – it discriminates between those can pay and those who cannot; and it converts a light punishment to a heavy one.

I would prefer if the court had more flexibility in sentencing so that the punishment truly fits the crime. For example, where a person pays another to take the rap for a traffic offence to preserve his driving licence, wouldn’t a more appropriate punishment be to suspend his licence? Inflict on the offender what he was trying by criminal means to avoid. Likewise for less serious cases of vandalism, get the offender to clean up more than he has damaged.

  HRI KUMAR 

***************************************************************************************
Reference to :

•  Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined S$1,000 ~ CNA
• Sales executive jailed for asking others to take rap for traffic offence ~ CNA 

Comments from netizens : 

• I feel the $1,000 fine is too lenient for getting someone else to take the rap for him, especially when the court heard that Wu also made Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005.

• it is the maximum fine, but he could have gotten a jail sentence (up to 6 months) on top of the fine.

• Now where is the justice?Are Singapore judges blind or what?This chap earns hundreds thousand if not millions of dollars,and he get away with just a mere S$1,000 fine.Can the Government understand why most Singaporean are pissed off with this kind of things and others?Just like all the reckless drivers who ran over and killed the pedestrians,but just get away with a mere fine and ban from driving for a few years.

•  With due respect, to judge the severity of the penalty by the salary a person earns , is not exactly fair as well.

• He wasn’t fined for speeding but for providing false information to the police in Nov 2006, he had also provided false information by making Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005. This charge was taken into consideration during the sentencing on June 12.
  I’m just curious how many times must he have provided false information to the police before it warrants a jail sentence instead of just a fine.

• Wrong values! He thinks he can use his money to trample people. Ought to be given a heavy sentence!

• Woffles case was dated back to 2005 and 2006 while the sales executive was in 2008-2009.

• Was there any mention of the change in law and charges for different offences. While Woffles case was speeding in excess of 20km/h, the other case was fail to stop at red light.
  I believe there was mention and reminder of asking someone to take the rap by the police and courts before. not sure in which year.

• The Law was changed in between these 2 cases;
  “The Penal Code was amended in 2008 to make providing misleading information to the traffic police a more serious offence.
  Now it could be punished with up to seven years in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000.”
  ~ Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined $1,000 for misleading traffic police– Straits Times
  Prominent plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu fined $1,000 for a traffic offence. — ST PHOTO: JOYCE FANG 

• Maybe it is time for the courts to refine the fines system. after many years of inflation. fines are still the same and rich people may find it cheap to pay for fines. if you don’t feel the pinch, maybe you wouldn’t learn.

•  I feel this is not so much that the court has been too lenient. Similar to courts world wide, it’s a tussle between prosecutor n defence lawyer. Laws can be adjusted in time to cover wider areas or strengthen weaknesses, but it’s still a matter of having a strong defence to get off heavy sentences. Unfortunately, system like this means those who can afford it can get the best lawyer, like everything else in reality. That’s why I wonder what mitigation his lawyer managed to cook up for him , which would not be the case now as he got the maximum fine, but how did he managed to stay the prosecutor so he is only charged with giving false information! Conversely, we might be having a weak prosecutor on the case! Also, he might still be charged with other offence at another later date.

Is what was done acceptable because it was creative or considered “art”? That gives rise to real difficulties as one man’s art is another’s poison – Hri Kumar ( SKLo saga)

It has been interesting to read the many pieces on the net about the arrest of the Sticker Lady, both for and against her and what she did.

• People should be free to debate issues which affect them, and persuade others, through logic and reasonable arguments, to support their cause. That is a sign of a healthy society. 

But is not clear what the particular movement – to excuse the Sticker Lady from punishment – is saying.

• There is no doubt that what was done was criminal – an act of vandalism or nuisance.
• Is the object then to repeal the law altogether?
• That would make it legal for anyone to draw on or otherwise decorate public property?

I don’t think that is what the vast majority wants.

Is what was done acceptable because it was creative or considered “art”?

That gives rise to real difficulties as one man’s art is another’s poison.

• So what do we expect the police to do?
• Should they be art critics as well, and decide what is acceptable?
• I don’t think many would favour that.
• Or perhaps that should be for the judge?
•  Would that not mean that the same work may be considered criminal by one judge and not by another?

I rather more certainty, and less arbitrariness, in our criminal laws.

• The judge can always take into account the context, reasons behind and extent of the “art” in mitigation and sentencing.
• And sentencing does not have to mean jail.

Others have offered solutions,

• such as setting aside public space for those who want to exhibit their works.

That sounds fair,

• although it would not have worked for the Sticker Lady’s “art”, which requires a context an exhibition area would not have.
• “My Grandfather Space” does not quite have the same ring.

Still, we have to grapple with what constitutes acceptable art.

I stumbled upon a statement in my Parliamentary colleague, Yee Jenn Jong’s blog. He said: “My suggestion is for the spaces that we set aside, set some simple rules like no profanity, no attack on race / religion, and then let whoever is in the approval committee decide with a liberal view when proposals come in.” “Proposals”, “Approval Committee”?

So, we need more committees to decide and approve such matters? Interesting.

   Hri Kumar

****************************************************************

* Related Article*

• Would you volunteer your cars for the stickers and “My Grandfather Car” sprayed painted on it to support the Arts? (Review sentence of SKL0)

• “Doubts over leniency call for ‘Sticker Lady’ n ” Vandalism is Vandalism. Don’t try to cheat us by calling it Art! ” (SKlo saga)

• Arrest of ‘Sticker Lady’ does not stifle creativity- Todayonline

NYP Racist remark

  Hri Kumar

https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/nyp-racist-remark/346447995401804

My initial reaction to the report Ms Shimun Lai’s offensive post was of anger, disgust and exasperation.   She has rightly apologised and withdrawn the remark.   This will be a tough learning experience for her, and I hope she emerges the better for it.  But the heat she and others like undergraduate Sun Xu have generated with their thoughtless remarks will not dissipate so easily.

Racism will not go away, however many apologies are uttered.   It has been part of society since, well, society began.   Man has a long history of being suspicious, and speaking ill, of people who look, speak, dress or even eat differently from him.  The only difference today is that the social media allows a person to vent to thousands what used to be said in smaller, private circles.

I have seen or experienced racism myself, whether it is rude remarks made by school mates, or stories related by relatives and friends that so-and-so did not get a job or promotion because of the colour of his skin.   Several minority residents have approached me as an MP complaining of discrimination at the work place or in job opportunities.

Is Singapore different from other countries?   Not in the least.   Almost everyone I have spoken to who has spent time abroad has encountered racism in one form or another.  My nephew studying abroad even had an egg thrown at him from a passing car while he was walking down the street.

No society or group should be judged by how some of its members behave.   That is unfair.   The real test is how society reacts in the face of such provocation.   Look at our reaction.   Singaporeans were quick to vigorously condemn Ms Li for her remarks, and to remind her that they were out of place in our society.   That is the difference between us and some.  In other societies, such utterances provoke violence and revenge or are defended on the grounds of free speech.   I think we have a better sense of balance and perspective, and appreciate that there must be reasonable limits to individual liberties.    It makes Singapore exceptional, and we must work hard to keep it that way.

We must continue to speak out against racism and discrimination when we encounter them.   We should not simply shrug our shoulders and say that they are part of the landscape, an inevitability in a multi-cultural society.   That would be admitting defeat and put us on the road to mediocrity.

And what to do about the likes of Shimun Lai and Sun Xu?   I am reminded of one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”.   Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots.   He is confronted by an angry Hindu man who demands that he eats.   The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child.  He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul.   Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell.   He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim.   It was a powerful statement about salvation.

Ms Lai, Mr Sun and others who step over the line should not just apologise or simply accept whatever punishment comes their way.  They should have an obligation to help in the healing process.   And the best way to do that would be for them to get to know and befriend the very people they have condemned.