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 19 of 54.
“At the 1997 election, there were cases where the PAP booked all the rally sites and had them withdrawn in the afternoon, so as to make sure that the Opposition election agents who were there in the morning were not able to get their rally sites. My next supplementary question is whether or not the DPM is satisfied with the outcome of the current system of a first-come, first-served basis, and whether this is a desirable outcome which the Government wishes to see, ie, the consequential effect to deny the Opposition a rally site and a chance to engage and tell the voters what we have to say.”
“Sir, I am asking the DPM whether he is aware of the situation. It is a supplementary question but I have to describe the situation to him.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether he is aware that during the last election and the previous one, under the current system of so-called "first-come, first-served" basis, it allowed the PAP to queue up at the station, which was supposed to be open only at 8.00 am, 24 hours from Nomination Day. And the end result was that many times, the Opposition was not able to get a rally site. For instance, at the last election, both rally sites available at Nee Soon East and Hougang were all booked by the PAP, and as a result of which, we did not have any rally sites available on the eve of Polling Day. If I recall correctly, in the previous election in 1997, there were cases where -”
“Sir, I find that the approval process of appeal for providing HDB loans seems not to be transparent. As it is based on a case-by-case basis, I think many a time people wonder on what basis it is granted approval. For instance, the Minister mentioned about serious financial difficulties. So, is there any guideline to say how "serious" is serious which will warrant the HDB to look at the application seriously? My question, Sir, is whether or not the HDB can make the whole approval process of appeal for giving HDB loans more transparent, especially for those who are bankrupt or those who are in financial difficulty or those who have less income, which the bank will not give them a loan because of their income. Then, where should they go? What are the alternatives? I would also like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that under the current policy, people who face difficulty financially, if they sell the flat in the open market, they are not allowed to rent an HDB flat. The Minister said just now that the alternative is to rent a flat. How do they rent a flat - from the public, from the private or what other alternatives?”
“I suppose the cost of NEWater and desalinated water is cheaper. With the advancement of technology and depending on how one looks at it, compared to what Malaysia had demanded in the past, I think we probably have cheaper water sources. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, first of all, we are not going to drink NEWater and, secondly, the cost of desalination is still much higher, even though the technology has improved. So we will continue to monitor the technology and see whether we can bring down the cost. That we will do in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. But, meanwhile, the water conservation tax will remain because there is still a strong message that we have to send to Singaporeans - that we need to conserve and use water wisely. As I mentioned earlier in my reply, we will continue to review the situation. As to when, we will keep the Member informed, Sir.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Government increased the water conservation tax a few years ago when we had problems with Malaysia on the signing of a new water agreement and in anticipation that the price of water would go up quite tremendously. One of the purposes of imposing a higher water conservation tax was to get Singaporeans to get used to it. So, in view of the current situation and since we probably could get cheaper water resources compared to the price that Malaysia had demanded in the past, does the Minister feel that Government should review the water conservation tax rate now? Because the Minister said that he is going to review the tax. Can we know when, and what is the likelihood of the review? Reviewing the tax can be up or can be down. Can he let us know? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to ask the Member which source of water is much cheaper. He says there are now much cheaper sources of water.”
“Sir, clarification. Is the SPS saying that there is nothing wrong for an artiste to urge an audience to vote for somebody on stage not during an election period? Is the SPS saying that?”
“Yes. Sir, in relation to the $9 million, I wonder whether the Minister also has figures on the amount of over-charging by PTOs via the ez-link card. The other clarification is in relation to a remark made by Mr Ong Kian Min about whether or not the Minister will agree that the PTC should review its fares yearly. I think he has not answered that.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, in the consideration to remove the 50% cap on the casino revenue, on whose interest is the Government looking after? Is it the investors' interest who would not be viable or the interest of Singaporeans who might become social gamblers or problem gamblers?”
“Sir, while the Minister says that the potential IR operators may not just be concentrating on gaming because there are certain requirements for them, in terms of how much floor area they take on for gaming, but when the surcharge on 50% revenue cap is removed, what is there to prevent the operator in the future to concentrate more on the gaming part? For the other non-gaming components, like facilities, they may allow it not to be upgraded or pegged towards international standards, and we therefore lose the purpose of having an IR to attract tourists. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said earlier, the amount of physical space that can be used for gaming is severely constrained. Secondly, because of the strict social safeguards, the local market is also constrained. Bearing in mind the size of the investment that we are trying to attract here, it will not be viable if they were to depend only on gaming revenue. But having said that, this is a business and we should not unnecessarily constrain the business by putting on this 50% cap when it is not practical in the first instance. If you do that, all that will happen will be that they will have to scale back their cash flows, which will mean scaling back the level of development investment and which will mean, in effect, that we will also have a scaled down integrated resort. So we have structured it in such a way that our intentions are clear, the business case is also clear to the investors - that they will have to make their money from not just providing gaming facilities but, indeed, the non-gaming facilities. And the more of such activities that they can grow, and the higher the commercial value that results from such activities, then they win and we win.”
“Yes, I was a patient. I got some feedback, but I did not verify the feedback. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: So, please, take a look at our published occasional paper on waiting times in the Emergency Departments. Clinical standard, as I said, is not being compromised. Customer service, yes, I agree, is not the best.”
“Clarification, Sir. My question was not what is the fact now and whether I exaggerated and what is the situation based on an occasional paper published. My question is: to what extent and what is the standard that the Minister for Health is prepared to accept vis-a-vis cost, ie, cost and non-clinical standards, eg, waiting time, that the Minister is talking about?”
“Yes, Sir. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, so long as Opposition wards are not upgraded, is it not equivalent to the exclusion of Opposition wards? Even the Minister did not mention that they are going to be excluded. But the fact is that Opposition wards are not upgraded thus far. So, can I take it that, thereby, Opposition wards may not be seen in the eyes of the PAP as part of Singapore?”
“Clarification, Sir. What does it mean that it does not include or exclude Opposition wards? Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I think the point has been answered. Mr Mah, do you wish to respond?”
“Sir, the Minister says that he does not know what will happen in 10 years' time in Opposition wards. I also recall that in the Budget debate, it was clearly said that the completion of lift upgrading will be in 10 years. So, I would like to ask the Minister, since he does not know what will happen to Opposition wards in 10 years' time, can I presume that Opposition wards are excluded from the objective of 10 years to complete the lift upgrading?”
“Yes, on the Minister's answer just now, Sir.”
“Sir, notwithstanding what the Minister had said that it is an option, the fact is that if it is a LUP under the HDB, HDB will pay up to 90%. If the Town Council decides to go ahead with TC-LUP, then it is the Town Council that will pay together with the residents. So where is the Government's part of the payment that they are supposed to contribute to the lift upgrading? Is it wrong to say that if the Town Council wants to go ahead with that lift upgrading, they actually pay more and the Government pays nothing? Is it wrong to say that? The other clarification is that the Minister has said that the Lift Upgrading Programme will be shortened to 10 years. I would like to ask the Minister whether the 10-year target also includes lifts in the Opposition wards to be upgraded, or only the PAP wards.”
“Because, first of all, they have paid and the Town Council has paid through the sinking fund, which is largely their money. The Government has paid nothing to the upgrading.”
“Sir, the first clarification is concerning this enabling rule. Does the Minister of State agree that the residents whose lifts were upgraded under the TC-LUP will benefit much less if a block would be upgraded under LUP by the HDB?”
“The point is that, first of all, under the amendment, the Town Council will carry out TC-LUP. The Government pays nothing. It is paid by the Town Council and the residents. Why is it so in the first place? So I say, why not give a grant, because it is not fair for the Town Council to pay the lift upgrading entirely from the sinking fund because the sinking fund is also paid for by the residents. The residents pay into the Town Council's sinking fund to pay for lift upgrading and the residents pay again on the co-sharing. So the residents practically pay everything. The Government plays no role. The application of funds does not seem to be fair.”
“The discimination against Opposition wards in upgrading programmes for political purposes which has become a political reality here, serves as a reminder to us as a nation in which democracy, equality and justice are represented as stars on our national flag which we always fly high.”
“Moreover, as the grants given by Government are for existing cyclical works, the above reduction of contribution into sinking funds would mean that without grants for TC-LUP, Town Councils and residents are actually made to bear much more than what they should. If the HDB's concern is the pace of lift upgrading, grants should be given to Town Councils for such a purpose. Otherwise residents whose Town Council carries out the LUP on its own will end up paying more than residents in areas where LUP is offered by the HDB. This is unfair in terms of how the Government applies its funds as it benefits only a sector of the population. I also note that under the new section 24D(4), the improvement contribution for LUP to be paid by the residents "shall not be less than the improvement contribution that the Board might have determined under section 65D(2A) of the Housing and Development Act", which was mentioned by Mr Chiam as well. Sir, I wonder if the Town Council is able to get LUP done at a cheaper rate than the HDB. Why should the Town Council not be allowed to pass the savings to the residents? Finally, I have not forgotten that the PAP Government still owes upgrading works to Hougang residents. Hougang has waited for more than 10 years for upgrading, whilst flats newer than Hougang in HDB estates of PAP wards are being upgraded, some even more than once. I think the Minister of State knows this very well. I wish to remind the Government that residents of Hougang are citizens of Singapore who pay taxes, do National Service and fulfil all duties towards the country. Do residents of Hougang constituency deserve this discrimination? Sir, very soon, we will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the birth of our nation.”
“I understand from the Minister for National Development at the Budget debate that the rationale for this Bill today is the outsourcing of LUP from HDB to Town Councils. This will shorten the time required for the Lift Upgrading Programme from 15 years to 10 years. My question: what role, if any, is the Government playing in achieving the objectivie of shortening the time span besides amending the Act to allow Town Councils to use their sinking funds for lift upgrading? Sir, Town Councils' sinking funds largely come from service and conservancy charges paid by HDB residents. Since the amendment requires Town Councils to use sinking fund to pay for LUP, with residents co-paying the rest, it is effectively HDB residents who are paying for the lift upgrading programme if a Town Council were to proceed with the TC-LUP under the provision of this amendment. The Minister of State may respond to say that the Government has also contributed to the sinking fund via SC&CC grant to Town Councils. However, I wish to remind the Government that in 1999, the Ministry of National Development decided that SC&CC grant to Town Councils was to be computed based on room types instead of the age of the flats. The grant for 5-room flats was removed. In addition, the grant for 2-room flats was also reduced by some 9%. Though there were adjustments made to increase the grants of 1-room and 3-room flats, the change in computation had nevertheless resulted in overall reduction of grants paid out by the Government to some 9%, based on my Town Council's calculations. Other Town Councils may be different. Correspondingly, the portion of the grant to the sinking fund was also reduced. In 2004, the percentage of SC&CC to be allocated to the sinking fund was further reduced by 5%.”
“Sir, I would like to query the rationale and logic of the amendment concerning lift upgrading under the new Part IV-A. Before moving into the details of the amendment, I would like to look at what is the current position of LUP before the Act is amended and what is the effect after the amendment which allows Town Councils to do lift upgrading. Sir, based on the information from the HDB's website as cited by Prof. Ong just now, the HDB will pay 75% to 90% of the cost of lift upgrading works. For example, for lift upgrading of a typical 4-room flat, the HDB pays $10,000 whilst the Town Council and the resident each pays about $900. Say, for a block of 100 units of 4-room flats, effectively, this would mean that the cost for LUP is about $1.18 million. Of this, HDB pays $1.003 million with the balance of $177,000 shared between the Town Council and the residents. With the amendment today, the HDB will no longer pay its portion of LUP cost undertaken by the Town Council. Instead of paying $88,500, ie, 50% of $177,000, based on the above example, the Town Council will now have to cough out $1.092 million from its sinking fund. Sir, nothwithstanding the Bill limiting the cost of TC-LUP to $5,000, the fact is that the Government pays nothing under the amendment. I am therefore of the view that compared to the HDB-LUP programme in which HDB pays 75% to 90% of the cost, a Town Council which goes ahead with the TC-LUP on its own will have shortchanged the residents, as the entire cost of the LUP is paid from the Town Council's sinking fund, with individual residents co-paying part of the cost with their own money, and the Government pays nothing.”
“However, we make no corresponding amendments on multiple candidature since that is purely hypothetical in a presidential election. Finally, clause 8 makes corresponding amendments to the post-election reporting of election expenditure in section 56 of the Presidential Elections Act while clause 10 introduces similar powers to the Returning Officer and authorised officers in the Elections Department to offer composition of compoundable offences under the Presidential Elections Act or its regulations. Sir, I beg to move. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 5.33 pm Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“In summary, the amendments in this Bill are as follows: (a) To simplify nomination procedures by reducing the number of papers filed and the amount of particulars to be filled up in nomination papers; (b) To reduce the risk of aspiring individuals failing to be nominated due to formal errors or non-compliance with procedures by allowing nominees and candidates to amend nomination papers to rectify non-fatal errors before the close of nominations, and by including blanks and errors in number in nomination papers as non-fatal errors; (c) To require the nomination papers to be delivered by the nominee accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors; (d) To streamline certain processes in the interests of efficiency and certainty of operations, such as allowing withdrawal of candidature only by giving notice in person, and to allow early declaration of results; (e) To simplify the process of filing returns respecting election expenses, thereby the filing requirement under the Act and the Political Donations Act (Chapter 236) can be streamlined; and (f) To allow for the composition of offences under the Act. Amendments to the Presidential Elections Act As I explained when moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill for Second Reading earlier, the changes in this Bill seek to improve accessibility to standing for election to the Office of the President by reducing or mitigating the existing risk of aspiring candidates failing to be nominated on account of technicalities and errors. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill set out the changes to the presidential election nomination proceedings.”
“Forging identity cards! Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction Sir, as our presidential elections are run on similar lines as that for parliamentary elections, this Bill proposes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act similar to that in the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 2005, which we have just passed.”
“Sir, if the concern of the Government in enacting clause 7 is because there is a possibility of forging signatures, what about, as I have suggested, producing the identity card of the persons for verification?”
“Sir, I understand that. But what I am interested to know is who else will be allowed to be present at the nomination centre, since these any other persons are not persons, looking at it, to assist the Returning Officer in the proceedings. So, who are these people that are intended to be appointed?”
“Sir, I am not referring to the same "one other person" that Mr Chiam was referring to. I am referring to clause 10, section 31(e), on page 6. Because under the new section 31, it says these are the people who will be allowed into the nomination centre. That already included "one other person" appointed by the candidate. But besides that, paragraph (e) says "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings".”
“Sir, I refer to the new section 29(a) which says that the Returning Officer "may"; it is not "must". So the Returning Officer will decide whether or not he will allow you to correct a mistake. Is that what it means? My question is why "may"? Why not "must"?”
“What is good is that it gives the opportunity for any error on the nomination paper to be corrected before the 12.00 noon deadline as long as you do not change the candidate, the proposer, seconder or assentors. But the section is worded to give discretion to the Returning Officer to decide whether to give the candidate a chance to correct any error. Sir, in the interest of political participation, I would like to suggest that it should be worded in such a way that the Returning Officer must allow the candidate a chance to correct any error so long as it is done by the 12.00 noon deadline. This will clarify the situation for all concerned and take away any pressure on the Returning Officer having to decide and exercise the discretion. Lastly, Sir, I have a clarification on clause 10 of the Bill, that is, the re-enactment of section 31, in which it says that, "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings" at the nomination centre. I would like to know what does it mean by "any other person with the written permission". This person, I presume, is not there to assist because new section 31(d) says that the Returning Officer and such other persons authorised by the Returning Officer assist him in such proceedings. So if this other person is not going to assist him, why is he there for? Who are these people likely to be allowed in the nomination centre?”
“Sir, generally speaking, I am of the view that the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are positive. I think they are an improvement to the Act and also to the election system. However, I do share some concerns and one of which was mentioned by Mr Chiam and Mr Steve Chia on clause 7 of the Bill. But I am not as pessimistic as what Mr Steve Chia thinks. There are enough courageous Singaporean voters who will be prepared to go to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, though I understand there might be some hesitation, which is a fact. If the voters in a particular constituency are so fearful of going to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, then forget about it. We do not contest. They cannot vote. They cannot exercise their rights of voting. Because in a parliamentary democracy system of voting, exercising your right is not the sole business of the Opposition party. The voters also play a part. So I would expect them to do their part. If they are not even prepared to go with us to the nomination centre, then they do not get to vote. I am sorry. Sir, my concern is why do you need to inconvenience the people of going to the nomination centre. Why is there such a need? As others have mentioned, nomination day is not a holiday. So people may have to specially take leave. Why is there a need for you to inconvenience people? Is there any other way in which you could verify the identity of the proposer, seconder and assentors, without having them present themselves at the nomination centre? For instance, you may request for their identity cards to be presented to the Returning Officer by the candidate. Sir, the next comment I have is on clause 8 on the new section 29A.”
“I wish to clarify that I am not saying that the Government should not be responsible for security. I am not questioning whether there is a need to safeguard ourselves, in terms of having security measures. My question is: to what extent we should have them and whether or not we should over-emphasise and dwell over that issue of security and to what extent would it also make us less confident and affect the confidence of the investors in the future?”
“A country, like Singapore, which is an international hub, financial hub, tourism hub, air hub, shipping hub, runs on confidence - confidence of international investors, businessmen, travellers and confidence of our own people that Singapore is a secure place, that parents can send their children to school, knowing that their children will come back safely in the afternoon. If we cannot provide that security, then there is no Singapore. If you look at Iraq, there is no security. And the fundamental responsibility of every government is to make sure that its people are safe and can live their lives safely. This is what the Government is going to do. Whether you are in the ruling party or in the Opposition, this is your responsibility to Singapore. You have a choice. You can either say that it is all over, you do not need any of these difficult measures unless an incident happens. Or better do everything that you can to prevent an incident happening in Singapore and prepare ourselves so that if one should happen, there is no panic. But we will be able to take it in our stride. That is the way for Singapore, not only to survive, but to progress and prosper.”
“I read some assessments in the US and some other commentators who said that, with the arrest of the No. 3 in the Al Qaeda organisation, and with the US engagement in the global security situation, there were some assessments that the security threat has somewhat lessened. What is DPM's view on that and how does that relate to Singapore? I am not saying that the threat is not real. But my question is: if it is real, how real is it and to what degree should we be ready for it? Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, with the arrests that had taken place, both in the US and around the world in various countries, including Singapore and Malaysia, there is no doubt that a considerable part of the leadership of the Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah has been disrupted. So the chain of command is not as tight as it was before. But that does not mean that the threat has lessened. But what has happened now, in fact, is that it could have evolved into an even more dangerous version. Without the tight control from the top now, the Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah are splintering into a number of groups, each of which has its own agenda and each of which may carry out bombings and killings on an indiscriminate basis because there is no one to control them. Is this more dangerous than before? That is a matter of debate. Both are dangerous. But the threat is as real today as it was previously. As to whether the threat is real or not, as I said, and I cannot say it more often, if you let down your guard and assume that the worst is over, you do so at your own peril. I do not think that is a wise thing to do. You must be on your guard all the time.”
“Sir, two clarifications. I would like to ask DPM what is the assessment of the current security situation in the region and Singapore and what is the assessment in the next two or three years down the road. Second clarification: with the rising awareness of terrorism in the region and also the security measures taken by various governments, including Singapore as well as Indonesia and Thailand, how real is the threat to Singaporeans, in terms of terrorism?”
“Clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the PM or the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government intends to introduce a Casino Bill in this House so as to legislate the necessary safeguards.”
“Sir, two clarifications. One, what is the projected number of tourist arrivals the two IRs are expected to attract? The second clarification is: what is the Government's expected split for tourists and Singaporeans alike with regard to the gaming and non-gaming revenue for the proposed integrated resorts?”
“A clarification on what he said just now.”
“A clarification from the Senior Minister.”
“She said that my description of the Government's decision by using porridge is incorrect. I would like to clarify that it is correct in the sense that it is being forced down just like porridge gets down in the throat. She said that it should be more appropriate to describe the situation as a buffet. Sir, that is exactly the danger. I said earlier on that my mind was firmed up after I looked at the concept plans because the whole thing was so attractive. You look at it as a family resort, it is harmless, as what Ms Irene Ng said. You look at the buffet, it is so nice and, inadvertently, you are attracted to it without knowing the danger. You eat the buffet and you also eat something which is harmful to you, or you may be attracted to it later on. How much of it, we do not know. Can Ms Irene Ng tell us that everybody can be insulated from eating just the correct buffet, and not the other one? How does she do it?”
“May I have your permission to clarify what the hon. Member has just said?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, the Workers' Party is always prepared to contribute towards the progress of Singapore. We also serve as a channel for different voices. On this issue of a casino, based on our analysis and judgment, we have given our views and taken our stand. Of course, we have to accept that the Government has already made a decision. As I said yesterday, what we can meaningfully do now is to make sure that we could effectively supervise the operation of the casino so as to minimise the adverse effects on our society.”
“I believe that we should be able to work out something. I do not think we have to take this risk to damage our families. Just now, Minister Lim used my analogy of a pair of Siamese twins and he said that to take this medicine, there may be some side effects, some serious and some not so serious. So it is a question of choice. The Government should, first of all, prove that its decision is necessary and cannot be avoided. I feel that Singaporeans should have this spirit of not being afraid of adversity. I think the opening of the casino is just an easy way out. I do not think this is the only way. With the PAP Government's credibility and trustworthiness over the years, I am sure they will be able to lead Singapore through all these difficulties. There is no need to depend on the casinos to boost our economy. This is why the PAP has been respected by the people. And now that the PAP has decided to take this path, it is indeed regrettable.”
“In the past 40 years, we did not have a casino and we also did face serious crises that could threaten our survival. The PAP Government, in the past 40 years, has been able to overcome all these difficulties and successfully led Singapore without having to open a casino or to count on such recreational and leisure activities to promote our economic growth. Have we come to a point where we have no other alternative? Have we come to a point where we have to "gamble" on having a casino which would damage our families resulting in many broken homes and ruined individuals? Is this a responsible way to govern our country? Of course, some people feel very strongly against the opening of a casino, particularly from the religious point of view. One of our Central Executive members said that the casino is the pinnacle of evil. It is a representation of all evils. So when we open a casino in Singapore, it will be a centre of evil. But I do not look at it from that perspective. We have to look at it from a secular and rational perspective. As a matter of fact, I firmed up my mind more and reinforced the conclusion that we should not have a casino after I have seen the concept plans. We know that the casino will bring huge benefit. The casino in Marina South can bring about the development of the whole New Downtown. But the problem I have is: do we not have other alternatives? Do we really need to have a casino before we can develop the Marina seafront? My view is, in the long run, the economic benefits, though huge, may not be enough to cover our social costs. Singapore has been able to overcome all the difficulties over the years. I feel that there is no need for us to depend on the casino which causes problems to our society.”
“Sir, there are many points of clarification. (In Mandarin): First of all, I would like to thank Minister Lim for giving me this opportunity to clarify my stand. Mr Lim remarked that the Workers' Party has taken this position in order to gain some political capital. But I would like to ask him: "Is there really any political capital for us to gain? There is none. There are many people who support IRs, including my constituents. I do not think there is any political capital I can gain from this. Minister Lim is interested to know how the Workers' Party has come to its position to oppose the casino. When we were discussing this issue, some opposed and some agreed with the proposal. We all know that our economy has come to a bottleneck, we faced competition from within the region and China. We are also very clear in our minds that our people are having unemployment problems, particularly the older workers. But we also read research reports from the United States and Australia. We clearly know that the opening of casinos will give rise to some serious adverse effects on our society. As a political party, we have to listen to different views and find out where the fulcrum point is. With that, we can try and strike a balance to arrive at a win-win situation. Eventually, we came to a conclusion. We feel that there is no way we can have a win-win situation. We have to pay a price. As I have said, can we have an integrated resort without a casino? I understand we want to attract tourists, attract more visitors to Singapore, and only then can we have a prosperous economic growth - our airport, air hub and sea hub will then be able to maintain their positions. But do we have to open a casino to achieve the objective?”
“Yesterday, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the Government would set up a supervisory agency to oversee the operation of the casino. Why not legislate in Parliament instead of administrative supervision? Is it because the Government wants to make it easier to amend the rules, whenever necessary, without having to come to Parliament to publicly justify any amendment in the future? PM Lee said that in order to be an outstanding cosmopolitan city, we need to have the X-factor. Now that we have decided to open the casino, maybe allowing casinos is the X-factor we need to make ourselves a cosmopolitan city. Now I understand that gambling for everyone is the X-factor. Over the past one year, our people have been very active and vocal in giving their views on the opening of the casino in a so-called consultative exercise initiated by the Government. Now a full-stop has been inserted to end all the discussions. We should pause to reflect on this consultative exercise. Under the current situation, where a party is dominant and the civil society is very weak, the people cannot sway the Government's decision on such a matter that concerns the fate of the people. If the Government's judgment is wrong, it would lead the nation and our people on to the "river of no return", where the cost would be very real and very heavy.”
“In 1997, Michael Belletire, the Chairman of the Illinois Gambling Effects Commission, concluded that the government should legislate to regulate the casino operators, and that such regulations should include the following: (1) Establish an independent agency to over-see the gambling industry, such as issuing of licence, promulgation of regulations, etc; (2) Control the expansion of the gambling industry, and strictly confine the casinos to certain localities; (3) Investigate into the political and financial background of the casino operators to ensure that they are proper; (4) Approve the list of casino management staff, and allow the regulator to investigate into their background; (5) Issue permits for suitable people to work at the casino; (6) Strictly ensure that the operators abide by the regulations laid down by the authority; (7) Empower the regulator to conduct surprise raids on the premises; (8) Punish and indict anyone who violates the regulations; (9) Supervise to ensure fair-play in the gambling process to protect the interest of the customers; (10) Require the operators to disclose the source of their capital; and (11) Carry out public education to prevent gamblers from being addicted. Counsel and help the addicts. This may include mandatory public education and counselling of the casino staff. I think the Government should also look into the confession of Mr Chia Teck Leng, the former Financial Manager of Asia Pacific Breweries, who wrecked his future through compulsive gambling, and his suggestions based on his own painful experience. Since the people are unable to stop the Government from opening the casino, what we can do now is to try our best to ensure that the Government will proceed with and complete the legislation to regulate the casino.”
“The Government has always emphasised that family unit should be the fundamental core to our society, thus it has been harsh in implementing policies such as barring single mothers from applying for HDB flats and negating homosexuality, etc. Then, why is the Government now taking this risk to open casinos in Singapore which could destroy thousands of families here? Not long ago, I asked the Government to review its social safety net and enhance the welfare for our people, The Government said that it would erode our people's work ethics and bluntly brushed it aside. Would not the opening of the casino undermine the diligence of our people too? The Government also argued that by having a casino, it will encourage our people to be responsible individually and enhance our maturity as a society. Again, the Government has abdicated its responsibility to safeguard good social character and value. From all this inconsistent logic, we can see that the basic trait of this Government is one which will weigh economic profit above everything else. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are now being pushed into the surgical theatre although there is no life-threatening crisis, and we are even not given the right to sign a consent form, forced to undergo a surgical operation which shows no definite long term benefit but high risks. We try hard to struggle but failed to escape. The only thing we could do now is to take care of the aftercare work and mitigate the adverse effect of gambling on our people. We should actually learn from other countries.”