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 3 of 54.
“Madam, I asked two specific questions on GST. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister: one, would the Government raise GST before the end of this decade, whether it is yes or no? Secondly, does the Minister agree that GSTVs do not fully offset the amount of GST paid by lower-income households? Madam, on my cut on OBR, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her explanation why OBR is not needed here and also for explaining the context in which OBR was set up in other countries. I have the following clarifications: one, do we need to wait till the international market loses confidence in us to set up such institutions? I thought the Government is always preparing for rainy days? We are talking about "未 雨 绸 缪 ". The second clarification: does the Senior Minister of State not agree that such an independent institution will enhance public confidence in the Government's expenditure and why the need to raise the tax? I suppose it would be easier to justify when such an independent organisation explains. The third clarification: does the Senior Minister of State not agree that such an independent institution could provide useful input to the Elected President? Or whether the Government draws from past Reserve? Currently, the Elected President has no independent institution that can help him except advice by the Government?”
“What is the Ministry's strategy should such a scenario unfold? How severely would a US tax cut affect our ability to maintain a sustainable tax regime? Leadership in Government-linked Firms”
“It will also give them some psychological security during the transitional period to focus their energies on training and seeking re-employment. US Tax Reform Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Chairman, the United States (US) administration has been reported as considering radical tax changes which could see a drastic lowering of corporate income tax rates. As Minister Chan Chun Sing mentioned in his speech on Wednesday during the Budget debate last week, tax competition is a major concern for Singapore, and it determines to a large extent our policy on corporate and personal income tax rates. At the moment, Singapore has one of the most competitive tax regimes in the world. Together with our infrastructural quality and skilled workforce, this has enabled us to attract significant amounts of foreign direct investments (FDIs). Usually, we would consider economies, such as Hong Kong and Luxembourg, as being more comparable as competitors. The tax rates in major economies, such as the US, UK and Japan, have always been much higher. By virtue of its size, the relative strength of the US economy and its value as a consumer market, any move by the new US administration to improve its tax competitiveness will refresh its attractiveness to investors and have major repercussions on its competitors. It could spark similar moves by other economies. Intensified tax competition from large economies will increase the number of economies which investors consider in deciding where to put their money. This will affect our ability to attract FDIs in future. These challenges are of particular concern in the current context, in light of the setback from the abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other global challenges.”
“If the Minister is, indeed, considering an increase in GST before the end of the decade, I hope he can be upfront with Singaporeans now so that they are not blindsided by the Government, as they were with the sudden 30% increase in water price. Retrenchment Tax Deferment Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I would like to ask the Minister to consider temporarily deferring the collection of personal income tax from workers who have been retrenched or made redundant. Typically, more workers are retrenched in the first and fourth quarters of each year than in the second and third quarters. This means that these workers would have earned enough income to be taxed, and their tax liability becomes an additional drain on savings that they have to factor in. Workers who have signed on to the General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) payments will experience ongoing tax deductions even during the period of unemployment, either monthly, or in a lump sum, and if they are unable to pay up, they are slapped with a late payment penalty. I would like to propose that workers who have been retrenched or made redundant be allowed to defer payment of all personal income tax for a period of six months, or until the worker receives fresh Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for the new job, whichever is sooner. The six-month deferment would be in line with the duration used in labour policy for retrenchments. Giving laid-off workers the option of deferring payment of their personal income tax would help to alleviate some financial stress, especially for middle-class workers. It will give them room to plan their finances so that their families can be better prepared to tide over the period of unemployment.”
“Given that this is one of the most important decisions the President might have to make, there should be a non-partisan, professional and specialised outfit putting out independent assessments to assist the Elected President. Taxes Madam, the Minister for Finance appears to be laying the ground to prepare Singaporeans for a rise in taxes. He said, and I quote, "We will have to raise revenues through new taxes or raise tax rates" to keep our finances sustainable. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister: what are the new forms of taxes that he is considering? What are the Ministry's considerations in introducing new taxes? And what are the principles guiding these considerations? There has been widespread speculation that the Government is looking to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST), with experts and journalists suggesting that it is no longer a matter of whether the Government will do it; it is simply a matter of when. I would like to ask the Minister: is he planning a GST increase as a revenue measure before the end of the decade? If so, when is he looking to implement this increase in GST, and by how much? It is widely recognised that GST is a regressive tax that hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich, which is why the Government has been providing GST Vouchers in an effort to correct the impact on lower-income households. However, GST Vouchers do not fully offset the amount of GST paid by lower-income households. I would like to know whether the Government has exhausted all other cost-cutting and revenue measures and, hence, have to raise taxes.”
“Madam, I would like to call on the Government to consider setting up an independent office for budgetary responsibility that provides expert, non-partisan, open-source analysis of the Government's budgetary plans and is accountable to Parliament. I believe an independent fiscal watchdog is necessary since the Government has been concerned with the rising expenditures in recent years, and the Minister for Finance raises the prospect of tax increases. The public will be interested to know the effect of public expenditure and its actual impact on our fiscal position by an organisation independent of the Government by providing expert analysis. I believe that no individual outside the Government has the expertise to analyse each year's Budget in much depth, and I believe that Parliament and Singaporeans would benefit from the in-depth analysis provided by an independent fiscal watchdog. Such an office also helps to improve fiscal governance by holding the Government more accountable through better transparency. There are countries that have an independent budgetary office. The United Kingdom (UK) Office for Budgetary Responsibility was established in 2010, and its missions are: one, to produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances; two, judge the Government's performance against its fiscal targets; three, assess long-term fiscal sustainability; four, evaluate fiscal risks; and five, scrutinise the Government's costing measures. The independent analysis of such an office can also provide input to the Elected President on whether or not to veto Supply Bills, should the Government wish to draw on Reserves not accumulated by the current Government.”
“I refer to my cut on the education loan. I understand that there is the Tuition Fee Loan scheme by the public-funded institutions. Would the Minister not agree that there are courses that are offered not by public-funded institutions, for instance, a diploma in teaching of Chinese and translation offered by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry Institute of Business which costs about $5,000 to $6,000 and the Government loan will probably come in handy to encourage people to take up such courses that are relevant to their career?”
“The loan scheme will give individuals greater peace of mind over repayment which may, in turn, encourage more people to pursue retraining or higher education. Preparing Students for Future Economy”
“Madam, retraining and education are essential in this new economy where the idea of having a job for life is quickly disappearing and workers must be prepared to switch industries and pick up new skills if necessary. While many local courses are subsidised for Singaporeans and the Government has provided some assistance by way of the SkillsFuture Credit, there are courses that still require hefty fees. I would, therefore, like to propose the Government setting up a SkillsFuture Education Loan to facilitate further and continuing education that will help workers to advance their careers or switch career paths. While the Government may point to the existence of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Education Scheme as a similar initiative, there are several limitations of the scheme such that it does not adequately address the needs of working adults who may wish to further their education or to take up training courses. One such limitation is the type of courses that it applies to. The CPF Education Scheme is meant for full-time subsidised courses offered at Approved Educational Institutions and only applies for first degrees and diplomas. On top of this, the use of CPF to fund education and training will also have an impact on the retirement adequacy of the individual and their family members, if they are still eligible to borrow from the CPF savings of their parents or spouse. In the implementation of the SkillsFuture Education Loan, some aspects can be borrowed from the CPF Education Scheme, such as pegging of interest rates to CPF Ordinary Account interest rates, which are less onerous than rates offered by banks, and stipulating that repayment will commence a year after graduation.”
“I understand that the Government intends to groom 800 potential leaders in the next three years under the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) which was announced in the Budget Statement. I would like to know what industry the Government is targeting at these potential leaders, and how the Government wants to achieve this target of 800 future leaders. Lastly, I would like to know how these potential leaders are identified and groomed.”
“Madam, if we want Singapore to remain a shining red dot for Singaporeans, it is important that we make every effort to strengthen our Singaporean Core workforce and remove potential impediments to the employment of Singaporean workers. One potential impediment is our National Service (NS) liability. Disruptions caused by reservist call-ups affect the employability of Singaporeans, especially in companies with fewer staff and less flexible operations. Two to three weeks' absence from work could mean poorer performance reviews or even reluctance by employers to hire workers with NS liabilities in the first place. While the advanced notice period was meant to give employers a longer runway to re-allocate work, in reality, it does little to mitigate the effects of reservist call-ups since employers will either have to ask other staff to cover the duties of the absent employee, which adds to their workload, or specially hire someone else to cover the worker's duties for that short period. Hence, the Government may want to consider an appropriate incentive scheme to encourage employers to employ NSmen, especially those who still have to fulfil high-key In-Camp Trainings (ICTs). Next, we must also maintain a Singaporean Core leadership in every field and every industry if we want to see a truly vibrant Singapore with robust economic resilience in the face of challenges. In respect of this, I am happy to see the introduction of the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative in 2015 and the follow up by the Government in this year's Budget announcing that it intends to groom 800 potential leaders in the next three years. I request the Minister to share more details on the initiative and how it intends to identify and groom these potential leaders. Local Talents”
“Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, while Singapore believes in rules-based diplomacy, other countries Singapore has to deal with may believe in power-based diplomacy. What will be the Minister's approach, facing such a counterpart? The second clarification is whether the Minister anticipates difficulties in this year's ASEAN Summit with the Philippines as the Chair of ASEAN? 8.00 pm”
“Sir, ASEAN has long served as an anchor for Singapore in the region. If ASEAN is beginning to lose its viability, then what alternatives does Singapore have to try to achieve a semblance of stability in its surrounding waters? Japan-Korea Relations”
“Sir, since the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in favour of the Philippines against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea last year, media reports on the summits between leaders of ASEAN and China, coming just before and after the ruling, alleged that China's interference in ASEAN's affairs succeeded in dividing the organisation. It would appear that Laos and Cambodia, which have strong overland economic ties with China, were weighing their national interests against the collective interests of ASEAN. Has this split healed since the events last year? What is the status of ASEAN integration, or has the South China Sea issue effectively blocked any progress for integration? Is the Philippines really embracing China? If so, what are the implications for ASEAN unity, given the Philippines is the ASEAN Chair this year? Sir, it has been said by an expert in the foreign policy field that a divided ASEAN is not in the interest of China. This is not obvious to me as a lay person, as it seems that it is in China's interest to have a divided ASEAN. Historically, great powers will seek to divide and rule and advance their own interests in Southeast Asia. I am not sure China will be an exception, given its own imperial history. China continues to expand its economic influence in mainland Southeast Asia and even with Malaysia, and will seek leverage with small states, such as Brunei and Singapore. We, of course, have our principled foreign policy and will never compromise our independence. However, are we in a position to help unite ASEAN and to block out any divisive forces? If we are not in that position, then are we able to facilitate processes or support another leading country, say, Indonesia, to help unite ASEAN?”
“I would like to ask the Foreign Minister whether our foreign policy principles need to be updated in view of the changing world order and, if not, how the existing principles would guide us in the volatile and uncertain waters. Singapore-US Relations”
“China may not do so in the near future, but with the means and its strong position on the South China Sea claims, the potential is there. Whether we like it or not, China is an important strategic partner. However, even as Singapore invests in new opportunities of bilateral cooperation, especially under China's "Belt and Road" initiative, we need to be mindful of not becoming too dependent on the Chinese economy. We have encouraged our businessmen, entrepreneurs and professionals to connect with their Chinese counterparts using deep historical and cultural links. We saw the complications when Singaporeans doing business and working in China came under public pressure during the events last year. Some Singaporeans were even of the opinion that we should appease China. Singapore not only risks becoming economically vulnerable to any strategic foreign policy shift by China, the multiracial and multicultural character of our society will also come under pressure. To compound this challenge, the new US administration pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a month ago. The US looks set to turn inwards to deal with domestic political conflicts. If the US disengages from Southeast Asia, this will leave a gap, if not a vacuum. If ASEAN continues to be divided on the collective response to the South China Sea issue, then the gap left by the US will mean ASEAN will have to face a strong China by ourselves and divided. This is a grim prospect. Chairman, one of the tenets of our foreign policy is hard-nosed pragmatism to survive as a small city state.”
“Chairman, it was only half a year ago that the Prime Minister conducted a marathon of diplomatic visits to our closest partners in the region. In three months, he travelled to Laos to meet with ASEAN leaders, and to the US, China, Japan, India and Australia to affirm longstanding ties. Things were looking up for our relations with these key countries. Our principled foreign policy position has emphasised the international rule of law, commitment to an open economy and freedom of navigation, mutual respect for each other's independence, and armed neutrality. This seems to have earned us a good deal of legroom as a small, sovereign city state among large powers. Some even commented that we are punching above our weight in the international arena to influence outcomes for the common good. Much of our foreign policy achievements are clearly due to our hardworking diplomatic corps, members of whom have been building on the foundation established by our premier statesman, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. But it is also becoming apparent that the global order is changing and changing rapidly. Even as the Prime Minister continued his diplomatic marathon, when he was visiting Japan in September, a Chinese state-owned newspaper stoked public anger by accusing Singapore of taking sides against China. Chairman, I am glad that the issue with the seizure of the Terrex vehicle by Hong Kong Customs was handled with great care by China and Singapore and has come to pass. Nevertheless, the public expressions and discussions resulting from the event do point to some critical challenges to Singapore in this changing global order. The critical challenges pertain to a rising China with the economic and military clout to impose its will on Asia.”
“Would the Deputy Prime Minister clarify when the Workers' Party said the vote is not secret? I do not remember I said that.”
“Madam, may I seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister on what he said about the Workers' Party?”
“A clarification for the Minister. People understand, generally, that SBF flat prices are generally higher than BTO prices. But there are cases where SBF prices were lower, for instance, for the Punggol estate's Matilda Edge project. Some units were quite significantly lower in prices during the SBF exercise in 2016, compared to the BTO prices in 2013. Certain units at the lower floors were actually lower in price. So, the question now is: under what circumstances and considerations does HDB lower the price and, by doing so, is it fair to those who had bought the BTO flats in the same cluster?”
“There were complaints by parents that even when students got over 90 marks for Chinese language and when they are interested and motivated to learn the language, they are not admitted to the Higher Chinese class. What is the explanation by the Ministry?”
“Supplementary questions. Firstly, what are the guidelines or criteria for the schools for students who wish to take up Higher Chinese? What is the weightage like? How much weightage is given to a student's interest and family support, for example, and the other consideration of the results of the various subjects? Secondly, what is MOE's policy on students wanting to opt for Higher Chinese? Do they encourage students to do so and, if so, are there schemes to guide schools to encourage students who are qualified to take up Higher Chinese?”
“Madam, the Minister for Foreign Affairs just said that with respect to this Terrex incident, he expects the law to take its course. Would he agree that if the law is, in fact, being respected, the incident would not have happened in the first place? The second supplementary question: I would like to ask the Minister what is his interpretation and assessment of a rising China and her behaviour, in relation to the detention of the Terrex vehicles. Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister: has China's progress economically and militarily in becoming a superpower made her arrogant and aggressive and to become a big bully?”
“Madam, I noted in the Minister of Defence's reply that SAF would avoid, in the future, our military equipment being taken hostage. I would like to ask some supplementary questions. Firstly, whether or not MINDEF anticipated that such hostage situation could have happened. Secondly, I would like to ask whether or not Hong Kong or China has imposed any conditions for the return of the Terrex vehicles. Thirdly, what would be the loss of potential future earnings for Singapore in this piece of defence technology which even the US is interested in?”
“Madam, I suppose we ring the division bells and lock the doors?”
“There will be Members of Parliament who will be speaking on some of the details later.”
“We have talked about the details, and, yes, not fully worked out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at the framework, the details, we probably will have to finetune them.”
“[Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I agree that we should play on the safe side, just in case something happens. But can the Senate not play the same role?”
“A point of clarification with Minister Ong. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate does not differ very much from the Elected Presidency. In fact, they are quite different. Under the Elected Presidency, decisions are made by one person, plus eight other unelected CPA members. We feel that such important decisions should not be left to just one Elected President and eight appointed advisers who are not elected by the people. However, the Senate is elected by the people. We are willing to leave our destiny to the collective wisdom of these senators who are elected by the people. He also quoted what Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said about old shoes, that if shoes are old and worn, it would be more comfortable. Just have them mended, do not throw them away. However, I would like to remind everyone that if you continue to wear broken shoes, you risk slip and fall. The soles could get slippery and it is better not to continue wearing them for too long. Page: 87”
“Madam, on the issue that Minister Ong Ye Kung said where ideas of the WP have evolved, I would leave it to other Members to clarify. I will clarify the matter on what the Minister said about the Senate in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate system will result in a political gridlock. I would like to clarify that the power of the Senate we are proposing is not much different from the CPA. It is not like in the western countries where the Senate is responsible for reviewing Bills passed in the lower house. The Senate we are proposing is basically the same as our current CPA. Theoretically, it should not create any gridlocks. Should there be gridlocks, then the Elected Presidency can equally create gridlocks.”
“Madam, I am clarifying. What I want to clarify is that the WP has put forward an alternative to the system of Elected President. Of course, by no means it is perfect. It is the same as what the Prime Minister said, it is not perfect. The idea is for us to look at the fundamental difference, look at which is the better system we should have and, of course, there are details. You have had the Elected President system for 25 years, you have problems, you come for amendments. Similarly, we expect our system of Senate, if accepted, will have similar problems. So, let us have debate on the fundamental idea, the pros and cons of having a Senate and the Elected President. Do not be bogged down by details. If you are going into the details, it would thereby end up debating the details rather than the main substantive proposal. So, let us focus on what is fundamental and whether the idea sounds logical and whether it is a fairer system. Details, yes, we can work them out and I think we can finetune them in time to come.”
“Two, in appointing the President, Parliament should take into consideration the multiracial situation in Singapore. Three, set up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency and to exercise the veto power of the President and the CPA, including protecting the Reserves and upholding the integrity of the civil servants to be appointed by the government. Four, Parliament can override the veto by the Senate, by way of a three-quarter majority of the total number of Members voting in favour thereof. Mdm Speaker, basically, the WP agrees with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own statement that "a nation shall not have two rulers". All the more, the Elected President shall not be another power centre. We agree with protecting the Reserves, but the Reserves protection mechanism must comply with the fundamental principles ofParliamentary democracy. At the same time, the situation whereby the elected government is unable to operate due to grossly excessive containment should be avoided. As such, the WP strongly advocates that it can only be passed through voting by all the people.”
“Senators shall be elected at a nationwide GE. Candidates for election to be Senators must possess certain qualifications, to be accredited by an Election Eligibility Committee. Should the Senate not agree with the recommendations by the government to draw on the Reserves or to make certain key appointments, the proposals concerned shall be rejected. Under such circumstances, the veto by the Senate can only be overruled by the government with a three-quarter majority in Parliament. On the appointment of the President, the Constitutional Commission recommended relieving the President of the political function of protecting the Reserves. The main role of the President is in uniting the nation. It should go beyond politics. Making the President protect the Reserves amounts to wanting him to be confrontational towards the government at certain times. This is in conflict with the function of the President. The WP concurs with this recommendation by the Page: 60 Constitutional Commission. Such an important amendment to the Constitution concerns the operation of the future political system of our nation, with far-reaching impacts. The WP holds the view that in dealing with such a major reform to our political system and the separation of powers of the various government institutions, it should be decided by a public referendum of the people. A referendum enables the people to collectively decide on how to adjust our political system to deal with our future challenges. The referendum shall vote on two proposals: one, the solution as tabled by the PAP in the White Paper, and two, the solution by the WP which specifically includes the following points. One, the President is the Head of State, to be appointed by Parliament on a majority vote, to represent Singapore.”
“The President is obliged to consult the CPA on all financial matters and appointments of key public servants. Should the President and the majority of Presidential advisors hold the same views, Parliament will have no right to overthrow the joint decision of the President and the CPA. Members of the CPA are appointed and not elected by the people. Yet, not only has the President to consult them, even the Parliament formed by the Members elected by the people has no right to overthrow the joint decision by them and the President. As such, a President with no administrative power and a CPA which is not elected by the people, can stop the government from making use of the past Reserves and making key appointments of civil servants at the critical moments. Their power is greater than the Elected President and the Parliament elected by the people. This is certainly not in compliance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy. It is designed with an attempt to obstruct the normal functions of a new government which is legitimately elected and formed. The WP agrees with having a set of mechanism to protect the Reserves from being abused. However, we want to remind the PAP that the Reserves do not belong to any term of government. It belongs to all the people of Singapore. We do not agree with dedicating the important responsibility of protecting the Reserves and appointing key civil servants to one single person, namely, the President, and allowing a few members of the CPA to make the decision. Ultimately, the responsibility of protecting the Reserves from being abused should be vested in the Parliament elected by the people. As such, the WP suggests setting up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency, to exercise the powers of the President and the CPA.”
“In such a situation, eventually, it is highly probable that the election would go uncontested, year after year, or all the candidates will be pro-PAP personnel. In the event that the PAP losses a GE, the Elected President can then act on behalf of the old regime to contain the new government, making the new government a lame duck which is unable to make use of the past Reserves when needed, and even could not appoint important officials. When a non-PAP government elected by the people could not effectively operate and collapse, due to containment by the system designed by the PAP when it was in power, Singapore will be like the other democratic regimes which failed to make a political transition and resulted in social unrest, using violence and illegitimate means to settle the political conflicts. We could see for Page: 59 ourselves the political process experienced by some of our neighbouring countries. This is also the worry of the WP. We feel that the PAP is only concerned with its own interest and leaving Singapore to face great risks in the future. In fact, this kind of political measures with the aim to paralyse a government has worried even some of their own PAP members. Former Minister Ong Pang Boon said during a Parliamentary debate on 12 August 1988, "No matter how you look it, the recommendation in the White Paper on Elected Presidency, is aimed at making sure a PAP candidate would be elected, so that in the event another party wins the next GE, he could unseat the new Prime Minister and his government, even when the new government is a responsible government." Furthermore, for fear that the Elected President would not follow its instructions after being elected, the PAP has also enhanced the power of the CPA through this amendment Bill.”
“Those days when the President was appointed, there was no need to worry about the Presidency being perpetually dominated by a certain race. That is why if you want to guarantee that the appointment of the President would reflect the needs of a multiracial society, the most straightforward method is to return to the appointment system. Is this amendment to the Elected Presidency really meant to protect the interest of the minorities? If this is indeed the case, then why did the PAP not raise this issue in the course of the past two decades? It was only when the PAP nearly became a victim of the Presidential Election matrix designed by themselves in 2011, a situation which should never have happened, that the PAP quickly moved this amendment Bill. This round of Constitutional amendments to vary the Elected President system has made the people uneasy. The ulterior motive behind this exercise is to ensure that even when the PAP has lost the majority in Parliament, they could still make use of the Elected President to contain the operation of the new government. First, the amendment Bill raises the qualifying criteria of the Presidential Election candidates, thereby reducing the number of eligible candidates. Eventually, whether the voters would have anyone to choose from is unknown. The present Elected Presidency is already trending towards senior public officers. Among them, many are senior leaders of the PAP, such as former Ministers or Speaker of Parliament. This round of amendments further raises the already stringent qualifying criteria. It further curtails the possibility of a candidate from outside the system to contest the election.”
“Why did the PAP start to implement this Elected Presidency only after they lost the 1981 Anson By-election and the Potong Pasir Constituency at the 1984 GEs? Since Independence, each and every President appointed by the PAP through Parliament had commanded the respect of the people. Moreover, since the implementation of the Elected Presidency in 1991, the PAP has never raised any issue concerning this system. Why is it that they are now suddenly taking issue with this system and going through all the trouble to set up a Constitutional Commission to review the matter, and make substantial amendments to the Page: 58 Constitution? The 2011 Presidential Election caused uneasiness to the PAP. This was the first time since the inception of the Elected Presidency that four candidates contested for the position and they were not the preferred candidates of the PAP. Furthermore, the candidate who was eventually elected to be the President, won by a majority of not more than 1% of the votes. Despite all the manoeuvring, the PAP nearly stumbled at their own wishful thinking. That is why they are hurriedly conducting this exercise and trying to push through this amendment Bill to stop the frightening situation from happening again at the next Presidential Election. The political system inherited by Singapore from the British is one of Parliamentary democracy, with the people electing the MPs, and the political party that wins the most seats in Parliament will form the government. All the Ministers are elected by the people. This gives the Cabinet the legitimacy of having won the mandate directly from the people. Under such a system, whether it is the Queen or the President, the Head of State has no administrative power.”
“So, I think it is logical that since you want to have a change in the Constitution that requires, if there is a further amendment to that provision, a two-third majority in the referendum, we should have a referendum to make sure that Singaporeans agree today. Mr Edwin Tong said that a referendum will politicise the debates and the system. But what were we talking about? We are talking about changing the political system. So, is it not political? A referendum is one way to determine in a democratic way whether Singaporeans will endorse and support such a new model. And I think it will settle the matter once and for all whether the Opposition will oppose it and whether our view on the system is supported by the people. Madam, I will turn now to speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President is our Head of State. He represents Singapore and is the symbol of our nation and our people. The WP believes that the prestigious identity and status of the President will not be compromised simply because the Presidency is established through appointment by Parliament. However, the WP has, since the beginning of the 1980s, strenuously opposed the Elected Presidency. We do not oppose having a President for Singapore per se, but we are concerned about the far-reaching profound adverse influence on our nation resulting from the ulterior motive behind this whole mechanism. Very obviously, the stringent conditions required of the candidates are to ensure that whoever eventually is elected to be the President will be a pro-PAP person. In the event of the PAP losing a GE, this pro-PAP President can then obstruct the effective ruling of the non-PAP government.”
“Madam, Member Edwin Tong has raised several issues with the WP's proposal. My colleagues will elaborate on some of them. I will talk a little bit on the referendum. The Member took issue with the WP calling for a referendum on the change of the political model we have. Yes, I understand that the Elected President system has been instituted long ago. In fact, on the issue of the change of the political model from a purely Parliamentary democracy Page: 57 inherited from the UK to the one that we have now, the Elected President, the issue has been set out by the WP at the very beginning when the Elected President's idea was mooted and debated publicly in the 1980s. This is the second time the WP has called for a referendum on the change of political model. We called for a referendum in the 1980s. And there was a debate, a TV debate, on this. The PAP said that the 1988 election will be the one to decide whether the electorate will support the Elected President, and that was it. Madam, I believe that a referendum is overdue for a change of the political model that we have. The change in the political system that we have now, the Elected President, is drastic to me. It will change our political system in a fundamental way that will have deep implications in the future because it will change from one that believes in Parliamentary democracy, where the people is sovereign and, thereby, Parliament is sovereign, being elected and representative of the people, to one where Parliament's powers will be curtailed, and it can cause gridlock if you are not careful. So, we should not take it lightly. Moreover, as what Ms Sylvia Lim has said, when certain provisions in the Elected Presidency are entrenched, if you want to change it, it will require a two-third majority in a referendum.”
“Madam, the Minister said that the HDB is a good developer. I would like to ask whether HDB is also a good designer. In designing building facades, what are the guidelines that HDB has? And whether or not they take into consideration the safety of the design of certain building facades and whether it is just for design's sake and whether the materials used are durable enough and the structural integrity of the facade is taken into consideration. For instance, brickwall facades, when you use brickwalls to clad a building, whether enough details and specifications have gone into making sure that they are properly adhered to and do not crack and fall off over time and for sunshades as well. So, my question is: what are the guidelines, whether there are guides for materials used, that the material will be lasting, and the construction details to make sure that facade features will not fall off the building?”
“Mdm Speaker, I call for a division on the Bill.”
“Thank you, Madam. The Minister earlier said that the Bill has the support of the majority of the population. I would like to ask him on what basis he makes a judgement that the majority of our population supports this Bill.”
“I am not convinced by the Minister's explanation. I stand by what I say, based on my understanding of the effect and implication of the Bill if passed. For instance, there is a definition of publication. And according to clause 2 of the Bill, a person is said to have published something when he communicates even orally, or even if it is just one member of the public. So, that I think applies to people who talk, discuss at coffee shops. Clause 13(7) of the Bill says that once the AG shows the case satisfies certain conditions, the High Court "must" grant leave to the AG to issue a non-publication order. "Must". And clauses 22 to 24 enable the Police to arrest persons accused of contempt of Court, so there are additional Police powers in this field. Madam, what I am most uncomfortable with is clause 3(4) of the Bill that gives the Government the right to make statements and allows the Government to become the sole interpreter and decision-maker of what constitutes public interest. And this, I smell a similar element in the Internal Security Act.”
“The WP oppose this Bill because our existing law has already provided rules on keeping administration of justice fair. This Bill is not only unnecessary, but it is also giving the Government additional powers that it does not have now, to intimidate the people from making fair criticisms on ongoing cases. If the Bill is passed, it will result in the gradual erosion of peoples' trust in the Government in future.”
“However, now, Parliament is going to pass this Bill to say that as long as a Government Minister decides that it is in the "public interest", he can make statements without being construed as in contempt of Court, free of any restraint by the Court. In other words, the Government can define by itself what "public interest" is, and then use this "public interest" as a protection to go beyond the restraints of the law and the Court, and make statements and pass comments freely on ongoing cases. This is very likely to prejudice the trial, seriously interfere with the administration of justice and undermine people's trust in the independence of the Judiciary. In addition, under this new Bill, as long as the AG feels that any individual or organisation has made a comment in contempt of Court, he can apply to the Court for an order to deal with the person making the comment, while the Court, in the whole process, ends up being reduced to be the administrative assistant of the AG, assisting him to execute his orders. This is a situation where the AG supersedes the Court. I would like to ask: will a Bill like this protect the dignity of our Judiciary and the Court, or will it undermine the independence and autonomy of the Court? On 11 July, MinLaw made a statement to say that this Bill is to codify the laws on contempt of Court and there is no change regarding what can be done and what cannot be done. However, the real effect, once the Bill is passed, is that Government Ministers' power will override the Court and the Judiciary, allowing them to do whatever they wish according to their own needs and convenience, with no curtailment from the Court. This Bill is a typical case of "pretending to advance along one path while secretly going along another".”
“A statement, which could be considered as contempt of Court when it comes from a member of the public, becomes completely legal when it comes from the mouth of a Minister, as long as the Government believes that it is in the public interest to do so. The question is: what is considered to be in the "public interest"? There is no clear explanation in this Bill. So, who gets to decide? Of course, it is the Government that gets to decide. As the saying goes, the (Chinese) character "guan", meaning "government", has two mouths. So, even if the ruling party's intention is to protect its own interests, as long as they say it is in the public interest, what can the people do about it? That is to say that the ruling party is the sole judge on interpreting what is public interest. It can also justify the elimination of any dissenting voices, including organisations that oppose it, by accusing them of "not being in the public interest". In 1967, there was a contempt of Court case in the High Court. This was regarding the student riot in November 1966. The then Minister for the Interior and Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee, made a press statement, and one student activist sued Dr Goh and accused him of contempt of Court. Although the High Court eventually acquitted Dr Goh, Justice Choor Singh then made a very clear judgment in principle. What he said was: "It does not follow that a statement made or issued by a Government Minister can never constitute contempt of Court, or that a Government Minister should never be punished for contempt of Court. A Minister of the Government is not above the law." The important principle behind this High Court judgment in 1967 is that the Court will judge whether a Minister's statement interferes with the administration of justice or not.”
“In Mandarin, Madam. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, firstly, the WP wants to clearly state that we oppose this Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill. We feel that the existing law is sufficient to ensure that those who are held in contempt of Court will be punished accordingly. As of now, there is no evidence to show that the law has lost its effect. The real purpose behind this new Bill on contempt of Court is not to protect the fairness of our judicial system, but it is to deter members of the public from voicing their fair and reasonable views on cases under trial. At the same time, however, it allows Ministers to make a statement on ongoing cases, which could possibly affect the judge's judgment on the trial. There is a Chinese saying to describe this situation: only the officials are allowed the freedom to set fire, but the common people are not even permitted to light a lamp. According to the definition of "publication" under the Bill, even private discussions, where a view is communicated from one person to another, whether it is through Facebook among friends, verbal words or short message service (SMS), could be construed as contempt of Court. Ordinary citizens engaging in small talk at coffee shops could possibly be seen as contempt of Court and charged by the Government. Yet, if the statement is made by a Government official, particularly a Minister, then it is a different matter altogether. Clearly, the new Bill will provide the Government and the Ministers with unfettered power.”
“Mdm Speaker, I regret that. I should have been allowed to ask more supplementary questions.”
“Mdm Speaker, earlier on, I had a supplementary question to ask from Minister Shanmugam's answer.”