Hazel Poa
Singapore
“Alright. I would like to seek confirmation that the latest round of tariff is a violation of the FTA between Singapore and the US, and if so, are we contemplating any action on that front? Given that we are a small country, are we exploring joint negotiations with other countries?”
“I urge the Government to set higher outpatient withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Chair, in Mandarin, please.”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Is the Senior Minister of State able to share what steps NCS has taken to prevent a recurrence? And has there been any impact on the execution of this policy due to the implementation being earlier than planned?”
“First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future.”
“I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporea…”
“Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes?”
The complete record
Every one of 388 lines we hold for Hazel Poa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“I have not thought about those other cases. It is not my intention to set out the rules under which Members can be suspended. I am merely looking at the case in point, where I feel there is a strong case for suspension. As to setting out generic rules, I believe that there will be somebody in Government or Leader of the House that is in charge of that.”
“I believe I have stated the basis of asking for suspension quite clearly. Basically, let me reiterate that being investigated for corruption, under arrest and not performing his MP duties. I accept that there are no current rules prescribing exactly the circumstances under which a Member can be suspended, but I do not see that as a prohibition against doing something that we feel is the right thing to do even though the rule has not yet been put in place.”
“Oh, sorry, section 59(5) – "Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive Parliament of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of Parliament."”
“If I recall correctly, I believe it is section 56(5). Basically, it is a provision where there is no restriction to circumstances under which Parliament can suspend a Member.”
“The Motion moved by the Leader of the House does not achieve this. It is, in fact, calling for a maintenance of the status quo. Let us compare the financial outcome of suspending Minister Iswaran versus not suspending under two scenarios of him being innocent or guilty. If Minister Iswaran is innocent, there is no difference in outcome between suspending or not suspending him. However, if Minister Iswaran is found guilty, there is a distinct difference. If he is not suspended from Parliament, he will gain the MP allowance while taxpayers lose tax revenue. If he is suspended, he loses the allowance while taxpayers save on tax revenue. This clearly shows that suspending leads to a more desirable outcome financially. Therefore, if the House were to vote on the Motion as a whole, PSP will be voting against the Motion moved by the Leader. I hope all Members will support the Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai and I.”
“The CPIB investigations only concluded more than five years later in January 2023, with a stern warning to the KOM executives. If we do not suspend Minister Iswaran and he is subsequently charged and found guilty of corruption, we would not be able to recover the allowances that were paid to him while he was under investigation and not performing his duties. There have been precedents of MPs who have remained an MP and continued to draw the full MP allowance throughout the entire legal process while they were charged for corruption until they chose to resign or were otherwise disqualified from office. This was the case with former PAP MP and Minister of State Wee Toon Boon in the 1970s, who remained an MP throughout his trial for corruption. He was charged in April 1975 for corruption. He remained an MP for another one year and five months until September 1976 when he resigned. By the time he resigned as an MP, he had already served two months of his 18-month jail term. PSP believes that it would be a most unsatisfactory situation if this were to happen in the case of Minister Iswaran. Given that Minister Iswaran is: one, under investigation for corruption; two, placed under arrest; and three, put on leave of absence by the Prime Minister, we believe that these three factors together make a strong case for his suspension from Parliament. That is why today I have moved this Motion and sought leave to table a Private Member's Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in order to create the legal mechanisms to back pay an MP their allowance if they are suspended. PSP believes that the suspension together with the provision to back pay him should he be cleared of all wrongdoing is indeed dealing with the matter firmly and fairly.”
“Clause (b) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to affirm the need to deal firmly and fairly with any MP who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing. In principle, PSP has no objection to this. However, we may differ on what constitutes "firmly" and "fairly". We are not advocating that any MP who is under investigation should be suspended. That would indeed be unfair and setting the bar too low. Anyone can lodge a complaint and an investigation will be triggered. Out of the many cases investigated, a much smaller number would result in an arrest, as had happened with Minister Iswaran. We do, however, maintain that an MP or Minister who is under investigation for corruption and suspended from official duties should be put on no-pay leave until the investigation or criminal case is concluded and will only receive back pay if they are subsequently cleared by the investigation or criminal case. Clause (c) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to resolve to consider the matter regarding Minister Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigation against him is known. In effect, it is asking the House to maintain the status quo where Minister Iswaran continues to draw his MP allowance until the investigations against him are completed. This is unacceptable to PSP. It is unclear how long the investigations will take. We have seen that corruption investigations can take a long time, especially when it involves overseas participants. In 2017, Keppel Offshore & Marine (KOM) admitted to corruption to the US Department of Justice. In December 2017, KOM was served a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution by CPIB, with investigations continuing into the KOM executives involved.”
“To do that, we have two options: the first is to pay the allowance first and then claw back if found guilty; the second is to suspend the allowance and then pay back if found innocent. Both of these options are currently not legal. Existing laws do not allow any clawback of allowance nor paying back of withheld allowance. Legislative changes are necessary to adopt either one. Under the first option of 'pay first, claw back later", a potential problem exists. After the payment of the allowance, we have no control over where the money flows. There might be difficulties later in recovering the sum of money; and time, effort and cost may be incurred in the recovery. Hence, we prefer the second option of suspend first, pay later. It is PSP's stance that an MP or Minister who is under investigation for corruption and suspended from official duties should be put on no-pay leave until the investigation or criminal case is concluded. If the MP or Minister subsequently resumes their official duties after being cleared by the investigation or criminal case, they should be entitled to full back pay for the period during which they were on leave of absence. The Leader of the House has also filed a Motion today. There are three parts to the Motion, which I would deal with in turn. Clause (a) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to affirm the need for MPs to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law. PSP has no objection to this. We are also of the belief that MPs have a responsibility to be men and women of integrity and to act in accordance with the law. It is our duty to Singaporeans and what Singaporeans expect of us.”
“While we do not have the details of the investigation that the Prime Minister is privy to, we believe the Prime Minister must have good reasons to do so. So, in effect, Minister Iswaran has been fully suspended from his MP duties, but not from his MP allowance. Secondly, this case involves corruption, a crime we have always maintained we have zero tolerance for. We believe this merits a strong statement that reflects our values. In addition, for many years, the Government has justified the high salaries for political officeholders on the basis of ensuring that our Government remains honest and free of corruption. This is why many Singaporeans, including myself, find it difficult to accept that taxpayers' money is being used in this way. Let us set aside this particular case involving Minister Iswaran for the time being and instead, consider a generic case of corruption. Should we have a system that allows an outcome whereby an MP who is eventually found guilty of corruption and whose duties had been suspended can continue to receive in full his or her MP allowance over the entire duration of the investigation plus the duration of Court proceedings until he or she is finally pronounced guilty, and all avenues of appeal exhausted? Is this a good use of tax revenue? Is this not a drain on our resources? If this is not a desirable outcome, then we need to do something. This Motion is therefore about the prudent use of taxpayers' money, not a presumption of guilt. While we do not want corrupt MPs to benefit financially, we must balance that with ensuring that innocent MPs do not have to pay a price for accusations or suspicions that are later proved unfounded.”
“The main goal of my Private Member's Bill is to empower Parliament to authorise the back payment of the allowance of an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament by resolution. Thus, the Motion statement stands as it is today. Sir, I regret the circumstances that have led us to debate this Motion. This is the first time since Independence that such a Motion has been moved in this House. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai and I have placed this Motion before the House after serious consideration. It is not a case of "Anything you can do, I can do stronger", as the Prime Minister said during the Sitting on 2 August. Since 12 July, Minister Iswaran has been instructed by the Prime Minister to take leave of absence from his official duties until the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) completes its investigations into him. As the Prime Minister informed this House on 2 August, while Minister Iswaran is interdicted from his Ministerial duties, he will draw a reduced pay of $8,500 per month. However, Minister Iswaran continues to draw his full MP allowance of $192,500 per year. The Prime Minister said that it was not within his discretion to cut the MP allowance. To do that, it must be done through a Motion in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. Hence, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) decided to file the Motion to suspend Minister Iswaran. How is this case different from others as to warrant a suspension? Firstly, he is no longer performing his duties as an MP, whether in Parliament or in his constituency. The Prime Minister has made the decision to place Minister Iswaran on leave of absence in both his capacity as Minister as well as MP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament." [(proc text) * The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. (proc text)] As the House has passed a Business Motion to rearrange business such that my Motion for leave to bring in a Private Member's Bill will be taken after the simultaneous debate on my Motion and the Motion by the Leader of the House, I would like to first provide some background on the Motion statement as it appears today as well as my Private Member's Bill. We had originally wanted the Motion statement to state that the suspension would be: (a) until Minister Iswaran has been cleared of all wrongdoing and he is able to resume duties or (b) until the end of the current session of the 14th Parliament, whichever is earlier. We were, however, advised by Parliamentary staff that the first condition is not sufficiently definite and thus cannot form part of the Motion statement. It was, therefore, removed. We had also originally wanted the Motion statement to include the provision that should Minister Iswaran be cleared of all wrongdoing, the Member of Parliament's (MP) allowance not paid over the duration of the suspension should then be paid to him. We were informed that this also cannot form part of the Motion statement because, currently, the law does not allow that to be done. If we wish to back pay Minister Iswaran, legislative changes will have to be made. This is why we have also asked for leave to introduce a Bill to make that possible.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for answering my question about the CCTV deadline. I understand that the operators will need some time to install the CCTVs. But in this case, the timeframe that is given to them of close to one year appears to me a bit excessive. Can the Minister of State explain why it is not possible for them to install the CCTVs in a timeframe of closer to like three to four months?”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Given that the GPA has been increased from 2.0 to 2.5, each year, how many ITE students with a GPA of between 2.0 and 2.5 enrol in the polytechnics? Was there a study done into how they fare in their polytechnic studies? For example, what percentage was able to successfully complete their polytechnic course?”
“I have two clarifications. First, to revisit the question about why Minister Iswaran's leave of absence is not no-pay leave. The Prime Minister mentioned that in the Civil Service, the practice is to put them on half pay. I can understand the rationale for that in the case of low-wage earners who may need a regular monthly income in order to survive. But I think that hardly applies in the case of a Minister. For $8,500 a month, that might be small change to some, but many Singaporeans have to work very hard for much less than that. Secondly, about protection for civil servants. Although the Minister said that there is a non-retaliation clause, can the Minister elaborate on what that non-retaliation clause comprises or, if not, to let me know where I can find further information on that?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have a supplementary question. The Minister of State has said that the benefit of the strong dollar policy is to dampen inflation. Given that domestic consumption is $192 billion and this recorded loss of $30.8 billion is a big sum of money, equivalent to about 16% of domestic consumption, how much has it dampened inflation and compared to the $30.8 billion, what is the official cost-benefit analysis and the assessment on the efficacy of this policy?”
“I am not suggesting that minority candidates should just accept those treatment. I am suggesting racism be tackled holistically for the whole society because it is not only election candidates who encounter such incidents. 8.22 pm”
“I thank the Minister for his questions. First, let me address the issue about the NCMP suggestion. In our proposal, what we said was that if we do not have enough minority candidates elected, then the NCMP for minorities will be chosen from those with the highest percentage of votes, no restriction on party. So, just those with the highest votes; it could be the ruling party, or it could be the Opposition party. Secondly, about me being mathematically not correct, I beg to differ. In our proposal, I agree that even though we mandate a multi-racial slate for SMC contest, we have no control over how the outcome is going to turn out. So, it will not work out according to the quota that we have, but that is where the party list comes in. The party list will have multi-racial candidates listed and each party, in the way that it chooses from the party list, is not strictly in order, like as in other countries, but to be chosen in such a way to meet racial representation requirements first. Let us say, for example, if we are short of a particular racial group, even though that person may be fifth on the list, he gets chosen first. So, in that way, you use the party list to make up for any shortfall in racial representation as a result of unpredictable SMC contests.”
“However, without the regular turnover of leadership and political competition, a single-party system also carries the risk of entrenching power within a small group. This can erode democratic principles and perpetuate a culture of nepotism or cronyism. Checks and balances are necessary for the longer term. Singapore has entered a different stage of development. With each GE, the growing desire of the voters for greater checks and balances and political diversity becomes more apparent. As we move towards a more balanced political landscape, many changes will be needed. One of these is to abolish the GRC. I urge all Members and Singaporeans to support the call to abolish GRCs and consider alternative ways of ensuring minority representation.”
“Thirdly, why were the upper limit on GRC seats increased? Is it a coincidence that as these changes were made, the number of walkovers increased dramatically? In the recent GE, the PAP has tried to make the GRC smaller. Six-member GRCs were removed and the average size of GRCs were reduced just slightly. However, as long as GRCs remain, so too remain the problems associated with the GRC system, namely, the coat tail effect, reduced voter influence on outcome, the hampering of political development, and underserved and under-represented residents in GRCs with unfilled vacancies. The PAP has mentioned before that even though there is a vacancy in the GRC, residents are happy with the arrangements that they have made for the other MPs to cover the duties of the MP who has left. In fact, residents have never been directly asked if they preferred a GRC or SMC system. If the PAP is certain of this, would it be willing to ask this question to voters, using the Presidential Election as the means to conduct a referendum? I am sure this is a question that many Singaporeans would want a say in. Who better to decide how voters should be represented than the voters themselves. Minister Chan earlier spoke about the by-election and concluded by saying that the Court has decided. Considering that Parliament is the lawmaker, the Court executes the laws made by Parliament, I think this rather puts the cart before the horse. In the past, Singapore has benefited from a strong single-party system. At our developmental stages, many countries were ahead of us in development and provided us many examples with which to study. We could emulate where appropriate and discard where not. We could move ahead swiftly, with strong political leadership.”
“8% of all elected Members of Parliament, a slight drop compared to GE 1984. In the next two GEs, minority MPs made up 21% and 22.9% respectively. In contrast, its effect on our political development is more dramatic. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 38% of the seats were uncontested. In GE1988, the percentage of uncontested seats dropped to 13.6%. However, in the next two GEs, after the GRC sizes were further increased, uncontested seats jumped from 13.6% to 50.6% and 56.6% in GEs 1991 and 1997 respectively. After three amendments, the real effect of the GRC system is this. It made hardly any difference to minority representation but led to a huge increase in walkovers. Faced with raised hurdles, which is the GRC, Opposition parties had to adopt a by-election strategy in response. Looking at these figures, it behoves us to revisit these questions. Firstly, why were GRCs introduced? Was it truly for minority representation or was it for political advantage? It is worth noting that in GE 2020, without any further intervention to help minority candidates, the percentage of elected MPs who are minorities has increased to 28%. This happened naturally as part of society's development, similar to the way women's representation in Parliament increased to 30% without any GRC-like intervention. Secondly, why were the maximum sizes of GRCs increased to six? This does not help minority representation. The justification that this is done so that we need not change the boundaries so frequently is unconvincing. I am sure we have all heard jokes about how residents keep changing constituencies in each election without moving house. Was it for economies of scale? Would not the same be achieved by a few SMCs working together?”
“But I think the point is that they did not succeed, even though they tried to play the race card. Even though racism does exist, it is not to the extent that it actually affects election outcomes. The hon Member Janet Ang mentioned that an article or report from IPS, I think, in 2013 about the fact that Opposition parties also similarly benefit from GRCs. That was after the Workers' Party (WP) managed to win Aljunied GRC. I think Minister Chan similarly made the point as well that the WP and the PSP also benefited from the coat tail effect and, specifically, that I also benefited from it. I think the question here is whether GRCs are the right way and the best way for Singapore, and not whether I personally benefited from it. The doubt is raised by Ms Janet Ang over the Opposition's claim that GRCs have had a detrimental effect on the Opposition. Allow me to quote statistics from our GEs around the time when the legislation was changed to introduce the GRC and to make further amendments to it. As I mentioned earlier, it was done over three amendments in 1988, 1991 and 1996. To recap briefly, in 1988, the three-member GRC was introduced and justified on the basis of minority representation. In 1991 and 1997, the sizes of GRC were increased and the total number of GRC seats, the upper limit, was increased. Let us look at the effect these amendments had on our minority representation and political development in the GEs following these changes, which were GE 1988, GE 1991 and GE 1997. First, we look at minority representation. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 16 minority MPs were elected, making up 20.3% of all elected Members of Parliament. After the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1988, minority Members of Parliament made up 19.”
“This illustration merely seeks to point out that the volatility and unpredictability of election outcomes under the first-past-the-post system when support level hovers around 50%. At this stage, a proportional representation system actually brings greater stability and predictability. Next, I will move on to the issues relating to the NCMP suggestion. As I have mentioned before, we are confident that our minority candidates can stand on their own and win elections. Because we also agree with the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament, that is why we also proposed two alternatives to ensure that. The beauty of the NCMP scheme is that it does not kick in when it is not needed. But if it is needed, if not enough minority candidates can win on their own, then we need to know why and address the underlying issues head on instead of sweeping them under the GRC carpet. Racism exists in all spheres, not only during elections. At this point, I actually have a question to ask of Minister Chan. I did not quite understand why he said that if we adopt this scheme, that all the minorities will be NCMPs in Opposition and the ruling party MPs will be the Chinese majority. Under this NCMP scheme, the NCMP can be from either party, whether the ruling party or the Opposition – unlike the current NCMP scheme, which is just for the Opposition. Mr Murali Pillai also weighed in with his personal experience, citing examples of the kind of experience he had running his campaign and experiencing attempts by people who exploit the race card. Like I said, racism does exist. I think we all recognise that. To totally eradicate it is probably not practical, even though we would all try our best to minimise that as far as possible.”
“If the results of past multi-cornered fights in Singapore elections is any guide, we are unlikely to see too fragmented a parliament. Minister Chan earlier mentioned that the fear is that a proportional representation system would result in race-based politics and also parties that run on minority interests. I have addressed the point about race-based politics and now on minority interests. I do not see that that is necessarily a bad thing for there to be parties with minority interests. For example, green parties have always had some minority support. Environmental concerns have now become mainstream but green parties still face great difficulties in winning elections under a first-past-the-post system. So, incorporating some level of proportional representation into an electoral system will ensure that minority concerns are also represented and that can only be beneficial to our decision-making. When a political party enjoys clear majority support, a first-past-the-post system tends to give that party more seats in Parliament than its national vote share. We see this clearly in Singapore. As I have mentioned before, PAP gets about 60% of the national vote but nearly 90% of the elected seats. But when political support is more divided, the outcome becomes more volatile. As an illustration, consider the other side of the coin. If 60% of the national vote translates into 90% of the elected seats; then, that means that a national vote share of 40% can result in only 10% of the seats. In other words, a drop of 20% in national support level can result in a drop of 80% in seats. Of course, national support level does not normally drop 20% that quickly or that easily.”
“This means that the GRC system currently ensures about 12% Malay and 6% Indians and Others representation. We can therefore ensure minority representation by mandating that at least 50%, 12% and 6% of each political party's candidates running in SMCs must be from the Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other communities respectively. This is analogous to the Ethnic Integration Policy quota in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. Secondly, we can also mandate that each party list must be multiracial, and the selection of the candidates from the party list must be chosen in such a manner as to meet the racial representation requirements for each party, as I have mentioned earlier. These requirements can be limited to only parties that contest in more than one seat. This is to make room for independent candidates in our electoral system. So, by imposing these racial quotas similar to the way it is done in HDB flats, we can ensure that parties are multiracial, and they do not play race-based politics. Another comment earlier about proportional representation is the fear of a fragmented parliament. A common feature in proportional representation is actually a threshold. Only political parties that obtain a minimum national vote percentage are allocated seats proportionally. This feature serves to screen out the parties with extreme positions and insufficient electoral support that prevents parliament from getting too fragmented. A common range for thresholds in countries that practise the proportional representation system is around 4% to 5%. The ballot on party list is like a national level multi-cornered fight with participation from all the political parties that wish to contest.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who participated in this debate. After all that has been said, I think it is quite clear that there is no disagreement on the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament. Where we defer is simply on how to achieve that multiracial representation. I disagree with Minister Chan when he said that our proposals do not ensure multiracial representation or prevent race-based parties. Earlier on, when I spoke about proportional representation, I mentioned this only briefly. Perhaps that could be the reason why it was not clearly conveyed. So, let me go into further details now. Typically, in a hybrid electoral system, which is the one that we suggested, containing both elements of first-past-the-post and proportional representation, each voter has two ballots instead of one. The first ballot is to vote for a candidate in a local SMC and the candidate with the most votes is elected. So, this should address the hon Member Raj Joshua Thomas' concern about the geographical link between MPs and their residents. The second ballot will then be to vote for a party at the national level and the seats are allocated to each party based on their national vote share. Each party typically has a party list of the candidates. So, if a party is allocated 10 seats, usually the first 10 candidates on the party list get elected. But I am not suggesting that we copy wholesale the system that is in place in other countries, unlike what Minister Chan is suggesting. I am suggesting that we adapt such a system to meet our needs. So, how can we adapt this to ensure minority representation? Currently, we have 17 GRCs in total. Up to three in five must have a Malay candidate, while the other two must be Indian or others.”
“In particular, the mixed proportional representation alternative is a major departure from our current system and requires more time and a fuller discussion. We call on the House and all Singaporeans to consider the alternatives that we have proposed to guarantee minority representation. We believe that unlike the GRC system, these alternatives will strengthen our system of representative democracy and maximise democratic choice for voters. It is time for the GRC system to go. I urge all Members to support the Motion. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Proportional representation seeks to move the representation in Parliament closer to the national vote share to better reflect the wishes of the voters. Let us first look at how this is done in other countries. While there are countries fully on the proportional representation system like Israel and Sweden, there are also a number of countries with a hybrid system containing both first-past-the-post and proportional representation elements. The election in our constituencies is an example of the first-past-the-post system where the candidates with the highest votes get the seats. In Germany, approximately 50% of the seats are based on the first-past-the-post system and the other half on proportional representation. In New Zealand, approximately 60% of the seats are on first-past-the-post system and 40% on proportional representation. In Thailand, the split is 80-20. We can adapt this system to ensure minority representation by stipulating a multiracial slate for SMC contests and a multiracial party list. Each party must select from the list to meet minimum racial representation requirements. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GRC system has generated several sub-optimal outcomes such as voters being held to ransom to vote for Ministers, weaker candidates riding on stronger candidates' coat-tails to Parliament and unfilled vacancies leading to residents being underserved and under-represented. I have presented these shortcomings and offered two alternatives to ensure minority representation in Parliament for consideration and debate. The intention here is not to call for immediate action but for thought and discussion. We are still two years away from the next GE and have time to mull over this matter.”
“With this scheme, minority candidates contest in SMCs just like other candidates. If enough minority candidates are elected, this scheme does not kick in. However, should there be under-representation of minorities, minority candidates who did not win the election but had the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament. Residents from all constituencies can approach these NCMPs for assistance. As we are all familiar with the NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates, this scheme requires little explanation and minimal disruption to our current model. Another way of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is to adopt some form of proportional representation. Under this system, a party that obtained 10% of the national votes will be allocated about 10% of the seats. When responding to a Motion brought forward by Prof Thio Li-ann in 2008, the Prime Minister said that our electoral system is designed to encourage voters to think very carefully not only about the individual that they want to represent them in Parliament but also the party that they want to form the Government. If we want voters to vote for a political party instead of a candidate, the logical step is to move towards a system of party-list, proportional representation, where parties put forth a list of candidates for election. Voters vote for their desired political party. Seats are then allocated to each political party based on their national vote share. Based on the seats allocated, each party then selects the candidates on its party list to take up the seats. Currently, the PAP has close to 90% of the elected seats in Parliament even though its national vote share is about 60%.”
“This is analogous to having the terms of a contract changed materially and unilaterally midway through by one party but the other party remained bound to the contract until expiry. In any other context, this would not have been accepted. If we do not have GRCs, only SMCs, then these problems would not exist. Ensuring minority representation is the justification for the GRC. While the GRC is purportedly to protect minority interests, it paradoxically entrenches racial lines and promotes the belief that minority candidates are unable to win elections on their own merits. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is confident that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines and minority candidates are well able to win elections on their own merits. Even though the majority of voters are Chinese, many non-Chinese candidates have won elections. Before the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1984, minority candidates have won in SMCs against majority candidates; for example, Mr JB Jeyaratnam, Mr Zulkifli Mohammed, Mr Abbas Abu Amin, and so on. More recently, we also have Mr Michael Palmer and Mr Murali Pillai. In GRCs, we have the Aljunied team where three out of the five MPs are non-Chinese. Senior Minister Tharman is one of the most popular politicians and his decision to contest in the Presidential Election showed his confidence that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines. However, if the PAP is not convinced, there are other ways to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament without the problems that come with the GRC system. We would like to offer two alternatives here for consideration and debate. The first alternative is a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme for minorities, similar to the current NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates.”
“The cut could be in the area of Parliamentary duties, the quality in carrying out constituency duties, or sacrificing their personal or family lives, none of which is fair nor desirable. With the GRC seats comprising 85% of all elected seats in Parliament, the departure of any MP has an 85% chance of the seat remaining vacant. The latest vacancy will be arising in Jurong GRC due to Senior Minister Tharman's decision to contest in the Presidential Election. This is not the first such occurrence. The current President also resigned in 2017 as a PAP MP, leaving a vacant seat in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC. Does the PAP intend to regularly repeat this? Running in a GE is an inherent promise to serve the residents for a term of five years. Breaking that promise is not something that should be taken lightly. It is, therefore, troubling if such broken promises were to occur at regular intervals. As a vacancy will not be filled via a by-election, residents are underserved and under-represented for the sake of the party's other motivations. Did the party not plan for this expected vacancy when it went into GE 2020? Could it not have informed voters of this possibility or selected its candidate from an SMC so that residents are not underserved? It can also be argued that a team without Senior Minister Tharman is not what the voters in Jurong GRC voted for. Senior Minister Tharman has served many terms as an MP and in various senior positions in Public Service, while the other team members are relatively new. The case that a team without Senior Minister Tharman makes for a material difference is overwhelming.”
“Then-Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, claimed that there was no diminution of voters' constitutional rights because, "They voted for the four MPs and the MPs carry on" and "the voters, in fact, voted with the knowledge that should a vacancy arise, such a vacancy need not be filled as provided for in our law". Mr Wong's response does not address the underlying issue, which is that the voters of Jalan Besar GRC voted for a team of four MPs with four votes to represent them in this House. When a vacancy arises in a GRC, the voters of that GRC have lost a vote in Parliament to represent their interest. The other MPs in the GRC cannot take over the voting rights or the Parliamentary Question quota or the right to raise an Adjournment Motion of the MP that has resigned. At the Parliamentary level, the rights of the GRC voters are unquestionably diminished when an unfilled vacancy arises in a GRC. This is particularly pertinent when the Member of Parliament who has resigned is the minority representative for that GRC. The vacancy undermines the primary objective of the GRC system, which is to ensure minority representation in Parliament. At the constituency level, while the remaining MPs in the team can help to cover for their former teammate in house visits and Meet-the-People sessions, something somewhere has to give. As former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Prof Thio Li-ann, pointed out in her Motion in 2008: "MPs have punishing schedules". MPs have to juggle their responsibilities in their full-time jobs, their Parliamentary duties, their constituency duties, their party duties, and their personal and family lives. If their constituency duties increased due to covering for a vacancy, there must be a corresponding cut somewhere else.”
“In GE 2020, this eased to 85%. In an SMC, candidates need the support of their constituents to win elections. Their election outcome is more directly controlled by voters. In a GRC, however, the election outcome is also dependent on which team a candidate is placed in, which is a decision made by party leaders. It becomes unclear whether voters' decision or party leader's decision play a bigger part. Voters' influence on election outcome is thus reduced under a GRC system. Over the years, many MPs in GRCs have vacated their seats for various reasons. Some passed away, some resigned over conduct that compromised their ability to serve as MPs, and others resigned to stand in Presidential Elections. In each of these cases, no by-election was held to fill these vacancies. This is because by-elections are expressly not required to be called when a vacancy arises in a GRC, unless the entire slate of MPs representing a GRC vacate their seats. The Government explained that this is to prevent any individual MP in a GRC from holding the other MPs in the same GRC to ransom. However, this also has the effect of depriving residents in these GRCs of an elected representative in Parliament, which is highly undesirable, given our system of representative democracy. This issue has been debated several times before in this House. In 1999, following the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an MP of Jalan Besar GRC, Mr JB Jeyaratnam moved a Motion for this House to resolve that a writ of election should be issued to fill the vacancy. During his speech, Mr Jeyaratnam noted that: "Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament", and "that is their constitutional right". The Government's response to Mr Jeyaratnam's point at that time was most unsatisfactory.”
“If all the candidates were to contest in four separate SMCs, voters could have selected two candidates from Team A and two candidates from Team B as the ones they feel most suitable to represent them in Parliament. However, as they can only vote for one team or the other, the result is the loss of two stronger candidates and the election of two weaker candidates. This illustration shows how the GRC system can lead to a sub-optimal outcome for voters. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in 2006 that the GRC system helped the People’s Action Party (PAP) recruitment efforts by giving potential candidates the assurance of a good chance of winning. I interpret this as open acknowledgment that the coat-tail effect was intentional and the GRC was intended to enhance the chances of the PAP winning at the expense of the Opposition. And, indeed, it took more than 20 years before the strongest Opposition party was able to win a GRC. Such an approach, however, encourages the “kiasu”, or fear to lose, syndrome, breeds a generation of politicians sheltered from tough electoral battles and sets unsustainable expectations. All it took was one electoral loss for Singapore politics to lose some Ministers permanently. PAP has said that if voters do not vote for the PAP's team, key Ministers will disappear from the Cabinet. Such a portrayal attempts to hold voters to ransom. This is unfair on Singaporean voters. It also hampered the political development of Singapore by setting higher and higher hurdles for the Opposition parties which are much weaker compared to the ruling party. The legislative changes on GRC done in three stages, in the years 1988, 1991 and 1996 saw the percentage of GRC seats rise from 48% in the General Election (GE) in 1988 to 74% in GE 1991 to 89% in 1997.”
“Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls for the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies". [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. (proc text)] The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system was introduced in 1988 when the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Constitution were amended to provide for the creation of three-Member GRCs. The justification for this change was to safeguard minority representation in Parliament. The number of Members of Parliament (MPs) from GRCs were limited to a range of 25% to 50%. Over the years, the GRC system has evolved for varying reasons. In 1991, the maximum size of GRCs was increased from three to four candidates, and the number of MPs in GRCs was raised to a range of 25% to 75%. In 1996, the size of a GRC was raised again, this time to a maximum of six candidates. The upper limit of 75% on MPs from GRCs was removed and replaced by a minimum of eight MPs from Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). This meant that the upper limit on MPs from GRCs was effectively increased to about 90%. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, will elaborate further on the changes to the GRC system over the years. I will now talk about the weaknesses of the GRC system. While the objective of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is laudable, the GRC system brings along other consequences that are undesirable. A common complaint about the GRC system is that MPs are not necessarily elected on their own merits. The team approach allows some Members to ride on the coat-tails of other more established or popular team members. It is also conversely true. Consider a GRC with two teams of four candidates.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to find out from Second Minister Edwin Tong, why is it that SLA choose — because it was mentioned in the report that demand for black and white bungalows is limited because it only has basic amenities. And I can quite see that the amount of renovation cost that is required to be spent on rental property can be a deal breaker for many. So, why does SLA choose not to install modern amenities like what private landlords do to improve demand and rental rates? Secondly, I understand the rationale for, the reason why 26 Ridout Road was not listed on SPIO. But with hindsight, when it is apparent that a Minister is interested in renting the property, would it not have been better to have listed the property on SPIO?”
“Deputy Speaker, my question relates to the site clearance and the land adjacent to 26 Ridout Road. Senior Minister Teo mentioned earlier, quoting another example of a site clearance at Dalvey Estate and said that it was for a two-metre buffer. But the site clearance at the land adjacent to 26 Ridout Road is actually 150,000 square feet, if I am not wrong. So, the size of the two are actually quite different and seemed like an overkill. So, my question is: are there any other site clearance to the scale of 150,000 square feet? Secondly, while I accept that the rental will be more based on the GFA than empty land area, but it is a bit difficult to accept that the large empty extra land that is added into the boundaries of 26 Ridout Road is put at zero value. So, my question is: was the Valuer specifically asked to value that piece of empty land as well, or is it simply a case of valuing the original 26 Ridout Road at $24,500 and plus the recovery of site clearance cost at $2,000 per month only?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Would the Minister consider alternative ways of allocating the vehicle quota based on other factors, instead of just price alone? For example, maybe a point-based system, where apart from the bidding price, we also consider other factors like nationality, and needs-based factors, like families with young children or persons with disability. Secondly, would the Minister consider, in the same way as we have the Additional Buyers' Stamp Duty (ABSD) for the purchase of second or more residential properties, would the Minister consider an additional levy on additional vehicle purchase?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just respond on one point that Minister Ong raised earlier and leave my colleague Mr Leong to give a fuller response when he is back in Parliament. And that is the point about targeting a particular race. I just want to clarify that we are not targeting any particular race. At the debate on the Motion on foreign talent policy, what we did was to point out that the growth rate of foreign manpower from a particular nationality is growing at a much faster rate than other nationalities, and that is factual. And so, today, we have COMPASS, which includes nationality as one of the criteria. So, I think that is recognition that this is a valid concern. I just want to specify that it was never a matter of race.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for showing us the comparison with other countries, in terms of how our budget measures have benefited Singapore. But, I think, here, we are not just comparing with other countries, but we also want to compare with ourselves – how we want to make sure that we deal with this better in the future, as compared to now. So, it is in that spirit that I ask, whether a review on each of the budget measures has been done or are they ongoing. Specifically, in future responses, does the Government still feel that giving grants to profitable companies is the way to go?”
“This should be addressed as soon as possible. I hope we can uphold the principle that any policy or strategy to tackle a national emergency should unite our people and not divide them. Lastly, I believe that our efforts to engage the public on the response to the pandemic would have benefited from a more visible involvement from a team of medical experts, instead of a panel comprising mostly of politicians. If policy decisions on vaccination, COVID-19 treatment and quarantine measures were fronted and explained by a team of doctors and medical experts, it would have lent greater credence and depoliticised the situation.”
“Initial clinical data showed that mRNA vaccines are more efficacious than traditional vaccines, so, it was justifiably a better use of public funds to use them in the national vaccination campaign. However, since mRNA vaccines are new to many people and not without health risks, especially myocarditis, there are understandable concerns, and adopting a forceful approach would instead foster mistrust and make some people more susceptible to fake news and rumours. Some of the vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) were too harsh and disproportionate, particularly the ban on the unvaccinated from going back to their workplace even if they tested negative, which threatened many livelihoods. This is a point I have raised before in an Adjournment Motion in January 2022. I urge the Government to look into the circumstances of those who had lost their jobs due to their unvaccinated status. They have paid a heavier price than average in the country's efforts to get the pandemic under control and I think special consideration in the form of employment assistance and financial compensation is in order. Even today, when VDS have been lifted, many unvaccinated Singaporeans still feel discriminated at the workplace. For example, a recent recruitment advertisement from the National University of Singapore (NUS) for an Administrative Executive stated that "Applicants are strongly encouraged to have themselves fully COVID-19 vaccinated to secure successful employment with NUS". I continue to feel strongly that an individual's medical choice should not jeopardise their livelihoods. Where there is no occupational requirement for vaccination, it should not factor into the employment decision or even appear in a recruitment advertisement.”
“We can learn from the experience of other countries in past crises when banks had to be bailed out, when assistance was given in the form of equity purchase which, subsequently, recovered in share prices, and restrictions were placed on executive pay. If the need for swiftness is paramount, we can, nonetheless, incorporate clawback provisions that will allow us to recover payments made to non-qualifying companies after the crisis is over. Companies that remained profitable throughout the pandemic, those that turned profitable after the crisis and those who paid excessive executive remuneration should return the grants given. Why were there no such clawback provisions? We should use our Reserves more prudently. The second point I wish to bring up is inclusivity. Being an inclusive society means that we need to respect decisions that may be different from ours and protect the freedom of choice, especially medical choices. There remains a significant segment of our population sceptical about vaccinations and, in particular, the mRNA ones. From a full vaccination rate of over 90% to the 60% up-to-date vaccination rate, we can see the true level of reservations on vaccination. In the interest of inclusivity and unity, we should respect the choices and decisions made by individuals and continue to engage them. However, some of the policy decisions have instead alienated a segment of our population and caused a division. For example, a definite preference for mRNA vaccines was seen when traditional vaccines were approved later and not given the same financial support initially. I recognise that the Government had good intentions in pushing for the mRNA vaccines.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, I wish to express my greatest appreciation to all the healthcare and other frontline workers whose hard work enabled our lives to continue throughout the pandemic. Without them, we would not have been able to pull through this crisis. I hope we will not forget that and will recognise their contribution by improving their remunerations and working conditions. The White Paper has laid out a self-appraisal of our handling of the pandemic. I wish to add on in areas that I felt had not been addressed or insufficiently addressed. Firstly, was the $72.3 billion in COVID-19 packages well spent? Based on what is written in the White Paper and the two occasional papers from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) on the COVID-19 Budget measures, what is missing is an assessment on whether each of the different measures was a good use of funds. In future crises, should they be deployed and, if so, should they be modified? In particular, I feel that the support given to businesses should have been more discriminate. For example, $30 billion was distributed to businesses in wage support. As this was a broad-based measure, even companies that continued to be highly profitable throughout the pandemic were included. It is difficult to understand why companies who can afford to continue paying millions of dollars in executive pay should be receiving wage support from taxpayers. Thirty billion dollars is a big amount and equivalent to a GST collection of 17%. The Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the $40 billion draw from our past Reserves is unlikely to be paid back. I think greater scrutiny is merited on whether we had spent our Reserves prudently.”
“If that is the situation, then I would withdraw the question.”
“No, I am not suggesting that, but I am aware that there are such speculations going on and it is quite prevalent. So, I am merely asking if the Minister would like to take this opportunity to clarify.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister mentioned that the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) and the Court of Three Judges have found them guilty of lying under oath. But exactly what lies these are, were not mentioned. Can the Minister share with us what exactly are the lies they were found to have said? Secondly, there is much chatter that the investigation and the timing of the release of this information is linked to the interview with Bloomberg where Mr Lee Hsien Yang actually said that he might consider running for President. Would the Minister like to clarify on the situation?”
“Mr Chairman, loan delinquency provides another angle to look at affordability. What is the historical delinquency rate of loans taken to buy HDB flats, with breakdown by loans from HDB and private financial institutions, for the last 30 years? Is there any discernible trend? Specifically, in the past three years, with breakdown by flat type, how many HDB flats were behind in payments, how many were eventually taken back by HDB and, for those flats taken back by HDB, what is the maximum and minimum number of months they have been in arrears and where are the families staying now? Were they settled in rental flats or other shelters? How much of their earlier payments do they get back? Do they get back the full amount paid plus accrued interest? Affordable, Accessible and Inclusive HDB Flats”
“I have two clarifications. First is, will the new workplace fairness legislation cover platform workers? And secondly, the Minister gave us the proportion of CPF members who meet the Basic Retirement Sum just now. Can the Minister also tell us the proportion who can meet the Full Retirement Sum?”
“I have several questions pertaining to CPF contributions for platform workers. It has been announced that transitional assistance will be provided to platform workers who earn below $2,500 to help them cope with the new requirement to contribute CPF. However, those earning above $2,500 will also have difficulties adjusting to a lower take-home pay. Will MOM be implementing the employee contribution in phases to give them more time to adjust? Secondly, those aged above 30 can opt out of making CPF contributions. If a platform worker opts out, does this mean the platform owner will not need to contribute CPF as well? If this is the case, then those who opt in will cost the platform owners more than those who opt out. It is desirable for more platform workers to opt in so that they have more retirement savings. However, my concern is whether those who opt in would be discriminated against because they are more costly. Will there be measures put in place to prevent discrimination against those who opt in? Lastly, is the decision to either opt in or out of CPF a one-off decision? Can platform workers change their minds subsequently? Freelance Coaches and/or Instructors”
“The key is not the frequency by which tests are administered, but rather to treat the interaction between teacher and student as an interactive, ongoing dialogue. Subject-based Banding”