Will Sylvia Lim apologize?

What was WP Sylvia Lim's intention when she insinuated in Parliament that the Government was less than upfront with Singaporeans? 

If left uncorrected, she will repeat her false allegation at the next general election to lie and mislead Singaporeans. 

Parliamentary privilege is not a license to make frivolous speech or allegations without due research, or to turn Parliament into a platform for electioneering. 

Quote:
"The PAP Government makes it a point of principle to be open and upfront with Singaporeans. 

There is a relationship of trust which has been painstakingly built up over the years. 

The Government takes this trust seriously. 

That’s why we take strong objection when allegations are made in a cavalier fashion that the government has not been upfront or truthful with the public.

Second, the allegation was based on untruths. 

MPs have parliamentary privilege. 

But privilege goes hand in hand with responsibility.

Parliamentary privilege is not a blanket permission to simply make allegations which are untrue or without basis. 

So when such allegations are made in Parliament, it is necessary to point them out. 

Keeping quiet and letting them be made freely would be the wrong thing to do." - SMS Indranee Rajah

Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat issued a statement and called upon WP Sylvia Lim to withdraw her allegation and apologise

Will Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim apologise?

Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat issued a statement on Friday 2 March 2018 to repeat his call to WP Sylvia Lim to withdraw her allegation that the government had floated test balloons, and apologize to the House.

Ms Sylvia Lim had suggested in Parliament that the Government would have raised the GST immediately, if not for the adverse public reaction when it “floated” the suggestion late last year, and if it had not been ‘stuck’ with a previous statement that it had “enough money for the decade”.

Mr Heng said that Ms Lim was in effect accusing the Government of being untruthful when it says that it had planned ahead, and that its proposal to raise the GST between 2021 and 2025 was the result of such planning.

The statement said:

In Parliament, on 1 March 2018, when Minister for Law K Shanmugam and Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat both presented her with the facts, Ms Lim admitted she was not certain of the facts herself but would check on them later. 

She further added that her allegations were based on ‘suspicion’, not fact.

The facts are public, and were most recently set out by the Ministry of Finance in a letter to The Straits Times’ Forum Page on 28 February 2018. 

The Government had consistently said it has enough money for its current term of office, but beyond that, it needed to provide for increased expenditure, especially on healthcare, with increased taxes.

The Prime Minister first mentioned the need for the tax increase in his 2013 National Day Rally speech. 

The Minister for Finance had reiterated this in his 2017 Budget Statement, and did so again at a constituency function a few months later. 

The Prime Minister spoke again of the likelihood of a tax increase last November.

Taking all these statements together, two things are clear: One that there is no need to raise taxes for the current term. But two, there is a need to raise taxes for the future. There were no test balloons.

Significantly, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself had demanded of Mr Heng during the 2017 Committee of Supply debate: “If the minister is indeed considering an increase in GST before the end of the decade, I hope he can be upfront with Singaporeans now so that they are not blindsided by the government as they were with the sudden 30% increase in water price”. 

This is precisely what the Government has now done by announcing the forthcoming GST increase early.

MPs are entitled to raise suspicions in Parliament, if they honestly believe them – but honest belief requires factual basis. 

And when clear factual replies have been given, an honourable MP should either refute them with further facts, or acknowledge them and withdraw their allegations, especially if the allegations had insinuated lack of candour or wrongdoing on the part of the Government.

Now that Ms Lim has had an opportunity to check the record, will she withdraw her allegation, as an honourable MP should, and apologise to the House?

Or does she still hold she has carte blanche to raise any and every suspicion, rumour or falsehood in Parliament, and continue to insist on them regardless of the facts?

Sylvia Lim and her baseless insinuations

Parliament should not deteriorate into a place for political play where MPs take advantage of the parliamentary immunity that they enjoy to make baseless allegations. 

One would expect all MPs to do their homework before they come to Parliament to speak and not be frivolous in speech.

If a PAP MP were to make statements in Parliament of taxi drivers and hawkers under declaring their incomes, or express a baseless suspicion without doing any research, all hell will break loose on social media and the PAP MPs will have to apologise and pay a price as well. 

But not so for WP MPs. 

In a facebook post, Law Minister Shanmugam wrote of the exchange he had with Ms Sylvia Lim of WP. 

He also wrote:

"When confronted robustly- the trolls will come in with a spin - oh you see, here is the bullying again. For these spinners, an opposition MP can make serious allegations - but should not be confronted with facts.

Why? Because they cannot answer or explain what they said.

In rallies - very loud. But in #Parliament- can’t answer."

https://www.facebook.com/k.shanmugam.page/videos/1635172236529300/

Selling Land to fund expenditure is a 'NO, NO!'

Just as the Budget needs to be scrutinized, so too every suggestion and proposal from the House needs to be scrutinized.

Selling ASSETS instead of raising income to fund increased expenditure is a 'No! No!'. 

By Workers' Party's standard, tiny Singapore has lots of land to sell. Where? The land vacated by the port in Tanjong Pagar, the land where Paya Lebar Airport now sits. 

And did Pritam Singh explain how he came to 20% cap on proceeds? Was there a formula? Or did he pull it out of thin air? 

And HOW will a 20% cap on proceeds prevent a profligate government from selling land unnecessarily for spending? 

If that 20% cap does not produce enough $$$ for spending, a profligate government can sell MORE land to overcome the limitation of the cap. 

That cap will probably speed up the sale of land to fund spending. LOL

And we are talking about RECURRENT expenditure, not a one-time expenditure. 

And recurrent expenditure will keep going up. Give you an example. 

Even before GST is raised, WP's Daniel Goh has proposed in Parliament to increase the salary of nurses to close the gap in gender pay. 

If you're a nurse this will surely make you happy.

But as political leaders, you have to ask yourself how you will fund your policies in a sustainable way, not just say nice things that are pleasant to people's ears.

Pritam Singh accuses taxi drivers and hawkers of under declaring their incomes

True story. 

WP's Pritam Singh made broad statement about the self-employed, the taxi drivers and hawkers. They traditionally under declare their income, he said in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh also said that Smart nation and going cashless will render the prospect of them under declaring their income less probable. 

This will result in higher revenue from taxes clawed back from taxi drivers, hawkers and self-employed, which can then go to meet increased expenditure.

The context of this is simply that WP opposes GST and there are other sources of revenue - including taxes from income under-declaring taxi drivers and hawkers.

WP Sylvia Lim's illogical objection to the CLTPA

Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim's objection:

She said that by defining the activities for which a person can be liable for detention, it increases the minister's power. And by expanding the scope to include organized crime activity, it makes the minister a global policeman with no equal.

How does defining the scope of activities makes the minister all-powerful? 🙄

🙄

Law and Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam's response:

"In the past, the Minister had to be satisfied that a detention was necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore.

This is set out in the Act.

The amendments impose an ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT on the Minister.

Now the Minister can only order the detention if:-

(i) he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore – as was the position before; and

(ii) the activity is listed in the new Schedule to the Act.

This is something to be welcomed.

It sets out transparently the activities, and IMPOSES 2 REQUIREMENTS for detention INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL 1 REQUIREMENT." - Mr K Shanmugam on his facebook

"Ms Lim, again another rhetorical flourish, I will become a global policeman with the Bill. Makes a good soundbite, but it is useful for MPs to read the Bill before they make speeches, because we are dealing with serious matters involving the safety and security of Singaporeans." - Mr Shanmugam in Parliament

WP opposes the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act