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 27 of 54.
“The Minister mentioned that my proposal is front rolling. I would like to clarify that in my speech yesterday, I mentioned that the ERC's proposal is actually back rolling, especially for the age group between 50-55. This group of people actually suffers a double blow. On the one hand, the total CPF contribution rate was cut to 32%, and then we increase the contribution to the Special Account to 9%, another 3%, and only 14% of the balance of the contribution is left in the Ordinary Account. Sir, I say this would put the age group in a difficult position because of the life cycle of the person's age, where a person has probably committed to a second property or already upgraded to another property. They would probably need more money to service their mortgage loan. Secondly, in such a life cycle, probably their children are in tertiary education, like in the polytechnics, they may need CPF money to finance their children's education. I find that this is totally unbalanced. I am of the view that it is perhaps better to have a balanced front loading that will enable CPF members to save while they are young and still working, and not be in a position where they could lose their jobs suddenly.”
“Would he clarify that the Government is basing affordability of HDB flats based on the calculations of the balance in the Ordinary Account of the CPF that people have? I believe that the more CPF Singaporeans have in the Ordinary Account, the higher would be the selling price of a HDB flat. The other clarification is he refers to ---”
“No, I am asking a question and asking for clarification and his views, Sir.”
“No, I am clarifying with him because he is saying ---”
“Sir, I am clarifying with the Minister. Since he is saying that this is related to the ability of Singaporeans to afford HDB flats, I would like to clarify with him whether he is aware that the Government is committed to provide affordable housing to Singaporeans. Currently, the commitment is that 90% of Singaporeans should be able to afford a 4-room flat. If the change that I propose results in the younger generation of Singaporeans not being able to afford HDB flats, is it not the Government's responsibility to adjust the selling price of HDB flats? I would also like to clarify with him ---”
“Sir, the Minister said in his speech that my proposal is not feasible because it would affect the ability of Singaporeans to own flats. Is he referring to younger Singaporeans to own HDB flats or private properties?”
“The Government should consider allowing CPF members to participate in other private pension investment plans, or perhaps set up a national pension investment scheme so that we can pool our resources, reduce costs and to increase the returns on investment. In conclusion, we agree with this principle of gradual adjustment to the CPF structure so as to strengthen the CPF's original function of providing for life after retirement. The people should be more self-reliant, and start preparing for their retirement early in life. However, in a tough economic environment, there are bound to be some Singaporeans who are unable to make ends meet after retirement. I would like to remind the Government that it has to look after the livelihood and welfare of this group of people. This is, after all, the responsibility of the Government.”
“At the same time, can we not separate the group of 45 to 55 into two sub-groups of 45-49 and 50-55? This will bring us to the formula of 7-9-9-6%. Please refer to the table which I have circulated to hon. Members. In this way, we could caution the young people to be more prudent in making their decision to purchase property and also to prepare for their retirement much earlier. Furthermore, when they have reached the age of 50 and above, not only will their CPF contribution rate be reduced, they will, more often than not, have other commitments and needs, for example, paying for their children's university tuition fees through CPF, the proposed 7-9-9-6 formula will help them be better prepared to service their housing loans. The Committee has also recommended that the Government provide more means for the people to sell their property for cash for their retirement. We agree with this recommendation. However, the Committee has not mentioned how to solve the housing problem of these people who have sold their properties. The Senior Citizens Apartment Scheme introduced by HDB may be one option. However, this is only confined to purchases and not rentals. The Government should consider appropriate policy measure to provide rental housing option for those who do not wish to purchase a house. As for the enhancement of the returns on CPF funds, we agree with the Committee's view. Under the present practice of individual investment arrangement, it is difficult for the investors to attain the original target of the CPF investment scheme.”
“If the aim of the ERC is to reform the so-called seniority-based wage system so as to enhance the flexibility of the wage system and, at the same time, narrow the gap of CPF rates between the pre-55 and post-55 members, then it would involve not only those in the 50 to 55 age group. From the present situation and the discussion prior to the release of the recommendations, it would appear that the Government's target of reform will not be confined to the 50 to 55 age group. What is the Government's long-term policy on this? Should it not spell it out clearly to the people so as to alleviate their anxiety, and be better prepared psychologically? The ERC has emphasised that this recommendation is not aimed at reducing the cost of the employers. So they encourage the employers to pay back the savings to the employees through other means. But will the employers really do that in reality? Unless the Government makes rules to compel them to do so, this recommendation is indeed helping the employers save on their manpower expenses. To those workers in this age group, particularly those who are relatively stable in their job, this recommendation weakens their capability to service their housing loans and to have more money for their retirement. Does this not run contrary to the original intention of the ERC? As for the Special Account, the ERC's recommendation is to adjust the contribution rate from the 4-6-6% formula to the 5-7-9% formula, after the employers' CPF contribution rates are fully restored. Did the ERC consider other combinations? As people younger than 45 are more flexible in reacting to the changes in the labour market, and contributing more to the CPF, should we not increase the Special Account contribution rate for those below 45?”
“As for those middle-income people, whose salary is between $5,000 and $6,000, ERC's proposal of reducing the contributing income ceiling will lead to a reduction in their income as a whole. Not only will they have less CPF, the extra cash in their take-home pay would be subjected to income tax too. Although they could transfer the cash back to CPF under the Supplementary Retirement Scheme, the pressure brought about by the increase in GST may make it difficult for them to do so. After all the Government has said, for those with a higher income, the impact of GST increase on them will be greater. The ERC has also recommended that people invest these extra cash on financial products that give higher returns. This will inevitably attract higher risk and, of course, the additional cash that they have will mean more income tax to pay. Compared to the current arrangement, whether the people will gain under the new recommendation is a question mark. For people who are from the above group and whose age falls within 50 and 55, they will be the ones who suffer most. The ERC commented that their wages are higher than the younger workers on the same job based on the current seniority-based system, and this makes them vulnerable to retrenchment. The ERC claims that reducing the CPF rate for people in this age group would help them to have better job security, and encourage employers to retain or employ these older workers. I do not know how the Committee has come to this conclusion. There is no mention in the report of how the ERC has come to this conclusion. We have also doubts as to how the effects of this recommendation could be evaluated.”
“Faced with an economic situation where high growth and high employment rate are no more, and a future where the population is aging, the cumulative pressure from all these phenomena makes the problem tougher than that in the post-1986 years. Will the recommendations of the ERC be effective? Do we need to have another economic review committee to review again soon after? We shall wait and see. While the world economy is changing rapidly and the Asian economy is shifting its focus, we have to monitor their impact on us closely. I am even doubtful that the current CPF contribution rate of 40% can be sustained in the long run. Under this situation, we are particularly concerned with the impact brought about by the Economic Review Committee's recommendations on the middle and lower-income people. In principle, we agree with this increase in income floor for contribution to CPF, so that the lower-income people will have more take-home pay to meet their daily expenses. However, we need to look at all the ERC's recommendations in total. Earlier on, the Government has accepted the Committee's recommendation to raise GST, and MAS has predicted that with the increase in GST, inflation will also go up. If these two recommendations are implemented simultaneously, the lower-income people will be back to square one again and still have problems making ends meet, once the Government withdraws all the offset packages that come with the GST increase. At the same time, they will lose some savings in their CPF accounts. The Committee holds the view that the lower-income people cannot depend on their CPF alone for their retirement needs. We therefore feel that the Government should clearly indicate how it is going to help these people deal with their problems after retirement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze 3-feet deep. Indeed, the problem of CPF has been brewing for quite some time. Soon after the economic recession in 1986, the Workers' Party suggested that the Government conduct a comprehensive review of the CPF system, in order to establish a balance between the people's needs in saving for retirement, housing and medical; and the need in maintaining our economic competitiveness. We also cautioned about the people spending their CPF savings excessively on the purchase of properties. However, in the 1990s, following a steady economic recovery and the PAP Government relaxing its regulations pertaining to the purchase of property, particularly its tactic of using "assets enhancement" as a trump card for winning the General Election, it brought about a mad rush among the people to upgrade their HDB flats or to purchase private properties. As a result, CPF members are in a situation today, which the Economic Review Committee describes as "asset rich but cash poor". Unlike in 1986, this time round we are also pressurised by the problem of unemployment brought about by our transition into a new economy, using the means of reducing the CPF contribution rate in order to enhance the employability of people in a certain age group has become yet another goal of the CPF system, on top of its original aims of ensuring that people have the means to pay for their housing loan and medical expenses; and maintaining enough cash for their retirement. How to resolve the tension brought about by these conflicting demands?”
“The Minister of State, in an earlier answer, said that the depreciation was based on accounting practice, ie, the life of the car park would last for as long as the flat, ie, 99 years. But what would happen to the remaining car park after the depreciation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has mentioned the construction cost of the car parks. There are two parts, ie, the building cost and land cost. Can he tell us exactly what are the figures for the land cost and building cost for a typical multi-storey car park and, secondly, for an open car park? Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume Mr Low is asking for a breakdown. For a typical multi-storey car park, the land cost would be slightly less than half of the total cost. Let me give you an example. My Minister, at the last Budget Debate, said that the total cost of an equivalent car park lot in a multi-storey car park is about $20,000. The land cost would be about $9,000 and the construction cost would be about $11,000. In the case of surface car parks, my Minister has given the figure of $11,200. In the case of surface car parks, obviously the bulk of the cost would be land cost. There would still be some construction cost because we need to surface the lots and do the markings and all that. There would still be some costs involved but obviously, because we do not have to put up a foundation for the whole structure, the cost would be lower in that respect.”
“Dr Tan Boon Wan's proposed amendment to the original Motion not only watered down the original amendment, but has the effect of asking the House to support the current increases of public transport fares, by noting the Prime Minister's support for the principle of the Public Transport Council granting small increases. So he has, in fact, changed the intention of the original Motion. Although Dr Tan Cheng Bock has moved another amendment to the amended Motion to take into consideration the economic and employment situation, the fact remains that the amended Motion would endorse the PTC's approval for the increases. This would endorse the increases in public transportation fares, which was not the original intention of the Motion. Sir, I would not support the amended Motion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amended Motion. Sir, I rise to oppose both amendments. Yesterday, when I spoke on the Motion in the House, I pointed out that the crux of the issue on the increases in public transport fares and other increases in public services is the result of the attitude and policy of the PAP Government in providing public services. Although the Minister for Transport has explained the rationale, I am still not convinced that this is the best model. With a nationalised organisation to run the transport services, I believe that it may be more efficient with economies of scale, and we remove the profit factor, which I think is the reason why a lot of people feel uncomfortable that the operators of public transportation should be making profits. Sir, unfortunately, the Public Transport Council has become a lightning rod in this debate. Although I do not entirely agree with the original Motion moved by Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I am prepared to be counted to support the Motion in its original form, to urge the Public Transport Council to review its decision on the increases. With the PAP Backbenchers moving the Motion, helping to play the role of the Opposition, I suppose they are qualified to join the Opposition, as the Member for Nee Soon Central said. I hope that it would help to provide the Motion, with more muscle and bite, to force the Government to do something, and to lower the cost of living for Singaporeans at this difficult time. Sir, now it seems that my expectation is a bit too high.”
“Another clarification, Sir. Does the Minister agree that the moment the profit factor is removed, there will be less controversy, even if there is a need for the fares to be increased? It is justified based on why there is a need to increase, rather than on return on equity or return on capital investment. Will it be better?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to clarify some of the points raised by the Minister?”
“Moreover, we are not asking for additional subsidies besides continuing with the current funding in building infrastructure. Comparing to the current model, what is removed is the source of conflict, ie, profits, as the proposed enterprise is operating on a cost recovery basis. They could try to break even with a prudent fare structure, while striving to provide quality service with the objective of maximising benefit to our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this economic transition, all our people should put up a concerted effort to tide over the difficult times. The Government should also respond to the sacrifices made by the people by lightening their burden. One aspect is to temper its current policy on providing public services with more rational and humane measures, so that we can come out from the crisis as a more cohesive nation. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES Debate resumed.”
“The Government can say that this has been proven to be not feasible in the other countries. But has the PAP Government been emphasising, again and again, that the situation in our country is different from others? What cannot be done in other countries can be easily implemented here, eg, GST, ERP, etc, and the Government is always proud of its achievements in this respect. In the same breath, why can the Government not differentiate itself from the rest of the world and take back the function of running a state-owned public transport company, whose business objective is to provide public service and not to make profit? The Government may respond that competition will be removed and service quality will deteriorate if our proposal is implemented, but where is the competition when the current service routes between these two companies are not overlapping, and these companies can even join effort in pushing for a fare hike? The Government may also claim that without the pot of gold at the end of business operation, there will be no incentive for the public transport operators to improve themselves, as such efficiency will go down. But let us take a look at our armed forces and educational institutions. They are all public services with no element of profit; is the Government saying that they are not efficient? The HDB has persistently claimed that it has been subsidising public housing. Every year, they run into losses; yet, its achievement and efficiency is something that the Government is so proud of. So, what is motivating them? Why can we not adopt the HDB model and let a state enterprise operate public transport without having profits as their aim?”
“At the same time, the Government imposes limits on the life-span of buses, increases their ERP charges, builds airconditioned bus interchanges, thereby building up what it calls a "world-class" public transport system to show off to the world. By doing so, it has increased the operational costs of these companies. It seems that the Government is doing a good job in protecting the interest of the people and balancing the demand of the public transport operator. Indeed it is not the case. Through the PTC's guideline of so called balancing the interest between the public and the operators, the Government allows the companies to increase their fares from time to time, in the name of recovering the increase in operational cost, and thereby the people are the ones who have to bear the burden . As the tax collector and also the major shareholder of the public transport companies, the Government stands to gain by higher tax revenues and dividends when the fares go up and the companies' profits escalate. So it is a win-win situation for the Government, but the people end up paying higher fares. The Workers' Party has all along held the view that public services should not be profit-oriented. We also proposed that the Government set up a national transport enterprise to take over the operation of buses and MRT so that we can have a better integrated service and, most importantly, this national transport enterprise is not profit-oriented but run on a cost-recovery basis. Of course, with the Workers' Party's recommendation, the Government will say, "This is like restarting state-owned enterprises and it would not be in line with the global trend." But to us, it is more important whether the interests of the people can be better protected.”
“At this time, when our economy is going into a transition, the ordinary people are affected the most. Although we are not a welfare state, the Government should not neglect the welfare of the people. The Government must try to help them to alleviate their burden, and public transport policy is one of the items that the Government should look into. We should question the PAP Government on its profit-driven policy through privatisation in providing public services. We are pursuing a market economy, but when the environment changes, when the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, when the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, the contradictions surrounding these changes would become more and more acute. This round of fare hike has generated a strong dissent among the people, and this is not just a momentary reflex. The policy of allowing the public transport service to be operated by private companies whose objective is to make profits needs to be re-examined. As taxpayers, Singaporeans are paying for the building of the infrastructure necessary for the operations of the bus and MRT services. Why should we be also asked to bear the burden of ensuring that these companies meet their projected or desired profits? If we analyse the present model, the Government has increased its taxes - GST, COE, ERP to control car ownership - and, therefore, collects a lot of revenue from these sources. With this taxpayers' money, it builds the infrastructure for the MRT and buses, and then leave the operations of public transport to the private companies for profit-making. The major shareholders of these companies are, more often than not, holding companies under the Government.”
“PTC said that if the bus and MRT fares are not increased, the public transport companies will not be able to offset the rise in operational cost and their profits will go down. Therefore, the people would have to share the burden. It seems that Singaporeans have a lot of burdens to share in. Of course, when we do business, we want to have profits. But the crux is that when the infrastructure used by the MRT and the bus companies to operate their businesses, such as the MRT stations, the rails, the bus interchanges and the bus stops, are built with funds from taxpayers' money, public transport cannot be an ordinary business. It is a public service, a business which concerns the interest of the general public. Especially in Singapore, where car ownership and car usage is extremely expensive, public transport is an essential service that is required by the people on a daily basis. It is an important part of composition in the public service, and any increase in fares would inevitably create an impact on the people, particularly in this difficult time. In fact, the thrust of the matter is not whether this is the best time to increase bus and MRT fares, or for the PTC to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares, as stated in this Motion before the House, or a question of what is a reasonable profit and return . The fundamental question is: should public transport service be run as a business? To further extend this question, is the philosophy of profit-making in providing public services as adopted by the PAP Government the real issue that needs to be scrutinised? DPM Lee has just said recently that Singapore is in a stage of economic transition where the days of high growth and high employment rate have passed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while the economy is still gloomy, and the people have yet to recover from the shock of an impending GST increase, the Public Transport Council just could not wait to rub salt into the wound of the people. It claimed that this pinch of salt ought to be rubbed in earlier, and that it is better to do so early than having to pour sulphuric acid later on. Surely, business is business. As a public listed company, the investors' concern is on the return on investment of the public transport companies. However, return on investment is linked to the investment risk. This is a common knowledge to the investment community. Under the Government's regulation, the two companies monopolise the public transport market and do not have to face competition. It is a low-risk business with steady revenue. How can one ask for a high return on such a low risk investment? This cannot be so if we compare it with high-risk businesses, such as the disk drive industry where losses can amount to a few tens of millions of dollars just within a few months. In this difficult time where companies are slashing prices for survival, the basic principle of low risk low return could be easily appreciated by the investors, let alone that the public transport companies are still enjoying handsome profits. The Temasek Holdings, under the Government, is the major shareholder of SMRT with 62% of the total shares issued. I am sure they have a say in deciding whether to ask for a rise in the MRT fares to increase profit. SMRT initiated a fare hike. Is the Government saying that they are not happy with the present return on investment? DPM Lee said that if we do not increase GST, Singapore would run into a "chronic" structural deficit. Therefore, the people must share the burden.”
“How does the President's Office formulate the guest list? Does it accept recommendations from Members of Parliament?”
“What do you mean by "fit and proper person"?”
“Sir, I am referring to new section 10F which says that if "any person has contravened section 10A, 10B or 10C, ." that he would be directed to dispose of his shares. And it says on many occasions that the person should be a fit and proper person.”
“Sir, is the Minister saying that this Bill only restricts foreign ownership, as he just now cited examples of other countries? I think he has not responded to me on what is meant by "fit and proper person" and "prudent" in the running of a company.”
“Does it refer to financial prudence or political prudence, or prudence in reports on the Opposition? Sir, do we believe in an open society, market economy and a free exchange of ideas? Or do we believe in control? On the one hand, the PAP Government talks about market economy but requires shareholders, newspaper and broadcasting companies to be subject to approval to own shares. In one breath, the PAP Government talks about openness and transparency. In the same breath, the PAP is empowering Ministers with the wide discretion to control the media by controlling who can own shares and have voting rights in the companies. This effectively ensures that the management of a media company is firmly in the hands of the Government. It echoes what the Government says and toes the Government's line. This, I believe, Sir, would be the underlying cornerstones of remaking Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, together with the SBA (Amendment) Bill, is clear evidence of Government's control over the media. Control comes by way of empowering the Minister to decide who should be allowed to own a substantial number of shares. New section 10A of the Bill prohibits any person to become a substantial shareholder without approval of the Minister. It also prohibits shareholders to act together with other shareholders to exercise their voting rights if together they hold more than 5% of the voting shares. Section 10B further prohibits an indirect controller, by way of having 12% of the shares, or voting power of the company with its associates unless, again, the Minister approves. Sir, it is interesting that in this section, it defines in detail what relationship is considered associate. I think we could also use the same principle to examine, in the future, whether there is a conflict of interest in holding positions in public offices, in private companies and GLCs. The control by the Minister would also now empower him to compel shareholders to dispose of their shares. New section 10E empowers the Minister to do so if, for example, he finds that the shareholder is: (a) not a fit and proper person; and (b) he is a person whose likely influence is to lead the newspaper or broadcasting company to no longer conduct its business prudently. I wonder what does this Bill mean by "a person who is not fit and proper" to hold such shares. Does it mean only persons who are associated with the PAP are considered as fit and proper? I also wonder what is meant by "no longer conduct its business prudently?" What does this refer to?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that there is a Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Mayor) Order 2002 which says that "Mayor is not considered as holding public office". Pensions are supposed to be given to public officers. Would the Minister clarify that?”
“Further clarification, Sir. Does the Minister consider Mayor as a public officer?”
“Sir, I wish to seek a clarification from the Minister. The Minister, in his answer, said that the appointment of office-holders is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the Minister is saying that the job of Parliament is just to approve the spending of public funds for whatever appointments that have been created by the Prime Minister. Should that be the role and job of Parliament?”
“Secondly, should service as a Mayor count as additional service to qualify for a Member's pension? Under the current Act, a Member should serve a total of nine years as an MP before qualifying for a Member's pension. This amendment will allow time served as a Mayor to count as additional years to be added on to his service as an MP. Why does the Government see the necessity to do this? Is the Government not confident that the Mayors can chalk up nine years as an MP? Under the People's Association CDC Rules, the criteria for the appointment of Mayor have changed twice. In the most recent amendment on 24th November 2001, there is no longer a requirement for a Mayor to be the Chairman of a town council. In other words, so long as the potential Mayor is Chairman of CDC, he will qualify for appointment as a Mayor. Why was this change made? It must be because I believe the Board of the PA, headed by the Prime Minister, considers that there would be Mayors who may not be Town Council Chairmen, ie, they are not elected Members of Parliament. Is it correct, in principle, to give them a Member's pension when they have not served enough years as a Member? I am of the view that to allow the amendment will make the term "Member's pension" under the Act meaningless. Sir, to me, it makes a mockery of Parliament by asking Parliament to provide pensions for such an appointment without consulting Parliament for the appointment in the first place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the explanatory note to the Bill, the amendment will in fact allow the time served by a Mayor to count in two ways. First, it can be counted as service towards an office-holder's pension. Secondly, if he does not qualify for an office-holder's pension, then his years of service as a Mayor can also count as his period of service towards a Member's pension. This amendment seeks to put the position of Mayor together with office-holders, such as Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker and Ministers. Sir, these are public officers under the Constitution and it requires its holders first to be elected into Parliament. I believe this is why their pensions are under Parliamentary Pensions Act, rather than under the civil service Pensions Act. These officials direct and oversee matters affecting national security, foreign affairs and other policy matters, and they should be recognised. The question is whether the appointment of Mayor can be considered as public office in the same category. The Mayor is not appointed under the Constitution, or any law passed by Parliament. Rather, the Mayor is appointed under the rules of the People's Association Act. These rules are designated by the Board of PA, and Members of the House did not have a chance to consider whether such Mayors are required in the first place. Now, the House is being asked to consider allowing public funds to be used to give pension to Mayors. Is the People's Association expecting the House to rubber-stamp their plans, which will be put in place, without consulting Parliament? Does this make sense, since Parliament was not involved in approving or disapproving the creation of such an appointment in the first place?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has statistical data on spalling concrete, so as to compare the older Tiong Bahru estate at Seng Poh Road area, built before the HDB, with flats that were built in the 80s. And does he honestly believe that the grade of concrete that was used in the construction, and also the workmanship in which the steel bars were placed at the correct interval, are important factors that will decide whether or not there is spalling concrete? He also said that when one gets old, he is more prone to sickness and he compared it to spalling concrete. Does he also agree that if a person is born with a wrong genetic heritage, he may not live that old but can get sick very fast? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, I think I am qualified to speak about the conditions of flats in Tiong Bahru, being the MP for the last 10 years. Spalling concrete does occur in Tiong Bahru flats, like all flats. In all concrete buildings, spalling concrete will occur. It is a matter of when. If the flat is maintained well, spalling concrete appears much later down the road. The design of the flat, as well as the grade of concrete, does affect the occurrence of spalling concrete. At any one time, HDB flats are designed according to the latest building codes. So there is no question of cutting corners in the construction of the HDB flats.”
“Sir, I am talking about a new 3-room flat built by the HDB for sale, rather than a flat which was bought back by the HDB from the open market and for sale.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that whilst the HDB buys back 3-room flats and sells them to eligible applicants, it will mean that applicants cannot apply directly to HDB for new flats? For those who wish to downgrade but do not want to buy a flat from the open market, they cannot apply directly to HDB for a 3-room flat, because HDB is not building any more new 3-room flats. The Minister mentioned that the HDB cannot detect any demand for HDB 3-room flats. Can I suggest that HDB announce its intention to build 3-room flats and open it to applicants? Then, the Minister can see the demand and justify his statement.”
“Further clarification, Sir. The Minister said that there is a proper channel of complaint. For the police, it is very clear. We know who to complain to. Can he tell us, in the case of intelligence officers, as they are not, by definition, police officers, if there is an abuse of powers, what is the channel of complaint?”
“By allowing a blanket provision and conferring the powers of an Inspector to the officers that the Minister can designate, are we not potentially allowing for a situation where the Minister can designate officers who are very junior and inexperienced or ill-trained to exercise such wide powers? This may, in fact, undermine the integrity of Government as well. Another concern is: how is the public protected from the abuse of powers by these intelligence officers? For police officers, the procedure for the public to complain against abuse of authority or malpractices is clear. One can sue, make a complaint which may lead to disciplinary proceedings before the Police Disciplinary Board. If there is a grievance against an intelligence officer exercising those police powers, what would be the channel of public recourse? The Act is not amended to subject intelligence officers to the same disciplinary process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the proposed amendments to the Act will effectively give absolute discretion to the Minister in deciding which intelligence officers will be conferred powers equivalent to those of a Police Inspector or ASP. Also, in the Minister's discretion, these officers would be deemed to be police officers under the ISA. These discretionary powers include appointment of intelligence officers who are not former police officers. Sir, police powers are very wide. In the context of investigations, these include powers to arrest, summon witnesses for the recording of statements, compel banks to produce confidential financial statements of their customers, walk into premises upon suspicion of certain offences and seize properties, etc. There are some areas of concern. First of all, will there be officers without police training who will be conferred police powers? If this is so, my question is: why is there a need to extend these powers to those without police training and experience? Are they qualified to exercise such powers, which have a great potential to be used as a repressive tool? Can we not restrict officers who can be gazetted to former police officers who have crossed over to the Intelligence Service? Second, should their conferred police powers be commensurate with the rank structure? I am of the view that there should be some restrictions on the equivalent ranks of intelligence officers who can exercise equivalent powers. The Criminal Procedure Code sets qualifying ranks to exercise certain powers, for example, recording of statements from suspects can only be done by Sergeants and above, and compelling banks to supply confidential information can only be done by an Inspector, etc.”
“The Minister of State seems to be confused with social cohesion, community cohesion and support for the nation to one that is ensuring bonding with the PAP. Would he clarify that?”
“The MOS, in his answer, says the PA's objective is social and community bonding. CCCs, RCs, the community centres are non-political. And he said, "We draw a very clear line." I want to know from him how clear the line is, and how sure he is about what he says.”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the MOS. He said that the evaluation programme system is not linked to the funding. But I understand that the funding method to VWOs has been changed, from one which is from organisation to programme. So there is no link even with the evaluation system. Then how do you decide which programme to fund or not to fund?”
“I am heartened by the experience of the various FSCs that I have visited and they are able to be resourceful and reach out to either the CDCs or the self-help groups to try and meet some of the demands which are unique to the different communities here in Singapore. Sir, I have answered most of the questions. I will now ask my MOS, Mr Chan Soo Sen, to reply to Mr Low.”
“So, I would like to assure the Member that my Ministry places the highest importance on ensuring that our services are able to cater to Singaporeans who need them regardless of language, race or religion. 3.45 pm By and large, our social service agencies are resourceful and able to cater to clients with specific language requirements. I cited the example earlier of the Marine Parade FSC where well over 30% of the clients are Malays and Malay-speaking. In the instances where the agency staff are not able to speak the client's language, the agency taps on the network of volunteers or partners, such as self-help groups, to help in the translation and working with the clients. The VWOs also send their staff for training which help them understand the specific needs of the different communities. Over and above these social services that cater to all races, we recognise that there are specific needs of different ethnic communities that require special attention. Hence, Government matching grants are given to the self-help groups to look into programmes to help under-achievers and other niche areas. However, as the Prime Minister had indicated recently, self-help groups should not duplicate services provided by other organisations, but instead collaborate with or tap on the services of other providers. The partnership approach would prevent us from swinging unwittingly to an undesirable scenario, where more and more social services and programmes are organised along ethnic lines. At the end of the day, our approach is for the social service agencies to work together with partners who can provide the expertise.”
“There is a committee that is looking into the curriculum development of the madrasah and, through this curriculum development, we hope to address the concerns raised by Mr Maidin that, in the teaching of Islam, we have to ensure that the teachings are contextualised to the context in which our students will grow up as Singaporeans. The development of the curriculum will take that line. We have commissioned a consultant to look into this. It will take a number of years to roll out but I am sure, with time, we will be able to develop a curriculum which is suited to our needs as a minority here in Singapore. I will now touch on the issue raised by Mr Maidin on VWOs. Mr Maidin has expressed concern about Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) having to spend time raising funds. I agree with him that this is a valid concern, especially for smaller VWOs. That is why we set up the Community Chest. It is there, set up to relieve VWOs of fund-raising and to allow them to focus on the running of their services. VWOs that are running programmes which are relevant to the community can apply for funding from the Community Chest. However, there are VWOs which choose to raise funds on their own. I encourage them to partner one another and to share their resources. To minimise the fund-raising burden and avoid donor fatigue, VWOs should set reasonable fund-raising targets based on their needs. As for Government support to VWOs, I have earlier highlighted a $7 million increase in annual recurrent funding to VWOs and, of course, the setting up of the VWO Capability Development Fund of $30 million over five years. The Government has also introduced double tax deductions for approved donations.”
“On the question of the Mosque Building Fund, Mr Maidin has raised some very interesting suggestions. First, let me give an update on the mosque building programme before I answer specifically some of the questions raised by Mr Maidin. Nineteen mosques have been built under the Mosque Building Fund programme since its launch in 1975. The building programme for mosques is dovetailed with HDB's building programme. Two mosques are currently under construction - in Bukit Panjang and Sembawang respectively. Construction of a mosque in Bishan is expected to start in 2003. I am also pleased to announce that a mosque will be built in Sengkang new town. In time to come, with the need for new mosques having been largely met through the mosque building programme, MUIS will focus more on working with mosques to upgrade their facilities. The Mosque Building Fund is currently required to fund the building of new mosques. The current collection is about $3.5 million per year. But the cost of a new mosque is about $10 million and, therefore, it takes about three years of collection to build a new mosque. Mr Maidin's suggestion that the Mosque Building Fund be used for mosque maintenance and upgrading work can be considered when the mosque building programme is completed, which it must one day. The older mosques can be considered for upgrading first. MUIS can study this and work with the mosques on the phasing of the upgrading programmes for the various mosques. MUIS will also look into Mr Maidin's suggestion for mosque surpluses to be used to help fund building and upgrading of mosques. Sir, on the matter of the role of MUIS with madrasah, a point raised by Dr Maliki, I would like to assure him that we are in constant contact with madrasah operators in Singapore.”
“Sir, on some specific suggestions by Mr Zainul Abidin about how we should continually engage new scholars or scholars from different parts of the world in order to develop a greater understanding of how Islam should be contextualised in the context of a multi-racial Singapore, I would like to assure the Member that we are constantly doing that. There may not be a formal programme, but there are efforts to reach out to various scholars who are out there in the Muslim world who have a better understanding of how Islam should develop in a multi-racial setting. Last year, MUIS led a delegation to the US to meet some of the scholars in America as there is some similarity between the context of the Muslim minority there and the Muslim minority in Singapore. I would like to assure the Member that we will constantly be on the look-out. Yet, at the same time, I believe that the Member will agree with me that we should be finding ways to develop some indigenous capability within Singapore - scholars of our own who are able to guide the Muslim community in a context that is ever-changing. Dr Maliki has also suggested some very good ideas about attachment programmes for our uztaz. I would certainly ask MUIS to study that. Personally, I think such exposure will help them in terms of understanding how Islam is contextualised in those areas which are similar to Singapore. Dr Maliki has also asked what steps can Muslims take if they detect that there are teachers who are teaching Islam not in the correct manner. I would urge any Muslims in Singapore, if they come across such incidents, the first thing they should do is to refer to the office of the Mufti or the MUIS website and we will follow up with some investigations.”
“MUIS has also seen an increase in zakat collections from $6 million in 1995 to $14 million in 2001, due to greater awareness among Muslims of their religious obligations. As for full-time education conducted by madrasahs, I would like to assure both Mdm Halimah, who raised this question earlier, and Dr Maliki, that MUIS and the madrasahs are working closely on preparations for compulsory education. They are working hard to ensure that the first madrasah cohort to sit the PSLE in 2008 are adequately prepared and to reach the benchmark of 175 at the PSLE level. The madrasah curriculum is being reviewed to improve the teaching of Islamic subjects as well as the teaching of English, Mathematics, Science and the mother tongue. Curriculum time for English, Mathematics and Science subjects will be increased without diluting the teaching of religious subjects. The madrasahs have also hired more qualified English, Mathematics and Science teachers, and provided their teachers with training to improve their skills. MUIS provides financial assistance through the Madrasah Fund. The madrasahs can then use these funds to top the teachers' salaries or go for teachers' training. MUIS coordinates with MOE to ensure that the children who are unable to get a place in the madrasahs when CE takes place, can still register for the national schools. MUIS and the madrasahs are actively looking at programmes to enable their students to interact with students of other races and appreciate the national perspective.”