Test balloons fail

The NTUC survey that included a question on when taxes should be raised got many people excited. "See, test balloons!" they cried. 

It's just like reading a passage and upon seeing the word 'kill' in the passage, people cry, "See, murder!" 

That's why critical thinking and analysis is so important. 

First a small sample size of 440 and ALL OF THEM from NTUC hardly qualifies as a 'test'. 

38.4% of these surveyed chose 2021 - 2025 for a tax increase. 

This represents 169 people. 

To make much of the results of this survey is to say that the Government made a decision on the future of Singapore based on the wish of 169 people. Preposterous, to say the least. 

The survey also shows that 73.8% of people think GST should not be increased. This represents 345 people. 

If the Government was really going to use public sentiments to dictate their decision, then 345 people is a greater pressure on them NOT to even increase GST. LOL

See how ridiculous it gets? 

At the end of the day, a good government makes decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, even if it is an unpopular decision, and does not blindly follow where the wind is blowing. 

The survey is NTUC's efforts to connect with the ground and understand their workers and their needs better so that they can better serve workers. 

Mr Steve Tan, the institute's director, said it has been conducting an average of 10 feedback exercises each year since he started heading it in 2015.

"As the voice for working people, the labour movement needs to be on top of their concerns. As such, we regularly gather feedback, both formally and informally... Naturally, this would include the national Budget," he said.

Really, we thought more than enough has been said on this allegation of a test balloon but since the alternative provided this opportunity, we take full advantage of it to make some last points to CLARIFY Sylvia Lim's allegation.

First, thank you for this opportunity to make clarifications. 

Here it goes.

(1) Contrary to what you may think, Sylvia Lim did not bring any ground concerns to parliament. 

The idea of a test balloon belongs solely to Sylvia Lim. 

Indeed there were lots of speculations on the ground, confusion and some even wondered if there was any contradiction to raise tax now. But NOT ONE person floated the idea of test balloons for government to decide when to raise taxes. 

(2) Contrary to what you think, Sylvia Lim did not give the government 'a chance to clarify themselves', as WP proudly proclaimed. 

There was NO NEED for any CHANCE to clarify. 

Here's why. 

ALL OF GROUND CONCERNS - what tax will be raised, by how much and when - these were all addressed in Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's budget statement.

Anyone listening to Min Heng's budget statement would have got ALL the clarifications that they needed. Sylvia Lim's help was not needed. 

Perhaps you are among many who have been fooled by Sylvia Lim into thinking that she was speaking your concerns for you.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/labour-movement-confirms-it-conducted-poll-last-year-to-gather-feedback-on-budget-issues

A PA grassroots leader's experience with Workers' Party

WP has done nothing but try to thwart the PA in it's outreach programs since the day they won Aljunied. It's been a difficult but doable job that we have managed to still reach out to the public despite the WP constant irritations, like shutting down the power supple to the tennis courts during an Autum Mooncake festival on the tennis courts. Which turned out to be great as the Chairman & I ran out and bought a bunch of BIG candles and put them on all the tables and it actually brought all the residents closer. Or, conveniently saying the void decks are all booked up when we wanted to use them for a PA function. Or demanding to be allow to attend a function dressed in the Party Blues to which we said no, as we are a non-political organization. It's been interesting here in Aljunied to say the least. I think I will be completing my 10th year as a Grassroots Leader this coming November. And yeah, Liew Patrick II hits it right on the head about the PA, There are the good the bad and the ugly, but the vast majority are there to help our communities first and foremost.

We are mere men in awe of her: Daniel Goh

Workers' Party's Value System

WP NCMP Daniel Goh was in awe of his chairman Sylvia Lim because she 'would not apologize'. 

"We are mere men in awe of her," he declared. 

An honourable person would have withdrawn the false allegation after admitting that she was wrong. 

And she would have gained some respect in the process. Not Sylvia Lim. 

"Ms Lim may originally have been under a mistaken impression. Fair enough. 
But after the facts have been made clear by four ministers, after it had been shown that her suspicion was wrong, after she herself admitted that she may have been wrong, and after her own leader Mr Low said it is clear now the Government had no intention to raise GST immediately, shouldn’t she have withdrawn the allegation and apologised?" - SMS Indranee Rajah

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

Leon Perera apologises for misrepresenting facts in Parliament on Mediacorp editing a Parliament video

WP's Leon Perera apologised in Parliament for misrepresenting facts that Mediacorp edited a Parliament video.

He justified himself with 'failed memory' and continued to give a FALSE impression that the issue was 'resolved amicably' with Mediacorp.

There was nothing for Leon Perera to resolve with Mediscorp because even before he had sent his first email to Mediacorp, Mediacorp had already rectified the video.

When rectification was done even before he had raised the issue with Mediacorp, what was there to resolve?

NCMP Leon Perera joins Sylvia Lim's club

More than 8 months after the debates in Parliament on the presidency in February 2017, WP's NCMP Leon Perera made a serious accusation on Nov 7.

He claimed that Mediacorp had put up the video with “certain bits removed”, and that the broadcaster made a rectification ONLY AFTER he communicated with them.

The TRUTH is that Mediacorp had in fact rectified the clip and put the full exchange online on Feb 18, two days BEFORE Mr Perera had emailed the company on Feb 20.

Mediacorp had explained to Mr Perera on the same day of his email that a technical issue had affected the recording, resulting in a truncated recording.

With this knowledge, he still went to Parliament and deliberately misrepresented the facts of the matter.

Parliamentarians enjoy a special privilege of immunity when they speak in Parliament. They should respect the sacredness of Parliament and the special privilege accorded to them and not belittle the importance of the Chamber in which they stand and speak.

Leon Perera's false allegation

On Tuesday’s Parliament Sitting (Nov 7), Mr Leon Perera alleged that Mediacorp had edited a video from the debate on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in Feb this year, with “certain bits removed”. 

He claimed that after his intervention, #MediaCorp“made a rectification and put up a different clip”.

He was clearly implying that MediaCorp had edited Parliamentary footages in a partisan manner.

This was a serious accusation. But it was false, and unfair to MediaCorp who work very hard to prepare footages after every Parliament Sitting.

I raised this with Mr Perera in Parliament on Tuesday (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/chee-hong-tat-on-video-rec…).

Confronted, he was forced to acknowledge the following facts:

(a) On 20 Feb 2017, Mr Perera emailed MediaCorp to ask why a particular video clip had been truncated.

(b) MediaCorp replied to him on the same day, explaining that a technical glitch had affected the recording, and that it had been rectified and the full clip made available online on 18 Feb – TWO days before Mr Perera’s email query.

So Mr Perera had known this for several months. Yet when I asked him, he at first repeated the false claim. He said, “as a result of that exchange I had with MediaCorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations”.

I had to reiterate the facts and remind him what actually happened, before he grudgingly conceded the point.

It is surprising that Mr Perera remembered the original ‘editing’ and that he had asked MediaCorp, but ‘forgot’ that MediaCorp told him it was an error which had already been rectified.

It is part of debate to criticize and present different views.

But it is unethical and wrong to tell untruths to score political points. This is not what Singaporeans want to see in Parliament.

- SMS Chee Hong Tat

https://www.facebook.com/hongtat.chee/posts/1101168040019616

Staying true to her colours. Sylvia Lim did the 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' again.

In her adjournment motion speech in Parliament, Sylvia Lim quoted the advice of a “prominent” Queens Counsel filed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in Court, that the Art was unconstitutional. 

But she did not disclose that Tan Cheng Bock also withdrew the QC’s advice. 

Clearly the advice had no merit or Tan Cheng Bock would not have withdrawn it. 

By suppressing the fact that Tan Cheng Bock had withdrawn the QC's advice, Sylvia Lim intended to mislead Singaporeans.

In legal language, such behaviour is described as:

"suppressio veri suggestio falsi" - suppressing the truth to suggest something that is false.

In 2015, the High Court judge, Quentin Loh described one of Sylvia Lim’s Parliamentary speeches as an exercise of “suppresio veri, suggestio falsi”.

What Sylvia Lim has succeeded in her adjournment motion is to further discredit her credibility. 

Invited but declined invitation. So who is not upfront?

Was the Government upfront about their intention?

Right from the beginning, minority representation was their concern.

When the Constitutional Commission Committee was set up in February 2016, one of the TERMS OF REFERENCE was to 'consider and recommend what provisions should be made to safeguard minority representation in the Presidency'. 

So why is WP surprised that the reserved election has taken place now rather than later?

DURING THE REVIEW by the Constitutional Commission, over 100 people and organisations submitted their views to the Constitutional Commission Committee, including WP.

The WP were invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission.

But they chose not to do so.

20 contributors were invited to give their views to the Constitutional Commission and the WP was the only one that declined the invitation.

Why did WP choose not to give their views publicly to the Constitutional Commission on a matter that concerned the highest office in the land?

UPFRONT OF NOT?

1. Safeguarding minority representation was one of the terms of reference for the Constitutional Commission during the review.

2. Law Minister Shanmugam said in a townhall dialogue on 15 September 2016 that the reserved election was a policy decision.

3. PM Lee said in Parliament on 8 November 2016 that the GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE how the count would start.

Quote:
When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

Whether in Parliament or outside Parliament, the Government had made clear their intention right from the beginning.

Guess who is misleading people?

POLICY DECISION, said Mr Shanmugam In the first townhall dialogue in September 2016. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

PM LEE indicated the same when he spoke in Parliament in November 2016 during the debate.

PM Lee said:
"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

In other words, it is a GOVERNMENT DECISION when the counting would start.

So who is misleading people?

Sylvia Lim has conveniently chosen to focus people on her own misinterpretation of "we have taken the Attorney-General’s advice" and ignored all that was said by PM Lee just before this.

This isn't the first time she has misled in Parliament. She is the only one with the distinction of being called out by Justice Quentin Loh for misleading Parliament.

Parliament is supreme. Parliament is where policy decisions are made. The role of the AG is to advise the Government on the legal aspects of the decisions they make, the legitimacy of their policy decisions.

As a Parliamentarian and a lawyer by training, Sylvia Lim should know the role of the AG to government.

In her adjournment motion speech, she quoted various 'who said what' EXCEPT from the 68-page judgement delivered by the appeal court.

If Sylvia Lim is a serious seeker of answer she would have read the judgement for therein lies the answer to her question, addressed in great detail.

Instead she chose to mislead in order to insinuate in Parliament.

Chief Jusice Menon, in his judgement, wrote that Constitution mandates that Parliament should decide on how the count would start. He also said that Constitution allows the Government to choose any of the 5 terms preceding 2017 as the first term. (http://bit.ly/2yJ5J33)

Context and meaning: Taking AG's advice

A lesson on context and meaning. No SkillsFuture credit needed. This lesson is free. 😂😂😂

Taking the AG's advice? Meaning is found in the overall context. 

To quote him more fully, this was what PM Lee said in Parliament in November 2016:

"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.
We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."

(1) The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point ...

==> Constitution is clear that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEGISLATE. That is, the Government decides (not AGC).

(2) ... and the Government intends to legislate..

==> PM Lee also made it clear that the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE. That is, the Government intends to decide.

Thus:
The Government intends to legislate, the Government takes a decision. With that decision, the Government takes advice from AG on all the legal aspects involved in making this legislation. Having taken care of all the legal aspects involved in the legislation, PM Lee informs parliament that they will start the count from President Wee Kim Wee.

Easy to understand?