What is the Workers’ Party’s stand on welfare?

Source: Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto

In the preamble to the section of “Society” in the Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto, it stated that “every citizen has a right to a decent standard of living, work and a life of choices and opportunities without discrimination. The government has the responsibility to look after its citizens and should not just play a “charity role” when tackling the needs of the people and building a community.” The Party went on to explain that “the government’s minimalist approach to social welfare, in particular its rigid emphasis on family as the first line of defence, has caused much stress to poor and sandwiched Singaporeans.”

The Workers’ Party beliefs on welfare, community and society are as such:

1. The Workers’ Party is for a caring society and believes that social justice must be intrinsic to the concept of government. It also recognizes that Singapore is a multicultural society and everyone should be treated equally.

2. The society, as a whole, must direct resources to support the underprivileged.

3. The government has the obligation to protect and provide for vulnerable groups of people, especially the poor.

 4. The government must provide needs-based social welfare to ensure that no one who needs help is left stranded. Social workers should be given discretion to assess each case on its merits. Although it may mean that more resource sand effort will be needed to examine some cases, no citizen in need should be deprived of assistance.

5. People with disabilities have the right to live a dignified and fulfulling life and be integrated with the rest of the community.

6. The problems of the aged, especially the chronically ill, do not only refer to those who are destitute but also those whose families are unable to care for them for genuine reasons. Affordable healthcare and support facilities for them are essential. Voluntary welfare organisations are playing important roles here and more support from the government is necessary.

7. Besides physical health, the mental health of the elderly is equally important. Many retirees are still able to contribute to society and should be encouraged and given the opportunities to do so.

8. Single parents must not be left out of available assistance schemes.

9. The development of a strong and vibrant community will strengthen our social fabric, foster social cohesion and in the process build a national identity. We need to encourage individuals within the community to serve the neighbourhood to foster the organic growth of a natural community leadership.

10. Multiculturalism should be actively promoted and should form a corner stone of our social policies.

11. All children have the right to grow up with dignity in a safe environment free from the risk of abuse. Deterrence alone is no guarantee to ensuring the safety of our children. The environment must inherently reduce the risk of abuse and thus, safeguard the well-being of children.

Filed under: Manifesto, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党

社会主义，民主主义和民选政府

这篇文章首次刊登在工人党党报，铁锤报 （刊号: 1001)

工人党代表什么？

一眼望去， 工人党是个亲新加坡， 可信又可靠的政党。 它也是一个具有53年历史的组织。可是，对我来说工人党在很多层次上代表了一个决心改造以利为本的资本社会， 建立一个公正， 正直， 公平的新加坡。这个观点好像有着浓浓的社会主义色彩。但是很多人难免忽略了重要的一点；社会主义的根本是民主主义。社会主义和民主主义并不是政治理念的两个极端。相反的，一个民主的社会也是一个以民为本的社会。

工人党的政治理念 – 主权在民

工人党坚信政治公职必须通过竞争来寻求人民的委托。 由于人民是一切权力的基础， 因此人民必须拥有实际的权力，能通过选举选出代表； 同时在选举过程中参与塑造和建设国家的决策。以这为根本， 国会选举应当废除集选区制度。 这是因为集选区制度削弱了个别选民的代表权。集选区制度对于政治竞争来说是个绊脚石。国会选举应以单个议席的选区制度举行， 鼓励与提倡全民最大程度的参与和讨论。主权在民。

工人党也坚信一切发展都必须朝向建立一个以人为本的公民社会。 资本社会的残酷经济竞争和政治上的交易却往往和以人为本的目标背道而驰。采纳自由市场经济体系的后果是收入的悬殊。工人党不但寻求建立一个互相关怀的社会， 还提倡每一个人都应该获得平等的对待。建立强大的社区是政府应尽的责任，而不是对国民的“恩惠”或“善举”。

新加坡必须建立一个需要为基础，不附带任何先决条件的社会福利安全网，　以确保没有一个新加坡人不会陷于无助的困境。虽然建立一个社会福利安全网需要增加人力和资源去维持，但国民不应该因为无法负担而被剖夺所需。在经济萧条的时刻，当国民失去了工作，工人党深信失业人士在某种程度上应获得协助。最终，建立一个强大和具有活力的社区能够强化我们的社会结构，促进社会的凝聚力，与此同时也建立对国家的归属感。社区组织必须超越党派政治而且鼓励居民为社区邻里服务，使有能力的人士自然成为社区领袖。这比任何培养下一代领袖而设立的基金更为有效。主权在民。

所以要建立一个以人为本的公民社会，政府在制定和落实政策时就必须遵循多元性， 多文化， 相互尊重， 捍卫他人尊严， 包容以及机会平等的基本原则。工人党会以理性的信念赢得国民的尊敬，希望能摆脱过去街头抗争式的印象外衣，走大格局路线。这显然是长远经营，把希望交托在每个国民的身上。主权在民。

工人党捍卫民主程序

工人党党宪法所拟定的其中一个指导原则在于建立一个议会民主制度。在一个议会民主的政治体系里， 所有公民都拥有投选议会代表以及政府的`权力。然而，人民行动党政府一贯操弄我们的政治结构以及行程程序， 已将民众向它问责的机会减至最低。 首先，官委议员制应该废除。因为在没有人民授权的情况下，不应赋予任何人立法的权力。第二， 为了使国会拥有更多广泛的民意基础， 新加坡应该探讨和考虑采纳比例代表制。 我个人也认为新加坡应该把合格选举年龄从现有的21 岁调低至18岁。如果说，一名18岁的少年被断定能持枪捍卫国土，他为何在现有的宪法下被剥夺了决定国家大事的权力呢？给予每个18岁青年那神圣的权力将会是新加坡往后政治，经济与社会发展的一支强心针。

执政党与反对党的巧妙关系

新加坡人必须了解这一个事实。 一个民选政府是在政治竞争的环境下产生的。良好的政治竞争迫切需要执政党与反对党在多个层次上互相切磋， 实实在在地讨论国家的前景与未来。选民也必须了解只有他们的选票才能建立一个强有力的反对党 – 监督政府， 制衡执政当局。在维护我国的民主程序上，每个公民扮演着举足轻重的角色。 也只有良好的民主程序才能构成井然有序的政治轮替， 确保新加坡能持续发展与进步。

政治并不单是定期举行选举， 它是一个持续不断的动态进程。 政治上的竞争为人民带来更好的服务； 它也让政府更能体恤民间的需要， 更好地对民意做出回应。所以，你必须明白一个简单的道理 – 你有权力改变你的未来！

总结

我要在这里强调一点。 我并没有加入一个为了反对而反对的政党。 我深信国家的利益必须超越任何一个党派的自身利益。所以，如果执政党的施政方案利国惠民， 我将会给予政府我的支持。 同样的，如果政策有损国家与人民的利益， 我必定毫不犹豫地提出建设性的提议， 加以反对。我并不是一个反政府的激进分子。 我只是想尽力为我的国家出一点绵力，履行我的公民责任。

Filed under: 工人党, 中文

Why Singapore need a First World Parliament?: Mr. Inderjit Singh and his magnanimity

Singapore needs a First World Parliament and the case of the Workers’ Party has been buttressed by none other than the People’s Action Party (PAP) itself, more specifically by Mr. Inderjit Singh, member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC. I am glad to know that Mr. Singh has unconsciously subscribed to the ideas put forth in the Workers’ Party 2011 Election Manifesto.

WP – A Vehicle To Move Towards a First World Parliament

Singapore has come a long way towards First World infrastructure and economic advancement. However, it cannot claim to be a truly First World country until its governance mechanisms of checks and balances match up. The Parliament of Singapore today consists of 82 elected Members from the ruling People’s Action Party (“PAP”) and 2 elected Members from the opposition. If this imbalance is not corrected, we run the risk that Parliament will be seen as a rubber stamp for government agenda.

A First World Parliament is able to balance a strong executive government if there is a credible and responsible opposition with a mandate from the electorate. This will generate a culture of accountability and enable citizens of different political stripes to contribute to nation building and policy formulation in a vital Organ of State. A First World Parliament leaves nothing to chance and prepares for eventualities, including the decline of political parties which are strong today.The higher the number of established players in Parliament, the greater the insurance for the future. [Workers' Party 2011 Manifesto, Page 6 and 7]

In a speech to the party faithful during the 2011 PAP Convention on 27 November 2011, Mr. Singh stated that,

‎”Our policy making, is mainly a top down approach, largely driven by civil-servants, who formulate these policies and then justify them with facts and figures to convince the minister to get the policies approved.”

I guess there is enough credence to say that the PAP leadership have been framing the efforts and policies of our civil servants as their own, so as to discredit the opposition for their own political gain at the expense of robust debate, consultation and discussion. The opposition is as good as the PAP without the civil service. Viewed in this light, the sum paid to our ministers is not only exorbitant and wasteful but more importantly, the Workers’ Party do have more policy substance than the PAP as seen in their 2006 and 2011 manifestoes. Interesting, interesting indeed. The only difference between the PAP and the Workers’ Party is incumbency and the civil service and the many honest and hardworking civil servants in our government.

Mr. Singh went on to state in his speech that, “today when the bills are brought to parliament, they are already fully ‘cooked’ with no intent for further changes. I think we are losing a great opportunity to inject more wisdom and political judgment into bills and policies by not taking into account inputs from the MPs during parliament debates.”

He further said that “So instead of always trying to complete the 2nd and 3rd reading of bills on the same day,  why not allow MPs to form committees to further scrutinize the bills by consulting activists through channels like the policy forum and to suggest changes.”

So the truth is out. Parliament for a very long time has been the rubberstamp for the agenda of the government, whose policies are shaped by our civil service and decided upon by our ministers. In view of the 2011 watershed election, it must be said that our ministers does have really poor political acumen and judgment, a trait that is essential if Singapore as a nation-state is to survive in a turbulent and globalised world. Alas.

The case for a First World Parliament is made even more appropriate and worthwhile in light of Mr. Inderjit Singh’s statement.

However, Mr. Singh has a different proposal, one that is different from that proposed by the Workers’ Party.

I suggest that as much as we can do it, we should bring only ‘half cooked’ bills to into parliament.

Mr. Singh’s purpose for suggesting such an absurd idea is to “allow greater debate on bills and allow inputs beyond what the civil servants already provide to be incorporated.”

That in itself is worrying. Now who’s the one playing politics.

The more important point is this. The entire argument for a checks and balance from within the PAP has fallen completely flat. The ideological relationship between the Party and the people has been render asunder and bankrupt. The problem with the PAP is fundamental one, premised on its inability to understand the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans, increasingly highlighted by its inability to resolve the physiological needs of Singaporeans and continually hampered by intellectual stagnation.

Singapore needs a new deal, not a new normal. [I have spoken about A New Deal for Singapore in my earlier posting]

Singapore needs a First World Parliament. The Workers’ Party is right on this point. For that I like to thank Mr. Inderjit Singh for his magnanimous comments at a Convention that was supposed to uplift the spirit of its party faithful. The irony cannot be more pronounced.

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党, PAP Convention 2011

理工学院生的大学梦

这篇文章首次刊登在工人党党报，铁锤报 （刊号: 0903) 

遥远的大学梦

学无止境这句话对于许多理工学院生来说包含了许多矛盾和困惑。

在校园内的一个关于理工学院生大学教育的座谈会上， 我以一名快要毕业的工院生的身份针对工院生无法在政府所津贴的三所大学继续深造的问题与困惑提出了我的看法。我质问了在场的教育部常任秘书为何许多优秀的工院生无法在和其他报读大学的学生竞争之下在国大、南大和新大取得一席之位?  我也质疑这三所大学是否为工院生设置了一套不透明的入学标准。

今天的工院生如果盼望要能进入本地三所政府所津贴的任何一所大学就读，就得在三年的工院课程里获得至少3.5的平均积分点 (Grade Point Average)。在工院课程中，学生需要修读众多的科目，每个讲师与每间学院也设定不同的考试标准，因此，在这种情况下要达到这个标准谈何容易。相比之下，所有的初级学院生都可利用在“A”水准会考中所取得的成绩申请进入大学继续深造。工院生在这种既复杂又要求极高的入学标准下，要迈入大学教育的高门槛真不容易。

我的用意不在于矮化“A”水准文凭考试的难度，也不是贬低初院生的成就，只是想好好地反映工院生在力争上游中的挣扎与苦恼。我曾经在初院就读了两年，可是因为在“A”水准会考中表现差强人意，因此大学屡次拒绝了我的申请。由于父母没经济能力供我出国完成大学教育，我因而在服完兵役后报读淡马锡理工学院，从新出发，实实在在地完成我渴望已久的梦想　－　进入新加坡国立大学就读历史与政治，开始了我另一个学习的里程碑。有了在理工学院和初级学院的这一段体验后，我更能设身处地地为工院生着想，并提出我对这个课题的看法和意见。

大学的素质与工院生进入大学的机会

在2008年时担任教育部高级政务部长的吕德耀少将在发布《扩充大学教育研究委员会初期报告书》的记者会上宣布，到了2015年，能进入大学的同龄学生人数将增至30%，其中初院生占21.5%、理工院生占8.5%。目前我国学生只有25% 能进入大学。这当中，初院生占19%，工院生占6%。这是不是意味着越来越多工院生会有资格能享受政府津贴的大学教育呢？

近年来，越来越多有资格进入初院的“O”水准毕业生选择进入理工学院就读。虽然在2015年之后，根据所发布的《扩充大学教育研究委员会初期报告书》，有8.5%的理工院生会进入大学，从人数上来说会有更多的工院生能享受政府津贴的大学教育，可是我在工院就读的经验告诉我，在更多优秀的“O”水准毕业生选择进入工院的当儿，理工学院的人数将会大大增加，初级学院的收生人数也因而会随之减少。因此，这也表示说会有更多的初院生可以在竞争没那么激烈和预定初院生能进入大学的人数比例从19.5% 增至21.5%的情况下，更有机会考入本地三所政府津贴的大学。反之，理工学院随着入学人数的增加，竞争也更激烈。所以虽然理工学院预定大学入学人数比例将从6% 增加至8.5%，但将会有更多的工院生因此而无法进入本地三所政府津贴的大学就读。这对进入工院面对激烈竞争而能进入大学的百分比相对低的工院生来说是不公平的。

此外，当越来越多初院生比较容易考入本地三所政府津贴的大学的同时，令人担忧的是能考入本地三所政府津贴大学的初院生素质因缺乏竞争性而可能逐渐变质，影响 我国大学的素质和水平。

吕德耀少将年在发布《扩充大学教育研究委员会初期报告书》的记者会上说：“教育部采取非常谨慎的态度来为更多学生提供大学教育。我们必须确保大学生在毕业后能找到工作，他们的人数和技能必须符合市场的需要。大学的素质，也不能因为增收学生而有所下降。”　我同意他的原则，我认为在越来越多工院生由于人数增加竞争力因而大大提高的情况下，增加大学工院生的收生人数才会提高大学的素质。

所以，我认为教育部应当探讨增加工院生进入大学人数的比例，这对许许多多的工院生来说不但是一种极大的肯定与鼓励，也可增强大学里的竞争力。

追求方帽子背后的辛酸 

越来越多“O”水准毕业生选择进入工院，显示理工学院的教育受到学生和家长的认同与重视。然而，如果由于大学收生的预定比例却造成越来越多工院生失去在本地三所政府津贴大学就读的机会，不少和我的经济情况相同的工院生，由于父母没经济能力供他们完成大学的教育，为了继续求学，他们大多向银行贷款来支付在本地私立大学的学费。毕业后，这些学生得面对偿还贷款的沉重负担。在全球化的大环境下，新加坡的经济经常被世界经济的波动蹂躏，导致许多年轻人失去宝贵的工作，无法偿还学费的贷款。

我呼吁教育部探讨如何减低私立大学的费用，也希望教育部能考虑津贴私立大学的部分学费。教育部也应当增加每个学生的 “中学后延续教育户头” (Post-Secondary Education Account, PSEA) 的数额以减轻家长的负担。更重要的是，教育部应该与本地的银行商讨减低学费贷款的利率。

Filed under: 工人党, 中文