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 18 of 54.
“Let me give the Minister of State a scenario. An individual decides to send out SMS message across to the people, is it under the "positive list", or is it not?”
“What about people who help to do photostating?”
“Sir, based on the same principle of the Parliamentary Secretary on lift upgrading, ie, (i) the cost structure is a consideration for co-payment; and (ii) the owners have actually chosen and enjoyed privacy in segmented blocks and, in that case, residents whose units are located on, let us say, the common corridor, or a unit which is located in a segmented block but with the lift landing, and therefore without the need to incur extra cost for additional structure, then why should they be asked to co-pay as well?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have understood the good long-term bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand. However, given the circumstances, as what the Minister has described, certain groups in Thailand are against Singapore, especially in the recent fiasco about the purchase of Shin Corporation leading to the burning of the effigies of our Prime Minister and Mrs Lee, I wonder whether this opposition to Singapore's good relations is building up. I would like to know from the Minister what is his projection of the future bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand and how he sees the current development in which there are some groups which seemingly are getting stronger against Singapore. What is his assessment of that situation?”
“Secondly, is there a problem in the way the Foreign Sports Talent scheme for soccer is being implemented? Are the foreigners in the S-League serious about making Singapore their home or looking to us as literally a Singapore passport to elsewhere? Lastly, Sir, what judgement does FAS exercise in recommending foreign talents for citizenship? 2.15 pm National Soccer”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I refer to the current fiasco concerning two national soccer players as a result of the foreign talent policy for sports, including soccer. I am referring to the Nigerian players, Dickson and Agu Casmir. Sir, I think they are too much. They came to Singapore on Social Visit Passes around 2002, attended soccer class and managed to find places at S-League clubs. Then, they were identified as potential national players, given status as Permanent Residents and became Singapore citizens to play for the national team. But after that, they wanted to leave Singapore to play overseas. And it was reported that the Football Association of Singapore paid them something like $50,000 in January 2005 just to keep them here. Sir, since becoming citizens, they have performed badly, especially at the SEA Games last November, when they failed to score any goal despite good chances. The Singapore soccer team crushed out of the SEA Games without making it into the semi-finals. Then, in January 2006, both of them went "AWOL". Dickson missed national training in order to go to Europe to try out for European teams, and Agu signed up with another Indonesian club, collected a sign-on fee of US$20,000, changed his mind and then went to Russia, England and Canada where he spent the money. Both of them have now returned to Singapore and have been suspended from the national team for six months and one year, but I understand that FAS continues to subsidise them. My questions are, first of all, whether we need foreign players in our national soccer team at all. Soccer is a team sport, and I understand that our local players have been doing reasonably well under the current coach.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why he thinks that statistical data on under-employment and skills inadequacy employment are not really useful to understand the extent of the problem of structural unemployment, given the fact that some of these people might actually not maximise their skills and also their qualifications and experience in certain jobs. And that would not generate a maximum effect in the economy.”
“At the 16th International Conference of Labour Statisticians held in October 1998, a statement was made that "under-employment" and "skills inadequacy employment" statistics are very important to the nation. This is because such a potential problem reflects the inability of the national policy to enable the economy to make full use of this potential. This is a very important indicator for nations which are undergoing economic restructuring. Some of these people who are under-employed due to economic reform may migrate to other countries. They could well be our home-grown elites who have benefited from our education system and the cultivation of our society. We spend a substantial part of our budget on education and skills training every year. If we continue to allow our local elites to migrate or being in the state of "skills inadequacy employment", it would be a great loss to our resource-scarce Singapore.”
“Sir, the employment situation now is much better than it was a few years ago. But I understand that many people are forced by circumstances to accept whatever jobs they could find irrespective of whether the jobs would allow them to make full use of their talent and skills. For example, some Singaporeans may have high qualifications and rich work experience. But they lost their jobs due to restructuring or relocation of their companies. Because of their age, the competition from foreign talents and other factors, they are no longer able to find jobs commensurate with their qualifications and experience. With a heavy burden of living, they have no choice but to accept lower jobs with lower salaries. To the Government, these people are already re-employed, they are no longer the problem of the Government. On the manpower statistics, these people are no longer included in the number of unemployed persons. Of course, we must give credit to these people for their ability to adapt and adopt and their willingness to accept the jobs to earn a living, despite their low pay. Human resource is the strongest, if not, the only resource we have in Singapore. MOM should be more concerned with this phenomenon of people not being able to optimise their talent, so that human resource potential could be developed to the fullest for our economic development. This is one of the problems of the so-called structural employment. As such, we feel that we should compile "Under-employment" and "Skills Inadequacy Employment" statistics so that we have a better understanding of the situation here in Singapore.”
“Sir, I do not disagree with the Minister on the need for quality tertiary education. But my question really is: is there a need to burden our undergraduates with such a heavy debt when they start to work? Why is it not possible for the Government to increase fundings to universities? Of course, the Minister's reply would be where to find the money. May I ask him whether or not the Government should have substantial revenue with betting tax when the IR is operational and whether or not with that additional tax money, the Government would consider increasing the fundings to universities so as to reduce the burden of students sharing the cost? 2.30 pm”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. But, Sir, it seems to me that the Minister's reply on affordability depends very much on the Tuition Fee Loan. I wonder whether it is affordability by mortgaging the students' future, by paying so much loan that they have to be indebted after their university education. Sir, the second clarification is that the Minister said the university should charge "realistic fees". I would like to know what is "realistic fees" and whether that includes expenditure of buying expensive chairs and thereby charging realistic fees. Third, Sir, the Minister said he will not foresee that the university will increase fees to the full amount by 10%, but I understand the Steering Committee's Report allows the university to increase up to 10% of the fee per year. How sure is the Minister that this will not happen and, if it happens, are they allowed to increase 10% of tuition fee at all?”
“Secondly, while the students can always take loans, the question is: how much debt do we want our students to incur before they start work? Assuming that fees do eventually go up by 10% per year, a four-year undergraduate programme will see a student paying about 33% more in fees compared to his first year. Assuming that his fees are $6,110 in Academic Year 2006, it will go up to $8,132 in his final year in Academic Year 2009. If he borrows the maximum of 90% of the tuition fees under the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme, he would be indebted to the amount of $25,520.86 cents, before he starts work. This is not a small sum for someone just starting to work, and it may take him several years to pay. This will adversely affect his quality of life and ability to support his family. Some, I believe, may not have the confidence to incur such a debt and may choose instead to work rather than go into university. Sir, education is supposed to be the great leveller, enabling poor Singaporeans to improve their socio-economic status. By reducing Government funding and putting such financial burdens on our students, the Government is discouraging the upward mobility of poor Singaporeans. By so doing, the Government also imposes a heavy financial burden on young graduates whose families are poor and are unable to support them through university education. Sir, I would like the Minister's view on this, and whether the new policies and funding model are equitable.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, at last year's Budget debate, I raised some concerns about the change in funding model for our universities as they become autonomous and corporatised. The output funding model, adopted for universities, requires students to bear more of the cost of running the universities. According to the steering committee report released in January 2005, students would be expected to bear more of the operating cost and also part of the infrastructure cost of the universities. It was also recommended that universities be allowed to raise tuition fees every year by not more than 10%. The universities have responded by passing on bigger financial burdens to the students under the new funding model. Just a few months after legislation to corporatise NUS and NTU was passed, students are asked to pay 3% more in fees. And this is just a year after NUS raised fees by 5%. SMU is also raising its fees by $1,000 per year. Sir, the fact of the matter is that, on the whole, wages in Singapore do not go up by 10% per year, particularly for the lower-income group, where wages have actually been going down. Increases in fees will bring a strain on many families. In response to concerns about affordability, the official counter-argument is that no poor students will be deprived of a tertiary education as there are financial assistance schemes available. I do not know how true this is. Sir, in terms of bursaries, it was reported in the Straits Times of 15th February 2006 that only 500 out of the 1,300 applicants were successful in receiving bursaries to study at NUS. Does this mean that the universities are not making sufficient funds available for award of bursaries to needy students?”
“Sir, at the point in time, MOH was the approving authority for IPC. My question was: who in MOH approved the IPC status and whether or not NCSS had some reservations about that and how did it miss the person's approval?”
“Sir, the Government has, in recent months, moved to ensure better corporate governance of the voluntary welfare organisations. This, I hope, will stop any future NKF-form of misusing and misrepresenting its activities to the public. I noted that while the Ministry of Health has made every effort to explain to the public its position on NKF, it has yet to clarify the issues surrounding the Ministry of Health's award of Institution of Public Character (IPC) status to the then NKF. In the interest of greater transparency on the part of MOH, I would like to ask the Minister, under sections 37 and 107 of the Income Tax Act, who was the final approving authority for NKF's IPC status at MOH? In particular, Sir, I would like to know whether the said approving authority was aware of the concerns of the National Council of Social Services and why the concerns of NCSS were overwritten by MOH? I would also like to know what is the procedure for application and approval of the IPC status by MOH and whether the decision is subject to review by a higher authority, or the Minister himself is the final approving authority. Hospitals”
“In fact, I went to great length. I read their latest manifesto and also the previous one. So when I quote, I am a careful person, as you would know by now. When the Member used the words and claimed that I lied - although he did not want to use those words - it was in his Party's own manifesto when he talked about abolition of Medisave and a comprehensive public health insurance. In our business, maybe he is not familiar, "comprehensive" has a very special meaning in health insurance. "Comprehensive" means comprehensive - everything, first dollar coverage. That is the meaning of comprehensive. He cannot say, as he tried to explain just now, that "comprehensive" means that there is still co-payment. Once you have co-payment, it is no longer comprehensive. So I read it in that light. I take it at face value. That was in their earlier document when they talked about abolishing Medisave and going into comprehensive medical insurance. So I must object to his use of words that I am trying to hoodwink Singaporeans. Singaporeans would have seen me by now. I have been in public service for many years. I did not enter politics to score political points. I entered politics because I thought that is one way to do some good for Singaporeans, and that is the way I carry my task seriously. I am not one who hoodwinks people. Healthcare Infrastructure”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has updated himself with the latest copy of the Workers' Party's manifesto because, in this manifesto, we are proposing a compulsory basic hospitalisation insurance. He says it is a comprehensive insurance scheme. Secondly, I would like to ask him whether he purposely distorted the Workers' Party's manifesto for political purpose to hoodwink the voters. Sir, what he has said was not what we published in the 1994 manifesto. We highlighted the inadequacy of Medisave, but we did not say that we want to abolish it. We believe more on risk-pooling of insurance schemes rather than the method of direct payment through Medisave, because you never know how much you need to save. That was the basis on which the Workers' Party felt that insurance would be a better solution. I would like the Minister to clarify why there is a need for him, when he became Minister for Health, to look at the MediShield insurance scheme and to revamp it. That is exactly the same concept which the Workers' Party's manifesto has enshrined in 1994. It is not true when the Minister accused me like what the papers described as Chen Sui-bian as "pulling the people into a hole". I would say that, Sir, without the revamp of an insurance scheme, it will probably be the Ministry of Health that will have a bigger hole for the people to fall inside, and the hole is something which the Minister created for political purpose to pull me in. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Chairman, I do not like to read the Workers' Party's manifesto but, unfortunately, it is my duty, as Health Minister, to also see it because I read all suggestions on healthcare, and I take a personal interest. So I read them. He asked whether I have updated myself. Yes, I have.”
“Sir, I often hear from patients, especially patients with medical conditions, such as heart problem, Hepatitis B, etc, and those who are chronically ill who need long-term medication, complain of high cost of drugs. I would like to ask the Minister for Health whether he foresees an expansion of centralised drug buying by the Ministry of Health from generic to non-generic branding drugs. As medical technology advances and hospital stays and operations are replaced with pills, I urge the Government to move beyond the basic bulk buying of generics, so that Singaporeans can benefit from lower drug cost. I would also like to know whether we have a unit within the Ministry of Health which functions like the National Institute of Health's clinical excellence in the United Kingdom where clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of new drugs are evaluated and recommendation made for bulk purchase. Sir, I would also like to ask how the Ministry of Health decides what types of drugs should be subsidised. Feedback to me seems to suggest that MOH's prime consideration in the selection of the types of drugs for subsidy is primarily based on the price of drugs, rather than whether the drug itself is more beneficial to the patients in terms of its clinical effect or lesser side effects on the patients. Means Testing”
“Sir, rising healthcare costs remain a concern of most Singaporeans. At the same time, many Singaporeans feel aggrieved by the large number of foreign residents in Singapore competing for jobs. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has thought about expanding the coverage of the basic MediShield scheme to cover foreign employees as well. During the course of privatisation of MediShield Plus, whilst making basic MediShield compulsory for all insurance plans covering Singaporeans last year, the Minister for Health accepted the principle that the younger you are, the less healthcare you consume, as the basics of healthcare insurance. I would like to ask the Minister to consider requiring all foreign talent - employment pass holders and workers - to be covered by basic MediShield insurance. This would expand the risk pool of basic MediShield. I hope that with the added injection of funds from the expansion and with the relative lower risk of the new pool in which most are in their prime of their working life, MediShield can provide better coverage for all Singaporeans. This will also allow Singaporeans to see that all the foreign talents are, in a manner of speaking, contributing to the health and well-being of Singapore. Healthcare Policy”
“Sir, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister. I would like to know what concrete steps have been or would be taken by STB on the accuracy of tourism materials, especially pertaining to the Chinese Language materials. We had a year or two ago of this wrong translation on the Hungry Ghost Festival where it becomes "Xiong Ya Li Gui Jie". Now we have a Chinese translation making sea turtles grandfather of Chew Joo Chiat. I think it will do well to make sure that it will not happen again. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that when his good friend, Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, told him about "hai gui pai" , ie, the return of the entrepreneur from overseas, the same as the "hai gui" (sea turtles) is wrong. The "gui" in "hai gui pai" means "return", which has the same sound of "gui" as in "wu gui" (sea turtles). But it means a different thing.”
“Now with the emergence of Chinese market of one billion people, I think we have to be more careful with the translation, otherwise we would become a laughing stock and undermine our international image.”
“Sir, first of all, I would like to commend the Singapore Tourism Board for their recent efforts in promoting Singapore's tourism industry. In order to attract more tourists to Singapore, the Singapore Tourism Board mobilised a lot of resources to prepare some guide books with rich local flavours, and they have introduced a lot of lesser-known local attractions to the tourists, for example, the elaborately produced "Walking Guide to Katong/Joo Chiat". Unfortunately, in the Chinese version of this guidebook, owing to some mistranslation, there was a piece of material that is really laughable. In introducing Joo Chiat and Katong, it states, "Many people do not know the difference between Joo Chiat and Katong. In fact, Joo Chiat is situated within Katong, and Katong is Chew Joo Chiat's grandfather. It represents a very large area." On reading this, I have a doubt on the statement of Katong being the grandfather of Chew Joo Chiat. Who is this Katong? I believe the editor was deliberately trying to create a suspense. In another page, I found the answer. It says, "Do you know that Katong is named after a species of sea turtle found in Singapore?" This is to say that Chew Joo Chiat's grandfather, Katong, was a sea turtle. If this is brought to the knowledge of Chew Joo Chiat's descendants, I am sure they will go after the Singapore Tourism Board for turning them into descendants of a sea turtle. 2.45 pm The Singapore Tourism Board is our international tourism ambassador charged with the heavy responsibility of introducing Singapore to the international tourists. I think many tourists' first impression of Singapore comes from the guidebooks.”
“Sir, listening to the Deputy Prime Minister's reply, I wonder what is the message that DPM wishes to send to the police. Is he saying that counter-terrorism is the focus now and not crime-busting? DPM seems to attribute the increased crime rate to victims being careless. I would like to seek clarification from him that is this the new philosophy of the police in dealing with crime rates. Is he saying, for example, that if a person is being robbed, it is because the person is careless, that he or she walks into the path of the robber? Or if the pocket is being picked, is he saying that the person is careless because his pocket is not deep enough? Sir, the last clarification I have is on crime rate. The fact is that the crime rate has been going up. But DPM, based on his macro-assessment, says that it is not really a problem because generally we are still a very safe society. What is the correlation between crime statistics and social safety? Can he clarify that, because I am a bit "blur" with that?”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister.”
“4% to 90%. I understand that FY2006 will be even more challenging for the police, as we are hosting the IMF meetings in September and are anticipating not only protecting the many VIPs but also handling protests expected from visiting non-governmental organisations. Is the Minister satisfied with the current crime situation and level of police resources? Have we compromised community safety by deploying manpower to counter terrorism and hosting international meetings? Has the headcount policy taken an unhealthy impact on the police force, resulting in lower efficiency and readiness in combating crime by the Home Team? Key Performance Indicators”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the crime statistics compiled by the police show a 20% increase in overall seizable crimes in 2005, amounting to an increase of 6,081 cases more than in 2004. There have been very significant increases in snatch theft at 47%, rioting at 35.1% and robbery at 31.7%. In the case of rioting, the police has noted that there has been an increase in rioting taking place in public housing estates, either in the common areas of HDB blocks or along the streets of housing blocks. Also taking place in the common areas of HDB blocks are outraging of modesty cases which rose by 19.3% in 2005. It raises the question about the safety of our neighbourhoods. We are also aware of the two recent cases of firearms being used in the course of committing robbery, which Ms Indranee Rajah raised. I have the same concerns. Sir, the obvious questions to ask are: is the crime situation expected to worsen further? Does the police have sufficient resources to be effective to meet these challenges? In this regard, Sir, it is not comforting to read the financial estimates presented to Parliament for the current year 2006. The Ministry of Home Affairs is expected to spend 6.4% more in fiscal year 2006, compared with 2005. But this extra expenditure is not expected to increase the effectiveness or efficiency of the police. According to the key performance indicators in the financial estimates, the police appears to have lowered its expectation in 2006 in that the percentage of urgent incidents responded to by the police within 15 minutes is expected to drop from 90% to 87%; the percentage of non-urgent incidents responded to by the police within 30 minutes is expected to drop from 92.5% to 90%; the percentage of 999 calls answered within 10 seconds is expected to drop from 97.”
“May I understand that I can only seek clarification of what the PM has said. Okay, never mind, Sir. I leave the matter. I do want to clarify some points made by the Prime Minister. First, on unconditional needs-based welfare scheme, he said it would bankrupt the Government. He criticised the Workers' Party for saying that the Government should provide unconditional needs-based help. I would like to seek clarification from the Prime Minister as to what form of help that is going to be. If it is not going to be unconditional needs-based, is it going to be adhoc or depending on budget surplus? What happens if there is no budget surplus? The people who need help will perhaps have to fend for themselves. I hope he would clarify that point. The second point is on fiscal prudence. First of all, I wish to thank the Finance Minister for his detailed explanation as to how the Budget is funded. I noted the funding is actually quite thin in the sense that you do not have very much left. Practically, this Government is spending almost everything it has accumulated within the term of government. Is he spending too much and having it too thin in terms of the margin that has to be contributed to the national reserves? Sir, the fact that the Prime Minister has to explain in detail here how the budget is funded shows that we do not need an Elected President. What we need is a robust parliamentary democracy and sufficient number of Opposition Members in Parliament.”
“The concern of the Government is whether this is going to be a welfare state. So I clarify that it is not so because we are contemplating unemployment insurance ---”
“I am clarifying. He is saying that unemployment insurance is something ---”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has referred to the Workers' Party's manifesto. I happen to have a copy here. On unemployment insurance, I would like to clarify the reason why we contemplated and decided to propose this unemployment insurance. It is because of the experience of the financial crisis. Yes, we have retrenchment benefits, but when the company closed down, the workers get nothing. Bearing in mind that there are a lot of workers who are not unionised, they are just retrenched and left with nothing. They can be drawing a few thousand dollars or a few hundred dollars but, suddenly, when they are retrenched, they must be left with nothing because the company just went bust. How do they cope with life with the sudden drastic change in income? The current situation that we have, in terms of securing some kind of payment, when a person is retrenched, is not satisfactory.”
“Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned that though I am from the Workers' Party, when I spoke, I failed to represent the welfare of the workers and that the PAP has better represented the workers. I wonder whether the PAP is going to change its name to the "Workers' Action Party" (WAP). He also mentioned about a Teochew song which says that, "Wherever it is cooler, I will sit there, where there is money, I will go toady", and he uses this as an analogy that workers should be more flexible in jobs and should support the Government which gave them benefits. I must say his analogy is not correct. Yes, we want jobs but there are also principles in life which we cannot compromise. We cannot just say, "Well, there is money, we will just go toady." As a people, we must have backbone; we should not promote such a mentality; otherwise, we risk sending the wrong signal to the people. This type of attitude and value are also associated with the issues of whether you would be a quitter or a stayer. I hope that Mr Seng understands the implication of what he has said and explain to clarify them.”
“To clarify what he has said about my speech and his imputing of some issues which I have not mentioned in my speech at all.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to clarify what the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC has referred to my speech?”
“9 billion deficit seriously. On the other hand, the moment the Opposition party raised the point that the Government should increase the expenditure for education and healthcare to reduce the burden on the people, the Government would issue a stern warning that this would result in deficits and even bankrupt the Government, leading to the collapse of our economy. I believe the Government should have other sources of revenue to cope with the deficit. The Government should spell out clearly its other sources of revenue, and make them transparent and public so that the people will know how these other revenues are used to offset the deficit. In this extraordinary Budget, if the Government, apart from the ordinary revenue and the Net Investment Income, must also use the non-direct financial revenue in order to meet the huge budget deficit, the following questions would arise: (1) Should the Government's other revenue be reflected in the budget to clearly show the Government's real income? (2) In the present format of the budget, because the Goverment's other revenue is not included even when it shows a deficit, it does not necessarily mean that the Government's expenditure exceeds its revenue. When the Government has budget surpluses, the actual surpluses can possibly be even more. Is this in keeping with the principle of transparency? (3) On what principle can the Government use its other revenue for its deficit, in addition to the revenue in items set out in the budget? Under what circumstances can the Government use this other revenue? Or can the Government use it at its whims and fancies, or just before the election? 2.13 pm”
“I would like to repeatedly remind the Government that the problem which the people are truly concerned with is the rising cost of living that they have to face every morning when they wake up. I hope that the Government will remember that a society where the middle and lower-income people are hard pressed by the heavy burden of the cost of living cannot be a society which is vibrant and creative. This is not in keeping with our endeavour to move towards a creative and knowledge-based economy. In the 2006 Budget, revenues of statutory boards amount to $1.2 billion, and other Government fees and charges total $1.8 billion. Can the Government make a thorough review on the fees and charges affecting the people to reduce their daily living expenses? Distributing goodies before an election and then scrapping back money from the people after the election is the usual practice of the PAP Government. The people are used to it. For example, at the last election in 2001, the Government generously gave away New Singapore Shares (NSS). After the election, GST was raised from 3% to 5%. In 2001, when a $2.6 billion deficit arose from the giving away of New Singapore Shares, I can understand. This was because, from 1997 to 2000, despite the economy being in a bad shape and the people having to tighten their belts, the Government budget still enjoyed surpluses year after year, accumulating to approximately $15 billion, whereas the NSS shares cost the Government only $2.4 billion, just like the so-called "peanuts". However, I cannot figure out how the Government could cope with the $2.9 billion deficit in this year's Budget from the surpluses accumulated from the budgets from 2002 to 2005. Yet, the Finance Minister and the Government do not seem to take the $2.”
“6 billion Dividends for all People". Not a word was said about the deficit. Is it the social responsibility of the media? Or have our local media become the propaganda tool of the PAP Government? I tried to interpret the implication behind the use of a deficit for bonus-sharing and the media's reaction to this Budget. In recent years, economic downturn and restructuring have caused many people to lose their jobs or suffer pay cuts, putting their families into hardship. But according to the survey conducted by the Department of Statistics, the monthly income of families in the lowest 20 percentile dropped from $933 in 1998 to $795 in 2003, but the cost of living was $1,259 - a serious shortfall. The gini coefficient, which measures the disparity between the poor and the rich, is getting worse, year by year. It is, in fact, worse than that in the United States, Europe, Japan and Korea. This is indeed worrying! People in the lower-income group suffer most in a downturn. Yet, in an upturn, they do not benefit. Had the Government been as generous as it is today, extending a helping hand to the people when they needed it most, much of their anxieties and worries could have been alleviated. Many families would have avoided problems that led to broken marriages and suffering for their children. People in the middle and lower income groups silently suffered from the economic restructuring and accepted the cut in CPF contributions. They truly deserve the goodies offered to them this time round. The Government's impromptu gesture of dividend distribution once every five years can only provide temporary relief to the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a Budget-Extraordinary. The Government is giving away $2.6 billion worth of dividends to the people against the financial burden of $2.9 billion deficit, just to please the voters. The Finance Minister has not explained why it is so urgent for these giveaways that he had to run into such a huge deficit. The Government has always regarded budget deficits as "fierce floods and savage beasts" (or great scourges) and has consistently been accumulating surpluses year after year. When there was a deficit of $1.2 billion in the 2003 Budget, the Finance Minister said in his Budget Statement that we could accept a budget deficit when the times were bad, and that the aim was to build up surpluses in good times so that we could have adequate reserves to meet unexpected needs. Now that the economy is recovering, the Government has also stressed that the economic growth is better than expected. One would have thought that the Government would automatically return to the path of accumulating surpluses. However, notwithstanding non-increase in taxes, the generosity in which the bonuses were given out and the huge deficit that has incurred in the FY2006 Budget surprises even the strongest supporters who have always regarded the PAP as being logical and rational. The media have acted in concert. In covering this year's Budget, almost no mention is made of the deficit. In contrast, when there was a $1 billion deficit in 2003, the media played it up. For example, Lianhe Zaobao then carried a headline: "Government's $1.2 billion deficit budget." On the contrary, despite this year's budget deficit being double that of 2003, the media's focus is on the dividends for everyone. The headline on the front page of Lianhe Zaobao read, "$2.”
“Sir, the Minister said that it is not for the CRA to make the decision. If, in the event, there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide. Is he saying that if there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide and not for Parliament, and thereby, there is no need to legislate the maximum number?”
“Will there be any likelihood that the Government might change its mind or, on the request of the IR operators, the CRA might, one day, decide to allow the increase in the floor area, and thereby Parliament will not know exactly whether it is 5% or even more?”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. I would like to know what is the Government's consideration for not putting in the maximum percentage allowable for casinos within this legislation.”
“Clause 182 provides that any inspector under the Bill is to have police powers for investigations. Therefore, these inspectors are not police officers but they will be given these police powers. If so, who are these inspectors and will they undergo the necessary police training to ensure that they know how to exercise these powers? Finally, Sir, I wonder if the Minister is not going to amend the Common Gaming Houses Act. I understand that, currently, under section 4 of the Act, it makes running a common gaming house an offence. Section 21 of the Act even allows the Minister to banish from Singapore any foreigner who is a professional gambler. But now, Sir, we want these professional gamblers here to patronise the casinos! 4.35 pm”
“However, the Minister's promise that the floor space of a casino would not exceed 5% of the area of the Integrated Resort is not legislated. Why not? By legislating this, it will ensure that any deviations would have to come to Parliament for scrutiny to ensure that the non-gaming component of an IR is maintained. Similarly, clause 103 states that the regulatory authority will stipulate the maximum number of gaming machines in the casino. Why is the number also not legislated for Parliament to monitor? Under clause 106's caption, "Assistance to Patrons", where information on gaming rules, etc, is stated, should we not also assist patrons to get help if they are problem gamblers? The casino operator should be required to train casino employees to identify potential problem gamblers who should have access to on site counselling. Regarding the entry levy collected, Sir, clause 116(2) provides that all entry levies be handed to the Singapore Totalisator Board to be used for public, social or charitable purposes. Why does the Minister not consider it appropriate to direct all levies collected to the National Council on Problem Gambling for expenditure on its programmes and case management? Sir, in respect of Part X, National Council on Problem Gambling, under clause 165, NCPG can by itself decide to exclude from casinos those who are on social assistance or under bankruptcy proceedings or have poor credit records. It appears that these exclusion orders will be made on a case-by-case basis. I would like to clarify with the Minister why he does not consider automatic exclusions, eg, for those who are bankrupts. Would this not be administratively easier and more objective? Or is the Minister contemplating that some bankrupts will be barred but some can be allowed to gamble?”
“But it seems from paragraph 12, sub-paragraph 3, that he will be recorded as being present in the meeting even if he cannot vote or has withdrawn from that meeting. Our objection is that we should ensure that no person appointed to the Casino Regulatory Authority should ever be in that sort of position. And if it were to emerge later, that person should step down from the Casino Regulatory Authority altogether. Can the Minister not appoint persons who have no possibility of transacting with the casino operator? Or is our pool of possible appointees so limited? Even if the interested member does not vote, the issue is his influence over the regulatory authority, by virtue of the working relationship built up over time. Surely, we cannot undermine the independence of the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore as the watchdog for the casino industry. On a related note, Sir, the composition of the National Council on Problem Gambling should similarly not have persons connected with the casino business. As we know, problem gambling is a collateral damage from having casinos, and the persons dealing with problem gambling should face problem gambling honestly and robustly and not be concerned about preserving the casino's reputation or gaming revenues. We would suggest that the Bill incorporate provisions to specify that persons connected in any way with transacting with the casino operators should not be eligible to be members of the Casino Regulatory Authority or National Council on Problem Gambling. Next, Sir, I would like to look at Part VI on Casino Operations. Clauses 51 and 99 provide that the boundary and layout of the casino will be determined by the regulatory authority.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate in April 2005, I spoke to convey the Workers' Party's position opposing the setting up of casinos in Singapore. The position has not changed. However, given the decision to go ahead has been made, we have looked at the provisions of the Bill with a view to seeing how it can perhaps be tightened to ensure that our casinos do not become magnets of vice. We note that our suggestions that the Bill should contain provisions to establish an oversight agency to investigate into the background of the casino operators and staff and ensure fair play in the gaming process are found in the present Bill. However, Sir, there are still some gaps which, we believe, need to be tightened. First, the independence of the regulatory body from the casino operators. We note that the Bill establishes the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore to regulate the casino operators. As mentioned in my speech last year, this Authority must be absolutely independent of the casino operators. The members chosen to sit on the Casino Regulatory Authority should have no dealings whatsoever with the casino business, whether as suppliers, contracting partners or others. Therefore, we are most concerned with the Schedule to the Bill which lays down the procedure for the Casino Regulatory Authority to meet and make decisions. In particular, paragraph 12 of the Schedule actually contemplates a situation that when a member of the Casino Regulatory Authority has had an interest in a contract which a casino operator intends to enter, it requires him to disclose his interest to the meeting and then not take part in the deliberations.”
“Sir, I wish to seek a clarification on the Bill. I refer to the new Part VB - Licensing of bus interchange operators. I wonder if the Government intends to tender out the running of bus interchanges to companies which are not bus operators. Section 1110(d) states that when the LTA grants the licence to the interchange operator, it can stipulate the maximum fees chargeable by the licensee to the operator of the bus services. So if fees have to be paid by bus service operator to the interchange operator, these fees will eventually become costs which will ultimately pass on to the consumers and, because of this arrangement, whether the Minister will expect the bus fares to be increased again.”
“A further clarification, Sir. Are there measures in place to resolve these cases? For instance, how would we know that they have slipped into Singapore through the airport? Are there measures to make sure that these cases can be resolved fairly?”
“Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Currently, how many NS defaulters are there on the Gazette? What is the number?”
“First of all, I thank the DPM for his comments on the Workers' Party. But having said that, I am sure that the DPM, being a veteran politician himself, is fully aware that a rally is an important channel for the Opposition to communicate with the voters, given the fact that the media is going to cover more of the PAP than the Opposition. I would like to ask the DPM whether or not he is prepared to review the system to make it more civilised and more convenient, rather than getting the election agents or people to queue 24 hours overnight from Nomination Day till the end of nine days.”
“I think it is a question. I am asking the DPM whether or not he means that an Opposition party or the PAP would have to be there on the first day of nomination to queue up. Secondly, I am asking whether or not he deems the outcome, as what I have described earlier on, ie, denying an Opposition to speak to the voters, especially on the eve of Polling Day, is a desirable outcome of the policy and the system that the Government designs.”
“So the DPM is saying that whoever is interested to contest or wants a rally site, he would have to be there on Nomination Day as the PAP and keep on queuing up 24 hours, providing whatever resources he has in order to have -”