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 23 of 85.
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make clarification in respect of remarks made by Prof. Chin. On migration, I am quoting from the Straits Times poll or survey that 20% are leaving. But I do not think Prof. Chin has given any figures as to the number returning to Singapore. I hope he can do that. As regards the strategy of the PAP in the last election, I think it is common knowledge. Unfortunately, I think Prof. Chin has not visited Potong Pasir or any of the opposition wards during the hustings. He would then know that it was made unequivocally clear to the people of Singapore that if they did not vote the PAP, they would probably get last and there was a hint of not getting any upgrading at all. Unless the PAP is trying to deny that, they have to produce all their election speeches at the rallies. An economic union is not an appeasement. I am surprised that he used the word "appeasement". It is not something that the Prime Minister of England, Mr Chamberlain, returning from a trip to Munich took a piece of paper signed by Hitler. This is nothing of that sort. It is a step between two neighbours which is very logical. I think all the arguments for merger and economic benefit raised by the first generation PAP leaders still hold today unless he is trying to refute and say that it is not true. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to engage in a ding-dong battle with Mr Chiam over figures. During the election I had been to an opposition ward in Bukit Gombak and I was walking around there. I know what our policy has been regarding upgrading. And as we all know, in terms of Singapore's attitude towards trade, the world is our market, not just Malaysia, and I think I have said enough in relation to that. May I continue with my speech?”
“Secondly, Mr Chiam seems to be pushing the point that we have been using the upgrading issue as a political ploy for the People's Action Party. I think it has been stated on many occasions that upgrading will be for all Singaporeans regardless of political affiliation and that it is a question of priority, but in the end all will get upgrading. Finally, I see that Mr Chiam has managed to import his policy of appeasement relating to Malaysia from the SDP to the Singapore People's Party of which he is now a member. In terms of economic arrangement, it must be asked whether Singapore's aspirations are necessarily served by any bilateral agreements when ASEAN is already in place and it is not at all clear whether any common market arrangement would be beneficial, as Mr Chiam would have us believe. Having said that, may I now return to the Debate on the President's Address? The President reminded us that we have enjoyed political and social stability since independence - Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“I do not think that should Singapore commence talks with Malaysia to form an economic union, it would be in any way jumping the gun on ASEAN's proposal to form an ASEAN Free Trade Area in the year 2003. Our membership of ASEAN, I believe, does not preclude us from entering into any bilateral arrangement with any other ASEAN component member, especially such relations do not go counter to ASEAN's aims and objects. In any event, Malaysia is not just any member of ASEAN. Malaysia has always had a special relationship with Singapore due to having a common colonial past with Singapore, having its proximity to Singapore and having a common culture and common ethnicity and language with Singapore. If both sides have the will to cooperate, I am certain the formation of a common market between Malaysia and Singapore can come to fruition and both economies shall benefit greatly and the chances of living peacefully with our immediate neighbour shall be enhanced. Our water supply from across the Causeway can also be assured. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Member for Bukit Timah, in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of this Ninth Parliament. Before I do that, may I just draw attention to some points made by Mr Chiam just now. I will make three points here. First of all, he said something about Singaporeans wanting to migrate. I think all of us have also heard stories that there are many who had migrated but had returned to Singapore after experiencing the adverse conditions abroad and after knowing the developments that had taken place in Singapore which all of them have realised are for the better.”
“In Europe, there is the European Union (EU) but within that larger grouping, there exists a smaller economic arrangement comprising Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) which within themselves have some kind of a common market arrangement. I cannot see why when a common market arrangement is made between Singapore and Malaysia, it cannot subsist within the wider AFTA countries. In 1963, the first generation PAP leaders were all of one mind that Singapore should be part of Malaysia, both politically and economically. I think they had in mind more so economically. The short period of about two years when Singapore was in Malaysia, Singapore prospered economically as it had a sizeable market to sell its goods and services. In 1965, Singapore was booted out of Malaysia and there was acrimony in the parting of ways between Singapore and Malaysia. There was no possibility at that time of forming an economic union as feelings were bad on both sides of the Causeway. Even till today, we can see from recent events that ill feelings can still be easily generated between the two countries. But I believe that the recent events caused by what Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said of Johor Baru in his affidavit in connection with the Tang Liang Hong affair shall pass away with time. It may take longer than usual, but it shall go away. When the situation between Singapore and Malaysia has become normal again, I would suggest that the Singapore Government take the initiative to propose an economic union with Malaysia. I shall, of course, be too pleased if I am called upon to assist in this endeavour.”
“This can be achieved if we form an economic union with Malaysia, our immediate neighbour. Lest I be misunderstood, I must explain that I am not advocating a merger of political union. What I am suggesting is that we seek a common market arrangement with Malaysia. If such an arrangement is achieved, our market size for Singapore products shall be increased from 3 million to over 20 million people. With an enlarged market, we can export more of our goods and services and shall have also more opportunities for investment. For such an arrangement to come to fruition and to succeed, we must assure our Malaysian neighbours that such an arrangement is for mutual benefit and not for the sole benefit of Singapore. Both countries can gain from such an economic cooperation and not only both countries can become richer but the ties between the two countries can be strengthened. In 1980, I founded the Singapore Democratic Party and I drafted the objects contained in the Constitution of that party. One of the objects of the SDP is to strive for Singapore to have an economic union first with Malaysia, then later with the other ASEAN countries. Last year, I left the SDP and joined the Singapore People's Party (SPP). I am happy to say that this object of having an economic union with Malaysia is also contained in the Constitution of the SPP. To me, it is only natural that Singapore and Malaysia shall eventually form an economic unit despite the intentions of ASEAN members in organising the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). I must point out that to have an economic arrangement within a wider common market area is something that is not new.”
“As regards the first objective to build social cohesion, Singaporeans from young should be taught to be patriotic. Their duty as Singaporeans is to build Singapore to become a nation. We are all Singaporeans, and we must care for one another. But it is not like this in Singapore today. At the last general election, the ruling Party told Singaporeans that if they did not vote for the PAP, they shall not be cared for and their housing estates would become run down. And only those constituencies that returned PAP candidates, their wards would be well taken care of. This kind of election strategy will only divide Singaporeans into two camps - those who voted for the PAP and those who do not - and this is not based on ideology but on materialism. And if the PAP, after being returned to power, actually carried out their threat of serving only those who favoured them at the polls, then the PAP is serving its own self-interest and not that of the nation, and that is not good for building a nation. The PAP's scare tactics did work to some measure at Potong Pasir in the last election. Many residents in my constituency were really afraid that their flats shall not be upgraded. I had to assure them that there is no way the Government can leave certain parts of Singapore to be unattended and the flats there to become slums. I am heartened now to read in the President's Speech that the Government has given its assurance that "no part of Singapore shall be left behind as we progress". This is said with reference to the HDB Estate Renewal Strategy and the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes. I now come to the second objective - to create an environment where the size of our national pie can be increased.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah. The last hon. Member, Mr Seng, as I was listening to the translated version of his speech, said that karaoke activities promote bonding. The only type of bonding I know of karaoke activities is between young females from China and our males in Singapore. Perhaps he would like to clarify what sort of bonding he has in mind. If not, I would proceed with my speech. The Government's aim is to make Singapore our best home. The majority of Singaporeans would agree to that. But in a survey carried out by the Straits Times not long ago, it was shown that about 20% of Singaporeans, or one in five Singaporeans, want to migrate and make another country their home. One in five Singaporeans wanting to migrate to another country is quite a large number, despite the Government's lure to Singaporeans to wealth-sharing by the State, asset enhancement and home ownership programmes. Obviously, the 20% Singaporeans who want to get away from Singapore and live elsewhere are not impressed by the said Government programmes. For those of us who want to live here and make Singapore our best home, the question is how do we go about it, how about doing it. The Government has its own ideas, as spelt out in the President's Speech. Basically, to me, if we want to make Singapore our best home, we have to achieve two objectives. The first is social cohesion. This is necessary if we want to continue to live in peace together. The second objective is to make an environment where it is possible to create greater wealth so that there is more to share among Singaporeans and enjoy a higher standard of living.”
“Please allow me to join the other colleagues in congratulating you once again to be elected as the Speaker of Parliament. This is my 13th year and I have found no difficulty in catching your eye. Now that I have been moved to the front, I think that task of catching your eye is even much easier.”
“I have a clarification for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says the CDC will bring the Government to the people. What does he mean by that?”
“Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister took the analogy of playing badminton and tennis because there are fixed rules and the players know exactly what they are going in for. But in the case of elections, the opposition are still in the dark. Where exactly are 3-, 4-, 5-member GRCs going to be? Can the Prime Minister clarify how many 4-member, 5-member and 6-member GRCs will there be? Do we have all 6-member GRCs or some 5-member GRCs? So we are at a disadvantage. The other matter is about boundaries. Can the Prime Minister announce which are the eight single-seat constituency boundaries? Then it would be like playing badminton and tennis. As for the number of GRCs, how many will there be? If we do not know these things, I do not think it is a game of tennis and badminton. The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a game of tennis and badminton, except that we do not know where the courts are at the moment. But once we tell you the venues, you will go there and the rules are fixed. They can play badminton and tennis once the venues are known, and whether it is hard court, grass court or clay court, once they are announced, you should be ready to play. I see no difficulties in that.”
“Even with the present four-MP GRCs, CDCs can still be formed by merely splitting a four-MP GRC into two, one half of which could join up with another GRC to form a larger unit comprising six MPs. I do not see any problem to that. At the moment, single-seat PAP wards are joined up with the neighbouring PAP GRCs for the purpose of running their town councils. If that can be done, I do not see any problem for part of a four-MP GRC to be divided so that part of it could join another GRC to form a CDC. The boundaries of these merged GRCs could be arranged to be contiguous, if that is the worry of the Prime Minister. Formation of CDCs is only administrative in nature. Administratively, even under the present election system of four-MP GRCs, the CDCs envisaged by the Prime Minister can be formed. There is no need to so drastically amend the Constitution. The Prime Minister has spoken only about formation of CDCs within the boundaries of six-MP GRCs. He has not mentioned about the remaining eight single seat constituencies. Will each of these eight single seat constituencies be eventually absorbed into a CDC? In any event, if the CDC is such a great thing, it will appear that by the present Amendment Bill, the individual single-seat constituency shall be excluded from any CDC. As far as I can see, the reason given by the Prime Minister to increase the composition of a GRC from four to six MPs with a view to forming CDCs with enlarged GRCs is a weak one. The more plausible explanation to change the present election system is to reduce further the chances of the opposition to win at the next General Election.”
“Most of the new candidates do not have a high public profile and are quite unknown entities. On their own, some of these new and weak candidates may lose if they contested in single seats. However, under the umbrella of the enlarged GRCs, they just need to hang on to the coat-tails of the older MPs and they can easily get elected and each has a seat in Parliament. If this were not the case, then I would ask that all the PAP new candidates be fielded in single-seat constituencies. If the ruling Party did that, then I would be the first one to say that the amendment to enlarge the GRC to six MPs is truly not to ruin the chances of the oposition in the coming General Election. It is unfair of the PAP to be changing the election laws at a time when the General Election is just around the corner. These laws should have been amended at least two years earlier and not when the GE is to take place in two or three months' time. The unfairness is enhanced by the fact that the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee has still not published its report. As such, the opposition is in a quandary. They are unable to prepare fully for the General Election as they do not know which single-seat constituencies shall be converted into GRCs and which of the existing boundaries of the GRCs shall be altered. On this point alone, the opposition is put into the most disadvantageous position. The Prime Minister's intention for wanting to increase the number of MPs in the present GRCs from four to six is to eventually make a six-MP GRC into a Community Development Council, headed by a mayor. The formation of the CDCs is a mere administrative exercise.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. I will confine myself to clause 14 of the Bill. In America, there is a saying that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. In Singapore, we can say that if anything the PAP can do to make it more difficult for the opposition to win an election, it will do. We have seen since 1984 that there are several changes to the election laws, all aimed at thwarting the opposition or making it more difficult for the opposition to win at a General Election. In 1984, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) was introduced. Then in 1988 came the Group Representation Constituencies, followed by further amendments to the Constitution and the election laws to get Nominated Members into Parliament. In 1988, there were three MPs in a GRC. Then it was increased to four in 1990. Even with four MPs in a GRC, there is already enough obstacle put in the way of the opposition. Now, we see that this Bill before the House attempts to further increase the number of MPs in a GRC to six and also by subsequent legislation, to slash down the number of single-seat constituencies from 21 to 8, which is a very big reduction in the number of single seats. I believe that these drastic steps are taken as a result of the scare the PAP suffered in the 1991 General Election when the opposition adopted a by-election strategy. The present Bill is a strategy of the PAP to counter or defeat the opposition's by-election strategy, if any, in the next General Election, and to reduce the opposition's chances of winning generally. On the other hand, the enlarged GRCs of six members each do help the PAP in the elections. It is reported that there may be between 20 to 26 new PAP candidates to be fielded in the coming General Election.”
“Sir, the leader that he is talking about only represents 30% of the constituents. How is he going to achieve the objectives? Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, I do not think you are seeking clarification. I think you are repeating yourself. I will put an end to the debate now.”
“Sir, the Minister, by practice and the Act, is keeping out the elected representative of the constituency from grassroots activities and he represents 70% of the constituents. If 70% of the constituents are not represented in these grassroots organisations, how is he going to achieve this end of community bonding and social cohesion? That is my question.”
“Can I ask the Minister then, how does he intend to have community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion when he keeps out a representative who represents 70% of the constituents? How are you going to achieve your ends?”
“Sir, I was going to follow up with another question.”
“What does the Minister understand by these two phrases? Can I have a clarification? What is community bonding and what is strengthening of social cohesion? Mr Speaker: Order. It appears to me that the hon. Members are questioning the Minister when in effect the debate has ended. I would like to remind the Members that in seeking clarification, they should actually confine themselves to seeking clarification as defined under the Standing Orders. But it appears to me that they are putting new questions to the Minister under the guise of seeking clarification.”
“Sir, may I have a clarification from the Minister?, I suppose fostering of community bonding would mean the bonding of the different races - Malay, Chinese, Indians and others. And with regard to social cohesion, this would probably mean the cohesion of different class levels - working class and people who are not in the working class and of different professions. Can I have a clarification on this, please?”
“Sir, there is a glaring discrimination against the Opposition MPs. All Opposition MPs are not appointed advisors to the grassroots organisations whereas all PAP Members of Parliament are automatically appointed advisors to grassroots organisations. The Board of the People's Association in this respect is going against the wishes of the people. The constituents want their elected representatives to be their advisors in the grassroots organisations but the People's Association thinks otherwise. In fact, the PA has elevated a defeated PAP candidate at the polls to a higher status than the elected Opposition MP at Potong Pasir. The defeated PAP candidate is given all the facilities to win back the seat. He has been given special facilities such as a room in the void deck to hold meetings and to hold his meet-the-people sessions. That room is fully air-conditioned and fully equipped with computers and other clerical aids. On the other hand, the elected Opposition MP has to work from a table that is placed in the open void deck, no different from a fortune teller plying his trade on a five-foot way.”
“Is the Minister assuring the House that if there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to give incentives to taxpayers to conserve water, he will look into it?”
“Sir, conservation of water is a national policy. The Government, in fact, penalises businesses and individuals who over-use water. I believe there is no incentive in the Income Tax Act given to both businesses as well as individuals to conserve water. I notice that in clause 5 of this Bill, the Government is going to give an incentive. In fact, it is going to give taxpayers an allowance of 100% in respect of capital expenditure incurred on the provision of efficient pollution control equipment. Similarly, this benefit is also given for business people who incur capital expenditure on any energy efficient equipment. If the Government is serious about conservation of water, I would ask the Minister whether he is also willing to give such incentives to taxpayers, both the businesses as well as individuals who have water conservation equipment.”
“I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given the answer in regard to the timetable for possession of the premises that have been acquired. Can he identify those premises in respect of Potong Pasir Constituency? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think it is not for the Land Office to release details on when the individual property owners will hand over possession, even if we can do so. Firstly, because, like I said, it depends on the landowner. He may have a scheduled date for handing over, but he can leave earlier. And even if you ask me, for example, to let you know which residents in Potong Pasir are scheduled to leave by March 1997, which residents by July 1996 and which residents by July 2001, the question is: should it be furnished to third parties? It is a different matter if the Member asks his residents and they let him know these dates. But for us to furnish a list like that may have other consequences. Landowners may not want that date to be made known. Otherwise, they may be inundated, for example, by real estate agents who will pester them about finding alternative accommodation. SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR FOREIGN MAIDS 8. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked the Minister for Labour whether he will consider waiving the forfeiture of $5,000 security deposit for foreign maids in the event they abscond and the employers have done their best to locate them but to no avail.”
“They will be paid. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In assessing the value of the property, the Chief Valuer will look at the market value of the property and that will include the premises as they are.”
“Will they be paid? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes.”
“Sir, I do not remember the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has answered part two of my previous question. Has he answered? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes.”
“Sir, as regards those premises under the Control of Rent Act, now that it has been partially repealed in that the whole of Singapore has, in fact, been declared a designated development area, does the compensation for the old houses still have the same quantum before it was declared a designated development area? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, regardless of whether the property is controlled or not controlled, the Chief Valuer will take the same approach and assess what is the market value of that property. If the property is controlled premises and you sell it in the open market, you sell it subject to encumbrance, and you will get a depressed price. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES IN POTONG PASIR 7. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Law, in regard to those properties in Potong Pasir which have been compulsorily acquired, if he will (i) state the timetable for the taking possession of those properties; and (ii) identify those properties at each stage when the Government takes possession of them. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Law): Sir, Land Office had already written to the affected landowners in July 1996 informing all of them individually as to the scheduled date for them to deliver possession of their properties. The actual date of possession will depend on whether the landowners choose to remain on their properties until the scheduled date of possession or to vacate their properties earlier.”
“I just want to have a clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. He says that the quantum of compensation is more for those who move out and less for those who stay behind. How does the Ministry determine this quantum of compensation for those who move out early and for those who move out late? Is the difference in quantum due to the rentals that they would have to pay? How are these two amounts determined? Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, delivery of the property on an encumbered basis does not mean that he decides to stay behind or not move out. What it means is that when he delivers the property to the State on an encumbered basis, he also asks for certain other privileges or benefits which include partly a resettlement package. Under the resettlement package, the Government will offer to him an HDB flat, direct from HDB, lifting of 30-month debarment period and priority for the allocation of such a flat. For that benefit, he gets a lower compensation and the calculation is done by the Ministry of Law based on a certain formula that they have come up with.”
“Owners who can deliver vacant possession of their acquired properties to the State will receive higher compensation. They would be able to secure alternative housing on their own and should not join the queue for subsidised public housing with other HDB flat applicants who have less means. Therefore, they are not exempted from the 30-month debarment period when they apply to buy flats directly from HDB. New HDB flats are not the only housing option for owners of acquired private properties. Other housing options that such owners can consider are HDB flats sold in the open market and Executive Condominiums sold by the private developers. Regardless of the basis of compensation for the acquired private property, the 30-month debarment period is waived for these two types of housing.”
“The Minister says that in relation to shophouses, ex-gratia payments will also be given. Will it be given to the owners of the shophouses or to the tenants? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, compensation money is always paid to the owners because the quid pro quo is that he gives title of the property over to the State. APPLICATION FOR HDB FLATS (Relaxation of 30-month debarment period for people affected by compulsory acquisition of land) 4. Dr Lau Teik Soon asked the Minister for National Development whether he will relax the 30-month debarment period for the application of Housing and Development Board flats for those affected by the compulsory acquisition of land for the North-East MRT line and comprehensive development and, if so, whether he will grant them priority allocation in view of the fact that some of them have to surrender their properties by March 1997. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, owners whose private properties are acquired by the State for public development can claim compensation on either encumbered basis or vacant possession basis. Owners of private properties which are encumbered would receive lower compensation when their properties are acquired by the State. To help such owners, HDB then exempts them from the 30-month debarment period and the $8,000 income ceiling when they apply for new HDB flats. In addition, they are granted priority allocation of HDB flats. While waiting for the completion of their new flats, they can also apply for HDB rental flats as transitional accommodation for a maximum period of three years.”
“Can I have a clarification? Should the owner stay back and not move out, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that he pays market rental. I have the impression that he does not pay the market rental but he pays only for the interest that the Government would have lost by giving full compensation. Is it right? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: No. He wants to remain on the premises after being paid full compensation, ie, the statutory compensation, which is the value of the property as of 1st January 1995. Beyond that, of course, the ex-gratia payment will take some time to compute. Ex-gratia payment is the difference between the value as of 1st January 1995 and 4th March 1996. Going back to Mr Chiam's point, if the owner wants to remain on the premises after being paid full compensation at vacant possession rate, he pays market rental as assessed by the Chief Valuer. And, Sir, in fact, this is the practice. A property owner who sells his property and wishes to remain on the property after the sale will make an arrangement with his buyer. If he wants to remain on the premises, and the buyer allows him to do it, he will pay market rental, not nominal rental.”
“Can the Minister give concrete examples of actual bids and actual numbers given for COE licences for last month?”
“Do you vary the 3% figure and give a further increase after May?”
“This 3% allowable COE is based on what figure? Is it for that month or what?”
“I think it is not a question of numbers. Even two Ministers purchasing properties have already caused such a stir. We are not talking about 20. We are talking of only two.”
“I think the Prime Minister has not addressed the issue that I have put before the House. We have Ministers buying property. So what is the principle we want to base upon to allow Ministers to buy properties. Can they buy 10 properties? Because if Ministers use their spare money to invest in properties, there are many social repercussions as well. Firstly, if they keep on buying property, of course, property prices will escalate because they show an example. The other matter is that, with capital appreciation, they can use the increase in price as a leverage to buy other properties. In fact, as the Senior Minister has said, I think the English landed class in the end brought the nation no good. Just owning property is in fact unproductive. The point is, what is the principle you apply to Ministers, MPs, civil servants, whatever you say, they have a privileged position, and how many properties should they purchase. Do we have a ruling? Have you turned it over in your head and think about these problems? If not, we will leave it at that.”
“One small flat - I hope I have not missed out any - and one small office space.”
“I own one small bungalow which I live in. An hon. Member: How small? How many square feet?”
“The Prime Minister agrees to tell me how many properties he owns. Mine are all peanut-size properties compared to his. An hon. Member: How many?”
“I own more than one property. Some hon. Members: How many?”
“Sir, for reciprocity, if I tell the PM, then he has to tell me.”
“Perhaps the Prime Minister would also consider these social factors.”
“Much obliged. The Prime Minister said that Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants should be given equal opportunities to buy properties. We have heard from the Senior Minister that it is a matter of fact that they are all in the inside track. And whatever we say, they are in a privileged position and therefore they have the best choice of properties. We do not begrudge them. I have already made my stand. We should not stop Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants from buying property. Now we have heard from the Prime Minister that before Ministers can purchase properties, they must report to him and declare certain particulars. I do not know whether the Prime Minister would also consider making additional conditions in that they can buy but, of course, they cannot speculate and make money out of it. Also, I think there are other important considerations, ie, they cannot purchase properties using inside information and, of course, they must declare that there is no conflict of interest. What is the purpose of a property? It is to live in. Everybody wants the family to have a house. So that is the purpose of having a shelter or property. In Singapore's case, property has become a means of making money. Ministers can buy properties - one, two, three, four and where do we end? After having satisfied oneself with a house and is comfortable, I do not think a person wants another house. All right, maybe two houses to live in, if not one. Then he says, "I have to buy properties for my children." If he has three children, all right he buys three houses. I think that is very fair. But if he carries on buying four, five or six houses, is that socially fair? Because if he buys additional houses, that means he is depriving another citizen's family from getting a house.”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Prime Minister?”
“I think that is clear enough for me. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Thank you.”
“Of course. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Okay, that is so. We decided to do it not because it was an unsolicited gift. But because we decided to treat it as an unsolicited gift and therefore give it to the Government. The Prime Minister said, "No. It is not an unsolicited gift. Period. There is no basis to accept it." He has returned it to us. We gave it to charity. I think that is clear. I do not know if Mr Chiam wants some clarification.”
“The point I am trying to clarify now, as I earlier thought, is that the reason why DPM and Senior Minister had returned this "unsolicited gift" - as the words were reported in the papers - was because of this ruling. If I am wrong, then -- BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I explain? Mr Chiam has said and I repeat, for the record, that there was no reason whatsoever for me and the Senior Minister to return the discounts at all.”
“It is a matter of honour, as he says, that he has returned it, and I believe that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I clarify?”
“These discounts should not be returned at all, I mean. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I agree with Mr Chiam.”
“In my mind, there is no doubt that -- BG Lee Hsien Loong: So there was a question of illegality or improper behaviour?”