Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 54.
“8 million a year in cash grant under this scheme. I am sure NTUC Fairprice, with a staff strength of about 6,000 and a no-retrenchment policy, will benefit even more. Are we using our reserves to increase the profits of profitable companies in this downturn? To save jobs for Singaporeans, the Government must put in place policies that put Singaporeans first at all times. Opening up the economy here to cheaper foreign labour without first taking good care of our own people will make Singaporeans the first to go in a recession. Is Jobs Credit not designed to make Singaporean workers more affordable so that employers will have an incentive to keep them, instead of foreigners, on their payroll? In the longer term, the Government should contemplate to devise some schemes which will make Singaporean workers more competitive on the job market and incentivise the employers to employ Singaporean workers. The current system of foreign workers quota works when the economic cycle is long with a tight labour market, but it could be a problem if the future economic trend is one with shorter cycles of ups and downs. Sir, I understand that SMEs account for six out of every 10 Singaporean jobs, as mentioned by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech. Many SMEs experience cash-flow difficulties beyond what the Jobs Credit Scheme may help. If we were to conduct a poll for SMEs to vote which they would prefer, Jobs Credit or Credit Facility, I believe SMEs will choose the latter.”
“Next, I would like to touch on the Jobs Credit Scheme that is designed to encourage employers to keep their workers on their payroll. The National Wages Council has recommended that companies may implement a wage freeze or wage cut to remain competitive. In addition, workers are already being asked to accept lower bonuses, no-pay leave and shorter work-weeks. There is also the flexi-wages scheme which the Government has been promoting under the tripartite system for years to enable employers to cut wages of workers during a downturn. All these measures are designed to help employers cut costs. The Jobs Credit Scheme pays employers a cash grant incentive of 12% of the first $2,500 of the wages of each employee who is on the CPF payroll. The cash grant is payable every quarter beginning March 2009. The scheme seeks to reduce the costs of employing Singaporean workers for businesses during the crisis. The question is, how effective would a cash grant of 12% of wages be in times of such uncertainties? When confronted with declining sales and demand, the most logical thing to do for most businesses, especially SMEs, is to cut wages and bonuses. If sales eventually cannot sustain the overhead costs, I doubt a 12% cash grant on wages will help to prevent retrenchment. Sir, between waiting three months for a $900 cash rebate from the Government versus saving $7,500 immediately by retrenching a worker, which choice does the Government think a struggling employer will make? On the other hand, the Jobs Credit Scheme will indirectly favour big companies which may be still profitable and have no intention to retrench workers. The Straits Times' article on Budget 2009 published on 24th January reported that Sheng Siong Supermarkets will receive $567,000 a month or $6.”
“The Finance Minister in his Budget speech on 22nd January 2009 said that "The Government has sufficient savings built up during this term of government to fund the measures we are taking and the resulting budget deficit. Nevertheless, we have decided instead to fund the two extraordinary measures within the Resilience Package from our past reserves." I would like to know why the Government is using the reserves to fund the Resilience Package when it has more than enough money in the current reserves to do so. What is wrong with waiting till new initiatives are needed and the current reserves are insufficient to fund them before asking for the use of the past reserves? Past reserves are supposed to be protected by a two-key system. The Government holds one key while the President holds the second key but the speed at which this two-key system can unlock the past reserves is too fast for comfort. I would like to know when was the request for the $4.9 billion drawdown made? How long did it take the President to give the in-principle approval? Does the President or the Council of Presidential Advisers know for certain what the Government intends to do with its substantial current reserves before allowing it to draw down on past reserves? The Finance Minister has stated that this drawdown on reserves is to pre-empt the severe consequences that this economic crisis could have for our economy and society. Can a pre-emptive spending rationale be a compelling reason for the President to unlock the reserves? The unlocking of our reserves, as witnessed by this House in the past three to four months, is fast becoming like a non-event. Surely, Singaporeans deserve to know the full rationale of the drawdown by the Government despite having a healthy kitty.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the initiatives of Budget 2009 to help viable businesses stay afloat and Singaporean workers stay employed. I also welcome the decision for not using CPF as a tool to cut employers' cost in this downturn. The Resilience Package of $20.5 billion, though unprecedented in scale in the history of modern Singapore, is not an unusual fiscal response. All over the developed world, economic stimulus plans put forth by the respective governments run into hundreds of billions of dollars, providing tax cuts for individuals and businesses, relief for people who have lost their jobs or homes, and money for infrastructure projects to stimulate domestic demand. What is unusual of our Resilience Package is that the Government will be using our past reserves to fund two main components of the package, the Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. The Government has made the case to the President and the Council of the Presidential Advisers to draw down $4.9 billion of our past reserves to fund the Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. Past reserves are a strategic asset meant for use in times of need, especially when the Government faces financial constraints due to unprecedented circumstances which require the Government to respond in the interest of the nation. Hence, I am surprised that the Government has chosen to set a precedent in asking the President for approval for a drawdown of our past reserves when it has enough savings from the current term of Government to fund the entire Resilience Package and the resulting budget deficit which the Finance Minister has estimated at $8.7 billion, or 3.5% of our GDP.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether FIDReC provides assistance to those complainants who do not understand English or who are not proficient in English?”
“Since employees are now allowed under the new amendment to continuously work for such long hours without adequate rest, in moving this amendment, did the Minister consider the long-term effect on the health of such employees? I also wonder whether this amendment contradicts the concept of work-life balance which the Government has been promoting. 4.34 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for some years, the Workers' Party had highlighted that the definition of "employee" in the Employment Act was too restrictive. The current definition before this amendment excluded from the Act those who were holding jobs in confidential, executive or managerial positions, even if their salaries were not high and they needed protection under the Act. We therefore welcome the broadening of the definition of employee to include those in confidential positions. We note that the Bill also includes those in executive or management role with a salary of up to $2,500 for the purpose of Part III on payment of salary. This will allow such employees to claim salary arrears or seek recourse for unfair dismissal through the Ministry of Manpower rather than to sue in court which is costly and most of them cannot afford. However, Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify the scope of clause 13 on working hours for shift workers. Clause 13 proposes to insert a new subsection 40(2A) to provide that an employee may be required to work longer than 44 hours per week, average of three consecutive weeks, to work on rest days and even to work more than 12 hours a day. The situation where this may be allowed will include work essential to the life of the community, defence or security. Sir, I can understand the need for this if a sudden crisis takes place, like where there are mass casualties. Working such prolonged hours on a one-off basis is understandable. However, the section is wide enough to capture a situation of non-emergency where security manpower is deployed for, say, 15 hours on a daily basis. Is this section needed due to manpower shortage? From a human factor's point of view, is this good for public security?”
“Thank you, Sir. If the Minister says this is a subsidy, then, perhaps, there is no need for HDB subsidy. What one needs to do is to buy a flat at a lower market price, and when the market goes up, he makes a gain, and that is subsidy. So there is no need for Government subsidy. Is it real subsidy?”
“Sir, based on the Minister's answer, would the Minister clarify that for first-time buyers who bought a flat directly from HDB, they may also suffer a loss when the market is down? So, if that is the case, what is the subsidy that the Minister is talking about? For instance, a first-time flat buyer who bought a flat at $600,000 with a subsidy of $30,000 from HDB, when the market is down, the flat may be only worth $400,000. So, where and what is the subsidy?”
“Sir, whilst the Workers' Party supports the principle of Government spending on the reserves (the 50% basis), that does not mean that the Workers' Party is prepared to review our position on the Elected President. We have viewed the Elected President as something which has some political implication, not only on the political system but also on future non-PAP government. Just take the example of the $150 billion guarantee provided for the bank. What will happen if the Elected President takes an adverse approach? Then, the Government can be crippled, in a sense. So, we are of the view that, perhaps, the office of the Elected President has fundamentally changed our parliamentary democracy system, where the Executive is supposed to be the supreme power elected and trusted by the people. We believe that we can use other alternatives or mechanism to preserve and safeguard our reserves. Sir, on the other hand, we are also of the view that the Office of the Elected President could potentially serve to cripple a non-PAP government, given the fact that a lot of important appointments require the Elected President's approval. Given the criteria for the office of the Elected President as it is now – as to who qualifies to participate as candidate for Elected President – it is likely that he may come from the establishment or he may be a PAP Minister. So, with the political motive at the back, a non-PAP government being elected could be crippled by the Elected President. With all these reasons and thinking behind, I do not think we are currently prepared to review our position.”
“No. I am asking the Minister a question: are the investors in these minibonds today not victims of the Government's decision to liberalise the financial market? The last question I would like to ask the Minister is whether MAS agrees that the products sold by the financial institutions are indeed low risk and safe products to invest.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister's answer sounds like MAS is shouting across a river while watching a fire burning. Can the MAS take a more proactive approach by convening a Committee of Inquiry to deal with the matter directly? Is it fair for the Government to leave the investors, many of whom are retirees who have invested their savings, to deal with individual FIs and simply refer them to FIDReC? I would like to ask whether the Minister is aware that after the amendment to the Securities and Futures Act in October 2005, MAS exempted banks which continuously issue structured notes – those issued over the counter – from having to lodge a registered pricing statement with the MAS. So the banks felt that probably these structured notes could be issued without having to go through complex and extensive requirements, but by just disclosure based prospectus. Hence, more structured notes flooded the market, with the financial advisors selling to the retail investors. Is this not a result of less prudent regulation by the MAS?”
“Sir, the Minister in his answer said that AIA's exposure to sub-prime is limited. I would like to know what is the limited amount that he was talking about. Sir, I also understand that the Insurance Act requires insurance companies to provide a deposit with MAS for each class of insurance business. What is the current market value of deposits from AIA that MAS holds? What is the composition and risk profile of AIA insurance funds? What is the future outlook of the funds to meet future obligations of the policy holders? What is the current solvency ratio of AIA's participating funds in Singapore and whether it has met the requirements under the risk-based capital framework of the MAS?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether GIC and Temasek currently have sufficient or enough cash liquidity to take advantage of the US financial meltdown to invest further in order to place Singapore in a better position.”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned repeatedly that the PCF is a registered charitable organisation and he just mentioned that the track record shows that the PCF does not engage in politics. Can he recall that the PCF, after the election of Opposition Members in 1991, threatened to withdraw and close down kindergartens in opposition wards? Is that not political? Is PCF really non-political in nature and what is the track record that he is talking about? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there is no denying that, in terms of affiliation, the PCF is affiliated to the PAP. But in terms of the focus of its activities, it is non-political. When a ward goes to the opposition, I think it is quite natural, therefore, that in terms of services offered to the people of Hougang who had made a decision, there was withdrawal of the services. But the services themselves, surely Mr Low cannot say are political in nature. COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLES 15. Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is his Ministry's position on compressed natural gas vehicles in Singapore.”
“But, meanwhile, we will continue to explore new technologies to find other ways in which we can increase the yield from Singapore's land area.”
“I would like to ask the Minister how the water self-sufficiency programme, and whatever that we achieve, would benefit Singaporeans, in particular, whether when we achieve water self-sufficiency, the water tariff will be reduced and water conservation tax will be abolished. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the water conservation tax will never be abolished because it is the tool that allows us to actually conserve water and therefore providing more water for Singaporeans. It is put in place to send an important message to Singaporeans that water is a strategic resource. Use it by all means but use it judiciously. It is an important lesson for us, as mentioned by Minister Mentor during the Singapore International Water Week, that we do not want to be thirsty any longer. So it is important for us to send that message and I do not think, at least in my time as Minister, that we will remove the water conversation tax. But I do not think the Singapore Government is also keen to remove it. What happens is that we will help people at the bottom who may have difficulties. In terms of the water tariff, we will continue to monitor the impact of energy price and other impacts on our water tariff. We will adjust it accordingly if there is a case to be made. At the moment, the water tariff is about the right level and we will keep it that way. On the benefits of self-sufficiency, obviously, we will feel secure as there will be the constant supply of water to meet both our domestic and non-domestic needs. As I mentioned in my reply, if need be, we can be self-sufficient. At the moment, we have the Four National Taps and they are in place to give us the diversification and reliability of our water supply system and we will keep it at that.”
“Okay. Let me now move on to by-elections. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the present law, it is provided that by-election shall be held for Single Member Constituency but it was silent on whether a by-election should be held within a certain timeframe. Thus, the Government can use the loophole in the law to postpone by-elections. So, even if the next general election is to be held in two years’ time, the Government will not hold a by-election. In 1986, after Mr Jeyaretnam lost his seat, a by-election was not held. The meaning in PM’s speech on the subject is profound; I wish to remind voters that your vote for the PAP will allow the PAP to control everything, including the holding of by-elections. The meaning of election is representation. Without holding a by-election for a vacated seat does not conform with the spirit of electing representatives of the people. Elections also allow the people to experience direct participation in politics. This will nurture citizens’ sense of ownership in public policy discourse and national identity. Under the present Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, we do not encourage the spirit of participation through elections, especially in light of the consequence of GRC, resulting in a scenario of having elections but voters being unable to vote due to no contest. If the situation continues, it will aggravate political apathy of Singaporeans and polling day would become just another additional holiday. This will be a sad day for the country. *Cols. 3437-3440. 6.35 pm”
“Yes, I am coming to that, Sir. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] The PAP continues to change the rules to increase the size of the GRC, so that these SMCs become less and less important. Therefore, I said at that time that the GRC would allow the PAP to absorb the areas where there was a high support for the opposition to be merged into a GRC, so that the opposition voters will always become the minority and hence opposition candidates will not be elected. In 1997, the PAP nearly lost Cheng San GRC and after the election, Cheng San constituency disappeared, a major part of it being grouped into Ang Mo Kio GRC. When Braddell constituency had as much as close to 50% support for the opposition, it was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC. So, come next election, how will the PAP Government take advantage of the GRC to redraw electoral boundaries? Let us wait and see. The PAP Government, in order to win more seats, has adopted many measures so that many seats can be won without a contest. *Cols. 3437-3440.”
“Yes, of course. I am speaking on parliamentary representatives, Sir.”
“Are these candidates, who do not have a sense of political mission and commitment, but are concerned only about their personal career and income, the best way to ensure the future of Singapore? The Constitution and the law should work for the benefit of all the people and not for the party. Unfortunately, the PAP has used its majority position in Parliament adopted different measures with grandiose ideas and reasons to change the Constitution to suit its purpose. In 1996, I had pointed this out in Parliament, we could see that in the 1988 and 1991 elections, the PAP had made use of the GRC system – *Cols. 3435-3438.”
“According to the PAP Government, the purpose of the GRCs is to ensure that there is minority representation in Parliament and the PAP assumes that the majority of the Chinese will vote according to racial identity of the candidate. This assumption may not be correct. In the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections, Mr Jeyaretnam, a member of the minority race, defeated the Chinese candidate of the PAP in Anson. Before the implementation of the GRC, we did not hear of a minority candidate of the PAP not getting sufficient support and losing an election. Since the beginning, not many people believe the reasons given by the PAP for having the GRCs. And the PAP probably knew that the justification to ensure that there is minority presence in Parliament may not withstand scrutiny. Hence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then PM, attempted to introduce new annotations to the original declared intent. He said that GRC system allows some PAP candidates who were not well known but have first class quality to avoid the challenge from the opposition candidates who are articulate and smooth talking but without real substance. Therefore, he says, GRC serves the interest of the nation. This is a serious insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. This is like telling the people that they are not sufficiently wise to decide on the quality of candidate and if they are allowed to vote, they will not be able to vote in good leaders. So, the PAP has to implement this GRC system to select on their behalf. SM Goh has also said that the PAP needed the GRC system to assure candidates of the PAP that they will win when they come in. This will help the PAP to recruit new candidates.”
“A recent report in the Straits Times shows that since 1988, with the introduction of the GRCs, the number of uncontested constituencies has increased steadily. In the 2001 general election, there were 55 uncontested constituencies, that is to say, more than 65% of the seats were not contested. In 2006, although there were some improvements, there were 37 seats uncontested. If the political landscape in Singapore remains the same, the prospect of whether the opposition party will be able to find enough candidates to field in future elections remains uncertain. The PAP conveniently attributed the situation to the opposition parties not being capable of fielding enough candidates, hence depriving Singaporeans of the right to vote. Nevertheless, we should examine whether we are in the process of creating another version of a democratic system which is a system of automatic election of ruling party candidates. We should ponder over how this system affects our country, our people and the legitimacy of the government in the long run. I met a middle-aged person at Suntec City and he told me that he was already 50 years old and the only time he voted was for the Election of President. However, except for the first Elected President, there were no contest for the subsequent elections for the President because there were no candidates contesting, except for one. So there was no need to vote at all. This uniquely Singaporean electoral system where there are elections held but no contest, and hence election being won by default is the only one of its kind in the world and the first in the world. I do not know what kind of system this is.”
“Sir, while I respect the Speaker's ruling on the amended motion moved by the Workers' Party Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, that it is out of order, I beg to differ on the interpretation of relevancy. Sir, the tenet of the motion before the House is, "That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy." Sir, the amended motion about GRC exactly talks about representative democracy. Secondly, Sir, the motion talks about by-election in a GRC. But the problem of by-election in a GRC – both in its technicality and practicality – is rooted in the problem of GRC itself. Therefore, instead of debating the substantive motion before the House on the question of by-election in a GRC, the fundamental question of whether the GRC system is justifiable and necessary should be debated first. Sir, the Members who spoke on the motion spoke at length about the original intent of the GRC is clear evidence of this relevancy. Therefore, I am of the view that the amended motion moved by Ms Sylvia Lim is relevant. But, nevertheless, I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I shall speak on the question of representative democracy. Sir, I shall speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our pledge, we pledge to establish a society based on justice and equality. The basis of democracy is to ensure that the people have the right to vote and the freedom to choose the government. In Singapore, although the Constitution provides that the elections will decide on the formation of government, the people have the right to choose the government, in practice, not every Singaporean has the right to vote.”
“And the inclusion of lay persons or non-lawyers in the Disciplinary Committee would stop the belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain standards of professional conduct. Sir, are these concerns for mutual forgiveness and transparency no longer valid now? It is true that under the existing law, the lay persons at the Disciplinary Committee stage cannot vote. Nevertheless, he contributes to the deliberation of the Committee by reminding the Committee of how a client would perceive the event at hand. This would surely provide for a fuller, more informed discussion as to what is fair and just in the circumstances. Let us not forget that the Disciplinary Committee is a very important milestone in the disciplinary process. It is the gatekeeper of whether the lawyer under inquiry should face the Court of Three Judges be struck off or suspended. Care should be taken at such an important stage and the laymen can make important contributions. If our experience has been that the laymen are too busy, perhaps, we should amend the Act to allow more people to qualify as laymen. 3.47 pm”
“Sir, it sounds to me that the Government's foreign talent policy has caught up with the legal profession. But I am not speaking on this issue as I believe that the lawyers are more than capable of speaking up for themselves. Sir, I refer to the proposed amendments to the disciplinary proceedings. A layman's representative used to sit at both the Inquiry Committee as well as the Disciplinary Committee will now be restricted to only the Inquiry Committee. Clause 34 of the Bill amends section 90(1) of the Act to say that the Disciplinary Committee will now consist of only two persons instead of four. The two persons who are dropped from the Committee are the Government legal officer and the layman. Although the Minister has explained briefly the changes in the disciplinary procedures, I think it is useful to recall the reasons why the layman was introduced to the process. Sir, in 1986, the then Second Minister for Law, Prof. Jayakumar, moved amendments to the Legal Profession Act to include lay persons to justify his move. He had said, and I quote, "At present, the persons who sit on the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee are all lawyers. The errant member is therefore judged entirely by his peers. This is based on a traditional British practice of self-regulation which grew up in guilds of people in a particular trade, historically. In recent times, the permissive attitude of these self-regulating bodies have created doubts in their willingness to police themselves or to discipline members of their own kind." He continued to say that the inclusion of non-lawyers and of people who are regular users of the services of lawyers will help allay some of the apprehensions caused by the present inhouse nature of the disciplinary process.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask, since Myanmar joined ASEAN, what contributions have Myanmar made to ASEAN and whether it value adds to ASEAN as an entity in its reputation internationally or, rather, it has become a burden to us.”
“Sir, the Minister said that the Government takes a multi-pronged approach to mitigate high inflation in Singapore. But I thought there is one particular approach that the Minister had not considered or it is not up in the Government's sleeves, and that is, the tax-cut approach, for instance, cutting GST rate or petrol tax.”
“Sir, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It is a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a Minister should take. I think we will remember that, when we debated the Ministers' salaries in this House, we were talking about pitching the Ministers' pay to the corporate world or the private sector. But in the corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, and it includes the CEO, whereas here, when something goes wrong, we are talking about honest mistakes. So, I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle on which the Government applied in looking at the salaries of the Ministers, pitching them to the corporate world vis-a-vis when it comes to accountability and responsibility. Would the Prime Minister clarify?”
“Sir, two clarifications. Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Certainly, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses and resulting in the escape of Mas Selamat.”
“So, of course, from that instance, he could have this streak that he wanted to escape all the time. Even in Whitley Road Detention Centre, the Superintendent did warn the guards: "Be careful. We have detainees here who are dangerous and are high flight risk". But, unfortunately, even for those who took note of it, and Members have heard me disclosing the details, the lapses happened and lapses were caused by those individuals who did not pay attention to their work.”
“No, I do not. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Low says he does not believe this ground speculation that Mas Selamat has died. I do not know why he wanted to raise it here since he does not believe that Mas Selamat has died in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I see no point in perpetuating a ground speculation in this House and giving credence to it. On the complacency of the WRDC, as I have explained that in my Statement, does it mean that the Ministry has been complacent in supervising its departments? Every department has its functions. Every department has its leader. What we do is to make sure that we find the right people to run the organisation. From time to time, problems do take place, and this is one instance. Does it mean, therefore, that the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent? I think that would be stretching the argument too far. Of course, within individual units, there could be some slackening in some ways. I cannot guarantee that that will not happen because, in any human organisation, from time to time, there will be human weaknesses being displayed and, unfortunately, things do happen that we do not want to see. On what lessons we have learnt, I think the lesson is a very painful one and, indeed, we do not want this thing to happen again. Therefore, we will take this lesson very seriously and make sure that we will not let this happen again. How I felt about it? Well, I felt disappointed that this should have happened. And I was completely shocked and surprised when I first got the news. On Mas Selamat's jail break overseas, I do not know about his jail break. I heard that he tried to escape when he was under guard in Indonesia. He attempted to jump over the second storey and, as a result, injured his leg.”
“Sir, DPM seems to say that the complacency culture in the Whitley Road Detention Centre contributed to the episode. I wonder if this episode is also the result of the complacency of his Ministry for failing to supervise the agencies under his charge. I would like to know what is the Minister's personal assessment and feeling of this episode and what lessons have been learnt from the post-operation of the escape of Mas Selamat. Knowing that Mas Selamat is an unusual detainee, as he is an important JI leader and had been trained in jungle fighting in Afghanistan, with experience in jail break and jail escape in Indonesia, was special precaution taken to secure him? Is the DPM also aware that there is this ground speculation that Mas Selamat had in fact died inside at the Whitley Road Detention Centre and that the Government seems to stage all this to cover up his death? I hope DPM could clarify that.”
“Sir, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Home Affairs conducts regular audits or security review on physical security and operational procedures in Whitley Road Detention Centre prior to the escape of Mas Selamat. Secondly, I would like to ask whether the findings of the COI in which we have practically known nothing very much, except that Mas Selamat has escaped through the toilet window, reflect the complacency of his Ministry as well.”
“We target to complete the draft regulations for public consultation within a month. As for the low-risk procedures, the international practice is to let the professional bodies regulate them. At our request, the Academy of Medicine and the College of Family Physicians are working together to draw up guidelines to govern the practice of such procedures. Their guidelines will similarly cover training requirements, practice standards, and so on. Achieving consensus is likely to take longer and they expect a few months to complete their work. With or without explicit regulations, doctors have to comply with the Singapore Medical Council’s Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. If they fail to do so and should their patients complain to the Singapore Medical Council, they will have to justify their action to their peers. Our doctors are largely ethical and competent and we should strive to preserve this high clinical and ethical standard among our doctors. Mdm Halimah Yacob: I thank the Minister for the clarification. I would like to ask the Minister whether in the MOH's view the low-risk procedures are therefore safe and what would be the MOH's advice to patients and members of the public wanting to go for such treatment. My second question is: what about the beauty salons? If they are not covered under the proposed regulations or guidelines for doctors, is this not a loophole which can compromise patient safety?”
“Can I clarify what is the current standard that we have and the current regulation with regard to power plant? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I do not have all the exact details. The standards that we have imposed are based on US EPA standards and WHO standards. We monitor these standards very closely in terms of the ash, the sulphur dioxide and other pollutants. These are the requirements that we have now in place and if they have to build a plant they have to meet these standards, and all our power plants in Singapore meet our standards at this point of time. AESTHETIC MEDICINE (Regulations and guidelines) 21. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) when will the regulations and guidelines on aesthetic medicine be issued; (b) what will the regulations and guidelines cover; and (c) in the interim, whether doctors are allowed to continue with such procedures and how will the safety of patients be protected. The Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, there is a wide range of practices which constitute the so-called "aesthetic medicine". They range from high-risk procedures like liposuction to relatively low-risk practices like chemical skin peeling. Our major concern is over high-risk procedures which can lead to severe complications including death, if they are carried out by operators without proper training or in ill-equipped clinics. We will regulate these high-risk procedures, in the interest of protecting patient safety. We are studying the regulatory regimes in other countries and our regulatory measures will cover the training required, the practice standards, the premises where they can perform the procedure, and the quality assurance framework that must be in place.”
“Sir, what is the Minister's view on a coal-fired power plant in Singapore? And how much does the Ministry know and learn the so-called clean coal technology? And has his Ministry made early assessment in terms of the so-called clean coal technology, how clean could it be and what is the impact? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the technology on clean coal is evolving. The Ministry is keeping a careful eye on these developments. We have visited some plants in Japan. They are running what is called ultra supercritical coal-fired plants. We want to understand the technology better. As to whether or not we have a position on the matter, as I mentioned in my reply, we will evaluate all proposals with the other economic agencies to make sure that they meet our standards. At the same time, we want to keep our options open and continue to monitor these developments closely. We keep track on developments across the world. There are even technologies being experimented in America in which we monitor closely so that we understand what are the benefits, what are the upside and what are the downside.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has assessed the impact on the economy due to the tightened CIQ operations. Besides this, has the Ministry also looked into the possibility of the potential loss of confidence that the investors and the international community will have on us as the escape of Mas Selamat is something which they do not expect to happen in Singapore?”
“So, this is another Number One that we have in the world. Sir, my second set of clarification is on contestability of bus services, not ERP. I want to ask him whether he will see real contestability amongst the big boys, ie, the GLCs. In other words, will the new initiative end up like what the Chinese say, "huan tang bu huan yao" (换汤不换药) – you just change the form but the content or substance remains the same. What is the Minister's projection in terms of the number of PTOs that will be able to compete for the market? And what will be the entry requirements for the PTOs to enter into the market? Will the entry requirements tilt in favour of small players?”
“Sir, the Minister says that no single measure is sufficient to manage road congestion. I want to ask him whether he agrees that the measures taken so far are aimed to squeeze money out of car owners. How about having some measures like incentives or rebates to reward car owners who do not contribute to the congestion? The second clarification is this. So far the Government has been using ERP and COE as a dual lever, like music mixers, to try to control congestion. Can the Minister tell us what is the optimum mix in terms of the number of cars that will be allowed on the road and also what are the maximum charges he envisages for future ERP? Would he also envisage that ERP gantries would need to be erected on all major trunk routes leading to the housing estates? Or would he envisage that one day, the MOT would need to erect MRT gantries, like the Police's ring fencing method to catch the drinkers in the pub, in order to manage road congestion? The Minister also cited examples of how efficient the new ERP gantries would be when come into operation. He cited, for example, the turn to CTE and all that, that reduces road congestion. I would like to ask him how long the effect will last? Because after a while, people will get used to the ERP charges and start using the same route again, causing congestion, and you have to keep on raising ERP charges. Is that a solution, moving forward? Sir, I want to also ask this. He said this is something unique in Singapore - our transport policy where people pay for usage. What is unique in Singapore is perhaps private car users pay through their nose with the highest car price in the world and probably road usage in time to come, while the Government benefited and enriched its coffers.”
“If it is sustainable, what are the car owners expected to pay for road usage going forward? I have received feedback that roads in Ang Mo Kio experience similar levels of congestion during morning peak hours as Toa Payoh. However, ERP gantries have been erected in Toa Payoh but not Ang Mo Kio which incidentally happens to be the Prime Minister's constituency. I believe clarity on MOT's policy on placement of ERP gantries may perhaps explain this anomaly. Sir, over-reliance on ERP as a main tool to control congestion has not helped to solve the congestion problem in the light of the growing vehicle population. Allowing the vehicle population to grow to a stage where ERP has become less effective suggests that MOT is imprudent in its management of road congestion. MOT has failed in this instance to adopt a holistic approach which makes total cost for car ownership and usage clear upfront to Singaporeans prior to their decision between private and public transport.”
“Sir, the Government has turned vehicle taxation as a tool for managing traffic congestion in Singapore into a strong revenue generating model. This is evidenced by the estimates of $2.3 billion projected for motor vehicle tax, up from the estimated $1.7 billion in FY2007, representing a 35% increase in one year, despite the recent announcement of cuts in road tax and ARF, and that also answers Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on why the Government continues to allow car population to increase. I understand that the Government uses the mechanism of ERP and COE to manage traffic congestion by taxing on road use and restricting vehicular growth numbers. Despite the presence of such a mechanism, the car population continues to increase unabatedly. The car population has increased by almost 40% from 370,000 in 1977 to 515,000 today. This has led the Government to announce measures to increase the ERP rates again and again so as to curb congestion caused by vehicular use. The Government taxes car owners relentlessly through COE and ERP, giving them little reprieve. I would like the Minister for Transport to clarify what is the optimum car population being targeted by his Ministry. In addition, would his Ministry let Singaporeans who are deciding between public and private transport know what the ERP pricing strategy is, as a decision to own a car rests on both upfront car ownership cost as well as knowing car usage cost when ERP starts to make up a significant component? I would also like to ask the Minister how his Ministry decides on the criteria for placing of ERP gantries. Is the Minister sure that the new formula based on the 85th percentile speed measurement method is sustainable in the long term?”
“Lastly, the Minister, in answering a question filed by Ms Sylvia Lim, the Party Chairman, said that the LTA's foreign consultant report would be released as part of the report on the Land Transport Review. I would like to know if the said report has been released to the public.”
“I welcome the Minister's announcement on the new philosophy to put the commuters at the centre of our land transport system. His announcement reflects an attitude which was not embraced in the past by the Government. The centralised planning of bus routes is a sign that the Government is now willing to undertake direct responsibility of public transport efficiency and to answer directly to the public on service standards. In the quest for a people-centred transport system, I am concerned about the price that commuters and taxpayers have to pay for the system to be centred on them. Will the Minister tell us if the new initiatives, which include making our hub-and-spoke system seamless as well as building more air-conditioned bus interchanges, result in a higher cost of transport for Singaporeans? There are also plans to enhance contestability of bus services by introducing competition for the market where operators compete periodically for the right to provide a package of bus services designed by LTA. Will such plans result in real market competition with different operators bidding down prices that will benefit consumers? My concern is whether the requirement of the level of capital and track record will be so onerous as to preclude smaller players who could give the incumbent players serious competition. The Ministry's earlier approach in introducing competition has resulted in the present duopoly of bus services between SMRT-TIBS and SBS-Transit. Will the same fate fall on these new initiatives? I would like the Minister to clarify the principle upon which the contestability of bus services would be implemented. How would the Minister facilitate innovation and entrepreneurship for smaller players to compete effectively against Temasek-linked incumbents?”
“Sadly, some educators and teachers no longer look at the student's F9 grade as a room for improvement case, but a reason to drop the subject case as such result will lower the mean subject grade, or MSG, for the class. MSG is computed as an average grade of all the students in the class. Understandably, a lower MSG is no good for the school. Teaching a class of 30-40 teenagers is already a stressful job. In addition, our educators have to worry about the weakest students pulling down the ranking of their school, job performance appraisal and of course their financial rewards since their pay is now linked more closely to work performance. How can one teach effectively under such an environment? The recent appraisal and school ranking system had diluted the good intention of many principals and teachers, many are unwittingly being transformed into technocrats crunching and manipulating numbers to achieve a desired target either to make a personal goal or a national objective. MSG in school is just like monosodium glutamate. It enhances flavour but is unhealthy in the long run. MSG has a high sodium content which contributes to hypertension. Is this why some principals and teachers are looking so flushed at the beginning of the school year?”
“Sir, the recent change in the details of the appraisal to the teaching profession causes concern. It has created a stressful environment that is not conducive for learning, maturing and teaching. Teachers are appraised and graded not just for what they do inside the classrooms, but outside as well. In a Straits Times' report on 29th December 2007, it was reported that a teacher resigned after six years at a primary school because she felt that the school was more interested in getting her to organise events, something she felt interfere with her ability to teach. There is a fear that the pursuit of excellence and higher ranking by over zealous principals and teachers will come at the expense of the weakest students. Going by what has happened at the beginning of 2008, this fear is not unfounded. In a Straits Times' article on 12th January 2008, "Sec 5 class advised: Go to ITE instead", a group of 27 girls in a Secondary 5 class in a mission school were advised by their principal to transfer to the Institute of Technical Education on the first day of the school. It was reported that the principal even displayed the student's detailed N-level grades and stressed that she only wanted 100% passes in her school. In some other schools, students were told that they are liable to be barred from taking certain subjects at "N" or "O" levels, if their school projects are found to be unsatisfactory. Parents of these students were made to sign an acknowledgement of the consequence for poor school work and an undertaking to monitor their children's progress. This again happened at the beginning of a school term.”
“(4) Does the Ministry of Finance accept that the financial statement of GROs under the management and supervision of the PA be left outside of PA's financial statements and, effectively, out of the public's scrutiny and accountability? Tax Changes”
“Madam, the financial statement of the People's Association ending 31st March 2007 has been qualified with an adverse opinion by the auditor. This was because PA did not provide audited financial information on its more than a thousand grassroots organisations (GROs) in its financial statement. The auditor is unable to assess the financial impact on the financial statement of the PA arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs. These qualifications are in relation to non-compliance with Singapore's Financial Reporting Standard 24 as well as FRS 27, consolidated and separate financial statements. I understand that this arises from the Ministry of Finance allowing statutory boards to be exempted from certain disclosure requirements of related parties through its minutes or circulars. Madam, Singapore is proud to have an efficient and transparent public sector. However, such qualified audited report of the PA does not help to enhance the reputation of the public sector. Moreover, PA handles hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds. I would like to ask the Minister: (1) What is the rationale for MOF to exempt statutory boards from certain disclosure requirements in FRS 24? (2) What has prompted the MOF to issue such an exemption against international standards? Even the private sector listed companies are not exempted from such disclosures of related party transactions. (3) How would this impact the transparency of statutory boards, given that many Government functions are now performed by them as agents of the Government?”
“Madam, first I would like to clarify that I did not say Singaporeans are denied the choice of class of wards in the hospitals, as what the Minister has said earlier. The point I made was that Singaporeans are now denied the right to decide for themselves what is affordable to them upon hospitalisation and the patients decide which class of ward they would like to get admitted to. The affordability is now decided by the Government by means testing, as the percentage of subsidy to C class ward is based on that. This is a fundamental change. Madam, I would like to clarify with the Minister: does the Minister not agree that the outcome of means testing would be for the not-so-rich to pay more? The very rich will go to a private hospital. Is the Government unable to afford providing healthcare without implementing means testing? Madam, I am alarmed by the Minister's statement that if we do not implement means testing, our C class ward standard might degenerate to standard in the 70s. Are we that poor now as a nation, that we need to do that, poorer than in the 70s as a nation? Madam, I refer now to the Annex distributed by the Minister. The percentage of subsidy for C class wards is stated in the Annex. I would like to know from the Minister how long will this percentage last. What is the commitment of the Government to the long-term subsidy percentage of C class wards based on the income level that is listed here? I note that the $3,200 income level which would qualify for the C class ward subsidy of 80% is higher than what was intended to, as reported in the press. I would like to know what is the basis on which he decides on what income level he will subsidise 80%. In the longer term, what level of subsidy can we expect after means testing is implemented? 5.30 pm”
“The outcome must be that some patients or, in the future, perhaps most patients who are admitted to Class C and B2 wards would be paying higher medical fees. Presently, a patient can decide which class of ward to be admitted to during hospitalisation and the Government subsidies are in accordance with different classes of hospital ward. This is the last line of defence in our social safety net and a critical safeguard in healthcare for Singaporeans Implementation of hospitalisation means testing will surely increase Singaporeans' anxiety over the lack of social security in life. *Cols. 1803-1804.”