Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore
“Yes, of course, every time I sell the land, I put money into the Reserves, but I am not putting the money into the Reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart.”
“Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“" I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow.”
“I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers. But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,557 lines we hold for Lee Hsien Loong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 32.
“Every year we can spend a portion of the real earnings of the Petroleum Fund in the budget. The Norwegian Parliament set this as 4% of the value of the Fund. In other words, they considered 4% being the expected long-term real returns. But once they had set the rule, they broke the rule. In 2002 to 2005, every year the Government exceeded 4% on the basis that the economy was not doing well and, therefore, it was necessary to be counter-cyclical and spend more. In 2005, they renamed the Petroleum Fund as the “Government Pension Fund – Global”. Actually, it is not a pension fund, but they call it the "Government Pension Fund – Global" to remind Norwegians that this is not money which is meant to be touched. In 2006 and 2007, they spent less than 4%, not because they had gotten more stringent but because the oil prices went through the roof, and the Fund ballooned, so less than 4% was a lot of money. But even then, some Norwegians still clamour for more. In 2006, there was an article in Newsweek, which some Members may remember because the title is striking. The title was "Trouble in Paradise", because this is a country which had everything – oil, gas, etc. It was a welfare state, with all provided for, womb to tomb. But still there was an opposition party arguing that you should pump more oil and make more profits, to improve services and lower taxes. There is no way you can avoid these pressures. Their elections are due next year, then we will see whether the majority of Norwegians continue to uphold the principle of saving for the future. That is Norway. Australia provides another interesting example. In the recent two general elections in 2004 and 2007, the parties have competed to give away goodies to voters, almost like an auction.”
“Therefore, we sought the President's concurrence and the President consulted the CPA. In fact, we briefed both the President and the CPA on what this was about, and they considered the matter and agreed that the Government could issue a guarantee. This is the first time that the President is exercising his custodial powers to approve a potential draw on reserves in the almost 18 years that we have had the elected President system. This episode demonstrates three things. First, how careful the Government has been with money and with reserves; secondly, the importance of having reserves in a crisis; and, thirdly, how the President exercises his gatekeeper function. The temptation to spend the money is always there, not just for Singapore but for other countries as well. I am gratified that many MPs have reminded us to be careful and not to go down the slippery path, but the path is slippery and we have to walk without slipping. Consider Norway – they discovered oil in the 1970s, and have become wealthy. They set up a Petroleum Fund in 1990 because they did not want to spend all the money and then be left with nothing when the oil was gone, like so many other oil producers. So they set up a Petroleum Fund in 1990 and put the proceeds from oil and gas sales into this fund to provide for the needs of the Norwegian population after the oil and gas reserves have run out. Today, the fund has accumulated about US$350 billion. But even in Norway, famously prudent, conservative, hardworking, frugal, Scandinavian people find it difficult to resist the populist push to spend just a little more. Originally, the money was to be totally locked up until the oil ran out. Then in 2001, they said no need to wait for the oil to run out.”
“If as a result of having to run a deficit, we need to ask the President's permission to draw on past reserves, then we will seek the President's permission and justify why we need to do that. But, fortunately, we have built up a comfortable buffer of current reserves since the last general election, which we can draw on if we have to run deficits over the next one or two years. Hence, for now, I do not foresee the need to draw on past reserves to finance deficits in the ordinary course of the Government's business. But for exceptional contingencies, we will rely on past reserves and we will seek the President's permission to do so. For example, the Government guarantee on bank deposits which we announced last week, which is backed by $150 billion of our reserves. Mr Lim Hng Kiang, who is Deputy Chairman in MAS, has explained why and how we did this. This is not a normal item; this is an exceptional item in an exceptional situation. It is not a routine contingent liability which can be funded from this year's budget or even from the current reserves of this Government because this guarantee depends on the strength of the accumulated reserves of the Government. We do not expect to use up $150 billion. If we are lucky, very little of it will be drawn upon. But everybody must be convinced that the $150 billion is real, that it is there, and should the guarantee ever be called upon, the guarantee will be good. Therefore, this $150 billion is backed by our reserves. In case there is a payout, the past reserves may be drawn upon. This $150 billion has not been drawn yet, so it is not yet a draw on past reserves, but it is a contingent liability. Depending on how things turn out, there could be a draw sometime down the road.”
“We have the resources to do this, and we have the resilience to see ourselves through. This is quite a different outlook from the one we had when we decided to make this Constitutional amendment in 2006, just two years ago. Growth in 2006 was more than 8%, the markets were booming, and our investments were doing brilliantly. The formula we have come up with has to work in both circumstances. Supposing we had spent all the investment income in a good year. Then what will happen in bad years, when returns may well be negative, but when we most need the money? Therefore, our spending rule will be based on long-term expected returns. In good years, spend less than what we actually earn, and put aside more for the future. In bad years, try to preserve the value of our investments, but draw on our accumulated surpluses at a prudent rate. In this way, we can stabilise ourselves against volatility year-to-year. We did not time the Constitutional amendment to deal with this downturn. It was not designed for this downturn. But the amendment will put in place the right spending rule for this and future downturns as well as boom years. There is one question which I am sure many Members would have asked: in this recession, will we need to go to the President to spend more from past reserves? My answer is this: In a recession, our fiscal stance will naturally have to suit the prevailing conditions. In other words, we naturally have to have looser budgets, the tax revenues will come down, the spending will go up, and we are likely to run a budget deficit. Whether we run a deficit or a surplus, our policy will be dictated by economic considerations. So if we can run a surplus, we will do so. If we have to run a deficit, we will do so.”
“If we embark on an unconditional needs-based welfare system, such as the Workers' Party has proposed, then we will certainly add to the burdens of the people because then, the sky is the limit, and the money has to come from somewhere. But for this PAP Government, only in an exceptional situation, to meet extraordinary, non-routine spending, would we go to the President and the CPA and make a case why we should draw more from past reserves. We have always to take a long-term view of these matters. Right now, the global financial system is under severe stress. Markets everywhere are in turmoil. America, Europe, Japan, all three economies are in recession or going into recession, and these problems will take more than a few months to clear; at least a year, quite possibly longer. Singapore cannot avoid the fallout. Our economy is competitive, our banks are sound, but we are linked to the world. As the Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach says, "You either believe in globalisation or you believe in decoupling. You cannot be globalised and decoupled at the same time." And Singapore is globalised, we are not decoupled. So we have to be prepared for a rough time. This year, we have cut our growth forecast to 3%. In fact, the last two quarters (quarter-on-quarter) have been negative. We cannot predict next year's growth yet, but we can be sure the next one or two years will be difficult. Meanwhile, we are monitoring the environment and our economy very closely. We are preparing measures to help businesses reduce costs, households, especially low-income households, to lighten their burdens, and workers to tide over the downturn. By Budget next year in February, the situation will be clearer, and then we can decide what we will do.”
“After making this rule change, we will still have to prioritise what we are going to spend on, which items we are going to spend on first. We will need to think carefully what we really need and how much we can afford. That is why when I proposed changing the NII formula two years ago, I also proposed raising the GST to 7%, to fund increased social expenditures – healthcare, Workfare, more Government help for the low-income and elderly. Because, in principle, social spending is something which is on-going, which if the Government needs to spend on, the people ought to pay for. But investments in the future, in principle, are about transforming the financial reserves into capabilities to generate new reserves. It is not a hard distinction, since money is fungible. But, in principle, I think those should be our mindsets. These two moves – the NII to NIR and the GST 5% to 7% – will put us in a sound fiscal position for the foreseeable future. If the Government is prudent and manages to accumulate surpluses in good years, then it is fair to share some of these surpluses with Singaporeans, eg, through the Progress Package, Growth Dividends and so on. Those, naturally, come out of current reserves. But if we need to spend more than we have available, then the Government of the day has to raise revenue to do this, and has to justify to voters why it is necessary to tax people in order to spend on these good causes. Ms Sylvia Lim yesterday asked a question: will we need to burden the people further? I think she meant it as a rhetorical question but I can give her a serious answer: We cannot say. It depends on what programmes the Government decides to embark on.”
“We are going to draw a steady amount – both in up years and down years. So that even in down years, long-term programmes can be assured of their funding and can continue. That is in fact a tremendous advantage to us. For example, R&D is inherently a multi-year programme. We put in the investments, build up the laboratories, scientists and the capabilities, and do the research. Maybe 10-20 years later, or maybe even longer we will see the full fruits. In other countries where the funding comes out of the current budget, R&D and scientific work is very often whipsawed by short-term budget pressures. This year, in the US and Europe, they are under great pressure because budgets are tight. They have spent their money rescuing banks. How are they going to carry on doing R&D? So, it is very unsettling for the scientists. It is a tremendous advantage for us that we can say in Singapore, we are committed to long-term support for R&D and increasing the quality of education. The additional money will enable us to invest in some very worthwhile things. But I should caution that our reserves are not a limitless resource to pay for everything we want. And I am particularly grateful to Dr Ong Seh Hong, who read the TODAY newspaper, and, like me, had his eye caught by the headline which talked about "pain-free spending". This is precisely the wrong approach to this issue, because there is no free lunch. And if Members think that we are doing this because we just want more money, that is exactly what frightens us. That is the mindset against which this whole scheme is designed to protect, to prevent such casual wrong-headed squandering of hard-earned reserves – once gone, it is finished.”
“If we look forward, there are black, storm clouds right now, but even beyond the storm clouds, I think it would be foolhardy for anybody to project that the future will be the same as the last 20-30 years, and to expect the same returns as we have been getting over the last 20-30 years. So we have to look forward and decide what returns we can expect on a sustainable long-term basis. "Real" returns, because we have to take account of inflation, not just the amount in nominal dollars, because every year prices go up. We have to account for inflation and subtract that out, and only deal with the real part of the returns. Then, we are talking about "returns", meaning not just income and dividends, but total returns. Interest income, dividends, capital gains and losses – all forms of returns added together. Therefore, we are looking at long-term expected real returns. Memorise those words. The net effect of this change is to allow us to draw somewhat more than under the old formula, but we need to be careful how we are going to spend it. Broadly, with this additional money, our priorities ought to be on investments in our future – as Mrs Josephine Teo suggested yesterday – on infrastructure, education and R&D, on increasing competitiveness and reducing direct taxes. These are indeed the Government's priority areas in the years to come. So this Constitutional amendment will enable us to fund these programmes. It will also, most importantly, enable us to fund these programmes and investments on a long-term basis, and shield them from the vagaries of year to year economic and fiscal conditions. Because this is based on long-term returns, and we are also going to smooth out the capital sum on which we compute these returns.”
“We had, specifically, to take full advantage of the institution of the Elected President with custodial powers. So, to take these theoretical ideas and fit them into our economic, political and constitutional requirements required many papers and a lot of work. We came up with proposals repeatedly, we discussed them amongst the Ministers, the President, and the CPA. We took in their views, and the matter went back and forth. Finally, after many iterations, the result is this Constitutional amendment, which has the President's support. This amendment retains the principle of safeguarding 50% of our gains as past reserves, but it sets an important new basis for calculating the Net Investment Returns, and the key phrase is "long-term expected real returns" from our investments. Every word means something. "Long-term", because this set of rules looks beyond the current year, or even the next few years, because year-to-year or short-term conditions can be volatile and we want stability. We are talking about long-term, which is something around 20 years. "Expected", because we are looking ahead, trying to judge prospects in a changing world rather than looking into the rear view mirror and going solely by past experience. The past is a guide to the future, but the future is often different from the past. If we look back over the last 20-30 years, those had been good years for markets, especially up till the dot-com boom. Interest rates came down, economies and companies prospered, share values went up, and everything went up. China was coming into the global economy, inflation stayed low, and it was a long boom.”
“Some of them have built up huge endowments, and they have developed robust, sophisticated spending rules to preserve the value of their endowments, and generate a stable, sustainable income flow year after year. They face very similar challenges as we do, though a little simpler because it is only within the university context. They are only arguing with the professors how much money to spend, but the pressures are similar - how to grow it, how to have a stable flow, how to make sure that they do not overspend in good years and run out of money in bad years? And the most interesting of the models is that of Yale University, which had studied this very carefully and worked out a very systematic framework and run it for many years. Fortunately, we had contacts with some of the people who operated the Yale endowments and we were able to pick their brains and understand how and why they did it this way. But we had to take these ideas and fit them into the Singapore context. There were three things we had to consider when we put them into the Singapore context. Firstly, economically, we needed a sound formula which would overcome the inadequacies of the present system. Secondly, politically, we needed a simple and fair system, which Singaporeans could understand and support and, most importantly, which can withstand political pressures to spend more. And these are very difficult. How to draw the line and stand firm, and not just say more is better? That is a big challenge. Thirdly, constitutionally, we needed a scheme which would fit into our system of checks and balances, where the authority is split between Parliament which approves the money, the Government which decides what it wants to spend on, and the President who has custodial powers and can say no.”
“So when he became President, he was in favour of having the Government change the Constitution forthwith and lock up 50% of the NII. But the Government was cautious. We had already made one move earlier to lock up the principal sum. We did not want to make another precipitate move, which might turn out to be too stringent or ill-judged, so we wanted to take more time to study this carefully. We studied this for several years before eventually deciding that it was the right thing to do. We decided on a 50-50 split between the present and the future, and implemented the new rule in 2001. We could see the pressures were there. MPs naturally want more social spending, and these are pressures which are understandable and which we have to take precautions to protect ourselves against. Why 50%? It is not an exact science why we came to this number, but I think 50% has a certain neatness and feels intuitively acceptable, because it underlines our commitment to continue growing our reserves, while allowing the Government to tap on part of the investment income for current spending. In a sense, we have put equal emphasis on both objectives – the present and the future. Thus we went from 100% to 50% of NII, but we were not yet ready to change the interest and dividends framework. The other issues still remained – the question of capital gains and losses and the question of inflation. These had not been tackled. We continued to study how we could improve our system. We looked at other governments, like Hong Kong and Norway. We studied some of the US Ivy League universities. The US Ivy League universities are the best, most established, and also the wealthiest.”
“But, on the other hand, when we said investment income, it was only interest and dividends. We did not count capital gains and we did not count capital losses, and both capital gains and losses can be significant in managing money. Also, we did not take inflation into account. So, if inflation is high, you may think you are earning money and drawing only on the income when, in fact, you are drawing down on the reserves. But anyway, we had taken a first major step, to protect the principal sum of the past reserves. Now, we had time to refine the scheme further as we gained experience with the new system. We could sleep at night peacefully and think about how to improve the locks on the door, since the door had already been locked up. After this new system came into effect, we debated for several years how to refine the balance between providing for present needs, and building up the nest egg for the future. This was the question in the 1990s which many Members would remember as the hotly debated “Net Investment Income (NII)”. The question is this. We are spending 100% of net investment income-interest and dividends. What proportion of this actually should be made available to the Government to spend? Should we lock up some proportion of the NII as past reserves? Because, although it accrues now when this Government is in office, in fact, the reason that it is coming now is because the principal sum was built up before this Government came into office. And if we are going to lock up some of it, how much would be reasonable? How much is neither too stringent nor too lax? How much is the right split between saving for the future and spending for now? The then President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, had been a part of these discussions in Cabinet.”
“For Singapore, the first generation of leaders and voters had gone through life and death political struggles and got Singapore out of poverty. We could rely on the fiscal prudence of the Government and the good judgment of the people to safeguard our reserves and to hold the line politically. To do the right thing and to convince people that this is the right thing and to stick by it – save, work, earn – not spend, relax, enjoy. But for the long term, we knew that we had to institutionalise safeguards in the system because otherwise we would be in trouble, whether it is a PAP Government or a non-PAP government in power. So we studied this carefully and took the first step in 1991, when we amended the Constitution to create the Elected President. The Elected President has a number of functions but protecting the reserves was one of the most important of them. And our priority – the first big move we took – was to protect the principal sum of the reserves. We said, "past reserves, all those accumulated by previous governments, that is what should be locked up. Anything which the present Government accumulates, that is the right of the present Government to spend. You earn the money; you have the right to decide what to do with it." So we protected the principal sum of the past reserves, but we allowed the present Government to spend the income from those past reserves – which meant dividends and interests – on the argument that this is income which is accruing now and, therefore, it is income to the present Government. It was a simple approach but not a perfect one. On the one hand, the Government could spend 100% of the income. So we were not putting aside part of the income to grow the nest egg for the future.”
“It started with two employees initially, the Managing Director and his secretary, and now it has about 1,000 people working for it, from many nationalities, in offices here, London, New York and elsewhere. Besides GIC, we also built up the Government-linked companies. We started them one by one – DBS, Sembawang, SIA, Keppel. And as they grew, we transferred them over to Temasek Holdings to be managed commercially. Because we decided the Ministers had better run Ministries, and Ministries should not be running companies. Let us put the companies under proper holdings and proper management. And so we have two professional investment organisations – GIC and Temasek – highly regarded around the world for their competence and integrity, and their track record. They hire management internationally. They are meritocratic. They go by results. They are focused on their commercial objectives and their Boards are competent and experienced. They pursued sustainable returns over the long-term, and avoided excessive risk-taking for short-term gains. In this way, we have achieved good returns through the ups and downs of the global economy and market cycles, not every year, but taking a long view, we have consistently done well. As our reserves grew, we became conscious and concerned about the need to protect them, because we had seen other countries which had strong fiscal positions, but had become bankrupt, because of corruption, incompetence or populist but unsustainable measures. We understood the nature of election politics. There are strong pressures to spend more, either for short-term benefits or for political advantage, and every election could become an auction of populist policies to spend the reserves.”
“Would we have accumulated $700 billion of deposits in Singapore if we did not have that kind of economy and that kind of strength and solidity? So people are prepared to bank here and to trust us. It has taken us more than 30 years to build up the reserves to where we are today. We started accumulating them in the 1970s. It was a favourable external environment, which allowed Singapore to grow strongly year after year. We had a young population. We did not need high social spending. Healthcare was a very small proportion of our annual expenditure. The Government could adopt and did adopt prudent and conservative fiscal policies. And so we ran budget surpluses in good times, over many years and, in some years, huge budget surpluses. We were lucky, we were careful, we were successful. We collected the surpluses, we invested them carefully. They became our reserves. At first, MAS managed them because MAS was the central bank. MAS had to have enough to meet the needs for balance of payments – so many months of imports – and to meet the needs of managing the exchange rate so that nobody would try and have a go at the Singapore Dollar. But when the reserves grew larger than what we needed for the Singapore Dollar and for our balance of payments, then Dr Goh Keng Swee decided to split off a separate organisation – GIC – from MAS, solely dedicated to managing the reserves for long-term returns. This is so that it has only one mission – to manage the money. It is not responsible for the financial system; it is not responsible for the exchange rate – just make this money grow. GIC was the forerunner of today’s sovereign wealth funds, not quite the first in the world, but one of the first.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Parliament is considering an important Constitutional amendment to our reserves framework. The immediate issue before us is just a formula change. How much income can the Government draw from the past reserves? We are changing the formula. The new formula will allow us to spend somewhat more. But the deeper significance of this amendment is to establish a more sustainable and equitable basis for spending out of the investment returns. Sustainable and equitable, so that we have resources which can benefit both the present generation and future generations. While we spend for our needs, we also put aside a solid buffer for contingencies, for the proverbial rainy day. That is the deeper meaning. But the most fundamental significance of this amendment is that it reaffirms the importance of protecting our reserves and of upholding the two-key system of our Presidential safeguards. These reserves are a major resource for Singapore. We have no natural resources. All Members who enter this House memorise that as a catechism – no timber, no iron, no gas, no gold – just our wits and our strength and our financial reserves which we have built up. And these financial reserves give people, Singaporeans and investors alike, confidence that Singapore is sound, strong and able to cope with anything which may come its way. They are our nest egg and insurance for a rainy day. So that even during tumultuous times like now, nobody has any doubt that we can weather the crisis. Imagine that if we did not have these reserves, would anybody take us seriously if the Singapore Government issued a guarantee on all the bank deposits in Singapore – $700 billion of deposits – and we guarantee them? Guarantee them using what?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, one of the first things you learn in trying to make practical solutions in government is that we do not look for pure solutions, we look for workable solutions. And proportional representation, for reasons which we have explained and which we can debate on another occasion, is the wrong solution for Singapore. It leads to divided politics, it leads to extreme positions being espoused by parties which are going for votes on each side, and it leads to a fracture of our multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. You will have race-based parties, religious-based parties. There will be no end of trouble. So, we are not talking about proportional representation, we are talking about a system where, when voters vote, they are not just voting for the Member. Look at the Member. Is he honest? Is he a cheat? Is he capable? Will he serve you? But look at the party. What party does he belong to? What is the credibility of that party? What can he do if he is elected in that party? And then make your choice because you are voting not just for the voter, but also for the party. And because of the way things have turned out and the PAP has a overwhelming majority in this House, so we amended the legislation and the Constitution to create NCMPs to give the opposition more representation in this House without having proportional representation. As for what happens if an opposition constituency falls vacant, I have many options. I could call a by-election or I could allow some other opposition MP to cover for him. There is no difficulty doing that. We do that for PAP constituencies and we will do the same for the opposition constituencies as well. 6.13 pm”
“Then he talks about Indonesia, and then he says: "Interestingly, the top performer in the region is Singapore, a country constantly flogged by Western human rights groups and media as undemocratic." So we must never blindly follow others. We must think through our problems properly, and work out our solutions adapted to our own circumstances. How do we judge if our system is right for Singapore? Not by comparing it with Western models or some idealised norms or model of representative democracy. It is quite fun to quote Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Gandhi, or Solzhenitsyn, or UN declarations. It is even more interesting to quote the chorus of the theme song of the conference on Constitutional Democracy in Africa in the 21st Century. In Kenya, which has just had general elections, the result was that the winner had to give up the place and become the Prime Minister so that the President can carry on. A new post was created. Why? Because of the fracture between the Kikuyus and the Luos and that is how they see the world, and that is why it does not work. So even when they see other Kenyans overseas like Mr Barack Obama, they ask themselves: is he Kikuyu or Luo? How do you make a government or a country work in that situation? So, finally, the acid test is what works for Singapore and what improves the lives of Singaporeans. The proposal from Prof. Thio and Dr Loo fails this test and, therefore, should be rejected. [Applause.] EXEMPTED BUSINESS Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS Debate resumed.”
“I think that is a very dangerous and an irresponsible line to take. Ours is a system which has benefited Singapore. Last week, the Straits Times reproduced a commentary in the China Times. China Times is a Taiwanese newspaper. Taiwan has a rambunctious democracy – many, many elections, constantly compaigning, highly participatory, highly representative, not always perfectly functioning. And their thoughtful people look at the world and ask themselves what should they do. China Times published an article called the "Paradox of democracy" by a commentator, Liang Tung-Ping. Lianhe Zaobao and the Straits Times both reproduced it. I think it is worth sharing with Members. The writer compared the performance of ASEAN countries with one another and he said in his first paragraph: "There are 10 countries in ASEAN. Those that advertise themselves as democracies do not seem to have performed well and these include the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand." He then goes on to explain country by country why each of these countries has problems. Take the Philippines. Mrs Arroyo, he says (this is his view): "is as stable as a rock not because she has few opponents, but because after 20 years of ineffective democracy, Filipinos have lost faith in their country and have developed an abhorrence of their politicians and of political rights. Despondent and having lost all hope of change, they just want to run away." "Thailand is another country in the region that claims to be a democracy but since adopting constitutional monarchy, it has changed premiers so often and so quickly, none was able to complete a full term." I think he forgot Mr Thaksin who completed a full term but ran into other difficulties.”
“It is not bad, because it is the 20th anniversary, a good occasion for a debate. We introduced NCMPs to ensure a minimum number of opposition MPs, which is also not bad because otherwise, Ms Sylvia Lim would not be in this House. We introduced NMPs to raise the level of debate and promote diversity of views. I think it has worked because, with the NMP scheme, we have had two NMPs raise a serious motion and make two good speeches. We disagree with them, but I think they have raised the standard of debate in this House. So we will continue to evolve our system in order to make it work better for Singapore. Feeling our way across the river stone by stone, always. But, finally, no laws, no Constitution, no safeguards can protect us against venal leaders or fractured societies. If you elect somebody who is dishonest or a crook or flawed, or if you have a fracture in your society and it is unable to come together and form a consensus as to what is good for the society as a whole and which direction the country needs to go in, and you are split fundamentally, so that whichever party is in, the party which is out campaigns until the party which is in is kicked out, even if you are the minority, then, musical chairs continue just the same but with different actors. If you have that, you are finished whatever the laws and Constitution. So better vote for reliable leaders, and keep society united. Each time you vote, think that you are voting not just for a person, not just for an MP, but for the next government. And I would enjoin opposition MPs also to remember this, because in the heat of the elections, they often forget this and they tell people: never mind, you have got the PAP Government, vote for anybody, I am all right.”
“Thio visited, which have worked better than the Singapore system, however perfect and ideal and comprehensive the safeguards provided for in their Constitutions. Pakistan has had many Constitutions. Thailand has had many Constitutions. The Philippines has the most comprehensive Constitution. All of the American constitutional safeguards, plus-plus. Do we prefer to be operating like them? Very few Third World democracies have worked. Ours has, by adapting our system to our society and evolving in a radically different direction from the standard Western liberal democracy model. So the Western liberal democracies look at us, they are very unhappy because they cannot say that we are completely an autocracy, because there are elections, there is popular support, there is Parliament, and the system works and is clean. On the other hand, we are different from the systems which they are comfortable with and used to, like their own home arrangements. And so there is cognitive dissonance. How is it this model works even though it is not our model? Hence, I think we get slightly more than our proportionate share of flak in the international media. But it is just one of those things, our karma, which we live with. This is how we have developed our system. We have factored in the fault lines and other weaknesses in our society so that we can elect a stable and good Government, a Government which has the time not only to set the right policies but to implement them and to be judged on the outcomes. And progressively we have made changes to the system over the years to achieve this. We introduced GRCs which have proven their worth. If Ms Sylvia Lim moves her motion one day, we will have a fuller debate on them.”
“But in our system, we have the discretion when to call a general election and by-elections, and not hold them on a fixed timetable or date. We have called by-elections even when there had been no vacancies. For example, in 1992, we called a by-election in Marine Parade GRC. All the MPs in the GRC resigned and we brought in one new candidate, then Rear-Admiral Teo Chee Hean. And from time to time, I would expect that we will need to call by-elections again, though not right now. For Jurong GRC, there is no requirement to call a by-election at all. But I am mindful that Jurong GRC is one MP short. If for any reason I decide to call a by-election during this Parliament, Jurong is certainly one possibility which I will consider and, if I need to do that, I can get all the MPs in the GRC team in Jurong to resign and stand again. The MPs, Prof. Thio Li-ann, Mr Siew Kum Hong too, raised many theoretical contingencies, situations which could happen which they would like us to provide for in the Constitution or in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Many contingencies are theoretically possible. We cannot cover all of them pre-emptively with provisions in our Constitution and laws, but, as problems emerge and as we consider that they are important ones, we will address them progressively, keeping in mind the longer term direction in which we would like our political system to evolve. Prof. Thio argued that laws tame power, therefore discretion ought to be circumscribed by legislation. In theory, yes. But, in practice, look at how constitutional systems have functioned all over the world and ask yourselves whether you can easily find other constitutional systems in Asia or in Africa, which Prof.”
“They know that when they vote, they are not just voting for the men or women. They are voting for the party – the logo, the symbol, the team that that MP belongs to. And I would say that this is true not only of the PAP but of the Opposition parties too. Because if you look at the most recent general election in 2006, voters clearly voted along party political lines. That is why, if you look at the Opposition parties, there is a clear ranking: Workers' Party got about 35% of the vote wherever they stood, the SDA got about 30% of the vote wherever they stood, the SDP got about 25% of the vote wherever they stood. Because the party symbol was what the voters were looking at. So, even unknown faces fielded by the Workers' Party received 35% of the vote, not because they had had full disclosure and had been fully transparent and open and be scrutinised. But despite being totally unknown faces, they collected 35%. Why? Because the voters knew Mr Low Thia Khiang and they gave him some credit for his performance in Parliament and for what he and the Workers' Party stood for. This is how the system is meant to work. The PAP Government has called by-elections in the past. The Prime Minister of the day has a discretion to decide when he wants to call or whether he wants to call, based on many factors, depending on the economic situation, or the current priorities for the country, or political considerations, eg, the need for leadership self-renewal, political succession. In just the same way, the Prime Minister has the discretion when he wishes to call general elections, so long as he does so before five years are up. It is different from the American system where every four years, the second Tuesday in November, elections have to be called.”
“By requiring multi-racial teams of candidates in a prescribed minimum number of GRCs during the general elections. What is this minimum number? Currently, 14. How many minority MPs do we have in Parliament today? 23. So, even if, for the sake of argument, we were to lose a minority member from a GRC, the question of falling below the absolute minimum does not arise by a wide margin. Therefore, the law says that a by-election shall not be called in a GRC unless all the members of that GRC vacate their seats. Vacant seats, in terms of practical problems, these are not insurmountable, whether a neighbour can look after it or whether the other members in the GRC can look after it. I thank Mr Siew Kum Hong for his high assessment of the responsibilities and burdens of being an elected MP. I hope this will not deter him from one day trying to be one. But elected MPs will take this in their stride, and this is part of the arrangement which is known to the candidates and the electorate when the general election is held. If something should happen to one of us, the rest of us, we press forward. That is how the system works. We are doing this now in Jurong GRC, as Mdm Halimah has explained. In fact, quite frankly, this is another merit of the GRC system, another argument why the GRC system is a good system for Singapore. Within the SMC, a neighbour will take care of the ward. We have done this before in GRCs as well as SMCs, for example, in Eunos GRC when Dr Tay Eng Soon died, and in Toa Payoh GRC when Mr Ong Teng Cheong became President. It is the party's duty to look after its constituents until such time as an election is called. This is how our system works, and this is the basis on which voters elect their MPs. I think Singaporeans understand this.”
“They are a different society. But look at what is happening in Malaysia. MPs can change sides without resigning and, if they resign, they can force by-elections within three months. That is why Permatang Pauh held a by-election yesterday, after the general election was held on 8th March this year. That is how Mr Anwar Ibrahim is able to try to persuade MPs to cross over from the Barisan Nasional to the Pakatan Rakyat, because you can cross over without having to resign seats. So I am not commenting on the merits of their position, but I am saying that, for Singapore, there is no doubt that our system has served us well. It has delivered a strong effective government, one that focuses on delivering results for our people and achieving the best for our country. GRCs, which, according to Mr Siew Kum Hong, are the meat of the Motion, do not affect this political philosophy, ie, this emphasis on the party as the key element of our system of parliamentary democracy. Because even if all six members of a GRC resigned – minority, non-minority, the whole lot – it is no different from six single members resigning from six SMCs. It does not change the principle that, as long as the Government has the confidence of the Members of the House, it continues to govern. So, too, if a minority member resigns. The arguments have been rehearsed. SM Goh, who was then 1DPM, had explained them back in 1988. Other Members – Mr Hri Kumar, Mdm Halimah Yacob – have explained why it is not and was never the intention of the GRC system to give a single member in a GRC this whip hand to coerce the other Members to come around to his position. The GRCs are meant to ensure a multi-racial Parliament. How do they do this?”
“This is a system which serves Singapore well, whichever party is in government. These are examples from Singapore half a century ago, but if you look around you more recently, it is not hard to find more recent examples. Let us take India, which recently held a crucial vote of confidence on the Congress government. It was over a very important matter – India's nuclear deal with the US – which was the result of very hard bargaining. The government could not get it through, they had to have a vote of confidence in the House. It went on for days. Ministers at international conferences had to come back to vote and go back overseas for the conference while the rest of the world waited for them to come back and participate. Eventually, the Congress government won the vote, which is good. But there was a widespread perception, widely reported in the Indian and international media, that many MPs' votes had to be bought. How were they bought? Two ways. Either policy compromises in other areas, for example, naming a particular airport after an MP's father, or outright cash payment. Many Indian political commentators claim to have tape evidence and, if you watch TV, you will see MPs who came to the House and brought suitcases full of cash to show how they had been offered this cash in order to change sides. Why could this happen? Because MPs can change sides freely and parties cannot control their MPs. So, the elected government is unable to get its policies through. And you have political theatre. Take the current situation in Malaysia. I am not passing any judgment on the merits of the political contenders or positions. I am not suggesting that Singapore’s system of government and parliamentary democracy would be better for Malaysia.”
“Thio alluded to just now, ie, the instability in the Legislative Assembly during the David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock years before 1959; the tussles during the first PAP Government – first, when Mr Ong Eng Guan and two other Legislative Assemblymen crossed over and formed their own opposition party, and then 13 more Assemblymen broke off and formed Barisan Sosialis and stayed in the House, leaving the House 26 to 25, and then one PAP Minister Mr Ahmad Ibrahim died, making it 25 to 25. So, no government majority, the House equally divided, and a hair-raising period, because every time the Barisan Sosialis moved a motion of no-confidence, there was great excitement and the Strangers' Gallery and the Press Gallery were packed with strangers and the media. It was a spectator blood sport. It was not like today. Therefore, when Singapore became independent, MM restored the law, so that if any MP resigns or is expelled from his party, he has to recontest his seat and by-elections need not be held within any fixed time. The result? Less buying and intimidation of MPs to switch sides. You cannot be bought because, if you switch sides, you are useless. I cannot be intimidated, because there is no point your threatening me. If you beat me up and I oblige you, I will lose my seat. The result? The party that wins the majority at the general elections has the mandate to govern for the full term, and MPs cannot force by-elections at random mid-term, distracting the country from other more pressing concerns. Therefore, we have stability. The public and the media are deprived of drama and suspense because stable government does not make for exciting news. But Singaporeans are better off without the excitement of these heart-stopping events.”
“But, after Separation, we re-amended the Constitution to restore the status quo. And in moving the amendment to the Constitution, the first set of amendments when we constituted our new Constitution after Independence, on 22nd December 1965, MM Lee, who was then PM, explained fully and he said: "Article 7 revokes a clause which was introduced into the State Constitution of Singapore when it entered Malaysia. Members in this House will know that there was no such injunction of holding a by-election within three months in our previous Constitution. We resisted this particular condition being imposed upon the State Constitution at the time we entered Malaysia, but our representations were not accepted because Malaysia insisted on uniformity of our laws with the other States in the Federation and with the Federal Constitution itself. Since we are no longer a part of the Federal whole, for reasons which we find valid and valuable as a result of our own experience of elections and of government in Singapore, we have decided that this limitation should no longer apply." So "reasons which we find valid and valuable", and which I believe are still valid and valuable. What were these reasons? The Government in 1965 had learnt from the invaluable experience of the tumultuous years before independence, which Prof.”
“One, encourage voters to think very carefully when they are voting during general elections, because you are not only voting for your representative in the constituency, you are voting for the government in the country. So, please think carefully which party you want to form the government, and not just whom you want to be your MP. Two, it is also designed to maximise the chances of a stable, effective government in between general elections. Because with this system, with the political party given the mandate and in charge, whichever party wins he gets a clear five-year term mandate to govern and produce results. And it has the time to re-frame the policies for the country to meet changed regional requirements, changed international circumstances, changed social and economic circumstances within the country. It has the mandate, it has the time, it has the flexibility, it has the responsibility and it renders account at the next general election. And this is what is fundamental in our system of parliamentary government and parliamentary representation, contrary to what Prof. Thio Li-ann said, or Ms Sylvia Lim or Mr Siew Kum Hong maintained. We chose this model deliberately. If you study the legislative history of how we came to have this scheme, if you study the parliamentary records, if you study the political history of Singapore, you will know why it is designed this way. Before we entered Malaysia in 1963, there were no deadlines for by-elections to be held under our Constitution for the self-governing state of Singapore. In Malaysia, we had to amend our Constitution to introduce the deadlines because the central government said we had to follow Malaysian practice. The rest of Malaysia has it, Singapore must have it too.”
“And that party has a mandate, not only because it so happens that this specific group of MPs, at this moment, supports it, but because it stood in a general election and the voters gave it the mandate, and indirectly, through the MP, voted for this party to form the government of the country, and to govern the country until the next general elections are called. Therefore, the emphasis in this system is on the ruling Party delivering on its programmes and promises. Therefore, in this system, if the MP changes sides or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because he no longer represents the party under whose banner he campaigned, under whose symbol he was voted. Similarly, by the same argument, if a seat falls vacant mid-term, then the Prime Minister has full discretion as to when he wants to call the election. The vacancy does not affect the mandate of the Government, nor its ability to deliver on its programmes or promises. And this mandate continues until the next general election is called, when the incumbent team will render account to the electorate. In extremis, even if the MP vacating his seat results in the government losing a majority in the House, which can happen, that still does not mean the government stops being the government. The Government continues to govern as long as it retains the confidence of the House, as long as there is no motion of no-confidence which is passed against it and which turfs it out of office. So this is the second model. It is not Edmund Burke's model. Prof. Thio said that I supported Edmund Burke's model. But ours is different, and is based on this second model. It is designed to do two important things.”
“And that is to put the emphasis on choosing political parties to form the government and to have political parties as the fundamental element in the system. Parties will field candidates to contest in general elections. They have to be high quality people – with integrity, ability, commitment, drive – all the attributes which we look for in an ideal candidate. But the candidate is not on his own. He carries the banner of the party. When he files his nomination papers, he attaches a symbol – "this is the symbol under which I fight" – and the symbol appears on the ballot paper. And he identifies himself for the party's manifesto, the programmes and the promises that the party makes. This is quite different from what happens, say, in Britain where candidates stand under their own names. No party symbol appears next to the name on the ballot paper because you are electing the person, and once he is in, he exercises judgement on your behalf. It is his responsibility to think for you, not to do for you. Whereas in Singapore, when the MP represents a party and is elected on a party platform, once he is elected, he is morally obliged to support the party he fought under. You can have independent candidates, and every election we have a few, but the electorate know that they have no party to form a government or to help them look after their constituents. They think of people who show up on bicycles or wear slippers, and usually, independent candidates do very badly. In this scheme, if voters in the general election support the party and vote its candidates in, and they form a majority in Parliament, then that party with a majority in Parliament forms the government.”
“In other words, the MPs are the atoms and the rest are constructs built around the MPs. Voters choose an MP as their representative in their constituency, and then MPs come together and exercise their judgement and form the government. It is what Prof. Thio Li-ann called Edmund Burke's model. Usually, the MPs belong to political parties, and they submit to party discipline, which is from the Party Whip. But once they have been elected into the House, that submission is voluntary. And they can change parties without penalty – they can change sides but still keep their seats; they can cross over from one side to the other, cross back. It happens from time to time in the British Parliament. Winston Churchill famously did it twice. It has happened in our Legislative Assembly too, before we joined Malaysia. In this model, if the MPs collectively withdraw support from the Government and decide to regroup to form a totally new government with a totally different line-up, it is their prerogative. They do not have to go back to the electorate; they do not have to call new general elections; they do not have to go back to voters for a fresh mandate. So it is parliamentary representative democracy but the voter does not have the final say. The MPs have the final say. And because the MP is the fundamental element of the whole system, if an MP dies or resigns, one fundamental element is taken out, he has to be replaced, so a by-election has to be held promptly without delay. Countries like Britain have adopted this model. There is a second way we could realise a parliamentary democracy, a second philosophy by which we design the system.”
“I cite the law not to argue that, therefore, that is what we should do, but because the law has a reason for it, and it embodies the wisdom and experience of the way Singapore has worked and been governed over half a century. So, therefore, changes, once we have settled the arrangements, should not be lightly made. Not never, but only very carefully and with very cautious deliberations of why it was done this way, and what has changed. I am here not to argue constitutional niceties with a constitutional expert like Thio Li-ann or legal refinements with so many other eminent legal minds in this House, but to set out the political realities of what works for Singapore and how Singapore has to operate in order that this Government will function well for Singaporeans. We have talked a lot about representative democracy. It is a buzzword. It even makes its way into song choruses. But what does it mean, and what does it mean for us? So let me explain why our system of parliamentary elections works this way. It works this way, not by chance, but by deliberate design, because of our experience operating this system of government, and refining and improving it, and adapting it to our circumstances over many, many years. What are elections for? As Hri Kumar pointed out, the elections are to choose democratic representatives of the people to form a government. There are two limbs to that – to elect the democratic representatives and then to form a government. There are two different philosophies of elections, depending on where you put the weight on these two limbs. The first alternative puts the emphasis on choosing candidates to become MPs as the fundamental element of the whole scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion. The issue of when to call a by-election has been discussed in this House several times over the years. Opposition MPs have raised it, including Mr Chiam. Each time, the Government has given a full explanation. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Prof. Thio Li-ann for having raised it again and giving the House a chance to debate it afresh with a fresh team of MPs, and giving me a chance to explain comprehensively the Government's position on this matter. Let me first state the legal position, which is not in doubt and not in dispute. Under the Constitution, the Government shall call a by-election when a seat falls vacant. When does a seat fall vacant? In a Single Member Constituency, when the MP vacates his office; for example when he dies or resigns. In a GRC, when all the MPs in the GRC team vacate office. But the timing of the by-election is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. He has full discretion, and he is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe. Within a GRC, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, it is explicitly stated that no by-election shall be called unless all members vacate their seats. And if one member from a GRC dies or resigns, or even two, or three, or four members, in a GRC which still has members left, legally no question of a by-election arises at all, not even if the member is the minority member in that GRC. And, therefore, what we have been doing – the Government’s practice in dealing with vacancies – is completely in accordance with the law.”
“I thought the Member would eventually come to this question. I have explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the Member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Mr Wong Kan Seng, and Mr Wong Kan Seng was a Minister, and a soldier under him let this happen. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective. A company turns turtle, the CEO leaves. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper. So I have to make a judgment who is responsible at what level, and I have discussed this with the DPM, and I agree with his judgment and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the Member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he found unsatisfactorily answered, he could have pursued the matter. If there are any questions which showed that the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we did not need so much fencing and therefore this happened, he should have raised it. Nothing happened. Today, the Member comes around and throws a general cloud and says, "You are well paid, you should resign." Let me ask the Member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So, I think that settles the point. Column No : 2658 Column No : 2658 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.22 pm”
“I do not think there is any doubt that civil servants know that if they make a mistake, they will have to face the music. Whether it is a small mistake or a big mistake, if you are responsible, you have to answer for it. I think, in each case, the right action is taken. Sometimes, if it is in court, everybody knows. Sometimes, if it is disciplinary, departmental, it may or may not be publicised. There may be reasons why you may not want names named, but actions have to be taken. I would remind the Members, however, that we must not get into a witch-hunting mode, that we must make sure that when a mistake happens, you get to the bottom of the matter before you decide to punish people. Because if you generate a culture where nobody wants to make mistakes and you are afraid to do something for fear of making mistakes, that, as Dr Goh Keng Swee used to say, would be the biggest mistake of all. Not of the officers, but of us setting the rules and the culture which lead to that happening. So, when something happens, you may be angry about it, but you have to stand back, count to 10, assess objectively and fairly, and then decide who deserves what. Was this something which he did wrong, which he should have known was wrong? Was it an honest mistake? He tried his best but he made an error because he was human, or was it a calculated risk carefully considered, decided to take, threw the dice, unfortunately, it turned out a one instead of a six? So, I think that we have to keep it in perspective. The point is well taken that there is no iron rice bowl in the civil service. I think every civil servant is extremely conscious of that. We have gone that way and the quality of the civil service, I think Members will agree, has improved, and we have to keep it like that.”
“I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there is a lapse, they take it very seriously. In other countries, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore, things do not go wrong, and we make sure things work. When something messes up, we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously. That is a fact. And that is not a bad thing. But we must also understand that, when we look at the problems which come up. Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament, the day after this occurred, and I think that is adequate. I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Government.”
“I do not know which officials specifically were responsible for each of these detailed decisions. I assume that this would be done inside ISD. And I am sure it must have been discussed at many levels because to think about renovating the Detention Centre, to upgrade it and to think of moving it, these are not decisions which can be just done at the lowest level. Whether they were the right decisions to renovate and upgrade, yes. Was it implemented perfectly, obviously, not. There was a flaw in the implementation, in the grille, in the fence and in the way the routine got set and the mindset did not get changed. These will now have to be put right. Will everybody who was involved in the renovation have to be deemed culpable? I do not think that is wise. Will we be complacent because we have to draw the line somewhere? I do not think so. I think that we are taking it seriously and those who deserved to be reprimanded or punished or removed will be reprimanded or punished or removed. Those who do not, will not.”
“We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who did what he should not have done or did not do what he should have done, if he was negligent, complacent, did not measure up, he has to move. But the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them. I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our Intelligence Services. It is not just hearsay or reporting of what the experts say. I have met them. I have talked to them. They briefed me, they explained to me their problems. I explained to them how we have dealt with our situation and they looked at me and said, "We envy you." Because of what we have been able to do, dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do, reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells. Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas and also to manage the families, so that the families get looked after and do not get wrong ideas and, yet, stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community, and not be just doing the bidding of the Government. That does not happen by chance. That is the quiet work of ISD or MHA or the Government, and I think we should give them a lot of credit for that. So we say that this is a mishap, but there is a context. And you have to take disciplinary action but you have to be fair and just, and do it in perspective. That is the reason.”
“The Member had ample opportunities to ask questions. If she had some more questions, we could have continued longer. So I think that we got it at the right level, and the Committee did a good job. And there has not been any suggestion from any Member in this House that the Committee was less than thorough or less than candid. Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it is a matter of complacency. Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible. What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assessed after investigating the facts – what went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising, because this was in his charge and he should have done something about it. I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to a logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government, you change the Prime Minister. I do not think that is how this Government works. That is not how other governments work. There are some countries when things go wrong down the line, Ministers routinely fall on the sword, or CEOs in the private sector. It is part of their culture. But then what happens is that, instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time, the problem pops up again, you change Ministers again or change the government again. I do not think that is the way we want to do things.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, what is MHA's oversight role over ISD? ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailor. That is the Prison Department's role. ISD's role is internal security, that means, identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them. One of its responsibilities is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act. This is done in the Whitley Road Detention Centre, under a Superintendent. MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what is going on? Are we able to react? There is no 100% guarantee that we would be there all the time. As Prof. Jayakumar mentioned in his speech about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, but the enemy only has to be lucky once. Our job is to make sure that we stay safe and that we do not just depend on luck, but on capability, dedication skill and focus on dealing with the threats, and that is what ISD has to do. Inquiry under the Prisons Act – would it have been better to have a presidential inquiry? Whatever level I put, I think the same question can be asked, why not raise it higher? In this case, one person has escaped, he is an important detainee no doubt, the Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the Minister, I think, is adequate. It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public, because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated. But, finally, the substance has to be reported and the Minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday. He spent two hours answering questions yesterday.”
“Let us pull together, grow from this experience, and emerge stronger from this.”
“ISD has won international respect for its vigilance and competence in detecting and detaining the JI terrorists before they could set off truck bombs in Singapore and destroy lives and property. Many security agencies from the US and Europe have come to compare experiences with ISD and study our methods to combat Islamist terrorism. These agencies have been especially impressed by our success in winning the support of our Muslim community for the war against terrorism, and by the religious rehabilitation efforts of our ulamas to try to guide the detainees back onto the right path. These achievements are the result of years of patient effort. They reflect the professional competence of the leadership of the ISD and the senior officers of MHA working under DPM Wong Kan Seng and the Director of ISD. And that is why I have confidence in them. ISD officers understand more than anyone else the seriousness of Mas Selamat's escape, and its implications for Singapore's security. They will recover from this setback, press on with their mission, and rebuild public confidence in them. I ask Singaporeans to continue giving them your full support, as you have done in the hunt for Mas Selamat. Mr Speaker, Sir, we demand high standards of integrity and performance from every public servant, every MP and office-holder. We assess them rigorously and objectively, and apply disciplinary rules fairly and impartially to all of them. This is what Singaporeans expect from their Government. And this is what we have delivered and will continue to strive to achieve. This trust between the Government and the people is crucial. Hence, we have always been honest and forthright with Singaporeans when something goes wrong. We will learn from the escape of Mas Selamat and recover from it.”
“DPM Wong Kan Seng, as the Minister, and the Director of ISD both continue to have my full confidence. We must admit our mistakes openly and honestly, put them right, and act against those who have been culpable. But the last thing we need is a witch-hunt which would damage and demoralise our intelligence and security agencies. Could Mas Selamat's escape have been prevented? Of course. It should never have happened. The COI has listed out the specific lapses: the toilet window unbarred, the guards allowing Mas Selamat out of their line of sight, the weaknesses in the fencing, and the unclear lines of command over security. But the basic problem was the mindset of those running the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Because ISD's focus was on gathering intelligence and rehabilitating detainees, the Detention Centre regime and physical security were different from Changi Prison. And because past detainees like the Communist sympathisers were not likely to try to escape, and there had never been an escape from ISD detention, even when Mas Selamat failed to emerge from the toilet, the guards thought that he might have collapsed inside the toilet, rather than that he might have run away! They waited for him. ISD knew that Mas Selamat was a high risk detainee, and the Superintendent of the Detention Centre had warned his staff to watch him closely, but unfortunately the Superintendent and his staff still let their guard down, and allowed complacency to set in. The MHA Minister and Director ISD will now have to rectify all the operational weaknesses identified by the COI, and correct the underlying mindsets which led to these specific lapses. But let us see things in perspective. ISD is our lead agency fighting against terrorism. It has done sterling work keeping Singapore safe.”
“It may temporarily appease an angry public, but it will not fundamentally solve the problem. The basic issue is whether the person is culpable. If so, we must act against him, no matter how senior his position. But if he is not at fault, then we must have the moral courage to state so, and support him. This way, everybody within the organisation can be confident that when something goes wrong, they will not be sacrificed for political expediency. This is what the Government has done in the Mas Selamat incident. When Mas Selamat escaped, MHA's immediate response was to try to track him down. The Ministry alerted the public within hours. DPM Wong updated Parliament the very next day, and apologised for the lapse. He also convened a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to find out the reasons Mas Selamat was able to escape. In parallel, CID launched an investigation. The COI submitted its findings six weeks after the event, that means, two weeks ago. The COI has done a thorough investigation, and reported its findings and recommendations. CID has also completed its investigation and found no evidence of collusion. Nevertheless, arising from the COI findings, MHA, the Ministry, has decided to replace the officers at the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) responsible for Mas Selamat's escape, and to take disciplinary action against them, including not just the junior officers but also the supervisory and management levels. The Cabinet has been briefed on this. I have gone through the COI full report myself, and discussed the matter carefully with DPM Wong and the other Cabinet Ministers. I am satisfied that the Ministry has taken the correct remedial and disciplinary action, and that the Minister and top management were not to blame for what has happened.”
“We will not just blame the officers directly involved. Those with supervisory oversight, or who are responsible for flawed systems, will also be held to account. The Minister is ultimately accountable for the policies and operations of his Ministry. But this does not mean that if a lapse occurs down the line somewhere, every level in the chain of command, up to and including the Minister, should automatically be punished or removed. Based on the facts, we have to decide who fell short in performing his duties, and what is the appropriate disciplinary action for each officer involved. We also have to follow due process, giving officers the chance to defend themselves. Otherwise we will demoralise the organisation and discourage officers from taking initiatives or responsibility, for fear of being punished for making mistakes. This same principle of responsibility and accountability also applies to Ministers. It is the Prime Minister's duty to decide how each Minister has performed in his portfolio. Hence when a lapse happens, I will ask the same questions of the Minister - how is he involved in the matter? Has he been incompetent or negligent? Most serious of all, is there a question of integrity? If so, he has to go, even if the actual incident is minor. I will also ask: is the Minister able to put things right, or does the situation call for a new pair of hands, not encumbered by what went before, to take charge and make a fresh start? Of course, the Prime Minister himself is accountable too, to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate. However, we should not encourage a culture where officials and Ministers resign routinely whenever something goes wrong on their watch, regardless of whether or not they are actually to blame. That would be the easy way out.”
“This means not just quick fixes, but also where necessary fundamental changes to systems and organisations to address deeper problems revealed by the lapse. But, at the same time, we should not over-react to one bad incident. If we go overboard in trying to solve one problem, the chances are we will inadvertently commit other mistakes which we will regret later. For example, encumbering an organisation with unwieldy rules and processes may look good on paper, but in practice will simply generate a false sense of security, while hindering the organisation from functioning efficiently and achieve its goals. Besides corrective measures, we will give as full a public accounting as possible, especially if it is a major lapse. Singaporeans need to know what went wrong, and what the Government will do to fix things. Having done all that, we have to establish who specifically are responsible for the lapse, and what disciplinary actions should be taken. Several questions will have to be addressed: (a) Was it a correct decision which turned out badly, because of external factors that could not have been foreseen? (b) Was it an honest mistake, something that happened despite the best efforts of the officers involved? (c) Was there negligence or incompetence on the part of the officers? (d) Was there criminal misconduct? (e) Was the cause localised mistakes by a few persons, or was it deeper: wrong institutional mindsets, or systemic weaknesses in the organisation? These issues have to be investigated by departmental inquiries, committees of inquiry, or commissions of inquiry, or (where there is possibly criminal misconduct) by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Based on the findings, we will then allocate responsibility impartially and objectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mas Selamat's escape has raised the question of the Government's response when major lapses occur, not just the specific actions we take, but also the broader issue of Government responsibility and accountability. This is a question which many Singaporeans have raised, and which Ms Sylvia Lim has asked in a Parliamentary question. DPM Wong Kan Seng explained at length yesterday what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has done in the case of Mas Selamat. Let me now present the Government's overall approach, and then give my views on the Mas Selamat case. The Government's aim is to try our best to do things right the first time. This means planning well ahead for the future, anticipating problems, preparing for contingencies, and so avoiding major lapses as far as possible. We put the best people we can find in charge at every level in Government and the public service, and hold them responsible for delivering performance and results. But despite our best efforts, we know that things do go wrong from time to time. Officers are human, and will make mistakes. Plans go wrong in implementation, the unexpected catches us by surprise, and organisations get set in their ways and fail to anticipate problems. To achieve one overriding goal, we often accept trade-offs and compromises for other desired results and then fall short. As our systems and challenges become more complex, inevitably from time to time there will be bad outcomes, and occasionally even serious lapses. If and when something goes wrong, we have to deal with it decisively and effectively. Our first priority is to respond to the immediate crisis, and then to identify the shortcomings and put them right. We must also take steps to ensure that the problem does not recur.”
“Pensions paid to office-holders, including first-generation Cabinet Ministers, are computed in accordance with the Parliamentary Pensions Act. The pension amount is based on the years of service as an office-holder and the pensionable component of the salary for the office held. The pension is not subject to change. Recently, in May 2007, in recognition of the contributions made by the first-generation of leaders who served during the early years of nation-building, Government made special ex-gratia payments to former office-holders and MPs who were elected between 1959 and 1980 and retired before 31st December 1992 and are drawing a pension. Similar ex-gratia payments were made to this group of pensioners previously, in 1996 and 2000. Pensions are not indexed to inflation. CHILD GUIDANCE CLINIC (CGC) (Plans for expansion and staff turnover rate) 2. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to expand the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) in the near future as there is an increasing trend in the number of children and youths seeking its services; (b) as work in the CGC can be time consuming and labour intensive, what is the staff turnover rate; and (c) what measures are in place to prevent staff burnout.”
“Over the past five years, an average of $2.8 billion a year in Net Investment Income Contribution (NIIC) was taken into the budget to fund our primary deficits averaging $1.5 billion per year. The actual amounts ranged from $3.7 billion to $1.9 billion and are made public in the Budget Highlights. FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 (Revised) Average NIIC ($m) 3,675 1,900 3,043 2,777 2,845 2,848 Primary Surplus/(Deficit) ($m) (1,683) (3,184) (1,487) (463) (549) (1,473) Overall Budget Surplus/(Deficit) ($m) 191 (1,887) (105) 1,486 (1,284) (320) Like other sources of revenue, the revenue from NIIC is not hypothecated to particular types of expenditure but is pooled to fund Government expenditure as a whole. Over the last five years, expenditures in the social and security sectors make up the bulk (average of 83%) of total Government expenditures. These serve to provide a stable environment for growth, enhance the employability and potential of every Singaporean and build up their assets. Without the NIIC, we would not have been able to fund these expenditures while maintaining a regime of low direct taxes. APPENDICES”