Straits Times: Heated words over 'hoodwink'

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE: Mr Khaw took offence at Mr Low's words, saying 'I'm not one to hoodwink people.'

There was a short but heated exchange in Parliament yesterday, between opposition MP Low Thia Khiang and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.

Mr Khaw: 'In their earlier manifestos, the Workers' Party (WP) wanted to abolish Medisave. 'Phase out the Medisave scheme as soon as possible', they said. Luckily, they did not succeed.

'...The WP has since achieved some enlightenment. The latest manifesto no longer wants to phase out Medisave. But they have replaced the medicine with another. They propose that Medisave be used for a 'comprehensive public health insurance scheme'.'

'When I read the manifesto, I was reminded of... a very interesting cartoon (in Lianhe Zaobao).

'(Taiwan) President Chen Shui-bian wanted to suspend the reunification council, so there was a cartoon that showed Chen leading the way and there's a big manhole and (he's) about to walk into the manhole.

'If we go the Workers' Party's way, I see this cartoon, maybe Mr Low Thia Khiang waving Singaporeans into this hole.

'And you will find this hole is crowded. There are many people there trying to get out. So I think let us beware.'

Mr Low: 'I would like to ask him (Mr Khaw) whether he purposely distorted the Workers' Party manifesto for political purpose to hoodwink the voters.

'What he has said was not what we published in the 1994 manifesto. We highlighted the inadequacy of Medisave. We did not say we want to abolish it.

'We believe more in risk pooling of insurance schemes rather than direct payment through Medisave, because you never know how much you need to save... That was the basis on which the Workers' Party felt that insurance would be a better solution.

'Why was there a need for him to look at MediShield insurance scheme, to revamp it? That is exactly the concept which the Workers' Party manifesto has enshrined in 1994.

'...I would say that without the revamp of the insurance scheme, probably the Ministry of Health has a bigger hole for the people to drop inside.'

Mr Khaw: 'You claimed that I lie, although you didn't use that word, it was in your old manifesto when you talked about abolition of Medisave...

'...So I must object to this use of word that I tried to hoodwink Singaporeans. Singaporeans have seen me by now, I've been in public service for many years.

'I didn't enter politics to score political points. I entered politics because I thought that's one way to do some good for Singaporeans... I'm not one to hoodwink people.'

Straits Times: WP chief draws fire for calling it a vote-getter and U-turn

By Peh Shing Huei


INCONSISTENT?: Contradictory signals on deficits, says Mr Low.

WORKERS' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang attacked the Government yesterday for its vote-getting Budget, and it swiftly drew return fire from two MPs of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

The opposition MP, speaking in Mandarin, pointed out that after years of declaring that budget deficits are 'monsters and disasters' and accumulating surpluses relentlessly, the Government has now done an about-turn.

He saw the giveaways as an election ploy, noting that in giving $2.6 billion, it is incurring its largest deficit in recent years: $2.86 billion.

This, he said, does not gel with what Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said when there was a $1.2 billion deficit in 2003. Then, Mr Lee had said deficits could be tolerated in times of hardship. But when times are good, the Government should accumulate surpluses.

Since the economic projection for the year ahead is good, Mr Low argued, it was odd to present a budget with a deficit.

Raising his eyebrows at the cash giveaways, the Hougang MP contrasted it with the New Singapore Shares (NSS) dished out in 2001, days before the General Election on Nov 3. He said he could understand the NSS gift as it came after years of surpluses that added up to $15 billion. 'Distributing the shares cost the Government just $2.4 billion,' he said, before adding sarcastically, 'which is just peanuts'.

He then accused the Government of repeatedly giving out money before elections, only to take it back after the polls, echoing a charge he made in 2001 when he called the off-Budget measures to fight the recession an election ploy. For example, he said, after distributing the NSS, the goods and services tax was raised from 3 to 5 per cent. The GST went up on Jan 1, 2004, about a couple of years after the NSS was distributed.

Mr Low also suggested that the Government was inconsistent, saying that while it did not seem perturbed by the deficit, it would issue stern warnings whenever the opposition asked for more help for the people on education and health, arguing that such moves could bankrupt the nation.

Nonetheless, the lower-income group deserved the money they will receive on May 1, he said.

However, he added that the PAP Government's 'strategy of giving a bonus every five years is only a temporary way of alleviating Singaporeans' burdens'.

'I need to remind the Government that what the people are really concerned about is the perennial rising cost of living.'

In rebutting his claims, the two PAP members said they were puzzled by his lack of desire for workers to be better off. Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio GRC), in his attack, reminded Mr Low of what he once said: that the Government has money but the people do not. 'Yet now that the people have money, Mr Low is still unhappy,' he added. 'Despite representing the Workers' Party, he does not represent the workers, he does not think of the workers,' Mr Seng said in Mandarin.

Associate Professor Koo Tsai Kee, Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Environment and Water Resources), said Mr Low's speech puzzled him.

Mr Koo, also an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, said the WP representative had 'a very short horizon'.

The Government's Budget and performance, he said, should not be appraised on an annual basis, but rather over the term of its rule. Likening it to a company, he added: 'When you give a contract to the CEO, it's never a quarter to quarter, nor even year by year. Very rarely year by year. Maybe three years or five years.'

Straits Times: Members of WP, SPP team up for Breakthrough

Seven-member grouping set up to pool the resources of the two opposition parties for GE

BY T. RAJAN

SOME members of two opposition political parties have joined forces to set up a civil society project that aims to pool their parties' information and resources for the coming General Election (GE).

The team-up is between members of the Singapore People's Party and the Workers' Party, the two opposition parties with elected Members of Parliament: Mr Chiam See Tong (SPP) and Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP).

The seven-member grouping, called Project Breakthrough, hopes to be a bridge for the parties to tap on each other for help on say, Nomination Day.

"Even if we cannot use WP members as candidates in say, a GRC, they can help us as proposers and seconders if they stay in the ward that we are contesting," said SPP assistant secretary-general Desmond Lim, one of the project's coordinators.

Its members told The Straits Times yesterday that they hope to register the grouping as a political non-governmental organisation soon.

Their ultimate goal is for their two parties to form an alliance.

"It is a long-term project but I hope this project will lead to a unification of the opposition," said Mr Lim, who was on the five-man Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) team that unsuccessfully contested Jalan Besar GRC in the 2001 GE.

The SDA has four parties: SPP, National Solidarity Party, Singapore Justice Party and Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS).

The grouping has been sharing election strategies and holding talks on possible hot political issues, said Mr Lim, 38.

"The grouping will be a good framework for regular interaction," said WP member Brandon Siow, 30, an account manager at Singapore Airlines Cargo and a former president of the National University of Singapore Students Union.

The other WP members in the grouping are businessman James Teo, 47; senior bank manager Eric Tan, 50; and business analyst Yaw Shin Leong, 29, who is the project's other coordinator.

SPP central executive committee member Elvin Ong, 27, and youth wing secretary Wilfred Leung, 30, have also joined the grouping.

Neither WP's chairman Sylvia Lim nor Mr Low could be reached for comment yesterday.

SPP chief Chiam See Tong, 71, said: "It's a good sign as long as they are sincere in their desire to improve opposition unity, which in this case, they are."

trajan@sph.com.sg

Straits Times: The lightning versus the hammer

INSIGHT SATURDAY

WAR OF WORDS

Over one week at the end of last month, the People's Action Party launched a war of words against the Workers' Party. The WP manifesto was attacked for having 'time bombs' and 'poisons' and 'dangerous' ideas. Why did the PAP react that way? And does the debate herald a fiery election campaign? Chua Mui Hoong reports


GRAPHICS: BONG FORTIN

MISS K. Khalid, 29, followed the recent debate between the Workers' Party (WP) and the People's Action Party (PAP) with avid interest.

Miss Khalid, who works in the education industry, read the reports of PAP ministers like Dr Ng Eng Hen, Mr Khaw Boon Wan and later Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong slamming the opposition WP for the latter's manifesto.

She read Dr Ng's description of the manifesto as containing four "time bombs" which would cause Singapore to detonate if introduced, and Mr Khaw's characterisation of these as "poisons".

The four WP proposals that drew PAP fire were: to scrap ethnic integration policies, grassroots organisations and the elected presidency; and to give more subsidies even if it causes Budget deficits.

She followed the rejoinders from WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and chairman Sylvia Lim.

She came to her conclusions quietly, but firmly.

Some of the rhetoric used by the PAP has turned her off. "It would be better to just stick to arguments and say why the WP points are dangerous, for instance, and give your supporting reasons and let the voters decide which argument is more sound."

But on the substance of the policies, she buys the PAP's argument that, indeed, the four proposals are dangerous.

It is a debate she takes seriously as the issues are important, she says.

Politicking or serious debate?

SHE is not alone in following the debate closely. The PAP's surprise assault on the WP, for its manifesto released on Jan 14, attracted attention among voters islandwide.

After all, its response is in marked contrast to the silence which greeted the release of the previous WP manifesto in 1994. Then, not one PAP MP responded to it. At that time, it was the Singapore Democratic Party, with three MPs in Parliament, which was seen as the opposition party to watch.

It was only two years later, as the January 1997 General Election neared, that some PAP MPs rebutted some of the ideas there.

What accounts for the fast firepower trained on the WP manifesto this time round?

Some of those interviewed view the debate less as a substantive one on the issues raised, and more as a PAP manoeuvre to seize back the initiative from the WP.

Dr Ho Khai Leong, a fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, notes: "It is difficult to call this a 'debate'. The motivation for both sides is to win a political battle rather than to educate the public about policy issues, however controversial they may be."

Political observer Viswa Sadasivan, who chairs the political development feedback group, says: "I believe the PAP was taken by surprise when the WP came up with a manifesto and gained first mover advantage."

So the PAP had to respond quickly to set the agenda and frame the debate, he reckons.

Several academics note that it is entirely normal for political parties to engage in highly charged debate on issues as elections near.

Associate Professor Marco Verweij, a political science lecturer at the Singapore Management University, says: "A lively, lengthy, open and respectful debate between adherents to different points of view is usually a healthy, indeed important, democratic process - provided, of course, that good arguments and justifications are offered and exchanged by the parties and people involved."

As for the PAP itself, it says it simply wants to rebut ideas it considers "dangerous" to Singapore and so picked apart those four proposals among a myriad of others in the WP manifesto.

The PAP position is that removing ethnic integration policies would undermine multiracialism, scrapping grassroots organisations harms social cohesion, scrapping the elected presidency reduces checks on the government, and over-generous subsidies would bankrupt Singapore.

Why pick those four issues?

One line of thought is that these were highlighted because they are fundamental to Singapore society. As teacher Ng Kah Gay, 26, notes of the PAP ministers' responses: "They are defending hallowed ground, so the angle is necessarily conservative."

Academic Chua Beng Huat adds another dimension, suggesting that these are four central issues on which there is already some scepticism in some sectors of the population, "and the PAP would like to prevent the scepticism from spreading, if not wipe it out".

He also argues that the PAP's decision to zoom in on those four issues is the ruling party's explicit way of differentiating itself from the WP.

"These are the four issues where the differences between the PAP and the WP are stark and can focus the minds of electorate. For example, you are either for the elected presidency as it is or you are not, or you either believe that a race quota is still necessary or unnecessary... There is good debating potential here."

Dr Chua may be spot on in arguing that the debate is part of the PAP's strategy of differentiation.

It is a response to the WP, which is widely viewed as the opposition party most well-organised for the General Election expected to be held this year.

The WP has touted itself as a credible (that is, moderate) alternative to the PAP. In the Singapore context, where voters are still haunted by fears of a "freak" election result voting in an inexperienced opposition into government, any opposition party that positions itself as moderate and reasonable, rather than radically different from the PAP, is more likely to win support.

As PM Lee noted, many of the WP ideas appeared to have been "copied" from the PAP, a charge the WP itself denies.

As opposition parties' ideas move closer to become like the PAP, the ruling PAP has to devise a strategy of differentiation, to draw a sharper line between what it stands for, and what opposition parties stand for.

The coded message to voters is essentially this: "Opposition parties like the WP may appear benign alternatives to the PAP - but look at the implications of some of their ideas and you will see the danger they pose for Singapore."

So the PAP is quick to highlight areas of disagreement.

Such a response suggests a shift in PAP tactics: from a tendency to ridicule or dismiss the opposition's agenda, to a strategy of subjecting opposition ideas to close scrutiny.

It is not for nothing that PM Lee once quipped that if former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's favoured weapon against political opponents was a bulldozer, then his was a microscope.

As he said in Mandarin at a constituency event last month: "This is not a light matter, you can't just anyhow open your mouth and say it, this is a manifesto. He says he wants WP to be an alternative choice. So we must look carefully and analyse what he is saying, what suggestions he gives."

Open debate on issues welcome

EVEN if there is a partisan dimension to the debate, most of the academics interviewed view the ongoing debate as a healthy one, allowing voters to assess arguments and make up their minds.

Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh welcomes the early start which gives parties and people time for "an in-depth and informed discussion", rather than a late, "sensationalist treatment" of issues.

She hopes to see other interested citizens take the issues seriously: "If the researchers and intellectuals can weigh in with good data to inform the discussion, all the better."

But some voters are uncomfortable with the tone of the PAP responses.

Says Mr Tow Yun Hsien, 26, who works in a multinational company: "The constant use of the 'time bomb' phrase seemed to be a bit more sensational than necessary."

Like several others, he thinks the tone of the debate, which had PAP ministers repeatedly urging the WP to "reconsider" its manifesto, was not one between equals, but resembled that of a "parent" chiding an errant child.

It is a view the opposition grouping, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), shares. In a statement signed by Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong last month, the SDA described the PAP's response as "arrogant" and said it was for voters to decide whose arguments they supported.

Singapore Management University political science lecturer Riccardo Pelizzo has a different view: "As far as intensity is concerned, I have the impression that the tones used by the PAP and the WP are much more civilised than the tones that are used elsewhere."

Style of debate aside, some voters are also quick to note that the WP may have been vocal in suggesting what should be scrapped, but has been silent when asked to lay out alternatives.

Notes Mr Tow: "It is all too easy for the naysayer to call for removal of the existing framework, without offering any realistic alternative."

Splitting the WP ranks?

JUST what was the PAP trying to achieve with its sudden burst of rhetoric against the WP manifesto?

The responses from three PAP heavyweights took place over one weekend, suggesting they were coordinated by the party leadership. But after a few days, the outburst stopped - perhaps because the PAP realised there was an "overkill" effect, suggest some.

Dr Gillian Koh notes that the last time the PAP government reacted so early to an opposition party's platform was in 1996, when it tore apart the health-care agenda of Dr Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic Party at a series of hearings before a select committee. By the time the elections rolled around in January 1997, Dr Chee and his health-care ideas had been discredited.

Some observers speculate that the PAP's suggestion to the WP to revise its manifesto, and Dr Ng's suggestion to Miss Sylvia Lim that she was merely "fronting" the party, stems from an attempt to split the WP ranks - unsuccessfully if so, for the WP has responded for now by resolutely closing ranks.

What does the one-week sharp debate portend, if anything, for the coming campaign? Or was it just a one-week blip?

Dr Ho hopes the campaign will focus on policy, not personalities.

Mr Sadasivan for one thinks the fast, furious response to the WP manifesto heralds a fiery campaign.

He notes that it will be PM Lee's first election as Prime Minister and party secretary-general, and possibly Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's last as "emeritus tactician".

"The stakes are high for the PAP...The PAP, if it still retains its spots, will not stop at just killing the enemy by shredding it. I think the hustings for the next GE is likely to be fierce and exciting."

But in the end, whatever pundits may say, it is the effect of the debate on voters that will count most. This group will make up their own minds, quietly, on the basis of issues raised.

Like Miss Khalid. She says: "As I am a resident of Aljunied GRC where the WP is expected to contest, this debate is very relevant to me, as it will have an impact on my choice on Polling Day."

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY KEN KWEK

---

Weighing in on the debate

WHY THE FAST, FURIOUS RESPONSE?

"The Workers' Party initiative has effectively stolen the drum roll from the People's Action Party.

So, in inimitable style, the PAP goes on the warpath to vanquish the enemy armed with its favourite and erstwhile highly effective weapon, the sledgehammer.

The strategic aim, at least the way I see it, is to deliver lethal blows that would not only shred the WP manifesto and render the WP advantage null and void, but also seriously discredit the WP as a party - questioning its commitment to the nation's and the people's interest."
POLITICAL OBSERVER VISWA SADASIVAN

TALKING DOWN

"The overall tone of the debate thus far can be likened to a 'talking-to' from a concerned parent to an errant child, rather than an equivocal intellectual debate...and the reaction from the WP, somewhat like that of a stubborn child who refuses to admit any error."
MR TOW YUN HSIEN, 26, who works in a multinational company

STRONG LANGUAGE

"The language of vulnerability has dominated the way most Singaporeans think of themselves as a nation, and particularly so at a time when the world is talking about terrorism.

The PAP's use of the term 'time bombs' to describe these ideas in the Workers' Party manifesto is strategic. Political rhetoric during election time is usually shot through with hyperbole and superlatives."
MR KENNETH PAUL TAN, political science lecturer

INFORMED DEBATE WELCOME

"An informed discussion, where it is clear that parties and people are able to take into account not only their personal and corporate interests and ideological differences but also the broader group or national interests, will serve to indicate that we have a maturing and working democracy we can be proud of."
DR GILLIAN KOH, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies

---

A flurry of attacks and parries

Jan 14: The Workers' Party announces its manifesto at a media conference.

Jan 21: Dr Ng Eng Hen warns of four "time bombs" in the WP manifesto that would wreck Singapore if implemented. These are the:

>> Proposal to scrap ethnic integration policies such as the group representation constituencies system which requires at least one candidate to be from a minority community, and the ethnic quota for public housing estates.
>> Proposal to scrap grassroots organisations.
>> Proposal to scrap the elected presidency.
>> Proposal for more subsidies, even when there are no Budget surpluses.

On the same day, Mr Khaw Boon Wan criticises the WP for failing to understand how multiracialism works in Singapore.

Jan 22: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong weighs in, saying the WP ideas are dangerous for Singapore, and calling on the party to contest the elections on these issues. He adds his voice to calls to the WP to reconsider its manifesto.

WP leaders Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim issue statements saying they stick by the party's manifesto.

Jan 23: Dr Ng asks Miss Lim if she has thought through the party position, or is merely "regurgitating ill-conceived positions and fronting for the party". He describes the WP response as "disappointing" and asks for a more substantial reply on issues raised.

In an interview with The Straits Times, Mr Low issues a rebuttal of Dr Ng's arguments and reiterates that the WP stands by its manifesto.

Jan 24: Mr Khaw likens the WP proposals to "poisons".

Jan 26: The Singapore Democratic Alliance, an opposition grouping, issues a statement supporting the WP and chiding the PAP for "arrogant" behaviour, saying it is for voters to decide whose arguments they support.

Jan 27: In an interview published in The Straits Times, Miss Lim says the manifesto is a joint effort by party leaders and she stands by it.

TODAY: WP chairman Lim is playing by the book

TEO HWEE NAK
DEPUTY NEWS EDITOR
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg


WEE TECK HIAN
PREPARING FOR THE ELECTION: WP's Sylvia Lim

THE irony of her party's manifesto becoming such a compelling subject of debate does not escape Ms Sylvia Lim.

Soon after Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen labelled suggestions in the Workers' Party manifesto as "time bombs", the phone started ringing and she started to receive emails by the dozen.

The manifesto had been launched more than a week earlier, but media coverage of it ended in a day. The criticism by Dr Ng, who is also the People's Action Party's (PAP) organising secretary for special duties, changed everything.

"There is now intense interest in this booklet," said Workers' Party chairman Lim in an hour-long interview at her Bukit Batok apartment. "I think it's very healthy that people want to read it and decide for themselves whether the picture the PAP is trying to paint is true or not," she said.

Despite having her grip on ground realities questioned by the minister, and despite her party's stand having been dubbed "poison", the 40-year-old Temasek Polytechnic lecturer is neither defensive nor angry.

Instead, talking to Today, she leaned forward and said in her low voice: "I feel it's rather strange that the ruling party is trying to tell us how to write our manifesto. If you don't agree with us on the issues, then you come out with your own manifesto! Being the Opposition, we don't expect them to agree with us, and neither should they presume that we should share their views.

"I guess they are trying to vilify us and set the election agenda. Let that be. We will just take it as background and we will still set our own election agenda."

She said her party has been working on the 52-page manifesto since 2002, when it started public consultation and formed a six-member manifesto committee, led by WP secretary-general and MP for Hougang Low Thia Khiang.

After a first draft was produced last year, the party embarked on a second round of consultation. Then, over October and November, every sentence was scrutinised in meetings that Ms Lim revealed sometimes ended at 1am.

This is how serious the party is about its manifesto, she stressed. "The PAP does not have a monopoly on ideas and they should not think that knowing the ground is the territory only of the ruling party," she said.

"We have our own views on how things should be run or done. While certain things may coincide with the ruling party's point of view, some may not. We let people decide what makes sense."

She said the manifesto would be put up online over the next few days. As she prepares for the electoral battle that will follow, the woman, accused of being a political newbie, felt she has garnered a lot of experience in the past four years, meeting people - to whom she hands out namecards with her picture and mobile number printed on them - on weeknights and Sunday mornings.

And no, she doesn't think Singaporeans are apathetic. Ms Lim chuckled as she recalled a woman in her 60s she met during one of her walkabouts.

This ah sim (old lady) had political advice to dish out to WP.

"Don't make wild allegations during the elections. Don't talk about loans to Indonesia - you have no proof! Just look at the plight of the people and whether the Government is doing its job," the old woman told them.

Having seen how politics can turn personal, are there any skeletons in her closet that Ms Lim wants to declare now?

The former lawyer laughed.

"I don't know what people consider skeletons. I've been in civil service for most of my life - I was in the police force, and now I'm teaching in a polytechnic - so if they find that I'm unfit, what does it say?

"I'm not too concerned," she said.

Finally, to rumours that she will be contesting in Aljunied GRC in the elections, she would only say: "I've been seen there, I've been doing some work there. Possibly ... but things may change."

Straits Times: WP leader tackles 'time bomb' criticisms

INSIGHT FRIDAY
PEOPLE & POLITICS

In the war of words this week between the People's Action Party and the Workers' Party, Ms Sylvia Lim has been accused of just "fronting" the WP. She tells Aaron Low and Lydia Lim where she stands


PHOTOS: ALBERT SIM
NOT "FRONTING" FOR ANYBODY: Ms Lim points out that she and Mr Low are on the same wavelength politically, even though their backgrounds may differ.

WHEN the General Election is called, one of the first things Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim will do is quit her law lecturer job at Temasek Polytechnic.

The reason? Government employees cannot hold political office.

"I knew that and I was prepared," says the 40-year-old chairman of the Workers' Party.

If she does get elected, the single woman intends to be a full-time MP.

But yes, that is racing ahead of the game. Right now she is focused on making sure she can stand her ground - fending off charges the People's Action Party has levelled at her and winning over constituents she meets during her weekly house-to-house visits.

Ms Lim is caught in a maelstrom that began unexpectedly last Saturday. Dr Ng Eng Hen, PAP organising secretary (special duties), lambasted the WP for its manifesto that had four proposals - to scrap grassroots organisations, ethnic integration policies and the elected presidency, and to raise subsidies - he deemed as "dangerous and wrong".

He urged the WP to reconsider these "time bombs" that could tear apart Singapore's multiracial society.

The WP refused to yield. Ms Lim signed a two-page statement a day later saying essentially, thanks, but no thanks.

On Monday, Dr Ng fired back, again urging the WP to rethink its position. When The Straits Times met WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and Ms Lim that night, she was subdued, letting him take charge.

But Dr Ng had singled her out, asking Ms Lim if hers was a "carefully thought out and sincerely held position". Or was she "just regurgitating ill-conceived positions and fronting for the party"?

If she is rattled, Ms Lim is not about to show it. She is clear about this: No light can come between her and the party's stand.

So, on the WP's calls to do away with both the ethnic quota for housing and group representation constituencies (GRCs), she says she believes Singapore society has matured and does not need such policies.

The different races have "integrated naturally", she says, by going to the same schools and doing national service, for example.

The party wants the ethnic quota for housing scrapped because it makes it difficult for some Singaporeans to sell their HDB flats. It is unfair, plain and simple, she says.

The PAP has maintained that the policy, even if painful to some, is crucial to ensure there is racial mixing in housing estates.

As for GRCs, she says they skew elections in favour of larger political parties, increase the likelihood of walkovers by the PAP and frustrate the desire of citizens to exercise their vote.

What about the PAP's argument that GRCs help ensure minorities are represented in Parliament?

"If there is a need to ensure minority representation, there are other ways. If the Government says only GRCs can assure it, you know that's wrong," she says.

On the WP's proposal to abolish the office of the Elected President (EP), Ms Lim sees it this way: "It's clear the EP is meant to jam up a non-PAP government in its first term. If people want a change and elect a new government, then why should it be subject to all these?"

Dr Ng also accused the WP of calling for higher subsidies for a whole range of public goods and services without explaining how it planned to pay for this "expensive shopping trip".

The WP has proposed subsidies in a number of areas. They include a proposal for the Government to co-pay the premiums for a basic hospitalisation insurance scheme.

But Ms Lim denies the WP will binge-spend.

"We respect the fact that we should be fiscally prudent," she says.

She says what the WP objects to is the PAP Government's position of only helping the needy when there are Budget surpluses.

"If you are saying you will only help the less fortunate in good times, then I think it's not the correct principle."

On scrapping of grassroots organisations, Ms Lim says she is an advocate of non-political groups: "We encourage the community to vote for their own leaders and have their MP just as an adviser."

Throughout the interview, Ms Lim takes pains to point out that she and Mr Low are on the same wavelength politically, even though their backgrounds may differ.

She is English-educated, a one-time police officer and trained as a lawyer. He is Chinese-educated, a one-time teacher and now a businessman.

She is taking Mandarin lessons, but adds: "If you look at the WP Central Executive Council now, many more people are English-educated. In a way, we are reflecting changes in the population."

"And Mr Low is also quite interesting... He now sounds quite English-educated because of some of the jokes he cracks. So I think there is some kind of mutual influence."

So, she says, she does not understand what Dr Ng means about her just "fronting" the party.

Even if she and Mr Low are different, she knows well the value of party discipline.

Hence she gives away little. She is non-committal when asked if the WP will fight the election on these four "time-bomb" issues, as Dr Ng has challenged it to.

"We have other things in the manifesto which we think are important, and when the election is called, we will make them known," she says.

These and other issues are more "time critical" and the party could lose the advantage if it reveals them too early.

For now, she is just trying to get a lead on the ground. She spends weekends and sometimes weekday nights on house-to-house visits in Aljunied GRC, she says to accusations by Dr Ng that she is out of touch with the ground.

Throughout the interview at her Toh Tuck condominium, Ms Lim is cool and collected. She parlays political quips readily, like when she finds out that two press people are Catholic. She is one too, and referring to the arrests in 1987 of a group of Catholics, she says: "Oh, two more and we'll have a Marxist conspiracy."

It is no surprise she can recall such events easily. After all, growing up, current affairs took up dinner conversations in her family of two younger siblings, mother and lawyer father.

Still, she admits she was taken aback by the PAP this week.

"I mean, to have a few different ministers coming out... it was quite interesting to see that."

---

Sylvia Lim on ties with Low Thia Khiang, Workers' Party plans for upcoming election

>> Dr Ng Eng Hen accused you of being a front for the rest of the party. What do you have to say to that?

What I can tell you is that because I was involved in the drafting and discussion for this manifesto from day one, I'm comfortable with what we have done and I will defend it. I stand by it, definitely. This is part of collective responsibility, isn't it? And I've been elected as chairman of the party so that's the party position.

>> Of the four "time bombs", one of the most controversial is race relations. If race relations are as healthy as you say they are, why don't you ask for other policies besides the ethnic quota on housing to be abolished?

You mean like the Internal Security Act and all?

>> Yes.

But that's very different from allowing people to live where they want to live. It's quite a different thing.

>> But there are a whole range of policies that exist to ensure racial harmony.

You may be right but I don't know which laws specifically you are referring to. Now just allowing people to choose where they want to live is definitely on a different scale and we have seen people suffer under the policy. If they want to move, if they can't find someone of the same race, they are stuck there. And then whatever price they get offered by an eligible buyer, they should think about it seriously. So the question is about fairness.

>> With the focus now on the four "time bombs", do you think you've lost the initiative to set the agenda?

It's quite funny because we've had a lot of calls and e-mails. Some people called up to say, keep your cool, don't get dragged in, that sort of stuff. But of course there are also people who come in to voice their views on the four issues. Right now we have put the manifesto online so people can read for themselves what we have said and take things in the proper context.

As for losing initiative, someone told me Singaporeans will be able to see whether they are "time bombs" or not. So let's leave it at that.

>> Dr Ng also kept asking you and other members to speak out if you felt uncomfortable with the proposals. Does he know something about the unity of your party that we don't?

I don't know where he got that from, so you have to ask him. It's quite interesting for us to hear that too.

>> So what is your relationship like with Mr Low Thia Khiang?

We get along very well, I would say. It's quite interesting because in some ways, people think our backgrounds are very different, which is true. But I think we have quite a good mutual understanding.

>> What are some of the things you have in common?

Fundamentally, we have the same view of the role of the Workers' Party and we believe in being careful in the things we do and say in public. We believe in being constructive and we don't believe in reflexive reactions, in that sense. Also, we know what we are doing in the WP is for Singapore and it may not happen, you never have successes overnight. So we are prepared to take the long view and do things carefully.

>> Have you ever disagreed with him?

We have different views on certain things but of course, after we have had a discussion and a decision is made, then if we present it to the public, we will defend it.

>> That sounds a lot like what the PAP does. Disagree in private, but stay united in public.

I think that's the way we should all work.

>> So how are you preparing for the general election?

On the general level, I think it has already been quite well reported that we have been working, we have not been sleeping, doing a fair amount of groundwork, whether it is through selling our party papers or doing home visits and all that.

>> How many blocks have you visited?

A lot, lah. I don't want to disclose those things. But I've been doing it for quite a while already.

>> The last time Mr Low was asked where the WP will contest, he said four GRCs.

He said we are eyeing those four areas, but whether we actually contest in them is not confirmed.

>> Where will you contest? Aljunied GRC?

Possibly, yes of course. (laughs) It is likely I will be in a GRC, because currently there are only nine single member constituencies and there are quite a few other parties in Singapore. Also there is an understanding that certain parties have closer ties with different areas and we tend to defer to that.

So right now, we are looking at three of the single seats, Hougang, Nee Soon East and Joo Chiat. Because of this, the rest of us have to contest in GRCs.

But it is quite exciting. It raises the stakes in a contest for a GRC.

It is quite nice to know that because in a GRC, the population can range between 90,000 and 180,000. All these people get to vote. So it is quite meaningful.

---

About the WP manifesto...


COMMUNITY BUILDING: Ms Lim with (from left) friend and supporter John Law, and WP members Joseph Teo and Ismail Salleh during a walkabout in Aljunied GRC on Wednesday night.

THE first line of the Workers' Party's 2006 manifesto states:

"As a political party, the long-term goal of the Workers' Party (WP) is to be an alternative government."

As befits an opposition party which has set its sights on being an alternative to the People's Action Party (PAP), the WP's 52-page, 14-chapter manifesto is entitled You Have A Choice.

It is a document that includes proposals on many aspects of government policy. These range from government and civil liberties to law and order, labour policies, economics, education, public housing, health care, transport and society.

Launched by the WP on Jan 14, the manifesto has attracted criticism on two fronts.

First, that it contains four "time bombs" that threaten Singapore society.

Second, that it contains other ideas the WP "copied" from the PAP.

Party chairman Sylvia Lim brushes off the second charge.

"We do our own research and we write what we believe in. Whether the PAP happens to believe in the same things or not, that's coincidental to us," she says.

She points out that her party started work on its manifesto way back in 2002. It held forums to consult the public on issues such as the "new poor", public housing and transport.

Its six-member manifesto committee then split up the work of drafting the 14 chapters, with each person taking charge of a few chapters. The team comprised WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, Ms Lim, executive council members Poh Lee Guan, James Gomez, Tan Wui-Hua and one other person who preferred not to be named.

Ms Lim refused to identify the chapters each of them was responsible for.

Last year, they met over two months for intensive discussions that often stretched past midnight, "to ensure we were comfortable with all the paragraphs in there", she says.

At the same time, she admits the party chose to unveil the manifesto as soon as it was ready because some of its proposals were already implemented by the Government.

"If we wait, more and more of the things we are proposing are going to be implemented. We don't want to be in that position," she says.

What does the manifesto contain that is new or different from what the PAP Government is already doing?

For starters, it calls for increased spending and other changes to improve the lot of groups the WP regards as needy and vulnerable. This includes workers, the low-income, elderly and disabled.

The introduction to the manifesto sets out in broad terms why the party thinks many policies need to be adjusted.

"Those with economic power tend to congregate with those with political power, resulting in a power elite network. The consequence of such a structure is imbalance in policy formulation," it says.

Many of its proposals flow from this starting point.

The chapter on health, for instance, quotes the refrain of many heartlanders that they "can die but cannot afford to be sick".

It calls for the Government to raise spending on health care and proposes it co-pay the premiums of a basic hospitalisation insurance scheme for all.

On education, the WP wants more funding and support for neighbourhood schools.

The chapter on labour policy says the WP believes unions should be independent and empowered to protect the rights of workers. It also wants to amend the Employment Act to ensure more protection for workers in areas such as retrenchment benefits and overtime pay.

Several ideas will entail much higher spending by the Government, none more so than the proposals in the chapter on public housing.

The WP wants cash grants for all first-time flat buyers equivalent to 10 per cent of the average selling price of a four-room resale flat. Second-time buyers should get a subsidy equivalent to 5 per cent, it says.

It does not make clear whether these grants should be in addition to or in place of current grants the Housing Board gives to first-time buyers who purchase from the open market.

The WP also wants a second cash grant to help Singaporeans plan for their retirement needs, so they do not have to downgrade to smaller flats for cash.

The rationale for all this extra spending? The manifesto recounts how many people rushed to buy bigger flats at the height of the property boom because they "believed in the PAP's propaganda of enhancing of their assets". They were hit hard when property prices crashed.

It also notes the way the Government is "limiting" its role in public housing and says "more resources could be focused on achieving home ownership".

This chapter is also where the proposal to scrap the ethnic quota on housing appears.

The manifesto says the policy is no longer needed because "society has now attained a level of multiracial integration" and Singaporeans should have "equal freedom of choice of home locations".

Another important plank in the manifesto is political participation and competition.

That is why the WP wants GRCs and the office of Elected President abolished.

The presidency should revert to a ceremonial post, it says, because "the power of Parliament as the people's representative should be unfettered".

As for GRCs, they "dilute the individual voters' voice".

"Instead, elections should be run on single seats," the WP says.

What the manifesto does not explain is how the party will ensure minorities are represented in Parliament, once the GRCs are dismantled.

It throws up an alternative system of proportional representation that New Zealand uses to "handle Maori seats", without giving a clear sense of how this can be applied to Singapore.

The call to scrap GRCs also appears in another chapter entitled Society, which focuses to a large extent on community building.

It also calls for doing away with GRCs so as to "revert to constituencies based on geographical areas".

The chapter also contains the proposal to abolish grassroots network of residents' committees (RCs) and citizens' consultative committees (CCCs).

These groups serve as "eyes and ears of the Government" and "cripple the growth of natural community leadership".

It suggests they be replaced by a revamped system of community centre management committees, whose members are elected by the community through local polls.

Straits Times - Forum: No slur on community leaders, says WP

I REFER to the letter, 'Grassroots leader takes issue with Workers' Party' (ST, Jan 24), from Mr Paul Wee, chairman of the Cantonment Towers Residents' Committee.

I wish to clarify that WP has no intention to belittle the contribution and serving spirit of community leaders. I have come across community leaders who serve selflessly.

We proposed abolishing the current structure of grassroots organisations (GROs) exactly because we feel that injustice has been done to the dedicated community leaders Mr Wee mentioned, especially those with no political affiliation or ambition but just a simple desire to do their small part for the community.

WP believes that community service should not be politicised and there is a need to develop a more comprehensive community network to root the people in order to build a more cohesive society.

Voluntary community-based organisations should be allowed to grow. The Government should facilitate and support this bottom-up initiative instead of having the People's Association operate a network of GROs top-down.

Members of residents' committees and citizens' consultative committees are appointed by 'government' Members of Parliament (MPs). Why should respectable community leaders be appointed by MPs, whether government or not? At best, the MP should only be adviser to the community organisations.

Moreover, many MPs do not live in the constituencies to which they are elected. This is why in the WP manifesto we proposed that members of community-club management committees be elected in a local election and the elected MP serve as adviser.

It was also pointed out in the letter that many grassroots leaders have been 'covertly ostracised' for being too vocal in their criticism. Why should this be the case? Is this situation helpful for both the people and the Government? Therein lies a question as to whether the current GROs are structured to serve as a political mechanism to manage public opinion on the ground and to allow the People's Action Party to gain an unfair advantage in getting political support by using the big word 'community'.

For Singapore to thrive as a country and for us to build a vibrant society, it is time that the spirit of serving and sacrifice be liberated from political control.

Low Thia Khiang
Secretary-General
Workers' Party

Channel NewsAsia: Workers' Party stands by manifesto

By Farah Abdul Rahim

SINGAPORE : The Workers' Party is still standing by its manifesto, even after the People's Action Party fired salvos at it over the past few days, saying it will tear Singapore's society apart.

Meanwhile, political watchers say the ongoing debate between the parties has fuelled even more election speculation.

A week after the release of the Workers' Party's manifesto, the People's Action Party urged it to rethink its position on what the ruling party has called its "four time bombs."

These are proposals to do away with grassroots commmittees; dropping the ethnic quota policy for public housing and the Group Representative Constituency Scheme; doing away with the Elected Presidency; and a call for more subsidies for the poor, without indicating where the money for this was coming from.

And it is not just the party bigwigs but also PAP MPs who have voiced disappointment over these proposals.

Said Halimah Yacob, MP for Jurong GRC, "It is quite irresponsible the way that they have proposed certain things, like for instance, dismantling certain structures, the RCs -- criticising the RCs and certain other structures that we have put in place in order to promote a strong multi-racial society, ethnic integration.

"I don't think we should take these things lightly. And on this goal, I think I'm a bit disappointed that this is the way that they have approached some of these issues."

But the Workers' Party has defended the proposals in its manifesto, which it says is the result of two years of hard work.

Said Tan Wui-Hua, president of the Workers' Party Youth Wing and member of the WP Manifesto Committee, "They have not put down in very defined terms why the four issues are a time bomb. They are just saying it's a time bomb and it will destroy the social fabric of the entire country.

"We genuinely feel these four issues are issues the people on the ground would like to see changed. Therefore, we speak for the people and we feel it's good for the nation. So the truth is, now if they say it's bad and we say it's good, we let the voters decide."

Political watchers say the way the debate between the two political parties has evolved has taken them by surprise.

But they also noted that the debate has stirred up interest among many Singaporeans in the Workers' Party manifesto.

Political Science Assistant Professor Suzaina Kadir says such debates are healthy.

She said, "The opposition in Singapore needs to think strategically, have a manifesto and provide an alternative framework, and has to be debated publicly. It could certainly be the case the manifesto cannot hold and is potentially problematic but when you have a debate like that in the open, then people have a sense of not just broad motherhood statements, but concrete policies, so people can decide on a far more mature level."

But one thing is clear -- the debate, has fuelled even more election talk.

Dr Suzaina explained, "It fuels further speculation among us that elections are coming; that's why you're getting the kind of reactions you're getting. I can't say it's a sure sign; it comes together with a lot of other signals political observers look at. I think what's curious about this whole incident is, it has come in a matter of days after several announcements that people have taken to imply elections are coming. When these events occur one after another, it reinforces people's beliefs that something is about to happen."

Meanwhile, other opposition groups like the Singapore Democratic Alliance have declined to comment on this debate. - CNA /ct

Straits Times: Workers' Party Policy Paper - Revise manifesto? WP chief says no again

He issues point-by-point rebuttal, calls on PAP to release manifesto

By Ken Kwek and Aaron Low

MR LOW Thia Khiang last night again rejected calls by the People's Action Party (PAP) to revise his Workers' Party (WP) manifesto and invited the ruling party instead to release its manifesto.

This time, however, the WP secretary-general also issued a point-by-point rebuttal of Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen's accusations that his party's manifesto contained four 'time bombs' that would destroy key pillars of Singapore's stability and success.

In an interview with The Straits Times at his party's headquarters in Syed Alwi Road, Mr Low went on to challenge the PAP to engage the WP on other points raised in its 52-page manifesto.

'There are many other issues that are deserving and should be looked at, besides these four points,' he said.

The four 'time bombs' the PAP accused the WP of planting in its manifesto were its calls to scrap grassroots organisations, ethnic integration policies and the elected presidency, and to raise subsidies.

In the interview, with party chairman Sylvia Lim by his side, Mr Low stood by these four proposals that Dr Ng had twice urged the WP to reconsider. But throughout, he studiously refrained from using the phrase 'time bombs'.

Mr Low explained why the WP thought the ethnic quota for housing was no longer necessary. Singapore has progressed from the situation of the 1960s when each race lived in its own enclave, he said.

People of different races have reached a better level of understanding with one another.

'It's a matter of confidence level. I think we have to go beyond... using policy as an instrument, to artificially make sure that there is contact between races,' he said.

'We should allow people to choose where they want to live. In the process of the policy, there were also cases of people being caught and not being able to sell their flats because of the racial quota. We have to look at whether it is necessary to have the policy in place to achieve the purpose,' he said.

It was also time to move beyond grassroots organisations such as the residents' committees and citizens' consultative committees. While these groups had played a useful role in the past, there should now be room for more 'spontaneous' activities and civil society was also developing.

'I believe that we should allow people to develop, and not to underestimate that without CCCs, we will not have activities,' said Mr Low.

The second reason to scrap them was that they 'serve a political purpose of the PAP', he said.

Mr Low said he believed that even without grassroots organisations, Singaporeans would still be able to get together and deal with crises that arose.

On the elected presidency, he said there was no need for such an institution in a parliamentary democracy where the legislature should be the check on the government.

'We are operating a parliamentary democracy system, inherited from the British, which functions very well in Britain. So what's wrong with that?' he said.

Mr Low added that there was generally 'not enough transparency' in the present Government. 'What is the best way to check against corruption? Put it on the website, better to have so many people checking, instead of one elected president right?'

As to Dr Ng's suggestion that 'maybe the WP wants to go on a spending spree itself', Mr Low denied that his party had ever suggested throwing the country's money away carelessly.

On the contrary, he outlined three major areas - namely employment, health care and housing - in which his party had proposed possible financial solutions.

In terms of employment, Mr Low said his party was proposing an unemployment insurance plan, to be introduced when a worker was still in employment. The premium could be covered by deducting 1 per cent of earned income, with the employer contributing another 1 per cent.

In terms of health care, the WP was proposing a basic hospitalisation insurance policy, with the Government co-paying 'to have universal coverage'.

'We are also not objecting to proper means testing, where we can actually target subsidies at the correct level,' Mr Low added.

In the area of housing subsidies, Mr Low said that he was not proposing to 'bankrupt the Government', but that because of globalisation, there would always be people with problems.

'As a government, it is important to commit themselves to helping these people so that they have some security.'

kenkwek@sph.com.sg
aaronl@sph.com.sg

---

Dr Ng to WP chairman Sylvia Lim


SERIOUS MATTER: Dr Ng questioned chairman Sylvia Lim's understanding of political realities on the ground concerning racial harmony, among other things. -- CHEW SENG KIM

Before you signed statement as chairman of WP...

'Sylvia Lim signed the Workers' Party statement as the chairman of WP. But does she seriously or personally believe that the multiracial and multi-religious harmony that we have achieved today is strong enough to dismantle the policies that have worked?

Has she seen the actual situation on the ground, the problems in our society, in housing estates? Is she familiar with the intense public debate over the issues? Has she read up what issues were debated over the elected presidency?

And how the Constitution was then amended? Does she know the implication of just saying 'spend', and ignore the question of where the money will come from? As she signed the statement, is this a carefully thought out and sincerely held position, or is she just regurgitating ill- conceived positions and fronting for the party?'

---

Study matter seriously, spend time on the ground.

'I must confess that before I became an MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, I too took many things for granted. So, it's understandable if you don't run a constituency and see the practical problems on the ground, you may not understand the full implications of removing these four cornerstones.

I advise Ms Lim to study the matter seriously with an open mind, discuss it with others, and spend time on the ground finding out how our society works. If after that she is still convinced that the manifesto is right, well, explain - we are prepared to listen.

Or, she may conclude that the WP line is misconceived, and hopefully persuade the WP to modify its line. Surely she should at least be prepared to consider the possibility that the WP has made a mistake.'

TODAY: The Workers' Party on those four 'time bombs'

LEE U-WEN
u-wen@newstoday.com.sg

THE opposition Workers' Party (WP) is standing firmly by its manifesto despite the strong criticism it has received from the Government, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself.

In a one-page statement released to the media yesterday evening, WP chairman Sylvia Lim responded to each of the four "time bombs" highlighted by Manpower Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen on Saturday, which includes removing the quota for public housing and the elected presidency.

In its 52-page manifesto released on Jan 14, the WP had also proposed that Residents' Committees (RC) and Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCC) be abolished, but in response, Dr Ng said these grassroots organisations were necessary to bring racial and religious communities together.

Ms Lim, however, challenged his remarks: "To say that (RCs and CCCs) are the only ones who can play a role in the community and serve a useful role during crises such as Sars is to underestimate the community's ability to respond to such crises."

She added that the Government seemed to perceive Singaporeans as a "docile lot with no initiative" who need to depend on RCs and CCCs, "which is an insult to Singaporeans."

To which MP Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) wondered: "Have they got a better alternative to put forward? I'm willing to listen to it if they do." Mr Chong said this particular proposal was an "irresponsible" one.

"Are they saying everybody should be left alone and just fend for themselves, survival of the fittest? To suggest we just dismantle existing organisations is not practical and reasonable. There will always be a need for citizens to go above and beyond just taking care of themselves," he told TODAY.

Most of those involved in RCs and CCCs are "unpaid volunteers that come forward to articulate the concerns of the people", so he urged the WP to "look at the bigger picture" instead.

Bedok CCC secretary Patrick Tay said the importance of the groups was to serve as a "bridge between the people and the Government," but stressed this was just one of their many roles in the community.

"We are here to provide an additional channel for residents to give feedback. That's how we can improve the neighbourhood. I see us as one big family working together," he said.

In the statement by the WP, Ms Lim said one reason why her party had strongly recommended that the ethnic quota for housing be scrapped was that it imposed "hardship on people wanting to buy and sell homes".

Having this quota helps ensure an even spread of races in public estates by restricting the proportion of flats that can be owned by different races in a single neighbourhood or block. Chinese residents, for instance, can comprise no more than 84 per cent of units in a neighbourhood and Malays, 22 per cent.

Mr Chong said having such a criteria was "a small price to pay" if Singapore were to avoid reverting back to the ethnic enclaves of yesteryear.

The WP also continued its push for more subsidies to be given to the elderly and unemployed for areas such as education and healthcare.

Dr Ng responded by acknowledging that it was the Government's duty to help the less fortunate, but only out of Budget surpluses.

Ms Lim shot back that the Government should help the lower-income group at all times and not only address their concerns when such surpluses arose.

Like Dr Ng and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan before him, PM Lee urged the WP and its chief Low Thia Khiang to revise their manifesto, saying that their proposals destroyed the fundamental principles Singapore had built and thrived on.

Speaking at a community event yesterday, Mr Lee said: "Where do they stand? Either you rethink your position and publish a revised manifesto - version 1.2, there is still time - or if they want to stand by that, explain what they mean, justify, defend and we will join issues and fight the elections on these issues."

In a comment directed at Mr Low: "This is not just a matter of you talking casually at the coffee shop after drinks. It's a manifesto for the General Election and he is offering himself as an alternative, (so) it has to be scrutinised."

---

THE FOUR POINTS

• WP wants to abolish RCs and CCCs: Dr Ng says these groups help foster close community links and play crucial roles in times of crises.

Ms Lim says the Government seems to perceive Singaporeans as a "docile lot" that cannot take care of themselves.

• WP wants to remove ethnic quota for housing: Dr Ng says this quota fosters multi-racial public housing estates.

Ms Lim says a certain level of integration has already been achieved and the quota imposes hardship on home buyers and sellers.

• WP wants to abolish Elected Presidency: Dr Ng says the Elected President is to prevent having a corrupt Government and to protect reserves from being squandered. Ms Lim says the WP has maintained its position for this proposal since 1988.

• WP wants more subsidies for lower-income groups: Dr Ng says the Government will provide when there are Budget surpluses. Ms Lim says the needs of the less fortunate should be addressed at all times and not just when there are such surpluses.