Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 20.
“Speaker, in reply to the Minister, actually I do not have the specific section of the Private Security Act, with regard to private investigation and all that. But as a layman, I am just concerned that anyone of us in the public space can be secretly taken, you know, and it is —”
“Okay, this is the last question, Speaker. Thank you. May I ask the Home Affairs Minister, through you, Speaker, whether anyone applied for a permit to conduct surveillance on the two Workers' Party politicians under the Private Security Industry Act? And if not, will the Police conduct any investigation to determine if any laws were broken?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I respect what the Prime Minister said just now with regard to the stance of the current Government, but I would also like to make a point that if our current system is not "ownself check ownself", but there are more checks and balances, perhaps, there will not be delays in all these things. Of course, it is conjecture. Okay, I will ask two more questions to the Prime Minister which are important for our Motion debate afterwards. Can I confirm with the Prime Minister that, with regard to Speaker Tan's case, what the Prime Minister is saying now is that in February this year, he did not actually accept the resignation. Basically, he is saying that the resignation is put on hold and you carry on doing what you need to do. Can I have that confirmation? Because if you have accepted the resignation and then you allowed Speaker Tan to continue to perform certain duties, I do not know, the legal colleagues and Members in this Chamber may have other questions that can be raised pertaining to this issue. So, this one point I would like to confirm so that I can say the right thing during the debate on the Motion afterwards. The second point, can the Prime Minister confirm that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign, even after the revelation of those offensive comments that he had made in Parliament, if Speaker Tan had not been in an inappropriate relationship with an MP?”
“Speaker, Sir, with due respect, sorry, I still have quite a number of questions. So, I will ask one more question first, okay? Yes. I noted Minister Chan's reply. But by having all these delays in taking the decisive actions, do you not think that this is not in line with the Government's stance of zero tolerance towards corruption? The moment a Minister is investigated, even informally, I think more decisive action should be taken.”
“Thank you, Speaker. First of all, one technical issue. Can I ask Minister Chan, Minister Iswaran was put on leave of absence since 6 July, if I am right. Oh, no, no; that was his personal leave of absence. Yes, okay, that was his personal leave of absence. But on 5 July, the Prime Minister and the Government already knew that CPIB had requested to investigate him. In fact, the Prime Minister knows that the CPIB has been investigating him informally since May, but the formal investigation would start after getting concurrence from the Prime Minister, on 5 April. That is what I understand. But he was on personal leave of absence. And then, during the period of personal leave of absence, he represented Singapore to meet the Chief Minister of Johor. These kind of practices — you know, I fully support what the Leader of Opposition said just now about the standards of Government, about delays, about indecisions and all that. But this is another example, right? If you already knew the Minister has been under investigation for so many months, why did you still let him go and represent Singapore to meet up with the Chief Minister of Johor?”
“Sir, I think the debate on the – not debate, sorry – the clarification on the Minister Iswaran case, a lot depends on what is the exact date of arrest. There is some confusion, and I think the public will also like to know. We did read somewhere, from some mainstream media, that it was on 11 July. But from what Minister Chan said just now, he seems to give the impression that the formal arrest was not taken until after 12 July. Can I clarify the point first?”
“Sir, so, can I clarify with the Leader? She mentioned two things: one is that it is incumbent on the person affected to make a complaint, but in the case of Speaker Tan's comments, as far as I know, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did not make a formal complaint. But, of course, Leader can say that: "Well, I am doing this because Speaker Tan is not in the Parliament anymore". So, this one point I want to clarify, Assoc Prof Jamus Lee did not make a former complaint. Secondly, are you implying that for my case, the Speaker at the time, Mr Tan, should have demanded that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan make a formal apology? So, if he had not, then it was a mistake on the part of the Speaker at a time?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Leader, in the case between Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and myself on the hot mic, why did the Leader think it was not necessary to ask him to make a formal apology in this House?”
“Speaker, can I ask the Senior Minister of State again? Sorry, I did not get that explanation in Temasek's report. Can you please explain again?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State one clarification? I am confused because Temasek reported a loss of $7.3 billion and you said the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion. How do you reconcile the two figures? If the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion, then rightfully, that should be reported as a loss as well.”
“Madam, can I confirm with the Leader one more thing? As I have said, how people view the video, the impression created is subject to how the individual takes the video. But we take your point. As I have said just now, it is a different form of expression. So, can I ask the Leader if it is just a different form of expression and we are prepared to take down the video, is there a need for us to make an apology on that? We are not in contempt of — I mean, we did not state the wrong facts; we did not impugn anybody. It is just a representation, an expression. So, we can put up an open letter to express our regret on this incident. But I am of the view that there should not be a requirement for us to do an apology. Can you clarify that?”
“I will take the matter back to the party and we will decide on our appropriate response.”
“Madam, thank you. I would like to ask some clarifications on what the Leader has said just now. We noted the Leader's views and requirements, but can I go through, briefly, some of the things that have occurred? Firstly, the Leader brought up the issue yesterday. But the allegation started with a misunderstanding about who the "sia suay" comment is directed at. We have explained that. That should have taken out a huge part of the concerns she had. We have never intended to impugn or defame anybody. In this Parliament, I have accepted section 23 of the Standing Order and my party will also accept that position. If there is a factual inaccuracy, like the amount of time allotted to the Opposition Members of Parliament during the debate, we have corrected that in our amended video yesterday. So, we are of the view that we are not in contempt of Parliament. But you raised another, of course, important point that our video has created a misimpression. But we are of the view that this is your guess. I think it is also fair to say that we cannot be perfectly sure how the viewers would view the video. What you said just now about Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa will do whatever it takes to further the voices of Singaporeans, that part is not in the video. It is in our post. It is not in the video. So, I would actually say that there may be no new impression created, compared to the longer form video provided by YouTube. So, we should be entitled to a different view, the way we present some view as a form of expression. We should not be forced to present only the view that you want to present. This is a democratic Parliament, not a rubber stamp Parliament. Nevertheless, we will take into consideration what you have told us, presented just now.”
“These principles mean that every Singaporean must serve NS at the time he is required to do under the Enlistment Act. However, in recent years, there are many Singaporeans who are concerned that many male foreigners are given citizenship without having to serve NS while our male sports talents miss out on the opportunity to develop their sporting careers because they must serve NS. In the area of sports, PSP supports allowing a small number of our most talented male athletes to receive long deferments for NS so that they can reach their full athletic potential and maximise the opportunity to bring glory to our nation. The policies around such deferments should be determined through a national dialogue around NS deferments. We believe it is timely to have such a dialogue to discuss how the criteria for such deferments can support our young male athletes in achieving sporting success while still being explicit, transparent and fair and satisfy the principles of national security, universality and equity. Mdm Deputy Speaker, PSP is confident that if you do more to build a stronger sporting ecosystem in Singapore, our nation will be able to scale greater heights of sporting success in the years to come. For country, for people.”
“However, he cannot do so because he has supposedly not met the SNOC's selection criteria, which encompass athletes' attitudes, behaviours, general conduct and disciplinary history. We think this is a very serious matter to disqualify an athlete for non-performance reasons. We call for greater objectivity and transparency in the selection criteria for athletes to represent Singapore at major sporting events. More clarity is needed around the process by which an athlete is disqualified from representing Singapore. PSP also believes that all sports associations should be led by people with professional expertise and interest in the sport. This will ensure that Singapore's sporting ecosystem is driven by athletes who know how to succeed in the sport and are committed to have the sport succeed in Singapore. Such leaders will be more likely to understand the needs of our professional athletes and be able to work with them to advance Singapore's international standing in these sports. Another area where we can provide greater support to athletes as a nation is greater flexibility around National Service (NS) obligations, which I have spoken on last August. This would make a great difference to the sporting careers of our male athletes. Last year, our Olympic gold medallist Joseph Schooling called for a national dialogue on managing expectations of athletes undergoing National Service. He related to the media the challenges of serving NS and trying to excel in the pool at the same time and the expectations from the public to perform. In 2018 and 2022, the Minister for Defence explained Singapore's deferment policies in this House, which are grounded on the principles of national security, universality and equity.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion raised by the Member for Sengkang GRC Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Faisal Manap. On behalf of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), I would, first, like to offer my congratulations to TeamSG's athletes and para-athletes for their achievements at the 32nd Southeast Asian Games and the 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia. TeamSG's 51 gold medals at the SEA Games and 12 gold medals at the ASEAN Para Games are the third and fourth highest away from home soil in our history respectively. Our athletes and para-athletes have done themselves, their families and their country proud. We call on the Government to continue to review Singapore's sporting ecosystem and identify opportunity areas where we can provide more support to help our nation and our athletes achieve greater success in the coming years. I have two areas of review to suggest. One area of review in our sporting ecosystem is in the selection of athletes to represent Singapore at international sporting competitions, such as the SEA Games and Asian Games. This has been the source of some controversy recently, with marathoner Soh Rui Yong being omitted from the national team for the forthcoming Asian Games in Hangzhou because of his controversial comments on social media. While this has been extensively covered by the Leader of the Opposition and clarified further by Mr Mark Chay, however, please allow me to speak up one more time for Soh Rui Yong. At the recent SEA Games, Soh Rui Yong has once again shown that he is a talented and record-setting runner. He has demonstrated the potential to continue bringing glory to Singapore at the Asian Games.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, when was the first tranche of the public funds paid out to SPH Media Trust? Was it before or after the completion of the audit committee report? Two, can the Minister confirm that the Ministry is not pursuing the responsibility of the past top management of SPH Limited at the moment?”
“Does Minister Chan understand my question?”
“Okay. My question to the Minister is that the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time is proof to the fact that the GRC system, at least the perception of many Singaporeans like myself, is not just due to minority representation. It is due to his reservation also – maybe, say, 50-50 – of the one man, one vote system. That is why, put it under the group voting, vote as a group and not one man, one vote.”
“No, no, no; I am asking the Minister whether he knows some of the thinking —”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you. I read her speech. It would not be 40 minutes. [Laughter.] Just to answer Minister Chan's question, first of all, the first point you made about the minority representation, taking this factor out of the politics, on all these, in this House, I think all of us are all aligned. There is no different between PAP and PSP. I cannot speak for WP, of course. On the second point, I was trying to give you an examination question, but I think you failed. In 1980s, just now I mentioned, it was a very significant period for Singapore politics. Because in 1981, Mr JB Jeyaratnam won the by-election. Before that, from 1968 to 1981, it was 100% PAP representation in Parliament. As a result, as a student, when we read the newspaper and we listened to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's views and all that, it came right in and today, I would not forget. And I quote, from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1984, "One man, one vote is a most difficult form of government. From time to time, the results can be erratic. People are sometimes fickle. They get bored with stable, steady improvements in life and in a reckless moment, they vote for a change for change’s sake." 7.44 pm”
“Yes, thank you, Deputy Speaker. What I mean is that the introduction of a GRC scheme is not just due to the minority representation. There is another piece of thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time. So, I am asking Minister Chan, does he know about that piece of thinking, before he says everything about the GRC system being about minority representation? The perception or the understanding of many Singaporeans is that they think that the GRC system was not introduced just because of the minority representation. That is part of the reason. So, I am asking does the Minister know what was the other reason or what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that could have led to his thinking of introducing the GRC system.”
“Even when we were a student, in and out of classrooms, we were reading about Lee Kuan Yew. So, when all these constitutional amendments come about, I ask Minister Chan, does he remember what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984? Incidentally, I just got a message that the Government has also circulated this Lee Kuan Yew speech of 1984. So, what is the 1984 speech and what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time? Can you enlighten me on that? And thereafter, I will follow up, if Deputy Speaker allows me one more question.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have two clarifications for Minister Chan. First of all, can we agree, Minister Chan, that the PSP position ought not to be distorted? We come to this House for this Motion having the full understanding and support that we need adequate minority representation in Parliament. That is the reason why in GE2020, we fielded 33% of our candidates from the minority group. So, our Motion today is about, yes, we agree with the importance of maintaining or even bettering, or even having a race-blind society in Singapore, that minority representation must be maintained. But, at the same time, we think that you say that the GRC system had achieved its objective. Afterwards, my colleague, Hazel Poa, will have some insights on that. But first of all, even if I accept that GRC may have achieved part of the objective, there can be better systems for us to consider from this point. So, what we are proposing today is that we have proposed two systems. We always take the attitude that there should be further discussion. PSP has no monopoly over all the ideas. But we are quite confident that either the NCMP scheme or the modified proportional representation scheme will be a better alternative than the GRC system. So, maybe let us focus our debate on that and then we vote on that basis. If alternative systems are better, then there is a justification for the abolition of the GRC. First question: does the Minister agree on that? PSP is not coming here to say, no, we ignore the minority representation and all that. The second point is that while all the Minister's explanations had concentrated on minority representation, but I belong to the Merdeka Generation, and the Merdeka Generation is one that has grown up with Lee Kuan Yew.”
“One with more than 67% of the seats, or two-thirds majority will be able to amend the Constitution at will and thus, will be able to form a very strong government. The overwhelming PAP's supermajority of 90% is thus not necessary for a strong government. The supermajority only makes it more difficult for the Opposition to voice out the people's concerns adequately in the Parliament. PSP supports the abolition of the GRC system to create a fairer and more representative Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on this House to support the Motion. For country, for people.”
“The Constitutional Commission also recommended that the criteria for private sector candidates should be tightened significantly – the share capital criteria raised from $100 million to $500 million. This was also implemented at the 2017 Election. All this came after Dr Tan Cheng Bock announced his intention to contest the 2017 Presidential Election on 11 March 2016, months before the Constitutional Commission released its report. The changes meant that Dr Tan Cheng Bock not only could not stand in 2017 but would also be permanently disqualified from becoming President because of the share capital requirement for private sector candidates. This same criterion was also used to disqualify the two Malay candidates who had wanted to stand in the first reserved Election for the Presidency in 2017. It would not be remiss to say that all this cast a dark shadow over the historic Presidency of President Halimah Yacob, who is our first female President and the first Malay President in 46 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by saying that from a democratic standpoint, the GRC system ought to be regarded as one of the most undesirable electoral rule in the world. It magnifies the seat share of the PAP beyond its voting strength and creates opportunities for the manipulation of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes. Over time, it breeds cynicism and disillusion in our political system as the views of the public are not properly reflected in the election results. Over the last 40 years, the PAP has won more than two-thirds of the votes only in the 2001 and 2015 GEs. Yet, throughout this time, it has controlled a Parliamentary supermajority of 90% of the seats. In our system, any political party commanding more than 50% will be able to form a stable government.”
“The Prime Minister exercises great power over electoral boundaries. He gets to decide when the EBRC is formed; who is in the EBRC; and sets the terms of reference for the EBRC. Will Deputy Prime Minister Wong share his future approach towards electoral boundaries? I have just recounted how the PAP has frequently changed the rules around GRCs over the years. It is a similar story with the Elected Presidency which has been the subject of numerous Constitutional amendments over the years, most notably in 2016. During the Presidential Election in 2011, Dr Tan Cheng Bock lost to Dr Tony Tan by a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. Many of those who voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock hoped that he would be able to stand again during the Presidential Election in 2017. In January 2016, Prime Minister Lee announced that it was timely to review the eligibility criteria of the Elected Presidency and convened a constitutional commission to do so. At that point in time, he stated that any legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendation would be tabled before the end of 2016, but this did not explicitly mean that any changes would be effective from the 2017 Presidential Election. The Commission eventually recommended that provision should be made for a Reserved Election if a particular race has not been elected for five Presidential terms. This was because the Elected Presidency had to be an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism. However, the Constitutional Commission also did not make any recommendation regarding when the changes should be implemented. It was the Government that made the decision to start counting from President Wee Kim Wee, which meant that the 2017 Election would be a Reserved Election for Malay candidates only.”
“It instead gives rise to suspicion amongst Singaporeans that the PAP is manipulating the GRC system for their political benefit. Secondly, because GRCs are larger, the demographic composition can be adjusted to ensure that the vote share for the ruling party in GRCs is less likely to deviate significantly from the vote share for the ruling party at the national level. This is unlike SMCs, where a smaller number of voters creates more opportunities for divergence in election results. Given our first-past-the-post voting system, where the winning party wins all the seats in the GRC, the GRC system magnifies the electoral advantages of the PAP. This is why there is a very high level of disproportionality in the translation of Opposition votes to Parliament seats in Singapore. In the last election, the Opposition won 39% of the votes, but we only comprise 11% of the elected Members in Parliament. This is due in a large part to the advantages that the GRC system provides for the PAP. Since the 2006 GE, there has been some positive changes to the GRC system. Prime Minister Lee has pledged to reduce the average size of GRCs and increase the number of SMCs. As a result, the average number of Members of Parliament in a GRC has decreased from 5.4 in 2006, to 4.65 in 2020. Now there are also no more six-Member GRCs. However, the maximum size of GRCs in the Constitution is still six. So, these jumbo GRCs could still make a comeback in future. It is by the grace of the Prime Minister, rather than by law, that we now have smaller GRCs. Perhaps Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong can share during today's debate whether he will make the same commitment to having smaller GRCs once he takes over as the next Prime Minister.”
“Instead, many Singaporeans believed that the PAP Government expanded GRC sizes to hamper the Opposition's electoral chances after a strong showing by the Opposition in the 1991 GE. There are several ways in which GRCs can be used to maximise the PAP's advantages. Firstly, the varying sizes of GRCs provide maximum flexibility for the EBRC to redraw boundaries in a way that can be advantageous for the ruling party. Since 1988, SMCs that have been absorbed into GRCs have had a higher average vote share for the opposition than the average SMC. In many of these SMCs, the Opposition polled above 40%, such as Braddell Heights, Bukit Batok and Changi in 1991, Joo Chiat in 2011 and Fengshan in 2015. Only SMCs and GRCs that the Opposition have won are consistently spared from changes in their electoral boundaries. I therefore fully expect West Coast GRC and other constituencies where the PSP contested in the last election to disappear or have their boundaries heavily redrawn in the next election. If that happens, I hope Singaporeans will open their eyes and decide for themselves if these changes are for population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons. As a result of the GRC boundaries, many HDB towns and planning areas in Singapore are fragmented among multiple GRCs and by extension, Town Councils and CDCs. For example, Serangoon Town is divided between Marine Parade GRC which is in Southeast CDC, Aljunied GRC which is in Northeast CDC and Ang Mo Kio GRC which is in Central Singapore CDC. The EBRC has never explained the reason for drawing such peculiar boundaries. Such an arrangement can hardly foster a sense of community among local communities, which the PAP Government has claimed is the purpose of the CDCs.”
“However, both the GRC system and the Elected Presidency have been subject to many changes over the years. Although these changes had various justifications, it is still difficult for the public to be convinced that these frequent changes are not motivated by political considerations. For example, when the GRC system was introduced during the 1988 GE, all GRCs had three members. This was later expanded to a maximum of four in the 1991 GE. The reason given by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was to provide flexibility so that we could minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them. This reason was still plausible and acceptable. But then in the 1991 General Election, the Opposition won an unprecedented four seats in Parliament. This was followed by further tweaks to the GRC system. GRCs were expanded to a maximum of six members from the 1997 General Election onwards. Prime Minister Goh justified this move by claiming that he wanted to devolve more authority to the local communities by setting up Community Development Councils (CDCs). Because CDCs needed economies of scale and a critical mass of residents, Prime Minister Goh said that increasing the maximum number of MPs in the GRC from four to six will give more flexibility to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to configure a GRC which is the right size for this purpose. Many Singaporeans, including myself, have never been convinced by this reasoning. Community Development Councils (CDCs) can be formed by forming six adjourning SMCs or two three-member GRCs. There is no need for six-member GRCs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as my colleague Hazel Poa said, I will be elaborating further on the history of the GRC system and how the PAP has regularly made changes to the electoral rules to entrench its political dominance. The introduction of the GRC system was part of a package of constitutional innovations during the 1980s which also included the introduction of the Elected Presidency. The 1980s was a politically significant era for Singapore. It began with Mr JB Jeyaretnam breaking the Parliamentary dominance of the PAP during the 1981 Anson by-election. Later, the 1984 General Election saw a 13% swing against the PAP and the election of two opposition Members – Mr JB Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam See Tong. All these took place amidst a changing of guard in the PAP. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the other old guard Ministers retired. The 2G team led by Mr Goh Chok Tong took over. The PAP has always denied accusations that the introduction of the GRC system and the elected presidency was to entrench its political dominance. At the beginning, both Constitutional innovations were meant to fulfil a specific purpose. The GRC system was meant to ensure that there will always be a minimum level of minority representation in Parliament. This became increasingly important as resettlement and the creation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) new towns under the Ethnic Integration Policy meant that there were no longer any more Malay majority constituencies. The Elected Presidency, on the other hand, was meant to safeguard our increasingly large past Reserves by creating a second key to the past Reserves that was independent of the elected Government. I think that many Singaporeans would have no objections with these schemes if these schemes stayed true to their original purpose.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Yes, in response to the Minister, yes, that is what I am going to do. And thank you. When we do our debates and discussion in this Parliament, inevitably, if you want to have substantive discussion, there will be times where wrong things are being said. If inappropriate things are being said, then I really appreciate the opportunity to get your feedback and then, we will discuss the actions we need to take. So, what you have said specifically just now is for us to take down our video. Is that all? And an apology. Okay, I will go back and we will discuss about that within our party and we will respond to the Government as soon as we can. Oh, respond to Parliament. Respond to Parliament as soon as we can.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In response to what the Minister has asked, as I have said just now, my communications department is specifically using a past example of people calling me "sia suay". So, this statement "sia suay" on this video is also referring to me, as another instance that some people online may think that it is another "sia suay" instance. It is a matter of communication message.”
“So, I did not say anything, I said that I agreed to what he said, if he said "clarifications", then I said, "Okay, then the clarifications have not yet been completely clarified". You say, "No debate, just clarifications". Okay, I will use "clarification". But the difference between "debate" and "clarifications", indeed, is a very interesting differentiation – what is meant by "debate" and what is meant by "clarifications" in the context of us discussing in Parliament. So, that is something that we felt was quite interesting. As a result, it was in the video. What I am trying to say is that I do not think that I had conducted myself disrespectfully at all. By showing this video, now I hear from you about some of the interpretations that you have explained. I think I would request that you would allow me to take this back and let us deliberate inside our party, and then we will come up with a formal response. If there are any demands that the Government wants us to do right now, you can let us know, and we will immediately consider and respond as soon as possible. So, that is my response to you at the moment.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must say, in response to what the Minister has alleged just now, I am quite surprised that I thought the video put up by my Party was just an expression. In this country, we are still supposed to have free expression. So, first of all, let me confirm a few things. One, when we put as a title, "another instance of 'sia suay'", who are we referring to? Did the Minister assume that the "sia suay" refers to the Deputy Speaker? We have no intention of saying that at all. The "sia suay" is what people in the public has used to refer to me. We are just saying that this is another example of "sia suay", but actually, what Leong Mun Wai was trying to do was to ask more questions to get more facts. And that is how he was trying to get to the facts. And, so, the video put up some of the things. Inside the video, one very important point was about the amount of time being spent. Although the whole deliberation has lasted six hours, but that does not mean that all the questions had been asked and all the replies that came back had actually clarified all the facts. So, in the process of debate, I was maybe slightly a bit excited and said that I think I need more time to ask those questions. And that was when Deputy Speaker, Sir, came in and said, "You are not supposed to have a debate." And so, that went on, some exchanges between him and me. But I thought that I have always conducted myself with respect to the Deputy Speaker at that time. I did not say anything in violation of anything, I think. Because I do learn from some of the exchanges that I have had, with the Speaker, for example.”
“Yes, thank you. I would like to clarify with the Minister that I did not say the "coincidence" is with regard to his $26,500 rent. So, your point is not valid here.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. But Minister, your answer is not logical, right? No 31 Ridout Road, when the tenant negotiated for the rent, that condition was bad. So, $23 per square metre. But after that, you put in $570,000 to upgrade the place, and you still charge at $23 per square metre. And that is rent that is way below the lowest price of the range of prices in that vicinity. Do you think that is a fair price? And if your valuation agent provided that price, do you think the SLA officials should be there to say, "No, it cannot be that price". Because throughout the discussion today, we also say that 26 Ridout Road, because of the improvement to the site that was being cleared, so I have increased the rental of 26 Ridout Road by $2,000. So, the final rent, in fact, it depends on this assessment, right? So, why did SLA not raise the objection to keep the rental price at $23 per square metre?”
“But I do not think that many would disagree that, from this episode, there is a perception of an amount of conflict of interest and unfairness in the process of renting the two bungalows. Although there may not be – and we trust the investigation by CPIB and also Senior Minister Teo – an outright misconduct of any public servant, but the result is that there is this perception there. And what the question I asked Second Minister Edwin Tong is exactly trying to drive at that – why is the package so coincidentally favourable? It may be so coincidental. So, as a result, I would like to ask you one question, Prime Minister. From this episode, would you commit that from now on, the Code of Conduct of the PAP Government will be applied more stringently, learning from this episode? You said that, "No, this episode doesn't show any shortcomings in the application of the Code of Conduct. This is a kind of standard we can expect from the PAP Government", we will take it as that.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Okay, first of all, can I ask Second Minister Edwin Tong. I think his reply is not quite complete. Or maybe I asked the question not too well. What I was asking is: did SLA offer the same kind of package? Did SLA offer the same kind of package to other tenants before in the rental of the black and white bungalows consisting of what I said just now, that before the tenant moved in, it coincided with the time where SLA had to refurbish the bungalow, so as a result, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to refurbish before the tenant moved in? Secondly, the Minister said that everyone is encouraged to put in capex. But in the past, does SLA actually allow tenants to put in swimming pools easily? It this something that SLA really welcomed in the past? And finally, the Minister did not answer, and what I am trying to say is that, within the package, there is also preferential rental treatment for 31 Ridout Road. He answered that it is not just the average, it is also the range of rental, but if you look at Chart 2, $23 per square metre is way, way below even the lowest rental in the Ridout Road vicinity. So, how do you justify that, after spending $570,000 renovating 31 Ridout Road and then, you still offer a price of $23 per square metre? These are my questions for Second Minister Edwin Tong. Finally, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, as I have said just now, we believe in the integrity of our Government led by you. We are not against Ministers living well, living in GCBs. Although Minister Shanmugam has tried to say that we are against that just now. We are not.”
“Yes, what I urge the Chair, Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to be mindful that the topic has not been properly, completely clarified. When it is not completely clarified, please do not end the session.”
“Point of order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate.”
“Is this the kind of deal that SLA gives to other people? There are still a lot more questions that I am going to ask. Deputy Speaker, I think the debate is not going to end at 5.45 pm. Thank you.”
“Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask Second Minister Edwin Tong the following two questions. Firstly, can he give us examples of black and white bungalow tenants whom SLA had offered the following terms: preparatory work before they move into the unit where SLA spent hundreds of thousands on the tenant before he moved into the unit? In the case of 26 and 31 Ridout Road, the amount spent for preparatory works amounted to 2.2 years of their rental respectively. Is this the kind of term SLA will give to other tenants? Secondly, allow the tenant to construct a swimming pool. Do they do that all the time? Thirdly, cut down trees with a girth that is more than a metre and, at the same time, offer some help in applying to cut the trees? And then, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, they were given the additional land. Although the Ministers have explained that this land is actually of no value, but I think it is very difficult to convince Singaporeans who are so obsessed with land. Senior Minister Teo quoted the example of Dalvey Estate, that the Dalvey Estate tenant was willing to let SLA take back the land and reduce the size of his unit. So, why, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, did SLA actually impose $2,000 more on the rental for the extra land? The logic still does not really settle in very well. Does SLA offer this kind of deal to other tenants? Finally, in the case of 31 Ridout Road, the initial rent was actually 22% below the average rent shown to us by this table. It is from the table, Chart 2, Senior Minister Teo. The average rent is $29.60, 31 Ridout Road is $23.05, so, that is a 22% discount. On top of that, you are spending $570,000 to upgrade 31 Ridout Road. So, what is the justification? And then you still charge at a 22% discount to the market.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, clarification, please.”
“Do you not think that our expectations and the expectations of many Singaporeans would be that you do not touch anything that you are doubtful? Can I ask the Senior Minister, under the current situation, does he not think the two Ministers should have considered the possibility of negative public perception? Because Singaporeans are already saying the Ministers are paid million-dollar salaries, the Ministers have private bungalows of their own and they still go and rent a relatively cheaper public bungalow, which are the three most prestigious bungalows in Singapore and having the Government fork out over a million dollars to reinstate the bungalows before they move in? Do you not think that scenario conjures up a very bad picture?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two questions, both for the Senior Minister. Before that, what I would like to say is that I think what we are discussing today is that most of us believe in the integrity of our Government. But what we are trying to establish is: are there conflicted situations that we should avoid, going forward? Then, from this, if we agree that there are some conflicted situations, whether the outcome of the terms and conditions of the contract reflect that, or whether the terms and conditions reflect a conflicted situation or not. We are still in the process of discussing and debating. I hope the Senior Minister will be patient that we probably cannot conclude whether there is a conflicted situation or not. But first of all, now, we are talking about whether there is a conflicted situation or not. So, I have two questions I would like to ask. One, the Senior Minister himself said if someone has the power over his personal interest, then it may potentially be a conflicted situation. The Minister for Law has explained that it may not be a conflicted situation, although the CEO of SLA reports directly to him. But his personal interest is affected, can be affected by the decision of the CEO of SLA, who reports to the Minister for Law. So, indirectly, the Minister for Law, although recusing himself from the decision-making process, has power over his personal interest. What do you think about this? That is the first question. My second question is with regard to the Code of Conduct. I think the Senior Minister mentioned just now that it should not just be the letter of the Code of Conduct but also the spirit. But we expect our Government to be a government of integrity.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Dr Tan for asking the questions on drug subsidies. According to my understanding and a lot of the feedback from residents, they pay different prices when they are in different classes. Of course, that is expected. Currently, different classes have different charges. But from a certain angle, which I have mentioned in my speech, it is okay to charge the services, but why is there such a big difference in the drug prices being charged for different classes? So, this is what I have said. I do not know why Dr Tan raised it as an issue. Maybe I can also clarify with Dr Tan whether she agrees with our proposal that the Government should actually start a central procurement process for all drugs in Singapore. I would like to ask for her opinion on this.”
“Yes, yes. Thank you for the clarification. The Minister of State's answer mainly centred on the family office. Of course, I mean that is how I had phrased the question as well. So, I do not know whether it is fair to ask him now to answer one supplementary question on what is the impact of the total foreign inflow on our OFRs? On top of the family office, everything, for the last two to three years.”
“Oh, yes, yes, it was in the Written Circular. Thank you.”
“Thank you, Sir and I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive answer, especially with regards to my two PQs which were not successfully rolled over for today's Oral PQs. So, thank you for his answer. However, the —”