I refer to the HDB’s reply to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP ) in opposition wards published today, titled “Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading”.

The HDB deems it appropriate for the grassroots advisor to announce the LUP because “the adviser gathers input from residents, thereby ensuring that the programme’s plans meet residents’ needs”. The HDB further states that the adviser can propose changes based on residents’ feedback, and seek residents’ support.

On what basis does the HDB assume that the elected Member of Parliament, who has the support of the electorate in the constituency, is unable to do the same thing and is therefore not appropriate to play the same role as the adviser?

The HDB also said that the Town Councils have an in-depth knowledge of the schedule and status of the works in the estate and can co-ordinate other projects in the estate to minimize inconvenience to residents. Why is it, then, that elected opposition members, who are also chairmen of the Town Councils, are deemed less appropriate to announce and to manage the LUP?

Moreover, Town Councils are required to co-pay for the LUP whereas grassroots organizations are not. Why is the chairman of Town Council, the elected MP statutorily responsible for the management of the Town and who must decide to pay for the LUP, deemed to be inappropriate to play a leading role either in announcing the program or in the working committee?

In the concluding paragraph, HDB stated that they understood the advisers are ”working closely with the town council chairmen, that is, the respective Members of Parliament….” In other words, the role of the elected opposition Member of Parliament in this process is relegated to one which is administrative in nature, perhaps merely to authorize payment for the LUP from the Town Council funds to the HDB.

This is the manifestation of the government’s attitude towards elected opposition Members of Parliament, which is, that they are not representative of the constituency but the grassroots advisers are, despite the fact that the grassroots advisers, who were candidates of the People’s Action Party (PAP), were rejected by the voters at elections at Potong Pasir and Hougang.

I understand the LUP is essentially the government’s program although chairmen of opposition Town Councils have to agree to co-fund the program. I suppose the ruling party, the PAP, would want their potential candidates in the next election to claim credit for the LUP, although the money does not come from either the PAP or the grassroots organization. This is playing politics.

I am open and prepared to work with anyone from the government or its appointees for the benefit of my constituents. It does not matter what role I play or that I am seen to be cooperative with the government, so long as the will of the people at the election which returned me as their representative to Parliament is respected.

I feel compelled to respond to this issue because the justification given by the HDB for the role of advisers in opposition wards in LUP touches on the fundamental issue of respecting the will of the people expressed at elections. The elected representative in opposition wards in this instance is reduced to performing a municipal function as chairmen of Town Councils. This speaks so much of the respect of the ruling party for the will of the people expressed at General Elections and how mature we are as a democracy.

Low Thia Khiang

Member of Parliament for Hougang

9 October 2009

Webmaster’s note: This is the full version of the letter appearing in the Straits Times Forum on 10 Oct 2009.

The public was asked to accept the potential social fall-out from casinos due to their projected economic benefits including tax revenue.  Thus, it is interesting that the Bill introduces Clause 7 which allows the Minister to remit the tax on gaming revenue if he considers it just and equitable.  I am aware that a similar provision exists in other tax legislation such as the Income Tax Act and Property Tax Act giving the Minister power to remit those taxes if he considers it just and equitable.  However, in the context of the IRs, under what circumstances would it be just and equitable to forgive the casino tax due from the casino operator?  Could the Minister clarify whether there is concern about the viability of the IRs due to the mixed projections put forth by various analysts?

Another provision which should be clarified is Clause 4, concerning the new S 146B.  In particular, S146B (5) provides that if the casino operator does not submit tax returns for 2 consecutive accounting periods, then the Comptroller of Income Tax can take this into account in making his assessment.  In particular, it is provided that the Comptroller can take the failure into account and make an assessment of “an amount of casino tax greater than that which he would otherwise have considered to be appropriate”.  Does this mean that the amount of tax is going to be deliberately over-assessed because the casino operator failed to file returns?  This does not seem to be an appropriate response.  By contrast, other tax legislation such as the Income Tax Act make it an offence not to file returns, which attracts certain punishments like penalties and fines, which on principle seem more justifiable.

Clause 8 introduces the offence of making an incorrect return or giving incorrect information. This becomes an offence under the new S149A, and is punishable with the following: a penalty of double the tax under-paid due to the error, and either fine or imprisonment or both.   This section is worded very generally and does not distinguish between errors which are deliberately or recklessly made and errors made after due diligence was exercised.  By contrast, the corresponding provision under the Income Tax Act – S 95 – clearly distinguishes between the 2 types of errors, where those made after due diligence are punishable only by a penalty equivalent to the tax which was underpaid.  Under the proposed S 149A, errors made after due diligence will also potentially attract double tax and fine / imprisonment.  Why does the provision not distinguish between the 2 types of errors?

Finally, regarding exclusion orders – I am glad to note the new S165A providing for blanket exclusion of undischarged bankrupts from entering the casino, rather than a cumbersome case by case approach.  This blanket exclusion for undischarged bankrupts in effect adopts a suggestion made by the Member for Hougang Mr Low Thia Khiang in 2006 when the Bill was first debated.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 15 Sep 2009.)

I am of the opinion that we should not read too much into the pledge and attempt to interpret it for one’s own convenience and to suit one’s argument. The language used for the pledge is simple and succinct, to the point.

- First part of the National Pledge, “We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language and religion”, is a statement of facts that we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society and we are all Singapore citizens. By having this common identity of being Singaporeans, we should be united as a people. We are a young nation.

- The second part is to forge a consensus for a road map forward, “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”. It clearly defines the guiding principles by which Singapore as a society should forge ahead with actions, based on justice and equality tenets, towards the type of society we wish to build i.e. a democratic society.

- The last part of the pledge expresses our ultimate goals and aspirations for Singapore as a nation Why the need to be a united people and to build a democratic society? It is to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Therefore, my view is that we should read and understand the pledge as a reminder of the fundamental statement of what we want to be as a people, as a society and as a nation. Some may want to argue over the details or even how to formulate or implement policy to conform to every word of the pledge, but we should leave the pledge as it is and not attempt to interpret it in one’s own way, breaking it down into its component parts for application in arguments.

The National Pledge represents the spiritual part of our nation, and unless it is really necessary and justifiable, we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

Last, but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress and the pledge begins with, We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves, Not The govt of Singapore pledges itself; therefore, each of us as citizen, if we find government policy or some social behaviors which are not right for Singapore, then as a citizen, we should do something to make it right for Singapore.

It’s the Nation’s 44^th birthday.  Organized by the members of The Workers’ Party Youth Wing, a group of about 20 WP members clad in blue came together early in the morning on National Day to distribute flags and temporary tattoos with the words “I Love Singapore” to the public.

After a short walkabout in Hougang Central, we made our way down to town via the North-East MRT Line, greeting people along the way with high spirited “Happy National Day!”. Many were pleasantly surprised by the wishes, and gladly returned the greeting enthusiastically.   Others waved back to us with a smile and a nod.  Children as well as some adults held up their flags and shared the joy.  Some parents immediately applied the skin tattoo on their infants, taking the opportunity to instill an upbeat mood as we come together to celebrate our Nation’s birthday.

The Workers’ Party National Day Statement 2009

National Day in Singapore has always been an occasion when Singaporeans look back with pride at our achievements as a young nation.

Our country was founded 44 years ago on the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality. It was a moment which we can justly be proud of. Yet, for some time now, it seems that we have been losing our way on some of these ideals.

Do we want a future where our children and retired parents are judged only by their economic worth? Do we wish to have a society where the less able are left to fend for themselves? How much does your vote count for after it has been devalued by the tight controls over the media and political parties, and the constant redrawing of electoral boundaries?

This year, it is time to also to reflect on the kind of Singapore that we want to build together.

The Workers’ Party believes Singapore can become a truly great nation: A nation where each Singaporean is counted as a valuable citizen rather than an employee of “Singapore, Inc”. A nation that is respected the world over for not just its efficiency and material wealth, but for the kindness and generosity of its people and leaders. To this end, and many more, we continue to strive.

Any nation will encounter challenges. These challenges are all part of nation building. At times our challenges will be light and at times they will be very difficult, or even gripping. In such hours, Singaporeans may feel dispirited, but hope – the hope of a victorious future – will never abandon us. Therefore Singaporeans can expect to triumph over every challenge, even the hardest.

The Workers’ Party invites fellow Singaporeans to reflect, above all, on the relation between being more and having more. Having more must never be allowed to win. If it did, Singaporeans would lose the most precious gift of all: our humanity, our conscience, our dignity. As such, in this era of global uncertainties, Singaporeans must make demands on ourselves of “being more”, even if others do not make demands on us.

Each of us, fellow Singaporeans, will experience a “being more” of our own: responsibilities that we must assume and fulfil, a Singapore cause, for which we must fight, a duty, an obligation, from which there can be no withdrawal, no running away. A system of truths and values that must be upheld and defended: a “being more” in us and around us.

As part of the Workers’ Party’s National Day celebrations, we are embarking on a number of “being more” events to usher in our nation’s 44th Birthday. These initiatives are conceptualised, planned and spearheaded by members of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.

The Workers’ Party invites all Singaporeans to participate in these events, namely: an Essay Writing Competition, a Town Hall Dialogue and a Public Outreach Activity on National Day itself. More information can be found on the Workers’ Party Youth Wing website at www.wpyouth.sg.

The Workers’ Party wishes all Singaporeans – whether in Singapore or residing abroad – a Happy National Day!

KOH CHOONG YONG
Vice-President, The Workers’ Party Youth Wing
05 Aug 2009