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 31 of 54.
“Second, after MOM has identified the causes for the reluctance of these less educated and older workers to go for training, what is MOM's reaction? Third, has MOM formulated a policy specially tailored to address the unemployment problem of this group of lowly paid workers? 6.15 pm”
“Sir, recently, the Government talked a lot about the Singapore 21 vision and to affirm that every Singaporean counts. The Manpower Ministry also published a report called Manpower 21, which contains many recommendations on how to meet the needs of manpower resources in the future. But the report does not specify how we should solve the unemployment problem of the elderly and less educated workers. Although the retirement age has been raised to 62 years, many people in the 40s told me that when they went to apply for jobs, they were told by the employers that they were too old to be employed. Those less educated or uneducated workers, particularly in the construction industry, are unable to find alternative jobs once they are retrenched. This state of affairs remains the same ever since the 1998 regional financial crisis. I have, on more than one occasion, raised this matter in Parliament, but I have not seen any concrete measures being adopted by the Government to help those low income workers. Although the Prime Minister has appealed to employers not to discriminate against older workers, such appeal seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I know the Ministry of Manpower has all sorts of job training programmes. But according to a Straits Times report, a survey conducted by MOM revealed that those who attended the skills upgrading programmes are mostly young educated workers. That being the case, how do such training programmes help the less educated workers? Sir, I have a few questions. First, what is MOM's attitude towards the plight of those less educated workers? Does it think that these people are beyond redemption, and are better left to fend for themselves?”
“I therefore urge the Minister for Finance to release more details on how the Net Investment Income is derived. I hope that in next year's Budget book, more details of investment incomes would be shown.”
“Sir, in this year's budget, the Net Investment Income (NII) in Table 1 of the Budget Book has been moved up to be included as part of operating revenue. The Minister for Finance has explained the reason in his Budget speech. I note that in FY1999, NII was estimated at $3.74 billion, and the revised FY1999 figure was $5.56 billion. In FY2000, the estimated NII was $5.61 billion. In this year's budget, the revised FY2000 NII figure was $1.55 billion. I would like to know what is the original revised NII figure for FY2000, before applying the new method of calculation for contribution to Government operating revenues. The estimated NII contribution for FY2001 was also lowered to $856 million. May I know the reason for the significantly lower estimate? Sir, all these years in Parliament, I find that the most difficult to track the Government's performance is Government investments. When I try to look for investment income details, either from the budget summary under the Ministry of Finance, or total estimated receipts, the figure can never tally with the total estimated figure. I have also checked the budget control documents. I have also found that it does not contain information on Government investments. Although we are supposed to focus on expenditure during Budget time, with Singapore's unique circumstances, I think it is also important that we should know how Government invests our money and how these investments perform over the years. Moreover, since the Government emphasises so much on the importance of financial reserves, it is only fair that the public should have a clearer picture of the investment performance. Sir, we always talk that the Government is transparent, but the investments of the Government do not seem to be transparent to me.”
“Sir, the Minister in his answer said that seven more nursing homes will be built and run by VWOs. I would like to know where are these homes going to be located. Will they be located in convenient places in housing estates? Or only nursing homes run by the private sector, and the land tendered out at a high price, are going to be located in convenient places in HDB estates?”
“Sir, can I seek a clarification from the Minister?”
“Secondly, will MOH continue to allocate land to encourage VWOs to build nursing homes and, at the same time, provide them with subsidies? Thirdly, what is MOH's long-term plan for the establishment of nursing homes? What will be the ratio between nursing homes run by VWOs and those run commercially by the private sector? 2.15 pm”
“We welcome the Minister's announcement that the restructured Government hospitals will not be profit-orientated and that they will serve the people, irrespective of their affordability. We all know that we are facing the problem of an aging population. With an aging population, the number of elderly admitted into nursing homes will also increase. At present, most of the nursing homes are run by VWOs, with subsidies from the Government. Last year, the Government provided a piece of land for building a nursing home with a lease of 30 years only. This was open for the private sector to tender and the tender price was close to $7 million. With 30 years' lease, plus construction costs, investment in infrastructure, I am not sure how much the nursing home will charge the patients in order to recoup its capital and make some profit. Given the high costs of setting up nursing homes and the need for the operators to make some profits on top of the recovery of their cost, it is inevitable that the burden on the patients will increase if they are admitted into nursing homes. According to reports, the Government will, in stages, continue to allot 13 to 17 pieces of land for tender. The plots of land will be conveniently located in HDB housing estates. Does the change in policy mean that there will be a change in the Government's attitude towards the care of the elderly? The report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Aeging Population states that every Singaporean must be responsible for his health when he gets old, including financial planning for his old age needs. I have some questions. What would be the Government's attitude towards the elderly who need medical care but who do not have their own resources to pay for such care?”
“Sir, the patients who wish to go to the specialist clinics at the Government hospitals must be referred by polyclinics to qualify as subsidised patients. But referrals by private doctors do not qualify the patients for subsidy. So, if they have to be admitted to the hospital, they would be sent to "B1" or "A" class wards where the medical costs are higher. The Ministry of Health must have some reasons for doing this. But, what are these reasons? Does it mean that private doctors are not as good as Government doctors in judging whether the patients need to consult specialist doctors? If the principle for patient subsidy is based on the patient's financial needs, then how do you determine that all those who go to polyclinics need the subsidy financially? Furthermore, at the polyclinic, the waiting time is normally very long. Do the patients need to suffer the inconvenience just to qualify for Government's subsidy? Can MOH consider allowing patients referred by private doctors to qualify for admission to the subsidised wards as well?”
“Sir, 3G technology forms an important bridge to the future wireless telecommunication service. In my view, the speed with which 3G service is developed and how pervasive it becomes would determine whether Singapore will become the hub of the digital economy. The Government has announced that it has decided to award 3G licences by auction. Awarding 3G licences by auction is like the award of COEs. The Government will rake in huge sums of money. Perhaps the Government is envious of the bonanza that the British and French governments have obtained for their auctions of 3G licences. The rationale for the Government to award 3G licences through auction is that the prices could be determined by market forces. But the more important reason is that the Government would like to make a big profit. Market competition is not entirely rational. The end result will be that through auctioning the licences, the Government amasses a big sum of money, but the companies that successfully bidded for the licences are saddled with high cost thereby delaying the development of such technology, as they are too expensive and was beyond the reach of people. Apart from the auction, has the Government considered how it will make use of the 3G technology and its application to attract new investments to Singapore? Apart from auctioning and the "beauty contest" method, as suggested by some players in the market, has the Government considered the possibility of cooperating with the telecommunication companies to jointly develop the 3G technology and popularize the related markets?”
“What is the formula? What are the details?”
“Sir, with your permission, may I seek another clarification. Would the Senior Minister of State agree to release the formula in which Power Supply uses to calculate the tariffs of electricity? Because I think it is important that people understand how much is the cost of electricity generation and what is the benefit or the profit that is imputed into the tariff.”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification. The Senior Minister of State has not answered the two questions I raised. One, is whether the Government is considering using other sources for electricity generation, for instance, solar power or even nuclear power. The second question is: how does the Government ensure that the cost of electricity will not be a heavy burden to the people after the power supply company is privatised?”
“Sir, electricity is an indispensable basic need in modern life for all families. The increase in the tariff rates will exert great pressure on all families, especially the lower income group. From 1999, tariff rates have increased from 11.7 cents per kilowatt hour to 19.87 cents per kilowatt hour, an increase of 70% in one year, putting the man-in-the-street in fear of more increases and feeling the pinch of the high cost of living. The Minister has explained that it is because of the increase in fuel oil prices, but this is unconvincing and the problems of fuel price increase and the mounting pressure on people's livelihood cannot be resolved. Sir, I would like to ask how does an energy supplier work out the tariffs. How much is their profit? What sort of formula do they use? And what is the cost per kilowatt hour? Currently, we also use the heat from rubbish incineration to generate electricity, this is not affected by fuel price increases. I would like to ask the Minister whether any alternative means to generate electricity, such as solar energy, natural gas and nuclear energy have been considered. How would the Government ensure that after privatisation, electricity tariffs will not become a huge burden on the people?”
“If the charges for the various basic services continue to be adjusted upwards, then the burden of the people will become heavier and heavier. Although this Budget provides for a Utilities Save scheme whereby rebates are given (and rebates can please the people and show that the Government is able and generous), it is not a long-term solution. The rebates can be reduced or even revoked at any time. I feel that what the Government should do is to ensure that the cost of living will not keep on going up, and to alleviate the burden of the people through some budgetary measures. The various rebates can only temporarily relieve the pressure in the daily lives of the people. It is unable to resolve the problem of the escalating cost of living and the heavier and heavier burden of the ordinary citizens. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am disappointed with this Budget which appears to be spectacular and extremely generous superficially, but which in substance fails to alleviate the burden on the people.”
“This Budget also introduces a so-called "benefit-sharing" package, and the most attractive part is the CPF top-up scheme. However, under this scheme, in order to be entitled to the Government's top-up, there must first be some money deposited into the CPF account. It is like what the Hokkien people say, "Money fears loneliness". Only if you have money can you earn money. Then, you can earn some money from the Government and have more money. The Government is happy to spend some money and show generosity, at the expense of the people, with the hope of achieving what was described by an associate professor of NTU that "The ordinary people are overwhelmed by an unexpected favour to the extent of wanting to be thankful and be whole-heartedly grateful to the great leaders." I believe the people of Singapore will face three major problems in the next few years: first, a weaker US economy; secondly, with the economic reform, the older people with low educational level will not be able to cope and may lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in income; and, thirdly, the rising cost of living. The Finance Minister said that the Government would help those people who were affected by the economic reform to pull through. Yet, in this Budget, I do not see how the Government is going to help these lower-income people to pull through. The most worrying part is that if the regional situation worsens, and if the US economy heads for a hard-landing, many companies will close down or retrench their workers. The people in the lower and middle-income group will be affected most severely. Then, how are they going to survive? As regards the cost of living, in last year's Budget, the water-borne fees were raised substantially. Electricity charges were also increased considerably.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech, the Finance Minister said that this Budget is the "best ever" and "most generous". I was somewhat surprised because, by right, during the last two years, when the region was facing the financial crisis, and the people were desperately waiting for the Government to dish out more, the Government should be more generous in its Budget, yet it chose not to be so. In the past, even when the Government had a lot of budget surplus, it did not appear to be so generous. Why is it that the Government decides to be so generous this year? Now, let us look at just how generous this Budget is. First, in the reduction of personal income tax rates, the Finance Minister said that "an individual with an annual income of $35,000 would pay approximately 30% less tax and an individual whose annual income is $100,000 would save approximately 20% in income tax." As such, the lower and middle income taxpayers will benefit most. However, from my own calculations, under the new tax structure, an individual with a $35,000 annual income would save only $230, while one who earns $100,000 would save $2,230. How can we say that people in the lower-income group will benefit most? Secondly, the tax exemption on the first $7,500 chargeable income and the 10% tax rebate that came with the implementation of GST would benefit the higher income people most. To the lower-income group, the rebate and tax reduction mean nothing to them because if their income is low, they pay no tax at all. This is the true colour of the Government's generosity. You must first be able to earn money and the Government reduces its taxes on your earnings and it is then deemed to be mercifully generous to you. But please do not forget that even the lower-income people have to pay GST!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am uncomfortable with the amendment to change the term of office of the Auditor-General. Neither am I convinced by the Minister for Finance's rationale on the need to make the change. I wonder what has prompted the Government to change the term of office of the Auditor-General. Is the Government saying that the office of the Auditor-General is facing a great problem? Or is it that there is no public officer who wishes to be the next Auditor-General because of the current term of office? Sir, the office of Auditor-General is an important instrument in our system of Government to check on the Government accounts. I have been reading the reports of the Auditor-General quite regularly and I am convinced and satisfied that the office of the Auditor-General is independent and impartial. The tenure of the current Auditor-General is for life. I believe that life tenure of such an important position will allow the person to exercise his power without fear or favour. Whereas a fixed term appointment, as is proposed now before the House, may affect the person's independent judgement as the person who is appointed as Auditor-General may have to consider whether he will be reappointed again after his term of six years ends. Sir, I believe the change in the tenure of the Auditor-General to a fixed term would affect or even undermine public confidence in the office. Sir, I would not support the amendment.”
“May I ask the Minister of State why the system does not have a safety feature that will not allow it to be reset until all the trains in the system are accounted for? That will prevent human error from resetting it.”
“I understand that the Act exempts activities organised by grassroots organisations like the PA. Would the Minister of State consider also giving exemption to community activities organised by Opposition MPs, like Mr Chiam has just raised, activities organised by the Town Council, or activities organised by my constituency's committees? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, for the community events which involve magic shows, puppet shows, karaoke, under the class exemption, they will already be exempted. But the talks, I think, is another matter. Not that we want to restrict your desire to speak to your residents. The reason is because the relaxation - in fact this was a relaxation announced in Parliament just at the last sitting - is so that the elected MP can speak to residents of his own ward in an outdoor constituency, community setting. Right now, it will be up to PELU to decide, based on the facts of the case whether or not this requirement has been satisfied. So I think it is better for PELU to make a decision, because if you think that, yes, this is a constituency community setting, so you fall within the Act, and you organise it, and lo and behold, 800 people turn up, half of whom are from outside the constituency, then you will be caught by the Act. So let us not go through that trouble. I think Mr Chiam's experience has shown that if you apply, PELU looks at it objectively, if it falls within the ambit of the relaxation, the licence will be given in good time.”
“May I ask the Minister of State, firstly, what criteria does the Ministry of Manpower use to assess the need of a specific sector for foreign workers and, secondly, does it take into account in its assessment what the potential growth or the current situation in the sector is, in order to decide whether they should allow more or less foreign workers to be employed by the sector?”
“Sir, is the Commercial Affairs Department now investigating the matter and how long would it take to complete its investigation? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the Exchange has referred the matter to CAD and I assume that CAD is now investigating the matter. I have not heard when they will complete the investigation. DEGREE COURSES BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS (Recognition of qualifications) 7. Mr Gerard Ee asked the Prime Minister, with the proliferation of degree courses being offered by various public and private institutions, whether the Public Service Commission will release a list of recognised and preferred qualifications so that members of the public may make an informed choice when enrolling for a course. BG Lee Hsien Loong (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service Commission does not assess or grant recognition to degrees awarded by overseas universities for employment purposes as it is not in the position to judge qualifications awarded by institutions all over the world. Moreover, each individual employer in the private or public sector should be left to decide on the criteria for recruitment based on its organisational strategies and needs. This includes the type of qualification acceptable for employment in each organisation. TEACHERS (Resignation and retirement) 8. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Education (i) how many primary, secondary school and junior college teachers have resigned, (ii) how many such teachers have retired, and (iii) how many foreign teachers have been recruited to fill the vacancies in the last five years since 1995 and up to the first half of this year, giving breakdown figures for each year.”
“Sir, it seems to me that the Minister of State keeps on stressing "community event". Is he implying that such speech should not be political and confined only to community events, like greetings? Is that what he means? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: When you are an MP, you are elected. And when you go to grassroots events and events like that, you will talk to residents. You tell them about how well you have done in your ward, what are the plans you have for the ward. I think that is the context in which this relaxation has come about, so that as an elected MP, when you want to go to the ground and talk to your residents in a setting like this, you can because, after all, you have been elected by them.”
“Sir, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister of State. He said "elected MP". Is he saying that besides the MP, others who are from the same Party will not be allowed to speak at the event? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the answer is very clear. The context is that the local MP who has been elected by the residents can make a speech in a community event. If somebody who is not elected by the residents in that ward comes, he is making a political speech. He is not making a speech in a community setting. Sir, that will not be allowed.”
“The Minister says that at the point of tender, to ensure commitment, the Government allowed them to monopolise the market up to 2002. My question is, why did the Government, at that point in time, fail to see the need to liberalise the telecommunications market and allow these two companies to monopolise the market up to 2002 and, now, suddenly, discovered that there is a need to liberalise the market for the benefit of the nation, and thereby about $2 billion is needed to pay out from the Government's coffers? Is this the result of the Government failing to foresee what is happening in the future?”
“Does the Minister not think that parents who do not need encouragement but already have more children in contributing to the population growth should also be given some rewards?”
“Based on my rough calculation on the old charges, a 3-room HDB household has an average utility bill of about $80 to $90. Currently, it is being charged $127. Does the Minister for Finance think that the current rebate given to lower income households is sufficient?”
“Sir, I would like to know from the Minister for Finance whether in calculating the rebates on utility bills he would take into account the average utility bill size, besides the recent fuel price increase, the water conservation tax as well as the increase in water-borne fee. These add up to quite a substantial increase compared to the old charges. How is the average bill size arrived at, and what is the average?”
“To the lower-income group, this type of policy is a merciless blow. If the Government does not take prompt steps to effectively check the widening income gap, then the standard of living for the lower-income families will simply continue to slide. This will be a great mockery to the Government's self-proclamation that Singapore is an affluent society and that some of our service industries are number one in the world and have reached world standards!”
“Many of these workers have to do two jobs or overtime work to earn enough to support their families. By the time they finish work, they would be exhausted. Where would they have the energy left to pursue upgrading courses? Even if they want to change jobs, they do not know what type of jobs to change to, and they worry that when they start a new job, the initial salaries would be very low as they lack the experience. As such, the starting pay may not be enough to support their family. On the other hand, many of these workers do not know English and many courses and examinations are conducted in English. There is no way they could participate. The Government should be more proactive in helping these lower income workers. When these workers are prepared to accept skill upgrading training, the Government should pay them cost of living allowances during the period of training, as an incentive for them to upgrade themselves and move to better-paying jobs. According to the recent labour market report, those workers above the age of 40 years with below secondary level education are more likely to be retrenched. As such, if the Government does not look into these problems seriously, we can well expect the income gap in Singapore to continually widen. The Government should not be so naive as to think that so long as the economy recovers, and the labour market tightens, the employment problem of these workers will be naturally resolved, and their income would be raised. Please do not forget that by that time, the income gap among the various job sectors will be correspondingly widened, resulting in greater inequalities between the poor and the rich. This Government embraces the principle of market economy, and the rate of charges for public service is based on affordability.”
“Sir, the problem of income gap has been in existence all along. The magnitude of the gap also reflects the seriousness of inequalities between the rich and the poor in our society. The recent figures released by the Statistics Department showed signs of a further widening income gap between the rich and the poor. I hope this will not become a trend, otherwise it will be very serious and will cause a divide in our social communities and ethnic groups, thereby weakening our social cohesion. From the types of occupation of members of the families in the bottom 10%, as revealed in the survey report, it would appear that the cause of the problem lies in the widening gap of salaries for different jobs. Therefore, the top priority of the Government is how to upgrade the workers in the low-income jobs. At the same time, it should help the small and medium enterprises to develop and to make them more competitive and more effective, so that they could have the means to pay higher wages to their employees. I have, on many occasions in this House, urged the Government to show more concern for those workers who are aged 40 years and above with low educational foundation and have hardly any skills. They are the people who are facing very acute challenges ahead, particularly when Singapore is moving towards a knowledge-based economy and an influx of foreign workers. The Government's answer is inevitably that the Ministry of Manpower has all sorts of technical training courses awaiting these workers to enrol and upgrade themselves. I think this attitude of the Government is very negative. Although the Government has made available the various courses, it does not necessarily mean that the workers would participate in them.”
“This answers Mr Low's first question. Page - Rebates for Utilities Bill (Cols. 773 - 774) As for his second question whether we can expect more competitive prices when we deregulate the electricity industry, I think so. In other words, if he takes out the fuel oil component, which depends on international energy market prices, he will find more products available to consumers. In New Zealand, where the electricity market has been deregulated, every household has a choice of maybe 4 to 8 electricity suppliers. These suppliers, which are electricity retailers, will have their own long term contracts with the power generating companies. They may package them in different ways for different consumers. For instance, if you are prepared to accept interruptible electricity supply, you may get a lower rate. If you use electricity at night, whether for air-conditioning or to heat water or recharge electric cars, then you may enjoy low rates. There could be other bundles created. For instance, instead of buying air-conditioners and electricity separately, you may well go into a contract with a service provider who undertakes to provide a certain level of air-conditioning or dehumidification for a certain fixed price. So all kinds of new products would be possible once we deregulate. It is a complicated exercise. We are starting with the privatisation of the Gencos (generation companies) next year, and then we will progressively open up more of the market for competition. And we hope that, say, within three years, all households will have choices available to them.”
“Is the Minister aware that the recent increases in electricity tariff have exerted great cost pressure on families? Secondly, the Minister in his answer said that in 3 years' time consumers would enjoy more competitive electricity tariffs. Is he sure of that? Does he mean that it would be much lower? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: We are very aware that the increase in utility prices has been a point of much concern to many households. For that reason, I thank Mr Tay Beng Chuan for raising this issue in this House. I have attached, with the chart, a page (Cols. 773-774) entitled "Rebates for Utilities Bills" to show what the Government has done to offset the increase in utility prices. In January 1997 when the Government restructured the water tariff, water conservation tax and water-borne fees, we introduced a system of rebates to be phased in over four years. It is shown in Table 1. We have loaded it in favour of those who are living in 1- to 3-room HDB flats. The rebates are given annually on 1st September to help households overcome the effects of utility prices, without subsidising utilities because we do not want to subsidise utilities directly as this will encourage over consumption. What we found is that over the last two years, 1- and 2-room flats have not increased their electricity or water consumption. For 4-room flats and above, there has been an increase. The rebates that we have given will completely offset the increase in electricity and water tariffs this year for 1- to 3-room flats. This is according to the numbers which we have calculated. Consumers can expect the rebates to be included when they receive their bill at the end of September. For 1- to 3-room flats, the rebates of $200 will kick in. For 4-room HDB flats, the rebate will be $100.”
“Sir, does the Minister think that it is equitable to all Singaporeans, in terms of compulsory acquisition of HDB flat for killer littler offence? If a killer litter offender lives in a private condominium, is there any law that his private condominium unit can be acquired as well? Secondly, there could be a situation where the killer litter offender is a mental patient. In such a case, would the HDB consider moving the offender down to ground floor to solve the problem?”
“Sir, may I seek clarification with the DPM? I refer to Handout 2 that DPM distributed in Parliament yesterday. Is the salary figure in that Table inclusive of AVC, bonuses, etc? Is it a gross figure or a basic figure? BG Lee Hsien Loong: It is a gross figure. It includes everything. It includes the monthly pay, AVC, Special Allowance, which the Ministers have been getting one month, Public Service Leadership Allowance, which we are introducing, car allowance, which has always been there and is tax free. So we actually imputed on top of the car allowance the amount of tax which would have been paid if it were taxable and added that into the bundle as well the performance bonus and the GDP bonus. It is all listed out in the Straits Times. Go and check it up there.”
“Would the Prime Minister also conclude in his proposed thesis that the higher the Ministers are paid, the higher the return in benefit for the people?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Prime Minister?”
“I would like to request the Deputy Prime Minister to disclose the full information on the gross salaries of the political office-holders and the civil servants of the various grades, including the various variable components, bonuses and other allowances payable to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not forget that the people of Singapore are paying a high price to engage this batch of talents to become Ministers. We sincerely hope that the return received by the people will not be mere peanuts.”
“In Singapore, competition in the election market is very limited. As such, although both can be described as markets, there is a vast difference between them. Since the electors in Singapore have elected the PAP to form the Government to rule the country, the PAP Government can decide how much their Ministers are worth. Is it asking for the sky? It is left to the people to judge. Actually, the Government does not have to go through all the trouble, using all kinds of computation methods to peg the Ministers' salaries to the top earners in the private sector, just to justify the amounts they are asking for. There is no need to use the income of the top 24 or top 48 earners in the country as a benchmark to calculate the Ministers' salaries. They might as well put it in a simple and straightforward manner and say the Ministers need to be paid how many hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, otherwise the Ministers would not have enough money to use! In the case of the civil servants' salaries, I believe there is just a very small number of senior civil servants who are going to receive substantial pay rise in this exercise. Thanks to the Ministers, they are given these pay increases to avoid having a big gap between their salaries and those of the Ministers, lest it may be difficult for the Cabinet to account for it. The Government says that it is transparent and the Ministers' salary system is also transparent. But the information provided by the Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament yesterday was not transparent enough. May I ask whether the Ministers' salaries as reflected in Handout 2 are only the basic salaries under the Ministers' salary system?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle of pegging Ministers' and top civil servants' pay to that of the top earners in the private sector was debated in this House in 1994. My stand on the matter remains unchanged. I do not agree with the principle in the White Paper. In my opinion, those who decide to take up politics and those who decide to earn more money for themselves are two distinctly different categories of people. If you want to peg the pay of political appointees like Ministers, Ministers of State, etc., to the top earners in the private sector, and say that without doing so, you would not be able to attract suitable talents into politics is virtually degrading the politicians' noble spirit of serving the nation and serving the people. It is said that times have changed. We should be more realistic and look at this issue from the point of view of market economy. But we all know that governing a country with the national resources as its backing and doing business with one's private capital are two different things altogether. The private sector faces market competition, even competition in the international market. Among the top earners in the private sector, some are owners of enterprises and some are salaried employees. But do not forget that even world-class banks can collapse and close down! The PAP Government does not own Singapore, neither are the Ministers' salaried employees. They rule the country on a mandate given to them by the people after a general election. Once they are in power, they can put to use the assets of the State. They enjoy great power to decide everything. They can also formulate and implement all sorts of policies to ensure that they can be returned safely at the next general election.”
“Sir, I am talking about the bottom 10% of the workers. Are the programmes actually focused enough? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: It includes the bottom 10% who can be retrained. But as I said earlier, it is sometimes not as easy as it sounds because to go back to school to be retrained requires a certain discipline and a certain willingness to relearn. It is not always easy. For some workers, especially the younger workers, it is not a problem. For others, it is a problem.”
“Can the Minister tell us whether the Skills Redevelopment Programme and other skills training programmes are focused enough to tackle the problems of the bottom 10% unskilled and less educated workers? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The various economic agencies monitor very closely the trends in the labour market, which companies are retrenching, which companies are growing and need workers and we try to achieve the best match between those who are sheding workers and those industries which need workers. The SRP programme offers courses to create as good a match as we can achieve.”
“Sir, I do not think the Minister has answered my questions. There are basically two focus points. One, what is the specific target and how the Government intends to achieve the target of upgrading 100,000 workers by 2003 who are low-paid and less-educated. The second question I asked was whether the Government will review the benchmark for affordability in terms of healthcare and HDB flats. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have answered both questions. If Mr Low wants more details, and he tables another Question, I will get the details and provide them to him. Under the Skills Redevelopment Programme, we have a whole range of courses for the retraining of workers to fit them into growth sectors in the economy. As to his second question whether we will re-assess what constitutes affordability levels, this is done on a continuing basis because it is always relative to the overall standards in our community.”
“As to whether we should, from time to time, review what constitutes a minimum safety net in Singapore, I think we should, because this is what it means to be part of a community, that those at the bottom enjoy a minimum standard which is commensurate with the average living standard in our society as a whole so that the inequalities are not so gross as to cause social discord and disruption. If we look at the bottom 10% in Singapore and compare them to the bottom 10% in any other major city in the world, whether it is London, New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Hong Kong, I do not think we have done too badly. We should not measure a city by how its top 10% live. Because they can live very well; in Hong Kong, they drive Rolls Royces, in New York, it is a lifestyle which many of us can only imagine or fantasize about. But judge a city by how it looks after those at the bottom, its most downtrodden. And if we look around, I think we can be proud of what we have achieved in Singapore.”
“The Minister mentioned the Government's target to upgrade 100,000 less-educated workers by 2003. I would like to know from the Minister what are the targets of this group of workers specifically and what concrete steps the Government has taken so far to achieve these targets. Also, is the Minister aware of the problems of these low-educated, low-paid workers, many of whom are trapped in low-paid professions? And will the Government consider providing a living allowance to these workers who are prepared to go for training? The other question is: in view of the widening income gap, will the Government review the benchmark for affordability in terms of HDB flats and healthcare services? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The Skills Redevelopment Programme covers a wide range of retraining courses. It is true that among the older workers, some find it hard even to get themselves retrained in these courses. But we have had some very good successes of workers going for retraining and finding good jobs in growth sectors of the economy. Take, for instance, our disk-drive industry which has shed thousands of workers in the last two years. Many of these workers had since been redeployed to other industry sectors. Many of them are still in the electronics sector where we enjoy rapid growth in the components, in the computer, and the communication segments. We do provide salary assistance through Government subsidy of absentee payroll.”
“Sir, may I have further clarification from the Minister on clause 21? The Minister says that it might be a disguise because you might make multiple donations. But what is wrong with a permissible donor making donations amounting to more than $10,000 to individual organisations? Why should you put the onus on the permissible donor to report to the Registrar? What is the rationale for doing that?”
“If any other organisation, say, an NGO, wants to receive money from like-minded people or organisation overseas, and that purpose is to influence the political issues in Singapore, then it says that these are impermissible sources if such organisations, or NGOs, are gazetted as a political association. Right now, I have no intention to gazette any organisation. But if he says his OSC is going to get money from like-minded organisations overseas to support his political cause, then I will have to take a look at it.”
“Sir, I am referring to clause 21 of the Bill. This clause requires multiple small donations to political associations to be reported to the Registrar. It seems to me that even if these people are permissible donors and if they donate more than $10,000 a year, in aggregate, the donor has to report to the Registrar and give all the necessary details. May I know what is the rationale of this clause in the Bill? And does this clause violate the rights of Singaporeans in making donations? Is it not a discrimination against making donations to political parties? You can donate whatever amount you want to the National Kidney Foundation, or anywhere. But why is it that when you are making multiple small donations to political associations, you are required under the Bill to report to the Registrar and the punishment for failing to report is quite hefty? Why is it so? What is the rationale? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam was not listening when I was explaining the meaning of "political associations", and what would be covered and under what circumstances would the Minister make a declaration or gazette that they would be political associations. I have explained in great detail the circumstances, and I gave an example. On his question about AWARE, I gave an example in fact and said that if AWARE depends on the money to help the battered wives or children in the Family Service Centre, for example, so be it, if it is not campaigning for a particular cause to change the law or the Government, and therefore they can accept such foreign donations.”
“Sir, may I make a few points on a particular clause?”
“Yes, even 50 cents, I have to keep a record, right?”