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 45 of 54.
“Sir, I would like to move a motion to defer further debate on the Family Violence Bill in view of the proposed introduction of amendments to the Women's Charter.”
“Under the existing Act, it states that an employee who at his own request works for an employer on a rest day shall be paid for that day at not less than the ordinary rate for one day's work. That was the minimum that the Act specified. I am not aware of hourly payment. If they did it in the past, I think it is illegal, is it not, under the Act? So why did the Minister regularise this less favourable arrangement on overtime work under the amendment and say that he will be paid for only half-day's work rather than one day's work even on the same conditions under the existing Act.”
“Sir, a further clarification. Does the Minister agree that with this amendment, it is actually less favourable for an employee to work on a rest day as compared to the existing Act. Because the existing Act says that any work done at the request of his employer, he shall be paid one day's salary for one day's work. This is under section 37(2). The amendment says, "An employee who at his own request works ... if the period of work does not exceed half his normal hours of work," he will be paid only half a day's pay of the basic rate, which is less favourable than the existing Act. Why is this so?”
“Sir, I need to seek clarification from the Minister. The Minister has not replied to my query on clause 12 which amends section 37. He says that under the new section 37(3), an employee who at the request of his employer works on a rest day shall be paid for that day only a sum at the basic rate of pay for one day's work. Why is it necessary to have this and under what circumstances would this section apply? Second clarification. Why is it necessary to have clause 28 which amends section 84? The new section 8(5) says: 'Any direction of the Minister under subsection (3) shall operate as a bar to any action for damages by the employee in any court in respect of the dismissal without sufficient cause ...' Does this not deprive an employee's right to seek redress in a court? As regards employees who earn $1,600 but who are not covered under the Act, it would be difficult for them to seek redress if they have disputes with their employers and they have to engage lawyers. Would the Minister also consider a certain framework for these workers, say, in the salary range of $2,000 as it would be difficult for them to engage lawyers?”
“If the ridership of the North-East line increases after four years when the place is built up, would the Government reduce the fare?”
“Is the Minister saying that if residents living along the North-East line agree to pay, let us say, 20 cents more, as proposed by the Minister, the Government will immediately build the line?”
“Sir, is the Minister saying that motorcycle COE prices will not move up further, since he says that it will be kept under control?”
“Sir, the Minister says that there was a need to segment the car COEs into different categories, probably because of affordability of people who need cars. What about motorcycles? Why is it that the same principle does not apply to the motorcycle COEs?”
“Why is it that there is no justification for a change?”
“Sir, why is it not justified to make changes to the motorcycle COEs at this stage? Is it because the COE price for motorcycles is still too low to make the change?”
“Sir, I do not think the Minister has answered my question. Under what circumstances would the Ministry consider revising the category of COEs for motorcycles? The Minister also mentioned about the principle of COEs for all categories of motor vehicles which are occupying road space. Did the Ministry also apply the same principle to motorcars based on engine capacity or based on how much road space the motorcar is occupying?”
“Sir, under what circumstances will the Ministry consider it necessary to have different categories of COEs for motorcycles? Is the Minister waiting for the COE price for motorcycles to increase to a more substantial sum and then make a decision?”
“A further clarification, Sir. Is $50 a requirement under the scheme, or is it a minimum requirement to open a CPF account?”
“May I seek clarification from the Minister, Sir? I would like to know whether, with this Amendment Bill, Singaporeans who do not have an existing CPF account will still need to pay $50 to open an account so that they will qualify for the top-up in their Medisave account.”
“Sir, if there is spalling concrete in HUDC flats, would the HDB repair the spalling concrete before they are privatised?”
“Is the Minister saying that if it is proven that the space is insufficient as required or does not comply with the specifications, the HDB will repair the spalling concrete free of charge?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will make public the warranty period provided by the HDB for repairs to spalling concrete. Sir, would the HDB admit that the possible cause of spalling concrete is due to BRC reinforcement insufficiently supported by spaces or the displacement of spaces during the construction stage which resulted in improper concrete coverage and, under the circumstances, there is no proper bonding and corrosion-resistant to the reinforcement? I think that could be the cause of the spalling concrete over time.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that the same problem of spalling concrete recurred again after it was repaired by the HDB's contractor and will HDB provide a warranty period after the repair?”
“Just now the Minister admitted that for an interactive method of teaching and creative thinking, you would probably need a smaller class size. In view of the recent MOE's policy on the teaching methods and that we should encourage creative thinking, would it be justified for the Ministry to review the class size of schools in Singapore by reducing the present class size from, say, 40 to 30?”
“Sir, just now the Minister mentioned that a study was done in Singapore on class size. Would he release the result of the study to the public?”
“Sir, would the Ministry consider conducting a study in Singapore to determine whether class size does have an effect on students' performance?”
“Sir, in the March 1992 Budget debate, I raised the same issue and in his answer, the Minister referred to the US computer studies of educational achievement. He said that class size did not matter. Whereas this study shows that smaller classes will help students to perform better. The Minister says that it is inconclusive. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is saying that the report he cited earlier from the US is more conclusive than this one.”
“Sir, if the land bridge project should eventually proceed, would the Minister be able to assess how much it would affect the port of Singapore? Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, as I indicated in my answer, it is very difficult for us at this stage to give an answer to that question. Partly, it is dependent on how much the actual cost will be incurred by operators using that route, and how much will be the comparable cost using the port of Singapore. Secondly, the pie will grow. The region is growing and it is quite possible that eventually when the land bridge is built, if it is found feasible, it is quite possible that there will be sufficient business for both the land bridge as well as the port of Singapore. But all these are hypothetical answers because, as I said, we would have to, first of all, determine whether that particular project is feasible and what are the details involved in building such a massive infrastructure. CLASS SIZE IN SCHOOLS (Reduction) 10. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider reducing class size in schools in view of a recent study by Tennessee State University in the United States which concluded that students in small classes outperform those in large classes.”
“Sir, what is the consultants' opinion about the strength of the proposed station at Hougang Central, in terms of ridership and other factors?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek two clarifications from the Prime Minister? One, would the Prime Minister tell this House the number of ex-Ministers, Senior Ministers of State, Ministers of State, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries and MPs who will be benefitting from this ex-gratia payment? Second, would the Prime Minister give this House a breakdown of the pension currently drawn by ex-political office-holders who have retired?”
“Why is the HDB using this new basis? There is a new basis of computation.”
“Sir, I am asking about the new basis of instalment computation, which is based on the balance of the mortgage loan or the balance of repayment years. The old basis was based on something else.”
“Sir, given the circumstances, if the mortgage interest rate should increase further, would it affect the affordability of Singaporeans in owning HDB flats or upgrading to bigger flats? Secondly, what is the rationale of HDB using the new basis of instalment computation, which I think is more sensitive towards the increase in the mortgage interest rate?”
“Sir, are there mortgagors who have to pay more than $100 per month with this new increase?”
“Yes, Sir. Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that the HDB will only consider selling the shops if there is a proposal by shopkeepers of a precinct to the HDB?”
“The objective is to make sure that the shopkeepers increase their productivity after the sale of shops, and therefore HDB decides. The question is: how does the HDB decide on that? What criteria have been used to decide whether to sell a certain precinct of shops?”
“Does the HDB stipulate what sort of improvements or productivity level should be achieved after the sale of shops?”
“How does the HDB judge and anticipate whether after the sale of shops in a certain precinct, the productivity will be increased?”
“Sir, what are the criteria for the selection of shops for sale?”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Government is favouring some shopkeepers by selling the shops to them first and thus allowing them to make a huge profit when the valuations of the shops go up. Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, the sale of shops is carried out island wide. Different precincts and different constituencies are chosen for a good spread of the shops. No shopkeeper is allowed to profit from his shop because of favouritism by the Government.”
“Sir, what is the rationale for letting CCCs to decide which shops should be sold first?”
“Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that high HDB shop prices may result in shopkeepers being priced out of the HDB neighbourhood which is providing service to the residents? Also, the shopkeepers might pass on the higher cost to consumers if the prices of shops keep on escalating, thus leading to a rise in business cost.”
“Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that the problem is the affordability of buying the shop and the servicing of the instalment payments? If the shop price eventually goes up too high, it would be beyond their means of servicing the repayments.”
“Why not? Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Because any fixing of prices goes against market practice. I am sure the shopkeepers would like the prices to reflect market rate. Their problem is not escalation of prices. Their problem is whether the mortgage payments are financed in such a way that they can find it easy to pay.”
“Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary consider fixing the selling prices of all the shops now? And if the shopkeepers think that the prices fixed now are too high, they should be allowed to re-evaluate the prices in future when the shops are offered for sale?”
“Sir, is the Government aware that the escalating shop prices, and hence the valuations, have resulted in shopkeepers' anxiety and uncertainty, which may not be in keeping with the original objective of the sale of shops?”
“Sir, am I right in saying that the HDB did not anticipate the price increase to the present scale?”
“Sir, before the scheme was implemented, did HDB anticipate that the shop prices would appreciate by 40-50%? Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, the price increases were according to market trends, and it is not possible to anticipate to a very high degree of accuracy how prices will increase over the next 3-5 years. HDB will monitor the situation consistently and constantly and provide the valuations according to what the market dictates.”
“Sir, since the objective has been achieved, why has there been a slowing down of the sale of shops?”
“Sir, I do not understand what is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to do. Is my explanation in Parliament not enough? I do not understand why he wants a press release. As to my understanding of the paragraph that he mentioned, yes, our system is on trial as a result of the report because it accused us about our system. So if we have been accused, what are we going to do? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It depends on the very nature of the accusations. If the accusations are substantiated and can be backed up, perhaps there is some basis. But if the accusations and allegations are wild, and I think the first reading of the report would bear this out, that is a different matter altogether.”
“May I ask him whether the Workers' Party is prepared to put up a press statement on this point, since now there is no need to submit or stress anything and they believe that the criminal justice system in Singapore is one that the Workers' Party has full confidence in.”
“I think it does not solve the problem. It does not mean that when you refer someone's accusation to an independent party to judge, as I have explained earlier, to resolve a matter it is a show of weakness or that you do not believe in your system. It is on the contrary, Sir. You believe in it. There is nothing to hide. You refer it. I am sure that Singapore will stand up to whatever trial or investigation by the World Court or any independent tribunal. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let me just say this very briefly. First, his paragraph 2, the opening statement, says that the Party wishes to stress that Singapore's machinery for justice is on trial as a result of the report of the Commission. I think that is a very telling statement because if you look at the Gancayco report, I would like Mr Low to point to the paragraphs in the report where he feels that those paragraphs or assertions stand scrutiny so as to put our tested criminal justice system on trial. He said just now that he does not believe in the Gancayco report. Then why make this statement? Why not, like what the Government has done, look at it very carefully and answer, "Look, I do not believe in points A to Z and this is why we do not believe in it." And stop at that, rather than submit it openly to a third party and have everybody look at it. I think that is not the proper approach. I would assume that Mr Low speaks for the Workers' Party. The other point, of course, is that now Mr Low says that he believes that the Singapore criminal justice system can stand scrutiny and he supports it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the Workers Party had capitalised on the report, the press release would just stop at that without referring to the Gancayco Report. We would not just stop at that, if we had the intention of discrediting the system. Moreover, in that situation, as I have explained earlier, what are you going to do? Are you going to say, "Well, you are the best person to solve the problem?" An hon. Member: Of course!”
“I have explained why. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: There was no criticism, no reservation, nothing. The implication must be that those who read the press statement would draw the conclusion that from the Gancayco report and its wild allegations, the Workers' Party is saying that Singapore's criminal justice system - entrenched, tested, a transparent one - has been put on trial. I think this is a very serious thing to say. And when you say, "let's refer to a third party", you are saying, "let us refer the matter, including the Gancayco report, to a third party." When you do that, are you not saying that, "Well, the Gancayco report can stand scrutiny." Why should we refer to a third party? Isn't the Government's approach a better one? We looked at what the Gancayco report said. We studied all the allegations and we put out an objective, clear, point-by-point rebuttal, and made it very clear that there is no discussion on the matter because, as we have been vindicated and as everybody has agreed, there is no basis for what the Gancayco report had made in terms of the accusations about Singapore's criminal justice system.”
“Thank you, Sir. First of all, I wish to clarify that the Workers' Party does not believe in the Gancayco report. I have explained at length just now the Workers' Party's position in this case and the thinking behind the press release. I do not propose to repeat and Mr Speaker would not allow me to do so. But if the PAP, as stubborn as it is, chooses to interpret its way and to label the Workers' Party, so be it. But I really do not understand that by urging both Singapore and the Philippine governments to refer the issue to an independent tribunal to resolve the matter, we would gain political mileage or political capital. I do not understand. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I am glad to hear that Mr Low has said openly in this House that the Workers' Party does not believe in the Gancayco report. Their statement came out after the Gancayco Commission's findings were made public.”