377A is like an approaching train: K Shanmugam

 

There are 2 reasons for the repeal, Minister Shanmugam said.

The first reason is that there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct, so it should not remain criminal.

"But I accept that MPs and others may disagree with that. Even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views, and it is reasonable to hold such views."

There is a second reason and this second reason is NOT a matter of conscience. It is a policy question and 'requires each of us to THINK CAREFULLY, and APPLY OUR MINDS'.

"The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that s 377A could be struck down.

And given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are – in fact, this has been talked about in public – to the heterosexual family. Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk.

Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically passing it on to the Courts.

It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans.

To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty. And it would be cynical if we, as MPs, did that. Because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans."

Singaporeans who are opposed to the repeal because of the first reason must carefully consider the second reason for repeal. Herein are the things you hold dear and want to protect.

377A is indeed an approaching train. The Court of Appeal has said already that legal standard does exist (which is a good thing).

Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.

Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?

The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.

We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.

The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.

If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.

What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.

Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.

The WP had a debate among themselves but did not adopt a party position.

6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.

Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:

Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.

They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.

𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Ms Lim’s and Ms He’s position would mean that they accept that the courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage, or to curtail the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.

377A: WP runs away from taking a position in contentious issues

 

The Whip is about the voting system. It in no way prevents any MPs from speaking their views.

MPs are free to speak their minds but when it comes to voting, they have to vote according to the party position. And the party position represents the policy direction the party has decided upon.

The PAP Govt had consulted various organisations and individuals over the years on 377A. There were more against repealing before until now where most are more conciliatory about it.

There is an urgency to protect our way of life with regards to a marriage between man and woman plus all issues surrounding it.

If the Courts came to a decision FIRST that 377A goes against our constitution or law, the Govt would not be able to stop what comes next.

So as a GOVERNMENT, the PAP has to MAKE A UNITED STAND on the repeal even though some of their MPs are against it.

Why?

Because a Govt has to make a firm decision and follow through. It cannot leave it to individual votes to carry out reforms or policy change that the Executive, having done all due diligence through engagements and consultations, have decided upon.

What’s good for Singapore cannot be based on an MP’s individual preference or bias. It has to be through studies and detailed considerations, devoid of extreme emotive and religious leanings. Hence the PAP MPs need to unite in their stand despite their differing opinions.

By lifting the whip, Pritam not only shows a weakness in his leadership of his team but also on his inability to make hard decisions for Singapore’s future. Imagine a WP Govt that leaves every policy decision to individual votes rather than an expertly considered direction already made. Singapore will no longer be nimble and decisive, and we will have an ineffective government. A stalled parliament is not a joke for a country with no natural resources.

Finally, if Pritam Singh had used the phrase “It’s your call” in this instant, we will all know that he meant it the way the dictionary meaning intended it to be.

The WP wants more to spend today, less to save for tomorrow

 Like how the recycling of land makes for a fair and just Singapore because every generation of Singaporeans can own their homes, the equal division (50:50) of NIRC to spend on current and future generations is a fair way of taking care of all Singaporeans.

Not less is spend on current Singaporeans. Not more is saved for future generations. 50:50. Fair and equal.

The WP wants more for today. They want more than just 60% to 70% of NIRC. They also want land sale proceeds.

Constitution allows the government to spend up to 50% of NRIC. For the past few years, the Government HAS spent almost 50%.

Let's do some simple math.

For FY2022, the NIRC is $21.6 billion representing approximately 50%.

If $21.6 b is 50%, then 100% is $43.2 b

If we follow WP's suggestion of using 60% of NIRC:

that's equal to $25.92.

On top of this, WP also want direct use of land sale proceeds.

Sales of land for FY2022 is estimated at $11.2 billion.

So (11.2 + 25.92) = $37.12 billion

WP wants to spend $37.12 from NIRC and reserves (land) and leave $17.28 to reinvest for the future.

What if they want 70% of NIRC?

That will be $30.24 billion.
Add land sale of $11.2 billion.
The total they want to spend is $41.44 billion.

And how much of NIRC will be left to reinvest for the future? $12.96 billion.

This is what Leon Perera called 'slowing the growth' of reserves.

Slower growth means smaller returns. It's as simple as that.

You will have to pay higher taxes because you will have less from NIRC. 

50:50 division of NIRC takes care of both the present and the future Singaporeans in a fair way.

It is said that without a vision, the people perish. Visionary leaders take care of the present with their eyes on the future as well so that the people can be future-ready.

A 50:50 division of NIRC takes care of both the present and the future Singaporeans in a fair way.

PSP wants a 100% use of NIRC. The WP wants 60%, even 70% use of NIRC.

Today, the NIRC contributes more than $21.6 billion (FY2022) to the budget.

Our forefathers did not spend the NIRC.

𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐒𝐄𝐓 𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐏

Suppose because they spent from the NIRC and as a result, today we have 20% less NIRC to spend.

20% of $21.6 billion is $4.32 billion.

The 2% GST hike is intended to raise $3.5 billion.

If our forefathers had the mentality of the WP, today, we will need to raise $7.82 billion instead of $3.5 billion because we have less in NIRC to spend.

The GST hike will have to be more than 2% to achieve $7.82 billion.

You will have to pay a hike of more than 4%.

You will be paying 11% GST or more instead of 9%.

This is what will happen if the WP's proposal to spend more from NIRC is adopted.

Spending more from NIRC means reinvesting less resulting in smaller growth (slow the growth, says Leon Perera) and therefore smaller gains for the future.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐏 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐈𝐑𝐂 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬? They could be YOU in your twilight years. They are your children, children's children, family. relatives, friends.

𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐄 𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐀𝐘?

1. Today, 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 of us working Singaporeans 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐱.

2. 80% of us who do pay income tax pays 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟒%.

3. With the Enhanced GST Voucher Scheme, the 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝟑𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟑%.

4. The 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐡𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 for lower and middle income households.

You will not find another country in the world

- where their citizens pay low-to-no income tax, single digit GST,

- and enjoy the best in the world in terms of housing, education, healthcare, public transport

- a country where the Government puts in effort to provide intensive, holistic help to those from the neediest and vulnerable families (KidsSTART, UPLIFT etc)

- a country where the Government expends great effort to help prison inmates (I know because a friend of mine works in prison school) achieve their potential.

The future will come. It takes political courage to do right not just by the present generation of Singaporeans, but by the future generations as well.

𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 

How much reserves are enough for Singaporeans to feel comfortable with? WP must specify the amount so that they can be held accountable to that amount.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡? 𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐭!

The WP says that there is such a thing as oversaving. So we ask them to name a figure for the size of our reserves beyond which we are oversaving.

Based on the size of our economy, the demographic profile of our population and the changing global structure, name the size of our reserves that Singaporeans can be comfortable with, go to sleep at night with the confidence that come what may, we have the firepower to deal with it.

Don't speak in general, alluring terms. Tell us how much is enough.

Don't tell us you don't know because if you don't know how much is enough, if you can't put your finger to a figure, what is your basis for saying we are oversaving? Are you gambling with our children's lives and future?

The opposition and their friends have been throwing up a lot of figures, so we have only a simple request : how much is enough?

Name it!

What's the difference between the Government's approach to using land sale proceeds and the WP's proposal?

Someone asks: what's the difference between the Government's approach to using land sale proceeds and the WP's proposal?

If you spend from your wealth, you will deplete your wealth. This is easy to understand.

Hence you need to create new wealth (new income) before you spend so that you do not deplete your wealth.

When you sell an asset (land) you are not creating new wealth. You are just converting a physical asset into a financial asset.

The asset goes to someone else and you get the money.

If you spend the money, then both the asset and the money is gone.

You now have fewer assets to invest and generate income. This means your power to generate new wealth is reduced.

Your remaining assets will generate a smaller new income.

If you keep selling your assets, very soon you will have little to generate new income or wealth.

What is just described is what the WP's proposal will do.

The PAP Government's approach is to put land sale proceeds together with Past Reserves and reinvest them.

The land goes to someone else. The financial proceeds remain and are reinvested. This creates new wealth.

50% of the (new wealth) investment returns under the NIR Framework are then used as government revenue for spending.

In this way, land sale proceeds are being used to generate a continual stream of income for sustainable spending.

The man who works hard to accumulate wealth knows that wealth creation is not easy. He looks at the wealth he has and ask: how can I use this wealth to generate a continual stream of income for sustainable spending?

The impatient man who comes into an inheritance, looks at the wealth and says: wow, I'm so rich. I can now relax and enjoy.

WP and Jamus Lim's mixed messages on carbon tax and protecting the environment

Cover all ground. Please everyone. Chase every vote.

WP's mixed messages is meant to win everyone, never mind if these messages become incoherent when put together.

There is one message to please all who are concerned with climate change and another to please those for whom the present is more important than the future.

What is more disturbing is that the economist in WP, Jamus Lim, demonstrated that he didn't quite fully understand when he equated his suggestion of a flexible carbon tax to an uncertain interest rate.

“'I'm befuddled because even now, the Government routinely alters levers or policies, such as the interest rate when there is uncertainty on a year-to-year basis about the level of interest rate. Yet, businesses continue to invest,” he said.

This is not about the COST of doing business as interest rates go up or down. This is about the TRANSFORMATION of a business.

The carbon tax trajectory is critical in enabling the pace of transformation to a low-carbon future.

It provides certainty and impetus for businesses to plan their transition, to invest in low-carbon technologies and carbon markets.

It ensures that NEW investments and economic activities are aligned with a low-carbon future.

I'm very proud that a small country like Singapore that imports our energy needs is making effort to achieve zero emission. Kudos to the PAP Government for staying the course despite the difficult time we are in.

In the words of the Court of Appeal: WP's MPs acted in bad faith

 

A WP Government will remove the second key to raid reserves to fund their populist policies

If Singaporeans buy into the proposal that we can sell land for money to spend on daily needs, then we are not only stupid, we are the laughing stock of the world.

Singapore is so small, we don't even have enough land for all our needs. We have to reclaim land.

Saudi Arabia not only has oil. Saudi Arabia also has land (2.15 million sq km).

Singapore is just 716 sq km of which 141 sq km is reclaimed land.

For all its vast resources, Saudi Arabia has had to raise value-added tax from 5% to 15% in less than 2 years! 10 percentage points in less than 2 years.

The last time Singapore raised the GST rate was in 2007.

15 years later, Singapore wants to raise GST by 2 percentage points.

The proposal by WP to sell land for money to spend on daily needs is a desperate populist measure.

WP's proposals: sell land for money, borrow for money, no need for you to pay more taxes. Free education, free transport, ...

What is stopping WP from going all the way of populism to promise you free things is the second key to the reserves, the blocking power of the President.

A WP-led government will remove the blocking power of the President.

Yes, they will.

Pritam said in Parliament that the President must be restored to its ceremonial role with no blocking power so that there will be no confrontation with a newly-elected (WP) Government. 

Stop giving excuses for the low calibre of the opposition

 STOP giving excuses for the low calibre of Opposition in Singapore.

The field is very level. In fact, the field is tilted AGAINST the incumbent PAP Government. Voters hold the PAP to the highest standard and threaten to vote them out at the slightest unhappiness, even if the unhappiness is not caused by government policies.

On the other hand, voters - opposition supporters - will find every excuse for the opposition's failures.

From town council mismanagement to lying and then blatantly lying to cover up lies, voters have found excuses for the WP. It's all the PAP's fault. It's incredible. They even rewarded the WP for their failures with a higher share of votes.

The lack of calibre and integrity in the opposition lies squarely on the shoulders of their supporters who are simply getting what they deserve.

They do not expect accountability, so they get no accountability. When Daniel Goh tried to hold his own party to accountability, he found himself at the wrong end of the stick.

Supporters hold the opposition to zero standard, so they get a low standard opposition. They rewarded lying politicians with more votes, so they get more lying politicians.

The PAP has been more than generous to the Opposition, providing them with training, exposure and experience to help build a credible opposition.

The Office of the Leader of the Opposition was created to help develop the opposition in Singapore in view of Singaporeans' desire for an opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is given an office in Parliament, staff support and resources, and additional allowance. But the WP is not rising to the occasion.

On the website of the LOO, one feature stands out : Donate to WP. Makes you wonder why because clearly, it is 'Office of the Leader of the Opposition' and not Leader of the Opposition WP'.

The PAP Government is inclusive, including Opposition MPs and even NCMP Leong Mun Wai in the 7 standing select committees.

Speaker of the House Tan Chuan Jin also includes the opposition in his delegation when he goes on parliamentary exchanges with foreign parliaments.

The PAP Government does their part in helping to develop a credible Opposition. But one must not expect the PAP Government to go all the way and help the opposition to win elections as well. That will be ludicrous, ridiculous, preposterous, madness, unreasonable. No political party anywhere in the world does that.