• 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.

The Workers' Party

Re: WP Doing Nothing?

Budget 2013 Speech – MP Sylvia Lim


Sylvia.2012.jpg



By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 March 2013]



Evolving Singapore’s tax system – progressivity as a tool to promote cohesion and to mitigate the cost of living
This year’s Budget makes several important statements about the need for social cohesion amidst rising inequality. While income inequality is also large in other global cities, the government has explicitly recognised that “further steps to temper inequality” must be taken, because we are not just a city but a nation (Budget Statement (BS), para B14). Indeed, the concept of being a nation implies a people with a common identity, bound together psychologically in community; after all, we are all in the same boat.


While some inequality is useful to provide incentives to invest and to work, high levels of inequality are undesirable. Apart from the socially devastating effects of high inequality, there may be negative impacts on economic growth itself. An IMF Staff Discussion Note in 2011 observed that high income inequality was associated with shorter spells of economic growth; the authors found that countries were better able to sustain growth over longer periods of time when levels of inequality were reduced (Berg, A.G. and Austry, J.D. (2011). Inequality and unsustainable growth: Two sides of the same coin? IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, April 8, 2011. Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund.)
We face the twin challenge of needing to improve lives and yet keeping our country cohesive. What makes a society a “good” one? The influential philosopher John Rawls argued that a good society redistributes its wealth so that all its citizens have the same opportunity for future success in the form of equal access to public goods, such as quality education and health care. To this end, it is widely acknowledged that key government responses to inequality should include targeting subsidies to those who need it, and a progressive tax system (Berg and Austry, 2011).


This year’s Budget continues to target subsidies to households to mitigate the rising cost of living. These include higher WIS (Workfare Income Supplement) payouts, double GST vouchers for lower and middle-income households this year, and S&CC rebates. These are in principle good measures. The government has also indicated that it is thoroughly reviewing the financing framework for healthcare. The stated aim of this review is stated is to bring down Singaporeans’ out-of-pocket share of medical costs while the Government takes on a larger share (BS, para D84), again focused on the lower to middle income groups. This is welcome. The issues of healthcare costs and healthcare inflation are indeed uppermost in Singaporeans’ minds, especially with our aging population; it is also a topic I have spoken about in previous Budgets. I look forward to the fleshing out of the directions of the review as promised.
The other strategy which is key to mitigating inequalities is a progressive tax system. Simply put, a progressive tax system should aim to require those who have more to contribute more to the national coffers, which will then be used as general revenue and for re-distribution to those in need. I believe Singaporeans on the whole see the wisdom and need for this, including those who are better off. There should be a fair contribution towards our fellow citizens and to the country as a whole.
In my speech, I wish to urge the government to continue to look for ways to make our tax system more progressive and suggest that there is still room to do so, without unraveling our economic strategies.


Benefits of progressive tax system

What would be the benefits of making our tax system even more progressive? Besides the benefit of mitigating inequalities through re-distribution, having a more progressive tax system is symbolically and psychologically important at the national level. It signifies that Singaporeans are journeying together as one people towards the future, with the stronger helping the weaker.

There was a recent study of 54 nations by social psychologist Professor Shigehiro Oishi and others entitled “Progressive taxation and the subjective well-being of nations”. The study analysed data from 54 countries, including Singapore, and concluded that progressive taxation was positively associated with a nation’s sense of well-being. (Oishi et al (2012). Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. Psychological Science 23(1) 86–92.) It was shown that, generally, countries with higher degrees of progressive taxation had citizens showing more satisfaction with their lives, as they evaluated their lives at higher scores.


According to this study, Singapore was rated in the lower half of the countries surveyed in terms of progressivity of the tax system i.e. more than half of the other countries’ tax systems were rated as more progressive than Singapore’s. As for life satisfaction, Singaporeans ranked their lives less optimistically than those in many developed jurisdictions such as Israel, United States and countries in Europe. Though the study measured a subjective index viz. citizens’ sense of well-being, this measure is important. One’s sense of well-being would affect one’s morale and confidence in the future; these would in turn affect one’s desire to procreate, something high on our national agenda.

Enhancing progressivity in Singapore’s tax system

What is the state of progressivity of our tax system currently? According to IRAS data, the top 11% of earners already contribute almost 80% of total tax takings in Singapore (A/Prof Chia Ngee Choon, “How Progressive is the New Tax Structure”? The Straits Times, 28/2/13). It was noted by Assoc Prof Chia Ngee Choon that Budget 2013 makes a further progressive move, by implementing a ‘decisive shift’ towards taxing wealth viz. luxury cars and homes, rather than just taxing incomes (ST 28/2/13). Despite these new moves in the progressive direction, I would like to highlight two areas which I believe will make our tax system fairer and more progressive.

First, our regime of personal income taxes. Currently, our personal income tax system is already progressive. For instance, those earning less than $20,000 per year do not pay any income tax. Thereafter, there is a tiered system, where higher rates of taxes apply to income earned above certain thresholds. Finally, at the top end, those earning an annual income of more than $320,000 are taxed at 20%. It has been noted by several economists that there is room for further tiering above the $320,000 threshold, as the current tiering catches a wide range of income earners in this top bracket – ranging from a university professor who just makes it to this bracket and a banker who earns millions of dollars a year. I understand that this cut-off of $320,000 has not been adjusted for around a decade, while in the meantime, incomes at the higher ends have soared. There is clearly scope to have more tiers and higher rates, say up to 25%, for those who earn above certain higher thresholds. For instance, those earning above $320,000 and up to $500,000 could continue to be taxed at 20%, those earning between $500,000 to $700,000 at 22%; between $700,000 to $1m at 24%, and above $1m – 25%. Even at a maximum income tax rate of say 25%, such a top rate would still be low globally. While some may argue that such a move might reduce our attractiveness as a destination to high-earners, I believe Singapore would still have major selling points to them, such as the ease of doing business and low corporate tax rates.


My second point relates to one of this year’s Budget proposals - the move is the introduction of tiered property tax for residential properties.
For owner-occupied homes, higher tax rates are being introduced that raise the tax rates for homes from the current top rate of 6% to a new top rate of 16% by Jan 2015. It was stated (BS, para D60) that “most retirees will end up paying less property taxes”. I would like to ask for clarification about the basis of this statement about retirees. Is it based simply on the fact that only 12,000 residential homes fall within the annual values which will now attract higher taxes? (BS, para D64). Or is the statement about retirees based on some analysis of the age of persons currently living in the higher value homes? The Budget attachment entitled “Measures for Households” states that owner-occupied homes of Annual Value of less than $59,000 will enjoy lower property taxes (Budget 2013 Key Initiatives 2 – Measures for Households para B5). I am advised that the cut-off Annual Value of $59,000 for higher taxes could conceivably include an older home in a good location, which retirees may have purchased long ago or which they themselves may have inherited. The government has explicitly acknowledged in the Budget Statement (D60) that there are retirees who are not cash rich, though they may live in homes of significant value. Some consideration and concession should be given for this.

For non-owner occupied residential units, this Budget will replace the current flat rate of tax of 10% to introduce a tiered rate based on the Annual Value of the property, ranging from 11% to 19% from 1 Jan 2014, and from 1 Jan 2015, 12% to 20%. This tiered system being introduced is admittedly more progressive than the status quo. However, as noted in the Budget Statement, the increase will only be significant for investment properties at the high-end (BS, para D68). In addition, the tiers proposed also expose a potential loophole which can be exploited. It assumes that wealthy people will invest only in high-end properties, and does not address the fact that a wealthy person could well buy multiple units of mid-range properties which enjoy lower tax rates. A wealthy person may well do this as mid-range properties may be easier to rent out. Under the proposed tiers of property tax, it seems that a person’s potentially vast cumulative property wealth falls under the radar and will be taxed at a lower rate than someone who has just one high-end investment property.
Would it not have been fairer, as a wealth tax, to assess a person’s cumulative property interests rather than to have a per-property, stand-alone approach? While it may require more administration, I believe the relevant government land registries have exhaustive records of who owns residential properties and in what proportions.

Conclusion

To sum up, I acknowledge the government’s attempts in this budget to introduce further progressivity into our tax system and its focus on targeted help, which will go some way to mitigate the inequalities faced by Singaporeans.
What is of utmost concern to most Singaporeans is worry over the rising cost of living. This should give us even greater incentive to have more progressive taxes, which will reduce the need to raise other kinds of taxes which increase the overall cost of living, such as the GST. In this regard, I urge the government to continue to look at ways to introduce more progressivity into our tax system for the well-being of our society and the nation as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Re: WP Doing Nothing?


[h=5]The Workers' Party[/h]
"...at the top end, those earning an annual income of more than $320,000 are taxed at 20%. It has been noted by several economists that there is room for further tiering above the $320,000 threshold, as the current tiering catches a wide range of income earners in this top bracket – ranging from a university professor who just makes it to this bracket and a banker who earns millions of dollars a year. I understand that this cut-off of $320,000 has not been adjusted for around a decade, while in the meantime, incomes at the higher ends have soared. There is clearly scope to have more tiers and higher rates, say up to 25%, for those who earn above certain higher thresholds." ~ MP Sylvia Lim (5 March 2013)


Budget 2013 Speech – MP Sylvia Lim
wp.sg
This year’s Budget makes several important statements about the need for social cohesion amidst rising inequality. While income inequality is also large in other global cities, the government has explicitly recognised that “further steps to temper inequality” must be taken, because we are not


 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?


[h=5]The Workers' Party[/h]
"I welcome the budget’s initiative to reduce the Foreign Domestic Worker levy from $170 to $120. This will ease costs for many families in Singapore who currently hire domestic helpers. However, especially for families with young children, and those who are looking after the disabled or the elderly, having domestic help is a necessity. For such families it is not a matter of luxury but of pure need, and we should consider waiving the levy for them.

During my house visits in Punggol East SMC, I have seen many wheelchair-bound elderly folks at home being looked after by domestic helpers while their sons and daughters are at work. Later, these helpers pick up the children from school and tend to them as well. Many families have shared with me how despite the fact that they have hired domestic helpers to cope with the many responsibilities of running a family while both parents are working, they struggle with the costs." ~ MP Lee Li Lian (6 March 2013)





Budget 2013 Speech – MP Lee Li Lian
wp.sg


This year’s budget efforts to ensure stronger support for the lower-income groups and the elderly is a good step in the right direction towards creating a more inclusive society which looks into the needs of the less fortunate and less-able amongst us.


 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?


[h=5]The Workers' Party[/h]
"If these changes were implemented to force Singaporeans to use public transport, the system as it stands, leaves much to be desired, particularly during peak hours. I am not sure what the effects of these latest changes to our car ownership policies will be, as there are differing views on the impact of the latest policy changes on COE prices and as a result, the price of cars.

But the effect of the new LTV ratio is likely to felt most acutely by families with two or more children, those with elderly family members or the disabled who need the mobility provided by a car, but are unable to raise the down payment since a larger household size necessarily entails a lower disposable income set aside for the higher down payment required." ~ MP Pritam Singh (6 March 2013)





Budget 2013 Speech – MP Pritam Singh
wp.sg


My speech is divided into two parts. The first assesses the budget’s attempts to create a more inclusive Singapore with the second focused on changes to our car ownership policy as a result of budget announcements on the same.


 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?


[h=5]The Workers' Party[/h]
"DPM Tharman announced that about 20 social service offices would be established to improve the manner in which the government delivers social services. In a Straits Times article on 26 February 2013, it is explained that the social service offices serves as a one-stop centre located closer to homes with the function of planning and coordinating social services to ensure that families get holistic support. In short, it is hoped that the administration of social services can be integrated and any duplication avoided.

However, I remain puzzled by the introduction of another level of bureaucracy to the existing layers of social service structures and support network. While we frown upon a welfare state, we seem to embrace increased bureaucratization in the administration of social welfare support. There are far too many questions than answers and I hope that these questions can be properly addressed.

First, I would like to know which organisations would be given the responsibilities to run and manage these offices. Second, social workers that I have spoken to are interested to know more about the functions of this office and the roles of the officers stationed at these offices and thirdly, is there a requirement for these officers to be social work-trained?" ~ MP Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (6 March 2013)





Budget 2013 Speech – MP Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
wp.sg
Singapore is not a welfare state but we should certainly be a state concerned with the welfare of its people, in particular lower and middle income Singaporeans. Our social compact is one of Singapore’s prized assets and it is the duty of any government of the day to ensure that it


 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?


[h=5]The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)[/h]YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang



 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


601597_10151457803723972_1567011496_n.jpg



394661_10151457803678972_1762414060_n.jpg



64844_10151457803478972_643361140_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang

601329_10151457803488972_2002954506_n.jpg



429702_10151457803343972_884435611_n.jpg




382209_10151457803188972_540356192_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang

44418_10151457803168972_353646373_n.jpg



559784_10151457803143972_275257575_n.jpg



374537_10151457802943972_976684838_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


484965_10151457802933972_1093746615_n.jpg



559762_10151457802918972_1022053681_n.jpg



480852_10151457802773972_1824625293_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


480437_10151457802658972_1543013220_n.jpg



598692_10151457802633972_125628879_n.jpg



417600_10151457802593972_1597148111_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


1746_10151457802143972_291497602_n.jpg



486578_10151457801038972_2080878125_n.jpg



481247_10151457800738972_702956426_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang

563501_10151457799548972_997191534_n.jpg



578358_10151457799503972_1700142479_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


64138_10151457799118972_788882783_n.jpg



182408_10151457798688972_812898800_n.jpg



480795_10151457798538972_47080467_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


563357_10151457798228972_1121872231_n.jpg



394646_10151457798223972_221537248_n.jpg



576372_10151457798083972_299463118_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


482262_10151457797903972_683232187_n.jpg



483875_10151457797818972_868418298_n.jpg




625588_10151457797593972_294950710_n.jpg



486628_10151457797458972_1260629654_n.jpg



382191_10151457797348972_758215028_n.jpg


549827_10151457797303972_230911793_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


577405_10151457797243972_824648635_n.jpg



537582_10151457797153972_362648961_n.jpg



525319_10151457797083972_288268893_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


417692_10151457797078972_218896666_n.jpg



155966_10151457796963972_285888716_n.jpg


581780_10151457796813972_10306360_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


72339_10151457796788972_1973585262_n.jpg



64158_10151457796698972_2114765927_n.jpg



482761_10151457796528972_1125609869_n.jpg
 
Re: WP Doing Nothing?

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)

YouthQuake 11: Does race matter to young Singaporeans? (58 photos)
On Sunday, 3rd March 2013, the WPYW held YouthQuake 11, with the topic “Does race matter to young Singaporeans?”. Our two speakers, Mr Nizam Ismail and Mr Terence Tan, both lawyers by profession, engaged the audience and brought up novel ideas on how our nation might re-examine its attitudes toward race. With them, too, was, Mr Tan Kong Soon, Vice-President of the WPYW, acting as the moderator. Right off the bat, Terence took a straw poll of the audience as to whether they thought race mattered. Approximately half thought that it still did. Terence then went on to ask whether we have become a united race of Singaporeans and discussed statements made by various public figures. He was especially critical of some statements made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, which tended to emphasise racial differences. Terence questioned the need for race based policies and suggested scrapping the race designation in identity cards. Touching on a related topic, that of foreigners, he pointed out the need not to blame them for issues in Singapore, but to question government policy instead. He suggested in closing that some of our race-based policies are outmoded and serve no valid purpose. Nizam, the next speaker, pointed out that racial stereotypes still exist and cited the examples of the Amy Cheong affair and a photo in which madrasah students were suggested to be terrorist trainees. He pointed out that discrimination still exists in Singapore and that there are job postings for “Chinese only”, criticising the lack of anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore despite the presence of Article 12 of the Constitution which outlaws discrimination. Agreeing with Terence, he pointed out the problems with including race in our identity cards, and went on further to illustrate the inadequacy of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) model. Race, according to Nizam, has also been used as a political instrument, such as in the promulgation of the GRC (Group Representation Constituency) system. Touching on the topic of educational performance, he suggested that it was more correlated to socio-economic standing rather than race and questioned the utility of self-help groups. In closing, he asked two questions: does, and should race matter? He answered the first question in the affirmative as race matters due to current government policy, and answered the second question in the negative, proposing that we take a harder look at existing policies. The speeches were followed by a live Question & Answer session. Responding to questions from the audience about the likelihood of Singaporeans voting along racial lines, the speakers mentioned President Obama in the United States as a counter example and said that one should look past the colour of a candidate's skin. In response to a question about what type of anti-discrimination model would the speakers like to see in Singapore, Nizam mentioned that there are many existing models and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. When asked about the special rights of the Malays in Article 152 of the Constitution, Nizam stated that some Malays feel that they have not even attained equal opportunity, and the community was divided over whether the article was at all significant. Terence said that we should be brave to ask questions and revisit the Constitution if necessary rather than simply accepting the status quo. Questions were also raised regarding the influx of foreigners and the ensuing change in our racial dynamics. The speakers were asked if government policy had in fact caused increased racism against foreigners who have few legal rights. Nizam opined that there might indeed be a constant reinforcement of unconstructive differences caused by government policy, while Terence re-emphasised the need to direct blame at policy makers. There was also a suggestion that foreigners might be “bringing racism back” as they carry over racial stereotypes from their home countries. The speakers agreed that Singapore is becoming more cosmopolitan but that people had a choice whether or not to accept stereotypes, with Nizam pointing out once again the inadequacy of the CMIO model and Terence saying that he hoped that our Singaporean core would be built on a solid foundation. In summing up, Kong Soon expressed a desire that this topic would allow room for thought not only among youths but Singaporean society at large as well, and that Singaporeans would be able to sustain themselves as one united people. Author: Wilson Foo Yu Kang


484915_10151457796523972_138179284_n.jpg
 
Back
Top