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 40 of 54.
“Yes. The crux of the matter is not the CIPC fund. The question is why did Hougang CCC purposely submit a similar project which the Hougang Town Council has submitted to the HDB and it has accordingly informed the CCC. And after the submission, when we knew that, we actually wrote to Hougang CCC, and informed them that it was unproductive to duplicate the project as the Hougang Town Council was at the advanced stage of preparation and implementation, and also suggested to them to consider other projects. But in spite of that, they submitted their application and refused to withdraw or cooperate, and as a result, the HDB also refused to approve the project till now. That is the crux of the issue: why is Hougang CCC doing such a thing and wasting resources? And the Parliamentary Secretary is telling me that they are serving the people - by jamming up the project of the Town Council?”
“Sir, I think it is important. Please let me have a clarification because he missed the point.”
“Sir, may I have a clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary.”
“What is the actual number? Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I am afraid I cannot again give you the actual number of cases now. But I can give you the number of cases later if you want.”
“Sir, currently, there are reports of boys escaping from the Boys' Home. According to the Straits Times' report, the Home experienced two to three break-out attempts every month. I also have knowledge of a case in which a group of 17 boys escaped. The incident happened on 27th December 1996. The boys escaped through a hole opening which was cut by using grass cutting shears. They were assigned to undertake gardening task. Sir, the Boys' Home is an important social institution as it is tasked to rehabilitate young crime offenders as sentenced by the Juvenile Court. If the Boys' Home fails to rehabilitate them properly and to help them turn into a new leaf to become a useful member of the society, I am afraid when these young offenders grow up, we may have more criminal cases to deal with. Sir, I have the following questions for the Minister. (1) What is the underlying cause of such frequent outbreaks of boys attempting to escape from the Home? (2) What is the supervisor and inmate ratio and whether this ratio in the opinion of the Minister is an effective ratio? (3) What is the rehabilitation programme of the Home and its daily routine programme? (4) How many inmates are charged again in court during their stay in the Home for offences committed in the Boys' Home, such as escaping from the Home, etc? 12.45 pm”
“What is the position of the Ministry on this?”
“I would like to know what is the Ministry of the Environment's position on the idea of charging households for refuse collection based on the volume of domestic refuse they produce?”
“What about construction of Hougang station?”
“Clarification, Sir. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the HDB had approved two car park signages to be installed, and one was approved by the PWD and already installed before the CCC submitted another application? The Chairman: Order. It is 4.20 pm, "guillotine" time.”
“It is an error. And if it is an error, I think the Minister for Finance should have looked at the Budget book himself. If it is an error, say it is an error.”
“Sir, I think obviously there is an error here.”
“He does not have. But could he explain why there are two parts here [indicating]? There are two budget details by head of expenditure.”
“Sir, I have a clarification with the Minister. Would the Minister refer to the contents of the Budget book? Would he explain why there are two "Appendices" here? Does the Minister have a Budget book?”
“In my view, whether the information provided by a government in the Budget is thorough or not reflects the degree of transparency of the government. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister where I can find information pertaining to pension in this year's Budget. Furthermore, there are lots of mistakes in the Contents page of this year's Budget. Has it been done hastily?”
“Sir, I discover that the information provided by the Ministry of Finance in the Budget Book is getting lesser and lesser. With effect from the 1994/95 Budget, Appendix D which used to show the key to salary codes of the civil servants was left out, and Appendix C became the salary codes. More importantly, the basic salaries of the Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries which used to be shown in Appendix C were replaced by just the salary codes. By the 1996/97 Budget, not only was Appendix C abolished, even the items of estimated expenditure under the recurrent expenses were omitted. For example, under public affairs, originally it included breakdown figures for expenditures such as entertainment, official visits, official celebrations, exhibitions and publicity campaigns, etc. Therefore, with effect from last year's Budget, we were unable to know the details of these expenditure items. Sir, I raised this matter at previous years' Budget debates, and the reply from the Minister for Finance was that this information could be found in other documents. The Budget is an important document provided to Members of Parliament and the public to enable them to have a better understanding on how the Government spends the people's money. Information provided therein should be exhaustive and thorough, particularly information on the salaries of Ministers and civil servants. Spontaneously providing the detailed information of Government expenditures and the salaries of Government officials so that the people will know how the Government has been spending the taxpayers' money is something which a responsible Government should do.”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Minister of State. He mentioned just now that Mr Jeyaretnam was wrong. He said that it was already cost-effective because the percentage of GDP is lower in terms of MINDEF's expenditure. But the fact is that the total expenditure of MINDEF has increased by $435.24 million or 7.7% over FY96, and the growth of GDP depends on the size of the economy and the growth rate. So is it correct to say that because the expenditure for MINDEF is lower in terms of the percentage of GDP, therefore, it is cost effective?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, I do not deny the fact that Singaporeans had decided that the PAP should be the Government. I think Mr Chay Wai Chuen said at the last debate that when the voters voted for me in Hougang, they know what is in store for them. So I also expect Singaporeans who have given the PAP a majority vote to expect what is in store for them. I do not deny that. But I think it is my duty here to air the views of Singaporeans and how they feel about the pressures in life and the cost increases that have inflicted a heavy burden in their life.”
“If Mr Peh means to make use of the Government's money to give to the residents, then it will involve a very fundamental question, that is, how should the Government make use of the people's money? I would like to remind Singaporeans what Mr Seng had said about the wool must ultimately come from the sheep themselves. Basically, what is given to you would be taken away from you. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, can I also clarify? In my constituency, for the bursary and scholarship funds, I have raised about $1 million and we have used up about $600,000. All the funds were raised by us through fund-raising campaigns, not from the Government. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): In Hougang, we give out bursaries to needy residents every year. The amount is about $20,000 a year. It may be a little less, but we are able to raise enough money to give away bursaries to our students every year. We have granted more than 80 such bursaries. We have done our best. Mr Seng Han Thong( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify this point? He said that the wool must ultimately come from the sheep and that the Government gives you with one hand and takes back from the other hand. I would say that the Government takes from the fat sheep and give the wool to the thin sheep. It is not taking from the thin one to pay for the fat one. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, the fattest sheep is the Government. Mr Seng Han Thong( In Mandarin): The Government is the shepherd. It can take the wool from the fat sheep and put it on the thin sheep. That is what I meant by "the wool must come from the sheep".”
“We have improved the living standard of our workers and we have improved their income as well. This is also one of the reasons why bus fares have to be increased. I would like to use the expression: "The wool must come from the sheep themselves". We know that a lot of our workers take their families away for overseas holidays once or twice every year at their own expense and then the whole family goes out on tours at their own expense. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I also clarify what was spoken by the two MPs because they have mentioned my name in their speeches. Perhaps Mr Low does not understand. For Singaporeans who are living in 1-room or 2-room rental HDB flats, their total income must not be more than $800 a month. If the total family income is less than $800, they can apply to rent a 1-room or 2-room HDB flat. So we are looking after the lower income groups in Singapore. For those who are earning less than $800 a month, but after deduction for CPF, their total income is just about $600. The rebates for water tariffs, utilities and rental and conservancy charges represent quite a large percentage of their income already. In the PAP constituencies, every Member of Parliament gives away a lot of bursaries and scholarships to children of their constituents. Maybe in Hougang, the MP for Hougang did not give such bursaries and scholarships to his residents, and the people in Hougang may be suffering. But in our constituency, we help our constituents. It is a fact. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): First of all, I would like to tell Mr Peh that in Hougang constituency, we have the bursary grants too. It does not come from the Government. It is a fund fully raised by us. So it has nothing to do with the Government.”
“Clarification, Sir. (In Mandarin) The story told by Mr Seng happened many, many years ago. With urbanization, all our forests are being turned into a city, so there are no more tigers in Singapore. As for the Government, whether it is like a tiger which will suck our blood, let us leave it to the people to decide. As for the rebates versus the increases in Government charges, I think what Mr Seng meant was that we will tell only the good news and not the bad news. He was talking about the cleansing workers who can be upgraded to bus drivers and they could earn $2,000 to $3,000. As far as I know, bus drivers are not paid so much. If they are earning so much, then they must have been working very, very long hours of overtime. Mr Seng has described our workers as very high class, going overseas, study tours, and so on and so forth. Of course, there are some. We also know that in Singapore, there are some workers' country clubs where they can go and play golf. But the fact is, how many percent of our workers in Singapore really went and played golf or were lucky enough to be selected to go for overseas study tours? Also, for these tours, who pays for their expenses? Do they go free of charge, or do they have to pay for their expenses? Mr Seng Han Thong( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to Mr Low about the bus drivers' income, let me say that I am a Director of SBS. I know the pay structure of the bus workers. Generally, the starting pay is more than $1,000. After three to five years, and if he is hardworking and does a lot of overtime work, he can earn more than $2,000, and even as much as $3,000. This is a fact and my colleague, Mr Ong Ah Heng, who is the Advisor to the Transport Workers' Union, can confirm that.”
“My husband was killed by a tiger, and now even my son was killed by a tiger." Zi Lu reported the matter to his master. Confucius said, "Ask her why she does not move somewhere else to live?" Zi Lu went back to the old woman and asked her, "Since your life is threatened by the tiger, why didn't you and your family move somewhere else?" The old woman replied, "This government here is good. There is no tyrant here, only the tiger. That is why I have decided to continue staying here." When Zi Lu told Confucius what the old woman had said, Confucius commented, "Tyranny is fiercer than a tiger!" One or two months ago there was talk about tigers in Pulau Ubin. When we talk about tigers, everybody is afraid. They all come to the main island of Singapore. They are not afraid of coming here, because we have a good government.”
“If the worker learns and gets his driving lessons, then he will be able to increase his income from $800-$900 to $1,000-$2,000 a month. In five years' time, with overtime allowance, he will be able to earn $3,000. That is the way to raise his income, and "Tomorrow will be better". The other matter he raised was that the Government should also set out in the letter how much the charges will be increased. I think these are two separate matters. I said that in this financial year, there are so many rebates that many people do not know. Even the Member for Hougang said it was "No big deal!" If we add them up, it is a very large sum of money. If you give the lower income people an angbao of $10, they will be happier and grateful to you. How about $50 or $100? They will be even more happy and grateful! So I think we should not mix up all these costs and expenditures together. The Member said that he did not refer to personal income tax. But he was saying that there were a lot of revenues, and the revenues also include income tax. Vehicle taxes are also part of our revenue. What we are trying to do is to reallocate our wealth and narrow the gap between the more successful and the less successful Singaporeans, and strengthening the bonding between the two groups of people. The NCMP and the Member for Hougang want to create the impression that this "pro-people" Budget is a very pressurising Budget. He commented that our people here are very hard-pressed and pressurized. Let me take a minute to tell you this story about "Tyranny being fiercier than a Tiger". One day, Zi Lu, a disciple of Confucius, walked past the mountain of Tai Shan and he saw an old woman crying by the roadside. He asked her, "Why are you crying?" The old woman replied, "My grandfather was killed by a tiger.”
“Many workers take their whole family for overseas holidays every year. Those who are not so well-to-do go to the neighbouring countries, and those who are better off go to China, Japan, Europe and even the USA for holidays. Our workers have also chances to go for overseas study tours. Recently, a group of our transport workers went to Hong Kong to study their public transport system. Even cleansing workers may be sent overseas to study how the advanced countries do their public cleansing work. When the Prime Minister visited the Philippines and Indonesia, he invited our union representatives to join him in his delegation. Very soon he will be visiting Mexico and I am sure he will be asking our trade unions to send representatives to see how the workers live there, as compared to how we live here. I believe that Singapore workers will have a better tomorrow. As to how cleansing workers can go for training, I know that cleansing workers work for four to five hours a day, earning about $800 to $900 a month. Yes, their pay is low. But do they use the remaining part of the day for retraining to increase their income? As I said, doing two jobs is not a permanent solution. They should do one job and go for training during the rest of the day. Then he will increase his earning capacity. A cleansing worker came to see me. If I behave like the NCMP, I will just come to this House and make a complaint. But, no, I did more than that. I offered him a solution. I said to him, "We are short of bus drivers. Can you go and learn to become a bus driver?" He replied, "I never thought about that." That is upgrading his skills. We have the Skills Development Fund to help our workers upgrade their skills.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? (In Mandarin): Just now, in my speech, I did not mention about personal income tax. I have no objection to the Government's reallocation of resources. Mr Seng mentioned that the Government should write to the people to tell them how much rebates they will be receiving. Can I suggest that in that case, the Government should also tell the people, after offsetting the increases, whether the final figure will be a positive number or a negative number? We know that there are workers in Singapore, particularly those who are less educated, who need to take on more than one job in order to make ends meet. If you want them to go for training or retraining, who is going to support their families? For garbage collectors, what training can we provide them to upgrade their skills and get higher wages? Mr Seng mentioned the song "Tomorrow will be better". I too would like to see that the workers in Singapore have a better tomorrow. But under the present circumstances, if their wages do not go up and the cost of living keeps on going up, then I think the workers will be singing "Tomorrow will be more expensive", rather than "Tomorrow will be better". Mr Seng Han Thong( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the last part first. He said, "Tomorrow, prices will be more expensive." Of course, if our standard of living is improved, and we have to provide better facilities, then we will have to pay higher prices. So we have to balance cost and expenditure. The Member said that for the workers, it is "tomorrow will be more expensive". If you compare five years ago to today, are the workers not better off now? Every weekend, we see coach-loads of workers travelling across the causeway to have fun, shopping and eating in Johor.”
“Which means the town councils will not get any additional grants. How does the grant help the town councils? The residents will pay less, ie, they will enjoy the grant, but not the town councils.”
“Mr Speaker, a point of clarification. Is the grant meant for the residents or the town councils? If the grant is meant for the town councils, which means that the town councils would actually receive the grant, the residents will still pay the same charges. But if the grant is for the residents, they will pay less. So which is which?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from Dr Teo? In his speech, he mentioned that the S&C grant to residents would help the town councils. Firstly, would he clarify how does this grant help the town councils? Secondly, is this grant given directly to the town councils or the residents?”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs? After hearing his explanation on the KTMB land and the agreement, I wonder whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs would offer some suggestions as to why the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, accused the Singapore Government of putting pressure on them?”
“Sir, would the Minister clarify whether any party, ie, either Malaysia or Singapore, could unilaterally terminate the signed agreement?”
“I will be doubting. If I do not get upgraded, even though I voted for the PAP, I say, "Maybe you are the one who sabotaged. You did not vote for PAP and thereby we do not get the priority." You are creating the differences in terms of human relations, within a small community or a small precinct. Is that how you are going to build social cohesion in Singapore? Sir, if we are serious about building a cohesive society and a united nation, it is important for the PAP Government to be fair. I am not saying the People's Action Party. If it is your own money, it is all right, you can give whatever priority and use your money. But the money is the people's money, as what the Senior Minister has said, and every Singaporean has a share in this money. All of us contributed. Mr Lim has admitted, every Singaporean has contributed. Let us treat all Singaporeans fairly and do not link whatever Government schemes to political support. The moment you link a Government scheme which uses the Government's money with political support, you are giving yourself, the PAP, a party political benefit. That is wrong, and you will have a divided society, dividing into PAP supporters and non-PAP supporters. This concerns very personal matters of interest, and that is bad. On that note, Sir, I support the amendment.”
“" He said, "Opposition wards will still get a chance to enjoy upgrading programmes if they back these programmes at future elections. If they do not want upgrading, there is no way I can give to them. And later on if they want upgrading, somewhere in between elections, I would say wait until the next elections." The message is clear. He also said, "If voters choose the opposition, their neighbourhoods will not be improved. Their children will not benefit from schemes like Edusave, Medisave and all that." So these are threats to the voters. Sir, in the President's Address, it says that no part of Singapore should be left behind as we progress. The President also said that if some segments of society feel neglected or alienated, Singapore will start to unravel. I would expect the PAP Government to come to their senses, after the election, to remove the unfair policies that would divide Singapore. And one particular example is the question of priority in upgrading. A Member said, "We cannot do everything together. It is either this one first or that one first." Fair enough. But what is the principle of priority you are going to set? The moment you bring the principle of priority to the vote, you are dividing Singaporeans into PAP Singaporeans and non-PAP Singaporeans. The PAP Singaporeans will be given priority, whereas non-PAP Singaporeans will not. The moment you link the priority principle to the vote, as I said in my speech, that will not make a united Singapore. Even within the same PAP constituency, for instance, people would doubt each other. For instance, one precinct was upgraded first. The other was not. As the Prime Minister has said, he is the agent, he would know which precinct has given more support for the PAP, and thereby they will get the priority.”
“OK, that is fair. Let us not forget that Singaporeans made a great contribution. Sir, Mr Lim also talked about a Chinese phrase shui wang di chu lui, len wang gao chu pa, water flows naturally down to the lower plains, and people have aspirations to climb upwards. I think what is important here is that we have to ask at what expense to climb upwards, and not just to climb upwards. Yes, there are aspirations. He also mentioned about his experience in the EDB and investment in Singapore. If the PAP has no landslide victory, there will be no investment and investors would lose confidence. I remember these are old sayings that I used to hear. If you ever elect the opposition into Parliament, investors will be frightened out of Singapore. In the 1991 election, we had four opposition Members. Were any investors frightened out of Singapore? I would like to know. On the contrary, Sir, I believe investors are looking for political maturity of the country to invest in. You have a mature political system, you have mature opposition, I think investors will have more confidence to invest in. Next, I would like to move on to the last election which the Member here says that there were a lot of choices. But the fact remains that the voters in the last election faced tremendous pressure from the PAP, not so much whether we vote in a good government but what they were going to lose if they voted for the opposition. I have some records of what was said and reported in the Straits Times on the election. Let me quote. The Prime Minister himself said, "If they turn it down, they don't get it." He was talking about upgrading. "That is what elections are all about.”
“That is another matter. There is fear. Clearly, there is fear. How am I here? It is because of the determination and courage of the voters in Hougang. So I am here. We are talking about fear. There is fear. These are totally two different issues. Why do I talk about defamation laws? I am not a lawyer. I do not know. But what I am puzzled is that to me, I have the impression that everything can be defamatory, because it can be an innuendo, depending on the interpretation. I do not know where the line is drawn. I think that will not be conducive to expression of criticisms against the Government, criticisms against certain policies because you do not know where the line is going to be drawn. Sir, I now wish to move to the Member, Mr Lim Swee Say, who talked about the past history of Singapore. Yes, I think our political leaders, the PAP Government, were capable to lead us from where we were. I admit that. But do not forget one thing. Without the political will of Singaporeans at the point in time to support and rally behind the PAP Government, we will not succeed. So do not say that the contribution was all from the PAP Government. I say it is wrong. Mr Lim Swee Say rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment, especially on the proposal that we should review our defamation laws. Before I go to that, first of all, I wish to speak on the question raised by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee on the question of fear. Yes, there is fear in Singapore. Let me recount my personal experience before the last election when my party was trying to find a printer to print our election posters. Many printers I approached were fearful of the repercussions, whether the authorities might check their premises or their printing licence may not be renewed, or things like that. I cannot substantiate that because no one is going to come forward and say all these things. They are fearful of that. That is my personal encounter. Secondly, Sir, we approached certain people who had the intention or were prepared to be candidates but, at the end of the day, they were also fearful of their jobs. Whether these are perceived fears or not, I cannot substantiate. I have to make it clear here. Whether it is perceived or it is a real fear, anyway, there is a fear and it is alive in Singapore. Let me tell you this. I told Mr Ong Ah Heng yesterday. If you look around the coffeeshops, of course, they would not tell you that they are PAP members. If you go around and ask for support, they tell you that life will be difficult for them if they support the opposition. An hon. Member: How are you here?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a clarification. Sir, I noted that Mr Sin Boon Ann has said that space is needed for Singaporeans to express themselves. I agree with what he said. I would like to know from him what he thinks is the correct space which would allow Singaporeans to express and thereby foster a closer bond. What is his views on OB markers and whether we should set OB markers and what sort of OB markers we should set?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to seek clarification from the Member?”
“Sir, Mr Chng has reminded the Government that it has to provide subsidy even if you apply the principle of a market economy. That was exactly what I meant. Because a market economy, carried to the full extent, means it depends on whether or not you can afford it. If you cannot afford it, so be it. And that is a market economy. There is no question of subsidy. I am glad that Mr Chng is aware that while applying the principle of a market economy, we must also take care of those who cannot pay and who cannot afford it, and that is why we need a society and a government.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to congratulate your election again as Speaker of the Ninth Parliament. I have found you to be a fair Speaker at the last Parliament and I believe you will continue to be fair in this Parliament. Sir, I also wish to seek a clarification. I wrote to Parliament requesting to sit together with my Secretary-General, J.B. Jeyaretnam, and the reply dated 12th May 1997 from Parliament was that the Speaker had not acceded to the request. Would Mr Speaker clarify and explain the rationale for not acceding to my request?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to abstain from the voting.”
“How does GIC ensure that such a similar case would not happen again because it seems to me that GIC was unable to discover the problem?”
“May I confirm with the Minister that this case was actually discovered by Rockefeller instead of GIC?”
“When did GIC discover, through this monitoring which the Minister just mentioned, that Rockefeller & Co has actually made some losses in the funds which were invested on behalf of GIC?”
“After appointing the fund manager, does GIC check or monitor the portfolio investments of the fund manager? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Indeed, it does. It checks the performance of all fund managers employed by GIC, principally based on their return on the investments. So all fund managers' performance is compared regularly.”
“Are there any established procedures or criteria in GIC selecting its fund mangers?”
“Sir, I would like to know from the Minister on what basis was Rockefeller & Co selected by GIC to be its fund management company.”
“Sir, would the Minister be able to give us a rough estimate of the amount of losses?”
“Sir, since the investigations have not been concluded, what is the Minister's advice to Singaporeans who work or study in Australia or plan to travel to Australia for holiday?”
“Sir, were these incidents attributed to the current anti-Asian sentiments in Australia?”
“Can I ask the Minister this question? With this new amendment, from this election onwards, will all the counting of ballot papers be decentralised? Is that so?”
“A further clarification, Sir. Where there is one counting centre, for instance, in a GRC, and because all the votes are counted there, if you have only one counting agent plus one candidate present, you may not be able to sufficiently observe the whole counting process. But, of course, in cases where you have different counting centres, I presume the votes counted there will not be many. Therefore, one candidate plus one counting agent are sufficient. That is why I say that in the case where you centralize all the counting in one centre, perhaps you should consider allowing at least three counting agents to be appointed by the group.”