By Leong Sze
Hian
I refer to the article Spore has an edge in grooming leaders: MM
- A robust system is in place here to groom a new generation of
leaders (ST, Oct 6).
So, what has grooming the next generation of leaders got to do with
members of Parliament (MPs) writing to the Straits Times
forum?
Well, MP for Tampines GRC, Sin Boon Ann, wrote to the Straits Times
forum on 3 October, MP now convinced CPF funds dont come cheap
and said that:
it was reported that I used the word cheap to describe CPF
monies as a source of funds for the Government, in the debate in
Parliament on CPF reforms.
I wish to clarify that my choice of the word was motivated by a
comparison between the cost of CPF monies to the Government and the
returns that the Government is able to get in the longer term
through careful fund management
I should emphasise that the word was not chosen, as some may have
suggested, to imply that the Government was making money at the
peoples expense.
I am glad to note that your newspaper had accurately reported my
remark that any income derived from such investments has been
applied for the benefit of the people of Singapore.
Having considered carefully the explanation of the Second Minister
for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, I am now satisfied and have
come to the conclusion that the CPF monies, with risk-free interest
guaranteed, do not represent a cheap source of funds to the
Government, particularly now that the interest rate on the CPF
balances has been pushed higher by the recent changes.
In this connection, another MPs (Ong Kian Min) speech in the
Parliamentary debate on CPF changes, was the talk of the town
amongst Singaporeans.
He had made a strong rebuttal to the proposed CPF changes,
particularly on the issue of why the returns on CPF are so
low.
On 27 September, Mr Ong wrote to the Straits Times forum, to
clarify the remarks he had made in Parliament.
From rarely refreshing speeches from the heart for the people by
the MPs, to the (27 September) apology like letters in the
Straits Times by the same MPs themselves - is it any wonder why
some Singaporeans say that Parliamentary debate in Singapore is
kind of docile, and not very lively?
The letters sounded almost like self rebuttals of the MPs own
remarks in Parliament!
This I believe is unprecedented in Parliamentary history.
Just when we thought a new era of more open debate had arrived
.
alas
..
It may indeed be a sad day for Singapore - who else will ever dare
to speak up in the future?
What message are we sending to MPs and Singaporeans?
With reference to the articles PAP wary of those too eager to
please and In search of 4th-generation leaders (ST, Oct 6), what
kind of leaders are we grooming when they have to write to the
Straits Times forum to clarify their own rebuttals in Parliament in
debating national issues?
The fact that the whip is seldom lifted, may be a stumbling block
to diversity and alternative view points in Parliamentary
sessions.
As for the issue of CPF changes itself, since it has been said that
the CPF system is flawed, and thats why there is a need for a
major reform of the CPF system now, how can we be so sure that the
current proposals to fix the flaw are perfect ?
The past policies were not perfect (flawed), how can we be sure
that the new policies are perfect (not flawed too) ?
Only a free and unfettered debate in Parliament can ensure that
policies are subject to comprehensive and diverse review, on a
continuing basis.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/15/uniquely-singapore-f1-or-f9-parliamentary-debate-then-self-rebuttal/
