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 29 of 54.
“The Minister of State, in his answer, says that project work will be introduced. My concern is whether the teachers are adequately prepared to guide the students in the project work because it is a fairly new component being introduced. My experience shows that sometimes students are a bit confused as to what are the requirements and the guidelines. So my question is whether teachers are sufficiently prepared beforehand and what are the preparations that teachers have gone through.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development seems to be giving a different criterion now. In the election, we had the impression that political support is the sole consideration. He has mentioned in his main reply that there are many other factors like age, etc, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us what is the weightage of this individual criterion that will be considered for the selection of a particular precinct and, in particular, what is the weightage of political support for the programme.”
“Why not the Government call the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to review the boundaries much earlier, way before an election? Why wait until so late and then suddenly decide to call an election only one day after its Report is released?”
“Sir, the Minister, in his main answer on the question of rally sites, says that law and order is the main consideration as to why the number of rally sites is reduced and why some rally sites are not even within the constituencies themselves. Does the Minister agree that public rallies during elections are probably the only links that the Opposition could reach out to the voters effectively? Thus, by reducing the number of rally sites or moving the rally site far away from the constituency itself will reduce the influence that the Opposition could have to persuade the voters to vote for them. Does he also agree that the same argument of law and order applies, ie, would there be a day when we have elections but have no public rallies, because law and order is a concern? And would there then be that, somehow, elections will cause some problem of law and order and, thereby, there shall be no elections because of law and order?”
“Sir, I expected the answer from the Minister on proportional representation. But I would like to ask him: do we not have confidence in the people because you are worried that the system will generate issues such as race and instability? Eventually, does the Minister agree that it is a process and it is a question of whether Singaporeans are mature enough? Secondly, he talks about other countries having the system. I thought the PAP always says we are different. When are we different and when are we the same with other countries? Is it at your convenience, you cite examples and you decide?”
“May I make a point of clarification, Mr Speaker?”
“No, Sir, I have a clarification on the points made. What I am saying is that perhaps we should not look at the NMP who only had 14% of the votes as being rejected. The last thing we want is for the NMP scheme to become something that encourages NATO, ie, no action, talk only.”
“Sir, that is one. Secondly, he mentioned about the NMP who participated in the election in Chua Chu Kang and was rejected. Sir, I have a different point of view. For the MPs who have been here for 10 years, we have seen many NMPs. At least there is one NMP who was prepared to say, "OK, I am prepared to stand for election since I am somehow interested in politics." Sir, the point is - I was in the Special Select Committee for NMPs - sometimes, when we go through the interviews, what crosses my mind is: why are these people prepared to be NMPs but are not prepared to participate in the political process?”
“Sir, can I have a clarification on Mr Chiam's point? Sir, Mr Chiam said that NMPs dilute the Opposition. I am from the Opposition. I do not feel that way. Sir, I am prepared to face whatever challenge, whether NMP or whatever.”
“Mr Yeo has said that the Nominated MPs are adding value and they are not redundant. If you look at these two idioms he uses to illustrate his points: jing shang tian hua and hua she tian zu, can he tell us what is the difference between them?”
“Sir, may I have your permission to seek a point of clarification?”
“Sir, if the Government is sincere in wanting participation from the people, wanting Singaporeans to be concerned about the country and wanting Singaporeans to take ownership, and thereby feel that they are rooted here, and it is our home, I think it is time that it should consider seriously either a proportional representation system or a hybrid system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation system. Is the PAP open enough for the idea? Or we just shut the door immediately and say that the change is too radical and will weaken the Government and social structure, etc, etc. Sir, let us wait and see.”
“Sir, now that the Prime Minister has decided to lift the Whip - I do not know - but just now he said maybe not. So I do not know whether the Whip is lifted or not lifted, not only on this NMP issue but for other issues for enlightened debate. If that is the case, is there a need for NMPs to show the public that there is indeed sufficient dissent in Parliament? Sir, the essence of parliamentary democracy, I understand, is representation of the people in the decision making process and accountability. I am quite surprised to hear Mr Singh say that he does not represent a constituency. Perhaps the PAP wants to explain to us their thinking and how they feel about the political system such that they can walk into Parliament without being elected. Anyway, I think they should go through the political system. My understanding is that Parliament is the highest decision making body of the country. So it is essential that those who are present in Parliament participate in the decision making process on behalf of the people and be accountable to them. I think it is not simply a question of having their views, as what some Members have said. We can have their views, yes, but I think we are here not only to express our views. We are here representing the people and making decisions on their behalf. We must have some basis for representing the people and, to me, "representing the people" means going through the election process. If not, how do you claim you are representing someone? It has got to be some electoral process that you have gone through.”
“Why was there this sudden wake-up call in wanting participation and the introduction of the NMP scheme after 1988 when there was a substantial vote swing against the PAP? Sir, I do not have answers to these questions. I leave it to Singaporeans to answer and to judge. The third reason for introducing the NMP scheme is that the NMP is politically non-partisan. Mr Goh said: 'Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right.' [Vol. 54, col. 700]. Sir, I find that most of the NMPs voted with the PAP all these years. Of course, we have heard that it does not matter if they vote for the PAP. But what was the purpose of introducing NMPs? Yes, they have their views and they can express their views eloquently, but I find that most of the views they expressed were similar to the PAP's views, but expressed in different style. So I doubt whether the NMP scheme has achieved its non-partisan objective. However, Sir, I do find that the NMPs have one useful role to play, ie, because they are not PAP MPs, when they criticise or attack the Opposition, they would sound more convincing and would be more receptive to the public. Mr Goh, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, also revealed interesting workings of the PAP. He said: 'PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision.' [Vol. 54, cols. 698-99]. Sir, it seems to me that the real Parliament is actually behind the PAP's closed-door meetings. And the problem is that they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted, and this is one of the reasons for bringing in NMPs who could vote freely to show dissent.”
“He said: 'After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber.' [Vol. 54, col. 698]. He further added: 'In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984.' [Vol. 54, col. 704]. But the Prime Minister conveniently forgot that the primary reason why the PAP was able to win back the seat it lost in 1984 was because Anson Constituency held by my party's former Secretary-General was redrawn into Tiong Bahru GRC. As a result, when I stood for my first election there, my team, all new faces, had to face an incumbent veteran MP, Mr Chng Jit Koon, who had been the MP for Tiong Bahru for 20 years. I believe if Anson had remained as a single seat constituency, the result could have been different. Sir, for your information, Anson today is part of Tanjong Pagar GRC. Since the PAP has found that the political system is not ideal and that there is a need to strengthen the political system, I wonder why the PAP did not face this problem squarely, as it did with most problems, instead of having NMPs. Is it because the PAP does not consider the Opposition as part of the political system? I also wonder why the PAP did not find problems with the political system and take issue with the lack of participation prior to 1984, when there was no Opposition in this House at all?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, initially, I did not intend to speak on the issue, because the stand of the Workers' Party is clear. We oppose the introduction of NMPs in Parliament. It is not my habit to repeat what I have said and argued, as they have been recorded in the Hansard. However, Sir, when I revisited the speech made by the then First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, on the rationale of the introduction of the NMP scheme, I find that there are some interesting points worth for the House to recall and consider before the House decides whether there should be NMPs in this term of Parliament. The MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Mr Davinder Singh, just now said that perhaps we should look at whether there is anything wrong with the NMP scheme in the past 10 years. Perhaps we should look at another perspective, ie, whether the NMP scheme has achieved its original objectives. First of all, let me quote Mr Goh, Prime Minister, in 1989 [Hansard, 29th November 1989, Vol. 54, col. 695], he said: 'The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation .' Sir, has our political system been strengthened in the past 10 years with NMPs in this House? Has the political participation of Singaporeans increased? Strangely, Sir, 10 years after the introduction of NMPs to generate more political participation, we are still hearing in the last few days about how the Government should involve more Singaporeans in the remaking of Singapore. Secondly, according to Mr Goh, Prime Minister, the need to introduce NMPs is because the Opposition is inadequate.”
“How do we ensure that in such a situation, the workers are not exploited or treated unfairly by the employers should be the immediate concern of the Government? Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of the September 11 event on Singaporeans and the recent arrest of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists in Singapore make us better appreciate the vulnerability of Singapore and the importance of our social cohesion. The Workers' Party equally cares for Singapore's security and regards as its responsibility the protection of Singapore's interest. Therefore, the Workers' Party supports the Government's efforts to safeguard the peace and security of Singapore. The Workers' Party also welcomes the Government's announcement to open up more space for Singaporeans to take part in political discussions and acknowledges that on specific policies, those with different views can also help in the policy making, to benefit the majority of the people. But to achieve the aim of uniting the people to work together in remaking Singapore, the Government should exercise more tolerance. It should transcend party interest, and should not regard Singapore as though it belongs to the PAP alone. The PAP is the PAP. But, Singapore is our nation. Whether we agree or disagree with the PAP, we are all part of the nation. The rise and fall of a nation is the business of every citizen. It is only when the ruling party and the people in general get out of the shadow of failing to separate the party from the nation, can we truly be a united people in remaking a new Singapore.”
“Many of them are middle-aged. They need a regular income to maintain their families. Apart from a steady job to maintain the family, it is more important to make these employed people feel that what they have learned could be put to good use and that their respective talents could be given their full play, rather than merely doing a job and earning a living. The PAP Government is of the view that Singapore is a small country with not enough talented people around. There is therefore a need to attract foreign talents to supplement the local ones. I agree with this principle. The question is: has the Government done all that it can to identify and develop the local talents? The PAP Government adopted certain policies to save cost and to avoid wastage in educational spending. Have these policies resulted in our today's shortage of talents? For example, the quota on the intake of medical students. In the past, students who studied at the polytechnics were not allowed to go to the universities. Students who were streamed into the monolingual stream would have no chance to go to a main-stream secondary school. Although these policies have been modified, I believe the PAP Government is capable of undertaking greater reform to enable Singaporeans to have more chances to become talented people, thereby strengthening their ability to compete with foreign talents. Fourthly, how do we ensure that the workers are not treated unfairly by employers? In the high growth and tight labour market, we regard the workers as kings. But now, when the economic situation has changed, job opportunities are scarce, job seekers are at the mercy of the employers, and hence it is the turn for employers to become kings.”
“Secondly, when economic growth does not benefit the entire people and its growth rate is not as good as before, how do we reduce the burden of the people of Singapore in their daily lives? In his Address, the President pointed out that our national wage level was higher than before. I quote, "We can no longer expect to grow by 8 to 10 percent, year after year, as we did before the Asian Financial Crisis, even if we were to work as hard or harder than before. That phase of our economic development is over." Since the PAP Government is asking the people not to expect high economic growth, can the people also expect the PAP Government to review the charges it has been levying for all the services it provides, and the criteria in which the Government says is "affordable to the people"? For example, in medical costs, selling price of HDB flats, utilities charges and the university tuition fees. All these prices are based on the so-called "affordability". Now the economic situation has changed. Should not the PAP Government have the moral obligation to re-define what are the prices that the ordinary citizens can really afford? This is particularly so with our ageing population. There will be greater demand for medical services and convalescent homes. The PAP Government recently announced the policy of leaving convalescent homes to the private sector to operate. With such privately operated facilities, will the charges be so high that it will eventually become a burden on Singaporeans? Thirdly, how is the PAP Government going to enable every Singaporean to make the best use of his or her talents? As we all know, we are facing unemployment problem. With economic restructuring, unemployed workers may not get back the same jobs and pay, even after the economy has recovered.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday afternoon, Mr Seng Han Thong remarked in Parliament that his residents complained about having no linkway between the blocks and the market, and hence they were unable to go to the market. Let me tell him that in my constituency, there is no linkway to the market and the residents never complain. They have been going to the market on rainy days for many years. So I wonder whether this is the result of the education by the PAP in using the tactic of upgrading programmes to win voters. Mr Speaker, Sir, the General Election in 2001 was held in the midst of Singapore's economic slowdown, the September 11 event in the US and the turbulence in the regional politics. The Singapore electorate believed in the PAP's ability to run the country, expected more good years to come, and hoped to have continued assets value-enhancement and a better life. The PAP won an unprecedented victory and achieved its envisaged political goal. I want to remind the PAP Government that, in the next five years, its priorities in the governance of Singapore should be: Firstly, how to restore our economic growth and to ensure that the people in general can enjoy the benefits derived from such economic growth. With changes in the overall economic restructuring, there may appear a situation in which only the high income people will benefit from Singapore's economic growth, while the older and unskilled workers remain in the lower income bracket. If the Government cannot narrow the widening income gap and economic growth does not spread throughout the whole nation, then economic growth is only a growth in numbers without any real meaning to the lower income people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to put on record that over the years, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, as Speaker of the House, has won my respect for being fair most of the time, if not all the time. I have served in some Parliamentary Committees and also a Member of some delegations to overseas visits, in which Mr Tan Soo Khoon was the leader. Being a non-PAP Member, I have not felt discriminated, and I think this is important as he was the Speaker. Last, but not the least, I did sometimes flout the parliamentary proceedings rules and, of course, I got a public lecture from Mr Tan Soo Khoon. I think sometimes he got pek chet with me - he was irritated - but I realise that he did not take these things personally unto himself. For that, I wish to congratulate him for being professional in his conduct as the Speaker of Parliament.”
“Since the Minister for Finance agrees that I do have a point although he said it was on technicalities, fair enough, at least I have got some details now, I support the scheme. I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. That the sum of $2,900,000,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002. Question, "That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolution. Resolution reported. "That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001".”
“Sir, I have stated that I do support the scheme but before I come to that support, does the Minister agree that I have got to know what is the allocation principle? And for me to ask the question in detail, I need to know more information about that beforehand, before I submit the cut on 9th October. But I only know of the announcement on 12th October. So, is it fair to a Member like me?”
“Sir, if my recollection is correct, an announcement on 12th October in Parliament has made it clearer. But I was supposed to send in this cut by 9th October. So what does the Minister expect me to know more than that? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, as I have said earlier, it is not a question of whether you support giving away $2.7 billion in this form. If you support, then you support the Bill. If you do not, then you object and we will have a vote.”
“Is the Minister aware that, given the PAP Government's policy and stand of dishing out benefits, with a track record of linking to political support, it is only prudent for the Opposition to know what is the detail and how is the allocation, before I come here to say whether I support or object?”
“Clarification, Sir. While I do support the allocation and issuing of New Singapore Shares, it is only fair that Members should know the details before we can go into it to better debate and decide on the subject of the New Singapore Shares. I do know that under the Standing Orders, it is totally perfect and legal to actually give the notice for this Supplementary Estimates. Does the Minister agree that although the timeframe given is in accordance with the Standing Orders, how would he expect Opposition MPs - I suppose PAP Members all know beforehand - to debate when we do not know what actually are the New Singapore Shares about. What we know is the announcement by the Prime Minister of New Singapore Shares at his National Day Rally Speech. With that kind of situation, how does he expect Opposition MPs to ask relevant questions when they do not know anything at all? Is that fair? Would he like to comment?”
“Since the fund was intended to assist needy families, what mechanism is there in place to make sure that CDCs use the fund for its intended purpose? 3. What are the specific programmes mandated by the Government for the CDCs to carry out to achieve the objective of the allocation under the Budget?”
“Sir, before I go into the query on the subject matter, I wish to state that I regret the Government's style in pushing these Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure in Parliament. I was notified of the Supplementary Estimates and to submit a cut, if I wished to raise any query. The deadline for the submission of a cut was 9th October, before the New Singapore Shares were announced in Parliament on 12th October. How does the PAP Government expect Opposition MPs to be able to query the matter in detail before any announcement is made? Secondly, Sir, even today, when we are supposed to pass this Estimate for the New Singapore Shares, I know very little about the New Singapore Shares scheme. I think it is only fair that the detailed scheme should be made known in this House before the Estimate is passed. I would like to know the following: 1. How many shares will each individual be allocated, and what is the basis of the allocation of the shares? 2. Are the shares allocated linked to political support for the PAP? 3. How much would the cash benefit of the shares be per individual when they are first redeemed? 4. What is the Government's projection of the cash value of the shares at their maturity in 2007? Assuming that a person keeps his share till then, how much cash benefit will he get? Sir, I now move to my second cut on assistance to needy families. Sir, I understand that $200 million is needed for the Government's contribution to the Community Assistance Fund, and I suppose these are contributions to CDCs and other organisations. I would like to know: 1. How this $200 million will be allocated. If it is to CDCs, how much will each CDC get, and how much Hougang CDC will be allocated and what is the basis of the allocation? 2.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Z be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 4000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, can I take my two cuts together?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $15,000,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002. Head Z -”
“Sir, I would like to know what is the response time of the Ministry from the time an approach is made by a worker to the time of referral. Is there any timeframe set for the Ministry to conduct that? Does the Ministry follow up after the worker has been referred for job matching, because I understand that some workers, after being referred, go to the employers and the employers say they have enough people.”
“This is through the community self-help groups, ie, SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC. These community self-help groups will play the part of the "surrogate" employers. They will become the sponsoring agency for the unemployed worker, or for the worker whose employer is not prepared to send him for training. They would then put up a proposal to send this worker for training and the Government will give him support and financial assistance through the community self-help group. We have already quite a number of people who were trained under this community self-help group route. As of October 2001, the number of workers who were supported under the "surrogate" employer group, ie, the community self-help groups, is about 7,800 workers. They also receive financial subsidy or training fee subsidy to achieve skills upgrading. Sir, his second point is whether we will help those who are undergoing training to find new jobs, instead of remaining just on a permanent long-term training. Yes, that is the focus of our programmes. We will certainly make every effort to try to job-match those who have undergone skills upgrading or taken up retraining and place them in new jobs that are still available. We will make every effort to ensure that those who sign up for skills upgrading will have a chance to be re-employed. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, a further clarification. If, let us say, a worker is retrenched, he has yet to find an employer and he has approached the Ministry for help, what would be the process and arrangement for that worker?”
“I would like to know whether those who are not union members, and their employers are not supportive of their training requests, could benefit from this fund. If not, where can they get help from? The other question is perhaps not so related to this cut, and I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to answer, is whether the new increased grants for workers who undergo for training programme announced would be subject to some abuse. Workers may take the grant of $1,000 or $2,000 during this situation to go for training but they may not get the job at the end of the day. Could the Minister clarify the point? Although the DPM announced that the grant for those workers who need training during the downturn would be increased, the question is whether or not you will find employers for these workers when they are retrenched, and link them up and provide the training, or you actually allow them to go for training without any employers. And will there be workers who keep on going for training but they can never get a job at the end of the day? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asked whether those who are non-union members can also benefit from this training assistance. The answer is yes. If they are union members, of course, and if they are union members who are employed, they can take advantage of the Skills Redevelopment Programme as an employer-supported training. I had mentioned that earlier. If they are union members and they are unemployed, they can go to NTUC and seek support from the Education and Training Fund. For those who are non-union members, whether they are unemployed or their employers are not prepared to support them for skills upgrading, we have a third avenue to assist them.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 3000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I learn from a press report that programmes supported by NTUC Education and Training Fund have benefited about 80,000 workers since 1998. I have the following questions to ask: (1) What are the training programmes supported by the Fund? (2) What are the objective and focus of the fund in training workers? (3) In view of the current unemployment situation, will the Fund focus more on the training of retrenched workers, ie, older and lower-educated workers? (4) Would NTUC publish a profile of workers who have benefited from the fund so far, in terms of their age, education level, job position and income?”
“Any Singaporean who is in difficulty can get help and we have promised to do that. Then we have also cut hospital charges. So these are things we are doing to address the problem of the cost of living in Singapore, and it is not a problem of things becoming more expensive. Because if you look at the figure, for the whole of this year, our inflation is less than one-and-a-half percent. In fact, prices have been down every month since May, ie, the CPI. But it is a problem of people not having quite as much to spend because bonuses are down, salaries are cut, and you have less money to spend. Now, what do I do? I cannot give you the same money as you had last year when it was a 10% growth year. But if, as a result of this tightening, you do not have enough for your bus fares, through the EDRS, through the other schemes, we will make sure that you will not go without what you absolutely need. The frills, we cannot ensure. But what you absolutely need, you will not go without.”
“How can we be sure that the person who comes in is not a bottle washer? We have to assess the quality of his degree, the sort of company it is, whether it is a reputable company, what sort of jobs the company claims it is doing, and after that we will visit the company once in a while just to make sure whether he is next to the bottles being washed or whether he is sitting down really designing something in front of a screen. There are no cast iron solutions to this. This is something which every country has to deal with, even countries which totally shut out foreign workers, like Japan. And they have Iranians, they have all sorts of strange people who are in the underground economy and without which the Japanese economy could not work properly. So these are problems we have. I am glad that Mr Low Thia Khiang has made it quite clear. He is not against bringing in foreign workers. We share his objective that this should not cause problems for Singaporeans and should be for the overall good of Singaporeans. But we cannot promise that every Singaporean who feels he has been out-competed by a foreigner will get redress. That is not possible. Because there are many reasons why a particular person may be preferred or not preferred, may find a job or not find a job, and cost is only one of them. As for what we are doing about the cost of living, I do not understand what Mr Low Thia Khiang means. I suggest he read the Executive Summary again which I have distributed. We have distributed New Singapore Shares. We are giving service and conservancy rebates. We are giving Utilities Save rebates. We have got electricity charges about to be trimmed. We have frozen university fees. We are suspending repayment of the loans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no quarrel with the need to bring in foreign talent. I have made this quite clear in my speech. I said we understand it. The question is: how do you go about it and does the policy not in a way threaten and alienate Singaporeans, and how do you justify the need? That is another point. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I have made my explanation and I asked him whether he believes me that if you do not allow in foreign workers in a reasonable proportion, EDB will not be able to bring investments in. Does that mean that we are dependent on foreigners? To some extent, yes. But if you look at the City of London, which is the greatest financial centre in the world, there are very few Englishmen working there. There are Japanese, Koreans, French, Americans, Australians, a few Englishmen, Scotsmen. So if you said you wanted only Singaporeans to be employed, can you become a financial centre? You go to New York. You walk along the streets - all shapes and sizes of human kind, colours, dresses and languages. That is why they are a vibrant great centre, the Big Apple. If you go to Silicon Valley, there are East Europeans, Israelis, Indians, Koreans, PRC Chinese, Singaporeans, Japanese. That is why the Silicon Valley is the powerhouse for IT and electronics for the whole world. So do we want to become like that or not? We have practical problems managing. I put it at $2,500, he may make a side deal with his employer. I put it at $10,000, he may still make a side deal with his employer. He goes off duty in the evening. Instead of going home and watching television, he decides to go and wash cars. Can I stop it completely? No. Can I police it and catch it and do something about it when we find it? Yes.”
“The other point is: how do you also make sure that employment pass holders come in for the specific jobs of employment and they do not go into some other areas or part-time jobs or take up jobs in other sectors as well and compete with other Singaporeans? These are real concerns, especially at this point in time. Finally, Sir, I have in my speech said that perhaps the Government should actually also look at cost of living, how to cut the cost of living of Singaporeans during this downturn. Besides the help, what about the cost of living? I hope DPM will touch on these matters. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I establish that Mr Low Thia Khiang supports the policy of bringing in foreign talent to Singapore, whatever these other qualms he may have about specific implementation problems? But he supports the idea that we need foreign talent and we should bring them in.”
“Sir, I wish to clarify, first of all, that I did not say that we should stop allowing foreign talent to come in altogether. What I am saying is that we have to define what do we mean by "talent" and how does the policy itself not threaten the jobs of Singaporeans, especially at this point in time. Otherwise, it is going to alienate a lot of people. From the reply of the DPM, he said that EDB is going to have $9 billion FDI and we will bring in probably two-thirds of the total employment created by these companies and one-third will be foreign talents. If we do not allow these companies in with foreign employees, they may decide to go somewhere else, eg, China. And it seems to me that allowing foreign workers to be employed by companies, which are coming here to invest, seems to be the only factor that we are able to attract investments. So what is the factor which actually attracts investors to invest here? And how important is the policy of foreign talent? Can the DPM explain to us? The other point is that the Government has decided to tighten the issuance of employment pass and also raise the ceiling from $2,000 to $2,500. But there is a problem. Even without raising it, there is this existing problem. While you set a target to say that to qualify for employment pass, a person must be paid, let us say, $2,000 or even $1,500, how do you make sure that an employer will not have a private agreement with a worker? Instead of paying $1,500, the employer pays his worker $1,000 or $800 and makes him wash dishes. This was what the DPM said. How do you prevent that from happening? Because I think that has been happening.”
“Thank you, Sir. Mr Chiam lamented in his speech just now, complaining that the prospective PAP candidate is giving money in his constituency. He said that the Opposition could feel it. I am afraid I have to clarify that I have a different view, because he said "all Opposition". Sir, I have no complaint if the prospective PAP candidate in my constituency gives away assistance and money. I think he should give more, the more the merrier. I welcome it. I would be worried if he is not giving. Then I would be asking: "Is the PAP Government treating every constituency the same and fairly?" I strongly believe, and I am confident, Sir, that the voters in Hougang cannot be bought over just by giving them money.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to clarify what Mr Chiam said?”
“The Government should take a deeper look into the matter and work out some means to oversee this system. We should not reject our local talents and ask these foreign talents to take up jobs which could actually be taken up by our own citizens. I think this is unfair to our own people. This present package can be said to be more presentable than the two previous so-called off-Budget packages. In the previous packages, the main emphasis was on saving business costs, and the workers are the people who suffer. This package can be described as a "painless" package. Why is it painless? Because the General Election is coming. After the election, the pain will come. Singaporeans should be mentally prepared for this.”
“In this package introduced by the Government, it says everybody can get a $200 subsidy. In a family, if the sole breadwinner loses his job and is unemployed, how is he and his family going to live with $200? In the present economic situation, the Government should first of all find out how to reduce the burden of the people. For example, GST. Will the Government consider reducing the GST or to suspend GST for the time being? As for those who are the sole breadwinners of the family, once they have lost their job, I think the Government should see how many dependants they have, and use it as a basis of consideration, just like our public assistance scheme. I think only in this way can the Government give them some genuine help. On the other hand, the Government should also conduct a comprehensive review on the foreign talent policy. Yes, no doubt, if we want to be a hub of the global economy, we have to adopt an open-minded attitude to accept these foreign talents. But the problem is how do we define talent? From what I understand, to qualify their applicants for the Employment Pass system, many companies are making use of various loopholes to employ foreign workers to save on their manpower cost, and I think this is not a very foolproof method. I have written to MOM on this, but to no avail. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans are born in this country. They have completed their national service, they have shouldered their responsibility as citizens. But now, these foreign talents are coming here to snatch away their rice bowl. Of course, from DPM's speech, I understand that the Government has already begun to look into this matter. But whether or not this matter can be effectively resolved, I think it is still doubtful.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell the PAP Government that the morale of the people of Singapore is now very low. Many people are worried that the economy will get worse. Many of them may lose their jobs and the businesses may go bust. The people are concerned that once they have lost their jobs, or when their business collapses, how are they and their families going to survive, as the cost of living in Singapore is so very high. I do not think I need to reiterate this point. In many of my previous speeches, I have urged the Government not to make the burden of living so hard for the people. But the Government always says that all things are "affordable" to the people. When the economy is good, our people may be able to afford the services and facilities, but barely so. At this time of a severe downturn, the Government should promptly re-examine the charges and tariffs to see whether they are still "affordable" to the people. In the Government's so-called "market economy" and privatisation of public services, the bottom line is inevitably that the charges are affordable to the people. Now, these people lose their jobs, but the cost of living is still the same. The burden has not become lighter. As far as this package is concerned, it has not broken through the Government's existing framework. Through all these rebates and temporary measures, the Government is trying to show that it cares for the people. In order to help the low-income families, the fees of the tertiary institutions are frozen. I think what the Government should do is to reduce the fees, the charges, the conservancy and service charges and the utility charges. A temporary freeze is not enough. How can you put off the fire on a cartload of wood with just a cup of water?”
“The Minister of State said that we need some competition in order to set benchmark, and he mentioned two. I wonder why two competitors will be considered as a benchmark. Why not three or four? And he mentioned about managed competition. Would he explain to us what does he mean by "managed competition"? Dr John Chen Seow Phun: To have this comparison, you must have at least two. Whether three or four, depending on the size of the market again, if you have too many, you may have the problem that Mr Thomas mentioned about, ie, lack of economy of scale. As I have said, we are reviewing it and we will make a decision in due course. As to why it is called managed competition as opposed to free competition, it is because we do not allow players to just freely come in. So that is the meaning of "managed competition".”
“The second disruption was consequential to the first. The system has, on the whole, stabilised, and the service availability target of 99.7%, which translates to service disruption of not more than 4 minutes over a 20-hour daily operation, has been achieved on most days over the past 12 months. LTA has completed its investigations into the cause of the service disruption on 29th August and 6th September. The disruption on 29th August was due to a minor technical problem. A permanent solution to prevent a recurrence has been installed. However, LTA is of the opinion that the disruption on 6th September was a result of shortcomings in the repair work carried out by the operator to rectify damage sustained during the 29th August incident. LTA intends to impose a penalty on SLRT for the 6th September service disruption. The frequency of the recent service disruptions is not acceptable. The LRT operator is required to meet the standards for service quality, safety, maintenance and operation prescribed by LTA in its Licence and Operating Agreement. Penalties are imposed when the operator fails to meet a standard. I have asked LTA to review and tighten the penalty framework in order to spur the operator to devise the necessary preventive and corrective maintenance regimes to avoid severe delays. I understand that SLRT is now working with the system supplier to see how its operation and maintenance regimes can be further improved.”
“This is not to say that we are trying to prevent the Opposition from reaching out to their supporters and Singaporeans, because there are many other ways of doing it. And indeed Opposition parties are doing it through various means - Internet, publications and so forth. To require political parties, in this context, the SDP, to pay about $3,400 for 13 CISCO guards, which works out to about $65 per hour per officer is, I think, not asking too much. I am sure any organiser will want to avert any problems, because that will also reflect on the organisation. BUKIT PANJANG LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (Service disruptions and accidents) 15. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (a) why is the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit still encountering frequent service disruptions and accidents despite 20 months of rectification works since its opening; and (b) what are the measures taken to ensure the safety and convenience of LRT commuters. The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the launch of the Bukit Panjang LRT system on 6th November 1999, improvements have been made to the hardware and software of the system to improve service availability. The operator, SLRT, has also continued to improve its operations and maintenance procedures and processes over this period. The number of service disruptions lasting more than 20 minutes reduced sharply from 35 in the first eight months of operation to 7 in the following six months. This year, up to now, 6 such service disruptions have occurred; unfortunately, the last 2 occurred within seven days of each other, on 29th August and 6th September.”
“Sir, would the Police impose the same condition of requiring CISCO guards during elections? Secondly, why is the Police or the Government treating political parties the same as any other organisation? Basically, political parties hold rallies to disseminate certain information and to institute public debate. By imposing the condition of requiring the hiring of CISCO guards, does the Minister of State not think that it will restrict the ability of political parties to organise rallies, given the fact that it costs a lot of money to employ CISCO guards? Is this one way to restrict and curtail the ability of the Opposition in having activities like rallies and dissemination of information? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first of all, the general election (GE) is a national event. So political rallies during GE do not require the hiring of CISCO guards. The Police takes charge of that. The other point is that Police takes a professional attitude towards all these events, whether it is organised by any political party or by any other organisers where there is potential law and order problem. It is a professional judgment that must be made because, ultimately, law and order must be maintained. Like I have said, in particular, for political rallies, given the nature of the topics being raised and the mixed crowd involved, Police professional judgment is that there is potential for law and order problem and hence the need for CISCO guards. Like I have said, this is not just for political rallies but also for other events as well. For the Singapore International Marathon and the recent football international match between Singapore and Liverpool, Police made the same judgment.”
“Would the Minister for Finance clarify the Government's position on the reserves? Is the Government saying that no matter under what circumstances, it will never touch the reserves, or would it, under certain circumstances, dig into the reserves? If so, what would be the circumstances?”
“Sir, there is speculation outside this House as to why the Senior Minister was tasked to negotiate this agreement with Malaysia instead of the Prime Minister. Would the Minister like to explain that?”