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 24 of 54.
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my question on transparency of the SAF. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sorry, Sir, maybe I misunderstood his question. But I thought the Member's question on transparency was that if we provided this information, then it would be helpful, and that would be the transparency that the Member was asking for. And I just mentioned to him that we have transparently provided this information. I am not quite sure exactly what transparency he is talking about.”
“Inside these booklets - this particular version that I have is in both English and Chinese - some of the things are listed: for example, points to take note before you take the NAPFA test; what the BMT programme consists of, what the requirements are for the various standards in the IPPT, advice on adjustments to community living (because we have many small families now and they are not used to living with each other), even things from camp cleanliness and maintenance to personal appearance. There is, in fact, a section on what is allowed and what is not allowed in terms of the types of unauthorised punishments. There is a section, on page 37, on the types of punishments which are authorised. And there is, in fact, a list of unauthorised punishments on page 37, and these include things like change parade and running through an obstacle course outside training hours, and so on. So, in fact, it is quite complete.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that to restore public confidence, the transparency of the SAF is important in order for people to understand how their children are being taken care of during the training? I also wonder whether it would be helpful if the trainees, especially the recruits, know what are their rights, what is required of them when they undergo certain courses, what are the safety precautions that should be in place, and what they are required to do or what they should not be asked to do. Because I think many of the people who have gone through National Service all know that they kena tekan. The point is that even when they are being ill-treated, they may not know that they are being ill-treated, because they do not know what are their rights and what the instructor can or cannot do to them. So I think it would be useful to make known to the recruits or trainees what are their rights and what the instructors and officers should or should not do to them. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Mr Low brings up a good point. In fact, we have received feedback of this kind before. And that is the reason why we produced the Recruits' Handbook. This particular edition [indicating] is the 16th Edition, December 2002. And not only have we done that, we have produced a handbook for the parents. So not only do the recruits know what is allowed and what is not allowed, the parents also know. This particular one is also the 16th Edition, "My Son, The NS Man", January 2003.”
“So it is the Attorney-General's Chambers that will decide whether to disclose, and not the organisation concerned. Is that so? The final decision will be made by the Attorney-General? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: With guidance and advice from AGC. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mdm Deputy Speaker, a point of clarification. The Senior Minister of State said that the current practice is that when the officer is being called, he will check with his superiors and officers whether he can give the information. But that is a practice and practice can change, and this practice is not documented in words. Should it not be better that the practice be put into words, in law, to make it clear that the determination in this case would be more concrete than the personal feelings of his consideration? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let me explain why the flexibility is needed as worded in section 126. In the vast majority of cases, there would be time to consult because there would be interrogatories and discovery. But section 126 is framed in this way - and new section 126(2) is based on the current section 126 which has been there for many years, and it works very well - to cater to a specific situation, rare though it may be, but it may happen, when an officer is actually in court, involved in a court case, and he is asked on the stand certain questions which may require him to disclose information which, in his view, may harm public interest. The section must be wide enough to allow him the flexibility to say "no". As far as I know, this has not happened, but I think in the wisdom of the drafters of the original section 126, and the section has worked well all these years, it is better to keep it like that.”
“A clarification from the Senior Minister of State. At what level would the decision be made whether to disclose a certain piece of information and to decide whether the piece of information, when it is disclosed, would be harmful to the public interest? At what level of the organisation would such decisions be made? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Low understands the process. The trial will take some time and so the officer involved will receive, like I say, an application for discovery of documents or interrogatories. When he receives that, of course, he will surface it to his superiors - head of department, probably the legal officer in the statutory body would be involved, and inputs would then be sought from the Attorney-General's Chambers.”
“Another scenario could be that a death occurs at the premises of one of these organisations. At the Coroner's inquiry into the circumstances of the death, even the Coroner will not be able to compel production of official communications if the officials feel that it is not in the public interest to disclose it. This could lead to either an open verdict or even a verdict which is wrong. Madam, staff of these organisations are already bound under the Official Secrets Act not to reveal official communications to unauthorised persons. However, what the Government wants to do by this amendment will deprive the courts of information which may be critical in order to come to a fair and just decision. We should protect the court's rights to have all relevant information, as its decision will affect the parties and also the public. Moreover, all these organisations are financed by public funds. Accountability to the public will be seriously compromised if we allow the officials to decide what is or is not in the public interest to disclose in court. The Senior Minister of State, in his speech, said that there would be some safeguards on when to invoke the provision. May I know what safeguards are there, who decides when to invoke and when not to invoke the provision?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendment would allow more information to be withheld from the courts. This will have the effect of increasing secrecy and make more organisations less transparent to citizens. Under the existing section 126, Government officials already have the right not to disclose official communication if they feel that it is not in the public interest to do so. "Public interest" is not defined and there is no requirement that the public official needs to be of any rank. Anyone in the public service can make this decision. It can be subjective and arbitrary. If a document is potentially embarrassing for the Government, could it be also under public interest to cover up, so that people will still have confidence in the Government? If releasing the document may result in the Government losing a case, should the Government be the one deciding whether it should be released? The courts in Singapore have already said that under section 126, the public officer's assessment that public interest will suffer is conclusive, and the court will not question it. This already places a heavy burden for anyone who sues the Government and wants to get access to the documents. Madam, by extending such a privilege now to 19 more organisations, some of which are statutory boards, we are putting more blindfolds on the eyes of the court. I am concerned that such an amendment may render the court not being able to ascertain the facts of the case and allow justice to slip away under the guise of public interest. For example, if an employee of the CPF Board believes that he was unfairly dismissed, CPF Board officials may be able to resist disclosing communications surrounding his dismissal, and he will be hampered in proving his case in court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is for the Prime Minister and the PAP, who had made the promise, to stay with the promise. I did not make the promise. He and the PAP have failed by not going back to 40%, and it is a fact. Let us face it.”
“Sir, I am clarifying because the Prime Minister asked me whether the Opposition MPs have all supported the cuts. It is not correct, and I have to let him know. So I am now letting him know. I am not supporting and clarifying why I am not supporting. Sir, the suffering and the long-term implication of the CPF cuts on the people do not justify the short-term benefit, which I think PM has outlined. The PM has also in his speech said that there are sufficient jobs to go round, and he lamented that Singaporeans do not want to take them up. In that case, what is the problem? Why do we need to cut the CPF further? To save jobs, as what many people have said? Sir, I wish to clarify the Prime Minister's speech on the question of amnesia or selective amnesia. I hope PM will clarify. Did the PAP not promise jobs and a secure future at the last election? And he also mentioned in his speech that, to be a political leader, you have to show results, albeit at a slower pace. Yes, I agree. But could he tell us then, since the last election until now, what were the results compared to the promise given to the people and the people's trust by giving the PAP 75% of the votes? Sir, the Prime Minister has also criticised MPs and said that he objects to the word "betrayal" which is a very strong word. But would he offer some suggestions? How does he describe the situation in which the PAP had promised and committed to restoring the CPF to 40% at the last election? Many Ministers, including the unions, had said, loud and clear, before the election, that we would restore CPF. And now, after the election, you cut the CPF. There is no return to 40%, and it is going to fluctuate. How would the people square with that? How does the Government square with that?”
“Sir, I believe that our CPF should not be cut below 35%, more so after listening to the Prime Minister's speech. Neither am I convinced that the proposed 3% cut in CPF to 33% would help much in our economic recovery. With job creation or saving jobs, PM has rightly pointed out that the key factor is actually external environment. He said that he wanted to send a strong signal to investors. What I want to know is: how many signals do we have to send? In 1998, when we cut the CPF, we said we wanted to send a signal to investors. How about PAP's resolve to be lean - to send a signal as well? How about cutting red tapes, waste or the Ministers' salaries - to send a signal to the investors? Why must he always choose to cut the workers' CPF and wages in order to send a signal? That is something which I do not understand. I hope PM will clarify. Sir, even if the CPF cuts do help in some way, I am of the view that the suffering, the long-term implications ---”
“May I have your permission to clarify something?”
“Sir, I refer to the table distributed by the Acting Minister. It shows that the 25th percentile of workers should have no problem meeting their housing, Medisave and retirement needs, at the CPF contribution rate of 30%. I wonder why the Acting Minister has chosen the 25th percentile of workers, as I understand the CPF covers from the 20th to 80th percentile of workers. So what is the situation at the lowest 20th percentile? Are they able to meet their needs?”
“May I seek a clarification from the Acting Minister?”
“Sir, earlier on, the Minister said that there are some 35,000 households who do not have enough funds either in the CPF Ordinary Account or the Special Account to service their mortgage loans after the CPF changes. Can I know what is the profile of these 35,000 households and what is their room type?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Minister?”
“Once the election was over, they cannot wait any further to take this money back through an immediate increase in the GST rate. Now they are asking the people to forget the PAP's promise of the restoration of CPF contribution rate, in a light tone. The PAP Government has acted perfidiously, has broken faith with the people and let down the people. They should apologise to the people of Singapore.”
“Even though the Government is confident that our economy will recover, if it is a jobless recovery, if the reduction in our business costs is still not able to stop companies from relocating, if the people are facing prolonged unemployment, should not the Government re-look into the possibility of setting up some sort of social safety net? The PAP has been thinking of themselves too highly when faced with an intense global competition. The PAP Government has been saying all the time that Singapore is enjoying a premium of a good, effective and efficient Government, as well as our first class infrastructure, we are far better than our competitors in many aspects and are holding many world's No. 1 trump cards. It is not a problem in competing with other low cost economies even though our costs are high. When the people complain of high business costs and high cost of living, the PAP always alleges that people are crying "wolf". Then, all of a sudden, we find many companies relocating to other countries resulting in waves and waves of retrenchments, we see the major shipping companies moving to a Malaysian port. Only then the PAP woke up, panicked and started talking about cutting business costs as a life and death matter. But when it comes to cost cutting, it is the workers' salaries that are being cut. To add more burden to our workers, charges in public services, utilities, transportation and education fees are increased at the time of salary cut. People are suffering, in so far as these are the results of an arrogant and headstrong Government. Prior to the election, the PAP painted a rosy picture and committed to restoring the CPF rate back to 40%, they even put money in the people's pockets.”
“As for the older workers, the Workers' Party in its manifesto has stated that workers above 55 years should be allowed to decide themselves whether to contribute to CPF. In this way, it would help them to have a better chance of further employment. On the other hand, following the CPF cut, it is even more important now to seek higher return in investing the money. The current practice of lending the money to HDB so that HDB could lend to the people, thereby earning some very small interest, should be revisited. The Government should consider setting up a centralised CPF investment agency to look into ways and means of earning higher returns. We have yet to see any Government action in this aspect. The Government should make known their plan. Of course, there will be risks in any investment. But we should let the people choose among various investment plans, ranging from high risk high returns, to low risk low returns. Mr Speaker, Sir, it takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three feet deep. The predicament of Singaporeans facing both the cuts in wages and CPF of a loss-loss situation could have been brewing for quite some time. The problem could have rooted way back in 1986. The PAP Government has all along been very proud of this Government-employer-employee tripartite establishment. It used to boast of the tripartite system being a triple win situation. But as it turns out, we all know that there is only a sole loser - the workers. They are being sacrificed whenever there is an economic recession.”
“Is this not a case of indirectly transferring the cut in the people's income to the Government's coffers? What is the Government going to do with this income? Is the Government prepared to give it back to our people just like what they encourage the companies which are doing well to do so? As for the CPF contribution rate, as early as 1994, after analysing the problem of the 1985 recession, the Workers' Party had stated very clearly in our manifesto that the CPF rate should be fixed at 35%, with employer and employee contributing half each. Today, I still believe that 35% should be our long-term target. We should not raise the CPF contribution rate above 35% when the economy is healthy, in order not to repeat all these problems again. The Government should use the 35% as a fixed assumption in analysing our business costs and competitiveness, and examine the effect of other variables such as the scale of the Government, other costs which are introduced by the regulatory control of the Government and land cost, etc, and cutting them. Together with restructuring the wage system and increased productivity, we can then aim to enhance our competitiveness. By doing this, we can avoid disturbing the CPF and the financial planning of our people. Apart from that, most people in Singapore are using almost all of their CPF money to pay for their housing loans and the increasing medical charges. The balance in their CPF account is not enough to cater for their old age needs. If we fix the CPF rate at 35%, it would have a better basis for our people to plan their retirement plans, and strengthen our policy in preparing for an aging population.”
“Of course, currency devaluation is another means that would create a significant and immediate effect in bringing down our business cost, but the Government is again not prepared to do so for fear of political consequences. Taking the lesser of the evils in protecting their political interest, the PAP could only choose to cut our CPF. However, from the perspective of long term interest of the nation and the people, what are the pros and cons of such an option? But the point is: even when the CPF is reduced to 30%, can you guarantee that it would be effective? If it is not, what would be the next move? Will it be a continuous reduction? I think the Government should give us a clear indication so that our people can be psychologically prepared. Let us look at the actual situation now. Many companies are still making profits despite the poor economy. But the Government is adopting a one-for-all scheme whereby all the companies are entitled to a 3% cut in the CPF contribution. This hurts the interest of those employees of profit-making companies. The Government urges these profitable companies to pass on the savings to the workers in the form of bonuses. However, the Singapore National Employers' Federation has clearly indicated that they do not encourage such a practice. The Government should clearly indicate its stand in protecting the interest of our workers in this aspect. Furthermore, the Government might even derive some fiscal benefits from these changes too. It could gain from the savings from the CPF cut of the civil servants. On top of this, companies may turn profitable or increase their profit because of these CPF savings, in this case, the Government will be able to collect more income tax.”
“Once the Government resorts to the use of CPF as an economic management tool, a fluctuating CPF rate has become a trap to many people, caught them off guard in their financial planning at the time of change. On the one hand, the Government wants the people to be responsible for their own financial planning and retirement plans; on the other hand, they keep raising the aspirations of the people and making use of the CPF as a tool in managing the economy, thus introducing uncertainties in people's financial plan and the people are perplexed . For example, many people have believed the PAP Government's propaganda for "asset enhancement". So, they spent all their CPF savings on the purchase of properties. Now that the CPF contribution rate is reduced all of a sudden, they would have problems servicing their loan and be locked in a predicament. Is this the right way for a Government to treat its people? Those who have blind faith in the PAP's myth of asset enhancement are the biggest victims of these changes of CPF policies. Apparently the Government has run out of ideas in coping with the current difficulties and has to resort to cutting the wages and CPF of our workers, time and again. Faced with a new global economic landscape of intense competition from developing economies, it is a well known fact that our high land cost is the biggest culprit contributing to our high business costs, but the Government seems to be "sparing the rats to save the dishes". It dares not significantly bring down the land cost for fear that it would seriously affect the assets of the people and they would have to pay a very heavy political price for that.”
“When healthcare charges went up, the PAP Government said that the people have enough Medisave in their accounts, so the medical fees were "affordable". University fees went up because the PAP Government said that the people could use their CPF savings to pay for them, and they were again "affordable". This system has also led to a wrong perception among the people. They thought that the CPF was like a security for their living and they could always use the CPF for their housing and healthcare. To them, CPF saving is something which is beyond their control, something which they can see yet cannot touch. So, even with the charges going up, they are not so concerned, this eventually turned into a mentality of accepting every increase without resistance. Not long after, the CPF system was used by the Government as a tool for macro-economic control when the economy is in recession. Our CPF contribution rate, at one time, was as high as 50%. But when there was a recession, the Government began to change it. So at this time when the people are having problems making ends meet, they also have to face the impact of the CPF reduction. Now that Singapore is faced with competition from the other low cost countries, to a so-called far-sighted Government that claims to have created economic miracles, this challenge proves too arduous for their creativity, thus once again the CPF has become the sacrificial lamb of the PAP Government. Any changes to the CPF policy would have far-reaching repercussion on the cost of living of the Singapore people. Their choices of housing, healthcare services, retirement plans and even the children's university education were to a large extent dependent on the amount of CPF they have in their account.”
“Do not tell me that this is the kind of better future that the PAP has guaranteed! The PAP Government claims that there are jobs aplenty in the labour market. It blames the people for not willing to take menial jobs, refusing to accept lower salaries, or not willing to travel a long distance for their jobs. Please do not put all the blame on the people. Has the PAP Government considered the burden of the people? Does it know what kind of an income the workers must have to maintain a basic standard of living in Singapore? Now, let me talk about the CPF. The CPF system has been in existence before the PAP became the Government. Its original objective was to ensure that the workers would have some savings for their old age upon retirement. Then, later on, the PAP Government expanded the functions of the CPF, linking it up with public services, such as housing and healthcare. As the PAP Government is one that is very firm in resisting the idea of a welfare state, the CPF has thus taken the role of a social safety net, provided by the people for themselves. It has also become a key pillar supporting a world renowned public housing programme. Of course, changes that the PAP Government made to the CPF system have some shortcomings, the most harmful of which is that the CPF system has become a tool for the PAP Government to evaluate the purchasing power of the people in setting the charges of public services. They use the savings of the people in their CPF account as a yardstick to determine the affordability of our people in paying for the public services. The prices of HDB flats kept going up when times were good because the Government said that the people had a lot of CPF and could therefore well afford them.”
“Therefore, our CPF contribution and salaries have to be slashed immediately, otherwise we will not be able to retain our rice-bowls. The Government can choose not to tell the people when it woke up. But it has the obligation to tell us why the workers in the other countries are willing and able to accept salaries lower than ours for the same job, but we cannot. Why is it that the premiums commanded by our workers as claimed by the Government all along can disappear overnight? The Government compares the Singapore workers' salaries to the salaries of workers in other countries and comes to the conclusion that our salaries are far too high and not competitive, therefore our salaries have to be cut. Why does the Government not compare Singapore's cost of living to that of the other countries? Why does it not compare Singapore Ministers' salaries to the salaries of the Ministers in the other countries? The Government claims that it costs much less to maintain the PAP Government than it costs in the developed countries to maintain their governments. But, how does it compare to the developing countries? The Government has boasted that every single public service it provides is aiming to attain world class standard, such as a world-class transport system, world-class healthcare system, etc. Of course, the charges are of world-class standard, or even exceed world-class standard, too! Now that we have lost our competitiveness, our workers have to draw salaries of third world level, yet the charges they have to pay here are still of world-class standard. Is this fair to them? Their salaries were reduced again and again, yet for 365 days in a year, from cradle to grave, they and their family have to pay the ever increasing Goods and Services Tax (GST).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister said humorously that he must have suffered from amnesia. I want to tell the Prime Minister that he indeed has amnesia. In fact, the whole PAP is suffering from serious amnesia. At the last election, the PAP shouted the slogan, "Support the PAP for a secure future." Yet, merely two years after the General Election, the PAP has apparently forgotten its commitment to the people of Singapore. It has forgotten its promise to the people of Singapore that they will continue to keep their jobs and continue to be looking forward to a good future. While the PAP has suffered from amnesia, the hopes of 75% of the voters are shattered. They placed their trust on the PAP, yet in return their income has been declining. Their rice bowl is still not secure. Many workers are helpless to see that the Government is doing nothing to intervene, even when those companies who are doing well are adopting "pre-emptive" retrenchment measure. Where is the security that the PAP was talking about during the election, can they recall? Even as late as this year's Budget debate, the Government still pledged in all sincerity and seriousness that the CPF contribution rate would be restored to 40%. Yet, merely a few months later, we are faced with a further reduction in the CPF contribution rate. What has happened? What puzzled me is that: Unexpectedly, the PAP Government is like the hare in the fable of "The tortoise and the hare". Not knowing for how long it has been sleeping, it suddenly wakes up to find that the whole world has changed - the tortoise has overtaken the hare. It was as if only yesterday that the workers in Malaysia, China and India were drawing salaries lower than ours. Overnight, we find our competitiveness lost.”
“Sir, may I ask a supplementary question on Question 8?”
“The Minister of State said just now that the deposits would be offset against the arrears. But how do you actually use the deposits to offset the arrears. Because arrears are arrears. Money collected as deposit is deposit. So I do not understand whether, in accounting term, we can say we have no deposit balance because we have so much arrears. Can he explain that?”
“Sir, I wonder whether it is cost effective and necessary for the HDB to install such shower screens in completed HDB flats. I think the owner can easily get a contractor to install whatever he wants. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, the use of tempered glass is a common practice in the private sector, whether it is in the office or in the homes of the private estates. Therefore, HDB was just following standard practice. Yes, we have learnt from this episode and we will have to decide whether we will continue the use of glass shower screens in future HDB contracts.”
“But in the minds of the public, they want to know what went wrong, and how do we know that the figures presented by the Minister are correct. This is for Table 1. If we look at Table 2, it only gives very broad categories of industries. I think it is meaningful for the Minister to answer point by point and say how these figures were derived compared to the figures of the NTU economists, why his figures are correct whereas the figures of the NTU economists are not correct. On the other hand, I think it would be useful for Singaporeans to know the figures. I am sure it will not compromise our national interests if detailed employment information is released to the public. For instance, give us more details for the various sectors, the number of foreigners and locals who are employed in a particular sector, so that Singaporeans will have a better idea of the true facts. Of course, when we have full employment and a tight labour market, people do not care how many foreign workers are there. They have jobs. But now people do not have jobs. So, to convince Singaporeans, I think it is important that the Minister releases those figures.”
“Sir, I disagree with the Minister that ratio is the wrong point to begin with. I think it is the correct point to begin with at this point in time. That is why the Minister has to answer questions in Parliament today. Sir, I have to admit that there are too many figures for me today. But for this exercise to be effective, I think it is important that people ought to understand how these figures were derived. I am sure he has looked at the Table presented by the NTU economists which shows completely different figures from what he has just presented to this House. For example, for the period 1992-1997, overall employment, the NTU economists' figure is 254,000 but the Minister's figure is 474,800. Increase in resident employment, the NTU economists' figure is 205,000 but the Minister's figure is 183,000. Overall, for non-residents, it is contrastingly different, 49,000, as what the NTU economists have asserted, and 291,000 as what the Minister said. The figure is for the period from 1998 to 2002, but the NTU economists' figure is from 1997 to 2002. I do not know whether there is a difference between the years 1997 and 1998. I presume it may not make much difference. For the years between 1997 and 2002, increase in employment, the overall figures are 102,000 and 187,000 as presented by the Minister and NTU economists. But the figure for resident employment is 46,750 as against 93,100 between NTU economists and the Minister's figures. For foreign worker employment, the NTU economists' figure is 140,000 and the Minister's figure is 8,900. The question is how were these figures derived. As has been explained, the NTU economists used the wrong set of data.”
“Sir, when can we expect the integration of bus fare and train fare concession for students to be completed and materialised?”
“Sir, I just want a clarification. In the new section 32A, it specifies that LTA can dispose of whatever that is taken or removed from obstruction. It says that it would dispose of within a specified time. Can the Minister of State clarify what is a specified time in new section 32A? And if he tells me it is within a reasonable time, then what is a reasonable time?”
“Sir, the Minister said that the Ministry would calibrate the assistance schemes. I would like to ask him whether or not the Government has calibrated the latest employment situation and the financial assistance schemes and whether he is satisfied that the current financial assistance schemes - despite the number that he has mentioned about the arrears position in utilities - such as the Rents and Utilities Assistance Scheme as well as other interim financial assistance schemes, are actually helpful and sufficient to take care of the unemployed.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he deems the current assistance schemes for the unemployed sufficient and able to help them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has rightly placed the highest priority in containing the spread of SARS. It would have been preferred if there was no need to resort to punishment and social responsibility was enough. But it is disturbing that some have chosen to breach the quarantine orders. Those who may be tempted to breach such orders must be deterred from doing so before the problem balloons out of control. I am of the view that quick and effective measures are indeed appropriate under such a crisis situation. Singapore is already suffering painful consequences from SARS, not just in terms of healthcare challenges but also economically. This is a time where every Singaporean should rally behind the Government in its effort to fight SARS. I support the Bill and urge the Government to spare no effort in ensuring that Singaporeans are protected until a vaccine is found.”
“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 - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Further clarification. If the intention is not to limit, but the amendment states that the Registrar will now determine what kind of documents will be available, is it not clear enough to say that it is to limit? The Bill says that it is to limit. So I wonder why impose such a limit and give the Registrar such a power to determine what document to release and not to release. So where is the right of the public for information in the database? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, Sir, we are doing this in phases. The important thing is to protect the databases. So, in terms of even how the public accesses the documents, it is better to give the powers to the Registrar to implement any steps that may be needed, for example, to ensure the identity of the public accessing the documents. I think it is good to give the Registrar these powers, which can be exercised, if necessary. But the intention is not to limit public access, but for him to ensure that whoever accesses it will not, for example, corrupt or abuse the database. This is a technical point. If Mr Low wants further clarification, this can be sent to him. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Senior Minister of State agree - and this puzzles me - that these are two different issues? How do you prevent people from accessing the database to try to do something funny to it, damage the database, and to restrict access to certain documents? I do not understand why they have to be together. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, like I said, what is important is to clarify the policy intent. The policy intent is not to restrict whatever level of public accessibility that is currently enjoyed. That is the main point. I think that is the point Mr Low is trying to make. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Sir, I wish to seek a clarification on clauses 13 and 14 which are to amend sections 161 and 164 of the Act. The original sections 161(1) and 164(1) of the Act allow the public access to the Land Register and to obtain a certified copy of any document lodged with it upon payment of a fee. These sections will be amended to allow the public to search and obtain a copy of such electronic documents as the Registrar shall determine. This means that not all electronically lodged documents can be accessed by the public. My question is: which are the documents that will no longer be available for public inspection, and why is there a need to limit public access to certain documents which will result in less information being available to the public? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I understand it, it is not the purpose of this amendment to limit public access to the documents but rather to save public time in checking. Also, possibly, because of the electronic environment, the clause gives flexibility to the Registrar to protect the integrity of the database. Just in case there is a need to limit, there is the power to do so, but the intention is not to limit.”
“Sir, I have three questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. DPM said in his Ministerial Statement just now that SARS would probably last for two years or so. So, what is his assessment of the economic prospects for Singapore under the prolonged SARS situation? Secondly, does he see the need to increase the quantum of financial assistance, such as rebates for utility bills, S&C charges, rentals, etc, and also to provide additional financial assistance schemes? Thirdly, would the Government defer further the intention to increase the GST rate next year, in view of the current situation?”
“Sir, clarification from the Minister. When he talks about social cohesion, I would like to seek his clarification. What does he mean by "social cohesion"? Does he also mean cohesion of the people or only cohesion of PAP supporters?”
“On a point of order, Sir. I am interested to know the answer to the question raised by Mr Tan. I would like to know why you are saying that the Minister does not need to answer.”
“If we study Chinese just because we want to ride on the wave of the thriving Chinese economy, and discard the complex relationship between language and culture, it will only lead to a situation where the language is emphasised in its utility and resisted in many minds. In implementation, we have to create a conducive environment for the learning of the Chinese language. For the learning of language to be efficient, one has to use the language often. Regretfully, there is a huge deviation in our present environment. By reducing the teaching of mother tongue to just a single subject in the curriculum, it not only puts the learning of Chinese in a disadvantaged position, it also belittles the status of the mother tongue. Furthermore, pre-school education is an important link in establishing the correct attitude towards our mother tongue among our children. We should start to inculcate in our children the sense of importance of the mother tongue and strengthen the emotional link from very young. The Ministry of Education should pay attention to this while reviewing our pre-school education system. Sir, I agree that it is not easy to master two languages. However, if we recognise that the role of mother tongue is of fundamental importance to us, we should stand by this recognition and undertake decisive and bold policy measures to create a conducive environment in our school and society for the learning of the mother tongue. Only if this is done, can we expect our future generation to be truly bilingual in using the Chinese language effectively and preserve the Chinese culture.”
“When it comes to writing, most of them have great difficulty in expressing themselves. Following the trend that more and more families are communicating in English, our young people may lose their ability in expressing themselves in Chinese within the next generation. What kind of society will we have then? I think there is no necessity for me to portray such a landscape to our leaders, who are full of imagination and creativity. The question now is: does the Government agree that these issues that I have raised are indeed issues to them? Should we leave the issue to its natural course and allow this deteriorating trend of lowering standard to continue, leading to the extinction of the Chinese language and its culture, or should we not make an effort in reversing the trend, even when it is too late to do so? Let us wait and see. It is my belief that even if we do not emphasise the role of mother tongue in transmitting our traditional culture, its social, political and economic functions can never be ignored. Therefore, we should abandon the current principle of linguistic policy, which is based on economic efficiency consideration. Sir, we should correct the wrong attitude of regarding English as the first language and mother tongue as the second language. First of all, the Government should stop addressing English as the first language and mother tongue as the second language; instead, the mother tongue should be addressed as Chinese, Malay or Tamil as it is. This should help to establish these languages as a mainstream language and correct the mentality that they are of lower status. Mother tongue can never be reduced to a window dressing in form in our "bilingual" educational model.”
“Sir, the bilingual policy is the pillar of our education policy. However, frankly speaking, this bilingual policy in Singapore is a tilted one that gives too much prominence to the English language and relegates mother tongue to a secondary position. It is bilingualism not in its true sense. I am not saying that I object to the learning of a foreign language or English, as it helps to broaden our horizon and create new opportunities. However, there is one question that keeps bothering me. The question is: why subject the same policy on the mother tongue to the various ethnic groups when the standard of our Chinese language is so low that we even have to resort to the use of the English language to aid in the teaching of the Chinese language today? I have raised this issue of the low standard of Chinese language in the last Budget debate. I feel that, as far as the Chinese language and even the preservation and inheritance of our traditional culture are concerned, we are at a crossroad. The prospect of the Chinese language as well as our future social landscape depends on the path that we are going to take, particularly the holistic policy that the Government is adopting. From my observation, the younger generation, who was brought up under the bilingual system, has no problem in speaking Mandarin in general. But because of their lack of vocabulary, they need to mix with some English terms in their conversation in Mandarin. They may also not have a problem in listening generally, but only find themselves in an awkward position if the other party speaks too fast or uses too abstruse vocabularies. In reading, they do not have the habit of reading Chinese publications, some even detest doing so.”
“Sir, my speech is a bit long. Please bear with it.”
“Sir, unlike Dr Amy Khor, I think we should scrap the current streaming system and replace it with a subject-based system to maximise the potential of each student. Sir, at last year's Budget debate, I asked the Ministry to consider exploring the idea of organising schools based on subject, by replacing the current streaming system, based on a cluster of subjects, to one based on individual subjects. Students would then be grouped into different classes based on the marriage of the individual subjects. This would allow further customisation of learning, and further allow the development of individual student's potential. I note from news reports that ACS (Barker Road) has introduced the concept of theme classrooms which are subject-focused. Although this is only a pilot project of grouping classes according to the subject, I think this is a positive first step forward. Theme classrooms could perhaps one day become a leading model for our national school system. I believe that besides the benefit mentioned above, this system would also be able to significantly reduce the social stigma of streaming. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any intention to expand this pilot project to include other schools. Another issue, Sir, which is associated with the streaming system, is the decision of the newly-established Singapore Sports School to admit only Express stream students. I cannot understand the rationalisation why selection should be based on academic performance and, in particular, only the Express stream. Does this not defeat the purpose of setting up a Sports School in the first place? I request the Minister to clarify.”
“Sir, I have visited the NEWater Visitor Centre.”
“I think if Mr Low were to visit the NEWater Visitor Centre, I will be very happy to give him a personal conducted tour to explain to him how the whole system works. And if he is still not convinced, he is most welcome to come back to Parliament to ask me more supplementary questions.”
“Sir, would he allow me to clarify my point? My point is that for treated water, right now, you have got to pay for the cost of raw water, which is from Malaysia. There is a treatment cost. But as for NEWater, the water input is from the sewers. So you do not pay for the additional cost of raw water but you pay only for the treatment cost of the water. So you minus away that part on the input cost of the raw water. Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, I thank Mr Low for his clarification. Mr Low should spend some time to go and take a look at the NEWater Visitor Centre. If Mr Low were to visit the NEWater Visitor Centre, he would see that next to it, the new water plant, there is a water treatment work, what we call water reclamation plant. The sewer water that Mr Low talked about, which is free, is now being processed by the water reclamation plant. So, it does cost money to treat the sewer water to a standard of what we call the secondary effluence. This secondary effluence is then used as an input for NEWater. So, when we talk about the cost of NEWater today, Mr Low is correct that we have not included the cost of the secondary effluence, for a simple reason. Today, this secondary effluence is also being produced. We treat the sewer water into secondary effluence before we discharge them into the open seas. In other words, we are not turning something which we throw away every day to the sea into a useful product, which is NEWater. And that is the reason why we are able not to include the cost of the secondary effluence, because it is already happening today, ie, it is already being wasted today. Sir, it is a bit complicated for me to try to explain the whole water treatment process.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would clarify with Mr NEWater that it is not Miss Raw Water whom we have to pay a dowry to marry. That is, would he tell us what is exactly the cost of producing NEWater per cubic metre, bearing in mind that you do not pay for the cost of raw water?”