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 50 of 54.
“Sir, can I seek clarification from the Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek clarification? Will you allow me to clarify the point?”
“Mr Speaker, can I add something to the debate?”
“Sir, how near is the near future? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope within a month. SINGAPORE BUS SERVICE (1978) LTD (Reinstatement of bus services 149 and 390) 16. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Communications whether he will request the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd to reinstate bus services 149 and 390 urgently as the recent withdrawal of these two services has greatly inconvenienced most shift workers working in Changi Airport.”
“If it does, then why can you not use whatever is collected commercially to subsidise? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: It is not enough. Whatever is collected commercially is ploughed back. In other words, if we have a purely commercial basis --- An hon. Member: There will be no Malay programmes! BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Precisely, there will be very few Malay programmes. There will probably be no Tamil programmes. There will be very few documentaries.”
“Sir, does the public service broadcasts carry commercial advertisements? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Yes, it does.”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned just now that the sales level of the retail sector is determined or influenced by many other factors. So how does the Department of Statistics determine whether the growth of sales is not affected by the ALS?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered my question on the performance bonus which I brought up just now. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sorry. I should have done this earlier. The Prime Minister and a few of the appointment holders are on a fixed bonus - the President, the Chief Justice, the Speaker, Chairman, PSC, the Auditor-General, and the Attorney-General. The rationale is simple. If the Prime Minister is to be paid a variable bonus, who is to decide how much he deserves? Or the Speaker. It cannot be done. He is the boss. He will decide what other people are worth. He will judge, he will consult a few of his senior colleagues, but finally he takes the responsibility and decides how much each person's contribution is worth. For the Prime Minister himself, a number has to be set. It used to be set at two when the performance bonus range was zero to two. In fact, the Prime Minister never took two. He took less than that. When we revised the scheme to zero to six, the Prime Minister suggested that he would set his bonus at four. It is a fixed point. I think even with that fixed point, if you make a comparison of the Prime Minister's salary with Annex III, you will see that there is a long gap between him and many of the private sector business people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few clarifications to make. The first one is: what is the additional expenditure that the Government will incur as a result of this revision exercise? How would this revision of salary affect the relativity of Government expenditure on manpower? On the performance bonus at Annex C, I would like to know what is the rationale for the new performance bonus to be fixed at four months for the Prime Minister, while the Senior Minister, DPM, Ministers, enjoy a maximum of six months' bonus. What is the rationale for doing that? The next question is: what would be the basis for determining the performance bonus of zero month, one month, or six months? And, lastly, I think the Government should make an international comparison of the salaries of political appointments, particularly of the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the Ministers of State, vis-a-vis other countries, so that Singaporeans will have an idea as to how much our political appointees are being paid.”
“Sir, the Next Lap stated that every Singaporean should have at least 10 years of education. Now there is this question of a number of children dropping out from school and children who have failed to go to school. How does the Government, given the situation, propose to achieve the objective of the Next Lap?”
“Sir, it is no good for the Minister to say that he suspects. Will the Ministry concerned implement a system whereby there is a way to track parents who are residing in Singapore but fail to send their children to school?”
“Could the Minister elaborate, of these numbers, how many are actually students whose parents have emigrated or living overseas, or students whose parents are still residing in Singapore but fail to send their children to school?”
“Sir, what is the range of waiting time in Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after the second re-tender was called and closed, there was still time for assessment whether to award to the lowest tenderer in the first tender. So why did the officer concerned not make the decision, after the result of the second tender was known, that possibly the Government could benefit by awarding to the lowest tenderer in the first tender?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my understanding is that, normally, there is an omission clause, which means that the owner can omit whatever work which has been tendered and pay a compensation, say, 5%. And in this particular case, if the tender was awarded to the lowest tenderer in the first tender, it would, I believe, save substantial savings instead of awarding to the lowest tenderer in the second tender. In fact, if there is an omission clause, you could invoke the omission clause for the cleansing work of the third island, which is not required.”
“Sir, was there an omission clause in the tender contract itself for the original tender?”
“For example, if a lawyer is caught spitting on the road, or dropping a litter, prosecute him by all means. But does that make him unfit to practise law, or to call himself a lawyer? It is true that such conduct does not serve to uphold the honour and dignity of the profession. But it has nothing to do with maintaining the standard of practice in the profession. In conclusion, as fundamental changes are proposed to the qualification of persons regarded as being fit to enter into and to stay in the legal profession, I suggest that the Minister consider referring this Bill to a Select Committee and that the Law Society be invited to make representations.”
“Clause 9 requires the Council to disclose information relating to complaints against lawyers to the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General. This, to me, breaches the principle that unless and until sufficient cause is shown to warrant that the matter be brought to the attention of the court, disciplinary proceedings are confidential, that is to say, it is a matter between the lawyer being investigated and the Law Society, and no one else. This is, as it should be, in the case of a self-regulated autonomous profession. I also question the need for clause 13 for the court to be given power to discipline legal officers and non-practising lawyers directly, that is, on its own volition. Legal officers are, in any case, subject to the discipline of their employer, the Government through the AG, and the Public Service Commission. A lawyer, whether practising or not, is a citizen and subject to the laws of the land, like everyone else. If he breaks the law, he will be brought before the courts. There is no need, I think, to add burden on him just because of his professional status. People should be encouraged to learn the law and become lawyers, not warned that if they become lawyers they must or must not behave in a certain way, or indulge in certain activities, and if they do, they are liable to be struck off the rolls, even if their activities are perfectly legitimate, and they have not broken any law. Clause 29 is to amend the principal Act by deleting the words "in his professional capacity" from the provisions of the Act. To me, the implication is to extend the powers given by the Act to the Law Society and the courts to discipline lawyers for misconduct which has nothing to do with the practice of their profession.”
“I do not follow the logic. In my opinion, Sir, this is not being pragmatic and it is discriminatory and wrong headed. What about the non-academic qualities of the graduates? A lawyer is required to be a man or woman of honour and integrity. A high academic qualification is in itself no guarantee of honour and integrity. It could well be that exposure to other aspects of university life would help to give a man the necessary strength of character to turn him into a good lawyer and it may well be that if he spends too much of his time working to ensure that he gains his second upper, he may fail to gain the necessary exposure and experience. Thirdly, this Bill is objectionable because it is arbitrary that the Minister should be given the power to decide the qualifications for entry and to change them from time to time. Basic things, like qualifications for entry into the legal profession, should be clearly set out in statute passed by Parliament, and not left to the discretion of the Minister. The same clause gives the Minister power to exempt any person or classes of persons from the provisions. I think the Minister should not be given this power to exempt. A man is either a qualified person or he is not. He cannot be a qualified person if the Minister says so. Clause 3 empowers the Board to issue a person a certificate if, in the opinion of the Board, the person possesses such qualification or expertise as would enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore. I do not know what is the intention. Can the Minister give concrete examples of persons who might enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore? I think it is also too discretionary.”
“Sir, I understand that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to restrict the number of persons entering the legal profession every year and, at the same time, to give the Minister the power to prescribe the qualifications for entry, that is to say, to decide who will be allowed to practise law in Singapore. Clause 2 of the Bill serves this purpose. Is this in the interest of the public? I do not think so. Firstly, it goes against the Government's own free market principles. The law is supposed to be an honourable profession, not a money-making machine. Instead of restricting the number entering the profession and thereby making it more elitist and remote, the Government should look at ways to expand the scope of work available to lawyers, for example, by channelling work to arbitrators, or allowing some form of percentage claims. This will increase court work and produce lawyers who are skilled in advocacy and, who knows, lawyers may even be encouraged to become orators and politicians. Secondly, it is illogical to restrict the foreign graduates, I believe, to the first 50 per year of those who have gained second upper honours degree from one of the 15 favourite British universities. It is also elitist. Is the Minister in a position to say that the quality of legal education is clearly better in these 15 universities than in other institutions of higher learning? Can the Minister say for sure that the holder of a second upper class honours degree will make a better practising lawyer than one who holds a second lower, or even a third class degree from the same university? For a local graduate, a second lower class degree will do. Is the Minister saying that a second lower class law degree from NUS is equal to a second upper class degree from overseas?”
“Sir, I think it is not fair to ask me whether I would like to live elsewhere. I was born here. That question does not tally with whether we provide a good health care. The fact is that we are all Singaporeans and the Government is the Singapore Government. It is the responsibility of the Government to provide health care. It has nothing to do with whether I would like to live here or elsewhere. The same goes for Singaporeans. BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Member well knows that the question has been asked and an answer has been avoided. Where would you prefer to live and whose health care system would you prefer to benefit from? You have complained about ours. Do you think you would be better off in Britain? China is free. Our neighbouring countries charge much less. The developed countries, you can live in a welfare state. He should be quite honest and tell us whether he thinks Singapore would be better if we were like China, if we were like the neighbouring countries, or if we were like the welfare states of the West, or like the United States. Then we have a basis for comparison. Otherwise, this is casting and cavilling, and getting us nowhere.”
“I would like to know what is BG Lee's proposal to weed out bad doctors. Is it waiting, as he has said, until a life has been sacrificed and thereby we have a disciplinary committee, and say, "Okay, you are out. You are a bad doctor." Is that the prevention the Government is talking about? Lastly, Sir, BG Lee talked about medicine. I understand now there is a "BG Lee's medicine". I am afraid that judging from his speech, BG Lee's medicine to Singaporeans is bitter and sour. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, we have gone through all these subjects. I think it is not necessary to answer Mr Low's points one by one. He can file questions and we can discuss them at length. I would just come back to the simple question to him: does he prefer to live elsewhere? If not, accept that we are living in a real world with a good system, not perfect, but not bad at all.”
“Sir, I would like to, first of all, clarify the point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister and seek clarification from him. I would advise the hon. Deputy Prime Minister that when he wants to quote cases, please be more accurate. First of all, it seems to me that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot even spell my name correctly. Secondly, I am surprised that he could only find two cases in my past service to the constituents in Hougang. I have written a number of cases involving Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Alexandra Hospital and Youngberg Hospital, requesting for waivers because the patients could not pay for the charges. Upon my request, they have been given a discount and instalment payments. In some of the cases, the instalments were not paid by themselves, but by their family members. You are telling me that there are no problems, it is affordable. Is it affordable in their case? Can you call it affordable? The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned in his speech that spending money in other areas, like defence, is more important than spending money in health care. I hope he would clarify what he meant by that. Does he mean that it is not important in terms of health care? He also mentioned in his speech about priority of treatment. I would like to know whether it is this Government's intention, from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that in future you will determine who will deserve treatment at B2 or C class subsidised wards. Is it the intention and motive behind the White Paper's philosophy that personal responsibility is part of the consideration in health care? Do you mean people should be responsible for their own sickness? He also mentioned something about bad doctors, and we should weed them out.”
“Clarification, Sir. Would the Minister confirm that kidney transplant is part of the basic package?”
“May I seek a clarification from the Minister, Sir? The Minister mentioned that 75% of C Class ward bills are below $420. Would the Minister provide the bill amounts for the B1 and B2 Class wards, and a detailed breakdown of the bill size for these wards?”
“AIDS is not necessarily self-inflicted. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That this Debate be now adjourned." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].”
“But it is not a personal responsibility. Let us make it clear. It is the individual's responsibility to keep himself healthy. If he can afford to pay, he pays. But it does not mean that when a person falls sick, it is his own responsibility to fall sick. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: I agree with Mr Low that when a person is sick, sometimes it is not because of his own responsibility.”
“How? Even if you exercise the whole day, you can still fall sick. How can he be responsible?”
“Sir, may I get confirmation from the Member that a person cannot be responsible for his own illness? An hon. Member: Why not?”
“I did not say that he should not pay for it, if he can afford it. The question is, you cannot treat that as a kind of responsibility. If he cannot afford, the Government should pay for it. You cannot treat that as consumption, and say, "Because you are a consumer, you pay." To me, health care is a need. Mr Loh Meng See: Am I correct to understand from Mr Low that he agrees that if a person can afford to pay he should be responsible enough to pay for his own medical bill to look after himself?”
“Sir, a person can be responsible for his own health by doing exercise or whatever, but it does not mean that he wants to get sick. On the one hand, a person can be responsible for his health. But how can a person be responsible for his own sickness?”
“I did not say that patients should not pay if they can afford to. In my speech, I am objecting mainly to the Government's philosophy to make the individual to be responsible for his sickness and treat health care purely as a consumption item.”
“Sir, may I clarify the part of my speech which Mr Loh Meng See quoted.”
“Sir, would the Minister of State identify certain precincts within old housing estates where the land is big enough to accommodate the same number of new 4-room flats as the existing 3-room flats? Also, HDB could conduct a survey, or by ballot, to find out whether the residents residing in a precinct would all agree to exchange for a 4-room economy flat. Will the Minister of State for National Development consider rebuilding and selling a 4-room flat at $36,000?”
“Sir, from what the Minister of State has explained about these subsidies, can I take it that it is possible for the owners of existing 3-room flats to exchange their old flats, with the payment of an additional $36,000, for an economy 4-room flat in the same location?”
“Does the Member agree that the Government should help the weaker members of our society?”
“Sir, may I have a point of clarification with the Nominated Member? Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order. I think he is out of order. What have human rights got to do with the Cost Review Committee Report?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister? I have the impression from his speech that it seems that Singaporeans are being accused of living a lifestyle which they have chosen, and then blame the Government for the cost increases. And when he talked about going to restaurants, having XO brandy, eating bananas or something else, I think Singaporeans do know that if they choose to live a certain lifestyle, they pay for it. But I think they have been living a lifestyle which they are incapable of carrying on or maintaining it. In the Minister's speech, he compares also the living standard now and in the past. Of course, no one denies the fact that it has improved. But the fact is that now you are living, let us say, in a 3-room flat, and if you do not live in an HDB 3-room flat, if your income is more than $800, where else do you live? You have no more slum to live in. So you have to live in a 3-room flat with the kind of expenditure and standard of living that you have now. Then you may find it is rather tight when it comes to the income that you have and thereby you find that costs have increased. That is how they feel.”
“Could I clarify? It could be that everybody is better off. But, eventually, you still suffer the kind of pressure. Yes, wages increase, coupled with increases in costs. But you are still struggling.”
“Sir, is it a fact that, in absolute terms, wage increases for the lower income group have been lower than the higher income group? From what I know, between 1980 and 1990, the wages of the lower income group only increased $350 compared to the higher income group of $3,680. So the lower income group, relatively speaking, is not better off by today's standard. Of course, I do not deny the fact that, generally, the whole of Singapore is better off. I do not deny that in terms of consumer durables, yes, we have improved. But please bear in mind that if you compare the lowest income group in developed countries, they also have these consumer durables. And we are looking forward to a developed country status - a Swiss standard of living. Sir, on the other hand, in terms of the middle-income groups, they are affected because of their lifestyle. They are affected also by other increases, especially the lower middle-income group. I believe it is because of their expectation and lifestyle in relation to their wages. I think they also may not be tightening their belts, but it is quite tight, I suppose.”
“That is the assumption of the Government. I hope it will be realised.”
“Sir, the point I wish to say here is that the Minister also accepts that CPI may not actually be able to measure accurately the cost of living. That is why I said we need a cost of living index. As regards income, it will not be captured in the CPI. Mr Dhanabalan: The point I am trying to make is that after the five years is over, and all the various rebates are withdrawn, incomes in real terms would have gone up very much more than the 3% GST. Assuming it is 4% real income growth a year, five years is 20%. Even if you take away the 3%, there will still be 17% increase in real incomes. Would you accept that?”
“First of all, the CPI captures only expenditure items. On the introduction of GST, the Minister for Finance has said that they will come out with a certain package to help the lower income group, like payment for S&C charges, rentals and so on. This is basically given as income. It will not be captured in the CPI. On the introduction of GST, it is expected that prices will increase by about 3%. The prices will increase. Actually, this group of people who are helped by the Government do not pay the price. CPI will track the price movements. Five years later, this assistance will be withdrawn. They actually have to pay. And this payment will not be captured in the CPI. The CPI will show whatever is the price. The people who actually did not pay for the first five years on the introduction of GST because of the assistance, later on, they will have to actually pay a higher price. That was what I meant.”
“Does the Minister agree that it also under-estimates the inflation for certain income groups?”
“Sir, the CPI is a macro indicator. It represents income from $500 to $4,999. My understanding is that the CPI does not capture the lower end of the income group.”
“Sir, of course, based on expenditure group, it will more or less be in favour of the lower income. That is why I mentioned, in the analysis of groups, that possibly the income group between $2,000 and $4,000 may actually be affected. As regards the impact, the lower income group, because their income is lower, will suffer also from inflation in relation to their income.”
“On the question of significance, it depends on what you mean by "significant"? For a macro indicator like CPI, I believe even a minor increase in the inflation rate is significant. I will give you a simple example. For instance, 0.5% of the interest rate on $3,000 and $3 million, I think the significance is totally different.”
“Would the Minister refer to pages 184 to 186? I did not only point out one point to come to the conclusion, but there are several points there which led to my conclusion. As regards the simulation, it did, in fact, show a higher inflation rate.”
“Why can we not have COL? If it is relevant to us and the circumstances in Singapore, I think we can have it.”