The RP’s Response to Budget 2011

My Fellow Singaporeans,

Don’t you get the feeling that this is a government that lurches from day to day and has no long term plan?  That there is no one today who is the equal of Dr. Goh Keng Swee who was responsible for the master plan that put Singapore on the road to export-led growth in the 1960s.

This is a shameless electioneering budget laced with one-off payments to the electorate under the guise of not wanting to create entitlements. There is no pretence at putting in place long-term solutions to the problems faced by working Singaporeans.

But even amidst all the relentless hype about the one-time giveaways one salient fact stands out.  That is the smoke and mirrors over the Budget figures.  The Honourable Minister always manages to just balance the Budget or run a small deficit. However the balance is calculated by looking at operating revenue minus operating and development expenditure. Then there is a contribution from Temasek and GIC which may be much less than half their total profit. But interest and investment income on our enormous reserves is not added in.

If we do this then the basic government surplus is about $15 billion and not close to zero as claimed. This may not tell the whole story because it may not include the income from Temasek and GIC or the profits from land sales.

Surpluses of this size as a proportion of GDP have been the rule for over twenty years now. The Reform Party is not advocating giving back to the people the whole of the surplus for this year. However we say that we do need to have a rational debate as a nation as to what is the prudent level of reserves and what are our long-term needs.

The government’s attitude has always been that we are too childlike to make rational decisions and therefore the sweet jar must be hidden away on a high shelf out of our reach.

Much is made of the fact that the Budget is supposed to help Singaporeans cope with inflation. However inflation on its own is not the problem. The problem is that our wages have barely kept pace with inflation.  And the culprit here is relentless population growth driven by this government’s liberal foreign worker policy.

The claimed increase in real median household incomes does not fit the experience of most Singaporeans.  Part of it may be explained by the big increase in the number of PRs and new citizens who are included in the figure for resident households. They are likely to have better paying jobs and fewer dependents. And there has been a rise in the number of working members per household. More of you are going out to work or working longer hours.

The Minister says as though it is something to be proud of that labour force participation rates have reached OECD levels!

But these countries have unemployment rates that are much higher than Singapore’s! Is he saying that actually real unemployment among Singaporeans is much higher than the official statistics suggest?

And what is their answer to rising inflation? How does it help to give away a series of one-off payments, much of which go into CPF, when prices are permanently higher and inflation appears to be accelerating?  And the idea of setting up a price council to monitor “excessive” price rises and shame the companies involved into backing down is laughable.

Such attempts at moral suasion were tried extensively in the 1960s and 1970s in the US and UK but never worked for very long. Have the PAP forgotten all the economics that Dr. Goh taught them?

The underlying causes of inflation come from our limited land resources and relentlessly rising population. This drives up rents and property prices.  Also from the near-monopolies the GLCs have in many utilities like public transport, power and telecoms. The RP has called for more competition and a sell-off of GLC companies. Where this is impossible we want a more effective competition regulator.

The government says it will control the influx of foreign workers. However what has gone unnoticed is the fact that the government’s figures don’t add up. To achieve their economic growth targets they will probably have to let the number of foreign workers rise substantially even if they meet their own productivity targets. Will they come clean and let us know whether they are still targeting a total population of 6.5 million by 2020, by which time native Singaporeans will be a minority?

And what is the point of further housing subsidies for low income families. Economic principles and historical experience show that it merely pushes up HDB prices by more than the subsidy. Of course the government benefits as the freehold owner from the rise in property prices.  But it is just pumping more air into the balloon. Rather than subsidies the government should be building more small units and releasing more land for building. The RP would allow more private sector competition and provide more rental flats to low income families.

We would also allow HDB owners to buy out their freehold and possibly restrict the remaining flats from being let to PRs and non-citizens.

So what else would the RP do differently?

Instead of one-off payments to Workfare we would introduce a minimum wage set initially at low levels but indexed to inflation and rising gradually over time.

We would extend Workfare and integrate it with Child Benefit (instead of the one-off Child Development Credit) which would provide income support and help with child care to low income working families with children.

We will abolish all school fees up to secondary level bringing us in line with other advanced nations that promise universal free education.

We will introduce a basic old age pension for those without CPF or other assets while safeguarding against abuse.

We will make a start on introducing a comprehensive and universal medical insurance scheme to replace the current patchwork of Medifund, Medisave and Medishield which have big gaps in coverage and end the situation where individuals can become destitute if they suffer a devastating illness.

We will continue to cut corporate and personal income tax rates where the fiscal situation allows. However we will audit and rationalise the vast and overlapping number of corporate help schemes and tax breaks in the interest of simplifying the tax code and getting better value for the taxpayer.

We will apply a similar analytical scrutiny to some of the personal income tax breaks like the Working Mothers Child Relief which principally benefit the already well-off.

We will continue to add to our reserves if it is prudent to do so.

At the same time we will engage in an open and transparent debate about the appropriate level of those reserves and whether better returns can be achieved by investing in our people.

My Fellow Singaporeans, in the past you have often seemed to be afflicted by short-term memory loss when the government dangles a few carrots in front of you! Don’t let this happen again. Remember this is your money and not the government’s. Vote wisely.

Rally for Reform-An Invitation to Make It Right for Singapore

Dear Fellow Singaporean, 

It has taken a lot of your blood, sweat and tears over some nearly 50 years for Singaporeans to get to where we are today. But the next election is not about where we have been and what we have done, it is about the kind of Singapore we leave behind for our children. It is about the next 50 years.

The Reform Party’s vision of Singapore is that of an advanced democracy in which prosperity and freedom go hand in hand. Where hard work and wealth creation are rewarded. Where there is equality of opportunity and no one gets left behind. A Singapore where we determine our destiny.

The Party has put forward nineteen reforms that we want to make to put Singaporeans first (http://votingrp.wordpress.com/about/). These include stricter curbs on foreign labour, a minimum wage, reform of housing policy to deliver affordable housing to those who need it, universal comprehensive medical insurance, a basic old age pension, giving you control over your CPF savings and a stake for Singaporeans in our sovereign wealth funds. 

We will push to reduce waste and inefficiency in government starting by slashing ministerial salaries and replacing it with performance-linked earnings tied to indicators directly related to your welfare. We will seek to abolish restrictions on freedom of expression in order to foster creativity and innovation necessary for a 21st century knowledge-based economy.

But change is not something that just happens. It is the marriage of vision to action; a combination of courage and commitment. It is certainly not something that the Reform Party can do without you. So we are asking you to spread the word. 

On January 15 2011, the Reform Party will stage its first pre-election rally at Hong Lim Park. As you sit down to dinner tonight, tell a family member. As you gather to celebrate these early days of the New Year, tell your friends. Follow us on Twitter. Find us on Facebook. Invite your family and friends to the Rally and help us hit our target of 10,000 invitations! But above all, come and spend that January afternoon with us and take this first, most important step toward making it right for Singapore. Come and hear how we intend to implement our reforms. Let us explain to you why we can pay for our policies without raising taxes.

See you at the pre-election rally. 

Sincerely,

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary-General

Reform Party

Election of New Chair and CEC Members

The Reform Party announces Edmund has stepped down from the CEC and been replaced by Tan Tee Seng. We owe Edmund a vote of thanks for his courage in stepping into the role last year and for helping to steer the Reform Party to its present prominent position on the Singapore political scene. In fact Edmund was one of the original founding members of the Reform Party. The Reform Party may not have existed if it had not been for his willingness to stand up. He was MC at the inaugural dinner and played a prominent role at the first press conference.

After Kenneth Jeyaretnam was elected Secretary-General in April 2009, the CEC decided that key positions within the Party could no longer be left vacant. Edmund then selflessly agreed to step up to the position of Chair on an interim basis. He proved to be a charismatic figure on Outreach activities and was always willing to come forward and be interviewed. However he had from the beginning made clear his desire to step down to concentrate on his business activities, which frequently take him away from Singapore, once a suitable replacement was found. This has now happened and the CEC would like to take this opportunity to extend our warmest best wishes for his future endeavours.

At the same time the Reform Party would like to announce the appointment of two new CEC members. The first is Andy Zhu Laicheng who has been a member of the Party since 2008. Andy is a key leader of the Outreach team and one of our most active members, often giving up three evenings a week and his Sunday mornings to the cause of spreading the RP message. The other new member is Jeannette Chong Aruldoss who, together with Eve Lyn Phang, is one of the founder members of the RP Free Legal Clinic. The Free Legal Clinic takes place on the second and fourth Thursday evenings of every month at the Party office at 18A Smith Street. Jeannette has also been an active participant in walkabouts.

Released by Kenneth Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Reform Party, December 10th 2010

Why the PAP’s pre-Election Budget will still shortchange Singaporeans

In his speech to the PAP Conference on 27^th November, PM Lee said that Singaporeans could expect a good Budget because government revenues had been better than expected.

The Reform Party is not surprised by this.  The real question is why Singaporeans have not benefited for so many years from excessive government surpluses all these years.

The way the Budget is presented makes it difficult to discover what the true state of government finances are.  The Finance Minister first reports what is called the primary balance which is the difference between operating revenue (the amount raised in taxes and user fees) on the one hand and the sum of operating expenditures and development expenditures on the other.

The Minister then adjusts this balance for special transfers (the main item is GST credits) including top-ups to endowments and trust funds.  This results in what is called the basic balance before the net investment returns contribution is added in.

The net investment returns contribution is up to half of Temasek and GIC’s income in any year. Again we are not told the exact percentage and any capital gains (or losses) on their portfolios are not included. After adding this in Minister Tharman forecast a deficit of about 1.1% of GDP for 2010.

The question is whether this is in any sense a meaningful indicator of the government’s fiscal position. Since the primary balance does not include interest income, investment income and capital grants yet includes development expenditure, the Reform Party contends that it clearly is not.

The Yearbook of Statistics 2010 shows that the general government surplus (which is more comprehensive than the government surplus since it includes extra-budgetary amounts) was $18 billion in 2005 and 2006, $35 billion in 2007 and $22 billion in 2008. In 2009 the government deficit (the general government figure was not available) was $4 billion but according to the Monthly Digest of Statistics for November 2010 this has been reversed this year and up to October the surplus was about $16 billion for the first six months. If one could crudely extrapolate from that then one might expect the total surplus for the year to be around $32 billion. To arrive at a rough estimate as to what this means for the ordinary Singaporean, if I divide the surplus by the number of Singapore citizens (roughly 3.2 million as of June 2010) then that gives a figure of $10,000 which could theoretically be distributed to every Singaporean man, woman and child without reducing the Government’s net asset position.  And do not forget that is not just a one-off windfall. A  similar sum  could have been distributed in every year except 2009.

In fact the government’s statement of assets and liabilities as at 31^st March 2009 shows a net asset position of over $300 billion (if it is assumed that the entire Government Securities Fund is a liability to bond-holders).  And that would appear to be before two important elements:

1. The equity in our Sovereign Wealth Funds (Temasek and GIC)
2. The value of the land to which the government holds the freehold which comprises about 80% of Singapore’s area.

Singaporeans have learnt to expect that in an election year there will be some exceptional transfer payments and tax credits (which will be subsequently more than clawed back through increases  But what my analysis highlights is just how generous the Government can afford to be. Or to put it another way how much higher both consumption and investment could have been if the government had aimed to balance its budget rather than run surpluses close to  10% (and sometimes considerably more than 10%)  of GDP in most years . Furthermore this surplus does not take account of:

• The income earned by our investments in Temasek and GIC let alone any capital gain on these investments; and
• Any change in the value of the government’s holdings of land. Land prices have risen strongly in recent years yet that is not reflected in the government’s net asset position.

The Reform Party would like to know why there is such a lack of transparency in the budgetary process and it is so difficult to get information as to the government’s true fiscal position.

Furthermore we want to know why the PAP always talks about the danger of bankrupting Singapore and no money being available to fund investment in our people when in fact the government’s net asset position is so inefficiently large. The Reform Party is a liberal free market party and not a socialist party. We believe that these assets can be put to much more productive use if they are in the hand of the private sector. In addition we believe better returns can be earned by investing more in our people than can be earned in low-yielding foreign government securities. Therefore we want to see:

• Cuts in taxes and fees across the board especially on the lower-income segments
• Universal health insurance from a reform of the current Medisave, Medishield and Medifund system
• Universal free and inclusive education up to secondary level
• More investment in reforming the education system and making it relevant to the broad mass of our population in a 21^st century knowledge-based economy
• More generous income support for working low-income families with children
• Control of CPF returned to the individual and right to withdraw employee contributions at 55 restored
• Basic old age pension to be funded through CPF but to be paid to everyone who has worked for minimum number of years even if they do not have minimum sum in CPF account.
• Privatization of Temasek and GIC and distribution of shares to Singapore citizens

We will have no difficulty in answering the question we are frequently asked, “How do you intend to pay for this?”

So the Reform Party calls upon Singaporeans not to be deceived by the usual hand-outs that will come with next year’s Pre-Election Budget.  Not even if these amount to several thousand dollars, as is entirely possible. You are being short-changed.

PM Lee said at his speech that “Provided Singaporeans support the Government and its plans, we can do it. We will make this one of the best countries in the world to live, work, bring up families and retire in.”

Don’t be fooled. Despite so many years of record surpluses, the PAP has failed to raise the living standards of the median Singaporean significantly since 1997. We can do better for you. Support the Reform Party and take your country back!

The Reform Party Raises Questions and Calls for the Replacement of the ISA by Modern Anti-Terrorism Legislation

November 27, 2010

The Reform Party refers to the statement made by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament regarding the Mas Selamat case and wishes to make the following points:

• There continues to be a complete lack of accountability for the unacceptable security lapses demonstrated by Mas Selamat’s escape to Malaysia. The latest revelations are even more shocking as the government is unable to explain how he was able to spend the night at his brother’s flat undetected. One would have thought that would be the first place to watch if a dangerous suspect escapes from custody. Where did he go from the 27^th to the 29^th? How was he able to pass through Singapore immigration and customs undetected?
• Instead of the Minister taking responsibility for the security lapses we have the brother’s family all pleading guilty and being sentenced without a trial. It would have been better if the public could have heard more about how Mas Selamat was able to come to their flat and then leave without surveillance. This also raises questions about whether they were given adequate access to legal advice and ability to engage legal representation before they decided to plead guilty.
• While the Reform Party in no way condones the crime of providing assistance to a fugitive, we need to bear in mind that Mas Selamat has not yet been charged with any crime. This may have had some bearing on the family’s willingness to provide him with aid.
• According to Minister Shanmugam, “Mas Selamat is a hardened and dangerous terrorist, who has been involved in various plots by the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) to mount terrorist attacks in Singapore since the 1990s. He is operationally trained and has undergone training not once but twice in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.” However the lackadaisical response of the security services does not reassure about how they would fare if there was a determined attempt at a terrorist attack. If he is a hardened and dangerous terrorist why were greater efforts not made to recapture him?
  
• There appears to be no correlation between the sweeping powers given to the government under our Internal Security Act (ISA) and the effectiveness of our security services in preventing terrorism.
  
• The Reform Party takes the threat of terrorism very seriously. That is why we demand accountability for the lapses revealed here. However we also believe in due process and the rule of law. The right to hear the evidence against you and to a fair trial is a fundamental human right and a fundamental legal principle dating back to 1214 and Magna Carta. These rights should only be abrogated in the most extreme circumstances such as a state of war or national emergency.  
  
• While being committed to the abolition of ISA the Reform Party would introduce new laws to deal with the threat of terrorism. These could include similar provisions to those in the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. These provide for control orders to be issued which can restrict a person’s movements, contacts, and access to communications technology while being compatible with international conventions on human rights.
  
• In addition the Reform Party would examine the introduction of a range of new offences to deal specifically with terrorism. These would include, among others, the giving or receiving of terrorist training whether in Singapore or abroad, preparation of terrorist attacks, being at a place where terrorist training was being conducted, possession of material to be used in a terrorist attack, the possession and dissemination of instructional manuals  and incitement to commit acts of terrorism.  All these offences should carry lengthy prison sentences. Presumably, if Mas Selamat had received terrorist training abroad as he is alleged to have done, he could have been prosecuted for this offence had it existed rather than it being necessary to detain him indefinitely.
  
• Instead of the unlimited detention powers of the ISA the Reform Party would strike a balance between a suspect’s habeas corpus rights and the ruthless nature of modern terrorism aiming at mass and indiscriminate killing. We suggest that the police should be able to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days after which they would either have to be charged or released.
  
• The Reform Party does not believe the terrorist threat is connected to any particular religious or racial community and deplores any attempt, whether implied or otherwise, to single out any community for blame. The prevention of terrorism and the apprehension of suspects remains the responsibility of all Singaporeans.

Fresh Challenges and the New Political Playing Field

(The following is an excerpt of Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s speech at Political Dialogue @NUSS)

I do not believe that there are any fresh challenges this election as compared with 2006. The issues remain more or less the same although now they are exacerbated. The most fundamental challenge is still that we have a dysfunctional political system which increasingly thwarts the will of the people.

As a result a large part of the population is disenfranchised and may as well be living in China, Belarus or North Korea.

This time the ruling party is facing new and very real challenges to their hegemony.  This is coming both from the electorate and through changes to the political field which they cannot control.

Make no mistake the field is still grossly uneven. Since 1984 the PAP have been changing the electoral rules not to benefit the electorate but to try and ensure a widening disparity between votes cast for Opposition parties and the number of seats held by them in parliament .

In 2006 34% of the electorate in areas where there was a contest voted for the Opposition and were rewarded with just over 2% of the seats in Parliament.  A side-effect of this tinkering is that an increasing proportion of seats in Parliament have gone uncontested.  This proportion has risen from only 14% in 1988 to just below 50% in 2006.

But at the next election a third of the voters will be under 35 and 100,000 will be voting for the first time. For them the old mantras just won’t do anymore.  Better educated and more world wise they are not so easily fooled.

A student recently asked SM Goh if he could tell him what he was defending.  SM Goh seemed taken aback and ended by saying that if this was the sentiment on the ground it was very serious indeed. Well, that is the sentiments on the ground. I know because I am out there with Team RP on the ground meeting the people, listening to their concerns and responding as best we can.

Recently Burma has been in the headlines globally and much mention was made by the press of the fact that the people there hadn’t been able to cast a vote for two decades.

Two decades! I have met people on walkabout who haven’t voted for 40 years. As one woman told me, “I just want a chance to vote once before I die.”

In the beginning Singaporeans were fed the line by the ruling Party that it is necessary to surrender liberty to have security.  They were frightened by the prospect of the enemy at our gate. And along the way we have surrendered not just liberty but many other fundamental rights including the right to choose our own government!

Sadly for Singapore not much has changed. But surely we have achieved prosperity in return for losing our liberty? The sad truth is that we have not.

Our economic growth and high GDP so touted by our leaders is in many ways a sleight of hand fuelled by inputs of ever cheaper labour.

In fact for the median Singaporean real incomes have barely risen over the last twelve years and for the bottom 20%, they may have fallen as much as 20%.  That’s before modernizing the way our CPI index is calculated to take better account of the rise in housing costs and depreciation.

A more relevant measure of economic well-being is productivity and this is captured crudely by looking at GDP per hour worked.

Singapore looks good when we look at GDP per capita but when we correct for our higher employment-population ratio and much higher hours worked, our achievement is more modest.

In fact the latest figures for 2009 from the US BLS show that Singapore came near the bottom of the countries surveyed, only just above South Korea and the Czech Republic and about 60% of the US level.

Since 1995 Singapore’s GDP per hour worked has grown more slowly than the US and Singapore’s growth rate fell to less than 50% of the US figure over the period 2000-2009. Over the same period South Korea’s GDP per hour grew by 3.8%.

And there’s more. There has been a deafening silence from the government and the state-controlled media about the latest UN Human Development Index published on November 4^th. In that, Singapore plummets from 23 to 27. South Korea and Hong Kong both move well above Singapore.

Furthermore Singapore’s data is not adjusted for income inequality. Singapore has one of the highest rates of income inequality and if this was taken into account our ranking would be much lower. However Singapore failed to supply the data so this measure could be calculated.

So we have not achieved prosperity for the majority of Singaporeans – just empty growth. And prosperity isn’t achievable without freedom in any case. Any liberal economist will tell you the same thing. In my very first public speech I told Singaporeans not to fall for the Faustian pact that you needed to give up freedom in order to have prosperity. It simply doesn’t work that way.

And David Cameron backed me up recently.

The UK PM in China said “…I am convinced that the best guarantor of prosperity and stability is for economic and political progress to go in step together.”

Increasingly the voters of Singapore are daring to have aspirations again. They are not taken in by threats to withhold estate upgrading (with the residents’ own sinking funds!) or that Singapore’s economy will collapse if more Opposition MPs are elected to Parliament.

They can look around and see other Asian economies such as Taiwan and South Korea but also Indonesia and India, which have embraced democracy at the same time as their economic growth has accelerated.

They want a government that is centred on making them better off rather than one whose pay and bonuses are tied to growing the absolute size of the economy. They see little or no benefits flowing to them from the increased revenues while the negative externalities of such growth (in the form of crowded amenities and public transport) are plain to see.

Of course this GE there will be hot button issues. But these buttons like immigration and the foreign labour policy would not be hot enough to burn if the electorate felt that the government cared about its needs.

A student said to me recently, that this is a government that does not care very much about Singaporeans. This is a country run like a corporation.

Well, if Singapore is really run like a corporation, then it is a very bad type of corporation. Singapore Inc is run like the worst sort of short-termist corporate cost-cutter that has lost sight of who its shareholders are. Furthermore it has been engineered without accountability for poor performance whilst paying out enormous pay cheques to the board.

We the citizens have simply lost our rights as shareholders in this country.  The government has been able to allow massive inflows of foreign workers and depress our wages without regard for our economic interests. As a hedge fund manager I used to see an analogous phenomenon frequently in companies in countries where corporate governance was poor. Shareholders were unable to enforce their rights.

An arrogant or self-serving management, faced with shareholder demands that they run the company in a way designed to deliver value would just dilute the existing shareholders. It would do so by issuing massive amounts of new shares to factions aligned with the management.

A similar subterfuge is happening in Singapore. The Singapore growth model is now so dependent on a growing population that I do not see it stabilising any time soon.  We are told that 6.5 million people is the objective but I fear after that we will be told 8 million and then 10 million will be the next objectives.  After all how do you keep the housing bubble going unless you have continual inflows?

As SM Goh said this is likely to be a “watershed” election. It may be your last chance to act before dilution of existing Singaporeans becomes so pronounced that there is no possibility of ever re-asserting control over our management.

Whilst the ruling party has proven incapable of meeting the challenge of a disenfranchised electorate the political playing field has moved on.

Previously you were told that there were no fit players on the other teams. Well, RP disproved that when it announced its first slate of candidates. Before anyone else, we have put out our 19 policy pledges and our manifesto for the coming GE for the public to judge. Our pledges are concrete, intelligent and viable proposals for a better Singapore. RP has been innovative in promoting the mantra of policies not personalities.  We campaign as a team and as a party. Not a collection of individuals. Our party is our policy and vice versa.

This is the way it should be with the electorate. The credibility of the candidates is important but the policies are more important.  Policies should be given as much public airing as possible. They should be examined, tested and held up to rigorous scrutiny. For it is only by being challenged in public that we can be sure the policies are robust and that they represent the will of the people.

Just as RP believes that it is impossible to have prosperity without liberty, we believe in a political system that makes government accountable to the people. Its economic record should also be held up to scrutiny and judged by how much richer it has made the ordinary Singaporean.

Competition is as essential in politics as in business. Without a free marketplace in ideas there can be no real economic progress.

Competition makes us stronger despite the government’s tired line that Singapore is too small and fragile, too racially divided, to allow pluralistic democracy and freedom of expression.

The Reform Party wants to be just as radical about economic reform and genuine privatization as it is about political reform. Unfortunately the PAP seems as incapable of embracing competition in business as in politics. This is demonstrated by the dominance of GLCs in the domestic economy.

RP would reduce the overwhelming role of the state in the economy by privatizing the GLCs. We would strengthen our own SMEs. When the Reform Party talks about privatization we don’t mean the pseudo-privatization of existing state monopolies or cartels. How many Singaporeans are aware that all the mobile phone companies are ultimately controlled by Temasek?

Just as in ideas, we believe competition in business is essential to lower prices and improve quality and ultimately build stronger more productive Singaporean companies. And where competition is impossible because of the limited size of the market we would strengthen regulation.

We are not so much concerned with the absolute size of the economy.  Rather we would measure progress by the rise in living standards of the median Singaporean.

The RP is a liberal free market party but we also want to foster genuine equality of opportunity as well as provide a safety net for those genuinely in need of help.

We would rather invest in our people and cut taxes than generate huge external savings. Through Temasek and GIC the government has used these savings to accumulate enormous holdings of relatively low-yielding assets held in depreciating currencies that can be held political hostage as in Shin Corp debacle. We want to give Singaporeans a direct stake through the market listing of our Sovereign Wealth Funds.

While believing in a strong national defence we would reduce the burden of NS on the Singapore male, which is so inequitable as compared with foreign workers and students welcomed on taxpayer-funded scholarships.

For our 19 specific election pledges please go to our blog www.votingrp.wordpress.com. But this is only the beginning. We want to transform Singapore into a modern advanced democracy and unleash the creativity of Singaporeans. But primarily we want to give you your country back and reform the system so that you have a government that is accountable to you once more.

Come join us people of Singapore.

Government Curtails Question Time

In a sign of just how disingenuous the government is when it says it says it wants to answer the public’s desire for more non-government voices in Parliament, the Standing Order Committee of Parliament has proposed that the time given to MPs to make their speeches or ask questions is to be cut from 30 minutes to 20 (see link below):

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_601460.html

Parliament meets infrequently enough as it is. Not content with perfecting a system where more than half the electorate is deprived of the chance to vote and 34% of those able to vote largely unrepresented in Parliament, the PAP want to ensure that there is less scrutiny and accountability of their Ministers and policies by limiting Question Time. Despite introducing innovations to a deeply flawed and undemocratic system to allow for more NCMPs, who are unable to vote on any issue of substance, the government appears to want to severely curtail their one useful function, which is to be able to ask questions and compel Ministers to answer.

The Reform Party urges Singaporeans not to be taken in by the charade of the NCMP scheme and to remember that without electing sufficient numbers of RP MPs there is no chance of seeing any changes to the disastrous PAP policies of the last ten years.

We would like to take this opportunity to remind you of our five immediate pledges if we are elected to government:

1. Implement a stricter immigration and foreign worker policy
2. Introduce a minimum wage
3. Ensure housing affordability and quality
4. Reform CPF and return control of savings decisions to individuals
5. Give Singaporeans a direct stake in Temasek and GIC

The remaining 19 other policy pledges can be found at www.votingrp.wordpress.com, including proposals to improve town council management.

Vote RP! It’s time to take your country back!