Quote:
Originally Posted by
alover
“You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… my asset values will disappear, my apartments will be worth a fraction of what they were, my ministers’ jobs will be in peril, their security will be at risk and their women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers. I cannot have that!" - Justifying million-dollar pay hike for Singapore ministers”
― Lee Kuan Yew
Somehow after Ministers leave Government and Politics, no MNC hired them for senior and top positions. Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan, Yeo Cheow Tong, Michael Palmer etc. were not seek after. So the truth is these Ministers are not really that top a talent that demanded top dollars.
Most after leaving Politics join companies run by friends, Government or Grassroot Leaders. Lui Tuck Yew became a Ambassador to China as nobody give him top jobs in top companies. George Yeo became Chairman at his tycoon friend’s company.
MPs who lost elections found jobs at GLC e.g. Ong Ye Kung (Capitaland), Ng Chee Meng (NTUC). The Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang PAP losers.
So do PAP Politicians deserve to be highest paid in the world?
https://yoursdp.org/publ/political_h…nge-4-1-0-518/
“The PAP makes promises they deliver. The Opposition cannot deliver.”
“If you have a flood, just carefully think who is more likely to get the drainage put right and have the flood alleviated as quickly as possible: A PAP candidate with links to the ministers and Prime Minister, or a non-PAP candidate who has become an MP, like in Potong Pasir or Hougang, and who has to manage on his own?”
“That’s a fact of life.” (Today, 29 April 2006)
– Lee Kuan Yew,
Minister Mentor
https://sudhirtv.com/2021/05/06/the-...nd-whats-next/
The elites have run The Straits Times into the ground. What’s next?
Today we heard the news that Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) is spinning off its media unit, including The Straits Times and many other publications, into a non-profit entity. This follows years of consistently poor performance amid digital disruption and other changes to the media industry.
Wiser minds will engage in more thorough post-mortems—has anybody seen Ho Ching’s feed today?—but I wanted to spark a small conversation on the culture of elite governance in Singapore.
“If not for the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the loss would have been a deeper S$39.5 million,” Lee Boon Yang, SPH’s chairman, said in reference to the media business’s first-ever lost of S$11.4m, for the financial year which ended Aug 31 2020.
(Which includes management salaries. In case you missed it, since the JSS began in February 2020, the Singaporean taxpayer has helped pay even more for the upkeep of numerous millionaire elites.)
All this got me thinking. Why exactly is Lee Boon Yang the chairman of SPH?
Lee is a trained vet who entered politics in 1984 aged 37, and then entered the cabinet in 1991.
After leaving the cabinet in 2009, in the very same year he became chairman of the board of Keppel Corporation, where he is paid S$750,000 annually. Financially, I guess it was a nice cushion after having to give up his million-dollar ministership.
After leaving politics altogether in 2011, in the very same year he became chairman of the board of SPH, where he is paid S$216,000 annually. Financially, I guess it was a nice cushion after having to give up his (similar) politician’s pay.
It is not clear what qualifications Lee had to lead the board of a global conglomerate with offshore, marine and other interests, or the board of Singapore’s biggest media company. (Subservience?)
What we do know is that during his tenure both companies have performed poorly. Their stocks have tanked. Keppel has been ensnared in a massive corruption scandal while SPH is now on its knees seeking charity to salvage, among other things, one of Singapore’s fabled brands, The Straits Times, which was established in 1845. (Or one hundred and twenty years before Singapore became a fishing village.)
Yet it may seem harsh to focus only on a non-executive chairman, whose remit is limited. Far more damning is the composition of the entire SPH Board, which in turn is responsible for the choice of SPH’s CEO: Ng Yat Chung, a former chief of defence with zero prior experience in the media industry, was hired in 2017. (He’s the person caricatured by Sonny Liew above). The Board advises and helps the CEO on strategy and operations.
Let’s compare these Singaporean elites to the people who run a far more successful media brand. In 1843, just two years before The Straits Times was founded, the Brits who stayed at home established The Economist.
I decided to do a quick-and-dirty comparison of board and senior executive pay between SPH/The Straits Times and The Economist Group (TEG). I’ve chosen 2019 to reflect pre-pandemic levels.
Disclosure: I am a (tiny) minority shareholder in TEG, which is privately held. After joining the firm in 2006, I first bought shares in 2007 under the Employee Share Ownership Plan, which I still hold (despite leaving the firm in 2013).
Chairman of the Board
SPH: Lee Boon Yang, S$216,000
TEG: Paul Deighton, S$206,500 (£118,000 x 1.75, a rough average for the year)
Total independent directors’ salaries
SPH: S$1.11m
TEG: S$588,000 (£336,000)
CEO
SPH: Ng Yat Chung, S$1.79m
TEG: Chris Stibbs, S$1.49m (£852,000)
Editor-in-chief
The Straits Times: Warren Fernandez, S$1m (estimate)*
The Economist: Zanny Minton Beddoes, S$796,000 (£455,000)
Think about the glaring skills gap.
Lee Boon Yang has little international experience, while Paul Deighton is a former Goldman Sachs executive who was later CEO of the London Olympics.
SPH’s independent directors list is like a scholars’ old boys club—and girls, including Janet Ang, SISTIC chairperson and new Nominated MP. TEG’s include the likes of John Elkann, CEO of Axor.
SPH’s CEO, Ng Yat Chung, has no prior experience in media and, by his own admission, is not even a gentleman. TEG’s CEO is Chris Stibbs, who was head of Group Finance when I joined in 2006, and worked his way up to the role, becoming CEO in 2013. (Lara Boro took over in Sep 2019.)
Finally, The Straits Times’s chief editor is somebody whose name is not known outside of Toa Payoh, while The Economist’s chief editor is the incredible Zanny Minton Beddoes, the first woman to hold the position.
Think about the skills gap, and then think again about the salaries.
Do appointments and salaries at SPH reflect merit and talent—or political allegiance?
Which other sectors are the elites slowly running into the ground?
Remember, Ho Ching and other elites love to lecture ordinary Singaporeans about improving ourselves to face global talent competition.
Well, let me ask the same question: is Lee Boon Yang the most talented person available to serve as chairman of Keppel and SPH? Does Ng Yat Chung have to face competition from the world’s best media moguls?
This whole SPH mess is symptomatic of one great problem with Singaporean business and politics today: overpaid elites with God complexes and too much to lose lording over underpaid, under appreciated underlings.
SPH’s chairman; the entire independent board; the CEO; and the editor-in-chief all earn markedly more than their peers at The Economist Group.
Let that sink in, dear reader.
Because soon they’ll be coming to you hat in hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alover
https://www.change.org/p/the-board-o...eo-s-behaviour
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ex-ministe...064424531.html
Ex-minister Khaw Boon Wan to be Chairman of SPH’s not-for-profit media business: S Iswaran
Vernon Lee
Vernon Lee·Senior Editor
Mon, 10 May 2021, 2:44 pm·2-min read
Then Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan speaking to media on 6 February 2020 during a visit to Changi Airport. (VIDEO SCREENSHOT: Dhany Osman/Yahoo News Singapore)
SINGAPORE — Former Minister Khaw Boon Wan will be the chairman of Singapore Press Holdings’ not-for-profit media business, said Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran said in Parliament on Monday (10 May).
Delivering his Ministerial Statement, Iswaran said he has discussed the proposed restructuring of SPH’s media business into a not-for-profit entity and a company limited by guarantee (CLG) with management shareholders.
“They have all agreed that, given the national importance of this undertaking and the scale of the challenge, the chairman should be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. With his high standing and more than 25 years of public service experience in various senior appointments, Mr Khaw will be able to provide strong strategic leadership for the CLG,” said Iswaran.
Khaw has agreed to be the CLG chairman and he will be sharing his thoughts on its way forward in due course, Iswaran added.
At a press conference last Thursday, SPH announced plans to restructure its media business as a CLG. Such a model will allow the media business to receive funding from private and public sources, including financial support from the government.
The move to restructure SPH’s media business comes as its core segment’s revenue and profit continued to plunge amid falling advertisement revenue.
Following the Ministerial Statement, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim asked Iswaran whether the government had suggested Khaw to take up the role before the management shareholders agreed to the suggestion. Lim clarified that she was not questioning Khaw’s personal integrity but noted that he was the former chairman of the ruling People’s Action Party, and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure.
In reply, Iswaran said Lim’s question appeared to be referring to the issue of editorial independence at the CLG. Citing the examples of current SPH chairman and former minister Lee Boon Yang and former public servants heading Mediacorp, Iswaran said these media leaders and their companies have earned the trust of Singaporeans.
“We should therefore be very clear that what matters is not a perceived political hue in appointments, but rather in the substance of the character and capability of the people who are involved…Mr Khaw Boon Wan is held in high standing in Singapore by many and beyond Singapore,” Iswaran said.
Khaw later issued a statement on the “heavy responsibility” of his new role and his anxiety given that he has “no digital media experience”.
Having been “blissfully content” in the past year, Khaw said, “This assignment will disrupt my retirement!…But I cannot allow a Singapore institution to go into decline. I will see how I can help unleash the talent and the passion in our newsrooms.”
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BushTracker
The last time PAP raise GST from 5% to 7%. 2 months later (or there about) they increased their own salaries.
Let’s see if this will happen again.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministers-...043024792.html
Staff Writer, Singapore·Editorial Team
8 August 2018
‘Ministers are not paid enough’, says Goh Chok Tong: reports
Cut ministerial pay and the government will end up recruiting “very, very mediocre people” as office-holders, said Emeritus Senior Minister (ESM) Goh Chok Tong in a dialogue with South East District residents last Thursday (2 August).
“I am telling you the ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government, because civil servants now earn more than ministers,” said Goh. “Now we dare not pay ministers a good wage.”
“To any one of us here, $1 million is a lot of money. So where do you want to get your ministers from? From people who earn only $500,000 a year, whose capacity is $500,000 a year? So (when) I look for ministers, anybody who wants to be paid more than half a million, I won’t take him. You are going to end up with very very mediocre people, who can’t even earn a million dollars outside to be our minister. Think about that. Is it good for you, or is it worse for us in the end?”
The 77-year-old added that he had asked two potential candidates who were earning $5-10 million to stand in the 2015 General Election but they declined.
According to The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Straits Times, Goh was responding to a suggestion by Braddell Heights resident Abdul Aziz, 70, that ministerial salaries be cut to fund pensions for elderly people. A recording of the conversation was posted by social news site MustShareNews.com, and Goh’s staffers later provided TOC with a transcript of the exchange.
The former Prime Minister went on to cite the example of Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong, 48, who was a senior partner at law firm Allen and Gledhill when approached to take up his current position. Tong was earning more than $2 million annually as a senior counsel and now earns $500,000 per year, said Goh.
According to the ESM, “(Tong) said, at this stage of his life, he has got a house, he has got a mother-in-law to support, a father-in-law to support, his own parents and so on, what should he do?
“So I asked him, ‘Edwin, what are you in politics for?’ He said, ‘Here to serve.’ So I said, ‘Well, you know between $2 million and perhaps half a million, later on you hopefully become a full minister, $1 million, you have to decide which is more important.’
“He said, ‘Yes, I will take it on.’ And he felt very strongly that he could do the job.”
A controversial issue
The annual pay of political appointment-holders consists of five components: Monthly salary, 13th month bonus, Annual Variable Component (AVC) based on Singapore’s economic performance, performance bonus and a national bonus based on four socio-economic indicators.
The latter bonus can range from zero to six months, with good performers typically given three months.
Currently, the annual salary of an MR4 grade (entry level) minister stands at $1.1 million, while the Prime Minister earns $2.2 million. This is based on the assumption of an AVC of one month, good individual performance and the national bonus indicators being met.
In March, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told Parliament that the government would maintain ministerial salaries at their current level.
“The economy is going through a period of transition and the government has decided to watch the changing economic conditions and outlook further, rather than making any refinements now,” said the 63-year-old, who is also Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service.
In 2017, a committee formed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong found that the existing salary framework remains “relevant and sound”. It did, however, recommended a pay rise of 9 per cent along with “fine-tuning of the national bonus conditions” to take into consideration changing economic conditions and national outlook, said Teo.
The recommended increase was to match the respective rise in the salary benchmark for an MR4-grade minister, which is currently set as the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens.
The current total annual salary of an entry level Minister (i.e. MR4) is benchmarked to 60% of the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore Citizens.
In 2007, ministerial salaries were increased by some 60 per cent.
Related stories
Yahoo Poll: Are Singapore ministers paid enough?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-poll...054706692.html
No change to ministerial salaries, says DPM Teo Chee Hean
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/budget-deb...061251917.html
MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-fu...131941715.html
COMMENT: The furore over ministerial pay is gaining currency again
Nicholas Yong·Assistant News Editor
12 August 2018
It was a jaw-dropping moment, akin to a bolt of lightning from the blue. A first glance at Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s comments in a dialogue with South East District residents on 2 August elicited the instinctive response: is this fake news? Did he really say that?
Yes, he really did. “I am telling you the ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government…now we dare not pay ministers a good wage,” said Goh in a conversation with Braddell Heights resident Abdul Aziz, 70.
And the former Prime Minister (1990-2004) went further, “You are going to end up with very, very mediocre people, who can’t even earn a million dollars outside to be our ministers. Think about that. Is it good for you, or is it worse for us in the end?”
And just like that, the 77-year-old revived the perennial, and always contentious, issue of ministerial pay: just how much is enough? For “very, very mediocre” Singaporeans like myself who do not earn anywhere close to a million dollars, his comments also presented a false equivalence: that high pay somehow equates to a high level of competence.
Goh has since come out to say that he did not mean to call Singaporeans mediocre and that salaries are not the “starting point” in recruiting for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). But the damage had already been done.
Singapore exceptionalism
While Goh was presumably unaware that he was being recorded, it feels baffling that a politician as seasoned and popular as him would treat a controversial issue in such a seemingly blase manner.
Eleven years after ministerial salaries were last increased – by a whopping 60 per cent – it was a reminder of the late Lee Kuan Yew’s infamous claim at the time that “our women will become maids in other countries” if their pay did not go up. Teo Chee Hean, who was then Defence Minister, added, “If we don’t do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse.”
It was Lee who, in 1994, advocated pegging the salaries of government ministers and top civil servants to that of the private sector. Today, Singapore has the highest paid ministers in the world, with an entry-level minister paid $1.1 million annually and the Prime Minister earning $2.2 million (including conditional bonuses).
But besides averting the destruction of Singapore, the issue has also become a political liability for the PAP, arguably even more so than hot-button topics such as train breakdowns and the influx of immigrants.
Ownself reward ownself?
It is safe to say that most Singaporeans do not begrudge our political appointment-holders being well compensated – what is in dispute is the exact amount they should be paid.
But what rankles is the seemingly arbitrary manner in which the government can raise its own salaries – an apparent case of ownself reward ownself, to paraphrase the popular saying. And while Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in March that ministerial pay would remain unchanged for now, Goh’s remarks suggest that the PAP’s mindset on the matter has not changed.
The government has often benchmarked Singapore’s performance in a wide range of areas, ranging from the economy to education, against global indicators to underscore how far the country has progressed under their rule. Yet when it comes to ministerial pay, it has noticeably shunned using the same benchmarking practice to push its case.
So what are the arguments for the exceptionalism of Singapore – and the ministers – that they can muster to justify the massive disparity between their salaries and that of their peers elsewhere? Are the responsibilities of Singapore’s ministers more demanding relative to leaders from other countries? Is the Republic a far more complex nation to govern relative to others? Do some leaders from other countries not get a significant pay cut before entering public service?
An emotive issue
This issue has assumed greater resonance in light of the rapid ascension of the 4G leadership to positions of responsibility. For instance, just three years after being elected, Ong Ye Kung is already a full minister and a contender to succeed PM Lee. One cannot help but ask: what exactly has he – and his 4G peers – done to deserve to be paid millions? Who among the 4G leaders would be bold enough to address the issue, especially when their millions are at stake?
Then there is the manner in which office-holders are often talked up as exceptional individuals who could be earning much more outside of government – ESM Goh noted that Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong took a hefty pay cut to take up his current appointment.
But while ministers like Tong, K Shanmugam and Ng Eng Hen indeed sacrificed much financially to work in government, this is nevertheless a fallacious argument. Consider this: a significant number of the current ministers came from the civil service and the military and have never been tested in the private sector. For some, their current salaries are likely to be the most they have ever been paid.
The arguments can carry on all day, but ministerial pay will always be an emotive issue. With a General Election due in just two years, the PAP should be wary of reviving it. Otherwise, they may well find themselves paying a political price for paying their ministers so dearly.
Related stories
Ministerial pay debate: ‘Singaporeans know quality costs money’- Goh Chok Tong
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministeria...122652830.html
Yahoo Poll: Are Singapore ministers paid enough?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-poll...054706692.html
‘Ministers are not paid enough’, says Goh Chok Tong: reports
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministers-...043024792.html
COMMENT: Can Singapore’s elite circle turn around growing social divide?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-ca...124724650.html
COMMENT: Is Singapore becoming a catch-up nation?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-si...063112601.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BushTracker
The last time PAP raise GST from 5% to 7%. 2 months later (or there about) they increased their own salaries.
Let’s see if this will happen again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BushTracker
The last time PAP raise GST from 5% to 7%. 2 months later (or there about) they increased their own salaries.
Let’s see if this will happen again.
https://sbf.net.nz/showthread.php?t=642656&page=23
Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July.
Mr Singh said: “How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we’re told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?”
Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. “It’s also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens,” he said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chasted
Why need to beg for food? Just say things that the fucking whites don’t like to hear and they’ll sue until you have free food in Changi chalet
WP has no reason to step into the GRCs/SMCs they lost because it might be gone (redrawn) next election, no base like RCs, PA, CCs events/organisations to actively be in the area, no mandate from voters to stay in the area, no town council duties to stay in the area, no funds to walk the area weekly, change in work life and personal life etc.
For smaller political parties like WP, fluctuation in candidates are normallly greater than PAP in each election especially for election losers as 5 years is a very long time. They have to get on with their daily lives.
Most times, election candidates end up as a one-chance kind of thing and if the voters did not give WP candidates the chance to serve in that election, most likely voters might never see them again due to age, work, family etc as they have no stable safety nets like GLCs, Civil Service, NTUC etc to give them a life.
This was WP’s best slate of candidates in 60 years and voters blew it. Dont have high expectations to see the WP Punggol and Tampines Teams again in GE2030 plus expect more walkovers in future elections as more good people are discourage by election results to join WP.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...s-over-results
GE2025: WP supporters left with mixed emotions over poll results
Shawn Hoo and Akshita Nanda
UPDATED May 05, 2025, 02:40 PM
SINGAPORE - The colourful party streamers were still draped on the trees outside the coffee shop at Block 322 Hougang Avenue 5. While there were smiles aplenty, several WP supporters said they had mixed feelings.
Mr Ng, a 60-year-old who declined to reveal his full name, said a WP victory in Hougang SMC, the party’s stronghold of more than three decades, was expected.
But the party’s showing in other constituencies was not, he added.
WP contested and lost in Punggol, East Coast and Tampines GRCs, as well as in Jalan Kayu and Tampines Changkat SMCs.
“I wouldn’t say we are disappointed, but we had hope,” the driver said in Mandarin, adding that he had hoped for the WP to gain more seats in Parliament in this election, with cost-of-living concerns being top of his mind.
His group of six friends – all senior citizens and long-time residents of Hougang – had gathered on May 4 near the coffee shop to greet Mr Dennis Tan, who was re-elected for a second consecutive term in the single-seat constituency.
Mr Ng, with his friends chiming in, said WP MPs have been a consistent presence on the ground in Hougang over the years.
Another resident in her 60s, who declined to reveal her name, said: “For PAP candidates in Hougang, they have a chance to win only if they are moved to other constituencies.”
At the polls on May 3, Mr Tan, 54, beat PAP newcomer Marshall Lim, 38, with 62.17 per cent of the vote share.
Mr Wang, a Tampines GRC voter and WP supporter, was also at the coffee shop, where residents often gathered over the years to wait for the results of past general elections.
Mr Wang, who declined to reveal his full name, had a copy of Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao to share the poll results with his friends.
“I thought the WP had a 50-50 chance in Tampines GRC,” he said.
The PAP team retained the seat with 52.02 per cent of the vote in the constituency.
On May 4, Hougang residents, who have collectively voted for WP MPs in the constituency since 1991, poked their heads out of their windows to applaud Mr Tan for retaining his seat.
They shouted cheers of “Workers’ Party” when he arrived in Hougang Avenue 5 for a victory parade at about 12.20pm.
Mr Eric Goh, who was with his two children, said: “MP Dennis Tan has been such a constant presence that even my five-year-old daughter recognises him.”
The taxi driver said Mr Tan had previously attended an event at his daughter’s infant care centre.
The WP team in Sengkang GRC also held a victory parade.
The opposition party won 56.31 per cent of the vote share against the PAP, up from 52.12 per cent in the 2020 General Election.
The WP’s Sengkang team – Ms He Ting Ru, 41, Associate Professor Jamus Lim, 49, Mr Louis Chua, 37, and Mr Abdul Muhaimin, 36 – waved to supporters from a lorry.
During a brief stop outside Rivervale Community Club (CC), Mr Chua told The Straits Times: “We’re out here this morning to thank our residents for their support. We are very grateful for the support they have given to us and their trust.”
Sengkang resident Andrew Yap, 60, made a special trip to catch a glimpse of the “Sengkang Four” as they are known on social media.
The businessman, who usually spends Sundays resting at home, said he took a walk in the morning in the hope of meeting them.
“They came in only five years ago but have really made a difference. When the lift in my block broke down, they fixed it quickly. When any facilities have problems, they fix it quickly,” Mr Yap said.
Other WP supporters in Sengkang told ST that the MPs have gained residents’ support over the past five years through estate improvements, including the introduction of more bus services and sheltered linkways.
Ms Shirley Leong and her friend Pamela Tan, both 30, who have lived in Sengkang since they were children, arrived too late to meet the WP team outside Rivervale CC.
Ms Tan, a freelancer in the construction industry, said the improved infrastructure has made it easier to take public transport to her workplaces.
The two women, who attended the four WP rallies during the campaign period, said this election had felt more personal than the 2020 polls.
Ms Tan said: “I felt the kampung spirit, with people from different backgrounds getting together even outside the rallies.”
At around 10.30am, a handful of WP supporters waited at Kopitiam Square near the Compass One mall, but missed the WP victory parade.
Among them was a 40-year-old mother of two, who declined to give her name. She said she and her family had moved from Punggol a few years ago because Sengkang was held by the WP.
“I am touched by what they have contributed, not just to Sengkang, but by speaking up in Parliament about issues like housing,” she said.
“My husband asked me what we would do if they had lost the election. I said, ‘We can move again.’”
