[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Opposition leader Pritam Singh on Wednesday (September 2) discussed with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong about the use and size of Singapore’s reserves, as well as the reasons why Singaporeans vote for parties opposition.
During his speech, Mr. Lee spoke about Singapore’s response to COVID-19 and life beyond the pandemic, addressing the issue of social safety nets and keeping programs fiscally sustainable.
“As a matter of principle, our social safety nets must be paid for out of current income. We should not resort to what we have inherited, nor should we mortgage the future of our children, “he said.
Mr. Lee also criticized the opposition for having the “attitude of heirs who think they have made a fortune.”
READ: The government and the opposition must work for Singapore, not just for partisan interests, says Prime Minister Lee
READ: The government will always be on the side of Singaporeans, says Prime Minister Lee amid labor concerns.
“Now the opposition says: ‘Show me how much we have in reserves, before I decide whether to support your budget and fiscal plans’ … They are basically asking:’ I already have something in the bank. How much of that can I touch? ‘”, Said.
“This was not the attitude of our ancestors, the founders who were building for the future. But the attitude of the heirs who think they have made a fortune and want to consume the fruits of the labor of their predecessors ”.
In response, Singh said it was important for him to clarify the framing of the opposition’s suggestions when he asked about Singapore’s reservations.
“When we talk about reserves, we are not talking about raiding them. It’s about slowing down the growth slope of reserves, so that capital is not touched, “Singh said.
“And there is nothing unusual about this, because the PAP does too. How is that? In 2016, this House, including members of the Workers’ Party (WP), agreed to include Temasek in the NIRC formula. Doesn’t that reduce the growth of reserves? It does. “
“So the argument cannot be that when the opposition tries to present that proposal, we are somehow participating in a kind of ruse to steal what previous generations have worked and perspired to bring us here,” added the Workers’ Party ( WP). boss, in the debate that was broadcast “live”.
READ: Foreigners keep Singapore ‘economically relevant’, but pay attention to Singapore worker: Pritam Singh
He said the opposition has asked about the reserves because they are “looking for alternatives to better consider the well-being of Singaporeans.” Parliament gives them the “opportunity to do so.”
In response to Mr. Singh’s remarks on reservations, Mr. Lee said he was not discussing the “technicalities of percentages, reductions and NIRC.”
“We draw a certain stream of income out of the emergency fund to spend,” explained Mr. Lee.
“We thought about this carefully, we debated this in the House, we agreed on a rule, which we felt was a fair distribution between our present and future generations, which is that of expected earnings, half will be taken to spend, half will be returned and reinvested. and it will be for the future. “
He suggested that the “fundamental mindset” should be for Singapore to pay its way forward.
“And we don’t depend on another little bit of the reserves, another little bit of the reserves, another little bit of the reserves each time,” Lee said.
Singapore should think ahead and the next generation, to help ‘keep’ them. This is the mindset that has driven Singapore so far and “it will serve our children and grandchildren well,” he added.
Later in the debate, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said that, as someone who has been directly involved in the use of reserves twice, during the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, is grateful for the country’s founders’ approach to reserves.
He compared Singapore’s ability to extract S $ 52 billion from reserves to tackle the COVID-19 crisis to the way other countries have to borrow to finance their stimulus packages.
“Many of them have financed it through loans and someone has to pay for the loans. WHO? Future generations, ”Heng said.
Due to reservations, Mr. Heng and his team were able to “fully focus on what would best serve the interests of Singaporeans” and did not have to worry about terms that they would have otherwise had to negotiate with the lenders and how the loans would be repaid. .
THE OPPOSITION VOTERS ARE ‘FREE RIDERS’?
Singh also questioned what Lee said in his speech about Singaporeans voting for the opposition while waiting for the current People’s Action Party (PAP) to remain in power.
Lee said in his speech that the WP had campaigned on this platform, before citing an anecdote told to him by Chief Minister Teo Chee Hean, who said a resident was “upset” because her friends told her it was okay to vote for the opposition. because the “government would still be in charge.”
“If you say to vote against the Government because someone else will take care of getting the Government of the PAP and you simply become a free beneficiary and vote against, there is no harm, the PAP will still be there, then I think the system must fail” . Mr. Lee said in his speech.
“Because the system can only work if people vote sincerely, honestly, according to what they really want, and to produce the result, which matches their true intentions, and if they vote tactically, the consequences must be one day, they will get the result, for which they mark the x, but which they did not intend. “
He said it was wrong to “teach people.”
READ: It takes an open mind to improve social safety nets, says PM Lee, warning there are bigger challenges ahead
READ: Singapore has done well so far in the fight against COVID-19, but must learn from mistakes: PM Lee
Singh said that the people who voted for the opposition are not “taken advantage of.”
“I don’t think the residents of Aljunied, Hougang for 30 years, and even Sengkang, as a result of the results of the last elections, would appreciate being called free riders,” he said.
“We are not simply doing anything, after we have been voted on. We are not simply allowing the other, the government in power, to do something,” Singh added.
“We have to do what we have to do, we have to run the city council, that’s why Mr Lee Kuan Yew conceived the city councils in the first place. Because if you want to advance the system as an opposition member of parliament, you have to prove yourself in the town hall “.
Those who voted for the opposition did so because they “know that an opposition in Parliament is ultimately good” for Singapore.
In response, Lee said he did not underestimate Singh’s “motivations, his passion, his desire to do the right thing for Singapore.”
“I think it is good for Singapore that there are honest people in the opposition, people who believe in what they are trying to do. People who will stand up and fight for their ideals and, from time to time, will totally disagree with the Government. I think it is totally reasonable, “said the Prime Minister.
He said that it is also good to have an opposition that takes the responsibilities of the municipalities seriously and that takes care of their electoral districts “with assiduity and conscience.”
“But if you say, vote for me, someone else will vote for the PAP and therefore the PAP will be the Government, which the economists will call a free beneficiary. It means that he is taking advantage of someone else who is fulfilling his duty to elect a government for the nation, ”Lee said.
If everyone adopts that attitude, voters will end up with a government they don’t want, he added.
NCMP Leong Mun Wai said that some citizens knew they could vote for the opposition because the PAP controls the vast majority of seats in Parliament.
“In the process of the last year, when I interacted with (the voters) … I felt that the voters of Singapore are really, really very smart. They know how to control the process, ”said Leong of the Singapore Progress Party.
“There is no doubt that at this moment everyone wants the current government to continue, but that does not mean that if the government’s performance does not improve in the future, the electorate is going to sit down, okay, but that will be very, very long on the road, “he added.
In response, Mr. Lee said that Mr. Leong’s argument did not add anything new to the debate and rather “reinforced the problem” he just described.
