• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

MPs Cedric Foo and Chen Show Mao clash over immigration

streetcry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
923
Points
0
Members of Parliament Cedric Foo and Chen Show Mao go back and forth over the need for immigrants, in light of Singapore's ageing society, and Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang says his Workers' Party is "not anti-immigration".

parl-cedric-foo.jpg

SINGAPORE: Immigration proved to be a hot topic in Parliament on Friday (May 30). Member of Parliament for Pioneer SMC Cedric Foo, quizzed Workers' Party MP Chen Show Mao on his party's stance on the issue. Mr Chen had just spoken about investing in elderly Singaporeans, when Mr Foo fired the first salvo. Their exchange is reproduced below.

Mr Cedric Foo: "He speaks about ageing issues and ageing society and I want to thank him for supporting the effort to engage Singaporeans in a dialogue to see how we may address this. But really, underpinning the ageing population, is the need to bring in immigrants, and I would like to seek his view to see if he thinks it's necessary for Singapore's long-term future to bring in immigrants."

Mr Chen Show Mao: "I believe our focus should be on the growing of a resident workforce. That includes the elderly workers whom we can help to participate more in our economy. When targets we set for the growth in our resident working population are not met, when targets we set are not met, then I think at that time, foreign workers may be - the number of foreign workers may be increased, so that so that we are on a path to growth as we have planned. The Workers' Party position on this is clear, and that is we will focus on the growth of the resident workforce and when that falls short, the population of foreign workers in Singapore may be increased."

Mr Cedric Foo: "Madam Speaker, thank you, the honorable member for his reply, but I was really asking about immigrant inflow into Singapore. Do we reverse the pyramid that has now been inverting? Because by 2030 as this House has heard, there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65 and because families are getting smaller, we do need immigrants. And I'd like Mr Chen's comments on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants, so that they are on our side; they help us compete, they help us stabilise the society."
Mr Chen Show Mao: "I have worked abroad for many years in my life and I thank foreigners, foreign governments, foreign friends for the opportunities that I was given, to work in the country. Of course, we have, of course I have - we have nothing against immigrants coming to Singapore, but we're talking about an orderly growth within limits that hopefully, we would have debated and agreed on, and that is not inconsistent with what I have said, what we have said on immigration on foreign workers in Singapore. And I would like to ask Mr Foo if that is what he had in mind in asking the question."

Mr Cedric Foo: "We have debated this issue of ageing population robustly. The Government has put up a plan under Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I've been trying to explain also to my residents why we have to do this.

On the economic front, if we allow the society to age, our tax base will narrow and there is no guarantee that high tax payers, talented people will remain in Singapore. We hope they do and we will work hard that they will do, but there is no guarantee of that. On the security front, our battalions will have to be smaller.

On the political front, people will vote for ageing issues. I mean, the old in our society when they start to outnumber the young, would ask for even more than healthcare.

Where does this leave future Singaporeans? We discussed constructive politics, how members of different parties should come together and enlighten the population, the populace, the voters about the trade-offs, but so far we gave not heard the Workers' Party hand-in-hand if they believe in this policy to reach out to the people to support immigration and listening to Mr Chen, I'm still not very clear whether the party and himself supports bringing in immigration.

And you cannot do this overnight, because you need time for them to assimilate. You cannot wait until the labour participation fails and decide to bring in a deluge of immigrants to flood the population. We need to do this gradually, to plan ahead. We need to do it in a consistent assimilable way. Thank you."
At this point, Workers' Party Chief Low Thia Khiang stands up to clarify his party's position on the issue.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: "On the issue of immigration, I thought we stated clearly and many a time, I believe the party's MPs have repeated the position of The Workers Party. The Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party. I make it clear here. We're not anti-immigration.

We welcome immigration which can contribute to the well-being of Singapore and to the economy of Singapore. We welcome foreign talent. Talent, real talent, not immigrants who are taking away the job of Singaporeans or taking away opportunities that Singaporeans could have been given, or be better served, having. So let's make it clear here, we are not anti-immigration. What we're saying is we have got to have quality immigrants.

Secondly, we have to make the Singaporean core strong. I think it is simple, too simplified, to assume that when the immigrants come to Singapore, they will integrate with Singapore and Singaporeans and be part of Singapore. I think it's not that simple.

I think in the Population White Paper - we've debated a lot on this - we have set out The Workers' Party position clearly. I hope members go and read the White Paper, it's published on the website, so you understand our position. We are not running away from the position."

- CNA/ly
 
clash? unconstructive stagnant politics wasting pubilc money n time and not resolving bread and kaya issue. blardee foo. fucktard.
 
Where the hell is the minister? Sleeping ah?

MPs are to hold government accountable, not defend the government.
 
How come this white horse cheebye face Cedric Fool still in parliament?

甘多人死点解唔见你去死 ?
 
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....Prevent-Preferential-Treatment-in-NS-Remember

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../56686/1/.html


===============================================

'White horse' classification for NSmen existed prior to 2000
By Dominique Loh, Channel NewsAsia


SINGAPORE : Minister of State for Defence Cedric Foo said the Singapore Armed Forces had a 'white horse' classification for NSmen prior to year 2000.

He said the term was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment.

Mr Foo was replying to a question in Parliament on Tuesday by Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia.

Mr Chia asked if there was such a classification and, if so, who qualifies to be classified as a 'white horse' and what privileges are accorded to them.

It is a rite of passage for all 18-year-old Singaporean men.

They enlist and serve two or two-and-a-half years of National Service in a variety or vocations ranging from combat to clerical.

But for many years, some NSmen have wondered if the battlefield is really level.

There were whispers that the sons of influential Singaporeans, dubbed 'white horses', were supposedly getting special treatment during their National Service.

"I thought they got special treatment that was what I was lead to believe."

"I don't have any 'white horse' in my platoon, but from what I heard, these people do have special treatment and they will get less punishment, easy jobs but don't know if it's true."

"It should be taken out, everyone is equal regardless if you are a politician's son, someone powerful, rich. You are Singaporean, we all have to go through NS one point or another, why should you receive special treatment? "

Well, for what many Singaporeans say is the first time, the Defence Ministry has publicly admitted to having a 'white horse' classification.

But the purpose was the exact opposite.

Mr Foo said: "All NSmen are treated equally and are deployed in vocations and units based on SAF operational requirements, their medical classification, and their academic and military performance. No NSmen has been accorded special privileges.

"Prior to year 2000, the term 'white horse' was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment. And their medical classification and vocation assignments are scrupulously fair."

But there were no follow-up questions from MPs. So then why scrap the scheme?

Mr Foo said: "Over the years, the public has widely accepted that the NS assignment system is fair and there is no preferential treatment to anyone. Since 2000, the SAF does not have a white horse classification for NSmen." - CNA
 
From where I sat watching the TV, I thought CSM answered the questions honestly and straightforwardly. But this PAP dog simply wants to wander off on his own and pursue his own tail. Why is it that PAP MPs always want to fight in a different boxing ring from where the challenger is?
 
How does bringing in immigrants solve people getting old without savings? And since when has healthcare been so good in singapore than we do not have to pay through the nose?
 
From where I sat watching the TV, I thought CSM answered the questions honestly and straightforwardly. But this PAP dog simply wants to wander off on his own and pursue his own tail. Why is it that PAP MPs always want to fight in a different boxing ring from where the challenger is?

This is the Bible for pappies' debating:

Circular Reasoning, Red Herring, Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right
http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/JJohnston/English1B/reading/logic/fallaciesIV.html


Read it and be educated.
 
How does bringing in immigrants solve people getting old without savings? And since when has healthcare been so good in singapore than we do not have to pay through the nose?

Simple, enrol them into nursing homes or hospices. No medical treatment (because you can't afford it anyway), but we'll just slowly let you waste away.

That's why such articles were floated around to test water and gauge public reaction.
 
Cedric has side line the issue by saying bringing more Foreign trash!!
die die they will stay by it, than come 2016 see if they dare to say this to the
crowd during their PoLeetical campaign!!
 
How does bringing in immigrants solve people getting old without savings? And since when has healthcare been so good in singapore than we do not have to pay through the nose?

Yes you're right.
Vote out the vile pap.
 
Cedric Foo is a discredited chap. I would not place any value on anything he does or say. White horse, Suzhou etc.
 
From where I sat watching the TV, I thought CSM answered the questions honestly and straightforwardly. But this PAP dog simply wants to wander off on his own and pursue his own tail. Why is it that PAP MPs always want to fight in a different boxing ring from where the challenger is?

I think that the WP got outplayed again in this debate. Once again CSM has failed to put the PAP on the defensive, CSM's reply to Cedric Fool's comments below should have been:

Mr Cedric Foo: "Madam Speaker, thank you, the honorable member for his reply, but I was really asking about immigrant inflow into Singapore. Do we reverse the pyramid that has now been inverting? Because by 2030 as this House has heard, there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65 and because families are getting smaller, we do need immigrants. And I'd like Mr Chen's comments on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants, so that they are on our side; they help us compete, they help us stabilise the society."

Mr. Chen: Madam Speaker, the issue of an ageing population is not unique to SIngapore. Many other countries in the world face the same problems. Japan, for example is in very much the same shoes as we are. However, do you see them allowing such a large immigration inflow into their country as we have? Why are they able to run their economy competitvely without such an influx and we cannot do the same? Surely, the best and highest paid politicians in the world such as we have should be able to study the Japanese model and adopt facets of it. Instead of stabilizing society as Mr. Foo claims, we have seen a destabilizing of society so far. Riots caused by immigrants, over crowding in the MRTs, and heavy competition for SIngaporeans over such resources as housing and education. The PAP's wholesale import of immigrants is obviously not working."
 
I think that the WP got outplayed again in this debate. Once again CSM has failed to put the PAP on the defensive, CSM's reply to Cedric Fool's comments below should have been:

Mr Cedric Foo: "Madam Speaker, thank you, the honorable member for his reply, but I was really asking about immigrant inflow into Singapore. Do we reverse the pyramid that has now been inverting? Because by 2030 as this House has heard, there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65 and because families are getting smaller, we do need immigrants. And I'd like Mr Chen's comments on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants, so that they are on our side; they help us compete, they help us stabilise the society."

Mr. Chen: Madam Speaker, the issue of an ageing population is not unique to SIngapore. Many other countries in the world face the same problems. Japan, for example is in very much the same shoes as we are. However, do you see them allowing such a large immigration inflow into their country as we have? Why are they able to run their economy competitvely without such an influx and we cannot do the same? Surely, the best and highest paid politicians in the world such as we have should be able to study the Japanese model and adopt facets of it. Instead of stabilizing society as Mr. Foo claims, we have seen a destabilizing of society so far. Riots caused by immigrants, over crowding in the MRTs, and heavy competition for SIngaporeans over such resources as housing and education. The PAP's wholesale import of immigrants is obviously not working."

Just ask the PAPzis to show the math and projections how importing the numbers that they have imported and their projected 6.9million will help reverse the problems of an ageing society. We don't want rhetoric. We want facts and figures. Wait for their answer and regardless of their answer tell ask them why with such projections they did not build sufficient public services to cater to such a large inflow. Wait for reply. Then tell them that the real problem was the PAPzis stop at two policy and that if not for that our aging society issue may not be so acute as it is today. Also, with a more intelligent workforce workers can actually work till an older age but the PAPzis seem bent on bringing in PMETs from overseas instead of ensuring that older workers continue to be relevant in the workforce. Ask how much is being kept in the CPF by foreign workers who have been here in past five years if indeed they are being brought in to help reverse the so called pyramid ageing issue.

Then ask the PAPzis how much capital is being sent back each month by foreign workers. Wait for answer. Then ask if the amount includes figures from PRs and former citizens who have withdrawn from CPF and sold public housing. Wait for answer. Then ask for projected capital outflows for the next 5 and then 20 years and ask if the numbers is a worrying sign.

The thing with these PAPzis is that they are far from intelligent and are ridiculously lazy. One must force them to provide figures and facts to back their rhetoric. They are very good at giving mother hen statements but falter miserably when asked to provide the numbers to back up their policies.
 
CSM used Japan as an example and PAP now has no ammunition to defend.
 
Where's the clash? Fucking WP like balless during exchange.

First Ass Loong gave LTK a taste of the knuckle dusters. Now White Horse Cedric banging the shit out of Chen Show Mao?
 
Back
Top