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 46 of 54.
“Sir, I wish to clarify because he referred to the Workers' Party.”
“Sir, is the debate on this motion going to continue tomorrow or is it going to end today?”
“Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister's main answer mentioned that the Singapore dollar would have to reflect the economic fundamentals. And I believe he also mentioned that during the period, the value of Singapore dollar was out of the market fundamental and thereby GIC went in to buy and adjust the portfolio investments to ensure that our investments are intact and do not suffer losses. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is confused. The exchange value of the Singapore dollar is one thing. The value of the Singapore reserves which are invested overseas in foreign assets is a different matter. If the US dollar is moving down or moving up, and we know it, we have some room to adjust our portfolio in or out of the US dollar, as the case may be. But that means from US dollars to Deutschemark, US dollars to Yen, Australian dollars, Canadian dollars, and not from the US dollars to Singapore dollars, because these are, by definition, our foreign reserves which are being managed. So the movements of the foreign currencies have implications in the way GIC would manage our assets. But that is quite different from the question of what is the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar today and what was it on 1st March. FULL-TIME NATIONAL SERVICEMEN IN POLICE FORCE 13. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Defence (a) what percentage of full-time National Servicemen (NSF) do their national service in the police force and what is their ethnic breakdown; (b) what are the criteria used for channelling these NSF into the police force; and (c) what percentage of these NSF join the police force as regulars after their national service stint.”
“Sir, is the move by the GIC at a specific period a diversified investment, adjustment investment or an intervention purported to keep the Singapore dollar at a certain margin? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member would have learned from listening to my earlier answer, MAS cannot determine the value of the Singapore dollar to be something different from what is set by the fundamentals. What it can do is to intervene to moderate movements in the Singapore dollar which are away from the fundamentals and make sure that the Singapore dollar reflects the basic economic situation in Singapore and externally. It cannot intervene in order to buck the market and it certainly does not intervene to manipulate the Singapore dollar to make money.”
“Sir, what is the profit or loss so far for the period stated? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, GIC does not publish detailed profit or loss figures. Secondly, it manages a diversified portfolio. The effects of the different movements in the portfolio, and of the actions which it has taken to buy and sell and hedge are not easily disentangled solely for the purposes of making an accounting over a short period of time. Suffice it to say that, overall, we have not suffered a tragic loss.”
“Sir, by providing off-course betting centres, it means that illegal bookmakers will now have more direct and convenient access to the results. That would cut their cost as well. If they compete with the Turf Club, will it necessarily be an effective measure to stamp out illegal bookmaking? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: The Member will know that with modern telecommunication facilities, the dissemination of results is not a particularly difficult thing. As I said earlier, the reduction in the profits from illegal bookmaking should dissuade illegal bookmakers from continuing to operate.”
“On the contrary, Sir. I believe that those people who either have no access or who find it too troublesome to go to the Turf Club to place their bets or too scared or worried to approach an illegal bookmaker because it is illegal, will then find it more convenient to bet legally. As for the rationale of introducing off-course betting which is to stem out illegal activities, the fact is that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that illegal bookmakers offer credit facilities. Is this going to be effective? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we believe that by reducing the betting tax as well as the reduction in the commission of the Singapore Turf Club, the profits that illegal bookmakers make from illegal bookmaking will be substantially reduced and therefore the incentive to go into illegal bookmaking will be reduced. We believe that illegal bookmaking should decline. Therefore the other activities associated with illegal bookmaking such as providing easy credit for people to bet should also decline.”
“Sir, I am not saying that the Government is doing whatever planning for collecting more water now. What I am saying is that since the Government has imposed a water conservation tax as a measure, does it mean that the Ministry concerned has actually exhausted all the measures and efforts in trying to enhance the water resources in Singapore?”
“The Minister said that PUB has been constantly tracking the consumption pattern and projecting the supply for Singapore. The Minister has also said that in the past the Government has taken various measures. What I would like to know is: since 1990, what are the detailed efforts and measures that have been specifically made before the PUB decided that there was no way out except to impose a water conservation tax?”
“Sir, when did the Government discover that the current water supply will not be able to meet the demand of Singapore's consumption?”
“The priority set is based on political reasons. I know Mr Chiam has said the position is that Opposition party members' children are not admitted. Being a charitable organisation, is the priority based on political reasons?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Minister? I would like to know from the Minister this. Is the character or nature of the PCF a charitable or political organisation?”
“Sir, I have a fresh point to make with regard to Encik Maidin's comments. Of course, by virtue of the system of CIPC, it is the PAP Government's responsibility to make sure that the PAP win the next election and thereby deprive the Opposition wards of funds to improve the estate. Therefore, during the election you can compare and say, "You see, the Opposition has not done much to improve your constituency." The other fresh point is with regard to Mr Choo Wee Khiang's comments. I regret to say that it seems to me that Mr Choo's grassroots know more about his constituents' needs than Mr Choo himself. I advise him not to rely too much on the grassroots leaders. Of course, I respect some of them who are really working for the people. But I think that may be his downfall.”
“Sir, we did not say that no improvement works have been done. I think Mr Chiam will agree that the crux of the issue is the system of application which allows only the CCC within the constituency to submit the application. The CCC, given its affiliation to the PAP, will never support Opposition wards and therefore the application of public fund is biased towards the PAP constituencies. As a result, it is unfair. That is the crux of the issue. That is why I was very happy yesterday when the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said, "Well, put up a proposal to fine-tune the system." Yes, we have put up a proposal to improve the system. Now I would like to know whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agrees with our proposal. If he does not agree, why does he not agree that we change the system to allow town councils or MPs to apply directly to CIPC? Of course, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, being the Chairman of CIPC, we may not get the fund applied for because he can reject it. But never mind. At least he is in Parliament. We can come to Parliament and ask him for justification as to why he refuses to approve certain projects. It is better than going to MCD and MCD says something else. I would like to have an answer.”
“Why is there no basis? It is part of a town.”
“Yes, it is only for HDB estates. I understand that. I have no quarrel with that. What I am saying is that private estates, being part of the town, the town council can show concern and put up a proposal if the CIPC allows. We are not talking about using town council's funds. We are talking about putting up proposal on behalf of a private estate within the town to CIPC for consideration.”
“I do understand the town council's main responsibility. It is for the HDB estate. It is under the Act. But the private estate is part of the town. Is it not part of the town? You call it a town council. It is part of the town. You cannot, of course, apply for funds for improvement works in a private estate. An hon. Member: It is only for HDB estates.”
“First of all, yes, the town council's funds cannot be used outside the HDB estate. The town council could, through the MP, look at the private estate and put up a proposal to the CIPC for improvements. Why can it not be done? Or the MP himself can put up the proposal. What is wrong with that? The fund is not going to the town council. It is a CIPC fund. I am not saying that you give the money to the town council. What I am saying is that you allow the town council to apply. There is no need for the CCC to apply. Allow the town council or the MP to apply for funds for certain projects and you consider whether it is viable. If you do not think so, explain why. Rather than going through the CCC and the CCC says, "We do not support your application." When we wrote in and asked for the reasons, they replied, "No need to give you the reason." I think this is not fair.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary does not understand my clarification. So far, the CIPC has never given any money to town councils, even for the PAP wards. You provide funds for upgrading community projects to the HDB estates. The fund is used for improvement works in HDB estates. What we are asking is that you allow the town council or the MP concerned to submit the application directly to CIPC for funds and the CIPC decides whether it is going to provide the funds for a particular project. That is what we are asking. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has called for fine-tuning of the system yesterday and a proposal has been put forward by us. I would like to know his position on that.”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says it is not fair if funds are not allocated for improvements in private estates. Is it not true that CIPC also provides funding for community projects which are done in HDB estates? The funds are used for HDB estates. As regard private estates, is it not also the elected MP's responsibility to look after the private estates? They could also suggest improvements in the private estate should the need arise. So why is it that application for funds should be given to the CCC for approval because we are also looking after the private estates?”
“Sir, may I seek clarification? First of all, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has gone back to the old story and standard answer of the CIPC. Mr Chiam and I did not say that the money should be given to the MP or the town council. What we are asking is simply the procedure of application to CIPC. Yes, money should be given to a public body because it is public money. Is the town council not a public body?”
“No, it should be the MP. That is what he is elected for.”
“Sir, I propose that they do away with the requirement of CCCs submitting the proposal to CIPC direct. That is the first step. We should allow the town council to submit the proposal which could be evaluated based on the merits of each proposal.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary says because it is a long term plan, therefore they have not made a decision. If the Town Council forks out the money and they make a decision in the next three years or so, the money will go down the drain. It is a waste of public funds. Could he tell me at least when are they going to make a decision?”
“Sir, can I seek clarification before the Senior Parliamentary Secretary answers Mr Chiam's question?”
“Sir, I would like to ask Mr Choo Wee Khiang on what position is he questioning.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I am seeking clarification, Sir. I am not making the same speech.”
“Sir, I am not convinced by the answer because if you were to refer to paragraph 6, page 23 of the Budget book, it is stated that the full amount of cyclical works grant has been disbursed to all town councils by FY93. That is what is stated in the Budget book. So I am puzzled why there is this sum of $82,500 to be paid into the town councils' sinking fund for cyclical repairs. The Chairman: Order. Mr Low, you started speaking in Mandarin. Could you please carry on in Mandarin?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 3400. (In Mandarin): Sir, in page 33 of the Budget book there is an amount of $82,500 as Capital Grant to the town councils for cyclical repairs.”
“Clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister of State: is it not the PAP Government's intention to purposely define grassroots organisations - since he is also in MCD - for its political benefit?”
“Clarification, Sir. The application from my constituency's committee was rejected. The reason given was that only schools, religious bodies and grassroots organisations were permitted to hold trade fairs.”
“Sir, I am also interested to know, as Dr Michael Lim has said, what is the basis of Government's decision to extend the line to Woodlands rather than build a North-east line. And also, why is the Government taking so long in this feasibility study of the North-east line?”
“The Government! That is why you collect tax. It is a public service.”
“Clarification, Sir. As a government, can you just say that because it is unprofitable, for instance, the bus service, you do not serve the area and, whatever the residents there may say, let it be?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification? Why must the Minister be separating the North-east line to look at whether a line is going to be profitable or not? Can he not take the whole MRT line in Singapore as a whole just like what he did to the bus service, ie, even for unprofitable routes you provide the service because it is a public service? The Government was willing and prepared to give $143 million operating grant to SMRT in 1990 and the grant, I suppose, had been reduced to $4 million or so in 1993. If that is what the Government is prepared to do, why can the Government not build the North-east line now in anticipation of the increase in population? Why is it not viable in future?”
“Sir, we heard Dr Michael Lim on the extension of MRT to Woodlands. I think the main reason was that there were no takers for many of the HDB flats which had been built in Woodlands during the past few years. Now, with the MRT extension, the flats are being snatched up very quickly. Take a look at the MRT network in Singapore. Most parts of Singapore are being serviced by the MRT lines, except the North-eastern part which covers quite a large area. This is unfair to the people living in the North-eastern part of Singapore. The Government has claimed that the population in the North-eastern part was inadequate to sustain a MRT line, and the construction of an MRT line to this area would incur losses. However, the Government should remember that public transport is a public service which should be spread out throughout the country. Moreover, the Government has reduced its subsidy for the recurrent expenditure of MRT from more than $140 million in 1990 to just over $4 million in 1993. On the other hand, the Government's revenue from COE, road tax, etc. has increased from $1.59 billion in 1990 to $3.707 billion in 1993. During the period from 1990 to 1993, the Government's revenue from land transportation increased by more than 100%, and yet the subsidy for MRT was reduced by some 97%. As such, the Government can absolutely afford to construct and sustain the North-eastern line. Furthermore, with the completion of the Serangoon and Punggol estates, the population in the North-eastern area has increased significantly. Coupled with the development of the Kangkar new town, the population will be further increased in future. The Government has no reason to delay any longer the construction of the North-eastern MRT line.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $5,229,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $398,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S -”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that this is the Committee of Supply? How does revealing the amount of the projects compromise national security?”
“Sir, may I know who approves the funding of these projects? When was it approved and what is the amount involved? How many projects are there altogether?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code KA 2910. Sir, what special projects are funded by Mindef?”
“May I seek clarification, Sir? The Government has stopped building branch libraries some years ago and has not committed to building any new branch library. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that it would take some time to build community libraries. I would like to ask whether it is because library services are not profitable for the Government and thereby the Government is dragging its feet. In the Library 2000 Report, it was stated that it would be based on a pay-as-you-use basis. Is the Government going to implement it before committing more funds for building libraries? And finally, in the Library 2000 Report, a community library will be built, not in my constituency I suppose, somewhere between Tampines Road and Hougang Avenue 3. When will the library be built?”
“May I seek clarification from the Minister on the question of provisional graduate teachers?”
“Sir, my question on Normal Stream education has not been answered.”
“Sir, has the Minister got the answer to my question on the overpayment of $246 million?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment although I am not quite satisfied with the Minister's reply. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $151,523,600 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $205,463,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head B -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TI 1500. (In Mandarin): According to feedback I have received, the service of the Legal Aid Bureau has fallen short of expectation. I was told that the Bureau was slow in rendering its services and handling of cases. From the workload and performance indicators shown in page 535 of the Budget book, the number of cases completed was reduced from 79% in 1990 to 67% in 1994. Is this an indication that the efficiency of the Legal Aid Bureau has gone down? Or is it because its workload has increased? I wish to remind the Government that there are many low-income people in Singapore who cannot afford the lawyer's fees when they require legal assistance. Although the Law Society provides legal aid to Singaporeans, the Government has the responsibility to help those who are earning less, and are in a less favourable position in society. I would like to know ---”
“There are two clarifications, Sir. The first clarification is that when the Ministry of Finance uses the private consumption expenditure to estimate the revenue for GST, was it aware that the assumptions based on the PCE may be on the low side and thereby would result in a lower estimate for GST collection? The second clarification is on the question of offset package. Did the Government foresee that if economic growth continues, the higher income groups would benefit more from the offset package of tax reduction, or was this the original intention of Government?”
“But this matter relates to GST. Mr Speaker: It is normally not the tradition to speak after the Minister has replied. But if you so wish to, I will allow you this time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister?”