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 33 of 54.
“Sir, currently I understand that the main local television channels are operated by subsidiary companies under the Singapore International Media Private Limited, a Government-linked company. Other foreign channels are relayed to the channel under Singapore Cable Vision. The TV media here are thus almost monopolised by either the Government-linked company or SCV. Is this situation desirable? And does it not run counter to the principle of market economy? During the sitting of Parliament on 21st March 1995, MITA's Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government has to be certain that it will be economically viable before a licence is given to another commercial TV station. He also said that the SBA will monitor the industry to determine when the market should be liberalised. I would like to ask the Minister whether the time is ripe now to allow another TV station to be set up. In the area of foreign TV station programmes, currently it has to be carried by SCV's cable. Would the Government consider allowing foreign broadcasting stations to broadcast directly into households?”
“Sir, is the Deputy Prime Minister sure that the KLSE will not change its mind again? SGX had a legally binding agreement with SCANS, but what has happened? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a legitimate question. We have to take it that we are negotiating with a serious entity, and they have given their solemn word and their Minister of Finance has exchanged letters with our Minister for Finance. So investors have to assess and decide. If a problem arises in the implementation, as I have explained, we will have to act in order to enforce a migration and transfer, and that will have to include legal rights. But I think we will wait and see. It is premature for us to say that this will not be carried out.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to seek a clarification?”
“If something goes wrong in Singapore which is against the law, or against the rules or monkey business, we will put it right. When it is overseas shares, nobody can give any guarantee. These are sovereign risks because sovereign governments are entitled to do anything they like under their own laws. If they have not followed their own laws, then, of course, it is possible for us to seek legal remedy in their courts, and this is what we could have done had we not reached a reasonable solution to the CLOB issue. But, fortunately, it has not been necessary, and we have been able to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Singapore has taken a constructive approach in trying to resolve the issue. We have consistently maintained that an expeditious and just resolution to the matter is in the interest of both countries, as well as in the interest of CLOB investors. After almost one and a half years, legally binding and comprehensive solution, that has the support of both Singapore and Malaysian governments, is in place to resolve the CLOB issue once and for all.”
“However, should there be any failure on the part of KLSE or its related corporations to implement either of the two schemes, SGX and CDP will naturally have to take action to enforce the migration and release, if necessary, through legal means. Individual investors who still wish to commence legal proceedings on their own behalf are entitled to do so. They should seek professional advice and decide according to their individual circumstances. It is quite clear that SGX and the Singapore Government have done their part to help to resolve this problem and have not left investors in a black hole. SGX and CDP negotiated the agreement to the best of their ability. It believes that the outcome is in the interests of the majority of CLOB shareholders. Investors must assess the situation for themselves to determine the best course of action, and decide if they wish to opt for either scheme. Some investors have written to request that SGX go further and pay the 1 1/2% and 1% fees under the two schemes on behalf of CLOB investors. SGX is not able to do so. It is beyond the scope of SGX's legal duties to defray the costs to investors of the migration and staggered release plans. Furthermore, for SGX to do so would raise a serious issue of moral hazard, because fundamentally the risk of investing in securities on CLOB or other markets provided by SGX, has to be borne by investors themselves, and not by the exchange or the Government. We have provided the facility, it is for investors to decide. This is true of CLOB. This is true of Singapore shares or any other shares which you may buy in Singapore or out of Singapore. The person who buys has to take the responsibility for it. Nobody can be sure that it would prosper. Nobody can be sure that something will not go wrong.”
“It made clear its members' preferences, and took a resolute stand against earlier private sector offers that were to the disadvantage of investors. SIAS has on 26th February 2000 stated its view that the two schemes address the needs of most CLOB investors. It noted that its concerns had been addressed with the reduction of the ECSB proposal's staggered release period from 18 to 13 months, and with KLSE's legal undertaking to fully and unconditionally implement the migration. SIAS has further explained on 6th March that although it was not involved in the negotiations, it was providing in-principle support to the two exchanges' agreement because Scheme A had come very close to what SIAS itself had proposed to the KLSE, namely, a 12-month staggered release and a 1% migration fee and what we have negotiated is a 3 plus 13 months release and 1 1/2% migration fee. SIAS noted that "many investors have been anxious for an early settlement and been pressing CDP and SIAS for it." By holding firm on its stance over the last year, SIAS has demonstrated its effectiveness, and contributed significantly to the eventual solution to settle the CLOB issue fairly in keeping with the interest of all parties. This is a positive example of civil society. It is conceivable that some investors may decide not to accept either option. They are entitled to do so, as under law, neither SGX nor CDP can waive the rights of beneficial owners to decide for themselves whether to accept any offer. The agreement commits KLSE, SCANS and their related companies to implement fully the two alternative schemes. So long as the implementation proceeds as agreed, neither SGX nor CDP will have cause to take legal action against KLSE or its group of companies.”
“Meanwhile the prospect of delay and uncertainty would have caused many CLOB investors to feel compelled to accept private sector offers which were less favourable and had no legal assurance of being carried out by the KLSE. This included, in particular, Effective Capital's earlier staggered release proposal, which would have involved a 4 plus 18 months delay, starting in February this year. The fact that there were clear and unambiguous legal rights involving more than 172,000 investors of different nationalities, and that we were prepared to enforce these rights as a last resort, were clearly significant in helping SGX to reach a comprehensive and legally binding solution with the KLSE to serve the needs of CLOB investors. Although we did not eventually have to go to Court or go to the WTO, the legal position was important in establishing that we had a case and that therefore we were able to deal with KLSE and reach this agreement. In getting KLSE to finally negotiate and enter into a legally binding agreement spelling out specific terms of the staggered release of CLOB securities, SGX was acting in the best interests of investors. The terms of the schemes presented to CLOB investors are significantly improved from those previously offered. Each CLOB investor is in a different situation and has different interests, especially with regard to how long he is able to wait before being able to trade his shares. No resolution, whether through legal action or negotiation, could have met the needs of all investors equally. But the final negotiated settlement is a pragmatic one in the circumstances. The Securities Industries Investors Association of Singapore (SIAS) has, throughout this episode, provided independent representation of a substantial group of investors.”
“I read from his third paragraph, "I have mentioned in my letter to Your Excellency dated 14th February 2000 that it is the stand of the Government of Malaysia that CLOB is a wholly private sector issue. As Your Excellency is aware, KLSE is a private sector organisation owned by its members. The agreements reached between KLSE and SGS confirmed this stand." But he went on, "As this is a comprehensive solution and the agreements are legally binding, I am confident KLSE will ensure that the obligations under the agreements are fully discharged. The Government of Malaysia looks forward to the smooth implementation of this comprehensive settlement." In other words, the KLSE-SGX agreement has the full support of both the Singapore and the Malaysian Governments. Some CLOB investors have written to the local press expressing disappointment with the solution reached and Mr Low has expressed some of their views just now. They feel that SGX and CDP should have insisted on CLOB investors' strict legal rights and taken a firm stand with the Malaysian authorities, particularly as Singapore was on sound legal ground. A few went further to suggest that by agreeing to the resolution, SGX has conceded that CLOB International was illegal and had merely been "talking tough" in the past months. SGX has not conceded any such thing. CLOB International was never illegal, and SGX's confidence in its legal position was based on informed legal advice. The Singapore authorities had also taken legal advice from leading experts on WTO matters. Our position was strong, both under Malaysian law and at the WTO. But legal action would have involved further delay, probably as long as several years, particularly in the case of our action in Malaysian courts.”
“There will be a three-month set-up period (for the opening of individual securities accounts with MCD) commencing from 31st March 2000, followed by a 13-month staggered release of the CLOB securities for trading on the KLSE. Scheme B, the second scheme, is effected by a supplemental agreement between CDP and SCANS. Investors will have their securities migrated into individual accounts and released for trading on the KLSE after 33 months from 31st March 2000, ie, the migration will begin on 1st January 2003. The release will be staggered over 9 months from 1st January 2003 to 1st October 2003. A 1% administrative fee is payable to SCANS. In this case, the fee will be based on the average of securities prices on the KLSE over the last five trading days of October 2002. After SGX and KLSE had signed their agreement, the following day, on 26th February, Dr Richard Hu wrote again to Tun Daim Zainuddin. Tun Daim replied on 2nd March 2000 and I am circulating copies of this exchange of letters to Members. [Copies of letters circulated to hon. Members.] As Members can see from Dr Hu's letter, Dr Hu informed Tun Daim in paragraph 3 that "the Singapore Government fully supports the KLSE-SGX agreement, which meets SGX's desire for a comprehensive, legally binding solution, and KLSE's aim of ensuring an orderly market. The Singapore Government had undertaken to ensure that SGX will abide by the agreement reached. I would deeply appreciate Your Excellency's confirmation, by reply to this letter, that the Malaysian Government likewise supports the agreement reached by the two exchanges, and has undertaken to ensure that KLSE will abide by it". Tun Daim replied, and in his reply, he reiterated the Malaysian Government's stand.”
“The two exchanges undertake to implement the migration of CLOB securities for trading on the KLSE under these schemes, fully and unconditionally. SGX and KLSE have jointly presented the two schemes of their agreement as a comprehensive solution to the CLOB issue. This is a major and timely development after the 17-month impasse in September 1998, during which some 1.5 billion CLOB shares owned by more than 172,000 investors of different nationalities were frozen at the Malaysian Central Depository (MCD). In negotiating the agreement, the SGX insisted that it met SGX's and also CLOB investors' key concerns. In particular, both alternatives have to be legally binding on the relevant Malaysian authorities, which should acknowledge their legal obligations to carry out any agreement. In addition, the solution had to be comprehensive, with a reasonable alternative for CLOB investors who did not wish to accept the private sector offer. These two key points - firstly, it has to be legally binding. secondly, it has to be comprehensive - which the Malaysian authorities had consistently refused to agree to, are now embodied in the SGX-KLSE agreement. The agreement also confirms that the two migration schemes allow KLSE to meet its duty to maintain an orderly market for the trading of securities in Malaysia. The first scheme, Scheme A, is an amended proposal by Effective Capital Sdn Bhd (ECSD), which is the only private sector offer that has won KLSE's approval and endorsement. KLSE has made clear that ECSB's proposal was the only private sector scheme that had complied with all of KLSE's and MCD's rules to date. Investors who opt for this scheme will pay ECSB a 1.5% transfer fee based on the closing prices in the KLSE on 15th February this year.”
“Sir, it is important that the Budget Book should show at least a clear guide of where the monies are going. I see that the head of expenditure on Social Transfer and Subvention has no clear details. Although some Ministries, such as the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health did explain them, other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance itself did not. I wonder why is it not possible to provide the details of transfers like development expenditure by projects on every Ministry's expenditure, or provide an annex, like capital grant in Annex F, to show the expenditure or where the money goes to. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, many cuts have been made. I propose to answer the cut from Mr Low Thia Khiang on CLOB first and then let Dr Hu reply on the Ministry of Finance matters and, if there is time, I will come back to respond to the other MAS' concerns. Mr Low made a spirited speech on the subject of CLOB. I last updated Parliament on this issue in January this year and I have briefed Parliament on the legal obligations of the parties involved and provided Members with copies of the agreement between the CDP and SCANS. I also informed Parliament then that the Minister for Finance Dr Hu had written to his Malaysian counterpart, Tun Daim Zainuddin on 13th January 2000. Tun Daim replied on 17th January 2000, and after a further exchange of letters, the KLSE met SGX to discuss a mutually acceptable resolution to the CLOB issue. The ensuing negotiations were fruitful and resulted in the SGX-KLSE agreement on 25th February 2000. The agreement is legally binding and provides two schemes for the migration and staggered release of CLOB securities into individual investors' securities accounts.”
“Sir, I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, pages 58 to 60, on the irregular and non-compliance with the procurement procedures by the Board of Commissioners of Currency Singapore (BCCS). Sir, due to time constraint, I will only highlight two interesting cases. Case one. BCCS engaged an employee of one of the tenderers as consultant to review tender specifications and the tender was subsequently awarded to the consultant employer. When Audit questioned the practice, BCCS replied that the consultant's who is the employee of the tenderer, acted professionally and declared that he kept his consultancy role separate. Case two. A senior officer of the BCCS approached one supplier and offered himself as a partner to a BCCS project for a fee and he also subsequently advised the supplier to lower his fees for the project to a level that is acceptable to BCCS. When BCCS was questioned by Audit, the best part of his response to Audit was that and I quote: "It knew of no rule that prohibits an in-house expert from partnering an external party." Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance what is his views on the above replies to Audit by BCCS. Does he agree with the stand taken by BCCS?”
“You say one thing, and you do another thing. Perhaps the Government rather "kow-tow" to the Malaysian side and sacrifice the interest of the CLOB investors. The Government should not forget that in 1989 when the CLOB market was set up, it was to offset the pressure resulting from the separation of the Singapore and the Malaysian stock exchanges. On 29th November 1989, the Minister for Finance, in answering questions on the separation of stock exchanges between Singapore and Malaysia, pointed out, and I quote: "At the moment, there are 182 Malaysian companies out of the 329 companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. In the short term, the immediate impact of the de-listing of Malaysian stocks from the SES is likely to be a decline in the turnover of the SES." He then went on to say: "Plans are being finalised to trade Hong Kong, Thai and Australian stocks in the over-the-counter (OTC) market to the SES electronic trading or CLOB system." So our investors jumped into the crocodile pit and the members of the Stock Exchange of Singapore earned a lot of commissions and the financial service sector grew steadily. Both the Exchange and the Government benefited. Now Malaysia has crushed the crocodile pit into an abyss and the Government just sits on the fence and allows the capital of the investors to fall into a bottomless pit. It even acquiesces in these two schemes which are definitely not in the interest of the investors. My conclusion here is that the PAP Government really has no conscience. 4.30 pm”
“Will the KLSE suddenly introduce some new regulations and seek to collect some more money under certain pretext? Thirdly, how are shares to be released, on what criteria and what principle? What amount of shares will be released each time? Sir, let me now deal with the second scheme. For this, you would have to wait until January 2003 for the shares to be released, and it will take a period of nine months. I think this is a big joke. The CLOB market was closed for trading in 1998. It would mean a long five years since the closure. Yet, the SGX finds it fit to accept this kind of scheme. Furthermore, how would SGX and KLSE ensure that there would be no more change of mind? As the Chinese saying goes, "yechang mengduo", (a long night is fraught with nightmares) meaning, "a long delay means many hitches". I would like to know whether these schemes are the only things the Government could do for the CLOB investors. Are they the best and most favourable schemes? When answering questions on the CLOB issues, the Government has reiterated that the CLOB investors have their legal rights, and the Government can take the matter up to the WTO. On 23rd January 1999, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament, and I quote: "The Singapore Government has taken advice on possible proceedings at the World Trade Organisation forum from leading legal counsel that specialises in WTO issues. The counsel has advised that the `CLOB' issue is within WTO's jurisdiction and Singapore has valid grounds for seeking redress at WTO on the matter." But right now we have not seen Government taking any effective action to protect the interests of CLOB investors. Then, SGX suddenly agreed to this proposed scheme. What on earth is the Government doing?”
“Sir, in last year's Budget debate, I raised the question of CLOB in this House. I pointed out that the Government should not shirk its responsibility. I also wanted to know what action the self-claimed capable, farsighted and efficient PAP Government would take to protect the interest of CLOB investors. Unfortunately, a year has passed, yet all we have are only two schemes recommended by SGX and KLSE. In my view, the Government is selling out the interest of the CLOB investors through these two schemes in an attempt to resolve this knotty problem. The first scheme by Effective Capital proposes to commence the slow release of shares from July this year. But it would take as long as 13 months for all the shares to be released. On top of that, the investors will have to pay an administrative fee equivalent to 1.5% of the closing prices of the shares as at the 15th of this month. To me, this kind of administrative fee is no different from the "protection money" demanded by the gangsters. The agreement between SGX and SCANS of KLSE on share migration cannot be enforced. Migration of shares has to be done through a private company, and then they slap an administrative fee on the investors. This is indeed daylight robbery! There are areas of concern in this scheme. First, how do SGX and KLSE ensure the effectiveness of Effective Capital? What happens, if after taking over the CLOB shares and collecting the so-called administrative fee, the company collapses and goes out of business within 13 months and before the shares are fully released? Who is going to be liable? Can SGX and KLSE provide a guarantee to the investors against the risk? Secondly, apart from the 1.5% protection money, can the investors be assured of real protection?”
“In other words, my suspicion, at the last year's Budget debate, that we might not really have a deficit budget is true. It is correct.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to seek further clarification. When I questioned the deficit budgetary position of the Government at the last budget debate, I pointed out that we might not end up with a deficit if development expenditure was not that much. The Minister knew then that there was a provision which might or might not be needed. Is it true?”
“Thank you, Sir. First clarification, Sir. Is it not true that there are many workers, especially those who are working in companies which have not recovered, who continue to draw a much lower salary compared to pre-crisis level? And yet is it morally right for the Government to restore civil service and Ministers' salary up to that level? I understand just now that for the Ministers, it does not seem to be sufficient. It is going to increase further. Secondly, is it not true that while many Singaporeans suffer, and some are still suffering because of the economic downturn, the Government turns out to be the biggest winner in the economic downturn, with its coffers overflowing? Third clarification, Sir. The Minister says that the Budget was prepared early January 1999, and he did not know there would be a recovery, and thereby there is over provision on the development expenditure. I would like to know when did the Government come to know that it does not need to spend the development expenditure. Lastly, I would like to know from the Minister whether he foresees any possible asset inflation as had happened before, just before the financial crisis hit us, and which I think resulted in quite a lot of stress and pressure on the cost.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to seek clarification from the Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to seek clarification, please?”
“So when times are bad, the Government's policy is to first require workers to make sacrifices by reducing workers' wages but when times are good, the Government took care of its own pocket. This is the true colour of the PAP Government. In this Budget, the Government has even announced that the water tariffs will be increased and the water borne fee will be increased by 100%. All the utilities charges will also be increased as a result. It will add to the burden of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, looking from the first Budget of the new millennium after the economic crisis, we can see that whether in good or bad times, the Government's fiscal policy is always "win-win" for the Government and "lose-lose" for the people.”
“In the Budget debate in 1999, I said that the deficit was not a true deficit but was a result of large increase in development estimates. The Minister for Finance just announced that there is now a surplus of $3.2 billion instead of a deficit. This was because the development expenditure estimated in the 1999 budget was not used up. The Government has the responsibility to explain to the people whether the 1999 budget was one with a political motive to persuade the people to make sacrifices. In 1999, many businessmen faced losses, some factories even had to close down. Many Singaporeans had to tighten their purse strings and their belts because of a pay cut, CPF cut, and unemployment. But the Government was not affected. There was no deficit - it was played up at that time. Instead, there is now a surplus. No wonder when the economy was still recovering, the Government could not wait even a moment in taking the opportunity to announce in November 1999 the restoration of the pay cut for civil servants, including the Ministers' pay. Otherwise, the surplus would be more than $3.2 billion. The Government has forgotten that in 1999 they wanted workers to have their pay cut to pull through the economic crisis together. The workers' pay has not been restored to the previous level. The 10% CPF cut in employer's contribution will only be restored by 2%. But the Government took the lead in pay increases for themselves, and enjoyed the fruits of economic recovery, while the people in general were still suffering from the impact of the crisis. The people were hoping that better time would come in the form of bonuses. But the Government has beaten them to it by taking the chunk of the fruit of the economic recovery with the withdrawal of the 10% tax rebate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his first Budget Statement for the millennium, the Finance Minister said that we could expect to get back soon to the pre-crisis growth rate. We can expect measures designed to help businesses tide over the crisis will not be extended and Government charges will be increased very soon. The property tax rebate of 55% is now reduced to 25%. The Ministry of National Development has also announced increases in the development charges. With the increases, will we once again face the pre-crisis situation of asset inflation? Will the rent plus other increases cause the cost of business to rise and our competitiveness to be depleted? We can rejoice that we are out of the economic difficulty and can expect better prospects in the new millennium. But what kind of a reward do those people who have made sacrifices get? The Government announced that it would top up their CPF by $250. Is this meagre amount of $250 the only reward that they are getting? Those who have not contributed to CPF also made sacrifices but they do not even get a single cent. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1998 when we faced the regional economic crisis, the Government announced a $10 billion cost-cutting package. But the thrust of cost-cutting was on the workers, through the 10% CPF cut and the 5% pay cut. So through the sacrifices of the workers, the Government was able to cut down the cost by $7 billion. In 1999, the Government announced a budget deficit of $5.1 billion. This was played up in the media as if the Government was also affected very greatly by the crisis in order to justify that requiring workers to cut their pay and to make sacrifices are reasonable.”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from Dr Vasoo? Dr Vasoo mentioned in his speech that he is afraid that there might be some services which may be out of reach of the lower income families. Would he elaborate on what these services are?”
“Each student is also required to learn his mother tongue to provide direct access to our cultural heritage in order to strengthen our values, roots and sense of identity. This bilingual policy is essential for our nation building. We also encourage students who are linguistically inclined and able to cope to study a third language. Malay Language is one of the languages that these students can opt to study as a third language. They do so in their secondary school years when they are more mature and can decide for themselves what their interests are. Learning two languages from Primary One onwards is already a challenge for our students. Such views have often been expressed by Members of this House also. From our experience, going beyond this to learning more than two languages will be academically very challenging and demanding for the large majority of our students. It is not realistic and is too heavy a burden to the majority of the students if the learning of a third language is made mandatory. However, schools, which have the resources and where there is a demand, may consider organising language classes as an optional enrichment programme for their pupils who are able to cope with the additional learning load.”
“Sir, what is Government's stand on the practice of Falungong? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said, Falungong practitioners practise qigong in locations in Singapore. If they do not do anything that is unlawful or against the law, they will be allowed to continue. BROTHELS 4. Mr Gerard Ee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is his Ministry's stance on brothels; and (b) whether the number of such establishments is on the rise. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, prostitution is not an offence under our laws. However, soliciting is an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Singapore is not the only country where prostitution is not an offence. Many other developed countries also adopt the same position. Governments around the world through the ages have tried to eradicate prostitution and brothels, but without success. The Ministry of Home Affairs has thus adopted a pragmatic approach to the problem, by confining prostitution to traditional red light areas, and through enforcement against prostitutes who solicit in public, and pimps who force women into prostitution. As a result of Police's enforcement actions, the level of vice activities in Singapore is under control. LEARNING OF MALAY LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS 5. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will consider making the learning of Malay Language mandatory but non-examinable in all schools; and (b) whether he will encourage this at the primary school level. The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, the Government has adopted a bilingual language policy in our schools. English is the main medium of instruction. English is our common working language and is also the language of global business, commerce and technology.”
“Sir, I understand that an incident happened in Sentosa, where Falungong members distributed some pamphlets and they were arrested. I do not know whether this is true. Would the Minister of State clarify on what happened? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I am not aware of such an incident. Certainly, the general principle is that if anyone breaches the law, he will be dealt with according to the law.”
“A further clarification. In other words, we would be expecting a reasonable return from the developmental investment.”
“I would just like to have some clarification from the Minister. Would the Minister explain what does he mean by "developmental purpose" and what sort of investment is considered investment for developmental purpose?”
“Maybe the Ministry should consider conducting a short course to educate foreign domestic maids on the proper ways of cleaning windows in high-rise buildings, because there are certainly other safer ways to clean windows. But I think many a time, these maids, on their own initiative, climb out of the windows.”
“I wonder why the Police failed to anticipate the law and order problem created by the McDonald's sale of Hello Kitty dolls. But I understand that the Police could well anticipate that any public speeches made by Opposition Party members may cause social law and order problem and thereby it denies the issue of permits. Would the Minister of State explain why the Police had failed to anticipate in this case, but yet could anticipate what will happen if an Opposition politician makes a speech in public? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Does an Opposition party member who makes a speech in public also sells Hello Kitty toys that would arouse that passion? I think the point here is that the two events are quite different. In the Hello Kitty sale, it was a promotional event and queues were anticipated. But in Singapore, we do have long queues and other events where large crowds gather, but if there is adequate security, there are no problems. In this case, McDonald's, in fact, employed about 150 security guards for the outlets but despite that precaution, problems still arose.”
“Sir, did the Police anticipate that law and order could be a problem with the sale of Hello Kitty dolls at McDonald's? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said, the first two launches were relatively incident-free. The first launch had one incident where a doctor and three other persons were involved in the queue, but that was within the premises. After the two launches, Police, in fact, spoke to McDonald's and advised McDonald's to hire security guards at the five drive-in outlets. But, of course, ultimately, on the fifth launch on 27th January, nobody anticipated that the crowds would swell up to about 200,000. But I think along the way, McDonald's, on the advice of Police, had taken precautions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that foreign companies are allowed to list in Singapore, and I think a lot of investors in Singapore may not know very much of what is happening overseas, ie, the companies that are based overseas, what would be the risk involved and what is the Government's advice to investors? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Government's answer is if you do not understand, better do not gamble. That is a problem, whether it is a foreign company or a Singapore company. Because even with many Singapore companies, their investors do not really know what the risks are, but they stand there, look at the TV screen behind the glass, and get photographed for television, and they hope that they will predict the next wiggle in the chart before everybody does. But CPF statistics show that most of them do not outperform. Many of them underperform. That is why our advice is, whether it is a Singapore stock or a foreign stock, unless you know what you are doing and you can absorb the risk, do not punt. Far better, put it in a fixed deposit or a unit trust with the appropriate risk profile or, as a last resort, leave it to CPF. From MAS' point of view, we would like more Singaporeans to take an active responsibility to manage their funds and put them outside of the CPF. But that is a decision which individual Singaporeans have to make for themselves. BILATERAL ISSUES WITH MALAYSIA 5. Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin asked the Prime Minister what is the status of the outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia and whether there has been any progress since the Malaysian elections.”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. I note that this agreement is between CDP and SCANS. I would like to know whether this agreement is legally binding on the KLSE and MCD. If so, how does it bind them? Secondly, I feel that the issue of CLOB has been long outstanding. Perhaps the Government should set a deadline to resolve the issue. If not, what is the course of action that the Government will take? Otherwise, Singaporean investors would just be waiting with no solution. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained, the agreement was signed between CDP and SCANS. It is binding on the KL Stock Exchange and MCD. That is our legal advice. On the issue of deadline, I understand Mr Low's view. This is exactly what Mr Inderjit asked just now and the same reply applies.”
“So there is natural justice, and we must not say that there is not. Mr Jeyaretnam chides the House and certain Members of the House, and I do believe he does chide the Members of the Opposition too, both from his party and from the Singapore People's Party, saying that they are just hijacking the debate from this high abstract concept of natural justice to instances, isolated instances, I must say. And isolated instances may sometimes prove a point, but I agree with Mr J B Jeyaretnam here that we should not look at isolated instances but look at the whole wood. Having said that, however, he goes on ad infinitum on an isolated case and isolated cases. I would say that natural justice requires that the courts are independent and impartial and nobody in this House has disagreed with that. So the ruler does not decide what the law means. It is the court, independent of the ruler, who decides what it means, and that to me, Sir, is the Rule of Law. I would say also that Mr J B Jeyaretnam's arguments are flawed. For example, he says that we should put the CPIB and the Police under, I do not know what, but away from the Government.”
“May I have a point of clarification? Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: I am not giving him the floor. It gives me concern that his flawed definition would therefore mislead those in the House who are not lawyers, and mislead the public who are not lawyers. When we talk about the ISA, he cites that as an example of the breach of the Rule of Law. But if you look at the principles of the Rule of Law, and particularly at the principles of natural justice, natural justice requires essentially two basic principles. One is that you have the right to be heard and to explain your case, and, two, is the right to equal treatment. A right to have your case heard also means that there is a review. As the Minister of State has mentioned, even in the ISA we have got Advisory Boards that review the cases and recommend to the President whether the detention is to be upheld or not. So we do have rules of natural justice applied. There are appeals possible and there are reviews possible. And as Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, there are courts that would review our decisions and the decisions of administrators. Mr Low Thia Khiang has said that there is a difference between the policy and the law. Perhaps there is, perhaps there is not. But if a policy is made and it is in contravention of the law, the courts will strike it out. The Ministers would never have allowed it if they realise it is in violation of the law. Nonetheless, if Queen's Counsel or any esteemed lawyers have given an opinion to the Opposition that things are otherwise, they should test it out in the courts, and our courts are independent, and the Opposition does admit it. And we have examples. Mr Simon Tay has mentioned examples of how the courts have actually ruled against the Government.”
“Clarification, Sir. Is the Minister saying that whatever Opposition has, because we are not in charge of the Government, even if we can bring up whatever programme, it will be useless? And the PAP is capitalising itself on its position as the Government to say that because it is in charge, it will give the people everything that this Government has. But where does the money of the Government come from? The people. If you do not vote for me, I will not give you, whether it is the programme of the PAP as a party or the programme of the Government. Are you saying that the Secretary-General of PAP can go to the voters and say, "Well, I am the Secretary-General. I can give you."? I wonder whether a person, who becomes the Prime Minister of a country, should behave as though he is the Secretary-General of the ruling party. Is he looking after the interests of the Party or looking after the interests of the nation?”
“Right now, only grassroots organisations or town councils are allowed to organise pasar malams. So there is this change of rule, whether policy or whatever, that disadvantages the Opposition and it concerns the Rule of Law. I leave it to the people in the legal profession to judge. Then, of course, there is this question of what sort of licences are issued. There are people who are worried about whether or not licences are being granted with certain consideration. Many a time the Government departments who grant licences say, "Well, we will consider on a case-by-case basis." What is case-by-case basis? I do not think there is a very clear administrative ruling, in terms of granting licences and other things. The transparency is not good enough. Sir, as regards the amended motion, I agree with point one "values the importance of Rule of Law". My understanding of the Rule of Law is to apply the law fairly to everyone. "Commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all", I am not sure whether or not the Government upholds the Rule of Law because my Secretary-General has obviously pointed out that it does not seem to be the case. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, you said that any speeches after the amendment was moved must be confined to the amendment. I wish to speak on the amendment, but I also wish to reply to the points raised in my motion because I know what the result will be. The amendment will be passed and I would not have any opportunity to reply to the points raised. So would you give me permission to reply to the points raised?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am no lawyer. After listening to the lectures, I wonder whether what we are talking and complaining about is the Rule of Law or something which concerns fairness. I have three instances, one of which Mr Chiam has raised about speeches. On the surface of it, advisors to grassroots organisations can speak freely because they are under grassroots organisations. Whereas elected Members of Parliament like us also have committees which deal with grassroots activities but they are not recognised as part of a grassroots organisation, hence the differences between grassroots organisations and events organised by political parties. The policy is such that for events organised by political parties a licence to speak will not be granted. Whereas for grassroots organisations, I believe they do not even need to apply for a licence. In both instances, yes, one is a policy and the other is a provision under the law. The question is whether it is applied fairly because all advisors to grassroots organisations are allowed to speak. We are not grassroots organisations. So the question is: is this fair? The other instance is an old issue which was debated in Parliament and that concerns the use of HDB premises, for instance, the PCF's use as kindergartens. I remember the rules for granting such premises concessionary rental, that is, you have to register it as a charitable organisation with a paid-up capital of $5 million. So the Opposition cannot fulfil the requirement and thereby under the rule you are not qualified. Is that fair? It is under the law, yes. But my question is: is this fair? The other instance is pasar malam. In the past, my committees were allowed to organise pasar malam but suddenly the rule was changed.”
“I was not given a permit. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We can look into it, if Mr Chiam could give me the instances why Police has been so generous in not following the policy. The other point is that when Mr Gan spoke, he was not speaking at a party function. He was speaking at a grassroots' function. I am sure Mr Chiam knows the difference.”
“Clarification with the Member. In his speech he mentioned that civil society may not be desirable for HDB heartlanders and the Government has a duty to balance their interests. I would like to know from him, in his view, how does civil society, as implied in his speech, come in conflict with the interest of HDB heartlanders, if the Government decides that civil society is desirable.”
“Did the Police make good the door that has been damaged during the raid and pay for the cost of it? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Under the law, Police need not do it, unless they have damaged the door with wilful neglect. I understand that Madam Beevi has made a request which CNB has referred to the AG's Chambers. So that is being considered.”
“If they really want to focus on the people, then it must attach more importance to the people and respect their right to exercise the "people's rights". If the PAP Government continues to change the election laws to deprive the people of their rights to effectively return the representative of their choice to Parliament, and to threaten the people during election campaigns by saying that if they vote for the opposition, they will not get benefits such as the asset enhancement and infrastructure like the MRT/LRT, and their kindergartens will be closed down, etc., then all this talk about a people-focused policy is simply lacking in sincerity. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Amendment accordingly negatived. Original Question again proposed.”
“As for the HDB's upgrading programme, it is actually the Government's responsibility to keep the housing estates in good and healthy condition, but it has now been used as a means to "bribe" voters, under the guise of enabling them to "share in the country's success". Even then, the residents have to share in the cost of upgrading. It was mentioned in the President's Address that, "those who do well succeed, not simply through their own efforts, but because society has given them the opportunity to get ahead. They have an obligation to serve their fellow citizens." Yet, we have to offer high salaries to attract Ministers and senior civil servants to stay on to serve the people. Is this not a mockery of what the President has said? If the PAP's policy is "focused on the people to realise the S21 Vision" as described in Lianhe Zaobao, then the Government should conduct studies on how to create the conditions and environment conducive to the people's participation in politics in Singapore, and not to depend solely on Government channels such as the grassroots organisations like the RCs, CCCs, etc., and the Feedback Unit, to make the people feel that after voicing their views, they are already deemed to have taken part in national affairs. The Government can then take the opportunity to explain their policies and win support for policies which they have already decided upon. A bona fide participation of the people should not be confined to verbal participation only. Legitimate political actions should also be included. If the Government continues to stringently obstruct political actions, then the so-called "vibrant people sector" is nothing but empty talk. Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP must be realistic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment moved by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party. In my view, the President's Address is nothing more than a precis of the "Singapore 21 Vision". There is nothing new, especially when it makes no mention at all on enabling the people to freely and effectively exercise their political rights. It was mentioned in the President's Address that, "All citizens have helped to build Singapore through their hard work and commitment. All deserve to share in the country's success." The asset enhancement scheme was cited as an example. However, we must not forget that the HDB recently introduced some new regulations to punish those who attempt to realise the profits from their asset enhancement by selling their bigger flats to downgrade to smaller flats. These people will have to pay a higher interest rate for their mortgage loan. For those who sell their flats and re-apply to HDB for another flat, a levy is imposed on them for their profits. So, when the market is good, the prices of the flats go up, and your assets, in the form of your flats, are indeed enhanced. However, if you decide to take profit by taking advantage of the enhanced value, the Government immediately moves in and demands a share of your profit. Taking into consideration the higher interest rate you have to pay subsequently, all the expenses and the levy, the actual profit derived from the asset enhancement, the so-called sharing of the country's success for your commitment to the country, is simply negligible. Much of your profit actually goes back to the Government's coffers. Moreover, some people are forced to downgrade because of the economic downturn!”
“But if the ruling party can make good use of the feedback and alternative views from the various opposition parties, I think it will make a more effective government. On top of that, if it is subjected to the pressure of the opposition, it will be more prudent when it implements its policies to show that it is a good government. As such, the effect of parliamentary democracy is not just a confrontation between political parties. In fact, this system has substantial effects in promoting a good government which takes good care of its people. Sir, I have dwelt at length on our parliamentary democracy, and it may appear as though I am "displaying my little skill before the grand-masters". However, at this historical moment of the moving of our Parliament, there is no harm in reviewing our past, with the hope that we may draw some inspiration from there to improve ourselves, so that the system of parliamentary democracy in Singapore may develop in a more healthy manner in the new Parliament House, to protect the future happiness of our people. At the same time, let the academics in the western society know that even after the autocratic Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has left us, Singapore can still continue to survive and develop. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."”
“There is even the need for the Government to introduce this nondescript system of Elected Presidency, which is not guaranteed to be effective, to safeguard the national reserves. I feel that this is something which anyone who is concerned with the future of Singapore should ponder over seriously. The system of parliamentary democracy has been in force in Singapore for more than 30 years, and we are still having a one-party rule in Singapore. The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party has already made some analysis on the matter just now. I do not want to repeat his points. But here, I would like to make the point that a legitimate government which is generated under a system of parliamentary democracy has the obligation to ensure the existence of the three pre-conditions for parliamentary democracy, to give full play to the system of parliamentary democracy. At the same time, this will ensure the legitimacy of the Government as generated under this system. Many a time, people have asked me whether the PAP had cheated in the general elections. I said that as far as the votes are concerned, the PAP had not cheated. If they had, I would not have participated in politics through the General Elections. However, the PAP has earned for itself a bad reputation by unfairly changing the election rules, and threatening the people during the elections. Another important characteristic of the system of parliamentary democracy is that we must have representatives of the people from the various quarters to voice their views in Parliament, so that the Government, in ruling the nation, will look after the interest of the entire society. In this system of parliamentary democracy, it is a presumption that there will be a ruling party and an opposition in Parliament.”
“Although we do have the parliamentary democracy system, and the three key institutions: the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive, and the people do have the right to elect Members to form Parliament, the actual situation is that during the election, we do not have enough opposition candidates to contest the election, and the PAP can actually form the Government even before the polling date. The Workers' Party firmly believes in the importance of Parliament exercising its power of checks and balances on the Government under the system of parliamentary democracy. We also understand that under the system of parliamentary democracy, the voters must have a choice of candidates to give full play to the elections. For this reason, the Workers' Party has been fielding candidates in every General Election since independence. Although we lost again and again, we have carried on contesting, and we never gave up. In the contested constituencies, almost 40% of the voters supported the opposition, but the vast majority of opposition candidates were not returned. As a result, the PAP has been dominating Parliament and, at the same time, controls the main pillars of Legislative and Executive in the system of parliamentary democracy. As of today, the system of parliamentary democracy has been practised in Singapore for more than 30 years. Why is it that we are still in such a situation? Why is it that Parliament has not been able to perform the role of checks and balances on the Government to see to it that the Government would not have its own way all the time, and thereby protect the overall interest of the nation and the people?”
“For the system of parliamentary democracy to be effectively implemented, three important pre-conditions must be present: First, the people must be able to elect the people according to their own wishes, without being subjected to any threat of losing any of their benefits. They must be allowed to exercise their own free choices without any psychological or mental pressure. Secondly, at the elections, the people should have different candidates from whom they can exercise their right of selection. Most importantly, the media, particularly the television, should accord fair coverage of the candidates from the various parties, so that the voters will have the opportunity to have a clear understanding of the various candidates through introduction by the media and other means, and hence make informed decisions when they cast their votes. Thirdly, there must be enough number of Members from the various parties in Parliament, with full power to vote for or against the motions introduced by the Government, particularly when the Government is seeking to amend the Constitution. At the same time, there should be enough non-ruling party Members in Parliament with enough influence to challenge the ruling parties during voting, to ensure that the ruling party will not sacrifice the interest of the people. In any country that professes to practise parliamentary democracy, if it does not possess all these three above-mentioned pre-conditions, then the so-called parliamentary democracy exists in name only. Unfortunately, since independence, Singapore's parliamentary democracy is actually in a "partly-nominal, partly-solid" state.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion standing in the name of the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Parliament for its moving to a new Complex. I am also happy to see that as Singapore steps into the 21st century, Parliament, as an important pillar in the political system of Singapore, has a brand-new, modern and well-equipped building. However, in terms of the progress of parliamentary democracy over the past 30-odd years since independence, I must say I am disappointed. Operation of the system of parliamentary democracy is focused on the separation of power of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive, with mutual checks and balances among themselves, so that it will not be possible for the Government in power to possess absolute powers and do as it wishes to invade into the rights of the people or do anything detrimental to the country and the people. In any parliamentary democracy, the fundamental principle is that the main power must be with the people. The people must have the ultimate right to choose their parliamentary representatives and the people to form the government, through the process of election. The representatives elected by the people shall form Parliament which is the legislative body of the State. The political party that wins the most seats in a General Election will form the Government to rule the country. The ruling party can only implement policies or carry out resolutions which have been passed by Parliament. Parliament is the main pillar to carry out checks and balances on the Government under the framework of division of the three powers under the system of parliamentary democracy.”