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 39 of 54.
“Why does the Minister say that we want to preserve the status quo by not divulging more information on Temasek Holdings' shareholding position?”
“In the case of an employer not stating any reason at all, would the employee concerned be able to claim any compensation? Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, there is a termination clause. The employee can also terminate his services and he does not need to give a reason. If he finds another job, he just says, "Okay, I want to leave the company." Since there is a termination clause and the employer wants to terminate the services of his employee, he can also exercise it on the same basis. So it is not necessary for him to give a reason if he does not want to, because it is on a reciprocal basis. The employee can also give notice of termination. If he finds a better job, he does not need to give a reason to the employer. Likewise, it is up to the employer. In the case of retrenchment, and that was the Question filed, obviously in the case of a unionised company, the union would be informed and it will then negotiate on the type of retrenchment benefit or payment that should be paid, and this is based on the financial position of the company.”
“A clarification, Sir. I am referring to termination, not necessarily retrenchment. The employer may just terminate an employee's services by giving him one month's notice, or in lieu of notice, paying one month's salary without specifying any reason. Is there anything under the Employment Act which could compel an employer to specify the reasons for termination?”
“Generally, do employers need to specify the reason for termination in their letter of termination or they just say, "Under the contract, I terminate your employment."?”
“Sir, is the Minister of State aware that there are employees whose services are terminated by the employer giving just one month's notice or in lieu of notice, paying one month's salary without any further compensation? I think such cases have been referred to the Ministry before.”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister? First, the Minister refers to the Economist article for justification of the ERP. My question is: will the Minister say how much of the revenue collected from ERP will be committed to the improvement of the public transportation system in the future? Second, we are still fresh in our minds how the Government dragged its feet on building the North-east line and I think the Member for Potong Pasir will tell you that the Government is very stingy in its expenditure on public transport and it is not going to build the Sennett line. Third, would the current ERP system capture the identity of a car that passes through the gantry? If so, could this information track effectively the travelling pattern of a particular car or the owner of the car? How would the Minister propose to safeguard this information to prevent its abuse?”
“The policy of the PAP Government is to have this pricing mechanism. Levying charges to deter motorists from driving has very little effect on the wealthy people. But it certainly increases the burden of the ordinary citizens. Under this monetary policy and with the charges increasing, of course, the cost of doing business in Singapore will keep on rising. This will definitely affect our competitiveness!”
“In 1990, the Government used the excuse of controlling car population in Singapore to implement the COE system, resulting in the cost of owning a car in Singapore being exorbitant. Now, with the quota system in place, the Government says that with the introduction of the ERP system, more COEs will be issued so that more people can own cars. So on the one hand, the Government says it wants to restrict the growth of the car population in order to ease congestion, yet on the other hand, it is going to issue more COEs to increase the number of cars on the road. The fact is that the Government is encouraging people to buy cars, and when there are too many cars on the road resulting in congestion, it would find justification in imposing heavier charges for the use of the road, and the motorists will have to pay more to the Government. Apart from paying road tax for owning a car, the motorists have to pay again every time they use the roads. This means multiple charges on the people, and more revenue to the Government. For those who are well-to-do, these road charges mean nothing to them. They can afford it, and by paying these extra charges, they enjoy congestion-free travelling on the road. But for those who have to depend on their vehicles for their work or to earn a living, the burden would be so heavy! So, is this a fair system? The elite from the PAP Government introduced this system to reap in more levies and more revenue for the Government. But they do not seem to have solved the problem of congestion on the road. It seems that the Government's solution is basically to squeeze more money from the motorists. Squeeze them until they could not afford it, give up driving, and sell their cars. The Government will then say that the traffic congestion problem is now solved!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, once the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is passed today, land transportation in Singapore will enter a new era. It means that from now onwards the Government can levy any charges on the motorists at any time and anywhere, or to increase the levy on any particular stretch of road. In most countries in the world, when the government levies charges or tolls on the motorists, it is to recover the cost of construction of the road. In Singapore, our cars are the most expensive in the world. The Government has imposed so much taxes on the cars that they far exceed the cost of construction of the roads. It does not have to resort to levies to recover the construction cost. It is said that the experts are of the opinion that road pricing could help to alleviate congestion on the road. I am not an expert. But I know that the system is operated in Singapore in such a way that whenever there is a congestion on any particular stretch of the highway, the Government would levy charges for the use of this stretch of road. If there is still congestion despite the levy, the levy will be increased again and again until such a point when the motorists find it too expensive to drive through that stretch of road, and avoid passing there. Then, there will be no congestion and traffic will be flowing smoothly. However, when the motorists do not use that stretch of road, they will have to use other alternative roads. As a result, congestion will be transferred to another part of the island. Then what would happen? Eventually, are we going to have road pricing on each and every road in Singapore and to keep on increasing the charges so that there will be no more congestion? Is that a rational solution?”
“Even if the companies went in with their eyes open, and the Government claims to have a helicopter view and could foresee what is going to happen today when it encouraged companies to go regional, I wonder whether the Government would provide a more sympathetic solution to companies which have already gone into the regionalisation process. They are caught in the currency turmoil, their credit is tighter, and the whole investment could just drain off.”
“Sir, when the Government encouraged companies to go regional, at that point in time did it foresee the possible problems that we face today? Secondly, when these companies were encouraged by the Government to go regional, were they forewarned of the possible tighter credit in the face of a situation like this?”
“The details. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: He wants the details of the flats in Sengkang.”
“Yes. Would the Minister make public the details of the pricing components of the selling price of flats in Sengkang for this quarter?”
“Yes. I have supplementary questions relating to the original question.”
“Does the Minister agree that after 1985, once you take the full costing of the flat, the price of the flat would increase because of the different factors in costing?”
“May I clarify with the Minister whether before 1985 the infrastructural development cost was taken into account in the pricing of HDB flats? Was it taken into account as a factor in the pricing of HDB flats?”
“What about before 1985? Was the infrastructural development cost of the town taken into account as a factor in the pricing of HDB flats?”
“Has the infrastuctural development cost of the town been all the while taken into account as part of HDB's selling price of flats? Or was there a change in policy for taking that into account?”
“The Minister mentioned land cost of 50%-60%. Would it not be lower in terms of unit price calculated based on land cost? Because the plot ratio is now higher in building HDB flats compared to previously, and also the floor area of HDB 5-room flats is relatively smaller now. Would it be a cost saving in that case? My second supplementary question is: does the HDB also take into account the infrastructural development, for which it receives a grant from the Government? Is it a factor in the pricing of HDB flats?”
“Is the Minister aware that based on the Internet version of the HDB's final tender results, for Sengkang Neighbourhood 3 Contract 1, Neighbourhood 2 Contract 28 and Contract 27, the average price for building and electrical work is about $88,000 per unit, consisting, I suppose, of 4- and 5-room flats. The average selling price of a 5-room flat, for instance, is about $285,000. Would the Minister explain further and give details as to how HDB flats are being priced? Besides the construction cost, how much is the land cost, and whatever costs like design that command a premium?”
“Sir, is the Minister saying that if the flats in any specific area are more popular, they will accordingly be priced higher? Is that one of the factors that the HDB prices its flats?”
“I think such an assertion really shows Mr Jeyaretnam's gross misunderstanding of the role of the AG as chief legal adviser to the Government, as set out in Article 35 of the Constitution. As chief legal adviser, AG is asked, from time to time, to advise the Government on the legality of proposed executive decisions or actions. His role is to give legal advice objectively. In giving such advice, the AG may have to advise the Government on the interpretation of the provisions of a statute. In this case, he had to interpret Article 144 of the Constitution. His advice, like any other legal adviser including Mr Jeyaretnam who himself is a lawyer, represents his own understanding of the law. He does not have to seek a judicial ruling before tendering advice to the Government. Like all legal advisers, AG will assess each case on its own merits. Like all legal advisers, he will not say that there is a strong case if there is really none. After all, he has to stand by his opinion to the Cabinet, and if it becomes public as it has now, then to Singaporeans and indeed to others in the world who may care to read it, examine it, especially to his own fellow AGs from other jurisdictions. In this instance, AG has advised that the US$5 billion loan to Indonesia is lawful. The Government has no reason not to accept AG's advice. In so doing, we can understand Mr Jeyaretnam's disappointment in that he will not have what he wants - Government acting on his prompting to bring the matter to the constitutional court. But for him to claim that non-referral of AG's legal interpretation to the courts is tantamount to not respecting the courts, I think that is mischievous. The other two instances that Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned just now ---”
“It is not an academic point, not a moot point. But the interpretation he argues for would, in fact, lead to much impracticality in governance. AG's elaboration is also backed by other premises or basis such as the rules of statutory interpretation, reference to Article 144(2) and also to the concept of reddendo singula singulis and indeed even to the reference to the legislative material, eg, the White Paper, where in paragraph 42 on which Article 144 is based, it is stated very clearly, Article 144 talks about situations where Government raises loans, not gives loans, as well as other provisions in the Constitution and also other legislation. This is a full opinion. I hope he takes care to read it. The President's constitutional powers to safeguard reserves are therefore not compromised in any way. And the Government is very open about it. That is transparent government. We will tell you why we think the law is clear. And because AG's exposition is clear, the law is clear, Government accepts it. Of course, again, as I said, if Mr Jeyaretnam thinks otherwise, he is free to bring the matter to the courts. Let me turn to another absurd point made by Mr Jeyaretnam - that the AG is a member of the Executive, hence it is really a case of the Executive interpreting laws passed by Parliament. I think that is what he has alluded to. He talks about the two questions he raised in his last letter where there is really no need to reply to because the exchange had gone on for sometime already, and Government had put its case very clearly. This is one question that he had asked - is AG a member of the Executive? Government says AG's opinion is clear, therefore, there is no need to refer to the courts.”
“So what I have done is I have asked the Attorney-General to once again elaborate on its earlier opinion as to why Article 144 does not apply to loans made by Government, applying rather to loans made to Government, in other words, when the Government borrows money, not lends money. This is for Mr Jeyaretnam's elucidation. I will now ask the Clerk to distribute AG's elaboration (Cols. 133-6). [Copies of Attorney-General's elaboration distributed to hon. Members.] AG's elaboration (Cols. 133 - 136) The AG's exposition of these provisions on reserves is very clear. Article 144 applies to situations where Government borrows , not lends, money. This is because when Government borrows money, it borrows on public credit. So a profligate government without enough money in the coffers to spend can borrow money, but who will return the money? Future governments will have to do that. Mr Jeyaretnam would do well to take some time to read it carefully. Or better still, he should consult his overseas constitutional lawyer. He would then discover that if anybody is an ass, it is not the law. AG has set out the position very clearly and I hope he reads it very carefully. His interpretation is backed by common sense. In fact, paragraph 8 of AG's note puts it very nicely. Let me read the paragraph: `If Mr J B Jeyaretnam's view of Article 144 is correct, it means that the Government's power to give any loan of any amount to any person anywhere is now restricted by Article 144. It means, for example, that the Government may not give car loans or computer loans to civil servants without the sanction of Parliament and the President. That would be an absurdly impractical way for the Government to govern.' Mr Jeyaretnam prefaced his speech by saying that he makes a very practical point.”
“And indeed, I think it was a wise thing when he said he would bring an overseas constitutional lawyer to help him because, if I may say, he needs it. With these absurd conditions, the Government responded the next day that the Workers' Party's position was ludicrous. The Government also reiterated its position that, as advised by the AG, the law was clear. There was therefore no need to refer the matter to the courts. And we also said that if Mr Jeyaretnam claimed otherwise, he was free to do so. So we have this as the current position. The legal position, as confirmed by the AG, is clear. What the Government has done is within the law and the Constitution. But Mr Jeyaretnam disagrees. Just because he disagrees, he wants the Government to refer the matter to the courts. The Government has said no. From that, he now wants this House to say that the Executive does not respect the Judiciary as the final arbiter of our laws. So it is a quantum jump. It is preposterous that just because he, as an Opposition Member, makes an issue of it or demands it, we are obliged to refer the matter to the courts. How does this follow? Mr Jeyaretnam having failed to be elected in the last general election wants publicity. But the courts are not there to satisfy his craving for publicity. If Mr Jeyaretnam is sincere and serious in his view that the Government has breached the Constitution, then surely as a lawyer he knows that he can initiate action in our courts to challenge the Government. Mr Jeyaretnam clearly does not understand the provisions of the Constitution.”
“The Government responded very quickly the following day to explain carefully the operation of Article 144, setting out the Attorney-General's opinion. Obviously, Mr Jeyaretnam either did not want to or could not grasp the explanation that was given. Calling the law "an ass", he asked the Government to refer the matter to a constitutional court, boasting that he would argue the case himself. The Government responded that the law was clear and that there was no need to do so. But if Mr Jeyaretnam wished to, he was free to bring the matter before the courts. True to character, Mr Jeyaretnam shifted ground. He did not say it as much just now but he alluded to it. But let me put it in the fullest context. He said that the Workers' Party would bring the matter before our courts but on the condition that the Government agreed to bear all legal costs. So the Workers' Party would bring the matter to the court but the Government, with taxpayers' money, bears the legal costs, including those for engaging a constitutional lawyer from overseas. If that was not already an absurd condition, yet another condition was that the Government should meet AG's costs in defending the suit even if it failed. So the Workers' Party brings the suit. First, he said he would argue himself. Then he said, "Well, we will bring the suit. We will bring an overseas lawyer, expert constitutional lawyer. But if we fail, we won't bear AG's costs." At that stage, Mr Jeyaretnam was already talking of the action failing and no longer was he going to argue the case himself. He was now going to get an overseas constitutional lawyer. Obviously, he had second thoughts about his assertion that Article 144 was unconstitutional.”
“It is a question whether the Government is acting according to the law, respecting the Constitution and be responsible to the people. Generally, the people of Singapore are questioning the Government's right to grant a huge loan to another country without the President's approval. The Government should therefore refer the matter to the tribunal in order to enhance the confidence of the people in the Government. Why should the Government shirk the responsibility? Therefore, I would appeal to the Government to refer the interpretation of Article 144 to the Constitutional tribunal to show that the Government has indeed the respect for the Judiciary and for such a respect to be affirmed. I support the motion. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, both Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Low have talked about the recent episode of the loan that Government made to Indonesia. Mr Jeyaretnam made other points which I will address briefly afterwards because they are points that have been addressed before. Other than the loan, he has really brought up old issues. But this current one is a continuation of the debate that began in this House on 19th November 1997 when Mr Jeyaretnam asked the question of Dr Hu, Minister for Finance, as to the constitutionality of the loan. He said that the Workers' Party questions its constitutionality and he said that the Government should be the party to refer the matter to the constitutional court. Let me first of all put things in context, set out the backdrop to this episode, in particular the exchange of letters between the Government and Mr Jeyaretnam. As I said, it began on 19th November 1997 in this House, after which in a letter dated 20th November, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated his allegation of unconstitutionality in a press release.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary are the three major pillars of Singapore's Government. Apart from legislation, Parliament has the supervisory power over the Government's action. The Government should ensure that all its actions are carried out in accordance with the law. The Judiciary is responsible for interpreting the laws passed by Parliament and to find out whether the acts of the Government are carried out in accordance with the law. Recently, the Government offered to loan US$5 billion to Indonesia. Whether or not this is done in accordance with the law should not be left to the Attorney-General alone to interpret in such a way that justifies the action of the Government. This is not convincing, and it is against the principle of the separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Article 144 of the Constitution provides for the protection of the assets of the people. The Attorney General has interpreted this Article in such a way that it cannot restrain the Government from making such a substantial loan without having first obtained the approval of the Elected President. If the Government can freely make use of the reserves to lend money to any organisation or any foreign government, then the Elected President who is supposed to be responsible for holding the second key, is quite useless. Is this a loophole in our Constitution? Therefore, to refer the interpretation of the Article to the tribunal set up under the Constitution is what a responsible government should do. But, unfortunately and regrettably, the Ministry of Law is trying to push the responsibility to the Workers' Party. This is not a question between the Government and the Workers' Party.”
“Sir, will the Minister agree that the Government's response to the likely downturn of the property market seems to be a shift, compared to several years ago when Singaporeans complained that property prices were too high and there was a lot of speculation. It seems to me that the Government was dragging its feet in depressing property prices. Would the Minister care to explain?”
“Would the Minister disclose the terms of the loan and whether or not there is any collateral, since it is a commercial loan, before the loan is released?”
“They have also built up substantial buffers, as a result of prudent and conservative accounting practice. Many of the assets on their books are valued at historical prices, well below present market values. They have also made substantial general provisions over the years, in anticipation of precisely such an eventuality. There is no danger of their regional exposures causing a banking crisis in Singapore. For our banks to grow, they must venture into the region. This will always involve some risk, as the current crisis shows. But it would be totally wrong to conclude from this experience that our banks and other firms should stay in Singapore and stop venturing offshore. The right approach is for them to evaluate investments carefully, diversify and manage their risk exposures, and build up reserves in good years. Then they can weather the storms which are inevitable from time to time, and be ready to benefit from their regional operations when our neighbours eventually recover, which they will.”
“6% Banks grade their loans into five categories: Passed (which means normal repayment not overdue), Special Mention (which means repayment not in jeopardy but evidence of potential weakness in the borrower's creditworthiness), Substandard (which means repayments are overdue or may be in jeopardy), Doubtful (which means full liquidation of outstanding debts appears questionable and there is likely to be some loss) and, finally, Loss (where the outstanding debts are regarded as uncollectible). So Passed, Special Mention, Substandard, Doubtful and Loss. If they are graded Substandard, Doubtful and Loss, then they are considered as Classified loans. As of end-November 1997, classified loans to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea and the Philippines amounted to 3.2% (S$1.2 billion) of loans to these countries by the local banks. This was 0.5% of their total global assets. The total classified loans of the local banks, whether on their local or overseas loan portfolios, as a percentage of their total loans, was 2.0% as compared with 1.5% one year earlier. As a percentage of their total global assets, this was 1.7% as compared with 1.3% one year earlier. These figures are as of end-November 1997. As the regional crisis unfolds, the percentage of classified loans will increase. The local banks have informed the MAS that they will make adequate provisions for this eventuality in line with prudent banking practice, in addition to the specific provisions which they have made on the existing classified loans. The MAS is monitoring the situation closely. The local banks are in a strong position. They have strong capital positions exceeding 12% of their risk-weighted assets, higher than most international banks.”
“Sir, would the Deputy Prime Minister rate the risk of the investment in SIP in mid-term and long-term, in the scale of 1 to 10? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am neither Moody's nor Standard and Poors. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (Exposure to bad loans) 2. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister what is the extent to which our local financial institutions are additionally exposed to bad loans made to regional economies with rapidly falling currency and equity values, especially in October and November 1997, and whether such exposures will lead to banking crises similar to those in Thailand, Korea and Japan. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, 18% (S$41 billion) of the total global assets of the six local banking groups are in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea and the Philippines. About two-thirds of this is in Malaysia, where several Singapore banks have had a long-standing presence and have built up strong business relationships. Of their S$28.0 billion exposure to Malaysia, S$4.9 billion or 18% is to their branches and subsidiaries in Malaysia. 2.4% ($5.5 billion) of their total global assets is in Indonesia. The detailed breakdown is as follows: (As at end November 1997) Country S$bn Percentage of Total Assets Malaysia 28.0 12.0% Indonesia 5.5 2.4% Thailand 4.1 1.8% Korea 2.7 1.1% Philippines 0.7 0.3% Total 41.0 17.”
“So there will always be a risk, but at the same time the shareholders expect to be fairly treated and expect their investments to be given a fair chance to succeed. And I think that is a significant safeguard for all those who have put money into the project.”
“Did the Singapore Government foresee such problems with the development of SIP and whether or not there were certain safeguards in the initial negotiations of going into the project? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we embark on a project of this scope and nature, we do expect problems to arise. If it were not an ambitious project, it would not have been worth doing. This particular form in which it has become acute we could not have foreseen, and we were astonished to learn that the Vice-Mayor had gone to Germany and spoken twice, once in Hamburg, to the Special Commissioner for Chancellor Kohl, whose responsibility is to do German-Singapore-China joint projects. And this Vice-Mayor had told him that, "You should not go in with Singapore. Come in alone. We don't need Singapore. And President Jiang Zemin does not support Suzhou Industrial Park." There was no reason whatsoever for us to anticipate such a startling statement from such a senior official. As for provisions within the agreement, there are always provisions for discussing and resolving problems, but it depends on goodwill and coincidence of interests on both sides. In this case, it is not just a government-to-government agreement, which has to do with the software transfer. It is also a commercial agreement with commercial parties involved: on the Singapore side, a consortium of Singaporeans, GLCs, statutory boards, private companies and also MNC participants; on the Chinese side, also a Chinese consortium. So the shareholders expect their investments to be safeguarded. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment. If there were, you would earn 3% interest, which is what you can get for leaving your money in the bank.”
“Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that when the Prime Minister visited Suzhou some time in September last year he was reported to have said that he was satisfied with the progress of the park. But three months later, some time in December, when the Senior Minister visited Suzhou he gave a different story. Would he explain the discrepancy in the assessment of the progress of the park? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are issues which built up over a period of time. As I explained in my answer, the park has indeed made significant progress, physically on the ground, in terms of attracting investments, in terms of getting the type of investors in and the quality of the projects, they have done very well. There have been certain problems, which I have highlighted, to do with the priority given to the park and the diversion of effort and the conflict of interest between Suzhou New District and SIP, which we have been discussing with the Chinese authorities for some time and which have now become a public matter as a result of what the Suzhou Vice-Mayor said when he was in Germany last November. When you have a joint venture with a partner, there will always be issues to be discussed, whether it is a Chinese partner, a Singaporean partner or an American partner. Depending on how the matters are resolved, these problems can either be ironed out or, if they cannot, they have to be raised to a higher level and discuss with greater seriousness, and that is what we have done in this case.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that the current haze situation in Indonesia is due to a natural disaster.”
“Sir, the Minister said just now that eventually the Government is responsible for whatever increase and the voters will decide through the ballot box. Is the Minister implying that since Singaporean voters have supported the PAP in the last election, therefore, Singaporeans will also accept whatever increases that are imposed by the PAP Government? That is the first clarification. My second clarification is this. Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned about people who need to take on two jobs. He said this was a lie. Is it not true that over the years the number of double income families has increased significantly, although they may not need to do two jobs? But the fact is that the number of double income families has increased significantly over the years. Many of these families, from what I know, both husband and wife need to work to sustain their standard of living here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek some clarification from the Minister?”
“The Member says that an opposition Member in this House would not want things to happen and he urged that we should move forward as one united nation. Would he explain how this proposal of an All-Party Committee would not make things happen, and would not move the nation forward? On the contrary, I believe that an All-Party Committee is to make things happen.”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Member?”
“It was convened on a specific agenda in 1992 by the Prime Minister and, again, reconvened with a specific agenda. It is not a standing committee. Therefore, you cannot equate the Cost Review Committee with an All-Party Committee. For instance, I was a member of the Cost Review Committee, but I was not notified beforehand of any increases. And similarly, I share the same sentiments that Mr Jeyaretnam has, ie, why such increases of the various fares, as listed out in the motion, and what is the rationale. Some were reported in the press, yes, but there were some other questions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not want to go on as many points have already been covered by Mr Jeyaretnam. Mr Sin is also worried that the committee, if it is formed, will somehow become a committee involved in giving handouts. Why must it be so? We are proposing a Committee to review prices. The decision of the Committee may not necessarily be that everything is free. It may not be the case, because we have to face the hard facts and figures and data. So we should not have a fixed mindset that when the opposition proposes such a Committee, it must be like that. That is what Members perceive it to be so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I actually did not plan to speak. But since Members refer to me, particularly the Cost Review Committee, I wish to clarify certain things. I do not know whether Mr Sin Boon Ann has read the 1992 Cost Review Committee. Have you? You have. Have you also read about my Minority Report inside? If you had, because you were quoting some conclusions from the Cost Review Committee, you will realise that in my Minority Report, I also stated that "I regretted that in particular in the case of housing prices, the HDB has failed to provide materials or data I requested to enable me to make a full review as to why there was a sudden increase in HDB prices." As regards the 1996 Cost Review Committee and why I had decided not to sit in the Committee, I had made it quite clear publicly that I did not think it was correct to reconvene the Committee in the first place. I think there was a political purpose in convening such a Committee. It was not just purely to review the costs concerned. However, by not going into the Committee does not mean that you will lose the right to question any cost increases. As what Mr Sin Boon Ann and Dr Toh had mentioned, you can ask questions in Parliament and Mr Jeyaretnam has not raised about the cost increases during the Budget debate. That is the usual PAP rhetoric. If you do not ask you lose your right. Let me put it here clearly. We will choose the time and the place to raise any question we like. So let us not take it that if we do not raise a particular question, we will lose our right and we cannot raise it again. You cannot equate the Cost Review Committee with an All-Party Committee which is being proposed by my Party. The Cost Review Committee is basically an ad hoc committee.”
“Sir, those who bought HDB flats from the resale open market before the general election actually paid higher prices than what the flat is worth now. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is of the view that it is still an asset enhancement.”
“In other words, the Parliamentary Secretary's view is that even if the selling price of a HDB flat were to drop by another 30%, he will still consider it an asset enhancement.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for his opinion. In view of the drop in the selling prices of HDB flats after the election, does the situation now tie in well with the PAP's asset enhancement scheme, as proposed at the last election?”
“Sir, may I have your permission to take the two cuts together?”
“Sir, I am not quite satisfied with the answer. But, nevertheless, I understand there are another two cuts. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, yes, we could do that. The problem is HDB has approved two items, ie, out of 16, it approved two signages and PWD approved one. We have installed the three signages. So I do not want to end up in a situation whereby, in the constituency, there are two different designs of car park entrance signs. We highlighted this to the CCC. And if the CCC should insist that they wanted to go ahead with the project, yes, I could persuade my council to withdraw it. They can go ahead and the most we take out the two signages. It is a waste of resources. I am trying to prevent a waste of resources. If the CCC wishes to install it, by all means carry on. But let me know and do not just jump out with the project and hand it out like that.”
“Sir, maybe the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware. I also have privately communicated to the First Advisor to the Hougang CCC, that is, Dr Ker who is here, about the project, and also to Heng Chee How, the Second Advisor, even at the counting centre. I have got no reply from them so far. What further communication would you expect me to do? 1.30 pm”