Goh Chok Tong
Singapore
“This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode: "The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame...”
“They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them.”
“The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt. PROPERTY AGENTS' COMMISSION RATES 2.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2008, what is the takeup rate for the interim rental housing scheme that is provided to those without homes; (b) what are the reasons given for rejections under this scheme; (c) whether the rental rates were affordable; and (d) how many applicants had rejected the rental…”
“MAS is working with relevant government agencies and stakeholders to study the issue carefully, and to consider the various proposals that have been raised, including the feasibility of introducing a no-fault regime.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on (i) the use of sustainable alternative materials in the construction industry and (ii) the cost of construction materials in view of increasing inflation rates and rising oil prices; and (b) how will the high material and labour cost impact on…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,367 lines we hold for Goh Chok Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 28.
“I do not require MPs to clear their purchases with me because they do not exercise executive powers like Ministers. It is also impractical for me to vet every purchase MPs make. The onus to ensure propriety of property transactions remains with the MPs. Prof. Walter Woon, Nominated Member of Parliament, flattered me when he said he could go along with the present system of office-holders clearing their purchases with the Prime Minister as long as the present Prime Minister occupies the office. He suggested that the purchases be also cleared with the President as an additional safeguard, since the President is elected by the people. Behind his suggestion is that a future Prime Minister may protect the wrongdoing of his political cronies, or even himself be taking advantage of his position when buying properties. Check-and-balance is good, but I do not think it is correct or necessary to share the responsibility of clearing Ministers' property purchases with the President. The present Prime Minister wants to be responsible for the purchases of his Ministers. It is not a constitutional requirement. He appoints the Ministers, not the President. He is doing it to deal with a political problem of perceived advantages of Ministers at property launches. If there is any wrongdoing, and the Prime Minister stops an investigation by CPIB, the CPIB can go direct to the President to proceed with its investigation. The system of check-and-balance is already in place. A Prime Minister can be investigated by the CPIB even though it is under his charge. I am, however, attracted by the intent of Walter Woon's suggestion, which is basically to prevent wrongdoing from being concealed. We now have Town Councils. Not all are under the charge of PAP MPs.”
“When approving their purchase, I will exercise my judgment and discretion in deciding whether a transaction, in the circumstances of the market and the particular purchase, can withstand public scrutiny. I will take into account the state of the property market when clearing a purchase. While I have taken upon myself to clear purchases of properties by Ministers and other office-holders, the onus is on them to provide all relevant information without concealing and suppressing relevant facts. My approval of any purchase is on the basis of the information given and will be negated if important details have been withheld or concealed. If wrongdoing is subsequently suspected because concealed information has surfaced, there must be an investigation. If the purchase is above board, and all the facts had been disclosed to me, I will stand up for the Minister. I am not requiring the Ministers to clear the property purchases of their spouse and children with me. Already, by requiring the Ministers to clear with me, I have taken on something which Senior Minister had not. Ministers and office-holders are elected, unlike civil servants who are employees. They are governed by the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Prudence. They buy properties on their honour. But they now have to clear their purchases with me because of the perception problem of inside track and unfair privileges. Ministers will have to ensure that properties purchased by their spouse and children are on terms which can stand up to public scrutiny. Rules on Purchase for MPs The rules for PAP MPs are similar to those for the Ministers and other office-holders, except that they do not have to clear their purchases with me. They only need to declare to me as and when they buy private property.”
“Rules on Purchase of Property for Ministers Ministers, MPs and civil servants have always been free to buy properties. They did not have to clear their purchases with me or with anyone. It is an honour system. Any wrongdoing will catch up with them. Any allegation of impropriety will cause an investigation, followed by prosecution, if the allegations are verified. Ministers and office-holders now declare their assets to me after assuming office. This protects them against subsequent allegations of a sudden and unexplained increase in wealth after assuming office. If there is any allegation of corruption or impropriety, their declarations will be available to CPIB. Under current rules, Ministers and other office-holders do not have to declare to me each time they buy a property. But from now on, they will clear any purchase of private properties with me, whether the purchase is for own occupation or for investment. In seeking clearance, the office-holder will have to: (a) describe the circumstances of purchase like how they were introduced to the property; (b) state whether, to their best knowledge, they were given any concessionary terms or treatment, eg, a soft launch, a related party transaction, special pricing package or discounts, or priority in any other way; (c) declare whether they have made the acquaintance of the developer/seller in their official capacity, and whether they, their Ministry, or the Departments under their Ministry have any official dealings with the developer/seller; and (d) for purchases from developers, specify date of offer, any known list price, any discounts, and the net purchase price.”
“That would be popular, but wrong, and will have long-term adverse consequences. Any blanket rule which discriminates against Ministers, MPs and civil servants as private citizens will make public office even less desirable. It is also wrong in principle. In any society, the successful at the top of the corporate ladder are the more desirable and preferred customers because they add to market sentiment in favour of the product they buy. We need Ministers and leaders who if they were in the private sector would be in the upper rungs of the corporate pyramid. Ministers, MPs and civil servants must enjoy equal freedom to buy properties, but they must not take advantage of their status to gain unlawful or potentially corrupting discounts or benefits. Political leaders and senior civil servants are part and parcel of Singapore society. They do not live in a monastery. They have families. Apart from matters of state, they must make decisions for their families and for themselves, including decisions to buy houses to live in or for investment. They have to conduct themselves in an open and honourable manner and not seek favours that will demean their status. For example, they must not seek special discounts which nobody else, not even corporate leaders, get. Buying properties at soft launches in a heated market can create a perception problem. We have taken the steam out of the speculative market. Developers will also make more units available to the public, and allocate them by balloting or queuing. The problem posed at soft launches is much reduced. We can reduce the problem further by setting new rules for Ministers, MPs and civil servants when they buy properties, to ensure that they do not take advantage of their positions, or get cosy with developers.”
“I am happy that REDAS' members have agreed to modify the way they market property developments. They are reserving 70% of any development over 50 units for public sales. This means that no development over 50 units, however popular, will be completely sold out at pre-launch or soft launch. Coupled with balloting or queuing to allocate flats, the public will have a better and fairer chance to acquire units at popular developments. Maintaining High Standard of Integrity Regarding purchases by Ministers, MPs and civil servants at soft launches, the key question is preserving the Government's reputation of incorruptibility and integrity, which is the basis of our moral authority to govern. How do we prevent Ministers, MPs and civil servants from taking advantage of their position, and how do we prevent developers from cultivating them in case they need to ask for favours later? I recognise the possibility of abuse. Some developers may use soft launches and discounts to cultivate Ministers, MPs and civil servants. Likewise, some Ministers, MPs and civil servants wanting to secure the best property investments, may ask developers to reserve good units at such launches. Even if there is no wrongdoing, over time, standards of integrity of the Government may be eroded as "guanxi" is built up. The public will perceive that the Government's standard of integrity has dropped. And even if there is no question of impropriety, the public will resent the apparently privileged access of elected leaders and public officers to soft launches. One easy way out for me is to prohibit Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants from buying properties at pre-launch or soft launch and to disallow them from accepting any discounts.”
“This was precisely what we did with the package of measures announced last week. More directly, I have tackled this problem of perceived inequity in the sale of private residential properties by getting the developers to implement a more transparent system of public sales. One reason for the excitement over properties is the way some developers have promoted and marketed their projects. They have encouraged and publicised queues at public launches. They market projects in phases, to create the impression that their properties are in great demand. In one case, one hundred people showed up at a soft launch, only to find a handful of flats available. From the developer's point of view, these methods are completely understandable. They need to make sure that their properties sell. But when many developers do this at the same time, the public gets worked up into an artificially generated sense of desperation. They feel that they must buy a property early, at any cost, or else miss out on the chance to own a private property forever. In general, the Government should not interfere with the marketing strategy of developers. Selling property is not like selling cakes. Each unit costs several hundred thousand or several million dollars. The financing costs of holding unsold stock can be crippling. Developers, therefore, employ techniques like pre-launch sales, soft launch, and discounts both to test the market and pricing levels, and to push sales. However, because of the recent property frenzy, I met the council members of REDAS (Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore), of whom Mr Heng Chiang Meng is the President, to ask them to consider alternative ways to market their projects, to discourage speculation and cool the property market.”
“But still more Singaporeans hope to buy, either now or in the future. They fear that prices will spiral out of their reach. Those who fail to secure units in popular developments naturally feel resentful, especially if they hear rumours about Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants getting discounts at pre-launch or soft-launch sales, while they themselves have to buy in the sub-sale market at higher prices. Public concern over soft launches and discounts has mounted in the past few months because of the frenzied state of the property market. In a normal market, soft launches and discounts are not a problem. In fact, even in the recent frenzied market, soft launches and discounts of developments in the less popular areas were not a problem. In a normal market, properties are available for purchase at any stage. Buying early is not a privilege. Buying with a discount is expected, and Mr Ling How Doong said that yesterday. Why then exclude elected leaders and civil servants from soft launches, especially in a soft market? But in a hot market, where properties can sometimes be resold immediately at large profits, and even places in the queue at the developer's office may be worth money, Ministers have to be extra careful, to avoid a perception problem. And they have been. No Minister has speculated in the property market. SM and DPM Lee bought their properties for investment, not speculation. In answer to my question to the Cabinet, no Minister has taken advantage of his position when he bought properties. SM and DPM Lee certainly did not take advantage of their positions. This hot market over the last six months is an abnormal situation. The real solution is not to ban soft launches, but to cool the market and calm the public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, now, we ask, "What is the fuss all about?" Mr Chiam said that there was no impropriety, nothing illegal about the purchases of SM and DPM Lee. Mr Ling How Doong said that discounts in property purchases are standard. But before this debate, much of Singapore was abuzz over the purchases of SM and DPM Lee. I had been satisfied very early on that there was no impropriety. You have heard SM and DPM. They have given you the facts. This House is satisfied that their purchases were completely at arm's length and at market price. Now, make sure that the rest of Singapore understands this. This episode has shown how sensitive the public is to perceived privileges and advantages enjoyed by Ministers who buy properties at soft launches or at a discount, especially when the market is hot. The public thinks people in positions of power have the inside track and enjoy advantages which they do not. They are unhappy even if no laws or rules are broken. People want a fair chance to buy popular properties. They do not want others ahead in the queue by virtue of their status, especially when the talk is that properties can be churned for many thousands of dollars. This talk of a privileged class being on the inside track at soft launches of properties is a new phenomenon. It arises from the new situation where more Singaporeans desire and are in a position to buy private residential properties. The supply of new private housing units each year has tripled, from 3,700 units in 1990 to 11,700 units in 1995. Despite this huge increase in supply, demand has remained very strong as reflected in the sharp increases in prices. The number of Singaporeans who own or co-own private properties went up from 110,000 in December 1990 to 135,000 in December 1995, a 23% increase.”
“Yes, they have bought. But it was not his question. He never asked for it.”
“I gave him the answer. I circulated his question to all the Ministers and the answer was from 1992 to 1996, no Minister has bought condominium units under soft launches. So he has got the answer.”
“But as no corruption was alleged, it referred the letters to MAS. MAS and SES had investigated HPL regarding its conduct over the sales of its properties to directors and related parties for possible wrongdoing. They found that HPL had not breached any laws or rules. But SES decided to criticise HPL for being late in seeking shareholders' approval of certain purchases by two of its directors and related parties. It issued a statement on 23rd April. SES had no problem with HPL's handling of SM's and DPM's purchases. In these purchases, SM was a related party, but DPM was not, so DPM's purchase did not have to be reported to SES at all. After SES had issued its statement, SM and DPM decided to bring their purchases and the discounts they received, into the open, to be scrutinised by the public. They issued a statement on 24th April, a day after the SES statement, stating their purchases and the discounts they had received. SM's and DPM's statement caused quite a stir. The press asked me for my reaction. On 26th April, I issued a statement that I was satisfied that there had been no impropriety on the part of SM and DPM Lee in their purchases of units in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. I had reached the conclusion based on my investigation together with the Finance Minister and MAS, the accounts given by SM and DPM Lee, and my judgement of the men and the facts of the case. However, SM and DPM Lee asked me to arrange this debate so that they could publicly explain and be questioned on the circumstances of their purchases. I agreed to this -- to put the transactions of SM and DPM as well as my judgement on them to public scrutiny. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS RELATING TO RESTRICTION OF SPEECHES (Motion)”
“In assessing the circumstances of SM's and DPM's purchases, I had the benefit of hindsight information provided by HPL on the prices paid by other buyers, and the discounts given to them. This information was not available to SM and DPM at the time they made the purchases. SM and DPM were not the only ones to be given discounts. For Nassim Jade, HPL had offered the 7% discount and higher to eight buyers, including SM and DPM Lee. This works out to about one-fifth of the total number of units in Nassim Jade. The 7% discount given to SM was not exceptional. The 12% discount given to DPM was, but DPM gave me an explanation which I accepted. For Scotts 28, HPL offered the 5% discount to some 30 other buyers. This is also about one-fifth of the total number of units in Scotts 28. There was nothing exceptional in the discounts received by SM and DPM Lee. I also checked how developers market their properties. I learnt that discounts for early buyers and in soft launches are standard practices. These discounts are part of developers' marketing strategy, a way to test out the market. Developers set a higher list price, and then offer discounts from this. Later, depending on the response from buyers, they either increase or decrease the discounts for the rest of the units. Towards the end of the project, developers also offer larger discounts on remnant units which prove unpopular or difficult to sell. I investigated SM's and DPM's purchases together with the Minister for Finance and Koh Beng Seng, Deputy Managing Director of MAS. Throughout, I kept Tony Tan, Jayakumar and Wong Kan Seng informed. Later, I discussed it in Cabinet. CPIB had also received two anonymous letters of complaints on HPL's method of `soft launch' of its properties.”
“He was on several medications, including one to prevent any blood clots from forming. I was not comfortable about having to question him in that state. I consulted Tony Tan, Jayakumar and Wong Kan Seng. They agreed that I had to query SM regarding his purchases, despite his medical condition, given the market rumour about his and DPM's purchases. I then wrote on 29th March to Senior Minister at home about his purchases. I also asked him to see me as soon as he could come to office. He replied the next day, giving salient information about his purchases. He came to my office on Monday, 1st April, to find out what it was all about. SM was perplexed that there should be questions about the propriety of his purchases. He was not angry, annoyed, or dismayed, but perplexed. I explained that there was public perception of impropriety and I had to satisfy myself that he and DPM Lee received no favours, since discounts were given on their purchases. He answered my questions readily, and explained the circumstances of his and Loong's purchases. We met a couple of times more, at the end of which he offered to have a Commission of Inquiry to look into his purchases, if I was still not satisfied with his explanation. He will make a statement later regarding his purchases. I know the Senior Minister. I also know Loong well. Loong has worked for me for more than 15 years. First, as a young officer in the SAF; later, as a colleague in my Cabinet and now, as my Deputy Prime Minister. I know his character and his integrity. I believe SM's and DPM's accounts of how they came to buy the properties at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. They were open, they answered my questions readily, and they were prepared to have their purchases scrutinised by the public.”
“I instructed Richard Hu to ask SES to get HPL to provide the lists of purchasers of Nassim Jade and Scotts 28, the prices, and discounts given, if any. These were the two HPL developments then in the news. I also asked him whether SES had made an exception by granting the Senior Minister a waiver from seeking shareholders' approval to buy a unit in Scotts 28 as a sibling of a director. MAS replied that it was normal for SES to give waivers to related parties with independent means. I learnt later that HPL applied for the waiver without Senior Minister's knowledge. The lists showed that Senior Minister and also DPM Lee had, indeed, bought one unit each in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. On 26th March, I queried DPM Lee about his properties in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. There was no rule requiring Ministers to declare to me their purchases of properties at the time of purchase. DPM was taken aback when I told him of public perception over his and SM's purchases of condominium units from HPL. He wrote to me immediately to declare the units he bought and the prices paid. Later, he found out the discounts he received, 12% for the Nassim Jade unit and 5% for the Scotts 28 unit, and declared them. On 28th March, after a Cabinet meeting, I discussed his purchases with Tony Tan, Jayakumar, Richard Hu and Wong Kan Seng, with DPM Lee present. I will not go into the details of DPM Lee's explanation. He will do this himself later. At that point, I had not spoken to Senior Minister yet because of his medical condition. I was troubled having to query him regarding his purchases because he had just undergone his second angioplasty to insert a stent into his blocked artery. He had just left the hospital and was recuperating at home.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me retrace the steps to explain how the purchase of properties by SM and DPM Lee became a public issue, and why we are debating this subject here. I drafted this statement before reading reports of HPL Managing Director Ong Beng Seng's press conference yesterday. I have not altered my statement to take into account the additional information now available, as it was not known to me when I investigated Senior Minister's and DPM Lee's purchases. The additional information, however, confirmed my conclusion that there was no impropriety in SM's and DPM's purchases of units in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. On 21st March 1996, after the Budget debate, Finance Minister Richard Hu saw me. The Deputy Managing Director of MAS, Koh Beng Seng, had reported to him that Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) had sought and obtained waiver from the SES to seek shareholders' approval for SM's purchase of one unit in Scotts 28, and that there was market talk that SM had been offered units in all the property projects of the HPL group. The next day, I kept Tony Tan, Jayakumar and Wong Kan Seng informed of the matter. In my mind, I never doubted the integrity of Senior Minister. I have worked with him for 20 years. Over a long period, a person gets to know the thinking and, more important, the character of another man. He has given his whole life to build this country and the whole world knows us for our reputation for being clean. But as Prime Minister, I had to verify the market talk to protect the reputation of the Government. If the market perception of impropriety was wrong, it had to be dispelled. If it was true, it had to be further pursued.”
“Since Mr Chiam asked me the question, I circulated the question to all Ministers. They have given me their details of whether they have bought or not bought properties in pre-launch or soft-launch offers in the years which Mr Chiam asked for. Other than Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, no other Minister has bought any private residential property under those terms. One Minister has bought a property but it was at a public launch. OPEN FIELD BETWEEN BLOCKS 404 AND 413 AT JURONG WEST STREET 42 8. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani asked the Minister for National Development what his Ministry intends to do with the open field between Blocks 404 and 413 at Jurong West Street 42.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Ministers and other office-holders are governed by a set of rules of prudence stated in the Code of Conduct for Ministers. They are required to declare in writing to the Prime Minister, at the beginning of each term of office, the assets they own. I also require them to declare their financial borrowings. The declaration is confidential, known only to the Prime Minister and the President. If there is an allegation later of a sudden and unexplained increase in wealth of an office-holder, his declaration will be turned over to the CPIB for investigation. The Government has never publicly revealed the assets owned by Ministers. To do so would be to intrude into their privacy unnecessarily. Other than satisfying the curiosity of the Opposition and some of the public, it does not help to maintain good and clean Government. All those countries which have Ministers and MPs declaring their assets have not improved their cleanness of the government. Our system of strict surveillance and transparency has done and is doing so -- we have a clean, open system. Capable and honest Singaporeans running for public office will not want to have the Opposition and the public go into their private financial arrangements. To provide the details which Mr Chiam has asked for enables a Member of Parliament to pry into the investments of Ministers. If Mr Chiam believes that there has been wrongdoing on the part of Ministers in their purchase of private residential properties, he should let me or the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) or the CPIB have the evidence. They will pursue the matter.”
“(v) Number of cases charged with breach of : 40 Protection Orders in 1995 FAMILY VIOLENCE 4. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give (a) the number of police reports made by family members in 1995 in respect of (i) threatened violence in the home; (ii) voluntary causing of simple hurt in the home; and (iii) voluntary causing of grievious hurt in the home; and (b) the breakdown by sex and the number of cases involving spouses in each category.”
“(a) Eligible voters who go or are overseas do not inform the Elections Department. They are also not required to register themselves with Singapore missions overseas. The Elections Department therefore does not know how many eligible voters are overseas. (b) For the coming General Election, no plan has been made for those who are overseas to vote by post or at any of our embassies. The Presidential Elections Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act will have to be amended before Singaporeans are allowed to vote overseas. (c) There is no plan to amend the legislation to allow voting overseas. The Elections Department has studied the subject and found the operational difficulties complex, and the system unable to reach out to all eligible voters who are overseas. For example, the last known addresses of many eligible voters overseas may not be up to date. Also, we have only 27 missions abroad while eligible voters are all over the world. PROTECTION ORDERS 3. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Law, in respect of 1995, what is the number of (i) protection orders, expedited orders and domestic exclusion orders issued by the courts; (ii) repeat protection orders issued; and (iii) cases of, and persons charged with, breach of protection orders. Prof. S. Jayakumar: The information requested are given below: (i) Number of Protection Orders Issued in 1995 : 639 (ii) Number of Expedited Orders Issued in 1995 : 284 (iii) Number of Domestic Exclusion Orders Issued : 36 in 1995 (iv) Number of Repeat Protection Orders Issued in 1995 No statistical data is kept. For breach of an existing Protection Order, the Court can issue a Protection Order with a Power of Arrest attached or a Domestic Exclusion Order, if the respondent is the same person.”
“As at 31 December 1995, there were a total of 156 officers in the Civil Service at Superscale Grade E and higher. Of these, 35 (22.4%) were overseas scholars, 10 (6.4%) were local scholars and the remaining 111 (71.2%) were non-scholars. SINGAPORE VOTERS WHO ARE OVERSEAS 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Prime Minister, in view of the regionalisation drive (a) how many eligible voters are overseas; (b) whether they will be given an opportunity to vote in the next general election either by post or at the embassy and, if so, whether a change in legislation is required; and (c) if a change to the legislation is required, whether there is any plan to do so and if not, why not.”
“STREET WORKS BILL "relating to street works and matters connected therewith and to repeal the Local Government Integration Act (Chapter 166 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Mah Bow Tan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“He might have contributed. But, again, it must be significant contribution. And the significant contribution would also be measured by the period. They must have served a certain number of years. If his argument is right, then Parliament should have passed a law to give pension to all MPs who have served, regardless of the minimum period. 1.50 pm BILLS INTRODUCED CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE BILL "to establish and incorporate the Land Transport Authority of Singapore, to provide for its functions and powers, and for matters connected therewith; and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", presented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS BILL "to provide for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of rapid transit systems, to transfer the functions, assets and liabilities of the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore, to repeal the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act (Chapter 172 of the 1988 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", presented by Mr Mah Bow Tan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“There must be a certain minimum period of service. For those MPs who did not qualify for a pension because they served less than the reckonable period, then they would not be recognised for this purpose. Because you recognise only those who have served a minimum period, and that minimum period will be the qualifying period for getting a pension, which is a minimum of nine years.”
“That is the total number. I do not have the amount of pension each one of them is receiving. The figures can be easily available if he submits a Question. Parliament can prepare the pension figures these office-holders are getting now. On Mr Chew's question, we give ex-gratia payment to only living pensioners. We just cannot go back in time. If a former MP has passed away, I would just say, "We are sorry." But we just cannot go back in time all the way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of MPs,Ministers and other office-holders who would benefit from the ex-gratia payment is 47.”
“Please see table at Annex 1 (Cols. 1083 - 1084). Government does not keep statistics on GLC employees. Annex 1 (Cols. 1083 - 1084) NUMBER OF ADOPTIONS 1992 - 1994 3. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Law how many local and foreign children respectively were adopted by Singaporean parents each year from 1992 to 1994. Prof. S. Jayakumar: From our records, the number of local and foreign children adopted by Singaporean parents (i.e either both or at least one parent is a Singapore citizen) during the period 1992 - 1994 is shown below in tabulated form. NO. OF LOCAL AND FOREIGN CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SINGAPOREAN PARENTS (I.E. EITHER BOTH OR AT LEAST ONE PARENT IS A SINGAPORE CITIZEN) _______________________________________________________ YEAR LOCAL FOREIGN TOTAL _______________________________________________________ 1992 285 436 721 1993 306 414 720 1994 309 464 773 _______________________________________________________ GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (Amount collected) 4. Mr Ling How Doong asked the Minister for Finance what is the total amount of Goods and Services Tax collected from April to December 1994.”
“In 1993, the maximum number of months of performance bonus allowed for Ministers was 2 months. The average performance bonus received by Ministers, Senior Minister of State and Ministers of State was 1.06 months. In addition, like the civil servants, they received a one-off special bonus of one-quarter month because of the good economic performance of the country. In 1994, the one-off special bonus received by civil servants and ministers on account of good economic growth was half month. The 1994 Performance Bonus for office-holders has not yet been decided. As the Government announced in the January 1994 salary revision, the maximum performance bonus quantum is now 6 months. GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANY EMPLOYEES 2. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Prime Minister, for the years 1970, 1980 and the most recent year available, what is (a) the number, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the work force, of (i) civil servants and (ii) public servants, ie civil servants and statutory board employees; (b) the number of civil servants and public servants respectively who are teaching in the educational institutions; and (c) the number of employees employed by government-linked companies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure all these intellectuals that they need not fear retribution. They must expect a rebuttal where we disagree with them. A rebuttal is not a retribution. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE SURVEY AND CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the new Household Expenditure Survey has been completed and when the new Consumer Price Index based on household income groups as proposed by the Cost Review Committee will be implemented.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has got me wrong. They are encouraged to speak up, as I said in my very first sentence in reply to NMP Walter Woon. There are times when valid points have been made by members of the public and we do give due recognition to the points and we do modify policies or our position, if we think that they are right in their point of view. But if we think they are wrong and we are right, then we have to correct that mistaken viewpoint. And they are free to make their viewpoints known. There is no repression of their viewpoints whatsoever. That is the question which Walter Woon has asked and I have replied that I encourage active constructive debate.”
“Yes, I think in many cases they are subjective. We will be in the best position to judge, because when a blow has been landed, we know. We would then have to defend ourselves and rebut the criticism. But more importantly, it is the arguments which are important. From our own experience and from our study of experiences elsewhere, if we find that certain arguments are wrong, they are negative, they are going to lead Singapore to ruin, we are going to challenge that viewpoint. Because if we do not do so, we are abdicating our responsibility in governing Singapore. We are allowing somebody else to actually determine where Singapore should go. We cannot allow that, and we would rebut the criticism. But, as I said, if your worry is the robustness of our reply, then I think most people do not have to worry. We do not normally want to reply robustly unless we have to.”
“Yes, of course. They could criticise in the House or outside the House. But I would certainly welcome a debate in the House, because then we can join issues face to face and get the matter cleared.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. If there are such people who do not want to join a political party but, nevertheless, they want to try and get us to move away from certain positions, as I said just now, we will regard them as wanting to change the agenda of the country and we will treat them as though they have joined a political party. They do not have to join a political party. But if you want to change policies, we will treat you as though you have joined a political party. And, again, the nature of the debate, the manner in which we debate with you will depend very much on the tone in which you conduct your criticism. So well-meaning people who put forward their views in a very well-meaning way will receive a very gentle and very well-meaning reply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to demarcate the boundary clearly. Use your commonsense. On Government policy, ministerial salaries, COEs, and so on, you are free to debate that. No problem, whatsoever. If you are to venture into, say, areas which touch on religious sensitivity, on race, then we would pull you back very early before you cause problem for the ground or for the communities. So, generally, I would say, use your commonsense. And the manner in which you put forward your viewpoint is important. You disagree with us, you put forward your viewpoint in such a way that we know that you are not up to any mischief but merely expressing a different viewpoint. We welcome a debate with you. But if the tone is sarcastic, it aims at undermining respect for the Government, as I said just now, we will return the compliment. Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Government not realise that there are people or groups of fairly well-known people who do not want to join any political party, but they are concerned Singaporeans and they want to take part in the political process of the country? There are these groups of people. I do not think that they want to undermine the country, but they want to put their views across, maybe fairly strongly. Are these people not shut out from the political process of the country?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has misunderstood me. You do not have to be a member of a political party before you let your viewpoint be known. You can make commentary occasionally or regularly. But if you wish to change a particular policy in Government and you do take a position, you make criticisms regularly, then, of course, you must expect us to regard you as wanting to influence the political agenda of the country. And if it is a simple matter of constructive debate, you will get a constructive reply. But if you try to undermine the authority of the Government through snide remarks, by mocking the Government, you must expect a very, very hard blow from the Government in return. We return the compliment.”
“You will know when the blow lands on you, whether it is gentle or robust. But there are many people who write to the press and many of these do not attract our attention. We do not spend our time trying to give reply to every point of view in the newspapers. We have to give priority to certain matters. There are times when letters to the press or criticisms deserve reply, and they will get the reply; and not all replies need to be of an adversarial nature. Very often, it can be a constructive debate, and we do want to involve Singaporeans in a constructive debate in order to yield facts and information to allow us to make the right decision for Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no double standard. If the Opposition Members of Parliament or Opposition parties are criticised by journalists and others, it is for the Opposition Members of Parliament or parties to rebut the criticisms. When the Government is criticised, we reserve the right to rebut and it depends on the nature of the discussion. There are occasions when we rebut gently. But there must be occasions when we have to rebut robustly. It depends on the particular policy which is being debated and the motive of the person making the criticism of the Government policy. As for joining politics or getting them to be in the political arena, again, the position is very clear. The agenda must be set by the Government, and anybody who wants to set the agenda for the country must enter the political fray. Then we are on level ground. You can criticise us, and we would treat you as though you have entered the political arena. If you do not wish to do so, you want to hide in sanctuaries to criticise the Government, to attack the Government, we say, even though you do not want to join a party, we would treat you as though you have entered the political arena. I think that is fair. Because you cannot just criticise without expecting us to reply to you in the same manner which you have attacked us. If you land a blow on our jaw, you must expect a counter-blow on the solar plexus.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in no way able to conclude that there has been a decrease in interest in contributing to the debate on Government policy. There is no measure for me to come to that conclusion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, every Singaporean is welcomed to make his viewpoint known. But if a viewpoint is against what we believe in, the Government must have the right to rebut. Because if we do not rebut a particular viewpoint which we believe will lead the country to no good, then that viewpoint will catch hold of the population, and the country will be influenced by a wrong viewpoint to our adverse interest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said many times that I welcome dissenting views from members of the public. I am also on record as saying that the Government does not believe that it has got a monopoly of ideas and I do welcome debate of a constructive nature on Government policy so that we are in a position to distil the best contributions to a particular question for us to make a decision. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Will it be fair to say that any Singaporean can express his views freely without fear of retribution or persecution?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, I agree fully. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Would the Prime Minister say whether it is Government policy to try and silence people whose views do not agree with theirs?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government encourages Singaporeans to actively debate the merits of Government policy. My position on this question is fully set out in my Press Secretary's two letters to the Straits Times in December 1994. These letters reflect the Government's view on how the debate should be conducted: the limits to openness, the need for the Government at times to respond robustly to criticisms and why Singaporeans who seek to set out the political agenda should enter the political arena to do so. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, would the Prime Minister agree that it is a mark of a good citizen that he should keep himself informed of what is going on to contribute constructive criticisms when he can?”
“If the Opposition falls into an ambush, that is the fault of the Opposition. SPEED LIMIT (Increase from 50 km/h to 70 km/h) 4. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will increase the speed limit from 50 km/h to 70 km/h on certain roads where speed-detection cameras are installed. SPEED-DETECTION CAMERAS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS (Hazard to motorists) 5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the speed-detection cameras installed along expressways will pose a hazard to motorists as some drivers suddenly reduce speed after seeing the camera box. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together as they are related?”
“The Government has got nothing to fear. When an election is due, due notice will be given to everybody concerned and the election will be fought on the usual practice.”
“The present practice has worked very well and there is no compelling reason whatsoever to change the practice. Mr Chiam suggested that we should change the practice in order to eradicate illegal gambling. I do not see that as a compelling reason for us to change the current practice of having an election within a certain date as stipulated in the Constitution. May I suggest that Mr Chiam should always be ready for election which may be called at any time before the due date.”
“The Prime Minister follows what is written in the Constitution religiously.”
“The answer is no. Even if we fix a particular date, I think that gambling would also be prevalent, perhaps on the result of the election. You cannot eradicate gambling just by simply fixing a date for the election.”
“There could be no possibility of a leak because I had not yet decided on when the election would be held.”
“The Prime Minister was not aware. Mr Chiam See Tong: Was there any possible leak in the Prime Minister's Office which generated such a lot of betting for that particular date for election to be held?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the next general election shall be held not later than 5th April 1997.”
“This will not apply to those civil servants who retired after 1972 when salaries have been adjusted. Third is a group of older Singaporeans who have retired before Medisave was introduced in 1984. They too, as ordinary Singaporeans, have worked hard, supported the Government but have no Medisave today. I shall ask the Minister for Finance to consider topping up their Medisave. I hope to finalise the details within six months. Lastly, to sum up, on the White Paper, the final test, whether what we are doing is right or wrong, will depend on whether we get good people for the public sector and for Cabinet and whether we can maintain our high standards of integrity and competence, whether we can deliver a better life for all Singaporeans, more homes, better homes, more funds in the CPF, more shares, and whether others can do a better job for us. In other words, is there a better alternative to what we are doing, and to our model of recruiting people for good Government? In the final analysis, the debate is not about Ministers' pay, or benchmarking. It is about your future and your children's future and how we can get a group of men and women to ensure your and your children's future. [Applause].”