Sammyboy RSS Feed
15-12-2014, 08:50 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
DR TAN CHENG BOCK: NO MORE BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PAP
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
15 Dec 2014 - 7:05pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/dr%20tan_0.PNG?itok=LLVpINQ9 (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/dr%20tan_0.PNG)
Minister George Yeo’s comments that the PAP should transform itself reminded me of what I said at the Presidential Address Debate on 1 March 1985. I said that there will be “no more blank cheque” for the PAP.
Read what I said in Parliament on 1 March 1985 below:
Title: DEBATE ON PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
Parliament No: 6
Session No: 1
Volume No: 45
Sitting No: 2
Sitting Date: 1985-03-01
Section Name: PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
MPs Speaking: BG Lee Hsien Loong (Minister of State for Defence and Minister of State for Trade and Industry); Encik Wan Hussin Bin Haji Zoohri (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information); Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Prime Minister); Dr Augustine H. H. Tan; Dr Dixie Tan; Dr Ow Chin Hock; Dr Tan Cheng Bock; Encik Othman Bin Haron Eusofe; Maj Fong Sip Chee; Mr Bernard Chen; Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam; Mr Yeo Choo Kok; Mr Yeo Toon Chia; Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Mr Speaker);
PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS -Debate on the Address (First Allotted Day) 11.04 a.m.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly honoured to be given this rare opportunity to move this Motion of Thanks to the President.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,
That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-
‘We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".
Mr Speaker, Sir, in his opening remarks, the President said:
‘The political leadership of Singapore has passed on to a new team of younger leaders.’
Our younger leaders are now plotting the new stage of development for Singapore. They have set out certain goals to be achieved within the next five years. However, whatever they plan, whatever they do, they must not forget that it was the common man, the man in the street, who voted the PAP into power.
Since 1963, the people have given this Government a blank cheque. They went with us all the way, accepting our policies readily because they believed in us. They had faith in us and, above all, they trusted us. Our Prime Minister and his able men led them through the first stage of our development – the construction phase of our development. The changes they produced were remarkable. They were very visible – from squatter huts, zinc and plank shops to tall skyscrapers of Housing and Development Board flats and offices, from stand-pipes to individual taps at home and from mud tracks to metalled roads. These changes were not only visible but impressive and it was dramatic. The people saw this with admiration and placed more faith in our Government.
But today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election. The reasons for the erosion have been aired many times after the elections. The most frequently whispered comment is that the PAP no longer cares for the common man as many Singaporeans perceived the numerous policies as elitist, in particular, the priority scheme for graduate mothers and the streaming of our children in the schools, the emphasis on special and gifted schools, the publicity given to scholars and their achievements and, of course, the unpublicized but much-talked about special social development programmes for unmarried graduates. All these and many more, including the controversial CPF issue, made the people suspect the intentions of the Government. While these policies have always been defended as not significantly depriving the majority of their rights, the fact remains that they benefited so few alienates the majority.
Is this then the ordinary people’s government, or is it a government for a special breed of men? The ordinary men in the street are prepared to let the able ones to lead but in turn they expect these able men to have empathy. But, alas, our hard-headed and statistical approach to problems have given the impression that we are beginning to care less for the people and more for those who can achieve. In the eyes of many, we are beginning to shed our image as an ordinary man’s party.
But have we really stopped caring for the ordinary people? The answer is no. We are still the ordinary man’s party. We still build flats for them, we still build roads, hospitals, improve utilities and we provide social and recreational facilities for all. Why are the people then less aware and conscious of these achievements than in. the past? Have they forgotten that these achievements are only possible because this Government has remained honest, efficient and non-corrupt?
One possible reason why people do not appreciate these achievements is that the rapid change of policies within the last two to three years have confused our people so much that they have missed the forest for the trees. The ordinary people were not able to follow the rapid changes in our education policy, the controversial proposals on the CPF, the special tax concessions to highly qualified women, the high increases in cost of houses and car taxes, PUB increases and the restructuring of our economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go unnoticed. It was picked up by PAP Members of Parliament in this House and they brought up all these issues in this House. The Member for Moulmein, for example, has brought up many issues concerning education and streaming. Then we have the Member for Rochore who has also brought up very controversial Issues in this House. And of course our Backbench economist, the Member for Whampoa, has cautioned and advised the Government on economic policies. We also have the Members for Leng Kee, Punggol, Toa Payoh and our newly elected Deputy Speaker who sRoke very strongly in this House on many issues concerning our policies. In spite of what they have said in this House, somehow our Ministers did not pay much attention to these issues. Maybe they did pay much attention but they did not perceive the feedback correctly, or they took for granted that the people will understand and are with them because of the good past track record.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to relate an incident involving my son. I took him to the Botanic Gardens one day, when he was very young. I was eager to see the Orchids section, and so I walked very very fast. He shouted to me to wait for him. I turned around, only to urge him on. I had presumed he was able to follow me but suddenly he stopped calling. I turned back and found him seated on a stone at the far end of the road. I walked to him. I saw that he was angry and in tears and, with arms folded, he burst out, "Why didn’t you wait for me?" He refused to move in spite of my apologies. He was hurt. He interpreted my fast pace as not caring, and this is how the people view the PAP.
Many Singaporeans felt left behind because they could not follow the pace of change, and they resented this. We have to be honest with the people that we misread them, but they should not misread our intentions which are always in the interests of Singapore.
At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that it is not good enough for the Government to have good intentions when introducing new policies. The Government must also ensure that the people understand these good intentions and thereby enjoy their support. A policy supported by the people would be less traumatic when implemented. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no more blank cheque.
Running a country is not like running a company. We cannot "sack" our people if they are less effective. Our responsibilities go beyond that. We must help them. It is therefore good to find that one of the Government’s new goals will be to pay particular attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged. This works out to approximately half a million Singaporeans. The fact that Government has singled out these two target groups for special mention shows the concern of the new leaders. It is no easy task.
For a start, we must identify the impediments that have prevented the lower income group from moving up. One of their basic needs is better housing, and it is gratifying to note that the Cabinet has plans to help this group achieve home ownership. Another need is better education for their children so that they will be able to get better jobs and break out of this poverty cycle. In this context I hope to see the Ministry of Education draw up positive programmes to help these children overcome the linguistic and learning disadvantages that their home background imposes on them.
However, we must not give them handouts. Do not entice them with our $10,000 in order to stop them from producing more babies. They have pride. We should not insult them. Educate them.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the new leaders have a very difficult task of improving upon what the old leadership has built. Many have commented that it is easier to take off with the infrastructure built for them, but this is not necessarily true. It is easier to please the past generation. Their needs are simple. But times have changed and problems are different today. Expectations are high. Thus the people may not realize that the new leadership will have to put in a great deal more effort to produce very marginal visible change. Let me illustrate. Moving from a rental flat to a purchase flat, upgrading from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat, improving a one-lane traffic to a dual carriage way, do not create such dramatic impact as moving from an attap house with well water facilities to a HDB flat with all its associated amenities.
It is, therefore, right, Mr Speaker, that we should get the people to be more involved in the important decisions of this country. What then is the type of Singapore they want in the coming years? This was the question put to the audience by our First Deputy Prime Minister in the last Dialogue Session. I am surprised that there has not been much response from the press or from the public. If criticism of the Vision for the 1990s had been forthcoming during the last elections, I am disappointed that nothing has been generated in the press to fire the imagination of the Singaporeans on what they want for our future country. Perhaps the vision of the new leaders put up by them is what the people really want Singapore to be. And it is not fair to be silent now, and later, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticize the vision of our young leaders.
This involvement of the people in big decision making marked a new style of government. The intention to set up a unit in the Ministry of Community Development to sample public opinion on new ideas, to accept and consider new ideas from the public, to sample public opinion on policy matters before implementation, to review policy particularly where it affects the public, and lastly as a complaints bureau is a big step towards participatory democracy. This unit, however, must not be seen as another arm of the Government to explain or to defend the actions of the civil service or the statutory boards. Nor should civil servants misunderstand the role of the unit to that of witch-hunting or fault finding.
Mr Speaker, Sir, behind all these domestic issues, we must not forget that we are living in turbulent times. We are small.
Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general elections. They have made conclusions. It would be in our national interest to ensure that people elsewhere do not draw the wrong conclusions about our unity and commitment to this country. Singaporeans must bear in mind that our actions cannot go unnoticed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new leadership and the new Members of Parliament. Most are inducted into politics. Many are labelled as "reluctant politicians" and some Singaporeans are sceptical of their political leadership. I would like to compare ourselves as kidney transplants. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a kidney transplant, two things can happen – either the body accepts or the body rejects. To prevent rejection, the doctor pumps into the body certain substances called immuno-suppressants. In spite of this, some are still rejected. Like the transplanted kidneys, the new MPs must have these immuno-suppressants in the form of faith and support from the people. And, like the transplanted – kidneys, those that are accepted will no doubt be able to perform as effectively as the older leaders. Singaporeans must give our new leadership a fair chance to prove themselves. Our new enthusiastic Cabinet leaders have set admirable goals for themselves and for the people. If they are able to win the hearts and minds of our disciplined people, these goals will no doubt be achievable and our country will prosper and progress.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House has asked the new MPs "to speak their minds and let conscience be their guide." We should take his advice. Although we will get walloped by the Ministers for some of our remarks, we should not let these parliamentary wounds deter us from speaking. We must develop what people call"thick-skin"and, like a rubber ball, you must be prepared to bounce back.
Finally, I am not sure whether the new MPs are lucky, or unlucky, not to have amongst us the former First Deputy Prime Minister and the former Minister of Education with us. I remember he delivered my first parliamentary wound when I accused his education system of creating class divisions. And I can assure new Members of this House that it was not a pleasant experience. It was ulcer-producing but, at the end of it all, it was worth it because I registered my reservations and my belief and I also reflected the views of many people who strongly believe that there is this weakness in our education policy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]
*Article first appeared on http://www.tanchengbock.org/speeches...ue-for-the-pap (http://www.tanchengbock.org/speeches/no-more-blank-cheque-for-the-pap)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?195817-Dr-tan-cheng-bock-No-more-blank-cheque-for-the-pap&goto=newpost).
DR TAN CHENG BOCK: NO MORE BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PAP
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
15 Dec 2014 - 7:05pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/dr%20tan_0.PNG?itok=LLVpINQ9 (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/dr%20tan_0.PNG)
Minister George Yeo’s comments that the PAP should transform itself reminded me of what I said at the Presidential Address Debate on 1 March 1985. I said that there will be “no more blank cheque” for the PAP.
Read what I said in Parliament on 1 March 1985 below:
Title: DEBATE ON PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
Parliament No: 6
Session No: 1
Volume No: 45
Sitting No: 2
Sitting Date: 1985-03-01
Section Name: PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
MPs Speaking: BG Lee Hsien Loong (Minister of State for Defence and Minister of State for Trade and Industry); Encik Wan Hussin Bin Haji Zoohri (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information); Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Prime Minister); Dr Augustine H. H. Tan; Dr Dixie Tan; Dr Ow Chin Hock; Dr Tan Cheng Bock; Encik Othman Bin Haron Eusofe; Maj Fong Sip Chee; Mr Bernard Chen; Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam; Mr Yeo Choo Kok; Mr Yeo Toon Chia; Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Mr Speaker);
PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS -Debate on the Address (First Allotted Day) 11.04 a.m.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly honoured to be given this rare opportunity to move this Motion of Thanks to the President.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,
That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-
‘We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".
Mr Speaker, Sir, in his opening remarks, the President said:
‘The political leadership of Singapore has passed on to a new team of younger leaders.’
Our younger leaders are now plotting the new stage of development for Singapore. They have set out certain goals to be achieved within the next five years. However, whatever they plan, whatever they do, they must not forget that it was the common man, the man in the street, who voted the PAP into power.
Since 1963, the people have given this Government a blank cheque. They went with us all the way, accepting our policies readily because they believed in us. They had faith in us and, above all, they trusted us. Our Prime Minister and his able men led them through the first stage of our development – the construction phase of our development. The changes they produced were remarkable. They were very visible – from squatter huts, zinc and plank shops to tall skyscrapers of Housing and Development Board flats and offices, from stand-pipes to individual taps at home and from mud tracks to metalled roads. These changes were not only visible but impressive and it was dramatic. The people saw this with admiration and placed more faith in our Government.
But today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election. The reasons for the erosion have been aired many times after the elections. The most frequently whispered comment is that the PAP no longer cares for the common man as many Singaporeans perceived the numerous policies as elitist, in particular, the priority scheme for graduate mothers and the streaming of our children in the schools, the emphasis on special and gifted schools, the publicity given to scholars and their achievements and, of course, the unpublicized but much-talked about special social development programmes for unmarried graduates. All these and many more, including the controversial CPF issue, made the people suspect the intentions of the Government. While these policies have always been defended as not significantly depriving the majority of their rights, the fact remains that they benefited so few alienates the majority.
Is this then the ordinary people’s government, or is it a government for a special breed of men? The ordinary men in the street are prepared to let the able ones to lead but in turn they expect these able men to have empathy. But, alas, our hard-headed and statistical approach to problems have given the impression that we are beginning to care less for the people and more for those who can achieve. In the eyes of many, we are beginning to shed our image as an ordinary man’s party.
But have we really stopped caring for the ordinary people? The answer is no. We are still the ordinary man’s party. We still build flats for them, we still build roads, hospitals, improve utilities and we provide social and recreational facilities for all. Why are the people then less aware and conscious of these achievements than in. the past? Have they forgotten that these achievements are only possible because this Government has remained honest, efficient and non-corrupt?
One possible reason why people do not appreciate these achievements is that the rapid change of policies within the last two to three years have confused our people so much that they have missed the forest for the trees. The ordinary people were not able to follow the rapid changes in our education policy, the controversial proposals on the CPF, the special tax concessions to highly qualified women, the high increases in cost of houses and car taxes, PUB increases and the restructuring of our economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go unnoticed. It was picked up by PAP Members of Parliament in this House and they brought up all these issues in this House. The Member for Moulmein, for example, has brought up many issues concerning education and streaming. Then we have the Member for Rochore who has also brought up very controversial Issues in this House. And of course our Backbench economist, the Member for Whampoa, has cautioned and advised the Government on economic policies. We also have the Members for Leng Kee, Punggol, Toa Payoh and our newly elected Deputy Speaker who sRoke very strongly in this House on many issues concerning our policies. In spite of what they have said in this House, somehow our Ministers did not pay much attention to these issues. Maybe they did pay much attention but they did not perceive the feedback correctly, or they took for granted that the people will understand and are with them because of the good past track record.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to relate an incident involving my son. I took him to the Botanic Gardens one day, when he was very young. I was eager to see the Orchids section, and so I walked very very fast. He shouted to me to wait for him. I turned around, only to urge him on. I had presumed he was able to follow me but suddenly he stopped calling. I turned back and found him seated on a stone at the far end of the road. I walked to him. I saw that he was angry and in tears and, with arms folded, he burst out, "Why didn’t you wait for me?" He refused to move in spite of my apologies. He was hurt. He interpreted my fast pace as not caring, and this is how the people view the PAP.
Many Singaporeans felt left behind because they could not follow the pace of change, and they resented this. We have to be honest with the people that we misread them, but they should not misread our intentions which are always in the interests of Singapore.
At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that it is not good enough for the Government to have good intentions when introducing new policies. The Government must also ensure that the people understand these good intentions and thereby enjoy their support. A policy supported by the people would be less traumatic when implemented. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no more blank cheque.
Running a country is not like running a company. We cannot "sack" our people if they are less effective. Our responsibilities go beyond that. We must help them. It is therefore good to find that one of the Government’s new goals will be to pay particular attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged. This works out to approximately half a million Singaporeans. The fact that Government has singled out these two target groups for special mention shows the concern of the new leaders. It is no easy task.
For a start, we must identify the impediments that have prevented the lower income group from moving up. One of their basic needs is better housing, and it is gratifying to note that the Cabinet has plans to help this group achieve home ownership. Another need is better education for their children so that they will be able to get better jobs and break out of this poverty cycle. In this context I hope to see the Ministry of Education draw up positive programmes to help these children overcome the linguistic and learning disadvantages that their home background imposes on them.
However, we must not give them handouts. Do not entice them with our $10,000 in order to stop them from producing more babies. They have pride. We should not insult them. Educate them.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the new leaders have a very difficult task of improving upon what the old leadership has built. Many have commented that it is easier to take off with the infrastructure built for them, but this is not necessarily true. It is easier to please the past generation. Their needs are simple. But times have changed and problems are different today. Expectations are high. Thus the people may not realize that the new leadership will have to put in a great deal more effort to produce very marginal visible change. Let me illustrate. Moving from a rental flat to a purchase flat, upgrading from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat, improving a one-lane traffic to a dual carriage way, do not create such dramatic impact as moving from an attap house with well water facilities to a HDB flat with all its associated amenities.
It is, therefore, right, Mr Speaker, that we should get the people to be more involved in the important decisions of this country. What then is the type of Singapore they want in the coming years? This was the question put to the audience by our First Deputy Prime Minister in the last Dialogue Session. I am surprised that there has not been much response from the press or from the public. If criticism of the Vision for the 1990s had been forthcoming during the last elections, I am disappointed that nothing has been generated in the press to fire the imagination of the Singaporeans on what they want for our future country. Perhaps the vision of the new leaders put up by them is what the people really want Singapore to be. And it is not fair to be silent now, and later, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticize the vision of our young leaders.
This involvement of the people in big decision making marked a new style of government. The intention to set up a unit in the Ministry of Community Development to sample public opinion on new ideas, to accept and consider new ideas from the public, to sample public opinion on policy matters before implementation, to review policy particularly where it affects the public, and lastly as a complaints bureau is a big step towards participatory democracy. This unit, however, must not be seen as another arm of the Government to explain or to defend the actions of the civil service or the statutory boards. Nor should civil servants misunderstand the role of the unit to that of witch-hunting or fault finding.
Mr Speaker, Sir, behind all these domestic issues, we must not forget that we are living in turbulent times. We are small.
Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general elections. They have made conclusions. It would be in our national interest to ensure that people elsewhere do not draw the wrong conclusions about our unity and commitment to this country. Singaporeans must bear in mind that our actions cannot go unnoticed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new leadership and the new Members of Parliament. Most are inducted into politics. Many are labelled as "reluctant politicians" and some Singaporeans are sceptical of their political leadership. I would like to compare ourselves as kidney transplants. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a kidney transplant, two things can happen – either the body accepts or the body rejects. To prevent rejection, the doctor pumps into the body certain substances called immuno-suppressants. In spite of this, some are still rejected. Like the transplanted kidneys, the new MPs must have these immuno-suppressants in the form of faith and support from the people. And, like the transplanted – kidneys, those that are accepted will no doubt be able to perform as effectively as the older leaders. Singaporeans must give our new leadership a fair chance to prove themselves. Our new enthusiastic Cabinet leaders have set admirable goals for themselves and for the people. If they are able to win the hearts and minds of our disciplined people, these goals will no doubt be achievable and our country will prosper and progress.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House has asked the new MPs "to speak their minds and let conscience be their guide." We should take his advice. Although we will get walloped by the Ministers for some of our remarks, we should not let these parliamentary wounds deter us from speaking. We must develop what people call"thick-skin"and, like a rubber ball, you must be prepared to bounce back.
Finally, I am not sure whether the new MPs are lucky, or unlucky, not to have amongst us the former First Deputy Prime Minister and the former Minister of Education with us. I remember he delivered my first parliamentary wound when I accused his education system of creating class divisions. And I can assure new Members of this House that it was not a pleasant experience. It was ulcer-producing but, at the end of it all, it was worth it because I registered my reservations and my belief and I also reflected the views of many people who strongly believe that there is this weakness in our education policy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]
*Article first appeared on http://www.tanchengbock.org/speeches...ue-for-the-pap (http://www.tanchengbock.org/speeches/no-more-blank-cheque-for-the-pap)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?195817-Dr-tan-cheng-bock-No-more-blank-cheque-for-the-pap&goto=newpost).