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 41 of 54.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister regarding the Amendment Bill. First, you only allow one counting agent per group in a counting centre. That may not be sufficient because in a GRC there would be a lot of people doing the counting work. I believe you need at least three counting agents to satisfy yourself that the votes are properly counted. Second, the Amendment Bill also proposes to have carton box to replace the existing aluminium box. Can we have the specifications of the box? What is the structure and construction like? Is it secure enough to use as a ballot box? I think the voters as well as the opposition candidates will have to be satisfied that it is secure and no hanky-panky business can be done. The last clarification I wish to seek from the Minister is that the amendment will have the effect that the counting process can start before all the ballot boxes arrive. My question is: how would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived and all have been counted? What is the procedure like to ensure that there is no confusion when all the ballot boxes have arrived at a centre and how do we confirm that all the boxes have arrived and have been counted?”
“It seems to me that the countries that the Prime Minister cited about having big constituencies or returning multi-candidates, would also have proportional representation to ensure the views of minorities are represented. Will the Prime Minister consider some form of representation in case the minority views are not represented, not only the minority races?”
“Is the Prime Minister saying that the GRC should not be enlarged to oversize?”
“Why does the Prime Minister think that the person will need to have strong arguments to convince Members of Parliament? I thought he would use the same principle to enlarge the GRC from four to six.”
“The Prime Minister in his speech just now mentioned the reason for enlarging the GRCs. One is flexibility, because it will have more members in the team and the second is about a critical mass. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it will be possible that, one day, based on the principle of enlarging the GRC, Singapore would become five big GRCs - North, South, East, West and Central?”
“Yes. The Prime Minister is not clear when he said that the judgment will rest with the CDC. Can the Prime Minister assure that this judgment in terms of assessing the merit of the case will solely be based on the circumstances rather than political consideration?”
“A clarification, Sir. As regards the CDCs, the Prime Minister has mentioned about what he had in mind of their functions. He also mentioned in his speech just now of allowing voters to have a bigger stake when they elect a team who will probably be managing a CDC. Is he implying that where an opposition is elected in a GRC, these functions and the fund which the Government has given will not be given to an opposition ward which probably will form a CDC?”
“A clarification, Sir. I understand that the CDC's boundary will be drawn according to the enlarged GRC boundary. I presume that will be linked closely politically in terms of the functions of CDCs and the purposes of the CDCs. If it is for fostering community cohesion, will it be better to have an independent boundary for CDC where it is non-political?”
“A clarification, Sir. May I confirm with the Prime Minister, as he mentioned just now, this amendment to enlarge the size of GRCs will benefit the PAP?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify? The Prime Minister said they can give two votes to a candidate in other countries. From the point of view of the candidates, there are six candidates in a team whereby the voters vote for the team as a whole. Therefore, in that case, each member in the team will have only 1/6 of the vote from the voters. So the representation may not be as much as a candidate who is given two votes in other countries. What is your view?”
“Mr Speaker, can I seek one clarification from Mr John De Payva? In his speech, he mentioned that the workers in Singapore have the right to strike. I would like to ask him to confirm that the workers in Singapore do have the right to strike and they can organise a strike at any time as they like. Mr John De Payva: Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers have the right to strike.”
“Nobody likes to lose." Yet, the PAP elites who think no end of themselves do not seem to know the meaning of "winning ungentlemanly". Armed with its more than two-thirds majority in Parliament, they are amending the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act to deprive the people of their rights to have Opposition representatives in Parliament, thereby acting against the people's wishes to have the Opposition parties checking on the Government to enable Singapore to have a sound and healthy political system. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small country. Yet, apart from having "road bullies" on our public roads, but alas, politically, we even have "political bullies" in the form of the People's Action Party in our political arena!”
“On the one hand, there were no data from previous General Elections to accurately reflect the trend of voting there and, on the other hand, to merge the newly created constituencies into GRCs would make its kiasuism too obvious. Therefore, at the 1991 General Election, the Opposition candidates managed to break through the election system controlled by the PAP and won the single-member constituencies - Hougang, Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central. This gave Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong a clear signal that Singapore needs Opposition MPs to check on the PAP Government. Unfortunately, this signal scared the wits out of the elites of the PAP Government. Therefore, they are now trying all ways and means to make it even more difficult for the Opposition parties to win seats at the coming General Election. As such, the main point in this Amendment Bill is to do away with the provision requiring at least one-quarter of the total number of MPs to come from single-member constituencies. This is to be replaced by a provision of a minimum of 8 single-member constituencies. In other words, irrespective of how many GRCs are to be added on in future General Elections, the number of single-member constituencies need not be increased proportionately. At the coming General Election, if a single-member constituency is merged into a GRC, even if the Opposition votes are increased, the total number of voters in the GRC will also be increased, and the voters voting for the Opposition will be in the minority. So long as the PAP wins 51% of the votes, its team will win. This is the trick used by the PAP to ensure its posterity and eternal rule, if God willing! Of course, the PAP wants to win, and wants to win handsomely. In 1988, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, "We don't like to lose.”
“In 1988, when the PAP introduced the GRC system, the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended to provide for 3 members in each GRC, and the total number of Members of Parliament representing GRCs must not be more than half of the total number of Members of Parliament. This was again amended before the 1991 General Election to increase the number of seats in each GRC to 4, and the maximum number of GRC MPs was raised to three-quarters of the total number of Members of Parliament. Now, it is further amended to provide for 3 to 6 seats in each GRC, and apart from 8 single-member constituencies, all the others can be GRCs. This way, after each General Election, the PAP could make full use of the GRC system to dilute the Opposition votes by truncating and re-arranging all the single-member constituencies where the votes for the Opposition candidates were high, in order to attain its political objectives and to ensure that after the reconstitution of the electoral boundaries the votes for PAP would be in the majority to enable its candidates to win the next General Election. On the other hand, when the GRC system was first introduced in 1988, a minimum of 32 single-member constituencies were required under the law. Now, so long as there are just 8 single-member constituencies, it would be deemed to be legal. The PAP is certainly learning from its experience at the 1991 General Election. At that time, the Parliamentary Elections Act required that at least one quarter of the total number of MPs must come from single-member constituencies. As such, the PAP was unable to transform all the single-member constituencies where Opposition votes were more than 40% into GRCs. Furthermore, some of them were new constituencies which were newly created in 1988.”
“First of all, let me state categorically that the Workers' Party is against the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. The GRC system enables the People's Action Party to amalgamate and merge constituencies where the Opposition parties had won higher votes in previous General Elections with those constituencies which the PAP had registered higher votes, thereby causing the Opposition votes to become perpetually in the minority and the Opposition candidates unable to be returned. Take Hougang Constituency, for example. If Hougang had been merged into the Cheng San GRC in the 1991 General Election, then even if the same number of voters had voted for me, I would not win my seat in Parliament. At the 1988 General Election, the PAP used the GRC system to merge all the single-member constituencies where the Opposition parties had won more than 40% of the votes into GRCs. (Please refer to my table. It clearly illustrates the emergence and results of this phenomenon. Percentage of votes cast for the Opposition do not include spoilt votes.) Consequently, although the Opposition camp received almost 40% of the total votes polled in the constituencies they contested, only one Opposition candidate was returned to Parliament. At the 1991 General Election, the number of seats in a GRC was increased from 3 to 4. Similarly, the single-member constituencies which were merged into the GRCs were those in which the Opposition candidates had received more than 40% of the votes. For example, Paya Lebar, Punggol, Fengshan, Whampoa, etc.”
“Sir, can I have your permission to distribute a Table to Members?”
“Are you going independent? Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: I am not saying independent, not necessarily independent. I myself have no political ambitions. I have said so before. So Mr Low need not fear this. Coming back to the point, I think it will be a mistake to reject the expanded GRC on the ground that it would be against the opposition's interest. In fact, thinking in the long term, looking at the political developments in Singapore, if we want strong checks and balances, a six-member GRC is much more favorable to the creation of a credible opposition than single member seats. As I said right at the beginning of my speech, anyone with a sense of history knows that a good government is not common. Therefore, we should be very careful when we oppose or support amendments like this which create a political structure for Singapore. On balance, having looked at it from a neutral point of view, I think that a six-member GRC is, in fact, better for us than a single member seat. Although I do not have a vote on this, for what it is worth, I support the amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what would happen in the future. But I do have confidence in the voters of Singapore that they would not vote along racial lines. I am surprised that he does not have the confidence.”
“I wish to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Mr Jeyaretnam was elected in Anson against a Chinese candidate in the 1981 by-election. Secondly, Mr M.P.D. Nair, the Workers' Party candidate in Jalan Kayu secured 48% of the votes. That shows Singaporean voters are not voting along racial lines. In the first place, why is there a need for GRC?”
“Sir, can I seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary who talks about the GRC scheme? I would like to ask him whether Singapore politics has gone to the extent of communal or racial politics whereby minority candidates would never be elected into Parliament if they stand in a single-member constituency.”
“Sir, will these applicants be allowed to select their units as well? Second, I understand that currently, applicants are not allowed to choose their locations, because the building programme for 4-room budget flats is only for Choa Chu Kang. Why is it so? And when will the flats in estates like Sengkang and Punggol be available for selection?”
“Sir, is the Senior Minister of State satisfied that the workload for housemen and nurses at our restructured hospitals and A&E departments is reasonable? Will there be overload in a sense and thereby some mistakes are made because of the workload?”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State in her reply said that it would depend on the number of patients in A&E departments. How do they estimate the number of patients in A&E departments? Second, I would like to know what are the ratios for doctors and nurses vis-a-vis patients in the ward. Are there fixed ratios?”
“Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that in this particular case, the procedures of the Police in investigating minors were strictly followed? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this question was asked previously. Yes, the procedures were followed. ILLEGAL FOREIGN WORKERS 4. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many illegal foreign workers had been arrested from construction sites for each of the years from 1994 to September 1996; (b) whether illegal foreign workers had also been found in other industries; (c) what effective measures are being taken to curb the illegal influx into the job market; and (d) whether his Ministry will relax its rules to allow more foreign workers to take up jobs in industries which Singaporeans shy away from.”
“Sir, I understand from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's answer at the last sitting of Parliament that a minor would not normally be detained for more than four hours. But I understand that, in this case, the boy was detained for about seven hours. Why was it so? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I said in my earlier answer that unless there are extenuating circumstances, minors will not be detained beyond four hours. In this case, it was important to contact the father. Since he was a minor, they had to release him to somebody who was responsible for him. The Police tried repeatedly to contact the father but failed to do so until about 7.45 pm which was about five hours after he was first detained.”
“Although the prosecuting counsel had applied for and received (from the Ang Mo Kio polyclinic) the first medical report, he did not bring to the court's attention that this medical report was inconsistent with the evidence that he had introduced earlier. Sir, after a six-day trial, the court acquitted the accused because it was of the view that the boy's testimony was unreliable and that the charge was not proven. The boy's counsel subsequently appealed against the acquittal of the accused on 17th September 1996. The appeal was dismissed. In the circumstances, I do not see the need to appoint a commission of inquiry to re-open the case.”
“15 am on 25th February 1993, the day after the alleged assault, for a medical examination. The boy was then examined by a resident doctor of the polyclinic who found no signs of any physical injury. About six hours later, the boy was again taken by the father to a private clinic for a second examination. This second examination revealed injuries on the boy. On 30th March 1995, the boy's father laid a complaint of assault before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate directed the Police to investigate and submit a report. In its report to the Magistrate dated 4th October 1995, IID concluded that the allegation of assault by the Police could not be substantiated. The main basis for this conclusion was the fact that the earlier medical examination did not reveal any injuries at all. There is therefore no cause to believe that there was any assault on the boy while he was in Police custody, as the first medical report clearly showed the absence of any physical injuries on the boy the morning after he was released from Police custody. Nevertheless, the boy, through his counsel, applied to proceed with the private summons and the case went to trial in April 1996. At the commencement of the hearing in the Subordinate Court, Sgt Ong's defence counsel applied to the Magistrate to expunge IID's investigation report from the court record. The Magistrate therefore did not know of IID's findings. The contents of the IID report were not made known to Sgt Ong or his counsel as IID is an impartial independent body in this investigation. Its report contained references to the absence of injuries during the first medical examination.”
“Question No. 3, Sir. I wish to declare that I have no interest in the case. But my Secretary-General was the counsel for the boy. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, first, let me apprise the House of the facts of the case. On 24th February 1993, at 2.55 pm, the 13 year-old educationally subnormal boy in question was detained by officers from the Chong Boon NPP on suspicion of bicycle theft. While the boy was under Police custody, Police made repeated attempts to contact his family but was not successful. Police only managed to get in touch with the boy's father at about 7.50 pm. The boy was released unconditionally at about 10.10 pm after his father came down to the Police station at 9.45 pm. Sir, on 16th April 1996, Sgt Ong Peng Sim from the Ang Mo Kio Police Division appeared in court to answer to a private summons arising from a complaint made by the boy's father to a Magistrate, for allegedly assaulting the boy on 24th February 1993 while the boy was under Police custody. The allegation of assault was initially made by the boy's father on 2nd March 1993, one week after the boy was released. On receiving the complaint, the Internal Investigation Division (IID) of the Police commenced investigation. The investigation was delayed by the fact that the boy and his father were uncooperative and repeatedly refused to be interviewed by the IID. It was only in August 1995, about two and a half years later, that the boy gave his statement to the Police. The boy's father refused to be interviewed by IID. IID's investigations revealed that the boy's father had brought the boy to the Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic at about 9.”
“Further clarification, Sir. My question was: what was the basis, based on the study, to come to the conclusion that at least 80% will be transferred to the sinking fund? Please do not quote me individual examples. Because we are talking about the Amendment Bill here and you are making 80% transfer across-the-board. The Minister talked about exemption. In his answer, he said TAS is a public authority. I have no problem with that. But in the Bill, it mentions about public authority and any community-based organisations. So what are the community-based organisations or organisations that he will exempt?”
“If you look at Potong Pasir, I think their accumulated surplus is about $300,000-plus and their sinking fund is much less than the $4.8 million. But these are studies which we do ourselves. I will leave it to Mr Chiam to do his own study, if he is re-elected for the next five years, and to convince his own residents whether or not his sinking fund, and even by locking up his accumulated surplus, would be sufficient to fund the future projects in Potong Pasir. This is for him to justify to his own residents.”
“Further clarification, Sir. I have asked what are the organisations that the Minister would exempt to be charged by the TC, and I think the Minister has not answered. The Minister in his clarification has said that some Town Councils have done their own studies and he encourages Town Councils to do their own studies on sinking fund. My point was this. Based on the study on sinking fund, I believe the Minister said that we do not have enough sinking fund in the future and therefore 80% of the accumulated surplus should be transferred to the sinking fund. I would like to know what is the basis of the studies. I would appreciate it if he could release the studies so that I can study and see how they arrived at the figure of 80%. Because we did some similar studies, not in detail of course, but I do not think that we face a similar problem, based on the current situation of Hougang Town Council Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the other agents that HDB will exempt will be, for example, Telecom when they come in to relay some of the wires on the common property. I know some Town Councils also have this difficulty where Telecom wants to relay the wires in the wet market or cooked food centres. So for such statutory bodies, we will designate them as agents in improving the common facilities and to get this job done quickly, to avoid all this bureaucratic wrangling, we will exempt them from charges by the Town Council. Mr Low asked whether we will release the studies of the cyclical works. Again, I will leave it to every Town Council to do so and to publish these studies to its own residents. For example, in Potong Pasir, over the next five years, for example, they will need to incur something like $4.8 million in their cyclical maintenance works.”
“Clarification, Sir. The Minister mentioned that there was a study done on the sinking fund projection. I want to know whether the Minister will agree to release the study to the public or to the Town Council concerned. We would like to look at it in detail. In his reply, the Minister also mentioned that there is nothing different in the sense that Town Councils need to seek approval from the HDB for things that they do. But I wish to refer to the Act. Section 19(1)(a) says "establish and maintain places and facilities within the Town" whereas the amendment says "with the prior written consent of the Board establish and maintain places and facilities". This makes a lot of difference in terms of the power of the Town Council and the right to establish and maintain places and facilities. The Minister also assures that the HDB would be cooperative. I am not very sure of that. I would like to know whether the HDB contractor would be considered as its agent. If it is, and the Town Council is not allowed to collect any payment or if the HDB were to exempt the contractor from payment to the Town Council, would it be fair to the Town Council if the contractor who occupies the common area uses water and electricity from the Town Council or even sometimes damages the common property, and the Town Council has to foot the bill? Is it fair to the Town Council by not allowing it to levy any charges or the HDB just exempts these contractors if they are its agents? The Bill also says that the Minister may xempt certain organisations from paying charges. What are these organisations that the Minister considers fit to be exempted and on what principle would these organisations be exempted from paying charges?”
“Sir, I have asked the question just now. What do "such activities" refer to under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill? Is an activity like pasar malam considered as an activity to further the objects of the People's Association?”
“Under clause 2(e), it says "the carrying out of such activities as appear to the Board to be advantageous towards, or necessary or convenient for, the furtherance of the objects ...". I would like the Minister to clarify what are "such activities" referred to in the Bill. Is an activity like pasar malam considered as an activity to further the Board's objects?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a further clarification.”
“Further clarification, Sir. Does the Minister say that the people who are doing the community work should be politically neutral to serve the interest of the community or are they supposed to serve the PAP Government?”
“I wish to clarify. How does the Minister propose to foster community bonding and promote community spirit when the Opposition is excluded from the community by the Act and by the actual appointment of advisor?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a clarification Mr Speaker: All right. One last clarification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was whether if such committee is formed by the Opposition, it will be recognised and accorded the same privilege as these committees under the PA. And I wish to remind the Minister that the Town Councils Act is going to be amended today as well which would make it difficult.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister saying that if the Opposition were to form a committee, it would be recognised as a community-based committee and thereby accorded the same status and privilege as those committees under the PA?”
“So perhaps the grassroots organisations should be separated from the community organisations. The Amendment Bill says "the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore". If the grassroots organisation is going to be termed as a community organisation, and where a constituency is held by the Opposition, the people clearly voted for the Opposition, how do you propose to bond the people of Singapore? I would suggest that maybe it is more appropriate to say, "the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the PAP supporters of Singapore." What is the view of the Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, clarification. The Minister has just mentioned that the grassroots organisations serve the PAP Government's interest. That is what he has mentioned. Some hon. Members: Serve the Government.”
“Another Singapore's first. Mr Chiam See Tong: Such is the humiliation accorded to an elected Member of Parliament. But the people of Singapore are mature. They know what is going on and such shabby treatment of an Opposition MP shall be counter-productive. I support Mr Low's suggestion that the Act be amended to allow all elected Opposition MPs to be appointed as advisors to the grassroots organisations. It is not just right to appoint a defeated PAP candidate to be the advisor of grassroots organisations, such as in Potong Pasir, it is an incongruity which must be put right. At Potong Pasir, as an elected MP, in fact I have to make applications for CIPC funds to the Chairman of the CCC for which the defeated candidate is the advisor. How do you think the defeated candidate will advise the CCC? To give support to the Opposition's application? Naturally not. My Town Council's applications for CIPC funds have been rejected. I am not surprised at those rejections. How can one expect a defeated candidate, who is trying hard to unseat the incumbent Member of Parliament, to support that MP in his community projects for which he will gain credit, and to make his own chances of success to be elected more remote? If the Opposition Member of Parliament is not made an advisor to the grassroots organisations, the Opposition constituency shall be deprived of CIPC funds and other benefits and it shall be put in a most disadvantageous position. So I call upon the Minister to amend the Act.”
“I am asking the opinion of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.”
“Sir, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that people who do charitable work are not important to be able to know the community which they live in so that they could better assist the community in need of charitable work? One example of a charitable organisation which is basically community-based is the Family Service Centres. So Family Service Centres would need charitable workers who live around the constitutency so that they would understand the problems and needs of the constituency. Therefore, in terms of proximity, I think they should be granted the same priority as the grassroots leaders.”
“Sir, how does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary define "new estate"? I understand that most new flats are built within an established constituency. So do you define that as a new estate?”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says that the reason is that it is part and parcel of the work and the regulations allow grassroots leaders who move to another estate to join the grassroots organisation in the new constituency. So would that not be inconsistent with the original purpose of justification that it is part and parcel of their work, they live and serve in the constituency and therefore they should be given priority allocation for flats within the constituency?”
“Sir, may I confirm with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the 5% allocation to grassroots leaders is based on every quarter of the new flats, including the mature estates. Secondly, I would like to know what is the rationale for granting the grassroots leaders such an advantage or priority in allocation of HDB flats.”
“Sir, would the Deputy Prime Minister disclose who were the unauthorised issuers which the GIC purchased the securities from? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the breakdown of the securities. I do not think that it is a practice for GIC to reveal what securities it has been buying. BACK TO WORK PROGRAMME (Response) 10. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Labour what has been the initial response to the `Back to Work Programme' launched recently by his Ministry and what is the estimated number of people expected to eventually rejoin the work force.”
“Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister in his answer said that the breaches were actually technical, ranging from only about 0.028% to 0.14%. I would like to know what were the amounts, based on these percentages. BG Lee Hsien Loong: There were nine transactions. The amounts were between US$200,000 and US$800,000 each, adding up probably to US$5 million.”