(Delivered in Parliament on 8 March 2018)
Malayness – Faisal Manap
(Delivered in Malay)
Pada tahun lepas semasa isu Presiden Dipilih mendapat perhatian, telah tercetus perbincangan berkaitan dengan isu keMelayuan. Perbincangan ini bukan hanya berlaku dikalangan masyarakat Melayu Singapura malah telah mendapat perhatian yang agak luar biasa dari masyarakat Singapura amnya.
Persoalan yang hangat diperbincangkan adalah pengiktirafan sebagai seorang Melayu atau siapa yang boleh dikatakan sebagai seorang yang berbangsa Melayu.
Banyak soalan-soalan yang diajukan, pandangan-pandangan yang diutarakan dan banyak juga contoh-contoh yang diketengahkan. Pendek kata, kecoh dan riuh perbincangan yang berlaku, hanya untuk mencari jawapan yang sebenar tentang isu KeMelayuan.
Saya dan saya juga percaya AP-AP Melayu didalam dewan ini memahami sebab tercetusnya isu identiti ini. Namun, demi untuk memberi pencerahan bagi perkara ini, saya ingin memberi satu situasi atau contoh.
Contohnya, seorang individu yang menganggap dirinya sebagai seorang Melayu-Islam telah diberitahu oleh Mendaki bahawa beliau tidak layak untuk skim Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) atas sebab kad pengenalan menunjukkan beliau adalah berbangsa India. Individu ini cuba menerangkan bahawa beliau bertutur bahasa Melayu di rumah dan cara kehidupan beliau adalah bersifat KeMelayuan; makan asam pedas, pakai baju Melayu semasa Hari Raya dan sebagainya. Namun jawapan yang beliau terima, ‘Maaf, kad pengenalan awak menunjukkan anda berbangsa India’.
Masa berlalu, individu yang sama telah meraih ijazah dan masuk ke alam pekerjaan dan rumahtangga. Beliau kemudian mengambil keputusan untuk mencurahkan bakti kepada masyarkat melalui platfom politik. Beliau berhasrat untuk bertanding pada pilihanraya umum.
Tiba musim pilihanraya umum, individu ini telah membuat keputusan untuk bertanding di sebuah GRC sebagai calon minoriti Melayu. Beliau telah mengemukakan borang permohon kepada pejabat pilihanraya untuk mendapatkan Sijil Jawatankuasa Masyarakat Melayu namun beliau agak kurang konfiden tentang samada permohonnya akan diluluskan atau tidak atas sebab kad pengenalan beliau menunjukkan beliau adalah berbangsa India. Pada masa yang sama, beliau tidak rasa selesa untuk membuat permohonan sebagai calon minoriti India kerana beliau tidak mempunyai ciri-ciri seorang yang berbangsa India.
Apabila individu ini diberitahu bahawa permohonan beliau untuk mendapatkan sijil jawatankuasa masyarakat melayu telah diluluskan, beliau imbas kembali pada alasan yang diberi apabila dirinya dikatakan tidak layak untuk mendapatkan TTFS kerana beliau adalah seorang yang berbangsa India.
Tuan, Rumusan atau tujuan utama ucapan saya adalah untuk menyeru kepada Menteri agar usaha-usaha dilakukan untuk mendalami isu yang saya kongsikan ini untuk mencapai satu konsistensi atau keselarasan dalam cara pengiktirafan samada seseorang itu berbangsa Melayu atau sebaliknya. Saya cadang agar sebuah jawatankuasa ditubuhkan bagi tujuan ini untuk mendapatkan kejernihan sekaligus mengelakkan kekeliruan pada masa mendatang.
Community Development Councils – Pritam Singh
Mr Chairman, the scope of what the CDCs have been structured to do has changed significantly over the years.
In his speech on the 20th anniversary of the CDCs last year the Prime Minister identified the issue of worker upgrading as an urgent one. How does the CDC plan to work with the Future Economy Council to meet this objective?
In 2013, the CDCs signed an MOU with the then Spring and MTI to set up five satellite SME centres in each district. While providing job support is a very helpful community function, is there greater scope to draw more operational efficiencies and productivity by directing residents to proceed straight to FSCs or even Community Centres in collaboration with Workforce Singapore, the e2i centres, the two foreign career matching providers – particularly for residents who need a job urgently. Is the position of the CDC as an intermediary necessary?
Finally, it has been the Government’s position that all Grassroots Advisors must be from the PAP – the reason being that such individuals are there to support government policies and it would be incongruous for opposition politicians, even if they are elected, to do the same. Can I clarify what is the nature of the relationship between an opposition MP and the Town Council of which he or she is an elected member on the one hand and the CDC on the other? Does it follow the approach taken by the People’s Association viz a viz Grassroots Advisers? What are the differences, if any?
Roles of a Grassroots Adviser – Faisal Manap
Sir, in 2011, responding to a public query on why an elected opposition Member of Parliament cannot be appointed as Grassroots Adviser, a PA spokesperson mentioned through a forum letter, ‘The PA and grassroots organisations (GROs) gather feedback from the public, explain government policies and programmes to citizens, and implementing social programmes’. It was further mentioned that, “it is not possible to appoint Opposition MPs as advisers because we cannot ask Opposition MPs to help the government to connect better with the people,”. Another excuse given was, “can we (PA) reasonably expect them to help the government explain, implement or improve its policies”.
Sir, I would like to argue that the current arrangement of appointing the ruling party candidates who contested and defeated in the General Election or any other ruling political party member to be the grassroots advisers of a constituency is not right. The PA’s reasons for not appointing opposition MP to be grassroots advisers, as cited earlier, does not legitimize the reasons to appoint the two groups of individuals I mentioned earlier.
Sir, to address PA’s concerns that the roles of grassroots advisers is not suitable for opposition MPs due to the reasons provided, PA can alternatively appoint a retired or even current serving civil or public servant of a certain high-position, such as Permanent Secretary or a Statutory Board’s CEO to be a grassroots adviser. Appointing a person with such reputable civil or public service background and experience is very relevant and much more appropriate as they are in a better position to explain government policies and programmes to citizens, implement social programmes as well as to help the government connect better with the people.
Another positive reason for appointing such individuals is that it will help to eliminate or avoid any possible (i) conflict of interest and (ii) politicalization of the grassroots adviser’s position, as compared to the current practice of appointing the ruling party defeated or any other ruling political party member as the grassroots adviser. Sir, I would like to seek the ministry’s agreement on this.
Sir, touching on the matter of politicalisation and conflict of interest, I would like to seek answers from the ministry whether there is indeed an element of politicalisation and conflict of interest in the role of Grassroots Adviser in the two following scenarios.
I have cited these scenarios during the recent Public Service (Governance) bill to seek some clarification but was told by Minister Ong Yue Kang to direct the matter to PMO. I submitted this cut under PMO but was redirected to MCCY.
First scenario; a member of a political party who contested but defeated in the general election, holds two designations at the same time, one, as a branch chairman of a political party and two, as an advisor to PA’s grassroots organisations.
Second scenario; a grassroots adviser conducts house visits accompanied by PA’s grassroots leaders and staff of statutory boards such as Housing Development Board (HDB) and, inviting residents to attend his Meet-The-People Session (MPS) if residents requires him to appeal on their behalf. Nonetheless, the MPS is held in a political party branch office by the grassroots adviser, who writes referral or appeal letters using a political party letterhead and signs off as the branch chairman of a political party.
Sir, I hope ministry will able to provide clarity and answers to my questions.
Class Divide – Faisal Manap
Sir, an IPS study on social capital released in December last year highlighted “class” as an emergent social divide in Singapore but that this potential divide can be softened by having different groups to mix to improve sentiments towards “national identity, national pride, social trust, and trust toward other racial, religious, and nationality groups.” In a response to the report, the Government said that it would take steps to help “facilitate opportunities for people of different backgrounds to mix,” and for sensitive issues in general, deeper levels of engagement and discussions are needed. On serious divides such as on race and religion, such engagements have included the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, where Singaporeans can “have deep discussions and ask difficult questions.”
In tackling class divides, such engagements are very important. As such, first, given the utility of the IRCC for respectful discussions on race and religion, does the Government have an IRCC-equivalent for discussing issues of class? As with race and religion, awareness on class differences can take various forms such as acknowledging “differences in the facility in the use of language (how they speak English for instance), types of social norms, areas of interests and hobbies.” Having a platform that acknowledges these differences and allows a discussion on them can be a step forward towards bridging the divide.
Second, given that shared facilities and common areas (e.g. lift lobbies, void decks) are key to helping to improve social engagement among Singaporeans, how does the Government plan to bridge residents across the public-private property divide?
Sports Hub – Sylvia Lim
The former National Stadium was our nation’s primary venue for events big and small, including the National Day Parades, and a source of national pride and connection. The $1.3 billion new Singapore Sports Hub, mooted as a replacement for this icon, was the biggest Public-Private-Partnership project at its inception, and was noted to have three cornerstones: as an integrated hub for sports and entertainment, a commercially viable model, and a national and global icon.
Since the beginning of operations in 2014, three years after its project however, the Sports Hub has been plagued with questions on these cornerstones. Even as it saw the opening of the SEA Games in 2015, and the National Day Parade in 2016, there were well-publicised disputes over management woes, consortium disagreements and even tensions between the government and the consortium over the NDP.
The NDP held in the Sports Hub in 2016 had a bill of $39.4 million, over double the bill for the NDP held at the Floating Platform in the past years, and only costing $1 million less than the SG50 NDP held at the Padang. Perhaps it is little wonder that the Floating Platform is now mooted as the primary venue of the NDP, with its redevelopment to NS Square.
Even as the government preaches patience, can the Ministry explain what benchmark it is using to measure the Sports Hub’s viability and success? On the issue of the Hub’s cornerstone as a national icon, there seems to me a real risk that it might become a White Elephant. Now that the NDP is not going to be held at the Sports Hub most of the time, how will the government steer or nudge the Sports Hub to have a strong connection with Singaporeans at large?
Singapore Football – Faisal Manap
Sir, FAS has elected their new council members on 29 April 2017. A day later, media reports mentioned that the newly elected FAS president Mr Lim Tia Kong as saying, “The real work starts now and my team and I promise that we will work tirelessly to heal Singapore football and bring back the glory days.” It has been almost a year since the new council took office. I would like to seek an update from the ministry on whether FAS has come up with strategic directions and goals for Singapore football especially for our national team and I also would like ask whether FAS has come up with a master plan to heal Singapore’s football? If no, when can we expect one?
Secondly, I would like to echo the frequently asked question from Singapore’s football fans and enthusiasts: What has gone wrong with our national football team? It was reported in October 2017, our national football team has slumped to its lowest-ever position in FIFA’s world rankings, dropping 11 notches in ranking from 162 to 173. In contrast, our ASEAN counterparts such as Philippines, Vietnam and Myanmar have been showing vast improvement in recent years and their current FIFA rankings is 116, 121 and 155, respectively.
Sir, I believe we are ahead of these countries in terms of our sports facilities and also in the area of sport sciences. We have many initiatives, to name some, the National Football Academy and Centres of Excellence; the Foreign Talent Scheme; and FAS’ Youth Development programme. So, the question again, what has gone wrong?
Sir, I do not have the answer to this question. I believe FAS will also have a hard time finding answers. One possible way to find the answer to this predicament is for FAS to conduct an in-depth study and more importantly, to involve our national football players from the different era, 70s, 80s, 90s and current. I do hope that we are able find the healing formula for Singapore’s football soon.