What is the difference between 'Annul' and 'Phase Out' ?
'Annul' :
- to reduce to nothing : OBLITERATE
- to make ineffective or inoperative : NEUTRALIZE
- to declare or make legally invalid or void : NULLIFY
'Phase Out' :
- to discontinue the practise, production, or use of by phases.
Is there no difference in the nuances between the two words ?
Does not the word - 'Annul' - carry some degree of 'immediacy', some degree of 'effective completeness' ?
Are the words 'Phase Out' not clear by implication of the work being carried out in Phases ?
Politics is a battle of wits, but some resort to trickery and guile to 'hoodwink' the less informed, and those who have lesser understanding of a language which is foreign to themselves.
Concerning the Parliamentary Report, was the Opposition Member - Low Thia Khiang - given any opportunity to represent his position ?Parliamentary Report – Annual Budget Statement – 17 February 2006 Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): A clarification, Sir.
Mr Speaker: A short one. No speeches, please.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Prime Minister has referred to the Workers' Party's manifesto. I happen to have a copy here. On unemployment insurance, I would like to clarify the reason why we contemplated and decided to propose this unemployment insurance. It is because of the experience of the financial crisis. Yes, we have retrenchment benefits, but when the company closed down, the workers get nothing. Bearing in mind that there are a lot of workers who are not unionised, they are just retrenched and left with nothing. They can be drawing a few thousand dollars or a few hundred dollars but, suddenly, when they are retrenched, they must be left with nothing because the company just went bust. How do they cope with life with the sudden drastic change in income? The current situation that we have, in terms of securing some kind of payment, when a person is retrenched, is not satisfactory.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is not one point of clarification. It looks like Mr Low is making another speech.Mr Lee Hsien Loong: He should have said this in the debate, not now.Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am clarifying. He is saying that unemployment insurance is something ---
Mr Speaker: But you are taking the opportunity to make a long speech, Mr Low.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Okay. I cut it short, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Just clarify. That is all.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The concern of the Government is whether this is going to be a welfare state. So I clarify that it is not so because we are contemplating unemployment insurance ---
Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not think Mr Low knows the meaning of clarification. After the PM has made his round-up speech, he is to seek clarification from the Prime Minister and not to say something in clarification of what he had wanted to say or had said but said wrongly or was misunderstood. That is the meaning of clarification. I think he better understand this carefully. If he wants to have a debate on the Workers' Party manifesto, that is a different matter. It is not a clarification.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I understand that I can only seek clarification of what the PM has said. Okay, never mind, Sir. I leave the matter. I do want to clarify some points made by the Prime Minister. First, on unconditional needs-based welfare scheme, he said it would bankrupt the Government. He criticised the Workers' Party for saying that the Government should provide unconditional needs-based help. I would like to seek clarification from the Prime Minister as to what form of help that is going to be. If it is not going to be unconditional needs-based, is it going to be adhoc or depending on budget surplus? What happens if there is no budget surplus? The people who need help will perhaps have to fend for themselves. I hope he would clarify that point.
The second point is on fiscal prudence. First of all, I wish to thank the Finance Minister for his detailed explanation as how the Budget is funded. I noted the funding is actually quite thin in the sense that you do not have very much left. Practically, this Government is spending almost everything it has accumulated within the term of government.
Is he spending too much and having it too thin in terms of the margin that has to be contributed to the national reserves?
Sir, the fact that the Prime Minister has to explain in detail here how the budget is funded shows that we do not need an Elected President. What we need is a robust parliamentary democracy and sufficient number of Opposition Members in Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low, there you go again. Mr Low Thia Khiang: It is purely for clarification, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Please take your seat.Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong : I want to thank the Prime Minister for his comprehensive reply. Can I clarify with him about his comments on the funding of the Budget. Which chapter and clause in the Singapore Constitution states that all land sale proceeds go immediately into the national reserves and should not be reflected in the operating budget? I think it is the Government's choice of accounting practice and not a constitutional requirement. Can the Prime Minister clarify on this?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, Mr Low Thia Khiang asks: unconditional needs-based versus what? It is versus what we have been doing, where we have many helping hands. We have ComCare, S&C, U-Save and Progress Package. We have many schemes to address problems according to their needs. But unconditional needs-based, that you will all be entitled, do not be afraid to put your hand out. This is something which should have been debated during the debate, when he made his speech, instead of scoring political points. Then we can discuss whether it is wise or unwise, how he raises it. Well, there will be further opportunities for him to do so, I assure him, before the General Election.
As for funding being thin, let me tell Mr Low that every self-respecting Finance Minister has more than one bottom card and I have not shown him all of my cards yet.
On Mr Steve Chia's land sale, this is the principle in the White Paper which is settled between the Government and the President, and it has been tabled. It is not an arbitrary arrangement. Land is a form of asset. So when you transform one asset into another, you are not earning something, you are just changing from land to the equivalent amount of money. The money can come back and become land. So land is locked up, therefore, the money is locked up. This is a straightforward matter. There is no monkey business or anything strange about it.
Is it any surprise that the Speaker of Parliament - managing the debate - seems to be bias towards the Opposition Member of Parliament, while allowing the Ruling Political Party MPs to make speeches ?
With the Members of Parliament from the Ruling Political Party being allowed to make clarification and distort statements and speeches from the Opposition Party, lies and distortions will go into record of Parliament, while any attempt by the Opposition to challenge those errors and set the record straight will remain unrecorded.
Can we depend on the Parliamentary Report for any accuracy ?