Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 85.
“Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to ask my question. Sir, I know that DPM has mentioned that disciplinary actions shall be taken against certain officers but, nevertheless, I would still like to ask him whether any heads will roll after the escape of Mas Selamat because this is a serious security breach. Sir, I am not happy about the answer he gave on the use of tracker dogs. I thought that was the most suitable occasion that tracker dogs would have been used. Probably if we have used tracker dogs Mas Selamat would now be in custody.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether tracker dogs were used to hunt the escaped terrorist. If so, was it successful?”
“Sir, despite what the Minister said and the provisions in the Companies Act, in recent months, large sums of money have been lost by public companies. Should the Ministry not do something about it?”
“It is unfair of the Government to discriminate against Potong Pasir. Potong Pasir for the last 20 years has been completely deprived of any upgrading benefit. Millions of dollars have been spent but Potong Pasir has not benefited even one cent of those funds spent on upgrading public flats. Are Potong Pasir residents not Singapore citizens? Do they not pay income tax? Do their sons not do National Service? The Government should use public funds fairly for the benefit of all constituencies, including the Opposition ones. Despite the fact that Potong Pasir has not benefited at all from HDB upgrading programmes, I still support the Bill. 3.30 pm”
“The Main Upgrading Programmes (MUP) at two precincts were rejected by flat owners - at MacPherson and Pandan Gardens. The MUP at Teck Whye was postponed and then withdrawn after the MUP was scrapped by the HDB. The said two MUPs failed because lessees complained that the upgrading took too long - two years, I believe. And it was too noisy and dusty, and a lot of inconveniences caused. In the case of the MUP at Marine Terrace, the sub-contractor there went bust and could not continue with the work. The cost of upgrading at that time was also a factor. The inclusion of a space addition item (SAI) was another problem as well. I believe that the Government was surprised that residents rejected MUP, especially when the Government thinks that the MUPs were done for the benefit of the residents. The MUP was halted at about 2004 and subsequent new upgrading programmes have come on stream. Following the MUP, there was the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), followed by the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) and the LUP-Plus. Then came the Hawkers Upgrading Programme (HUP) to be carried out by the NEA, after which came the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), then the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). The last two programmes, namely, the HIP and the NRP, were announced by the Prime Minister at his National Day Rally Speech on 19th August 2007. And not surprisingly, Potong Pasir was not included in the list of HIP, NRP and all the upgrading programmes mentioned above. May I ask the Minister of State what is the reason for Potong Pasir not being included in the abovementioned upgrading programmes, although Potong Pasir is eligible for it? Will Potong Pasir ever be included in the categories of upgrading programmes and, if so, when?”
“Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill which, in principle, is to enable the Housing and Development Board to carry out upgrading works within flats in its housing estates if 75% of flat owners vote in favour of such upgrading works. I would also like to say that my Party, as an Opposition Party, supports the Government's policy of upgrading HDB flats. I make this statement to dispel any notion that the Minister may have that the Opposition does not support the Government's upgrading programmes. That was the reason, I believe, that the Minister gave after the last election when the Government failed to upgrade Potong Pasir HDB flats after promising to do so. I note that the list of items included for upgrading under clause 2 of the Bill is all-embracing. It includes items within the flat and also items within a building or any part thereof not comprised in the flat. It is encouraging to know that the HDB shall be upgrading so many items because after 25 years, an HDB flat needs a lot of repair and upgrading. The most troublesome faults occurring within an old HDB flat are spalling concrete, leaking ceilings and corroded sewer pipes. These faults in old HDB flats are very unpleasant and unsightly. As for the spalling concrete, they are menacing and dangerous. These faults that I mentioned are best rectified by HDB upgrading. Before those upgrading works are done, a poll has to be taken and a 75% approval must be sought from flat owners first. It must be noted that the flat owners do not give their approval automatically and vote for the upgrading of the flat. The HDB cannot take flat owners for granted and must look at the sensitivities and interest of flat owners in carrying out the upgrading programmes.”
“This heavy punishment gives confidence to patients who have divulged their individually-identifiable information to the Registry to ensure that it will not be leaked to third parties. I am agreeable that there be a provision whereby the Registry can disclose information held by the Registry in an anonymised form on payment of an appropriate fee. However, I cannot agree with clause 10(1) whereby the identity of a patient is disclosed in regard to a reportable disease for the purposes of conducting national public health programmes. I cannot see the relevance of the name of the patient to the disease he suffers from. Personally, I see no necessity to disclose the name of the patient to the Registrar as long as all the particulars of the reportable disease are disclosed to him. Now, may I get some clarification from the Minister on the following: (1) Under clauses 10, 11 and 12, will the patient be allowed first to be told that his name shall be revealed together with the sickness? (2) If so, will he be allowed to appeal against the Registrar's decision if he objects? (3) Is the Minister willing to establish an appeal mechanism comprising a review committee? The appeal mechanism is to assure the public that there is no abuse of the system. This assurance is important because a person's sickness is very private to him and normally, he does not want it to be divulged even to a limited number of persons who are strangers.”
“Sir, may I, first, comment on the issue of doctor/patient confidentiality? At common law, the courts in many countries still respect the confidentiality of information obtained by a physician in his professional capacity. He cannot divulge that information without the prior consent of the patient. However, in many other jurisdictions, he may be in conflict with the law. The international code of medical ethics that has been adopted in principle by all countries, whose medical associations are affiliated to the World Medical Association, embodies the Declaration of Geneva (1949), which states, "I will respect the secrets which are confided in me." In circumstances where there is public interest in which the court requires disclosure of information, the physician may risk imprisonment for contempt of court if he declines to give the information. This is the position in Great Britain, also in Singapore before the passing of this Bill, and in about 15 states in the United States. In about 35 states, however, varying degrees of privilege, precluding disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of treating a patient are allowed, but the privilege can be waived in certain circumstances, eg, if the patient offers himself or his physician as a witness, although this is not the invariable rule. The tendency of the courts is to allow privilege to the physician. Now, allow me to touch on clauses 8 and 10. Clause 8(1) of the Bill protects the anonymity of information submitted to the Registry. Sub-clause 8(2) of the Bill prohibits the disclosure of any individually-identifiable information, and sub-clause 8(3) provides the punishment for breaching sub-clause 8(2). The fine is a hefty $10,000 and a jail term of 12 months, or to both.”
“The Government takes these crimes seriously because any person caught having sex with minors, whether inside or outside Singapore, shall be liable to a maximum jail sentence of two years. And for tour operators who organise such tours outside Singapore, they shall be liable to a jail sentence which may extend to 10 years or with a fine or both. This heavy jail sentence shows that the Government is taking these crimes seriously. 5.34 pm”
“Those countries which have abolished the death penalty consider it as inhuman and very cruel as a punishment. As a deterrent, the death penalty has its use. Singapore has used the death penalty for drug trafficking because the Government believes that it is a good deterrent. Actually, the traffickers who are caught and hanged are only the petty runners. The syndicate bosses are not caught. They still exist and the drug problem is still with us. The Government should give it a try and abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking, say, for four or five years. And if the situation deteriorates and does not improve, the death penalty can be restored. Under the new definition, once a trafficker is caught and he is sentenced to imprisonment for life, he shall be put out of circulation permanently. For that person, it is as good as being hanged. With such an enlightened law, Singapore shall be viewed in a better light. We shall not be branded an "uncivilised" country and more Europeans shall be coming to Singapore as their holiday destination. I am glad to see that there are so many amendments in the Bill which stop the exploitation of young girls. These crimes now attract enhanced punishment and longer prison terms. Rape is a serious crime. The jail sentence remains at a maximum of 20 years and to a fine. When the crime is committed against a woman of under 14 years against her consent, there is a minimum jail sentence of eight years and also mandatory caning of 12 strokes. I think this sentence is right. If a young girl under 14 is sexually attacked, her whole life may be ruined. There are amendments against commercial sex and minors below 18 years of age outside Singapore. Tour operators of commercial sex with minors under 18 are also caught under the new section 376D.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. The last amendment to the Penal Code was 22 years ago, in 1985. The amendments that we are making today must be one of the most extensive provisions in the Penal Code, mostly enhancing the punishment sections. The use of caning has been expanded. Cesare Beccaria, the Italian philosopher, in 1766, wrote: 'The objectives of the penal code system of a country should be to devise penalties only severe enough to achieve the proper purposes of security and order. Anything in excess is tyranny.' I think if he were alive today, he would brand the majority of the punishment section meted out in the Penal Code as tyrannical, eg, under section 338, a person commits a negligent act. A negligent act usually is one which does not have an intention. It is only due to carelessness. As in law, they say it has got no mens rea or no intention to harm anyone. Yet, one who commits a negligent act, although the act is a dangerous act, it is punished severely with two years jail, or $5,000 fine or both. I think the sentence is too severe for a negligent act. The Bill has amended the definition of "imprisonment for life", to mean imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life. This is in contrast to the old definition of "imprisonment for life", to mean imprisonment for 20 years. Judges can now lock up a person for good without any chance of parole or early release. With this amendment, are we looking forward to the abolition of capital punishment for certain less serious crimes, like drug trafficking, whilst retaining it for more heinous crimes like murder and treason? Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965 and has since not restored it. Nearly all the EU members agreed to do away with the death penalty.”
“Lim Pin, appointed to study the CPF changes, shall recommend that the whole workings of the CPF system be made simple and more transparent, so that it can be easily understood by the workers. 4.27 pm”
“Sir, I have a question to ask of the Minister. How many people live beyond 80 years old in Singapore today? The Minister says that statistically, life expectancy of Singaporeans is only up to 80 years of age, which means that the majority of Singaporeans will not benefit from the sum locked up under the compulsory annuity scheme from age 55, which means that as regards the majority of old people in Singapore, the Government has cheap use of the money for 25 years or more from age 55 years to 80 or 85 years. The Government has not mentioned for each member what is the amount from the Minimum Sum needed to be locked up. But if we take that sum to be $10,000 and if we should just take 100,000 contributors of the old folks who live up to 80 years of age, that amount paid by the 100,000 senior citizens is much more than the $1.2 billion the Government pays out for the Deferred Bonus and Voluntary Bonus. That sum collected from the 100,000 people is about $25 billion. If the Government manages the annuity itself and not farm it out to a private insurance company, it could top up the annuity accounts of poor citizens itself and not wait for the Government surpluses to do so. I support, however, the call of NMP Cham Hui Fong, MP Josephine Teo and Mdm Halimah Yacob yesterday in this House for the Government to top up the sum in the annuity pool from Government surpluses. Sir, the CPF scheme is no longer a simple compulsory saving scheme for the workers to build a nest egg for their old age. It has become a complex financial instrument in the hands of the Government. I hope the committee, comprising experts headed by Prof.”
“The first one is as regards the deaths of two athletes this year, whether they have undergone pre-participation screening. My second question is: what comprises pre-participation screening? The third question - I do not know whether it is suitable for the Minister to answer or the Minister for Defence - I hear that boys, during their NS days, ran beyond the safety limit. Despite the pain, they were supposed to ignore the pain and kept on running until, I suppose, they collapsed. Apparently, they did not give up and kept on running. But, in fact, this is a dangerous culture to adopt.”
“Sir, following up on the question from Ms Denise Phua, is it important for a Singaporean who wishes to marry a foreigner to, first, get prior permission to marry from MOM, and, if having obtained permission, there is a better chance for the spouse to remain in Singapore after marriage? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not think Singaporeans should seek permission from the Government for everything that they do, including getting married, unless, of course, the spouse with whom you want to marry has a prohibition operating against her, which is the case if she has worked here before under a Work Permit, where there is an express condition that a foreigner cannot marry a Singaporean, and so application is made to MOM. Except for this category, if Mr Chiam's constituent wants to marry a foreigner who has not worked here before and is not subject to this condition, by all means. But, like we have said, just because you are married does not automatically mean automatic stay thereafter. SAFETY OF FOOD PRODUCTS FROM CHINA 10. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development how does the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority ensure safety of food from China given the recent incidents of use or excessive use of prohibited substances in food products from China.”
“Sir, banks require buyers to pay the first 5% in cash. Can this requirement be waived?”
“I think we are not talking about the payment to the maid. We are talking about the maid levy. So those people who can pay the maid levy should be made to pay. And those poor people who cannot afford, I think they should be given some concession because they have to make a living for themselves, their family and their elderly parents. That is the point of my question. Is it not possible whereby the wealthy should be made to pay for the less wealthy? Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, the levy is not a tax system. The levy is meant to regulate the number of foreign domestic workers in Singapore. And we have to have a levy system to ensure that only those who can afford it would be able to employ a foreign domestic worker. For those who may need some assistance but cannot afford to pay the salary of the foreign domestic worker and/or the levy, then they should find other assistance schemes which are already made available by our Government agencies. We should not treat employing a foreign domestic worker as the only solution to all the problems in the household. FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY SINGAPOREANS 11. Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what financial and non-financial assistance are available to the vulnerable sectors of society, such as widows with children who are unable to work or are otherwise unemployable and whether there is systematic aid, as opposed to ad hoc aid; and (b) whether his Ministry will actively co-operate with civil society groups such as Wicare, in ensuring that resources are provided for and do in fact reach those most in need of help.”
“Sir, surely the Government can build a more equitable system. For those who can afford, I think it is fair to make them pay, even two or three times. They can afford it. While those who are really in need, I think they should be given a maid, especially the husband and wife who are earning a living and they have children at home, and also there are elderly people to be taken care of sometimes. So can the Government not think of a system which is equitable - take from the rich and give it to the poor?”
“Sir, our present system of allocation of maids favours the rich. Some rich people have as many as five maids. But some Singaporeans who are poor and who are really in need of maids cannot qualify even for one maid. So maybe the Government would like to change the system where it is more equitable to give those who are really in need of the maids a chance to have a maid.”
“Sir, at one debate in this House, I pointed out that although the price had increased at the Braddell Road gantry, the congestion was still present. I wonder whether the Government is willing to hold a feasibility study before it increases the fee at a gantry, to ensure that the fee increase will, in fact, solve the problem, which is what is intended.”
“Different people have different considerations. But I know on the ground that owners who want a replacement, in fact, negotiate with the developers who are buying the property. This has happened in some of the developments. So, let the owners negotiate with the developers and get a deal that suits them. STUDENTS WITH EARLY PSYCHOSIS (Identification and management) 3. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education if he will provide an update on the measures that our education institutions have in place to identify and manage students with early psychosis who may pose a danger to fellow students or staff.”
“Sir, the sale committee is perhaps the most important component in the en bloc sale process. It appoints the agent to sell the whole development and it also appoints the solicitors, and I think it has got a duty to appoint the valuers. Therefore, it must be properly appointed. Usually, an en bloc sale involves millions of dollars, and I think their responsibility is very great. So, I hope the Minister will incorporate some statutory measures to make sure that the sale committee is properly appointed. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said in my main reply, Mr Chiam will be very pleased to note that this is a key recommendation of the proposed consultation. Proposal No. 3 says that the sale committee must be properly constituted at a general meeting where members will be informed, notice served, and they come and elect the sale committee. Indeed, another suggestion that we are looking at is that the minutes of the sale committee should be posted on the notice board so that all owners, whether majority or minority, will be kept au fait with the discussions. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I wonder if the Minister can make it possible for some of the flat owners to exchange one for one; in other words, their old property to exchange for a new one, when the new ones are developed, in the same place. Usually, for the older citizens who stay in a place for a long time, they would like to remain there. But, of course, that is not possible unless they exchange one for one. I think they also do not like the hassle of finding alternative accommodation. I wonder if the Minister can incorporate this provision into the law. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this is one area where we should leave it to the owners to decide, because not all owners may want a replacement flat.”
“The last time, I believe it was Dr Lily Neo and others who were asking for more PA allowance. There you are, if you can save on the Minister's salaries, we can have another 66,000 people benefiting from the money we save by giving less to the Ministers. What are the jobs of the Ministers? Are they paid to grow the economy or, simply, just to take care of the Ministries or to lead the nation? The Minister Mentor, last Wednesday, in Sydney, said that Singapore should not save on the $20 million or Singapore's $210 billion economy will be jeopardised. Now, he is assuming that Ministers are responsible for growing the economy. But there is one glaring example of the Shin Corp fiasco which showed that the Ministers' judgement and decision, if they are involved, do not justify the huge amounts of salaries they receive. Maybe the Ministers can explain why the Ministers have not made a decisive decision in the Shin Corp deal, which I think it is not very wise and gets Singapore into a bit of a fix. 6.35 pm”
“In the commercial world, the CEO or the manager has to only think of the bottomline, but the political leader must, at all times, maintain integrity and moral authority to inspire and to rally the people. Once the moral authority is lost, the whole credibility is also lost. A Minister receiving a salary amount of $1.2 million will certainly undermine his moral authority. As John F Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The question is how to determine the salaries of Ministers. The Government chooses to fix the benchmark of Ministers' salaries by pegging them to the highest earners in the private sector. I think this is unfair to the taxpayers who are footing the bill because the high performance managers and the CEOs are given all kinds of extras, incentives and perks, such as bonuses, stock options and also bonus shares. In other words, their salaries are highly inflated. How can our Ministers take that as a benchmark? A fairer way is to peg Ministers' salaries to the Ministers of other First-World countries. I think Hong Kong is a good country to follow. Hong Kong is an Asian country about the size of Singapore. They are paying the head of government of about $600,000 a year or about $50,000 a month. I think this is a fair salary. At the last debate in this House on the revision of Ministers' salaries, I suggested at that time that we pay our Ministers $50,000 a month. This time round, I would suggest that Ministers be paid higher, about $70,000 a month or $840,000 a year. If we pay our Ministers overall less by $20 million, that amount can be saved and we can easily use that to up the PA allowance - $300 per month - to benefit another 66,000 cases.”
“The reason is that NKF is a charity and its funds all come from donations of Singaporeans who themselves are not rich. Poor people are also supporters of NKF and the money they donated should mostly be used for the benefit of the patients and not to line the pockets of its employees. A charity must be run for the benefit or the purpose of the charity. Although the Government is not a charity, it has many similarities with charities, especially in the way it runs with honesty and integrity. A government should be run entirely for the benefit of the citizens of Singapore. When Ministers are paid exorbitant salaries, then Singaporeans perceive that the Government is not doing everything it can for the people of Singapore but it is more interested in lining the pockets of its Ministers. Only recently, Members of Parliament have been trying unsuccessfully to get the Minister to increase the Public Assistance from $250 to $300 per month. How will the people react if they found out that the Government is asking for a pay hike of Ministers' salaries when the Ministers are paid of about $100,000 a month? The people in the bottom 5% are still paid only about $1,000 a month. What are the Ministers going to say to these people when there is such a great disparity of incomes between them and the lowly-paid workers? As far as I am concerned, they have all lost their moral authority, vis-a-vis the low-income workers. The gap of their incomes is too great, in fact, 100 times. The poor worker has to work 100 months to earn the amount of salary a Minister earns in a month. The duty of political leaders is different from that of a leader in a commercial world.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. A Minister in Singapore gets an annual salary of $1.2 million, our Prime Minister gets $1.9 million, and our Minister Mentor gets $2.7 million, as reported in the press. Compared to our office-bearers, the President of the United States gets an annual salary of only nearly $1 million. The Prime Minister of Canada gets paid about S$400,000; the Australian Prime Minister receives an annual salary of about S$300,000; the Prime Minister of the UK gets about S$500,000 and the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR government gets about S$600,000. The salaries of these heads of government that I cited are amongst the highest paid in the world and the salaries of our Ministers easily surpass them. It can be said that our Ministers receive the highest salaries in the world. This can be entered into the Guinness Book of Records as a world record. This is another first that Singapore can boast of, ie, Singapore is a small country described only as a dot on the world. The United States of America has a land area of about 15,000 times that of Singapore and over 60 times more people than us, but our Prime Minister earns more than President Bush. Yet, our Prime Minister and other Ministers are still dissatisfied - they want more. The question is: if the heads of governments of other bigger and more industralised countries can live on salaries less than a million dollars, why can our Ministers not do the same? It does not mean when a country is able to pay its Ministers more, they can automatically ask for more. Why was Mr Durai of NKF ostracised for receiving more, although NKF can well afford to pay him more?”
“In fact, my feedback tells me that there are many workers whose Medisave accounts are already depleted. Can the Minister do something for these aged poor patients who need medical help badly, maybe to top up their Medisave accounts whenever they fall below $2,000? I hope the Minister will look into this as the insufficiency of funds in their Medisave accounts is widespread. 2.18 pm”
“But at this present moment, I cannot accept its mode of implementation, that is, one-off payment and not permanent. The WIS scheme should be implemented in the spirit for which it is intended, give meaningful help to the low wage workers. The WIS should be paid, for a start, twice a year, and to be made permanent. I do not think that the WIS scheme will create a crutch mentality because the workers must be working first before he can receive a wage supplement. There is no free meal for him. The worker must be working first before he can receive help. Now, I would like to mention two groups of people. The first group is the housewives and the second group is the contract workers, especially the contract workers working in the airport. The housewives are our true nation builders. They work unheralded quietly at home, taking care of the family and children, bringing them up to be good Singapore citizens which our nation so much depends and relies. I think at the next Budget, the Minister should reward them with something. The second group is the elderly contract workers. Almost every time I am at the Changi Airport coming back or leaving for an overseas trip, I am confronted by elderly workers there, pushing their trolleys. They complain to me about their work. They are contract workers and do not receive CPF and other perks which other workers normally receive. I hope the Minister can also look into their plight and reward them. After all, these elderly workers have given a lifetime of work to society and, in their twilight years, they should be given something back. Through the Workfare and various CPF changes, the CPF balances of most workers will increase, but many are worried that their savings in Medisave are not enough to meet their medical needs.”
“The rich would not feel the effects of the raise in GST. But the poor certainly will. Generally, the hike in GST is regressive in that the percentage of income spent on goods liable for taxation is higher among the low income groups. Regressiveness is often increased by a practice of applying the same tax to cheaper brands as to the more expensive ones. The GST, unlike other taxes, cannot be used flexibly as a weapon for fighting inflation and maintaining economic stability. It would appear that as long as the economy is good, there is every likelihood that the GST rate will increase. Increases shall be a feature of the Budget until the 10% mark is reached. The last time the Government distributed giveaways through the Progress Package, many people were unhappy because their incomes were wrongly determined and they received less of the payouts. Those poor people happened to be living in private housing but were classified with the rich. This time round, I hope the Government would finetune their efforts to determine the recipient's income more accurately. I have called upon for the abolishing of the estate duty in this House before. I now support the call made by Mr Inderjit Singh to scrap estate duty. Estate duty collected by the Government each year is not significant. Singapore shall be better off if estate duty is taken off the statutes book. Globalisation has forced the Workfare Income Supplement scheme upon the PAP. I support the concept of this scheme. Its principles are sound. The income gap between the better paid workers and the lower paid workers must be narrowed. Singapore is a First World country and its workers should not be paid the Third World wages. The WIS scheme is a good thing.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me this opportunity to join in the debate. Hong Kong's corporate tax rate is 17.5%, 0.5% lower than Singapore's. There is talk that Hong Kong may lower its corporate tax rate to 16.5%. The Hong Kong Legislative Assembly shall be meeting today to decide whether its corporate tax rate shall be lowered further. Hong Kong has a lower corporate tax rate than Singapore. Yet, it has no GST. Does Singapore need to raise its GST by a further 2 percentage points? Not necessary, says a writer in his letter to the Forum page, if land sale is seen as revenue. Government never sells to the public land in fee simple, that is, freehold. It only sells leases with 30 years, 99 years or whatever length the tenure it decides. After the expiry of the leases, those lands revert to the Government. In any event, IRAS treats the earnings of multiple sales of land within a year not as capital appreciation, but as income and are subject to tax. The returns on land sales can be treated as revenue by the Government. If the Government is not obsessed with having a budget surplus on every Budget day, but only aims for a balanced budget, there is no need for a GST hike. It only has to use cash generated by land sales to balance the budget. The two percentage point increase in GST will raise an additional $1.5 billion in revenue. This, according to the Minister, is needed to cover for the loss of revenue in implementing Workfare and the lowering of the 2% corporate tax. The proceeds from the sale of land are in excess of $4 billion. This sum of $4 billion is more than the sums spent on Workfare and the loss of taxes when the corporate tax is lowered. They can easily be used to pay for the loss of revenue. The 2% increase in GST would hit the poor harder than the rich.”
“Does the Minister know that at the ERP gantry at the CTE and Braddell Road junction, there is always a traffic jam, both in the afternoon and in the morning?”
“Sir, I am not blaming anyone or saying anything about foreign talents. But I just want to know. He does not have to be defensive about it.”
“Just now the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that Singapore won 42 medals at Doha and eight were gold meals. Can he please tell us how many of these were won by foreign talents?”
“It has already been said that the Opposition wards will always be last in the queue. So I am assuming that only in 2014, the money will be released to us. But, more specifically, I would like to ask whether the amount of $80 million is really an incentive for the residents to vote the PAP candidate, not for upgrading.”
“Sir, I think it is not fair to give a vague answer. She said "by 2014". Does it mean that Potong Pasir will only get its share of upgrading by 2014?”
“Sir, there are two supplementary questions. The first one is a direct one: why was the sum not released to the residents of Potong Pasir for upgrading? The second question is: does it mean that if we submit an amount for upgrading of Potong Pasir, the Government is willing to pay out that money?”
“Sir, I do not think the Minister mentioned one point I brought up. I said that, nowadays, after every election, there seems to be a massive number of new PAP MPs. Is he admitting that with so many bright young fresh PAP MPs coming to Parliament, there are still not enough people to give ideas to the Government and they still need to have more Nominated MPs to supplement the ideas given by the PAP MPs?”
“Sir, if the Minister wants just views, I am sure there is no need to get Nominated MPs to give fresh views. In Singapore, we have many professional people and experts. You can go and get their views. Why should you bring them into Parliament to give their views? I think that is really not relevant to the issue at all.”
“Sir, I am sure the Minister knows that the House of Lords has a different function from the House of Commons. The Members of the House of Lords are all appointed Members. I agree that they are not elected. But it has got a different function. They do not represent the people and do not purport to represent the power of the people. They are there just for purposes of reviewing whatever the House of Commons has done, in particular, Bills that need to be approved by the Queen. Sir, if we want a second chamber, then we should set up a second chamber. Why sneak in the Nominated MPs? As the Minister knows, in a democratic country, the sovereignty of the state rests with the people. Of course, all the people cannot speak on their behalf, so they elected MPs. Their power is handed to them to speak on their behalf. So we have this House of Representatives, which is what the Americans call their Lower Chamber. So ours is like the House of Representatives. We are all representatives of the people. We take responsibility for them, and whatever they want us to say in Parliament, we say it for them on certain issues. So, the purpose of the House of Commons - in our case, we have only a single chamber - is for elected representatives to be in Parliament to speak on behalf of the people. But in the case of Nominated MPs, they do not represent anyone. So how can you call them to be democratic? They are not democratic. They speak only on their own behalf and they do not speak for any constituency or part of constituencies. At least the NCMP has got some representation in Parliament and therefore they can be called democratic. Sir, I do not agree with the Minister who says that the NMPs are democratic. 6.28 pm”
“This move is to show the public that the PAP has the best crop of capable candidates to be their Members of Parliament. Sir, if that is so, then the PAP has enough talent on its side to offer fresh and good ideas. Surely, there is no need to appoint NMPs to further contribute fresh ideas in this House. Or is it that, inwardly, the PAP is not really that confident of its new MPs and need NMPs to bolster them up? Sir, to me, the appointment of NMPs is purely for political reasons. The thinking behind its formation, I believe, is something like this. The PAP perceives that Singaporeans generally want them to rule the country and, at the same time, the people of Singapore also want the Opposition's voice in Parliament. So, to comply with these wishes, the PAP introduced the idea of NMPs and they can serve as the voice of the Opposition in Parliament. I think that is the reason why NMPs are appointed. The NMP concept is definitely more useful to the PAP than to the people of Singapore. Sir, I do not support the motion. 6.17 pm”
“Sir, I know that the points to be brought up may be a repeat of what I had already said, but I think they are worth repeating. Sir, I have objected to the appointment of the Nominated Members of Parliament from its inception in September 1990. I have not changed my mind. I therefore do not support the motion in the name of the Leader of the House. Nominated MPs are not democratic. They do not represent anyone. They only represent themselves or, at most, the ruling Party which appointed them into Parliament. In any debate in Parliament, NMPs are supposed to be non-partisan. They do not take sides. They are supposed to remain neutral. They are said to represent a third voice, if there is such a thing as a third voice. I personally do not think so. One is either for or against the issue. Sitting on the fence, according to one renowned American Secretary of State, is immoral. Therefore, I do not think that the NMPs of this House would want to sit on the fence. But this creates a dilemma for them. In any event, NMPs cannot be effective. They do not represent any constituents, but they are also barred from voting on certain important subjects, for example, any amendments to the Constitution or Bills relating to the provision of money, or grants to the Government, taxes and public funds. They also cannot vote on any motion of no confidence against the Government and a motion to remove the President from office. The appointment of NMPs to Parliament is a waste of taxpayers' money. Now that the PAP is having a massive renewal exercise after each election, the new PAP MPs recruited are touted to be the best and the brightest. Some have even been appointed to office before they have any experience as an MP.”
“Sir, I am interested to know how Hougang was offered $100 million for upgrading and Potong Pasir was offered $80 million. How did the Government arrive at these figures?”
“Sir, this particular election that we are talking about, the PAP has made a specific promise to upgrade the constituency at Potong Pasir. Yes, they said that if the candidate wins. But there must be an implication in the spirit of the promise made. There must be an implication that the Government is willing to help Potong Pasir residents. Is it not in that spirit that the $80 million was promised? Sir, can I ask the Minister of State whether or not the $80 million promised was purely an election strategy, no more, no less, just to get the people in Potong Pasir to abide to them so that they can vote the PAP candidate? In fact, they have got no interests of the residents in Potong Pasir at heart at all.”
“Sir, does not the ruling Party have the interest of the 45% voters who voted for them at heart, or they just leave them to sink or swim themselves?”
“I am still not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of State because it seems all very irregular, especially concerning the PAP Government. But anyway, can I ask a second question?”
“I think the Minister of State should not divert the debate now. We are concentrating on a huge sum of money in the coffers of the Government which can be released to an individual candidate. I wonder at whose authority. The taxpayers' money is taken out from Government funds and he said, "You give it to me so that I can win the elections." That sounds very irregular. I thought at least the money should come from a motion in Parliament or approval from some authority. So who gives the approval for this sum of $80 million to be released to Mr Sitoh so that he can win his election?”
“Sir, when a candidate makes a request to the Government for money to be released to his constituency he is standing in, who gives the right for this money to be released? Who sets aside this money as a budgeted amount? These all seem very irregular to me. It sounds completely irregular.”
“Sir, I am a bit puzzled by the answer given by the MOS. She says that the $80 million is offered by a PAP candidate and the Government is willing to offer that $80 million to him to upgrade Potong Pasir if he should win the election. It is a very puzzling thing. Can I also ask the Government to release money on my behalf to make me win the elections? How does the mechanism work? How can a candidate ask the Government to release money so that he can win the elections? Can she please explain? This is very puzzling.”
“I wonder if the Prime Minister would just clarify on the minimum wage. In the West, they have given welfare at such good rates that some workers refuse even to work. But in Singapore's case, it is just the reverse. The lowest of the low wages in Singapore are so low that some workers even refuse to work because they say they cannot sustain themselves and their families with that sort of a wage. So they refuse to work because the pay is so poor. It is just the reverse of the West. I think if we give some kind of minimum wage whereby they can sustain their families and themselves, I think they will work. And not only they will work, because if you give them a bit of dignity, enough to eat, enough to live on, they will be even more productive. But if they are forced to accept the low wage, they will not be productive because they just have got no heart to work. The pay is so low and they do not have dignity and respect as a worker, they just go slow. So the whole country loses out. I wonder if he could just comment on that.”
“Sir, I think Mr Inderjit Singh is wrong on the point of the $80 million. It was not wholly rejected by all the residents of Potong Pasir. In fact, 45% voted for the PAP.”