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 44 of 54.
“Just now the Minister mentioned about reasonable return on capital investment, and whether or not it is going to be privatised, the increases in tariffs are inevitable. That is what I understand. The question now is: who is the return for - the 12%-14% increases that the Minister proposed over the next three years? Is it for the Government?”
“If that is the case, then why should commuters pay, on the one hand, for operating cost increases, and at the same time, the profit. They will not be convinced. So if an enterprise is run and supervised by the Government, or LTA, and it is non-profit making, I think it will be more convincing.”
“Thank you. First of all, I believe that with the development of a rail system and different modes of public transport, it might come a day when you find that there is conflict of interest, for instance, between bus companies and SMRT, in terms of route provision. Secondly, I think, whether we like it or not, even if we have two bus companies now, there is quite a degree of monopoly. So there is no real competition in this sense. Thirdly, I am not convinced that having just one operator, and supervised by the Government, would be less efficient than the competition that you have now. I think it is less competition. It is not full competition at all. And given the size of a compact city that Singapore is, will it be better if we integrate all the public transport services into one enterprise and run it in such a way that it is as efficient as CAAS or PSA, for instance, which is not privatised yet? Does it necessarily mean that once you operate a system under the supervision of the Government, as the case may be, it is going to be less efficient? I am not convinced of that. The situation, as it is now, is not conducive to forge, as stated in the White Paper, a social contract of cost-sharing or financing of the public transport system. Because, on the one hand, the commuter has to pay for increases in operating cost, eg, manpower cost increases, and on the other hand, he is also paying for the profit of, for instance, the bus company. And if SMRT is privatised, there are shareholders. They have to look after the interest of their shareholders. I understand, but I stand corrected, SBS has promised its shareholders a certain percentage of 7.5% or something like that. I do not know whether it is correct.”
“Sir, I would like to seek clarification from Mr Mah regarding the election issue which he has mentioned.”
“He is not seeking a clarification. He is creating another debate within a debate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think Dr Chen's question is out of order. He is not seeking clarification. Dr John Chen Seow Phun: I am seeking a clarification.”
“Since the Minister says that they might as well relocate the shops, is he saying that the URA has intention to rezone the area into a completely residential area without shops?”
“The Minister in his answer mentioned about the optimal use of land. I will come back to the site in question. I also note from the same planning report that for the existing area, which is a low-rise commercial and residential area, the plot ratio was increased to 2.8. So I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any plan to redevelop or sell the shophouses to the sitting tenants.”
“The Minister mentioned about the future of terrace workshops. Would he clarify further what would be the guidelines in terms of HDB deciding whether or not a particular terrace workshop would be redeveloped or sold to the sitting tenants?”
“My query is what is the time-frame, since the Minister says it is a guide plan. But I am sure there is some time-frame as to when it will be developed.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that there is an existing industrial area in the site in question? Is he further aware that in the URA's planning report 1995 for Hougang, the industrial area seems to be rezoned as a residential area?”
“Sir, I wonder why Dr Soin should bring it up and discuss it within NCSS since the question has been put in Parliament. I would appreciate it if the Senior Minister of State could clarify whether it is true that certain statistics requested by NCSS which are necessary to map out the Master Plan for social service in Singapore could not be obtained from the various Government ministries and I believe part of the data concerns the future Government's commitment in terms of funding social services in Singapore and its development.”
“Does the Senior Minister of State agree that it would be good for public information to know the future and the Master Plan that we have for Singapore in terms of social service and whether it would be good for Singaporeans to know how the Government would tackle future social service issues in view of the fact that our population is aging? Therefore, I think it is important that the Social Service Master Plan be made known so that we know what are the future plans and what are the commitments of the Government in social service. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon: Sir, I cannot see the usefulness of releasing this working paper to others. It has already been released to the relevant ministries and NCSS for planning and delivery of social service. NCSS also uses it to monitor follow-up action on the recommendations.”
“Why is it confidential in nature and cannot be released since MCD has accepted the recommendations?”
“From the Senior Minister of State's answer, can I take it that MCD has accepted all the recommendations in the Social Service Master Plan? Secondly, it was mentioned that it is a confidential report. Why is it confidential in the first place? This is a Social Service Master Plan. It is not something to do with national defence.”
“Sir, has MCD accepted all the recommendations in the Social Service Master Plan submitted to the Ministry?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree to publish the ranking? It is no good saying that people know about it. People will be interested to know what is the age of their flats compared with others who qualify for upgrading.”
“I can now understand it better. From the Minister's answer just now, I understand that there is a ranking of flats which are 20 years or older. Would the Ministry at least publish the ranking of the flats?”
“Does the Minister agree that looking at the selection of past and recent precincts, it seems that Toa Payoh Estate has been given quite a lot of upgrading programmes compared to older estates like Queenstown or Tiong Bahru for that matter? This raises the question as to how these blocks are being selected for upgrading. I think certain criteria like geographical spread have not been properly explained in the announcement on the selection of the precincts.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that as more criteria are added which are variable, like cleanliness, the residents who live in flats which are more than 20 years old would be uncertain about the chances of their flats being upgraded? Why is it not possible for the Ministry to base on certain specific principles which are already established and leave the variable factors aside, and come out with at least an estimated schedule, so that the residents can expect when their flats would be upgraded? Of course, subject to other variables, you may add two years, or if there are many graffiti or the crime rate in the precinct is high, then your precinct would not be upgraded. But at least the basic criterion is the age of the flat. The other factor which I think ---”
“Does the Minister agree that it is not a matter of whether the chances are good or not? It would be better for the public to at least know there is an estimated schedule to show what can be expected from the upgrading programme for the next, say, 15 to 20 years because, eventually, all the flats should be upgraded.”
“Sir, is it not possible for the Ministry to base on certain criteria, for instance, as the Minister has said, the age of the flat, and give a schedule of the estimated date for all the flats and, if subsequently there is any change, since it is only an estimate, it could explain why it was changed or delayed to a later stage?”
“Sir, since the Minister has said that there are specific principles in selecting these flats, for instance, they must meet certain criteria, like age of the flat and the cleanliness of the precinct, can the Ministry not base on these basic criteria to come out with a schedule? I understand from the Annual Report that HDB is going to upgrading 15 precincts a year. So it could base on this number and give an estimated date of all the flats which qualify under the Main Upgrading Programme. I do not think it is that difficult.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that the Main Upgrading Programme which has an impact on Singaporeans and where large amounts of Government fund have been spent should be made more transparent?”
“Who decided on this ranking and what were the criteria? Were the criteria on how they were being ranked made known to the teachers of the schools concerned? Thirdly, were these teachers informed of their ranking and why they were ranked in that manner?”
“Since there was ranking, was it also the guideline of the Ministry that a school could also distribute the ranking positions based on individual departments?”
“Sir, was there a quota system in this promotion exercise, so that each school was only allowed to promote a certain number of teachers?”
“Sir, is it the Ministry's guideline in the evaluation of teachers to call up the teachers who were being assessed, or was it left totally to the HOD or the school concerned as to how and in what way they would like to assess the teachers? Is there a clear guideline?”
“The Minister of State said just now that the practice varies from school to school. So could I take it that some schools called up the teachers who were being assessed to explain to them why they were assessed in such a way?”
“Sir, my question is whether or not the teachers who were being assessed were called up to explain to them why they were assessed in such a way. Was it practised by either the Head of Department (HOD) or the panel of assessors which was formed for the exercise?”
“Sir, how often was the evaluation system of teachers in this promotion exercise done and were the teachers who were being assessed called up to explain to them why they were assessed in such a way and why certain points were given? Dr Aline Wong: It is certainly good management practicein any organisation, including schools, for the supervisors or the directors responsible to explain to the teachers the way the teachers' performance has been evaluated. The criteria for promotion include various factors, eg, length of service, performance, potential, and so forth. But as with every management or organisation, it is a matter of management style to explain these things to the teachers.”
“Sir, what is the frequency in which such programmes are being planned and held in the auditorium? We are asking that the students be allowed to use the auditoriums for two months before and during the GCE examinations, and not for the whole year. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the actual numbers here. But the facilities are intensively used. PROMOTION EXERCISE FOR TEACHERS (Unhappiness over evaluation of teachers' performances) 6. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that there is unhappiness over the evaluation of teachers' performances in the recent promotion exercise and what he proposes to do about it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the string is going to be very long. You are going to tie everyone together. From what I know, Francis Seow is no longer a member of the Party. I read his speech, a copy of which I only receive today. I have not even finished reading it, and I cannot really understand what he says.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it strange again. A few months ago, when this House discussed the Filipino maid's case, I made my Party's stand clear in this House, I think I was asked by the Minister to make a statement for my Party. On the other hand, it seems to me that the SDP Members are being accused in this House of not representing the SDP because what they say does not represent the SDP. I do not understand what is all this. As regard the motion, it states: `(1) notes with regret that the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Dr Chee Soon Juan, with two other SDP members, attended the "alternative panel" discussion ..., and (2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack ...'. My position on the motion is very simple. I would not support the motion, neither would I be opposing the motion. My party has made it very clear that we do not wish to enter into a debate on this. That will be our stand, Sir. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I take it that the Member is aware and remembers that Mr Francis Seow was the Workers' Party candidate in the 1988 General Elections and, for all I know, remains a Workers' Party member and therefore makes this statement with the endorsement at least of the Workers' Party, if not before, now after the fact, after you know about it, and you fail to dissociate yourself from it, or to expel him from the Party, that means you endorse him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will call a spade a spade. I do not agree with what he said. From what I understand, the implication of it is contempt of court. Sir, it is very strange that I am put on a spot in which I have no part in it, neither has my Party a part in it. I make my stand clear that I do not agree with what he says. What else does the Deputy Prime Minister want? This is Parliament. I am objecting to being cross-examined in such a way like an accused person by saying "yes" or "no". I do not think I should answer all the questions he wants. BG Lee Hsien Loong: If Mr Low Thia Khiang wants to be taken seriously, firstly, he should vote for the motion when it is called. Secondly, he should get his Party to issue a statement, just like the SDP, and have it signed by its Secretary-General, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, reaffirming the Workers' Party's confidence in the integrity and standards of the Singapore judiciary. Then we can take it that Mr Low speaks sincerely and with authority.”
“BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low has said that he does not think there is any basis for Francis Seow to attack the Singapore judiciary. But he has also said that he regrets being unable to read the flowery language which Mr Francis Seow has used. I think we can overcome this difficulty which Mr Low has got if we ignore most of Francis Seow's speech and focus on the operative paragraph on the first page. I will read it carefully in English and Mr Low can listen carefully to the translation which he will receive simultaneously in Mandarin, and then he can tell me whether he agrees with that or whether he totally repudiates that. I do not think it is good enough to make a general statement that he does not think he agrees. I think it is necessary to say whether he accepts this in any part or whether he repudiates it altogether. The operative paragraph is this. I read from the middle of the first page: `The judiciary in S'pore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in S'pore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM LKY and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Mr Goh Chok Tong, the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent International Herald Tribune libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no flowers in that paragraph. It is perfectly clear. It is in simple English. As Mr Seow has said, he is calling a spade a spade. I want to know what Mr Low calls it.”
“Anyway, since I am asked to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, neither I nor my Party is interested in what Francis Seow had to say in the United States. He might have said it, but we never heard him. I do not know. Perhaps the Government should extradite Francis Seow to Singapore and ask him to repeat what he said there and I will comment. I was given a copy of the speech of Francis Seow just now, Mr Speaker. We were given half an hour to read it. I am afraid I have to say that the language used is very flowery and I had difficulty reading even the first few lines. I asked in the Member's Room what "Mr GCT" meant. Then I realised that it was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Then there is a term "op-ed essay". I do not know whether it would be fair to ask for my comments on speeches of people who commented on the Singapore judiciary. But if I am asked to, please give me a translation in Chinese which I will understand better, because I may not understand some of the implications. Just now, the Leader of the House asked me to comment. I do not think I am in a position to comment or specifically to say what I agree or do not agree, because I do not want to end up like the SDP. Perhaps if you want me to do so, then maybe the Leader of the House would like to translate it into Chinese and tell me what are the implications specifically so that I could say whether I do or do not agree. Anyway, from what I understand from the speeches in this House and what Dr Ow had said yesterday, I do not agree, and I do not think Francis Seow has any basis to attack our judiciary. I understand he was part of the judiciary in Singapore. And if he wants to say such things, he should come back and say it.”
“No. I am asking whether the Acting Minister will publish in the press because I think a lot of people do not know.”
“--- we should also be fair in administering the legislation in accordance with the spirit it is passed by Parliament? And I do not think the Minister has answered my question on how he presumes a first offender as recalcitrant. Would the Minister like to further clarify and would he like to publish to the press under what circumstances will littering be classified as serious offences, so that Singaporeans are aware that they can be issued with CWO even if they are first offenders? Will the Minister agree with that?”
“Yes. Does the Acting Minister agree that while we should not condone litterbugs and also to punish them --- RAdm Teo Chee Hean: We do not condone.”
“Sir, I have no objection to people being punished for littering. My question is whether it is fair to people who do not know that they will be punished with CWOs under the Act even though they are first offenders. Secondly, would the Acting Minister consider it fair to presume that first offenders are recalcitrant offenders? Is it fair? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think through the efforts of Mr Low and others, the press, and so forth, CWO is very well publicised in Singapore. Fines for littering are very well publicised in Singapore. They are even the butt of jokes in other countries about Singapore. So to claim that any Singaporean does not know that he faces penalties if he litters is really quite amazing to me. And all these sound to me like excuses that Mr Low is making for a particular case which he may have of someone who has been socially irresponsible, has littered, and caused a nuisance to the majority of Singaporeans. More than 99% of Singaporeans have not encountered any such difficulties. They are civic-conscious; they want to see their city clean; they want to see their country clean and green. And I do not see why Mr Low keeps on defending them. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---”
“Sir, how does the Ministry of the Environment classify clearly what is a serious offence? Was it published? How do you classify? I think we have got to make it clear to the public so that they can be deterred from committing serious offence. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I hardly think that is Mr Low's purpose, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Low is just simply making excuses for people who ought to be appropriately punished when they commit littering offences.”
“Under what circumstances would the Acting Minister consider or presume a first offender as recalcitrant? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not sure how I can explain this better. I have already said that a serious littering offence, even for the first offence, is subject to CWO.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Acting Minister agree that the CWO, as mentioned by the then Minister for the Environment, was for the purpose of punishing recalcitrant offenders? Does he agree with that? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained quite clearly the circumstances under which CWO will be applied.”
“My question is: if a first offender - we are talking about first offender - throws a bus ticket and another person drops two bus tickets, which one of them will be issued with CWO? The act was done at the same time. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, my public health inspectors will use their discretion. And also if we bring them to court, the court will decide. But I wish to reiterate that there is absolutely no excuse for any Singaporean to claim that he does not know that littering is an offence. As I said, since 30 years ago when I was in my short pants, I knew that littering was an offence. We teach them in our schools, we teach them in our kindergartens, and to try to make excuses for people who litter from punishment, which I think is well deserved, is really a very strange position for Mr Low to take.”
“First of all, I have no quarrel with people who are punished under the law for littering. I do not want to repeat myself as to why I asked that question. The issue now is on the first offenders.”
“Those who have repeat offences, even though they are minor offences, are also subject to CWOs. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not understand why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are not civic-minded.”
“My question is whether the Ministry would consider it fair to issue CWOs to first offenders because the public understands that the CWOs are for recalcitrant offenders. It is a well-known fact that anyone who litters will be fined. But would it not be unfair to the first offenders by issuing them the CWOs? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have explained, repeat offenders are subject to CWO. First-time offenders, who are serious offenders, are also subject to CWO. If there is any doubt about that, I hope that this clarifies it completely. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are socially irresponsible as compared to the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans. Only 921 persons were issued with CWOs since November 1992. There are three million other Singaporeans who are quite socially conscious and civic-minded persons who would want to see a clean and green environment. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, let us not side-step the issue. Does the Acting Minister agree that, while people who litter should be punished, the understanding of many people is that first-time offenders would be fined instead of being issued with CWOs? Many of them are not aware that if they are first-time offenders they could also be issued with CWOs. I have such a case. My second supplementary question is: how does he classify an offence as serious or minor? And why does he say that a first-time offender who commits a serious offence, eg, throwing a drink can, as mentioned by the Acting Minister, is considered a recalcitrant offender? How does he justify that? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think I have already explained quite clearly when people are subject to CWOs. Serious offences are subject to CWOs. Throwing a can is considered a serious offence.”
“While I agree with what the Acting Minister has said that no one should condone littering, I am concerned with the spirit and intention of the Bill passed by Parliament. As I mentioned just now ---”
“Is the Acting Minister aware that during the Budget debate the then Minister for the Environment reiterated that the purpose of CWO was for recalcitrant offenders. How does he classify "recalcitrant" offenders? For a first time offender, can he say that he is recalcitrant? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have already mentioned just now in my answer, we apply CWOs to persons convicted or charged with a second or more littering offence and also on those persons who have committed serious littering offences. I think that Singaporeans know littering is an offence and there is no excuse for not knowing that littering is an offence. I had learned that in school since I was in my short pants 30 years ago. So I do not think any Singaporean can claim that he does not know that littering is an offence. That being the case, I think there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to litter in Singapore. For those who choose to be socially irresponsible and litter indiscriminately, then they should face the penalty. I do not really understand why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are socially irresponsible.”