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 37 of 54.
“But can you tell how the political situation will develop? What new turns of the kaleidoscope may happen? What totally new landscapes may emerge? Nobody can tell. We were reluctant to move earlier because the situation had not yet worsened and I think if we had made such a package before the situation had worsened, it might have shaken confidence and been not very well accepted by the public. Because they would have said, "Why?" I am sure that Mr Low would be the first to stand up to say, "Why? The situation is not so grave. We do not need to do this yet. Keep it till later on." We have to make a judgment. We made this move. If next year, things turn favourable, well, that is good. We can adjust our policy thereafter. But if we do not make this adjustment and next year things do not turn out good, then it may be too late for us to take the steps by next year. Are we confident of getting the FDI? I think the numbers will go down this year. But if this package gets clear support from the population and from political leaders and MPs, then it will be a very strong selling point when EDB knocks on doors and tell people, "Look, I am able to do this. Other people cannot." We can encourage workers to accept a wage reduction. Can other countries do that? Even in the freest economies in the world, economists will tell you that wages are sticky downwards, ie, when things are good, they go up and when things are bad, they are very slow to come down. That is the way human beings are. We have to accept that and we have to find a way to encourage Singaporeans, to nudge them into a direction which they will eventually do on their own, but which may take longer. On their own, yes, they will take wage cuts if the company is about to go bust.”
“Further clarification, Sir. I now understand that the Government has failed to foresee the rapid development in this economic crisis. But I understand that recently, there were some favourable assessments by international agencies that economic conditions may improve in 1999. I do not know whether the Government has foreseen this happening before deciding on the package presented in Parliament. The second clarification is that with the current package, are we confident that we will garner the necessary foreign direct investment (FDI) into Singapore as targeted. The DPM also mentioned why we cannot leave the companies alone to do the cost-cutting measures and wage reduction. I thought we wanted to project our workforce to the world as well as to investors. If our workforce is rational, they will respond to our current economic situation and be prepared for the wage cuts proposed by companies which are not making money or in the red, rather than losing their jobs. I thought NTUC has been very powerful in garnering the support of the workers to respond to the economic environment. So I am quite surprised that DPM says that it may be difficult to do if we leave it to the companies to negotiate the wage cuts. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we failed to foresee what happened in the last six months. I fear that Mr Low Thia Khiang probably also failed to foresee that. Nobody expected it to happen and in fact it is impossible to know, not because you cannot make the calculations, but because they depend on human decisions of leaders, investors, populations, and that cannot be computed. Similarly, they ask me whether next year will be better. Some analysts think so. Maybe if we just project economic charts it looks like that.”
“I would like to seek the following clarification from the DPM. Firstly, I quoted DPM Lee's Parliamentary speech yesterday in my speech and I would like him to clarify what has happened to his assessment made in February 1998 and why, despite his assessment, he now says we need such a deep cut. The second clarification is why is there a need for the Government to mandate the cut in wages. I believe in response to the economic situation, the workers are already taking a cut and every individual company has a different profit and loss situation. Why do we want to set a percentage of reduction across the board? Why cannot we leave it to individual companies to decide? I believe they know what to do. Thirdly, I am not very convinced about the explanation on the percentage on the component of wages, the profit of companies as well as the Government charges, vis-a-vis GDP. BG Lee has explained that wages are a major component. But based on the cost of a company, and this was published by the Trade and Development Board, about 51% of the business cost comprises service costs as well as indirect Government tax. Can the Government not help the companies to reduce costs by first cutting the part on non-wages costs? And then we assess the situation again to see whether there is a need for a wage cut because I think it is quite a painful decision.”
“Since the Minister of State says that LTA now issues licence to bona fide taxi operators and the main complaint was that taxi-drivers did not take their licence very seriously, would the Ministry consider issuing taxi licence to bona fide taxi-drivers?”
“I just heard that the taxi-drivers' average income is $1,800. I do not know whether the figure quoted is correct because I remember, some years ago, when the taxi diesel tax was raised, the then Minister for Communications, Dr Yeo Ning Hong, said that taxi-drivers earned as much as $3,000. Would the Minister of State like to clarify? Dr John Chen Seow Phun: If you take the main hirer, the income is higher. But if you take the relief driver, the income is lower. But the average is about $1,800.”
“Sir, is the system capable of self-checking any errors that occur?”
“Sir, this is relevant. I believe the LTA has completed its investigation. Is the LTA confident that such errors will not occur again in the future? And what other systems are in place to make sure that the same mistake will not occur again?”
“Sir, the question is whether you do that or you do not do that. The system is capable of doing that if you want to. In other words, if the Government wants to monitor the movement of motorists, they could have done that. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, we do not do that, and the question is irrelevant.”
“Can the data not be downloaded and stored separately for future reference at all?”
“Sir, is it possible to download the data and store it somewhere? Could you do that?”
“Sir, since the system is capable of capturing the identity of the car through the gantries, my question is whether or not this system itself is also capable of monitoring the movement of motorists and thus infringe the privacy of motorists?”
“Sir, why did the Government give out goodwill? I would like to know who made the mistake and whether or not the taxpayers should bear the mistake of this goodwill, which was a mistake made by a civil servant.”
“Sir, what is the rationale for refunding the affected motorists a flat rate of $10 CashCard which has incurred a Government expenditure of $15,620 rather than just paying them back the collected amount of $1,659?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid this is only an administrative expediency. But the principle involved is whether it is equitable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is exactly what I am objecting. Why should we be linking everything to a penalty which would affect a person's livelihood and professional practice? Is it equitable in the first place?”
“Sir, I have no quarrel with compulsory voting. My question is whether or not it is fair to link the voting to the renewal of certificate. Can a doctor practise without renewing his practising certificate?”
“Sir, does the Senior Minister of State think that it is equitable to deregister a medical practitioner if he does not vote and refuse to pay up the fine? Is our professional practice based on whether or not the doctor is committed to vote in the future? And is this tantamount to saying that if a citizen refuses to vote or has no valid reason not to participate in the voting, he might lose his citizenship as well? It looks as if it is going to be the same case.”
“When the economy is good, the PAP Government will claim that they have won because they have a capable leadership. But when economy is in a bad shape, they blame it on external forces. Now, you win the chess game. Is it because you are clever or because your opponent falls sick?”
“I am talking about farsightedness, long-range view. You cannot say that you can see things only for the next two months. Otherwise, how can anyone say that our leaders are farsighted? The question is how you make your judgement, and whether your judgement is correct or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if the judgements were to be changed every three months, I do not know how the Government formulates its policies. When we want to take a long-term view, how are we going to say that we should be expedient and make changes whenever necessary?”
“Clarification, Sir. (In Mandarin): We often hear that the Singapore political leaders are far-sighted, having good judgement, and that they have "helicopter views". Therefore, they should be paid very high salaries. According to Mr Yeo, things change every day. Our leaders' judgement is also changing all the time. How could they lead us if their views and judgements are changing all the time? They have taken pride in their extraordinary quality - their helicopter view. How do you explain these frequent changes in judgement? Can we rely on them to make the right judgement to lead us out of doom? If their judgements are changing all the time, they are no different from people who play shares at the stock market.”
“Just now the Member mentioned the hen-and-egg dilemma. In his speech, he said that the wage cut was to prepare for a rainy day. If what he said was indeed true, then I shall question the motive of the cuts in employers' CPF contribution rate and wages. Are the cuts necessary now? Or is there a political motive over the proposed cuts? You cut the wages and CPF contribution now and then just before the next General Election in the year 2002, the PAP Government will increase the workers' wages to show that this Government is better than those in the other countries. When we were at the outset of the economic crisis, many of our leaders said that our economy was very strong and our fundamentals were firm and sound. However, these fundamentals seem to be pretty shaky now. If the Government has been very effective, then our workers will not have to face this drastic wage cut now. This is like two athletes taking part in a 400-metre race. Athlete A fell down at the 200-metre mark, while Athlete B continued running but collapsed at the 300-metre mark. Although both athletes did not complete the race, Athlete B turned to Athlete A and said, "Look, I ran 100 metres more than you did. Therefore, I am the winner."”
“During this time of economic depression, the Government should take the lead and make use of the reserves accumulated over the years to help reduce business cost by cutting the various charges and taxes, in order that Singapore would regain its international competitiveness. In fact, the most important thing to do is to help our companies look for and penetrate into new markets. At the same time, stimulate consumption in the domestic market, so that our products may be marketed, and there will be capital to roll over. If a company has no business, its products cannot sell, then even if business cost is reduced, wages of the workers are cut, the company will eventually have to close down, and the workers will lose their jobs.”
“The Executive Director of the International Chamber of Commerce and Industry seems to want to see some meat left on the bone. He pointed out that although the report recommended a total reduction in the wage-cost, it did not give any specific suggestion on how to execute it, apart from the CPF cut. I am not an economist, but I must point out that this Report has failed to give adequate grounds and data to prove that the total wage-cost must be reduced by 15%. We are asking the workers to accept 1994 wages to pay for 1998 cost of living. I feel that the Government should not mandate a 10% cut in the employers' CPF contribution, or for that matter, the amount of wages to be reduced. With the economy turning bad, many workers are already suffering a loss of income. I feel that wages of the workers will be automatically adjusted according to the market situation, and the profits or losses of the companies. What the Government should do is to reduce contribution rate to the Special Account and Medisave Accounts of the workers. And also it should reduce the employees' CPF contribution so that they could have higher take-home pay to tide over the difficult times. Although wage-cost takes up a bigger part of our total business cost, I feel that by reducing other non-wage business costs would also help to achieve the target of reducing the total business cost. According to information given by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, in the the manufacturing sector, 51% of its business cost came from service cost, including transportation and communications, utilities and rentals, and other indirect taxes such as GST, import duty, property tax, etc. Among the labour costs, apart from salaries, there is also the foreign worker levy, SDF, training and welfare funds, etc.”
“The CSC Report has recommended that the total wage cost be reduced by 15%-10% reduction in the employers' CPF contribution and 5% from the wages. The whole cost-reduction package is worth $10 billion, of which $7 billion will come from the wage-cost and $3 billion from non-wage cost. Just now, some MPs mentioned that it was fair. Is this really fair? The Chairman of the NWC announced that labour, management and the Government should be in the same boat to share the same happiness and troubles. But now we can see that when there is trouble, the workers are the first to bear the brunt. They have to shoulder 70% of the sacrifice. But when times are good, do the workers enjoy the profit on a 7:3 ratio? Or do they just get 3:7? I shall leave it to everyone to make his own judgement. I feel that, in the present circumstances, to reduce the workers' wages and to ask the workers to bear 70% of the cost-reduction burden is very unfair. As of March 1998, the Government's actual gross revenue was $27 billion, which was some $550 million more than the projected revenue. The Government should take the lead to substantially reduce its charges and rentals and not reduce the workers' wages and subject them to much hardship. The CSC Report has recommended that the wage level be reduced to that of the 1994 level. This is a regressive step. The cost of living now is significantly higher than in 1994. But amazingly, the Government accepted this recommendation. The Government seems to have forgotten that it has promised to bring our standard of living to that of the Swiss. According to newspaper reports, the taxation experts are of the view that there is nothing new in this Report.”
“On 19th February 1998, he said in Parliament, I quote : (In English): "Luckily, we are competitive. Our costs are not out of line. If you measure exchange rates against the US dollar, the baht, the ringgit, the rupiah and the won have all gone down much more than the Singapore dollar. This has made these countries cheaper than us, in a way, more competitive than us. But the effect is smaller than these numbers suggest." Then he went on to explain why he said so, and he concludes: "So overall, although the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar has gone down much less than our neighbour's, I am still confident that our exporters can compete. They have problems if they are working in the region. They have problems if they are in difficult businesses like disk drives. But it is not because we are out of line and uncompetitive." That is what DPM Lee said. (In Mandarin): That being the case, why has the Government suddenly decided to cut the wages of the workers because our competitiveness is in trouble? Thirdly, although some people are worried that many companies may close down and result in serious unemployment if our workers do not accept a wage cut, the Secretary-General of NTUC, Minister Lim Boon Heng, did not feel that we should worry about this problem. He was reported in the Straits Times of 16th November 1998 as saying that Singapore had enough jobs for every Singaporean and no one would starve because of this economic recession. Sir, if DPM Lee is confident that even when other countries' currencies have been devalued, our exporters can still compete and the Cabinet Ministers are not worried about unemployment, then why do we need to reduce our workers' wages and employers' CPF contribution?”
“In August this year, it has dropped to 7.4%". In comparison, during the same period, Malaysia's share in the US electronics import market rose from 7.1% to 8.2%. For China it rose from 7.2% to 10.1%. However, during this period of time, the renminbi did not suffer a huge devaluation like the ringgit and baht. China has become more competitive, while our competitiveness has substantially diminished. Had the Government made preparation for the people and the businesses during good times, and exercised some restraint in its act to prosper the coffers by increasing the business cost here, today we may not have to face such drastic wage-reduction measures. The CSC Report recommends a total wage-cost reduction of 15% and to set back the wages to that of the 1994 level. The Government immediately takes the cue and indicates that it is accepting the CSC's recommendation by proceeding to cut the employers' CPF contribution by 10%. The National Wages Council (NWC) immediately responded by announcing that wages should be cut by 5% to 8%. I am puzzled with the CSC's recommendation of 15% cut in the total wage-cost to set back wages to that of the 1994 level. First, the Report does not give a clear explanation as to why it came to the conclusion that the total wage-cost should be reduced by 15%. Neither did the Report list out the cost structures of the various sectors in the economy nor produce convincing data to prove that the recommendation for wage cut is necessary and cannot be avoided. Secondly, although the CSC Report mentions that the currencies of the other countries in the region have devalued substantially since July 1997, resulting in Singapore further losing its competitiveness, DPM Lee did not seem to think so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under the impact of the regional economic crisis, many companies in Singapore are in danger of having to close down, and more and more people are losing their jobs. This has forced the Government to admit that the business cost in Singapore is much too high, and that Singapore has lost its competitiveness in the international market. The Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness (CSC) Report points out that even before the currency crisis broke out, Singapore could no longer compete on the basis of business costs alone. The PAP Government's policy has all along been to adhere to the so-called "market economy" principle, and to allow the various business costs to soar unchecked. This has not only made business cost heavier, but has also caused the people's burden in life to be getting heavier and heavier. When the market conditions suddenly turn bad, the businesses which are already overloaded with very heavy business cost will immediately find it unbearable and face the danger of having to close down. Eventually, the workers will become unemployed, and their burden in life will be made even heavier. In fact, over the years, many businessmen have been complaining of high business costs. I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out in this House that with the Government continously increasing the burden of the people, once the economy unfortunately turns bad, the people will find their burden in life unbearable. But the Government just would not listen to me. Prime Minister Goh said, "Because our business cost is too high, we are losing our share in the United States' electronics import market. Before the start of the regional crisis, in the second quarter of 1997, Singapore's share in the US electronics import market was 9.3%.”
“Sir, instead of providing loans to the Malaysian Government, if Malaysia is prepared to sell the piece of land at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, would the Government consider buying the land from Malaysia and help them in terms of financial assistance?”
“Sir, what are the criteria for the HDB to decide whether to buy back a particular unit of 3-room flat from a particular area?”
“Sir, is it true that the HDB purposely refuses to buy back 3-room flats in opposition wards?”
“Sir, I am talking about those who sold their 3-room flats and bought 4-room flats. I am asking for waiver of the levy for 3-room flats.”
“How about comparing the selling price of a 4-room HDB flat now and $40,000, as mentioned by you, 20 years ago? Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, I have the figures here too. For 4-room flats, in 1988, HDB sold them at $65,000. In 1993, 4-room flats were sold at $109,000. Today, in spite of the downturn, 4-room flats are still being snapped up - in fact, they are the most popular units in the market - at $250,000.”
“Sir, in view of the relatively lower resale prices of 3-room flats and the relatively higher prices of 4-room flats, in comparison to the market price now, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider waiving the resale levy for 3-room flats and help those who apply directly to HDB to upgrade to 4-room HDB flats?”
“Sir, in view of the drop in prices of resale flats, does the HDB take into consideration the so-called market subsidy in setting its price?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek clarification from the Minister? What is the view of the Minister on POSBank signing the merger agreement with DBS before the House passes the Bill today and whether the Elected President was consulted on this merger?”
“Sir, I want to know the number of estimated overseas voters. The Minister quoted the percentage.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is fair for the Government to budget for revenue from COEs and the import tax of cars but at the same time it cannot budget an amount to pay back the scrap value of cars in cash.”
“It seems to me, from the Minister's answer, that SES was not able to fully appreciate the market situation as well as the rules that would affect the trading. Would it not be more prudent for SES then to suspend trading on Clob on 1st September after knowing the effect and at the same time assessing the impact on Clob rather than to suspend trading later?”
“I do not think the Minister has answered my question. My question is: why was there an about-turn between 3rd and 4th September 1998? On 3rd September, SES announced that Clob would continue as long as there is demand. The currency controls imposed by Malaysia was announced on 1st September 1998. After this announcement of currency controls, SES announced that Clob would continue trading. Then on 4th September, it was suddenly decided to close down Clob. My second question is: why did Clob not assure investors earlier that their shares would not be worthless? Why wait until 7th September? Was SES itself not sure about the status of the shares?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on 3rd September 1998, SES announced that Clob would continue as long as there is demand. On 4th September 1998, it suddenly decided to suspend trading and close Clob. Would the Minister explain what situational changes between 3rd and 4th September resulted in SES making an about-turn? The second supplementary question is: why did SES wait until 7th September 1998, about a week after Malaysia announced the new measures, to assure the investors that their shares would not be worthless? Was SES itself not sure, prior to 7th September, about the status of the shares traded in Clob? The third supplementary question is: was the Government aware, during the setting up of Clob, that Clob itself could face eventual closure under some circumstances if Malaysia were to take extreme measures?”
“I hope that the PAP will stop blowing its trumpet and proclaim to be the saviour of Singapore and assuring the people during the general elections that they will have their assets enhanced and their incomes will be increased year by year as though the PAP Government is omnipotent, they can solve all problems and help the people in every way. This resulted in people not seeing the need to be united in order to make use of the strength of unity to help the nation pull through in a crisis. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier, to enhance our social cohesion and to unite our people, the important factor is to treat every Singapore citizen fairly. The PAP Government has been using the national resources to distribute unfairly to the people, inducing and threatening people, such as the HDB upgrading programme, CIPC funds and infrastructural measures, such as the MRT. It has created a psychological barrier that prevents our people from being united. This feeling is not only in the hearts of the people in the opposition wards, but it is also something which has been disturbing every Singaporean who has a conscience. The PAP should now realise that every citizen has its own contribution to Singapore. The PAP should be magnanimous to accommodate those who hold different views and the supporters of the other political camps. If the PAP Government has such a heart, I believe that we can enhance cohesion, we can make all the people stand united and create a home that belongs to us, our Singapore.”
“PAP Government should also consider announcing the schedule of upgrading of flats in all constituencies in advance to prove that its deed matches with its words. Secondly, we should amend the criterion for application of CIPC funds from the Ministry of National Development so that the opposition town councils can apply directly to the Ministry for CIPC assistance in improving the facilities of the housing estates. Thirdly, to open the MRT station in Potong Pasir. If they feel that there is not enough volume of passengers, we should develop the nearby areas so that the residents in the opposition wards could also benefit from that. This will show that the Government makes use of national resource without favour and takes care of every citizen and in turn expresses the Government's sincerity in uniting the entire nation. Fourthly, the Government should remove GST and reduce the various charges. Although all these suggestions have been rejected by the Minister, the Government should consider the feelings of the people. At the time when everyone is facing the impact of the economic downturn, especially the lower income population and those who lose their employment, the Government should respond to help by minimizing the pressure in life. Fifthly, the Ministers should volunteer to take a pay cut, although I understand that the pay cut by the Ministers will not help to improve our economy. But when the people are facing economic difficulties, as leaders of the nation the Ministers volunteer to take a pay cut, it will have some positive effect. Sixthly, the PAP Government should frankly admit that the prosperity and development of the Singapore economy is dependent on the regional and world economy and not just on the economic policies of the PAP Government.”
“And yet, at this time of economic downturn, they are asking everybody to share the sufferings. It is like the Emperor Qian in ancient China who sought company of the ugly but resourceful concubine when he was in trouble but favoured the pretty but ineffective beauty when everything was fine. Despite all this, I would say that national unity and a strong sense of identity with the nation is the basis for the prosperity of the nation. Although the PAP Government has not been kind to the people, in this time of crisis, I support this motion to rally the support of all the people in the nation. To rally the support of the entire nation and to enhance our social cohesion, I feel that the most important thing is to make everyone in Singapore feel that he is a part of the country and he is being treated fairly. For the Government to get the support of all the people, it should treat every citizen fairly, particularly in the distribution of the fruits of economic success. We should look after the people and make everyone truly convinced. If the PAP Government is sincere in enhancing social cohesion and achieving the target of national unity, first of all, it must remove the psychological barrier that prevents our people from being united together and should consider the following suggestions. First, we should remove the political elements in the conditions for HDB flat upgrading. This political factor is that when all conditions are the same, the rate of support for the PAP becomes a deciding factor. The impression given by the PAP in the last election was that the housing estates in the opposition constituencies will never be upgraded. I think the Government should clarify this point.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have some doubts on this motion. This motion urges the Government to rally the support of the entire nation in this time of economic downturn to minimise unemployment in the short term and strengthen economic competitiveness and social cohesion for the long term so that Singapore will emerge from this regional crisis even more competitive and resilient. First of all, to unite all the people of the nation and to enhance social cohesion and the competitiveness of the country is something which a responsible government should be doing. To emphasise that point in this time of economic downturn, the Government should unite all the people. In moving this motion, are the PAP Members saying that the Government has not been doing enough in this area? Secondly, during the general election last year, in order to win votes, the PAP Government used the HDB upgrading policy which undermined the unity of our people and weakened our social cohesion. Now the PAP MPs are raising this motion to rally the support of the entire nation. Is it an admission of the mistakes committed during the last general election? Thirdly, the focus of this motion is on unemployment and the economic downturn. Is it because the PAP Government's feeling that its economic trump card of urging the Singapore people to submit them in exchange for economic growth, for the creation of wealth and for enhancement of assets is losing its effect and it has come to a sudden realisation of the importance of national unity? By right, the Government and the people should work together. This is something which of course should be done. Yet, during the election, the PAP Government was unable to share the fruits of prosperity with those who opposed them.”
“Would the Minister assure this House that even in 2011, when the first Water Agreement with Malaysia expires, Singapore would not face the problem of water supply?”
“Sir, while I understand that CPF savings are allowed to be used for tertiary education by university students, why is it not extended to polytechnic students?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my question on how the Malaysians were allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar in the first place.”
“Two clarifications, Sir. First, why was the Malaysian rail CIQ allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar station in the first place, since we are an independent nation? Secondly, as an independent nation, why should we allow another country's CIQ, that is, Malaysia, to locate at Woodlands, which is our land and the Government has agreed earlier on? Why do we not ask the Malaysians to locate their CIQ at Johor Bahru train station? They have a train station there.”
“Sir, nowhere in the Question did I suggest that a Fund should be set up now. Does the Minister agree that workers will get very little or no retrenchment benefit if a company goes under and the proceeds from the sale of the assets are insufficient to meet the claims of its secured creditors? In that case, the workers will get nothing. My second supplementary question: does the Minister agree that the situation of retrenched workers under the circumstances getting very little or no retrenchment benefit is the result of the Government failing to establish a mechanism to secure such payments in advance, whether by benefit or whatsoever, when times are good? And when times are bad and if a company goes under, the retrenchment benefit goes down the drain as well.”