Heng Swee Keat
Singapore
“In a world heading towards greater contest and fragmentation, amid rapid advances in science, technology and innovation, Singaporeans can play a valuable part as bridge-builders and connectors, and Singapore can be a trusted and neutral Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise.”
“The National Quantum Office has identified specific goals under the National Quantum Strategy (NQS), with resources and efforts directed towards specific quantum areas and technologies accordingly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Member Ms Denise Phua for her comments because her comments reminded me of the tagline that I always said when I was in MOE – that you can learn from anyone, anytime, anywhere. In fact, peer learning is a very important aspect of that learning.”
“But I have laid out the strong basis for my optimism that a small and open economy like Singapore can continue to thrive and secure our next bound of growth. By serving as a trusted node and connector, we can create value by facilitating connections and building new linkages in today's fractured global landscape.”
“Secondly, one other very important thing the Member must bear in mind is that AI is a very rapidly developing field and it is something which our researchers are working hard on, to look at the different techniques of AI – it is not just GenAI, but the whole range of different AI systems that are being used – and how that can be used in c…”
“Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you do not need an invitation. You are free to provide your suggestion. After all, are you not from WP? And by the way, let me make it clear that I have heard MPs on both aisles speaking about workers, and we have a very strong presence of our union MPs here and they will be speaking even more on this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,730 lines we hold for Heng Swee Keat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 35.
“That is because the Member Ms Sylvia Lim has made the point that it was not proper for me to raise this. And I would like an adjournment for us to consider the matter and respond to her.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim has raised issues and I would like to call for an adjournment.”
“Yes, but you see, the main question that I have asked is: the findings are that even on the question of signature of cheques, Ms Sylvia Lim has admitted that you have not gone through every transaction. So, I am just asking you to stick to the main point and not detract. I do not think that this is what we should be debating in this House – whether it is this path or that path – when the main issue that you ought to answer has not been answered. I would like an answer.”
“Well, the Workers' Party Members have asked a whole series of questions on details. But, let me get back to why I moved this Motion. I moved this Motion because this is a question of integrity. This is a question of the way that we deal honestly in Parliament, with our residents, with the public and with our fellow town councillors. I have asked very serious questions about how the transactions were done. I have pointed out very serious findings in all the audit reports, in all the High Court findings, in the Court of Appeal findings, but both of you have just stood up to ask me a series of little details. I would like to ask the Member to answer this question. I have asked that all this House is asking is for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with or having oversight over financial matters until the Court case is ended. I have asked questions of Mr Faisal Manap as to what he as Chairman of the Town Council would do. I have asked Mr Pritam Singh, as Secretary-General of the party and Ms Sylvia Lim as Chairman of the party, what you intend to do, given these serious findings. You have an interest to ensure that our system of governance in Singapore remains upright, that we have integrity in the system that elected Members of Parliament must be honest and upright in their dealings. But instead, you have asked me a whole range of other questions about whether it is one signature or two signatures. My goodness.”
“Many documents were produced during the Court of Appeal hearing and also during the various Court procedures. It was only when the emails were produced, that it was revealed the truth on how FMSS was appointed. Do you not recall emails for which you had said that you had asked Ms How Weng Fan to hide the truth on their appointment? Those are important documents. At the end of it, while you argued about the Town Council system, you have earlier on in Parliament said that, in electioneering, you have talked about how the Town Council system disadvantaged Opposition parties.”
“No, I did not say that millions had been lost. Let me check that point. Let me go on to your second point that the High Court made new laws. No, in fact, the High Court judgment, and you are a lawyer, you have read the High Court judgment carefully. The High Court spent a lot of time looking at the question of what duties you owed – fiduciary duties that the town councillors owed to the Town Council, and the judgment was very clear on this point. The Court did not make new law; the law has been there. On the AGO's nature, you said, well, in what way did you not reveal documents to the AGO? The fact is that there were many documents that were asked for, but the Town Council did not provide. Despite that, the AGO had important findings that merited actions. So, there were documents which were asked for, which you did not provide. Fourth and finally, you asked about the auditors. Can I clarify what you asked about the auditors again? Your fourth point?”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the point about the money has been lost. I have mentioned in my speech that the Court's findings have been very clear that you have contracts worth millions of dollars which have been awarded under circumstances for which it was not quite justified. The findings have been very clear in two auditors' reports and in the Court findings.”
“Even after all this has been made public, the Workers' Party has stayed silent. Maybe they hope that Singaporeans will forget or forgive them. Playing the victim or the underdog may be par for the course in politics, but there are important matters at stake – public funds, residents’ monies, the estates that Singaporeans come home to. We cannot sweep things under the carpet. All that this House is asking is for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with or having oversight over financial matters, until the Court case is concluded. Given the Court’s findings, this is the least that they can do. So, it falls on all Members of this House to ask the Workers' Party what it intends to do, to put its own house in order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“We must set ourselves as good examples, and uphold integrity, honesty, incorruptibility as our fundamental values. I call on AHTC to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from all matters relating to financial matters. (In English): Mr Speaker, to sum up what this Motion is about, it is about integrity and character expected of public officials and Members of Parliament. In politics, we must uphold the fundamental values of integrity, honesty and incorruptibility. Not by words, but by deeds. We know the words of the Workers' Party. They claim to stand for transparency and accountability. But now, after eight long years, we know that their deeds show the contrary. They appointed their friends to manage the Town Council at the higher cost than the previous MA. They concealed the real facts and manipulated the circumstances of this appointment, even to the extent of misleading their fellow town councillors. They then told the public, their auditors and Parliament untruths about these circumstances. They refused to give auditors documents, documents that might have shed light on their wrongdoing. Even after these facts were uncovered by independent auditors, they took no action. It took the Independent Panel that they appointed to finally bring them to Court to set things straight. And even before the Court, they continued to perpetuate untruths. The consequences of what the Workers' Party councillors have done, have fallen on the residents. Under the management of FMSS, the Town Council ran up deficits of up to $2 million by the third year. Meanwhile, their friends, FMSS, made a profit of $3.2 million in their second year.”
“Those who participate in politics must be honest and upright in order to win the trust of the people and serve them. They should admit their mistakes when they have done wrong and correct them, even at a cost to themselves. In many countries, the lack of integrity in politicians has become a norm. If the politician cannot be trusted, it will be difficult for him to build a relationship of mutual trust with the public. If the public do not trust him, they will not believe that he can put public interest ahead of personal gains and make the best decisions in the interest of the people. Since Independence, our political and Public Service leaders have always upheld the fundamental value and principle of integrity. As a result, Singapore is able to make continuous progress and succeed. This will continue to be important for Singapore’s future. Whether you are a Government Member of Parliament, an Opposition Member of Parliament, a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament or Nominated Member of Parliament, you must agree that integrity is our core value. We have to ensure that the 4G leaders uphold a system of incorruptibility and integrity, and to maintain high standards which we have achieved since the PAP formed the Government. If a PAP Member of Parliament makes a mistake, the Prime Minister would do a thorough investigation. Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer, but she has committed these wrongdoings knowingly. Mr Low is a seasoned politician. He has managed the Hougang Town Council well for over 20 years. I always had a high regard of him. So, it pains me when I saw the Court's judgment on Mr Low Thia Khiang. Finally, let me stress that integrity and character are very important to Members of Parliament and public officers.”
“For example, they should have called an open tender, assessed all the bids and recorded the reasons for appointing FMSS in the minutes of the Town Council meetings. Instead, they appointed their friends to run the Town Council without calling for an open tender, and deliberately hid this plan from their own town councillors. In the process, FMSS had made huge profits. What is even more worrying is that, when they were exposed, they were not willing to bear the responsibility for their actions. Instead, they continued to confuse people, made things difficult for the auditors, and misled the Courts, Parliament, residents and even the public. Nearly four weeks have passed since the Court’s judgment. The Workers' Party has remained silent. They have let their residents of Aljunied and Hougang down. They have not apologised to them. They have not asked Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with financial matters of the Town Council. If the Workers' Party continues to remain silent and do nothing, we will be forced to conclude that the Workers' Party endorses the dishonest conduct and the breach of the fiduciary duties that has already occurred. I hope that the Workers' Party will do the right thing and correct the financial and governance lapses. Sometimes, a bitter pill has to be taken to solve the root of the problems. If the Workers' Party wants the privilege of representing Singaporeans, they cannot remain silent now. The integrity of elected officials is of the utmost importance to Singaporeans. Singapore's system of governance is based on integrity and accountability. We must uphold it. Let me repeat that Singapore’s system of governance is based on integrity and accountability. We must uphold it.”
“Trust between the electorate and elected officials is vital in democratic societies. When trust breaks down, the people will feel that their leaders are disconnected and only seem to be looking after themselves and their friends. We see this happening in many countries. We must never let this happen in Singapore. This is a long account. I thank Members of this House for your patience. Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few points in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I move this Motion today because, for elected officials, integrity is of the utmost importance. The High Court has found Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to be dishonest and intransparent, and to have failed in their fiduciary duties to AHTC. Whether or not they will eventually appeal, they should recuse themselves from dealing with all financial matters in AHTC. This saga has been going on for eight years, involving millions of dollars in public funds. Audit reports from AGO, KPMG and PwC, the suit brought to the Court by the independent panel appointed by AHTC itself, and the Court hearings, have all shown that these two Members of Parliament have committed wrongdoings. At numerous points over the last eight years, they could have admitted their wrongdoings and acted. However, they did not do so. On the contrary, they either repeatedly camouflaged their wrongdoings, misled the public or remained silent, hoping that everyone will forget their wrongdoings over time. The Workers' Party won the Aljunied GRC at the 2011 General Election. It is understandable that they wanted to appoint a company that they can trust to manage the Town Council. However, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang did not follow the proper procedures.”
“Town Councils allow political parties to prove their mettle even if they are not the Government. If a party can manage a Town Council well, it proves its competence to conduct good, clean, administration. And their leaders can show that they are credible and deserve to be entrusted with broader responsibilities. If not, it is just as well that everybody finds out early, before too much damage is done. Indeed, as I just noted, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself won his spurs when he was the Member of Parliament for Hougang and ran its Town Council. Similarly, Mr Chiam See Tong in running Potong Pasir's Town Council. So, when the Workers' Party argues against the Town Council system instead of putting right their lapses, what does it mean? Do they think the Opposition only exists to poke holes in Government policy, bandy around the slogan of "First World Parliament" but shoulder no other responsibility for residents? Do they think Opposition Members of Parliament should not be held to the same standard as Government Members of Parliament, even though at each election, we are asking the same thing of voters – their trust? Surely, this is not the sort of Opposition that Singaporeans need. The Workers' Party cannot stay silent on this. Almost four weeks have passed since the judgment was published. In all that time, the Workers' Party has said nothing. They have not apologised for the shortcomings that the Courts – and before the Courts, AGO and KPMG – have established. They have not accounted for their dishonesties and untruths. Nor have they have said whether they intend to put right the many wrongs that the Court has uncovered, and, if so, how. This is not the way to conduct yourself in politics.”
“Each of our Prime Ministers – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and our current Prime Minister – has espoused and upheld the values of honesty, transparency and integrity. Each made integrity, honesty and incorruptibility fundamental values in Government. And they walked the talk. If any PAP Minister or Member of Parliament is accused of lying, the Prime Minister would do a thorough investigation. And if they were found dishonest, serious consequences would inevitably follow. The Court has made very serious and severe statements about Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim. It concluded that their conduct of Town Council matters lacked candour and transparency and that they had not acted honestly and with integrity. Imagine if a Court had made such findings against PAP town councillors. Is it even conceivable that a PAP Member of Parliament whom the Court has described in these terms can remain in the Town Council and continue handling public funds as if nothing had happened? At the very least, he would have been asked to go on leave, pending any effort to clear his name through an Appeal. What sort of questions would the Workers Party be asking the PAP? What sort of demands would they be making of the Government? The Opposition must hold themselves to the same standards that they rightly apply to the Government. This is, in fact, precisely why we have our system of Town Councils. It is an important way Singaporeans can judge for themselves who deserves to be given the responsibility to run the country, whether it is a Government Member of Parliament or an Opposition Member of Parliament. It allows them to identify which Members of Parliament and which political parties, can walk the talk, manage public monies and show that they can actually get things done.”
“Those who participate in politics must be honest, upright people who can be trusted to uphold the public interest, speak the truth even at a cost to themselves and admit their mistakes when they have done wrong. They have to uphold these principles even when it is politically inconvenient to do so. And we need to do this, whether you are a Government or Opposition Member of Parliament, whether you represent a constituency in Parliament, or are a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament or Nominated Member of Parliament. Because if we cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, we cannot trust him to safeguard public funds, to put the public interest ahead of personal gain, or to make decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. For this reason, we have always taken any accusations of dishonesty against political leaders very seriously. Certainly, the fourth generation (4G) People's Action Party (PAP) leaders intend to continue maintaining the high standards which we have achieved and upheld for so many years since the PAP first formed the Government in 1959. For we must ensure that Members of Parliament, both Government and Opposition, are men and women of integrity. It is in the vital interest of Singapore and Singaporeans for Members of the Opposition also to be persons of integrity, and not people who cannot be trusted with public funds, much less national responsibilities. I might add, Mr Speaker, that we have had such upright, honourable men among the Opposition. I might mention Mr David Marshall, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Chiam See Tong. If I might be permitted another personal note, Mr Low Thia Khiang ran his own Town Council well when he was Member of Parliament for Hougang.”
“Finally, with the Court intervening and with the Government’s offering to pay for the accountant, KPMG was appointed. Almost two years after KMPG was appointed, AHTC finally cleared the audit. I am sure that the town councillors will agree that they are the better for the audit and that their controls and processes are now much safer. Sometimes, a bitter pill has to be taken so a sick system can be returned to health. Similarly, now that honesty, integrity, candour and transparency of some of the most senior Workers' Party members have been called into serious question – by the High Court no less – will the Workers' Party be willing to swallow another bitter pill and take action? If the Workers' Party wants the privilege of representing Singaporeans in Parliament, they cannot be silent on this. Beyond the specific facts of this case, this episode reminds us of the need for integrity and probity. We hope that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament, and all Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament, will agree that Members of Parliament should be held to the following standards in Singapore. Members of Parliament should not mislead their fellow town councillors, or hide things from them; Members of Parliament should not mislead the public; Members of Parliament should not mislead Parliament; Members of Parliament should not mislead the Court; Members of Parliament should not let their friends make money at the public's expense; and Members of Parliament should always act with integrity; and with candour and transparency. I am moving this Motion because integrity is of the utmost importance in elected officials. Singapore has succeeded only because we have maintained a culture of honesty and integrity in the Public Service.”
“Will they at long last be conducting their own investigations or will they continue to duck, dodge and deny? As Secretary-General and Chairman, respectively, of the Workers' Party, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim are responsible for party standards and discipline. Both are themselves involved in the AHTC problem. But it is still their duty to act for the Workers' Party. Will they apologise on behalf of the Workers' Party? Will they direct Mr Faisal Manap to do the right thing to protect AHTC's governance? Will they temporarily stand aside themselves and allow some other Workers' Party's Central Executive Committee (CEC) member to take charge of this matter, again, a standard practice in the corporate world? If nothing is done from now till the appeal is concluded, we will be forced to conclude that the Workers' Party, by its inaction, in fact, endorses the dishonest conduct and the breach of the fiduciary duties that have already occurred and is complicit in the wrongdoing. I hope that the Workers' Party will take action. There were other financial and governance lapses which occurred in AHTC. The Workers' Party has put them right, albeit after a very long delay and after denying and resisting for many years. In doing so, the Workers' Party has shown that they are, in fact, capable of taking steps to put their house in order when further obfuscation and delay at last become untenable. Last year, KPMG found that AHTC had finally resolved all the lapses flagged in past audits since 2013. I have detailed earlier how the Workers' Party initially resisted the appointment of any independent auditor, then resisted the appointment of a Big Four accounting firm.”
“Very serious adverse findings were made against them – findings that go to the heart of the integrity of these Members of Parliament and the deceptive manner in which they conducted the Town Council’s affairs. How can they remain in charge of the Town Council's affairs as if it is business as usual? At the very least, should not the Chairman and other town councillors require them to recuse themselves from handling the Town Council’s financial matters, as called for in this Motion? Until the appeal, if any, is over, will Mr Faisal Manap remove Ms Sylvia Lim as a Vice Chairman? Or will he allow her to continue to be in a position where she can co-sign cheques on behalf of AHTC? If AHTC were a company, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang would, at the very least, have been interdicted – prohibited or restrained from acting – pending their appeal. Most likely, they would have been forced to leave the company a long time ago – when AGO and then KPMG made their findings – instead of being allowed to carry on, in the same roles and enjoying the same degree of financial oversight over public funds. If they were members of a professional body – and many Members of this House are members of professional bodies – their acts of dishonesty would have brought them before a disciplinary tribunal. As the earlier judgment of the High Court noted, they might have been exposed to civil liability or, in an extreme scenario, to criminal liability. In light of how they have misled this House and the absence of a response by the Town Council, I would like to know what, if anything, the Workers' Party's remaining Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament propose to do about these findings pending any appeal.”
“" Mr Png Eng Huat said, and I quote, "Our MA cannot make payments to themselves for the above services without the Chairman or one of the Vice Chairmen to co-sign the cheque." These are half-truths at best because, in reality, there was no standing instruction that co-signatures were required on cheques for payments to FMSI, the EMSU provider. In fact, these claims are entirely untrue. Ms Sylvia Lim admitted to the Court that she did not personally check that each payment was justified. Despite all the reassurances they gave, there were payments to FMSS without the requisite co-signature of members of the Town Council. Mr Speaker, Sir, everything I have presented is based on objective facts, as established in Court, after having heard the defendants under oath. The Court found that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had breached their fiduciary duties, had not been honest and questioned their integrity and lack of candour and transparency. Ms Sylvia Lim remains a Vice Chairman of AHTC while Mr Low Thia Khiang is a member of AHTC. More than three weeks have passed since the Court judgment. The Workers' Party has been totally silent on this matter. So has AHTC. This is why I have to ask in Parliament, what does the current Chairman of AHTC Mr Faisal Manap intend to do? At the minimum, will he apologise to residents of Aljunied and Hougang for letting them down? An apology would be the first step, a belated recognition that they had let residents down and an intention to put things right. Is he going to require the Members of Parliament so severely judged and found wanting by the Court to recuse themselves from the Town Council’s affairs, pending the disposal of any appeal they may file?”
“They knew that this was wrong and thus misled their own town councillors, misled their own auditors, misled the public and misled Parliament to hide their wrongdoing. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang not only misled Parliament. They also knowingly allowed Mr Pritam Singh to mislead Parliament. Mr Pritam Singh said in 2015, and I quote, "Where FMSS is a tenderer in a tender called by the Town Council, as was the case in 2011 for the MA contract, FMSS is kept at an arm's length and a China wall is built between FMSS and the Town Council". We now know this to be false. The Court found How Weng Fan had been heavily involved since early May 2011, soon after the General Election, in setting up FMSS and in the plot to keep CPG in the dark. She was even involved in the preparation of the FMSS letter of intent and, as I noted earlier, in sanitising the report on FMSS' appointment as MA, for the auditors. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang knew very well they had not kept How at arm’s length. Yet, they let Mr Pritam Singh mislead this House without correcting him. When the Workers' Party leaders let their own Members of Parliament mislead Parliament on their behalf, what does this say about the Workers' Party's integrity and values? The Workers’ Party also misled Parliament that their safeguards for transactions with their friends were adequate. Ms Sylvia Lim told this House in 2015, and I quote, "It was the policy that no cheque to FMSS of whatever amount could be issued unless either the Town Council Chairman or one of the Vice Chairmen co-signed the cheque. Thus, it was not possible for FMSS to pay itself unless it was authorised by the Town Council Chair or Vice Chair who have no interest in FMSS whatsoever.”
“She then had to agree that she had lied in the press release, which was disseminated to all Singaporeans, including the residents of AHTC. The Workers' Party misled Parliament. The Judge found that it was not sufficiently urgent to justify waiver of tender. This means that when the Workers' Party told Parliament in 2015 that they waived tender because of urgency, they were misleading Parliament. Ms Sylvia Lim said in Parliament in 2015, I quote, "For the first contract in 2011 for MA services, it was triggered as the incumbent MA, CPG Facilities Management, asked to be released from the contract with the Town Council for business reasons. There was an urgent need to put in place a computer system due to the termination of the former system in use." The judgment was crystal clear on this, and I quote, "There was no urgency or public interest that warranted the waiver of tender. It was neither CPG Facilities Management's announcement on 30 May 2011 nor Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM's) withdrawal of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) that resulted in tender being waived." In waiving tender, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang's, and I quote, "conduct was improper and the attempt to cloak the same with a veneer of truth and credibility collectively leads to the conclusion that they had not acted honestly". Mr Speaker, Sir, why were there so many false and misleading statements? When one reads the record – the AGO report, the KPMG report, the PwC reports, three Court judgments – you will find misleading statements made by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament piling up. In sum, waiver of tender was not justified but they did this to appoint their friends.”
“Annex 3 is a compilation of the Workers' Party's misleading statements. The Workers' Party misled their own Town Councillors. They deliberately kept the decision to appoint FMSS away from a Town Council meeting. Instead they delegated authority to Ms Sylvia Lim, so as to keep the other town councillors in the dark. They concealed their true motives from the rest of the town councillors. The Workers' Party misled their own auditors. Most disturbingly, Ms Sylvia Lim asked Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh to sanitise the report on FMSS' appointment as MA so it could, I quote, "pass the auditors' eyes". And she is a lawyer. Mr Danny Loh was asked to draft the report. Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh were the very officers and shareholders whose appointment was to be approved without tender. And here were Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim asking them to draft the comment on a report concerning their own appointment. The Judge considered this to be extraordinary and stated these actions cast serious doubt on their honesty and integrity. The Workers' Party misled the public. In the Town Council's press release on 5 August 2011 concerning the appointment of FMSS, they falsely asserted that there was no time to call a tender. The Judge found that this misled the public and the very constituents the Members of Parliament were elected to serve. As the Judge put it, and I quote, "There was a concerted attempt to cloak the appointment of FMSS with a veneer of propriety", "in order to camouflage its true motive". The press release also falsely asserted that AHTC did not incur additional MA fees from appointing FMSS. Under cross-examination, Ms Sylvia Lim admitted that this was "not accurate", before finally admitting "it is not true", and that she knew it was not true.”
“The Workers’ Party chose the Members of the Independent PaneI. It appointed the Independent Panel. HDB was consulted and had no objections. Mr Pritam Singh, on behalf of AHTC, welcomed the appointments and called the independent members "eminent", as, indeed, they were. Chaired by Mr Philip Jeyaretnam Senior Counsel, the other two members of the Independent Panel were Mr N Sreenivasan Senior Counsel and Mr Ong Pang Thye, Managing Partner of KPMG. The Independent Panel went through the facts and concluded that the Town Council’s monies had been wrongly spent. On behalf of the Town Council, it decided to sue the key persons involved, including Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh, for losses arising from wrongful payments by the Town Council.”
“There were conflicts of interest in the Town Council's appointment of FMSS and FM Solutions and Integrated Services (FMSI). FMSI, which was engaged by the Town Council to provide essential maintenance and lift rescue services, was a sole proprietorship owned by the Secretary of the Town Council, who was also part-owner of FMSS. The people that formed FMSS and FMSI were the Workers' Party’s friends – trusted, loyal supporters. FMSS' directors and shareholders were the Secretary, General Manager and Deputy General Manager of AHTC, respectively. Two, there were pervasive control failures cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management. I will mention three of these. The Town Councillors relinquished an unacceptably high degree of financial responsibility to conflicted persons. All of the payments to FMSS/FMSI were co-signed by the conflicted persons. There were overpayments to FMSS, and payments to FMSS without certification of work performed or without the requisite co-signature of members of the Town Council. There were also numerous breaches of the Town Councils Act and Town Council Financial Rules. In the meantime, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) – retained by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) after Punggol East became part of PRPTC after the 2015 General Election – submitted its own report. It, too, raised questions similar to KPMG. Again, it found that AHTC had not been transparent, and had delayed granting PwC access to all necessary documents and information. In view of these serious flaws, the Court of Appeal then directed the Town Council to appoint an independent panel to take such action as may be appropriate to safeguard residents' interests.”
“The High Court observed that Ms Sylvia Lim's statement in Parliament in 2015 that the Town Council had done due transfers to the sinking fund was curious because of what she had failed to mention. The Court described Ms Sylvia Lim's behaviour with the Latin phrase "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" – suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false. The Court of Appeal said that it was clear that there had been breaches of the statutory requirements. It found lapses in internal controls, which exposed the Town Council to risk of loss of money or valuables; inadequate oversight of related party transactions, where key officers acted despite conflicts of interest; and that the Town Council had not seriously considered whether, and how, to recover possible sums due from wrong payments. Thus, the Court had already taken a view on this matter as early as 2015, after the AGO report was debated in Parliament. The Court of Appeal ordered the Town Council to appoint independent accountants, despite the Workers' Party's resistance. AHTC then responded to the Court of Appeal's order cynically, nominating accountants to do the forensic audit, but failing to provide enough information on their proposed accountants’ experience and expertise. When HDB asked for additional information, AHTC did not respond. The Court of Appeal noted the Town Council's lack of rigour and basic due diligence in how it nominated accountants. On the Court of Appeal’s direction, AHTC eventually appointed KPMG LLP (KPMG). KPMG, too, uncovered serious shortcomings. Among them: One, that the Town Council had not been justified to waive tender before appointing FMSS as its MA.”
“We would not be here today speaking about these judgments, if the Workers' Party, and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular, had even at this late stage in 2015, been serious about setting things straight. If they had corrected the problems, got their friends to make good the losses, it could all have been very different. But the Workers' Party refused to acknowledge the issues and flatly refused to deal with them. In view of the Workers' Party's inaction, despite the debate in Parliament, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and then the Housing and Development Board (HDB), applied to the High Court to deal with the matter. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal took a serious view of the matter. Tellingly, both had sharp remarks about the Workers' Party's conduct. To help Members follow the Courts' findings, I wish to distribute Annex 2 – Quotes from the Judgments – to my speech. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to distribute the Annex?”
“Still, the 2015 AGO report uncovered serious shortcomings, which cast doubt on whether the Town Council was properly managing public funds. Parliament debated the AGO report in February 2015. Even at that point, instead of taking ownership and rectifying the problems uncovered by AGO, the Workers' Party Members – and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular – made excuses. They repeated in this House their objections to the AGO report, objections which the AGO had already addressed. Instead of dealing with the issues, they sought to obfuscate, throw doubt on AGO, pretend that everything was fine. The Law Minister said in this House that the conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and her fellow town councillors was unlawful and that they were in breach of their fiduciary duties. Ms Sylvia Lim's response was to shout "Rubbish", brazenly denying their unacceptable actions using unparliamentary language. Despite their refusal to acknowledge the issues, then Minister of National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, patiently advised the Workers' Party to take immediate steps to resolve the problems. He urged them to take concrete steps to recover the losses and make restitution to their residents. And he suggested commissioning a forensic audit. Sadly, the Workers' Party did not do anything. I do not know what they were expecting. Perhaps, they felt that somehow the public would forget and give them a free pass since they were an Opposition party. They were not used to running a GRC, so the public would "give chance". Indeed, shortcomings resulting from inexperience can be forgotten. But dishonesty, deliberate and repeated deception, to profit one's friends, cannot be forgiven, or swept under the carpet.”
“Indeed, they have taken the position in Court that as elected Members of Parliament, they are not answerable to the Courts for any serious mismanagement or mis-spending of public funds. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed with this submission, which sought to place the Workers' Party Members above the law. It was a remarkable position for the Workers' Party to take. They are saying that no matter what wrongs they commit and no matter how much public funds are misused, they are not answerable and nothing can be done to them in Court. This was said in the hope that the electorate would not pay attention to their wrongdoings. Therefore, everything could be covered up and forgotten. How did we get to this state? Many in the House will remember that it was AHTC's own auditors who first issued a disclaimer of opinion on its accounts back in 2013. The auditors raised serious questions about the adequacy of the Town Council's financial and accounting systems. The responsible thing for Ms Sylvia Lim, the Workers' Party Town Council Chairman then, to have done at that moment, was to come clean, accept that there were issues, and fix them. But she did not. In the next audit in 2014, they hid details of the transactions with their friends, and refused to give the documents and information to their own auditors. The auditors were alarmed and again issued a disclaimer of opinion on the Accounts. But the issues they highlighted were not rectified. And so, in 2014, the Auditor-General carried out an audit, but like AHTC's own auditors, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) was obstructed by the Town Council. The AGO report stated that despite repeated requests for critical documents, the Town Council did not produce them.”
“And they removed the existing Managing Agent (MA) and appointed their friends in FMSS, though FMSS had less experience and charged more. This overcharging, abuse of public funds, was inexcusable. What they did was in breach of their fiduciary duties, at every turn. They told untruths and distorted the facts and knowingly sacrificed their residents' interests in favour of their friends. After having misled their own town councillors to get FMSS appointed without a tender, they then repeatedly misled the public and Parliament on why they had hired their friends in this manner. They misled their own auditors, too, and refused to give them documents which would have revealed the truth. Mr Speaker, they did all this to cover up their wrongdoing. It is a tale of deception, spun out over eight years, which finally unravelled in Court, and not just in one Court. It unravelled in three different Courts, including the Court of Appeal. The residents have suffered. Under the management of the Workers' Party's friends, the Town Council ran up deficits. A surplus of $3.3 million under the previous management, became a deficit of $2 million by the third year of the new regime. And meanwhile, their friends made big profits running into millions of dollars. Allowing your friends to help themselves to public funds – that is a tale that belongs to the Third World, not Singapore. In two different trials, the Courts reached judgments that showed that the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament had misled Parliament – first in 2015, and now, in the latest judgment. Even so, the Workers' Party maintains that they are not answerable either to the Courts or to Parliament.”
“For simplicity, I will refer to the Town Council consistently as AHTC so as not to confuse listeners. I will deal with the judgment and the questions raised following the judgment. The judgment is the latest chapter in a saga that has been eight years in the making. Throughout this long time, the Workers' Party has consistently and repeatedly refused to take responsibility for the problems in its Town Council. This is lamentable. The Workers' Party town councillors have persistently resisted disclosure, offered countless excuses and made a litany of misleading statements – to the public, in Parliament and before the Courts. They have not been transparent in their dealings. In essence, what happened is simple. The Workers' Party wanted their friends to manage their Town Council. The honest and honourable thing to do, if one wants to appoint one's friends is: be transparent and open about it. Disclose all the facts, so that a fair decision can be made. And call an open tender, so that your friends compete with the market. And this is important – you cannot allow your friends to overcharge. What the Workers' Party did was the opposite. They told untruths and manipulated the circumstances, so that FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) would be appointed, whatever the case. They did not care whether FMSS was the best candidate to serve residents. Indeed, Mr Low said that he would have appointed FMSS, even if a cheaper, more experienced contractor had put in a bid. To guarantee FMSS' appointment, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang waived the tender, even though the law required it. They misled their own town councillors, including their own fellow Members in the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and gave a false reason to them for not calling a tender.”
“If there is an appeal against the judgment, the Court of Appeal will decide on the merits of the appeal in due course. The appeal may take months to conclude. Given the very serious findings about: (a) the dishonesty of particular Members of this House, and (b) the misuse and loss of public funds, the question is what is going to be done in the interim, pending the appeal, if there is one. Will the Workers' Party provide the House with any guarantees to uphold accountability and transparency between now and the appeal? This Motion is also about the integrity and character expected of public officials and Members of Parliament. It pains me to move this Motion, in particular, because one of the two Members named in it is Mr Low Thia Khiang, if I may be permitted a personal note at the outset, he is someone for whom I have always had a high regard. I think many on both sides of the House share my sentiment. But there are important questions of public interest to consider. I will mention just a few at the outset. Millions of dollars of public funds are involved. The High Court has found Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to be dishonest and deceptive, and to have failed in their duty to the Town Council. Indeed, Ms Sylvia Lim has admitted under oath that she had lied to the public. Pending the appeal, if there is one, this House is entitled to ask: are Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang going to continue to have oversight and decision-making power over public funds in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)? And, what do those in charge of AHTC intend to do about the findings in the judgment? I should add that from February 2013 to September 2015, the Town Council included Punggol East and was known AHPETC.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament: (i) affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability; (ii) notes the Judgment in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and anor v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and ors and anor suit [2019] SGHC 241, where, amongst other things, the Court held that: (a) Ms Sylvia Lim ("Ms Lim") and Mr Low Thia Khiang ("Mr Low") had acted dishonestly and in breach of their fiduciary duties, and their conduct lacked integrity and candour; and (b) Ms Lim and Mr Low were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality; (iii) notes that Ms Lim remains Vice-Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, and Mr Low remains an elected member of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council; and (iv) calls on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters. I have moved this Motion because of the High Court's findings. Mr Speaker, may I distribute the Supreme Court's summary of the Judgment as Annex 1 to my speech? The full Judgment was released to the public on 11 October 2019.”
“Temasek is an investment holding company and owns the assets it manages. It is audited by commercial auditors and has in place a policy of rotating its audit engagement partners every five years. This is similar to the requirement imposed by the Singapore Exchange on listed companies to rotate the audit partner after five consecutive audits. The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation manages the Government's assets. Hence, it is audited by the Auditor-General, who is appointed by the President and serves as an independent Organ of State under the Constitution to audit the entities managing public funds.”
“For example, arising from the unexpected surplus from FY2017, we set aside funds in a Rail Infrastructure Fund to support plans for future Mass Rapid Transit development. We also announced a one-off $700 million SG Bonus to share the surpluses with Singaporeans. Our approach to budgeting is a prudent and citizen-centric one. We plan for sufficient revenues to meet the needs of our people across each term of Government. Any surpluses are invested to yield long-term returns. Up to half of these returns on our net assets are then channeled into future budgets to meet growing needs in areas from education to healthcare, support for our seniors, and keeping our home safe and secure.”
“The Ministry of Finance (MOF) takes budget marksmanship seriously as part of its work in ensuring sound financial management. The accuracy of budgeted estimates for Operating Revenue, excluding Net Investment Returns Contribution, and Government Expenditure, excluding Special Transfers, is tracked as part of MOF's Key Performance Indicators, published in the annual Budget documents. Overall, the variances of our projections have been within a reasonable range. From financial year (FY) 2014 to FY2018 (revised), the average variance between our eventual outturns and forecasts was under 3% for revenues and under 2% for expenditures. These are comparable to those in Hong Kong, Korea and New Zealand, where average revenue and expenditure forecast variances range from 2% to 6% and 1% to 3% respectively for the same period. Forecasting is an inherently uncertain exercise, in particular for a small and open economy like Singapore. The more significant differences from our past projections have tended to be driven by revenues that are influenced by economic volatility and market sentiments. In FY2017, for example, there was an exceptionally high Statutory Board Contribution from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) of +$4.6 billion and Stamp Duty of +$2.2 billion. The former was driven by unexpected investment gains from a global rally in equity and bond markets. The latter was the result of an unexpected pick-up in property market transactions. When there were unexpected surpluses, we have deployed them for the public good, saving them for anticipated spending needs and sharing some of the surpluses with Singaporeans.”
“The recent announcement on Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution rates affect workers after the age of 55, and the intent is to restore the full CPF rate gradually taking into account economic conditions, over the next 10 years starting from 2021. Contractors bidding for Government contracts have advance notice to price their bids accordingly when they bid for contracts. The Prime Minister has also said in his 2019 National Day Rally speech that the Government will help businesses to adjust to these new arrangements through a support package and details will be announced in next year's Budget. The approach taken by the Government is to give sufficient notice of changes that affect businesses, to help companies plan ahead. As nominal wage increases have averaged over 4% per annum in the past 10 years, we expect most companies to be able to manage the planned 0.5%-1% point increase in employers' CPF contribution rate within the total wage increases in the coming years.”
“If a supplier wishes to participate in a higher value procurement, he may be expected to have a higher financial capacity to qualify for a higher level GRA. To make GRA more accessible to SMEs, last year, we removed the requirement for companies with less than $5 million turnover to submit audited accounts when applying for non-construction related GRA. We now accept unaudited financial statements if the company's Director certifies that their financial statements are accurate and true. About 3,900 GRA-registered suppliers, or approximately 80%, have benefited from this. Finally, the supplier's financial standing is just part of the whole suite of factors taken into consideration during evaluation. Other factors, such as the quality of the proposal in meeting the objective and requirements of the procurement, including innovative elements, capability of the supplier and price are all considered. In fact, over 80% of procurement contracts in the past two years were awarded to SMEs. We will continue to review our policies and practices to ensure Government procurement remains accessible to SMEs.”
“Government agencies typically conduct procurement via tenders or quotations. Tenders are called for higher value procurement, while quotations are for procurement below a certain monetary threshold. Companies wishing to participate in Government procurement by tender may be required to qualify as Expenditure and Policies Procurement Unit Suppliers or Building and Construction Authority Suppliers with registration under the Government Registration Authority (GRA). GRA qualification is not necessary for quotation level procurement. Over 80% of all Government procurement opportunities are at quotation-level and, hence, do not require GRA. This makes it easier for nascent small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to participate in Government procurement. Suppliers need only have a Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) Trading Partner account to bid for quotations and there are no financial prerequisites to be a GeBIZ Trading Partner. The first user account is also free. Earlier this year, we increased the upper limit of quotations from $70,000 to $90,000, thus making even more procurement opportunities accessible to SMEs without GRA. This benefits the 12,000 existing suppliers who only participate in Government quotations, as well as other new suppliers. GRA is only required for some higher value procurement above $90,000 where tenders are called, subject to the specific needs of the agency calling the tender. Its primary objective is to provide assurance that a supplier has the capacity to deliver the goods or services that are paid for with public funds. There are different levels of GRA depending on the value of the tender.”
“In terms of the age criteria, the Merdeka Generation Package (MGP) applies to Singaporeans born from 1950 to 1959, as well as those born in 1949 or earlier and who did not receive the Pioneer Generation Package. Among them, there are about 16,000 who did not meet the citizenship criteria because they became citizens after 1996. As of end-July 2019, there were close to 400 citizenship-related appeals, and the Appeals Panel has reviewed about half of them. We are working with the remaining appellants to obtain more information in order to better understand their circumstances. Close to 120 appeals, or about 60% of the cases reviewed, have been successful. These are Singaporeans who have just missed the citizenship cut-off but have good grounds to be counted among the Merdeka Generation.”
“The Government will continue to grow an enabling, pro-enterprise environment for startups.”
“(b) De.Mem is a company providing solutions for drinking water generation, municipal sewage treatment and industrial wastewater treatment in decentralised applications. It is a spinoff from the Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI) at the Nanyang Technological University, having licensed Forward Osmosis and Nanofiltration membrane technologies from NEWRI. De.Mem, which had received around $3.5 million in investments catalysed by ESVF, has now achieved a S$25 million (A$27 million) market capitalisation and has operations in Singapore, Australia and Vietnam. Besides ESVF, NRF has also co-invested in high-technology startups since 2008 through two other schemes – the Technology Incubation Scheme in partnership with startup incubators, and the Disruptive Incubator Scheme, which operated as an incubator investment fund. Then-Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board also invested in startups through SEEDS Capital, which was started in 2001. Collectively, these schemes have made investments into more than 400 startups. Beyond funding support, the Government has taken other steps to grow a conducive environment for startups. Startup SG, administered by Enterprise Singapore, has consolidated all the startup-facing support from the Government into a one-stop shop. This includes providing startups with access to mentorship, talent, local and global networks, co-innovation platforms and infrastructure, in order to build their capabilities and grow. Through these efforts, Singapore's startup ecosystem is becoming more vibrant. We have seen positive growth in the local tech startup ecosystem. A decade ago, less than 70 VC investments were closed in Singapore in a year. This has grown to more than 350 last year.”
“Startups are an important catalyst and driver of innovation and enterprise in our economy. The Government has put in place a range of schemes to catalyse funding into Singapore startups across different stages of their development. One such scheme is the Early Stage Venture Fund (ESVF), which aims to catalyse venture capital (VC) funding for early-stage Singapore-based high-tech startups. The scheme has evolved over the past decade, in line with the needs of our startups, as our ecosystem developed. The scheme catalysed the formation of 10 early-stage VC funds and four Corporate Venture Funds, and has invested in more than 60 Singapore-based high-technology startups. More recently, the ESVF scheme supported the formation of the National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF)-Temasek intellectual property (IP) Commercialisation Vehicle, announced at Budget 2018, to co-invest in startups underpinned by IP generated from publicly funded research and development. Of the startups that received investments catalysed by ESVF, about two-thirds have progressed significantly, in that they have either crossed $250,000 in revenue, raised more than $250,000 in third party investments, or increased their valuation by at least 20%. Aslan Pharmaceuticals and De.Mem are two such startups which have benefited from the ESVF scheme. (a) Aslan Pharmaceuticals is a biotechnology company that develops therapies for cancer tumour types prevalent in Asia. Having received more than $4 million in investments catalysed by ESVF, it has listed on both the Taipei Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) in the United States (US), raising more than US$75 million in the process. Aslan is headquartered in Singapore, with offices in Taiwan and Shanghai.”
“The Government Financial Statements (GFS) comprise yearly detailed statements of Government accounts, prepared by the Accountant-General in accordance with the Constitution and Financial Procedure Act for the purpose of submission to the President and Parliament. Copies of the GFS are made available for access by Members of Parliament in the Parliament Library, and for public access in the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library. To make it easier for the public to understand the detailed statements in the GFS, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) extracts relevant information from the GFS every year and publishes them in the Budget Book and other documents related to the Budget. This information is made available online on the MOF website. We will continue to review and update the various methods in which we release and publish information on Government accounts.”
“Under the Accountants Act, the Public Accountants Oversight Committee (PAOC) is empowered to inspect public accountants' audits of companies' financial statements. PAOC is a Board committee under the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). The inspections assess public accountants' compliance with the Singapore Standards on Auditing, which are consistent with international auditing standards. The PAOC's inspections aim to deter audit deficiencies and raise audit quality. Public accountants with audit deficiencies will be sanctioned. Depending on the severity of the deficiencies, PAOC can inspect the public accountant again, require the public accountant’s work to be reviewed by another public accountant, restrict the type of services that the public accountant can provide, or suspend or cancel the public accountant's licence. The names of public accountants whose licences have been suspended or cancelled will also be published on the ACRA website. The current audit inspections cover public accountants. Later this year, we plan to amend the Accountants Act to expand audit inspections to audit firms and to apply sanctions for audit firms' lapses. The proposed amendments will hold audit firms to higher accountability. Our regulatory measures are aimed at providing greater assurance to the public that audits by public accountants meet prevailing standards. However, all parties involved in companies, including directors, audit committees, management and the accounting profession, have a responsibility and a role to play in ensuring the quality of financial reporting. Investors, too, need to take appropriate steps to understand the health of the companies and apprise themselves of risks versus returns, when deciding whether to make an investment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Pritam Singh asked about whether we should have a more permanent scheme. But if Members have heard me carefully during the round-up, MOH already have many, many permanent schemes, many permanent subsidies. The $6.1 billion that it is spending on this alone will give you an idea of that. As I said earlier, we already have many structural subsidies which are already built into our healthcare system. So, the MGP and PGP are built on top of what we already have. This is a subsidy on a subsidised rate. Sir, I think it is important for us to appreciate the care that went into designing this very complex system. We spent a lot of time thinking about how best we can do this in a sustainable way. Second, the Member was citing the IPS survey and so on. As Members can see in the IPS survey, respondents vary in their comments whether they should be funding current, whether they should be funding future and so on. We must not confuse the MGP and PGP that have been set aside to fund these long-term care programmes with the use of NIRC. The NIRC comes in as a big pot, and that helps us to fund a number of other things. The packages that we have, specifically target that group and the funds come from what we have today in current Reserves. We have not touched the past Reserves. As I said earlier, the Reserves are a strategic asset for Singapore. You do not know how the global situation will develop and it is important for us to have that strategic asset for the long term. That is why my whole Budget round-up speech is about planning for the long term, while you address and adapt for changes for short-term developments.”
“As I said in my Budget speech, we are also looking at all of these long-term needs very carefully and we will share this when ready.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Low Thia Khiang for his question. I am glad that he is in the MG. And as I said in my speech, I hope that our MG will redefine ageing and that the Member continues to stay healthy, active and connected and live longer. So, as to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question on how long this structural increase in our healthcare expenditure will last, in my speech, I mentioned that what we have been doing, for instance, is studying the OECD's experience. I mentioned about the experience of a number of countries. Last year, I was in Japan to look at what they were doing to deal with the problem of an ageing population. And I must say that there are many variables that go into the long-term care costs and the long-term support that is needed. In fact, the one Minister that I spent a lot of time with is Minister Gan Kim Yong because, each time I see him, he comes up with a higher set of figures. So, if you ask me how long this will last, I would not want to mislead this House. We are continuing to study this very carefully. All I can say is that it is going to last for quite a number of years. As I said, there are many variables which are not certain. For instance, how will our lifespan change and what is the extent to which our seniors will continue to be healthy? How will medical advances change? And how would new drugs, new treatment methods change the cost structure and change the life expectancy? There are many doctors in this House. And I think even if you ask all our doctors here, they would not be able to give you a definitive answer because there is a wide range of uncertainties. So, we must plan on the long-term basis. And we are not just having an ageing population, we are also having ageing infrastructure, as Ms Tin Pei Ling reminded us.”
“With a strong defence, to protect our way of life; a clean and green environment, a liveable city and endearing home; a vibrant economy, where opportunities abound; and a strong community, where no one is left behind. My colleagues will share more on what the Government will be doing along these lines during the COS. As Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, Mr Darryl David and Miss Cheng Li Hui have mentioned, our Bicentennial is an opportune time for us to reflect on how we have come so far, on what we have built together, and what more we can do, as individuals and in our organisations, to strengthen our society. I look forward to our VWOs, clan associations and religious groups continuing to step forward regardless of race, language or religion to uplift the disadvantaged amongst us. I look forward to more people – academics, professionals and, indeed, all citizens – providing constructive suggestions on how best to tackle critical issues confronting Singapore, as Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, on strengthening our social compact. The Bicentennial is also a good time to reflect on what being an independent, sovereign state means. It means fiercely protecting the precious freedom that we have to chart our own destiny, even as our relationships with our neighbours and the world change. It means appreciating that we have our own unique way of solving our problems the Singapore way. And, indeed, not to be pressured to conform to theories which sound fashionable but do not work for us. It means committing to give our best, building on what past generations have done. Together, we can advance and make this little red dot shine even more brightly. So, let us work together to build a strong and united Singapore. [Applause.] 1.05 pm”
“But I am also very happy that I got a 32% pay rise." I said, "Wow! Your new employer has been most generous." He said, "No. My employer who sent me back from the headquarters kept my salary at the same salary. But when I added up all the taxes that I have paid in that country – at the city level, at the state level, at the federal level – it added up to 32% of my pay." So, I thought that was a very powerful story. You can look up the tax rates of many of the countries that have extremely generous welfare systems but, as some of you shared, the moment you take your paycheck, more than half has gone. So, let us not forget this point. As Miss Cheryl Chan put it, we must not see the Budget as simply a "bag of benefits that serves some people in one year or the other". It is our strategic financial plan for the future. And because we take a long-term approach, we cannot see each year's Budget in isolation. Our Budget builds on the foundation of earlier Budgets. We have a multi-year plan, which tackles the priorities as systemically as we can. We plan ahead by setting out the strategy for mitigating and adapting the impacts of climate change. We look at the needs of different groups of people, as needs evolve and grow. We invest in growing our economy and in our people so that we have the resources to do more for our people and their children, and their children later. So, I am glad that many Members have asked the question, "What is in it for us, for Singapore?", rather than "What is in it for me?" Budget 2019 and our previous Budgets are to build a better Singapore for all of us. All of us benefit from a Singapore which is strong and united.”
“We provide up to $80,000 in grants for new Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, and $120,000 for resale flats, and invest even more later on when estates undergo upgrading. Parents can receive a maximum of between $18,000 and $32,000 in marriage and parenthood benefits for each eligible child, on top of paid maternity and paternity leave, tax benefits and preschool subsidies. Our middle-income families, especially those feeling "sandwiched" supporting retiree parents and school-going children, would benefit from many schemes. For example, their children receive significant education subsidies. Without these subsidies, families would have to pay more than 60 times the current fees for their children in school. University fees would also be four times what Singaporean students currently pay. And this is for a world-class education. The PGP and MGP ease healthcare costs for their parents and, in so doing, help with their families’ overall expenses. This year, many will receive a number of top-ups, such as to their children’s Edusave or Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEA) and their parents' CPF. All who pay personal income tax will receive a rebate. Some middle-income and upper-income families also commented that the tax rebate of $200 is insignificant and of not much benefit to them. But we must not forget that overall, income taxes are kept low, so that they can keep a large part of what they earn. This is, as Mr Ong Teng Koon mentioned, one of the key things that help with keeping expenses manageable. I should share a story of a recent encounter with a Singaporean who came back from a very developed country. And he told me, "Mr Heng, I am very happy to be back in Singapore. First, I am very happy to be back with my parents and family.”