MICA (P) 256/10/2007 Issue No: 0802 www.wp.sg $2.00 HOW TO CONTACT US? HAMMER: The Editor, P.O Box 15 Toa Payoh Central Singapore 913101 Email: [email protected]OPEN HOUSE: Every Monday (except public holidays) from 8.00pm to 9.30pm at: The Workers’ Party HQ 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 Singapore 207799 Location (http://www.wp.sg/contact/contact.htm) “The Workers’ Party 50th Anniversary Commemorative Book” Available for purchase at WP Party Headquarters at 216-G Syed Alwi Rd 1. #02-03, on Monday evenings from 8 to 9.30 pm Blk 310 Hougang Ave 5 void deck on Wednesday 2. evenings from 8 to 10 pm In the heat of the General Election campaign in May 2006, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was pressed by The Workers’ Party to divulge the government’s plans to intro- duce means testing for hospitalisation. His response was: "Means testing itself is not wrong, but how to do it properly is tricky and needs time. Originally, I was more ambitious when I returned to (the Health Ministry) three years ago. I thought we could do means testing. But after discussion with people, I think let us do other proposals first… I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort… So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with practical ideas. " (Today, 2 May 2006) Despite the concerns expressed by the Minister himself, the government continued to talk about means testing for hos- pitalisation in 2007 and in 2008 consulted various groups for feedback. By 15 Feb 2008, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suddenly announced in his Budget state- ment that “means testing has been thoroughly debated”...a done deal! On 3 Mar 2008, the Health Minister unveiled the plan to commence means testing in Jan 2009 based on an initial set of criteria. This article traces the main justifications, criticisms and concerns about means testing for hospital subsidies, and argues why you should be alert and wary of the implica- tions of this move on your critical healthcare needs. What Means Testing for Hospitalisation Is About Currently, our public hospitals provide acute care and inpa- tients stay in wards segmented by class. The existing gov- ernment subsidies based on ward class is as follows: TABLE 1: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES UNTIL YEAR END 2008 Ward Class A B1 B2 C Level of Govt Subsidy (%) 0 50 65 80 The level of subsidies has been means-blind, meaning that anyone, rich or poor, can choose his ward class and get the same government subsidies. With effect from Jan 2009, means testing will affect the subsidies given to each patient. How much subsidy you will get if you choose to go to C or B2 will range as fol- lows: TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES COMMENCING JAN 2009 Ward Class A B1 B2 C Level of Govt Subsidy (%) after Jan 2009 0 50 50-65* 65-80* *the exact % of subsidy received by each patient would be within this range, based on the outcome of means-testing. Minister Khaw announced the initial criteria for means testing in Parliament on 3 Mar 2008: a) If you earn less than $3,200 per month, you will con- tinue to get the same subsidies as before (65% for B2 class and 80% for C class). b) If you earn $5,201 and above per month, you will pay the same as those in the next (higher) class. In other words, to stay in B2, you will pay B1 rates (50% subsi- dy); to stay in C, you will pay B2 rates (65% subsidy). c) If your income falls between $3,200 and $5,201 per month, you will receive subsidies somewhere within the range stated in Table 2 above for B2 and C class, based on a sliding scale. d) If you do not have income, such as homemakers, reti- rees and children, you will receive the same subsidies as before unless you live in property with Annual Value exceeding $11,000. Properties which have Annual Val- ues more than $11,000 currently covers mostly private properties. Residents in such properties will be treated like those earning $5,201 and above per month. Government Arguments For Means Testing In gist, Minister Khaw offered the following reasons to jus- tify means testing: a) Government subsidies have been increasing in line with the aging population, but resources are still limited. b) As B2 and C class services improve, the difference be- tween them and class A and B1 will narrow. Higher- income patients may then be attracted to stay in B2 and C class wards, crowding out those with lower income who have no alternatives. c) Means-testing will promote fairness in resource alloca- tion as it allows the government to target subsidies to the lower income. Implications Of The Government’s Arguments There are several red flags arising from the government’s policy to means-test hospitalisation. 1. Your assurance of a social safety net of subsidised basic hospitalisation services is being diluted. Seeking treatment in acute care hospitals is an unpleasant necessity of life. Affordability of medical care consistently ranks among the top concerns of Singaporeans in surveys and dialogues, especially since all are living longer. Now, By Sylvia Lim
This is the 0902 issue of the Hammer newspaper published by the Workers' Party of Singapore.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
HOW TO CONTACT US?HAMMER:The Editor,P.O Box 15 Toa Payoh CentralSingapore 913101Email: [email protected]
OPEN HOUSE:Every Monday (except public holidays)from 8.00pm to 9.30pm at:The Workers’ Party HQ216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03Singapore 207799Location (http://www.wp.sg/contact/contact.htm)
“The Workers’ Party 50th Anniversary Commemorative Book”
Available for purchase atWP Party Headquarters at 216-G Syed Alwi Rd 1. #02-03, on Monday evenings from 8 to 9.30 pm
Blk 310 Hougang Ave 5 void deck on Wednesday 2. evenings from 8 to 10 pm
In the heat of the General Election campaign in May 2006, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was pressed by The Workers’ Party to divulge the government’s plans to intro-duce means testing for hospitalisation. His response was:
"Means testing itself is not wrong, but how to do it properly is tricky and needs time. Originally, I was more ambitious when I returned to (the Health Ministry) three years ago. I thought we could do means testing. But after discussion with people, I think let us do other proposals
first… I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort… So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with
practical ideas. " (Today, 2 May 2006)
Despite the concerns expressed by the Minister himself, the government continued to talk about means testing for hos-pitalisation in 2007 and in 2008 consulted various groups for feedback. By 15 Feb 2008, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suddenly announced in his Budget state-ment that “means testing has been thoroughly debated”...a done deal! On 3 Mar 2008, the Health Minister unveiled the plan to commence means testing in Jan 2009 based on an initial set of criteria.
This article traces the main justifications, criticisms and concerns about means testing for hospital subsidies, and argues why you should be alert and wary of the implica-tions of this move on your critical healthcare needs.
What Means Testing for Hospitalisation Is AboutCurrently, our public hospitals provide acute care and inpa-tients stay in wards segmented by class. The existing gov-ernment subsidies based on ward class is as follows:
TABLE 1: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES UNTIL YEAR END 2008
Ward Class A B1 B2 CLevel of Govt Subsidy (%) 0 50 65 80
The level of subsidies has been means-blind, meaning that anyone, rich or poor, can choose his ward class and get the same government subsidies.
With effect from Jan 2009, means testing will affect the subsidies given to each patient. How much subsidy you will get if you choose to go to C or B2 will range as fol-lows:
TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES COMMENCING JAN 2009
Ward Class A B1 B2 CLevel of Govt Subsidy (%)
after Jan 20090 50 50-65* 65-80*
*the exact % of subsidy received by each patient would be within this range, based on the outcome of means-testing.
Minister Khaw announced the initial criteria for means testing in Parliament on 3 Mar 2008:
a) If you earn less than $3,200 per month, you will con-tinue to get the same subsidies as before (65% for B2 class and 80% for C class).
b) If you earn $5,201 and above per month, you will pay the same as those in the next (higher) class. In other words, to stay in B2, you will pay B1 rates (50% subsi-dy); to stay in C, you will pay B2 rates (65% subsidy).
c) If your income falls between $3,200 and $5,201 per month, you will receive subsidies somewhere within the range stated in Table 2 above for B2 and C class, based on a sliding scale.
d) If you do not have income, such as homemakers, reti-rees and children, you will receive the same subsidies as before unless you live in property with Annual Value exceeding $11,000. Properties which have Annual Val-ues more than $11,000 currently covers mostly private properties. Residents in such properties will be treated like those earning $5,201 and above per month.
Government Arguments For Means TestingIn gist, Minister Khaw offered the following reasons to jus-tify means testing:
a) Government subsidies have been increasing in line with the aging population, but resources are still limited.
b) As B2 and C class services improve, the difference be-tween them and class A and B1 will narrow. Higher-income patients may then be attracted to stay in B2 and C class wards, crowding out those with lower income who have no alternatives.
c) Means-testing will promote fairness in resource alloca-tion as it allows the government to target subsidies to the lower income.
Implications Of The Government’s ArgumentsThere are several red flags arising from the government’s policy to means-test hospitalisation.
1. Your assurance of a social safety net of subsidised basic hospitalisation services is being diluted.
Seeking treatment in acute care hospitals is an unpleasant necessity of life. Affordability of medical care consistently ranks among the top concerns of Singaporeans in surveys and dialogues, especially since all are living longer. Now,
By Sylvia Lim
2
continued from pg 1
In April 2008, the LTA levied a $387,000 fine on SMRT for an accidental disruption to its train service, apparently caused by an operator who did not activate one out of two sets of brakes on a maintenance train due to an oversight. The inconvenience caused was considerable – several thousand commuters were affected. But the effect was probably felt elsewhere as well.
For the sake of a more gracious society, and to diffuse the impact of the rising cost of living in Singapore, LTA’s reac-tion to such breaches in service agreements should have been of a ‘corrective’ nature, rather than the purely ‘puni-tive’ one that it currently is.
Accounting implicationsAllow me to elaborate. In a punitive system, the fines levied by a regulatory authority for breaches of agreement (in this case, a breach of service) goes into the government coffers and ends up as part of either the next fiscal year’s operating budget, or a budget surplus which then gets locked away in Never-Never-Land. Income from such fines may be taken as a surplus because they are not part of the normal operat-ing revenue (money from normal operations); the excep-tional one-off “income”.
Economic ImpactWhen money is locked up in this way, it may have detri-mental effects on the economy as it means less money in circulation in the economy.
Let us take a slightly different approach. The fine imposed by LTA could be a “corrective” fine instead of a “punitive” fine. The difference is that, in a corrective situation, LTA could stipulate that this amount of money must be used in part or full to rectify the process or situation that caused the breach of agreement or service.
In this particular case, SMRT could be made to institute “fail-safe” measures, utilising the amount intended for
the government is rationing its subsidies based on its as-sessment of how much you can afford to pay. A patient could end up paying 1.75 times the bill of the person lying next to him. In other words, for a $1,000 bill in C class, you may pay $350 (65% subsidy) while someone pays $200 (80% subsidy). Is the government so poor that, for such a critical need as hospitalisation, it has to resort to this?
To sum up, I can do no better than Straits Times journalist, Salma Khalik, who wrote: “Means testing…spells the end of the health bedrock: that no one will be denied basic (hospitalisation) care at basic rates”. (ST 9 Jan 2008)
2. Your ability to do financial planning overall will be eroded.
Before means-testing, you could determine for yourself how much you should spend on the hospitalisation needs of yourself and your family. With means-testing, the gov-ernment decides how much you can afford to pay, based on a simple (frankly, simplistic) income / housing type test. 2 people may earn $5,201 per month but the dispos-able incomes could be vastly different: one may be in ill-health or have many dependants, while the other has no commitments.
Based on just income alone, will the government be able to know your concerns about future healthcare needs, providing for parents or children, or your debts and li-abilities?
Looking at the simple criteria for the test, it seems that the government is not concerned about these at all. Health Minister had in fact made it clear that he preferred a “less correct but simple” test to a “correct or more complicat-ed” one! (ST, 14 Jan 2008).
3. Ominous Words Have Been Uttered… Before March 2008, there had been months of painful and emotional speculation as to what the cut-off income for full subsidies would be, with Minister floating thoughts of a low cut-off, then possibly drawing the line at the 50th percentile wage earner, meaning someone who earned about $2,300 per month. In hindsight, there may have been a psychological purpose to that, as the eventual cut-off at $3,200 was met with some relief (see also last para of this article).
However, in answer to WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang’s question, Minister Khaw acknowledged in Par-liament that the criteria for means testing might change over time e.g. as incomes rose. What I had intended to ask the Minister then, but was unable to due to the allotted time running out, was to explain what he had meant when he said in January that: “In the short term, the majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected”
(ST, 8 Jan 2008). Does it mean that once means testing as a concept has become “accepted” by Singaporeans, the criteria will become much stricter? It is hard to rule this out, especially since our aging population will mean that the number of retirees seeking treatment will swell and become a significant cost factor on the government’s health expenditure.
4. Healthcare costs are likely to increaseIt is likely that medical costs will continue to rise, due to inflation generally and specific reasons such as advance-ments in medical technology. As bills go up, the amounts to be paid by the patients, after deducting subsidies, will also go up. If the government continues to adjust subsidy levels, you will face the double whammy of a bigger bill and paying a bigger proportion of it.
Some Concluding ObservationsHealthcare spending in Singapore is very low by inter-national standards. While developed countries spend easily at least 8 to 10% of their Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) on healthcare, Singapore spends about 3.8%, with government expenditure on healthcare only at 0.9% of GDP (MOH data). Is the current tightening of govern-ment subsidies because the government is reluctant to in-crease healthcare spending, bucking international trends?
The Ministry of Health (“MOH”) knows that Singapore-ans generally do not over-consume hospital services. In 2004, MOH released an Information Paper “International Comparison of Key Healthcare Utilisation Trends” which compared healthcare utilisation trends in Singapore’s acute hospitals with those of other developed countries. The conclusion was that Singapore had done well in the international comparison, having lower admissions to hospitals, and inpatients did not seem to overstay.
While MOH tries to justify means-testing on the “fair dis-tribution of limited resources” argument, it must be re-membered that those with higher income already bear a higher proportion of the tax burden and get lower rebates in any distribution exercise.
The Workers’ Party regrets the government’s deliber-ate decision to burden you with the stress of increased healthcare costs, when there is absolutely no need to do so. Looking at the government’s annual revenue collec-tions and its undisclosed reserves, there is no reason to think that continuing the same subsidy levels will break the bank.
Are you then hapless and helpless victims? Prime Min-ister Lee Hsien Loong provided the answer recently. He was asked by the media why the Health Minister had pub-licly explored a low cut-off income (less than $2,000 per month) for full subsidies for hospitalisation, before mov-ing it up incrementally to finally settle it at $3,200. “You have to ask Minister Khaw Boon Wan… I think the public
would not have accept-ed it if he had begun at $3,000 and it became $1,500 eventually”. (ST 15 Apr 2008). In other words, the government still needs to consider how far you can be pushed before you will vote against it – a testa-ment to the fundamen-tals of politics and your empowerment through contests at the General Election.Source: Daquella manera (flickr.com)
By Perry Tong
3
the fi ne. For example, SMRT could install some form of electro-mechanical device to prevent the train from mov-ing if the train operator inadvertently forgets to activate the brakes. Or it could be the implementation of a system or procedure for which additional costs are incurred.
Such a “corrective” fi ne would mean that the money is ploughed back into circulation in the economy. Certainly, $387,000 may not mean much for certain sectors of our economy, but for some it could represent a person’s salary for fi fteen years or a year’s salary for fi fteen people. This amount, relatively small though it may be, could then be spent on other areas, thereby boosting the economy.
Impact on SMRTWhen a fi ne is levied on SMRT, the accounting process will most likely put this under “legal expenses”. Now, “le-gal expenses” typically fall under operating expenses for most companies. As a result, at the end of the fi scal year, SMRT may report a slight dip in earnings due to this “legal expense”.
A few things can happen here. A dip in earnings reported typically triggers a sell-off in shares of the company, which in turn leads to a decrease in shareholder value and prob-ably a decrease in dividends. It should be reiterated that al-though the amount, and hence the impact, may not be very large relative to SMRT’s earnings in this case, the principal behind it is the same.
Impact on You and MeA secondary impact from such “legal expenses” is that, in the not too distant future SMRT is likely to use the year’s overall profi t numbers to perhaps demonstrate a decrease in profi t. An application to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to raise fares is then very likely. So a $387,000 problem is now passed on to the general population – that’s you and me!
Realistically, $387,000 may translate into barely half a cent in potential fare increase, but consider this: if such fi nes are imposed each time there is an accidental train delay, many drops make a spoonful. Hence the cost of living, in this case transportation, continues to rise unabated. And yet, the government attributes the rising cost of living to “global factors beyond our control”. Really?
Is Our Gracious Society Fine?Lastly, in our present legal and judicial system, corrective action is often preferred over punitive action in enforcing justice (probations instead of jail, study instead of jail, psy-chiatry instead of jail...etc). I applaud this “opening up” and liberalisation of Singapore’s legal/judicial practice be-cause it demonstrates a truly positive approach towards the cultivation of a more gracious society.
However, LTA’s punitive action in this case certainly does not fl ow in this same positive direction. The hard-hand-ed and unforgiving punitive actions of regulators such as LTA (among others) stick out like a sore thumb in our le-gal landscape to some extent. Just think about how many regulatory bodies we have on this little red dot, and the impact is multiplied.
Offenders should be given help to correct and improve themselves, not be condemned and penalised in a manner that appears vindictive. Special note should be paid to ‘cor-porate’ offenders since the impact, as demonstrated, can easily trickle down to Singaporeans.
Once again, Singapore is seeing an upswing of the prop-erty market, with private property prices surging 31%, and the HDB resale market rising 17% since early 2007. Although prices have cooled down in the later part of last year, they are still at relatively high levels. More new HDB fl ats have been put on sale with higher price tags, while virtually all resale fl ats in the open market today are selling above valuation.
Rising property prices inevitably make owning a fl at less affordable, especially for young couples who have just started work and are planning to get married.
Opting for a new “build-to-order” (BTO) HDB fl at is one solution, but because of the high values of resale fl ats, there is now a long queue for BTO fl ats; applicants have to wait up to 3 years on average before getting their keys. Those who cannot wait that long have been forced to source for fl ats in the resale market.
On 18 Feb 2008, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said that HDB resale fl ats were still relatively affordable, citing government assistance such as CPF grants, low-interest loans and subsidies. (The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2008).
However, he did not give the full story – many fi rst-time HDB fl at-buyers cannot afford to purchase a resale fl at be-cause of the cash-over-valuation (COV) amount that they have to pay the sellers. The COV in the present market could amount to $10,000 or more, for a three-room fl at in a shorter-lease block on a low fl oor without lifts servicing its level or amenities in the vicinity. For a well-renovated fi ve-room fl at located on a high fl oor at lift-level and in close proximity of an MRT station or amenities, the cash portion could reach as high as $80,000!
Hence, while Mr Mah may not be wrong to say that “re-cent buyers of new HDB fl ats use only about 20 per cent of their monthly household income to service their hous-ing loans”, he is not entirely correct in saying that buyers do not need to fork out cash up-front because of such as-sistance schemes.
Presently, there is no assistance for COV. High grants or subsidies are rendered ineffectual for fl at-buyers who
cannot pay for the COV amount. A solution that has been suggested was to allow loans to cover the selling price of a resale fl at instead of just the valuation price. However this is risky and not encouraged, as Singaporeans may buy bigger and more expensive fl ats without thinking of the long term ability to keep up with mortgage payments, especially if the loan is taken from a bank at high interest rates.
One idea that the government should seriously consider is to give cash grants to cover the COV amount, in lieu of the existing CPF grant. Issuing such cash grants will not mean giving buyers money up-front, as these cash grants will be withheld by HDB until the buyers have chosen their fl at.
In a way, this cash grant works like the CPF grant except that the former covers the COV part instead of part of the valuation price. If the cash grant is unable to cover the COV, then the buyer has to fork out the remaining amount in cash. On the other hand, if the cash grant exceeds the COV, the remaining amount will be converted to a CPF grant to cover the outstanding valuation price.
Should the buyer purchase a HDB resale fl at at or be-low the valuation amount, then the cash grant to cover the COV amount will not apply. Instead, the government will give the normal CPF grant.
Giving a cash grant for the COV, however, means that the mortgage loan amounts will increase since the grants have already been used to offset the COV.
In all, giving a cash grant instead of the usual CPF grant will help to make fl ats more accessible especially for young couples with minimal cash in hand.
continued from pg 2
(Melvin Tan, a property agent, is the Assistant Secretary of the Hougang Constituency Committee.)
By Melvin Tan
4
By Aaron Peng, WP Youth Wing Member
The year 2006 saw a major revamp of the ‘A’ level syl-labus. Among the changes was the inclusion of a compul-sory cross-disciplinary subject. This means that all students sitting for the ‘A’ level exams are now required to take a subject from a different stream. Arts students, for instance, must take a subject from the Science stream and vice versa. These changes were on top of the introduction of Project Work, where students have to work in groups on a project which they will then present orally and in a written report at the end of their first year in junior college.
Being in the education sector myself, I have seen how these changes have greatly added to the burden of the students. Yes, it is important to provide our students with a well rounded and balanced education and the brighter ones may find it the perfect way to stretch their minds further and shine.
However, have we forgotten the many students who are already struggling with 3 core ‘A’ level subjects in the previous syllabus? Was the previous system not stressful enough such that we now need to add to their burden? Can we realistically expect an Arts student to be as good in Bi-ology as a student of the Science stream? Or to expect a Science student to be as good in a subject like Literature? Or for a student with a very weak foundation in Mathemat-ics to take the subject at ‘A’ level because that is the only contrasting subject he qualifies for? In addition, having 2 more compulsory subjects has become too heavy a burden for many of our academically weaker students.
These weaker students are already competing with those who can score 4 A’s with minimal effort for the limited places available at the local universities. The weaker stu-dents have to play the “catching-up” game throughout their ‘A’ level course, often without much realistic chance of ever catching up. Do we really need to add to their dif-ficulty by constantly raising the basic requirements of the ‘A’ level examinations?
For Project Work, I do agree that the skills that students pick up such as making an oral presentation and working in
teams are important ones that they need for the workplace in the future. However, is it necessary to make it another examinable subject? Could the teaching of these required skills not be woven into other ‘A’ level subjects instead? Alternatively, we could make Project Work part of the in-ternal assessment required for promotion from JC1 to JC2, without having to make it an ‘A’ level subject which would affect students’ future i.e. their ability to proceed to uni-versity.
In my opinion, these additional subjects, including Project work, should be offered as electives, which give the more academically inclined students a chance to broaden their minds and enjoy a more balanced education from different streams. It will also provide them with an additional oppor-tunity to impress future employers or scholarship panels, just like the current higher level courses offered to poten-tial scholars. Weaker students, on the other hand, may take up these electives only if they feel that they are coping well with their other core subjects, or have a genuine interest in a particular subject of another stream. This will ensure that students still get the chance to study something they like and hence have the best chance to excel.
Some may argue that the ultimate aim should not just be to get to university and obtain a degree, but to broaden the exposure and mindsets of our students and teach them im-portant life skills. However, we all know that an ‘A’ level certificate is in many ways merely a passport to university, so we should give our students the best chance to achieve this ultimate aim.
Hence the ‘A’ level syllabus, in my opinion, deserves an-other close review to ensure that as many able students as possible will make it to university, and not miss out on the chance just because they have little choice over the sub-jects they have to take, or because they are over burdened, perhaps unfairly. We need to draw a line between trying to stretch the brightest to their fullest potential, and trying to provide as many opportunities as possible for students to excel in what they are good at.
After all, many of these students are at a stage where they are ready to specialise in an area of study which they like and can excel in. Why “force” them to do something in which they are highly unlikely to find interest and in which they will struggle? After all, nobody is good at everything as we are all different and have different interests.
If students are not able to get into our local universities, many will have little choice but to turn to overseas univer-sities as the next best viable route to getting a degree. Many of them may eventually settle overseas, and this will cer-tainly not help Singapore’s “brain-drain” problem which the government has been working so hard to solve.
By Winnie Law, Member of WP Youth WingWhen I joined the Workers’ Party in July 2007, my family members weren’t very supportive at first, and my grand-parents even advised me to withdraw from the party, “just in case something happens” to me.
Such is the mentality of most Singaporeans. We refuse to stand up for what we believe for fear of “trouble”, espe-cially when it involves opposing the government.
You’ll be glad to hear that other than some problems with the biometric system when I entered Malaysia (which has nothing to do with my involvement in the Workers’ Party), life goes on for me as normal – there has been no “trouble” at all.
Yes, some people were shocked when I told them I was with the Workers’ Party. But, like my family, when they saw that nothing bad had happened to me since I joined the Workers’ Party, they gradually came to terms with it. In fact, some of them have asked me how I thought the gov-ernment can do better in certain policies, and others have even asked me how they could join the Party.
But why is there this inherent fear associated with opposi-tion politics? Perhaps it can be traced back to the 1960’s, when Operation Coldstore happened. In that year, 117 opposition members and labour union leaders were de-tained, many of them for up to 17 years. Mr Chia Thye Poh, a member of the Barisan Socialis, was detained for 32 years.
The fact remains that despite Singapore declaring itself as a democratic first-world country, many of us know that our media supports the ruling party, PAP, and this is often re-flected in its media coverage and slant. For example, the newspapers and TV have played a big part in painting a glowing picture of the Singapore government, touting it as an incorruptible world-class government that goes beyond its call of duty to take care of its citizens.
Various policies have sprung up and have proven unpopu-lar among many Singaporeans. Yet, I find that such protests and voices of discontent are hardly reported in the media
With the rise of the New Media, however, a lot of such discontent among Singaporeans has surfaced on the Inter-net and blogs. Many Singaporeans are now more open to supporting the opposition (albeit merely in cyberspace). It is fine to voice your views online, but we need to do more than just that.
Singaporeans, it is time to stop being a NATO (No Action, Talk Only) person. Join a political party that you believe can help Singaporeans progress in life!
For me, I decided to do something for my country, so I joined the Workers’ Party. If you take that first vital step, you will realise that there is nothing to fear at all.
5
Frieda ChanAge: 32
BackgroundFrieda is the eldest of two children in a Teochew fam-ily. Her father returned to the workforce few years ago after retirement and her mother is a housewife, while her sister ventured to work in Shanghai as product designer two years ago. Frieda attributes her helpful nature to the influence from her dad and late maternal grandfather who were ex-grassroot leaders with the PAP and Residents’ Committee.
EducationFrieda was educated at Boon Lay Garden Primary School, Crescent Girls’ School and Townsville Institute, before she pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree at the National University of Singapore (NUS), graduating with double specialisations in Social Work and Sociology in 2000.
During her pre-university days, Frieda served as the presi-dent of the Students’ Council. While at NUS, she joined the NUS Democratic Socialist Club (DSC) where she was elected the Assistant Organising Secretary. She partici-pated in closed-door dialogue sessions with political lead-ers and was one of the twelve delegates who represented Singapore at the Korea-ASEAN Future-Oriented Coop-eration Youth Exchange Programme in 1998.
CareerUpon graduation, Frieda joined an international youth organisation where she worked with local and overseas students, teachers, parents and other youth organisations. She was promoted to Division Coordinator the following year. Within the next two to three years, she was promoted again to Assistant Director and Director of two divisions.
Gordon LimAge : 42
BackgroundGordon grew up in the Upper Serangoon area. His father passed away when he was only 10 years old. His moth-er became the sole breadwinner and sin-gle handedly brought up Gordon, his elder brother (private inves-tor) and younger sister (banker).
At a young age, Gordon fended for himself when his mother was busy at work. Because of this he became very independent and always told himself never to regret the decisions he makes but to learn from any mistakes and not to repeat them.
EducationHe started his education at St Gabriel's Primary School and went on to obtain his "O" level from St Gabriel's Sec-ondary School. He now sits on the school alumni board as an executive committee member, a position he has held for the last 11 years.
In 2004, Frieda and a group of experienced community development workers founded Life! Community Develop-ment Ltd (LCD), a registered charity and VWO committed to promoting local and overseas community development work and volunteerism. Despite being a relatively young player in the field, LCD has gained substantial recognition among the veterans and governments of tsunami-hit areas. Its work was featured on one of the national television pro-grammes overseas.
Since 2005, Frieda has been an Ambassador for the Social Work profession, giving talks and training in schools and to young people. Recently, she joined an international school as Associate Lecturer. Besides teaching, her job as a lec-turer allows her to observe and understand the dynamics of foreign students settling in Singapore.
Why did she join the WP?It was not because of any anti-PAP sentiment that Frieda joined the WP. In fact, she has fond childhood memories of wearing her beige-coloured “RC kid” T-shirt. “I love my country and that’s why I join the WP,” reveals the social worker-cum-educator.
She does not deny that the PAP has performed reasonably well in nation-building, but she feels that Singapore needs strong leaders in parliament who can keep the country pro-gressing through the socio-politico-economic challenges ahead. “Will the newly-elected PAP members who got into parliament courtesy of the ingenious GRC system be able to rise up to challenges ahead?” she asks.
She is convinced that there are many highly credible op-position party members who can do a lot for Singapore. “We need to give these talented opposition party members a level playing field on which to compete,” she says with conviction.
Frieda volunteered her help to the WP Ang Mo Kio team during the General Elections in 2006. Convinced that the Workers’ Party is capable of generating positive dynamics for socio-political change, she joined the party as member in August 2006.
PhilosophyFrieda believes in “Unity in Diversity”. She would like to see a nation-building process where different individuals discover and play their role well in shaping the country’s future. “There can be no room for unchecked fear and political apathy. We should appreci-ate one another’s differences and help to support, not tear down, one another,” she explains.
Frieda believes we should focus our faith (trust) on facts, rather than on (unchecked) feelings. “Faith is like fuel, which must be fed into the engine of facts, in order for the train to move forward. Pouring faith into the passenger cabin will not move the train,” she explains.
Frieda enjoys studying about human behaviour. Kopi-tiams and cafes are her favourite hangouts. She enjoys reading, penning her thoughts on paper, and playing bad-minton, ultimate frisbee and captain’s ball. Recently, she took up Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acu-pressure massage. “It is vital to stay healthy; I have not fallen ill for more than year,” she declares.
After having spent 3 months in a pre-university centre, he decided not to continue with his studies. Gordon instead found his calling in the hospitality industry and went on to obtain the National Trade Certificate Grade 2 (NTC 2) in the Food & Beverage Services from the then Vocational Industrial Training Board (VITB) and the Singapore Ho-tel Association Training & Educational Centre (SHATEC), where he was awarded a Sliver Medal (The SHA medal for Excellence) in 1988. Since 1993, he has been helping out as a Meet Advisor at the Singapore Hotel Association’s Inter Hotel Athletics Meet.
CareerUpon graduating from SHATEC, he went on to work in the Food & Beverage departments in various hotels, rising to the rank of Captain Senior Operations Manager in 1995.
Gordon is now a Sales Supervisor in charge of strategic accounts with a leading Wine & Spirits company in Sin-gapore.
Why he joined the WP?Having lived in the Upper Serangoon area for a good 40 years and seeing how the residents in Hougang had stood up for their political beliefs, he decided to contribute to the opposition’s cause. The natural choice for him was the Worker's Party, whose MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has been serving the residents in Hougang since 1991.
Gordon joined the Workers' Party in May 2006, with the blessings of his family. He is currently the Secretary of the Workers’ Party Welfare Committee and a member of the Hougang Constituency Committee.
Gordon also works closely with the Workers’ Party’s Vice-Chairman, Mohamed Rahizan, on their regular house vis-its in the north-eastern area of Singapore.
PhilosophyGordon believes that every journey begins with a single step and that there are no short cuts to success.
Gordon also believes that in order for our nation to be successful and progress into the future, we must have a "check and balance" system. He explains: “This is where the Workers' Party comes into play. Like the saying goes, ‘You need two hands to clap’. It does not matter if you are the ruling or opposition party; we are all Singaporeans.”
“In time of crises, I will be there carrying arms with my fellow Singaporeans, regardless of our race, religion or political beliefs, protecting my Singapore, family and friends,” he declares.
Gordon is a Roman Catholic and has four daughters.
6
On 3 May 2008, the Workers’ Party Youth Wing held its inaugural YouthQuake forum. The first in a series of public forums planned by the Youth Wing, this forum focused on the question: “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote @ 18?”
Invitations for the event had been sent to various bodies and organisations, including the mainstream and online media, friends and supporters of the Youth Wing, politi-cal parties and various organisations such as the National Youth Council (NYC), REACH, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Th forum which took place at the Workers’ Party headquar-ters at 216G, Syed Alwi Road saw a full house and was enlivened by the presence of many young Singaporeans.
Bernard Chen, the project manager of YouthQuake and or-ganising secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, was the moderator of the forum. He said: “YouthQuake pro-vides a platform for youths to speak up and interact with fellow youths on issues affecting young Singaporeans, and it prompts youths to take the initiative to bring about changes.”
The inaugural YouthQuake forum saw 3 speakers from varying backgrounds giving their take on the issue. They were Anne Tan,17, a student at Anglo-Chinese Junior Col-lege, Khairulanwar Zaini, 20, a full-time national service-man and Choo Zheng Xi, 23, co-editor of the online portal, theonlinecitizen.
The speakers generally agreed that youths in Singapore were responsible and had the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions; they could, and would, vote well if they were given the opportunity to do so.
The embodiment of participatory democracyGiving her views on why the government’s efforts at re-po-liticising youths had failed, Anne reasoned that it was due to the over focus on “head knowledge” in subjects such as Social Studies and the “entrenched cycle of fear” that was still very much prevalent within the civil service.
She offered voting at 18 as a possible solution to the grow-ing political apathy among youths in Singapore. She said: “It is one thing to know that elections take place every 4 to 5 years... and another thing altogether to participate in elections.”
Conceding that lowering the voting age from the current 21 to 18 would not suddenly reduce the level of political apa-thy among our youths, she argued that it was, nevertheless, a concrete first step to take.
Age is not a barometer of maturityKhairulanwar Zaini, the second speaker, spoke passionate-ly on the inconsistencies in the existing system of serving national service at 18 while allowing youths to vote only when they are 21.
Noting that the many benefits and privileges offered to na-tional servicemen through the various government agen-cies and statutory boards were nothing more than a consol-atory gesture, he argued that “despite fulfilling our duties of citizenship, carrying out our national duty, we do not get accorded the full rights of citizenship, [because] we still cannot vote. That is almost akin to taxation without repre-sentation.”
Khairul believed that as an inherent principle of democ-racy, we should extend suffrage to those who were serving the interests on the nation, in particular those who provided for the finances and the defence of the state.
Khairul disagreed that 18-year-olds were too immature to vote. “The right to vote should not be accorded based on maturity level; it should be a way of recognising the con-tribution of citizens by providing them with a legitimate means to voice their concerns,” he emphasised.
Khairul also argued that if we did not allow 18 year old full-time national servicemen (NSF) to vote because that might lead to a politicised military, then it would follow that regular NS men should also not be allowed to vote. He further reiterated that voting at the age of 18 would make National Service even more meaningful, as it would help NSF personnel to forge an identity with the nation and rec-ognise the fundamental meaning of a serviceman’s role as a citizen solider.
The intrinsic value of our vote in a politically apathetic societyThe third speaker, Choo Zheng Xi, argued for a lowering of the voting age by situtating the is-sue first in its proper legal and political context. He
observed that Singaporeans did not have the constitutional right to vote but there existed in the Parliamentary Elec-tions Act, the “compulsion” to vote. He also noticed that Singaporeans tended to view the need to vote as an obliga-tion rather than a right.
Although he questioned the effectiveness of lowering the voting age to 18 in reducing political apathy among youths if there was no corresponding change in the mindset of the youths, he did agree with the first two speakers that it would be a good starting point to help Singaporeans to see themselves as stakeholders of this nation and to work towards a system that they truly want to see.
Encouraging feedbackThe subsequent question and answer session was well re-ceived and many youths voiced their opinions and added much depth to the discussion. Ideas for a complete sociali-sation of political education in Singapore schools were rec-ommended to complement the vote@18 agenda.
In closing, Bernard left the audience with the following provoking thought: “Leaders whom youths can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Youths shouldn’t be subject to stricter standards than adults. Lowering the voting age is the just and fair way to set things straight.”
The Workers’ Party Youth Wing would like to take this op-portunity to thank the speakers and all the participants who spent their Saturday afternoon at this fruitful forum.
In the words of Alvinder Singh, 17, “the forum was in-formative, thought-provoking and engaging. The ideas put across by the young speakers were well researched and this inaugural forum certainly provides an ideal platform for political discussion among youths.”
We would like to hear from YOU!The Workers’ Party Youth Wing will continue to engage young Singaporeans on this issue of lowering the voting age to 18 through its Facebook account (http://www.face-book.com/group.php?gid=10878451692&ref=share)
What do you think of lowering the voting form 21 to 18? We would like to hear from you!
Contact the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ [email protected] for more information on upcoming YouthQuake forums!
7
8
Source: memekode (flickr.com)
Source: Daquella manera (flickr.com)
9
Dalam rencana saya yang sudah, saya telah meng-gesakan agar masyarakat menghapuskan BUDAYA PAK TURUT.
Siapa yang dapat berbangga dengan seorang yang hanya TAKLID MEMBABI BUTA.
Bila anda membuat keputusan tanpa maklumat, terlalu mudah terpangaruh dengan arus berita media massa yang dikongkong ketat serba menekan maklumat, terbujuk den-gan pojokan iklan dan propaganda, maka keputusan anda bukan satu keputusan yang boleh dibanggakan.
Orang yang tidak mahu kebenaran itu menonjol, tentunya akan menyorok informasi.
Cuba kita fikirkan peranan sains kemanusiaan dan ilmu-ilmu sains yang lain - usaha itu bertujuan mengungkapkan maklumat-maklumat yang benar bagi kesejahteraan umat sejagat.
Kalau menurut istilah saya, maklumat yang benar adalah berlandaskan "sains bersih", "sains tauhid" (ketuhanan) - yakni renungan kajian terhadap alam semesta membawa kepada rumusan adanya pencipta yang Maha Esa - yang Satu, tidak tua atau tiga.
Cuba bayangkan kalau pembangunan itu tidak berasas maklumat sains yang betul - alamat akan roboh atau mer-eng pembangunannya.
Lantaran sebab yang sedemikian saya selalu berpendirian - "there should be transparency of information, exchange of information and dissemination of information" (ketelusan maklumat, pertukaran maklumat dan penyebaran maklu-mat) kerana inilah yang akan merangsangkan sains pem-bangunan yang sihat dan makmur.
Cuba kita ambil satu contoh
Apabila PM Lee Hsien Loong menyorot saya dalam Pile-han Raya Umum 2006, dengan soalan "Apa Mohd Rahizan akan berbuat tentang pelajaran anak-anak Melayu...", saya telah mengemukakan pandangan saya pada Pilehan Raya Umum yang lalu di khalayak ribu-ribuan pengundi-pen-gundi: -
Pada pandangan saya, Mendaki itu walaupun merupakan pembentukan yang mulia daripada masyarakat Melayu, hanya dapat memainkan peranan sampingan sahaja (sup-plementary role) kerana terhad oleh dana, kepakaran dan lain-lain sumber yang terbatas. Saya menegaskan, peranan yang asasi dan utama adalah tanggung-jawab Kemente-rian Pelajaran dan telah membalikkan soalan agar Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu, Encik Tharman mengemukakan alasan kenapa pelajar-pelajar Melayu tercecer ataupan apa usaha yang diambil untuk membantu pelajar-pelajar yang tercec-er dari pelbagai bangsa, termasuk pelajar-pelajar Melayu.
Peristiwa ini tidak dibuat liputan oleh Berita Harian, Straits Times dan akhbar-akhbar tempatan yang lain.
Senang kata di "black-out".
Kami, telah sebal dengan keadaan seperti ini dan peranan
yang dimainkan oleh pemberita-pemberita utama di Sin-gapura ini.
Maka, kerana inilah juga salah satu dari Manifesto (Dasar-Dasar) Parti Pekerja (Workers' Party) mengambil sikap dan pendirian bahawa Media Massa perlu bebas dan berkecua-li. (Demi sains Tauhid seperti apa yang telah saya ulaskan tadi.)
Tentunya bukan secara kebetulan Encik Masagos dilantik oleh PM untuk menjawat sebagai Setiausaha Kanan Parli-men Kementerian Pelajaran.
Kena jaga pelajaran anak-anak Melayu beb!
Kita tengok apa nak jadi? Boleh jadi Menteri tak?
Lagi satu informasi yang anda perlu tahu.
Tahun demi tahun, ramai rakyat Singapura yang telah men-inggalkan bumi kelahirannya dan membuang kerakyatan Singapura. Diantara mereka ini seramai 1,000 professional terbaik Singapura telah meninggalkan Singapura buat sela-ma-lamanya baru-baru ini.
Di kalangan masyarakat Melayu kedengaran bahawa mere-ka memileh untuk berhijrah ke Australia.
Orang Melayu Singapura yang berakar umbi di sana, mem-punyai pandangan kritis terhadap Pemerintah PAP - mereka bersikap vokal dan kritikal. Apa nak jadi?
Apakah akan lebih ramai lagi masyarakat Melayu yang akan berhijrah ke Bandar-Bandar Utama Dunia. Jangan salah faham bukan kita menyalahkan Globalisasi. Bagus kalau kita mempunyai semangat perantau dan meraih pe-luang di mana saja.
Yang menjadi tanda-tanya mereka membuang kerakyatan mereka.
Apa sebabnya?
Apa seronoknya apabila kita mendapati akhirnya rakyat tempatan diambil alih tempatnya oleh pendatang yang diberikan kerakyatan oleh sebab penduduk asli telah be-ramai-ramai keluar meninggalkan negaranya buat sela-manya.
Pada tahun 2006, seramai 57,310 penduduk diberi status sebagai Penduduk Tetap dan seramai 13,209 diberi ker-akyatan Singapura.
Ada pengkritik yang telah menggelarkan bahawa Singapu-ra bukanlah sebuah Negara lagi tetapi, sebuah "Hotel", orang cuma menginap dan pergi.
Apa nak jadi?
Kalau ini terus berlaku, bererti kita telah gagal dalam "Na-tion-Building" (Pembangunan Negara).
Kita syok-syok mendabik dada negara kita adalah Dunia "Kelas Pertama" tetapi rakyat asli kita berpusu-pusu men-inggalkan negara ini.
Apa sebab ketidak-puasan ini? Tentu banyak faktor yang perlu dikaji dan suatu huraian perlu disediakan.
Diantara kemungkinan yang perlu diteroka berdasarkan te-ori Maslow, seorang pakar saikologi, dalam teori jenjangan keperluan manusia---tahap keperluan bukan hanya ber-dasarkan keperluan "mengisi perut" tetapi juga menjenjang ke tahap yang lebih tinggi - jenjangan "santapan" rohani dan keindahan seni dan nilai-nilai sejagat.
Sebab itu, diantara pendirian dan misi yang diperjuangkan parti pembangkang, terutama Parti Pekerja (Workers’Party) adalah pembangunan memerlukan kedua - duanya "hard-ware" dan "software".
Minda Pemerintahan sepatutnya bukan hanya diterajui oleh kepintaran IQ (kecerdasan akal fikiran) tetapi juga oleh sentuhan EQ (budi-perasaan).
Gabungan ini menjadi akal-budi; pemerintah yang cerdas lagi budiman. Dan dilowongan itu, kita bergerak mengisi kekosongan sentuhan EQ dan selepas tiga dekad, Pembang-kang memberi tekanan kepada. Pemerintah PAP terhadap dasar-dasarnya, kita telah dapat meraih sedikit kejayaan - Permerintah PAP cuba menunjukkan sedikit keprihatinan dan simpati terhadap derita dan keluhan rakyat tetapi masih terikat dengan belenggu dan kekakuan dasar-dasar gubalan perintis-perintis PAP.
Ada benarnya kekata yang mengatakan kita perlu "think out of the box" (keluar dari kotak pemikiran) atau seperti kata pepatah Melayu keluar dari mentaliti "katak bawah tempurung" - maknanya kita perlu keluar dari belenggu tempurung kekakuan dasar-dasar PAP.
Demi Negara, PAP perlu dorongan sentuhan EQ yang tinggi. Apabila ini berlaku semua dapat meraih manfaat-nya, termasuk mereka yang berpihak kepada gembung per-mbangkang.
Negara dan kesemua rakyatnya akan bertambah makmur kerana rakyat yang lebih bersatu dan patriotik kepada Sin-gapura, lebih kepada Parti, adalah bersesuaian dengan fal-safah yang baru-baru ini dicetuskan PM Lee agar memban-gunkan "inclusive society" (masyarakat yang kesemuanya ditampung). Kalau ini tidak dilakukan ianya hanya merupa-kan "slogan kosong" semata-mata.
Kita perlu ingat gembung pembangkang bukan sedikit. Di-antara 1 juta rakyat pengundi, pembangkang biasa mem-bentuk sebanyak 340,000 - 400,000 penyokongnya dan telah menunjukkan potensi dalam beberapa perlawanan sengit dalam agregate 4.5:5.5 dan 49.1:50.9 dalam perla-wanan demokrasi pembangkang - PAP.
Bukan sesuatu yang mustahil apabila rakyat bertambah matang dan lebih berinformasi; kerana tekanan informasi sedunia menjurus ke arah ketelusan dan penyebaran mak-lumat, neraca demokrasi di Singapura akan menjadi lebih seimbang dalam aggregate 5:5.
Apa nak jadi kalau begitu? Alah. Kita kongsi kuasalah.
Kita perintah dengan adil dan seksama, penuh dengan sen-tuhan akal dan budi selaras dengan saranan Parti Pekerja (Workers' Party) bahawa perlu ada perkongsian kuasa ber-landaskan konsep perwakilan proporsional dalam Parlimen - yakni perwakilan Parlimen berdasarkan undi peratusan yang diperolehi setiap pihak yang bertanding.
Oleh Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob
10
Semenjak kebelakangan ini, kita mendapati bahawa kos kehidupan seharian rakyat semakin hari semakin meningkat dengan pesatnya. Kita melihat bagaimana harga-harga barangan asas seperti minyak, tepung, beras dan sebagainya melambung tinggi. Mengambil contoh, harga beras yang melambung diantara 15 den-gan 25 peratus! Keperitan kenaikan harga barangan-barangan asas ini dapat dirasai di semua peringkat masyarakat, daripada si miskin sehinggalah si kaya.
Menyedari akan hal ini, mengenai keperitan dan be-ban yang terpaksa diharungi dan ditanggungi oleh rakyat, pemerintah dengan segera telah mengambil beberapa langkah/inisiatif untuk meringankan be-ban rakyat. Contohnya, para penerima bantuan awam menerima rawatan kesihatan secara percuma, sewa rumah bersubsidi dan rebat bayaran perkhidmatan dan penyenggaraan.
Seorang penerima bantuan awam yang tinggal send-irian kini akan mendapati $330 sebulan berbanding $290 sebelumnya. Malahan, pada belanjawan yang lalu, rakyat Singapura secara kesuluruhannya telah menerima habuan sebanyak $1.8 bilion tahun ini, sebuah belanjawan yang disifatkan sebagai “ penuh belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hada-pan,” oleh Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong.
Memang tidak dapat kita nafikan, bahawa belanjawan kali ini memang ada unsur-unsur belas kasihan dan sebagainya, tetapi pemerintah, pada masa yang sama, harus diingatkan juga agar tidak mudah mendabik dada. Harus diingatkan juga kepada semua bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion pada tahun lalu, tetapi hanya $1.8 bilion yang diagihkan kepada rakyat. Masih banyak yang boleh diambil dan dilakukan oleh pemerintah untuk meringankan beban rakyat dan memperbaiki serta diperhalusi bantuan-bantuan yang diberikannya.
Disebabkan itu, saya berasa agak terkilan dan kecewa sedikit apabila Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong, menggesa rakyat agar lebih bersifat realistik dalam jangkaan masing-masing. Saya percaya dan saya ya-kini, rakyat Singapura memang sebenarnya bersifat pragmatik dan realistik dalam jangkaan mereka. Apa yang dimahukan oleh rakyat ialah agar pemerintah lebih memahami secara mendalam akan keperitan dan kesulitan yang terpaksa mereka alami dan tem-puhi disebalik bantuan-bantuan yang diberikan, yang sememangnya sudah pasti tidak mencukupi.
Kita mengambil contoh, seorang penerima bantuan awam yang kini mendapat $330 sebulan, berband-ing $290 sebelumnya. Kita akan lihat ada kenaikan sebanyak $40, tetapi, bagaimanakah jumlah $40 itu dapat menolong dan memperbaiki kehidupan si penerima, yang sudah tentu mahukan kehidupan yang lebih sempurna, dan bukan dengan penuh keperitan dan kedaifan?
Memang kita tidak dapat nafikan, si penerima juga akan mendapat bantuan-bantuan lain dari segi sub-sidi dan sebagainya, tetapi jika difikirkan dan dire-nungkan dengan teliti, ia tidak mencukupi. Lihatlah kos kehidupan yang tinggi di sini. Dengan kadar GST yang terus meningkat tinggi, kos pengangkutan awam, kos makanan dan sebagainya yang terus men-ingkat, bagaimanakah kenaikan sebanyak hanya $40 itu dapat membantu si penerima? Bandingkan ini den-gan kenaikan gaji beratus ribu dolar oleh para Menteri dan juga Presiden kita. Fikirkan dan renungkanlah.
Bagi saya, bantuan seperti inilah yang dapat dan harus diperbaiki dan diperhalusi lagi oleh pihak pemerintah. Saya ingin mengesyorkan agar bantuan yang diberi-kan kepada si penerima bantuan dinaikkan kepada $500. Saya rasa ini tidak akan membebankan pemer-intah mahupun rizab negara kerana perlu ditekankan sekali lagi di sini bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion tahun lalu, dan jumlah ini belum dicampurkan lagi dengan jum-lah simpanan yang sedia ada dalam rizab negara. Ha-rus diingatkan juga bahawa hanya $1.8 bilion yang dikembalikan kepada rakyat.
Dengan itu,saya ingin ulangi sekali lagi seruan Parti Pekerja agar pemerintah menurunkan kadar cukai GST kepada 5%. Dihapuskan juga sama sekali cukai bagi barangan-barangan asas seperti tepung, beras dan sebagainya. Selain daripada itu, untuk membantu rakyat mengharungi masa-masa sukar ini, kos-kos tambang pengangkutan awam dan sebagainya juga tidak harus dinaikkan sama sekali. Saya juga ingin menggesa agar diadakan semakan semula gaji-gaji yang diterima oleh Presiden dilantik dan para Menteri kita yang tidak munasabah itu. Jika mereka jujur dan ikhlas ingin berkhidmat, biarlah kerana rakyat dan negara, bukannya disebabkan oleh gaji yang tinggi. Wang yang berlebihan dapat disalurkan kembali ke-pada rakyat yang memerlukan.
Akhir sekali, saya percaya, jika saranan-saranan yang disebutkan diatas dilaksanakan dengan penuh keikhla-san, dan mereka yang memerlukan dapat dibantu dengan sewajarnya dan sebaik mungkin, barulah pemerintah ini boleh dikatakan sebagai pemerintah yang berjiwa rakyat, yang benar-benar belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hadapan.