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 2 of 54.
“How has the Ministry ensured the capability transferred to a company would benefit the sector as a whole? Review of S Pass Framework”
“Chairman, Sir, I am glad to note that the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative is steaming ahead and that more programmes are coming online under the initiative, such as the ASEAN Leadership Programme, to help Singaporean executives understand ASEAN business cultures better. It is important to ensure we cultivate a Singaporean Core in leadership positions across the economy. CTP is another important initiative to be welcomed because it places Singaporeans at the heart of our economic transformation. CTP will help to deepen knowledge transfers to Singaporean workers and train up a strong body of highly-skilled and continuous learning local workforce. In this light, can the Minister elaborate on the outcomes expected from CTP grants and the metrics that would be used to measure the outcomes to make sure the money is well spent? I am asking this because we have to be careful that CTP is not used to lighten the costs incurred by companies for routine training for their workers. There must be concrete capability development, and this should be measurable. I understand that CTP offers funding for industry-level projects, such as company-level projects. My concern with funding for company-level projects is that the capability transfer will be limited to benefiting a single company instead of the whole sector. This means that the Government would end up supporting an uncompetitive situation in a sector. For example, a large company dominating a sector could use CTP to acquire exclusive training for its staff, thereby enhancing its capability and competitive edge against other companies in the sector. Can the Minister give some examples of company-level projects funded by CTP and how the scenario I just described was avoided?”
“Furthermore, to encourage more construction companies to internationalise, there are a number of possible solutions to make this option more accessible and appealing. One way is to help our companies to understand the tax regime of foreign countries that they are interested in. Taxation in foreign countries can be quite complicated. As we know, most Singaporeans are law-abiding. They are very afraid of running into problems in foreign countries. And many companies also do not have deep pockets and cannot afford to go through the steep learning curve. May I also suggest to our Ministries to actively negotiate with their counterparts to streamline and make the application of work permits less onerous, so more Singaporean PMETs can work overseas? Opportunities Abroad for Local Companies”
“If there are no track records, how to go overseas? Give them a helping hand, groom local consultants and contractors and give them opportunities to participate in large Government-led projects in Singapore. In this aspect, it is very disappointing. Contractors tell me that some of the prequalifications called for Government projects are so onerous that none of the local contractors or consultants can qualify. In cases like that, has the Government thought of how to involve the local companies instead of just having them as smaller players down the value chain? This puts local contractors at a disadvantage. They may possess the skills, capabilities and willingness to invest, but due to their lack of a track record, they have difficulties in venturing abroad. Some had done better and become subcontractors of MNCs and doing work overseas. If the Government is serious about helping the local companies, I am sure you can find out more information from members of the Singapore Contractors Association. I had an earful when I met up with them recently. I am pleased to note that the Government plans to strengthen its funding support through the PACT scheme. This is to encourage firms to forge regional collaborations and internationalisation. I hope that through this scheme and the Infrastructure Office, there can be greater encouragement and fostering of deeper partnerships between Government agencies, major companies in Singapore's construction industry, and contractors from the smaller companies, so that everyone gets a share of the pie. Ultimately, this will result in an overall increase in quality and reputation in our construction sector.”
“Capability transformation of SMEs should be directed towards their empowerment to seize regional and international opportunities, rather than to be limited to serve the needs of large corporations based in Singapore. To this end, it would be good to know the profile of the large corporations benefiting from PACT to date, whether these are largely Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) or MNCs, and whether more could be done to link up local SMEs to international supply chains through PACT. Mr Chairman, Sir, next, the setting up of the Infrastructure Office to seize the opportunities being opened up by the One Belt One Road Initiative is timely. I would like to know what are the plan and scope of the Infrastructure Office and whether the office will bring together local and international companies across the supply chain to seize the opportunities being opened up by the One Belt One Road Initiative. Infrastructure Office Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am a professional engineer. During the Budget, the Minister announced that an Infrastructure Office will be set up. This is to help Singapore firms to tap on infrastructure opportunities in Asia, including China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). I would like to ask the Minister: who will this Infrastructure Office serve? Government-linked companies? Temasek-linked companies like Surbana-Jurong? Or private sector? How will local consultants and contractors benefit? I strongly believe that the Government should do more to develop local companies in the construction sector so that we can benefit from the booming infrastructure projects in the region. One of the ways to do this is to help our local companies to build track records.”
“Chairman, Sir, the PACT scheme has been operating since 2010. It has been enhanced and extended a number of times to cover more sectors and co-innovation activities. The scheme seeks to support collaboration between large corporations and local SMEs. This is a worthy aim. The question is how successful has the PACT scheme been? What should be defined as success? How do we measure the success? 5.15 pm In my view, as this scheme is oriented towards a win-win partnership between large corporations and SMEs, with the aim of transforming the capabilities of SMEs, the crux of the success lies in whether the SMEs gained in a transformative manner. In answer to past PQs, some figures have been given by the Minister. By mid-2016, over 700 SMEs and 130 projects had benefited from PACT since 2010. But how many of these SMEs saw their capability transformed? What metrics does the Ministry use to measure the transformation? In a 2014 article published on SPRING Singapore's website, the article looked at how Keppel Shipyard joined PACT to improve the capabilities of its SME vendors and contractors. Keppel Shipyard gave the example of using PACT to develop a semi-automated system to reduce the operating costs of blasting, cutting wastage by 20% and manpower by 15%. This fell short of the target for cutting manpower by 30%, and Keppel Shipyard said continuous funding from PACT was needed to achieve success. But this so-called success was defined in terms of productivity gains from the view of a large corporation and nothing was said about the capabilities of the SMEs and whether these were transformed.”
“Chairman, Sir, we have been a keen proponent of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). It was during the 13th ASEAN Summit in 2007 when Singapore was last the ASEAN Chair that the blueprint to establish AEC was adopted. 4.45 pm If integrated as a single market and production base, the AEC will become the fourth largest economic bloc in the world, just behind the United States (US), China and the European Union (EU). For Singapore, AEC is not just an aspiration, but also a strategic necessity, to mitigate the geopolitical risks of the region being mired in economic under-development and political instability, and the region becoming divided and caught among the great economies of China, India and the US. AEC was to be established by end of 2015, but ASEAN failed to achieve one-fifth of the 506 measures and had deferred them for 10 years to 2025. Singapore is now ASEAN Chair again and we are in a good position to facilitate the economic integration. In January this year, Minister Lim Hng Kiang said Singapore will focus on the digital economy and trade facilitation. This seems to be rather low key, compared to the work that is needed to push forward the already-delayed AEC. Does the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) have a more concerted plan to develop the AEC while Singapore is ASEAN Chair? What can Singapore do to better integrate the most important sectors in the region, for example, the electronics sector, especially in the context of the other major shifts in the disruption caused by new technologies?”
“It was also announced that ASEAN will be conducting an inaugural maritime exercise with China at the end of the year. This is excellent, as the US-China maritime exercise in 2013 fostered trust that led to the CUES agreement in 2014. I would like to ask the Minister whether the ASEAN-China maritime exercise will involve the testing and practice of CUES in the South China Sea and whether a similar exercise can be conducted under the aegis of ADMM-Plus. I am asking the latter question because 2018 is the beginning of the third ADMM-Plus three-year cycle and there were already four live exercises held in the last cycle which were useful for deepening regional security cooperation.”
“Chairman, Sir, the Minister for Finance mentioned that tensions in the South China Sea could affect investor confidence and, therefore, stability and growth in the region. It is, therefore, strategic for Singapore to minimise the tensions and prevent incidents and accidents from escalating into a serious event in the South China Sea. Singapore is the ASEAN Chair this year and thus leading ADMM and ADMM-Plus, which involves another eight other powers, including China and the United States (US). We have a timely opportunity here to establish the framework to minimise the tensions. It is timely because Singapore is a non-claimant stakeholder in the settlement of the South China Sea disputes and has strong bilateral ties with many of the other stakeholders, including ASEAN countries, China and the US. It is also timely because the South China Sea disputes seem to be entering into a more rational phase of negotiation and balance of power, after the initial emotive phase occasioned by the jostling for territory. In 2013, China and the US took part in a joint training exercise off Hawaii. In 2014, both countries, along with other South China Sea stakeholders, signed the agreement on CUES. CUES is an excellent platform to work with to avoid the escalation of any incident and to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. On 6 February this year, MINDEF issued a press release outlining the ADMM's three areas of focus for 2018 after the ADMM retreat in Singapore. One area is to affirm the importance of CUES on the sea and in the air. This is a worthy goal but, unfortunately, the press release was short on details about this area. Would the Minister elaborate on how the ADMM-Plus would be used to reaffirm the importance of CUES?”
“May I know what is our relation with North Korea like?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the shift in global economic weight to Asia was highlighted in the Budget Statement this year. We witness the opening up of China as an awakening of an economic giant. But China would also face a severely ageing society and rising labour costs over time. In these respects, if it could maintain political stability, India may have the advantages and better growth prospects in the longer term. The ASEAN Economic Community could also emerge as an economic powerhouse if the 10 countries could garner the political will to establish a single market. This shift in global economic weight to Asia poses new diplomatic challenges for us, especially when the US is going through a relatively incoherent phase in its engagement with Asia because of domestic politics. Singapore is not caught between a rock and hard place, but among three powers, namely, China, India and the US, while deeply embedded in ASEAN. The South China Sea threatens to become the great game for the powers. The prime example is India's strengthening military and economic ties with Vietnam, which include an oil concession in disputed waters of the South China Sea and the warming of US-Vietnam ties in an effort to counterbalance China. ASEAN seems divided and the countries distracted by domestic strife, with ethnic conflicts becoming a major issue for the grouping, Myanmar is an example. Our ties with ASEAN are deep. We also have strong ties with China, India and the US. As ASEAN Chair, how can we bring these deep and strong ties to help maintain the balance of power in Asia? With our experience in fostering grassroots multiracialism, what can we do to build deeper ties to the peoples of Southeast Asia and bring diverse communities closer together to build a more resilient ASEAN?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand by what I said. I am not asking you to hide the increase or intended increase in GST. I am not asking the Government to do that. What I am saying is that, by all means, announce it well before you want to increase it. It is good to announce it beforehand but the question is whether you need to announce it together with this Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have asked whether the Government will increase GST at the last election. And I think Deputy Prime Minister Tharman promised that we have enough money to spend, we will not increase GST. The next election is 2020 or 2021, so you are going to increase it after the next election, good to announce it now. Then, we can debate it at the election rally.”
“Yes, because the Minister is referring to my speech where I said it is a distraction. I thought the most important part of this Budget is anchoring Singapore. I am not saying that revenue is not important, but GST is not part of the Budget measures at this Budget. So, I thought it would be better that you announce the intended GST increase of two percentage points at another time. We can then have a full debate here. Thus, I wonder whether it is better to announce it separately and have a debate here, or to debate it at the Budget. We have never said that the Government will have to fund everything without any revenue. What we are saying, and we are questioning whether or not, is there any other avenue to look at instead of raising GST because it affects a lot of people. We are looking at whether there are possibilities of other revenues. Some Members have spoken about it. And I think we can explore it. We can have a full debate on this. My point was that this is an important Budget, a Budget that is looking forward to the future. But the GST increase can be a distraction because then we end up debating whether there is a need to increase GST.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification to what the Minister said.”
“But besides focusing on economic opportunities, we should also have the new political scenario in mind while anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asia node. It is important that we see the political economy of the major shifts, instead of just the economic challenges and opportunities. I appreciate the Government's vision statements and the articulation of how Singapore should strategically position itself in the new era. This is a forward-looking Budget to anchor Singapore firmly in the future and for the future. Sir, the unfortunate thing about this Budget is that it is looking forward too hastily for future revenue streams by prematurely announcing the GST hike. This has become an unnecessary distraction from the vision articulated in this Budget, and as a real distraction causing the Government to lose its focus in getting buy-in for the vision because it has to explain the future GST hike instead. Do not let this opportunity to lead Singapore with this vision go to waste.”
“Chinese culture is fast becoming less a scholarly curiosity but more a tool of soft power today. This has helped perhaps some Chinese-educated Singaporeans feel that they are finally freed of the feeling of inferiority. They are excited that the so-called "Sick man of Asia" has now been fully awakened with the full force of 5,000 years of rich Chinese culture. However, Sir, many overseas Chinese are also concerned about the intention of China, especially under one-party rule and as a superpower, in her policy and attitude towards weaker states. Will China seek to turn the tables on its experience of European imperialism and become an imperialist power itself? This is not far-fetched if we consider that Japan did just that in the first half of the 20th Century. Will China revive its old tributary empire and use sharp power to compel small states to submit to its will and pay it the equivalent of tribute today? How China behaves will have serious implications on small states in the region like Singapore in the near future. I am personally wary of the political ambitions of China as a Global-Asia superpower. I am worried that Singapore, if we are not careful and if we fail in our economic strategy to become a Global-Asia node, would become a pawn on the chessboard of great power games in Southeast Asia. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Minister for Finance that we must anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. There is a need to transform the Singapore industrial-era mindset and culture to make us relevant and useful to the future economy and contribute to the economic dynamism of the region.”
“There is a unique ethnic connection between Chinese Singaporeans and the Chinese in China due to ancestral and linguistic ties. But many people have observed that this kinship advantage is fading fast as China modernises. I agree with Lee Yi Shyan, Member for East Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC), that the learning of Mandarin should be part of the overall strategy of anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asia node, as it will help us to connect to the 1.3 billion Chinese. I would even go further to argue that we should also learn our dialects as well. In China, speaking Mandarin ‒ Putong Hua ‒ is just the official language in official dealings. If one would like to connect better to the Chinese, not just rationally, but also affectionately, then the language to use is the local dialect. That said, we must also bear in mind that Singapore is, first and foremost, a multiracial and multilingual society. What does the rise of China as an economic and political superpower mean for a small state, such as Singapore? My view is that Singapore is, politically at heart, a Southeast Asian nation, defined by commercial trade winds, tropical hospitality, openness of the seas and the diversity of cultures. I believe that the ethnic politics and international frictions in our region will subside in time and ASEAN will soon become a more integrated community to protect our own interests against external dominance. As a Chinese-educated Singaporean, I am delighted to see Chinese being used in many countries today, especially in places where they see the value of Chinese tourists and investment dollars. The Chinese language is, today, one of the most popular languages being learned by people all over the world.”
“China is fast becoming an economic and military superpower. Singapore has thrived in the past 50 years by making ourselves useful to global capitalism, especially by correctly identifying future trends before others do. We made ourselves useful to American-led capitalism in Southeast Asia and East Asia during the Cold War and, in the process, helped to transform ASEAN from a political grouping into an aspiring economic community. In the last three decades, Singapore correctly predicted the rise of China and was one of the first countries to share the know-how of economic development with China. We have reaped a lot of benefits from this first-mover advantage. But I am afraid this advantage is now irrelevant. China is leading the region to become the centre of global capitalism. Global-Asia also means competitive pressures and realities, especially when the value chain of global production in the region diversifies even as the value chain reorients to centre on China. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative expresses this, with the many lines of economic flow being re-imagined and reorganised as starting from China and extending in different directions westwards, southwards and northwards. We have to make ourselves useful again in this new Asian capitalism centred on China by fundamentally transforming our economy. As a small city-state nation, this also means transforming our culture and human capital, as well as our diplomatic relationships with the economic powers and interpersonal friendships between national leaders and citizens. In the past 50 years, Singaporeans’ ability to speak English well has contributed to fostering our relationships with Western countries at the centre of global capitalism in the region. We have a new challenge today.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, the Vision of Global-Asia Singapore. This Budget catches my attention for several reasons. But one thing that really jumps up at me was when the Minister for Finance said, and I quote, "We must anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise, welcome investments, talent and ideas to Singapore, and be bold in venturing out into new markets." Sir, I believe that the Government has accurately identified the major international shifts that will change the world for our children. These are the shifting of global economic weight to Asia and the emergence of new technologies. I interpret this interesting phrase "Global-Asia" as positioning Singapore to catch the growth in Asia with a global outlook. The convergence of these two shifts, indeed, is the shifting of the global economic weight to Asia and the emergence of new technologies, in which the Fourth Industrial Revolution is taking place in the region stretching from South Asia to Northeast Asia through Southeast Asia. For the first time in modern history, the Asian economies combined are developing more robustly than Western economies. The Asian engine is driving the global economy and transforming Asia from being a volatile region into a dynamic global centre. At the heart of Global-Asia is China. The opening up of China to global capitalism by Deng Xiaoping also opened up the minds of the Chinese people to the world. Many overseas Chinese talents returned from the developed countries of the West to China, bringing with them the knowledge and culture to advance China’s science and technology. The political will to succeed and the hunger of the Chinese people to learn and live better lives fuelled rapid economic development.”
“Mr Speaker, I am quite confused with all this explanation. It seems to me that the Minister is saying that the amendment before the House has no effect on the current legislation as it is. If there is no effect, then why amend something that is unnecessary?”
“A clarification, Sir. I would like to know when would NEA be able to make a decision on options of scattering ashes on land and what are the possible options we are currently looking at.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister just now expressed his disappointment that Mr Lim Boon Heng, CEO of Temasek Holdings, took too long to appoint a new Chairman of SMRT. He must not forget that the mission of SMRT is to make money for the Government. I am of the opinion that the multiple problems of the train services, the core of the problem is money. The Government wanted to have the cake and eat it, expecting profit from the train operator and, at the same time, also expected efficiency, tip-top maintenance work. I note that the Minister was steering the existing framework of the checks and balances between the Ministry, which holds the purse strings, the regulator LTA and the operator, towards one team. I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, MOT, LTA and SMRT, each has a role to play. How does the Minister ensure that each of them can still play the functional role well when they work as a team and become good friends? The second clarification: hammering everyone to work together to solve the problem now as a team is important but what about instituting the structural system of checks that should be embedded to ensure efficiency, honesty and integrity?”
“Would the Senior Minister of State agree that with the rollout of Smart Nation, especially e-payment systems which will be pervasive, and especially since it will involve the elderly, the security risks and reliability of the transactions and the e-payment systems would be quite different from what he is talking about, that is, MAS' guidelines on financial institutions. Are we ready to face the challenge of security risks, in terms of e-payment, and what measures are we looking at? Is the Ministry ready to look at some of these issues and devise some system?”
“First, I would like to ask the Minister whether he sets specific targets for the improvement of train service from the North-South Line, North-East Line, as well as other lines, because of different circumstances, as what the Minister mentioned. Secondly, did the Minister anticipate, in the first place, the problems or the complications of the re-signalling system? Thirdly, I remember the Minister was quite optimistic when he took over and said that the MRT system will be improved over time. I would like to ask him whether or not he has reached his original broad objective for the public transport system, with respect to MRT services. Lastly, I would like to ask him: what can commuters expect in the future in terms of train services? How long more do they have to endure this inconvenience? How long more before they can expect to see the light of the day and to have improvement and better efficiency in the train services?”
“A supplementary question, Madam. The Minister of State said that OKP had some industrial accident but was not put under BUS because it was determined not to be systemic. So, I would like to ask what MOM considers to be a systemic problem for companies which had industrial accidents. How does it assess whether it is systemic or not? And would he tell this House examples of companies which have been found to have systemic problems and put under BUS?”
“Madam, I have a clarification for the Prime Minister. One of the evidence of abuse of power or allegations is that the Prime Minister's wife, Ho Ching, was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office. Was this true?”
“Thank you, Madam. I have two clarifications. First, can the Prime Minister confirm that he will sue his siblings in Court or agree to a Select Committee of Parliament if they make more allegations in public? The second clarification: what are the terms or conditions his siblings wanted on 38 Oxley Road before General Election 2015 which they had threatened to go public with?”
“Mdm Speaker, I have some doubts to clarify. I have some difficulty understanding because, first of all, Mr Png Eng Huat is right. This session is called by the Prime Minister and he said, "I will give a Ministerial Statement, please question me rigorously." But then we heard a veiled threat yesterday from Indranee Rajah that you are making allegations when you are asking some questions. Today, I heard someone saying, "You may risk contempt of Parliament" because talking about whitewash and cover-up. So, Mdm Speaker, I really do not understand how do these serve the purpose of the Parliamentary session.”
“Madam, secondly, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is not worrying that the PAP, as the ruling Party, would be seen as having double standards. Has he forgotten that the former Prime Minister ─ Mr Goh Chok Tong who is now Emeritus Senior Minister ─ sued the Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong during the General Elections in 1997 for just making a police report? But now this allegation is much more serious than that. And, more importantly, we are talking about upholding the legacy of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that the nation, the laws are above family and above individual. By using family as justification, does not this show that blood is thicker than water? Own sibling cannot sue. After all, we are all brothers and sisters, but political opponents and critics, sue until your pants drop. I cannot square, Mdm Speaker, with all these arguments. Sorry.”
“I am not making a speech. I am seeking clarification arising out of Emeritus Senior Minister's speech because he wanted me to state my position, citing the HPL case and saying why they should not go to the Court. So, I believe I am clarifying.”
“Madam, I am seeking a clarification based on Emeritus Senior Minister's speech.”
“I wonder how do you convince me, my Party and Singaporeans under the circumstances that this Parliamentary session is conclusive and we all should be convinced, though I said I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister. Madam, I understand the Prime Minister's difficulty in suing his own siblings and that he was worried that he would further damage his parents' names. But I hope he would clarify some doubts I have on this, nagging question on why he did not sue. First, does he not agree that his family is not any ordinary Singapore family and the person at the centre of the issue is the Prime Minister of Singapore, not any other person?”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party has not gone through the due process to decide whether or not, or to conclude whether the allegation made by the Lee siblings is baseless. We will keep our mind open. We are prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister but we do not know. I speak for myself because we have not gone through that process. For me, personally, I will not be convinced until the entire allegation is given a convincing or conclusive airing. That means, we should know what else do they have. I want to clarify on the Emeritus Senior Minister's speech. He cited the example of the HPL case. I was in this House. Yes, I was convinced. Why was I convinced? And why is this case now different from the HPL case? Firstly, Madam, in the HPL case, it was a market rumour. I was unaware of any allegation of corruption or wrongdoing. Secondly, the person at the centre of issue, Mr Ong Beng Seng, issued a public statement to explain the matter to clear the air before the Parliament sitting. Thirdly, the subject persons, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, both father and son, were not Prime Ministers, not the head of the Government at that time. It was the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who called for investigation based on the market rumour and then came to Parliament for the public explanation and the debate. But for this Parliament session, it is the Prime Minister, the head of the Government and the Secretary-General of the PAP, who is accused of wrongdoing. In this episode, there is no investigation done, it is "own self defend own self" in Parliament with the PAP Members of Parliament.”
“Mr Goh Chok Tong asked us to clarify our position. Do you want that or not?”
“Deputy Speaker, first of all, the Senior Minister of State seems to suggest that I said there is no evidence. That is what she said. I said scattered evidence. Secondly, on the conflict of interest, it seems to me that the Senior Minister of State said that so long as there is a conflict, you stand aside. But the question then is, how would the member of public or anyone else know, whether in such a particular case, I mean, the AG stands aside or does he not stand aside? Thereby, my question is: important appointments like such, even the Minister for Law or senior judges and so on, the public perception of its independence and impartiality is important. Is it not important or is it important? Next, if there is a question of doubt, then what should the Government do? Next, a point of clarification actually on a point of order that I wish to clarify with the Deputy Speaker. I heard the Senior Minister of State's speech earlier on. She seems to be attacking Lee Hsien Yang and imputing some character or motive. He is not here in the House to answer. Is that against Standing Order?”
“What further deliberations does the Committee intend to make and how much more time does it need to come to a decision? Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans are embarrassed. Singapore's international reputation has taken a beating. Some countries which had a high regard for us are laughing at us, and the international media has amplified and maximised the bad publicity on Singapore. The Lee family saga has shaken international confidence in Singapore, which is known as a country of political and social stability. The country's reputation is at stake, the Prime Minister's credibility has been called into question and the Government's authority has been undermined. I urge the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do whatever is necessary to bring this dispute to a quick resolution. Settle the dispute in the appropriate forum, which is the Court. Restore the line of distinction between the private and the public.”
“I hope that all necessary steps are taken by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to achieve a resolution as soon as possible. In this regard, I have a couple of personal suggestions for the Government to consider and hope to end the matter and move on. First, I am of the view that the correct platform to settle the private dispute is the Court. Individuals who make less serious allegations that undermine the reputation and authority of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers have been brought to task for libel. There is no reason why this time it should be different because it comes from the Lee family. In fact, the allegations are much more serious. Given the past track record, not doing so would risk the Government giving the impression that it is afraid of what the Lee siblings might say or reveal. This will taint the trust Singaporeans have placed in the Government and compromise the high standards that the Government prides itself on achieving and aspires to maintain. Anyway, this Lee family saga playing out on Facebook has become an ugly media circus. Settling this in Court will enable everyone to put forward their sides of the story with evidence and with dignity. Second, the Government has the power under the law to decide what to do with 38 Oxley Road, as what Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said. The Government can take the options available under the law by going through the process of assessment to make a decision like any other important heritage sites in Singapore. I believe that, to a large extent, it is the delay in acting which has led to this sorry state of affairs. Why is there a need for a Ministerial Committee to look into this when the Government clearly has the power to act decisively in the national interest?”
“If so, how are they going to account to the public for this? Is their current position still tenable? Mdm Speaker, I am personally perplexed and lost, as are many Singaporeans, on the Lee family saga. However, this is not a Korean drama show. It is a serious matter because it affects the credibility of our entire country. The timing of the public blow-up of the private dispute is also unfortunate. At this juncture, the country faces serious challenges. Singapore is facing a tricky and volatile geopolitical situation and the Government has to navigate our small state between a self-centred America and a more assertive China skillfully and carefully. We also seem to be vulnerable to the worsening security situation in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia with troubling cases of self-radicalisation surfacing at home. We had only recently embarked on a critical transformation of the Singapore economy and workforce to enable our companies and workers to seize the opportunities of technological disruption to stay competitive. We are still fixing persistent problems with our physical and social infrastructure, in particular, the recent continuous major Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns. Although the Prime Minister has said this saga will not affect the work of the Government, I am of the view that it is a serious distraction to the Government in dealing with the serious challenges when the Cabinet members − all of them are not members of the Lee family − but have been unnecessarily drawn into the dispute which, to me, is essentially a family dispute. The Ministers need to focus on rallying Singaporeans to be united in facing the challenges and not be participating in a divisive dispute. The Government needs to move on.”
“As the Prime Minister once said himself, "Such matters cannot be just you say, I say. It is the hallmark of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government in the past to get to the bottom of such matters via the Court." I believe that the "you say, I say" exchange will continue in social media if the Prime Minister fails to take action to put a stop to it. The Prime Minister, as he had said earlier in the Ministerial Statement, seems to hope to resolve this issue after this Parliament session. But how sure is he that his siblings will not continue to make allegations or adding new allegations against him? He is already being accused of trying to cover up and whitewash himself by using Parliament. Next, it seems to me that the Minister for Law was a close personal friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other members of the Lee family. He has now fallen out with some members of the Lee family. Dr Lee Wei Ling said he was a changed person. He was previously involved in giving personal advice relating to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. However, he is also now part of the Ministerial Committee which is looking at the issue of the house arising from the will. Is there not a conflict of interest there? Furthermore, the current Attorney-General (AG), Mr Lucien Wong, was acting as Mr Lee Hsien Loong's personal lawyer in his private dispute against his siblings. But now, the same person is in the position to advise the Government and the Cabinet on matters related to the house and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. Is there also a conflict of interest here? Was this consideration taken into account when he was appointed the AG? Can the Prime Minister clarify the role of the Law Minister and the AG in this matter and explain to the House whether there is any conflict of interest?”
“It is also the foundation of Singapore's unforgiving anti-corruption stance. Unfortunately, in this whole saga, I personally think that the line has been blurred and crossed many times by all sides. First, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling should not make vague allegations in the public domain against the Prime Minister based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure. Making allegations that appear to be calculated to undermine the Prime Minister's authority does not make for constructive politics in Singapore. It is a reckless thing to do and I do not see how this is in the national interest. If the accusers have details and concrete evidence that the Prime Minister has been lying and abusing his power, allowing his wife to influence the appointment of public officials, they should make all of them public by now. They should not be waging a continuous media campaign to keep the nation in suspense. However, the Government has also contributed to the squabble. It does not help that the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues have responded in kind on Facebook and even making counter allegations on the motive and character of the other party. The Government should set an example and needs to maintain its dignity in the face of insults to its integrity. It should not be involved in a Facebook brawl for the whole world to see. Cabinet members, more than anyone else, should refrain from making insinuations about the character and motivations of the accusers. The Government should not continue with this dispute in the public domain. Mdm Speaker, good government cannot be achieved in social media. The Prime Minister is faced with serious allegations from his brother and sister. These allegations need to be addressed in a proper manner.”
“Mdm Speaker, this is a sad day for Parliament that we have to hear and debate the dispute of the descendants of our Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It is sadder still that this whole saga is centred on Mr Lee's will because his wish on 38 Oxley Road is well-known. I would like to state from the outset that the Workers' Party (WP) has only a simple and broad position on this unfortunate saga, that is, the WP is concerned about how this saga would affect our nation. The opinions of the WP members and Members of Parliament (MPs) on the other aspects of the issues are just as diverse as public opinion has been in these few weeks. As an outsider to this dispute, I personally believe that the acrimony between the Lee descendants has much deeper roots than just the fate of the house arising out of the will. This is because all sides seem to be willing to risk the national interest by bringing this private matter into the public domain. This is a fundamental point that I want to make which I personally feel strongly about. The problem with this whole saga is that the line between the private and the public has been blurred and crossed too many times by the Prime Minister, the Lee siblings and the Government, too. We need to restore the line, make it a bright red line, resolve the aspects of disputes that have crossed into the public domain and push the dispute back into the private domain. We need to do this so as to move on for far more important issues that are truly national issues. This saga is distracting the Government, distracting Singaporeans, distracting the international audience and damaging the Singapore brand. Mdm Speaker, the line between the private and the public is a very important one for good governance.”
“Yes, Madam. I wish to inform the House that we have a new tender for a new financial accounting system and we expect things to be improved.”
“Thank you, Madam. I wish to thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his comment on Hougang Town Council (HTC). Yes, WP has been managing the Town Council in the past 20 years without major problems or hiccups. I would say that even today, if you look at the management of a Town Council, whether it is AHPETC or HTC, we manage the Town Council relatively well, if you look at the Town Council Management Report of HDB. What the problem is, is financial accounting problem. Why are we having the problem? We have explained here before. But I would like to say and reiterate again − I would say that the problem is thanks to the company called Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM). We lacked the financial accounting system that is able to cope and manage a large Group Representation Constituency (GRC) —”
“Madam, the Member chose to repeat the allegation made by the NTU professor. I would like to ask him what is his view. He has read the report, that is what he said. Was there a finding in the report that there was criminal intent? That is question number one. Number two, since he has read the report, if there is no such finding, what is his view?”
“I have two clarifications. First, is there a new polyclinic planned for Hougang area? It is time for MOH to look at Hougang Polyclinic with the view of building a new generation of polyclinics to serve residents. Secondly, I would like to know whether MOH has a target on foreign-local ratio for nurses and doctors.”
“I understand that pneumococcal meningitis is a disease that is difficult to detect in the early stages but progresses rapidly and could result in death or cause long-term health complications, such as paralysis or brain damage. Children below five years old and adults above 50 are at greater risk of being affected by such a disease. In 2013 and, again in 2015, when WP called for fully subsidised pneumococcal vaccinations, the Minister said that this was not necessary since "the potential for a public health epidemic or outbreak is relatively low." Madam, a complete series of the vaccine doses costs around $500, which is costly for parents. I ask MOH to consider providing a subsidy to encourage parents to use it. I believe that the Government stands to benefit from providing subsidised pneumococcal vaccinations in the long run through the reduced burden on MediSave and MediShield Life. It could also save on expensive treatments, hospitalisations and medications down the line. Means Testing”
“Madam, the Government has been talking about keeping long-term healthcare costs affordable for Singaporeans. Based on feedback from residents, some Singaporeans still find the cost of medicine high. I believe this is partly due to doctors prescribing drugs for a long duration or prescribing non-standard drugs. I would like to ask MOH what measures have been taken to reduce the cost of medicine for patients and how effectively have these measures lowered the cost of medicine for patients, especially those with chronic diseases. The Minister said in 2012 that the profit margins for drugs sold in public hospitals typically range from 5% to 30%. I would like to ask if the profit margins today are still the same and what are the profit margins for drugs sold in polyclinics. Two years ago, the Workers' Party (WP) suggested that the Government look into publishing drug prices for public hospitals. The Minister rejected this saying that, "drugs constitute only one aspect of the overall treatment." I would like to repeat the call to publish drug prices at public hospitals for better transparency. Next, under the National Childhood Immunisation Programme, all recommended vaccinations are fully subsidised and provided free of charge at all polyclinics for children who are Singapore Citizens, except pneumococcal vaccinations. Pneumococcal disease manifests in illnesses, such as pneumonia and meningitis, and is the leading infectious cause of death in children and adults worldwide. According to MOH's figures, pneumonia is the second most common cause of death in Singapore and one of the top five conditions of hospitalisation.”
“In early 2016, in a reply to a Parliamentary Question filed by my colleague, our doctor and nurse to population ratios still lag behind other developed countries, such as Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom (UK) and the US. I have a few questions for the Minister. Given that the number of nurses and allied health professional graduates has fallen since 2012, while the number of medical graduates has also fallen since 2013, all these despite great efforts by the Government to make these jobs more attractive, how confident is MOH in meeting the targets in the Manpower Plan 2020? It was reported that there were 2,100 foreign doctors in public hospitals and polyclinics at the end of 2014. What is this number today? Also, what is the ratio of foreign nurses to local nurses currently in public hospitals and polyclinics, and what is the ratio that the Ministry hopes to achieve by 2020? Healthcare Cluster Reorganisation”
“Madam, the percentage of our population aged 65 and above increased from 11.2% in 2014 to 12.4% in 2016 and will only rise further. It is crucial that we plan ahead, in tandem with the expected ageing population, to ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure and manpower to meet the present and future healthcare needs of Singaporeans. In recent years, the construction of hospitals and medical centres has been ramped up, resulting in significant increases in the development expenditure of MOH. Yet, according to a report published by the Lien Foundation and the Khoo Chwee Neo Foundation, the Government's efforts to ramp up capacity lags behind the rate at which the population is ageing. The report found that "Singapore had around 26.1 nursing home beds per 1,000 people aged 65 and above in 2015 − the lowest proportion in 15 years − down from around 28 beds in 2000 and well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 45.2 beds." The Straits Times article goes on to add that based on the percentage of the elderly population living in residential aged care facilities in developed countries, such as the US, Australia and Finland, there will be 50,000 seniors in Singapore who will require such facilities by 2030. The Government's current plan is to bring the total number of nursing home beds to slightly over 17,000 by 2020. Is this sufficient to cope with projected demand? I would like to find out from the Minister what is the progress of the plans to increase the physical capacity of our healthcare system, and is the current expansion of existing infrastructure sufficient to meet the healthcare needs of the population? On manpower, the Government's Healthcare Manpower Plan 2020 seeks to add 30,000 healthcare workers by 2020.”
“Madam, I would like to clarify in response to the Minister's questions, that yes, I would expect the long-term expenditure to go up because of the ageing population and the need for infrastructure development. But that does not mean that you will have to raise taxes. Are there other forms of revenue that we can look at, for instance, revenues from land sales, which my colleague has brought up during the Budget Debate? Secondly, is it not what a responsible Government should do to have an independent institution, like what I suggested, so that the independent institution can study the expenditures by the Government on what is necessary, what is not or what can be cut back, and also explore other possible revenues, rather than raise taxes? It could also look at what are the taxes that should be raised and whether it is justifiable to do so. I would expect a responsible Government to allow information to be accessed by an independent agency. And then, people can have ample time and ample advice by an independent institution, rather than MOF.”