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 51 of 54.
“Sir, in regard to the COL, I am not convinced with the methodology used by the university lecturer. When he presented his case in the Committee, the method and the components which he used to compile the COL were not exactly what I meant in my proposal about the cost of living indicators. As regards the point that no country in the world uses COL, I would like to remind the Minister that I believe no country in the world has COE also. But we have it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member before I speak? I would like to know whether Dr Tan has completed his mortgage payment of his bungalow.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. I am happy to know that the Minister has said that GST is not likely to increase even after the five-year period.”
“You are doing that. Okay. As regards my allegation that the Government is growing stronger, it is not an allegation. It is my worry. I am not alleging that the Government is growing stronger. The Minister says that the Government has control on manpower. It is indeed a very good measure to keep cost down. But I notice that the cost of the Government has been going up. In the previous budget debate, I pointed out that manpower expenditure in Government had been increasing at quite a tremendous rate. As to whether GST will eventually become a money-making machine, I am happy that the Government has assured, and the Prime Minister himself has assured this House and Singaporeans, that if there is an excess in tax, it will be returned to the people. With cautious spending, I hope Singaporeans will not be made to suffer too much with GST.”
“My point is that, in my perception, there will be no extra income growth, because we are talking about competitiveness. In that case, with the normal income growth, how much more can the taxpayers benefit with GST? Because eventually, after five years, when some of the offset package are withdrawn, they will have to pay for certain of these things: income tax, company tax, as well as the GST. In that light, I question whether or not Singaporeans will really benefit from them. As regards the compounded effect, I am just showing, by way of the table, an example that this could happen. The fact is that GST is a tax on the selling price. First of all, you will not ask a trader whether his selling price is inclusive of GST before he increases the price. If this is the selling price, GST will be imposed on the selling price. My understanding is that GST will be imposed on the selling price. So if a trader were to add on, how would the Government know whether or not the selling price is inclusive of the GST? Unless the Government is willing to separate the GST component from the selling price.”
“Yes. It is not that I do not understand or I close my eyes and ears to the Government's explanation on GST. But I am not so convinced that GST will not have an impact on Singaporeans. It is my opinion and this is my worry. I have taken the position that I am against it, and I did not even want to sit on the Select Committee on the GST Bill. Nevertheless, it is my concern and Singaporeans' concern. I will express it here again. As regards zero-rating, which the Minister has pointed out, I wish to point out that in the developed countries, there are items being widely zero-rated. I also know that there are complaints from some organisations, like the handicapped association, that they will be disadvantaged because certain items are not zero-rated, and this may seem to be not fair to them. Of course, I am not talking about zero-rating luxury items. I am talking about necessities. Of course, clothing is a general term. It is subject to interpretation. As regards the regressive nature of GST, I am referring to the relative income of the lower income group and what they have to spend. The lower income group spends more on necessities. They have so much income and that is all. Whereas the higher income group has more money to spend. They can decide whether or not they want to spend. If they spend more they will be taxed more, and if they spend less they will be taxed less. In that relation, I say it is regressive. Moreover, some of the Government's help to the lower income family, which has been outlined by the Minister for Finance, are, to a certain extent, actually hand-outs. That proves that the Government also recognises that GST is actually regressive in nature. The Minister also mentioned that income will grow. Of course, income will grow.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I reply to the Minister?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek a confirmation from the Member for Eunos GRC? I heard just now the Member say that he urged the Government to adjust subsidy rates to offset cost increases. Could he confirm that was what he said?”
“Can I take it from the Minister of State that the subsidy of HDB flats is the difference between the HDB selling price and market rate?”
“Can I have a clarification from the Minister of State, Sir? Just one point.”
“Would the Minister confirm that the Government-owned companies will not be holding more than 3% of the shares as stipulated by the rule?”
“Sir, since MND Holdings and Temasek Holdings, which are wholly Government-owned companies, are exempted from this 3% rule, and a high percentage of this shareholding of SPH would be owned by Government-owned companies, would this undermine public confidence on the neutrality of the newspapers under SPH?”
“So MND Holdings and Temasek Holdings will be exempted from this 3% rule.”
“Including the Government-owned companies?”
“Would the Minister say what percentage of SPH shares the Government-owned companies until now, as a whole, will be allowed to hold?”
“Would the Minister say what is the time frame for MND Holdings and Temasek Holdings to sell the shares to Singaporeans?”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that other mother tongues like Malay and Tamil also have economic value in view of the fact that the majority of our neighbours are speaking Malay and we may have business with India also? Dr Ker Sin Tze: Yes, we apply the same reason and the same consideration.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister, in his reply, mentioned about insufficient number of fax machines and the reporting procedure. Was there any simulation exercise conducted prior to the counting to ensure that the procedure set out by the Elections Department and provision of fax machines are adequate?”
“Sir, were the returns from all the group counting centres shown to the two candidates concerned at the Conference Hall Counting Centre?”
“At what time did all the returns come in?”
“Sir, could the Prime Minister say what was the time the last counting station completed the counting of votes? When did all the returns from the group counting centres come in at the Conference Hall Counting Centre?”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned about the restructuring of SBC Channel 12 programmes. I would like to know whether Chinese opera programmes will continue to be aired through that Channel or will it be cut down.”
“Does the Minister agree that broken families - they may be divorced for to one reason or another - also need the same help as those families which are intact?”
“Sir, what is the rationale behind the eligibility criteria that those who are divorced will not be qualified? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: This Scheme is intended to help small families upgrade and get out of their poverty trap. It is not intended to help families to become separated. So we should therefore focus the resources of the Scheme on helping to keep families intact, because it is only when the family is intact, can they give the full attention and care to the children.”
“Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about the right of reply. Could he confirm that the local media also adhere to the same principle of right of reply?”
“Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about harmful effect. Could he elaborate further in this instance what is the harmful effect?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say something in Mandarin?”
“Sir, I have two questions to ask the Minister. What is the rationale for requiring pawnbrokers to pay the surplus to the Accountant-General? Secondly, would the Minister consider donating this surplus, which is payable to the Accountant-General, to a charitable organisation in Singapore? I consider this payment of surplus to the Accountant-General as extra income for the Government.”
“Sir, what is the return that the Deputy Prime Minister expects from this project? As the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the main objective of SLF is to provide social amenities and improve the status of workers in Singapore, how would these investments in a foreign land cater to the needs of Singaporean workers and thus serve the new objectives of SLF?”
“Is it true that though the fund was allocated to the CCCs, the Town Council uses the fund for their project development? The question here asks specifically for the amount for each project in each Town Council.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question asks for the "funds allocated to projects with town council participation and the amount given to each town council".”
“Sir, I think the question asked specifically for the amount given to each Town Council and for which projects were the funds given.”
“Sir, does the Minister mean that whether or not the housewife concerned contributes regularly to Medisave it will not be a main factor of consideration?”
“Sir, do I take it that the housewife concerned will be treated equally and not in terms of whether or not the husband has contributed to Medisave?”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that housewives who are looking after their children and families, and hence enabling their husbands to work with a peace of mind, are also contributing to society and the economy? If Medifund does not provide the same level of support, does the Minister not think that it is unfair and discriminating? And why is it necessary that it be tied to the husband's Medisave contribution?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer. First of all, on the question of belief. It is because I believe that GST is not good for the people that I objected to it and I do not want to sit in the Committee. The Select Committee cannot reject the Bill. It has already gone through the Second Reading stage in Parliament. You can only refine the Bill and, possibly, how to effectively implement GST. So it is incongruent and in conflict with the stand I have taken. As regards the Committee of Selection, in the United Kingdom there is also such a Committee. I do not deny the fact that this Committee selects Members for parliamentary committees. But in the UK, though there is this Committee, in the process of selection, members are consulted. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Member for Hougang, be discharged from the Select Committee on the Goods and Services Tax Bill. - [Mr Low Thia Khiang]. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”
“On the point of consultation, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for the answer. But I would like to add that, as a matter of courtesy, at least, I think, Members who are selected should be notified in advance, and their will be sought. As Mr Chiam has rightly pointed out, it is a question of will and freedom of choice. As regards my responsibility, I am aware of my responsibility as a Member of Parliament, and the fact that I did not object to sit on the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill. The whole question here is not a question of responsibility or whether you force an ox to drink water. It is a question of taking a position. It is a question of principle. We have objected to the Bill very strongly and to show that there is a clear stand, I think it is wrong for me to be in the Select Committee. That will confuse the members of the public, and that is a matter of public interest. It is not a matter of selfishness and neither is it a matter of party interest. Let us face it. Any Member of the PAP can say that he represents the national interest, but he should go against the PAP and vote against it if he thinks that a Bill or policy is not in the interest of the public.”
“So to be a member of this Select Committee will be inconsistent with the stand of the Workers' Party which is clearly against the implementation of the GST. Accordingly, my Party feels that I should ask to be discharged from the Select Committee. On the other hand, according to the procedure of the UK House of Commons, for appointment of Members to Select Committees, the Party Whip would normally be consulted first, and the party would then nominate its Members for appointment to the Select Committee concerned. But in Singapore, the appointee has absolutely no prior knowledge at all of his appointment to the Select Committee. The Parliamentary Committee of Selection does not consult the Members concerned before making the appointment. Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I know I am obliged to obey the decision of Parliament and to accept the assignments given to me by Parliament. However, when a Member has clearly stated that he is against the Bill in question and yet forced to be a Member of the Select Committee on that Bill, and compelled to participate in the process of improving the Bill, I think it is against the wishes of the appointee and it is unfair. Furthermore, the people will be very confused about the stand of the Member concerned. Just imagine, the Workers' Party and its Member in this House have clearly stated that they are against the GST, yet the same Member is sitting in the Select Committee to discuss how to more effectively collect GST from the people, and even to convince the people to accept GST. Is it not ridiculous? I therefore urge the House to consider my position and my predicament and discharge me from the Select Committee. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Member for Hougang, be discharged from the Select Committee on the Goods and Services Tax Bill." (In Mandarin): Sir, on 19th March 1993, when we were debating the Goods and Services Tax Bill, I made it very clear in my speech that I was against the implementation of the GST. The Workers' Party has also stated in the press that we were against the GST. However, after the Second Reading of the GST Bill, the Minister for Finance suddenly announced that I was appointed a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill. Then, in a manner as sudden as lightning, Parliament approved the appointment of the said Select Committee. My immediate feeling then was that acceptance of appointment as a Member of the Select Committee on the GST Bill would be contradictory to my stand. I also considered the fact that as a Member of Parliament I had certain responsibilities to the House for whatever duty it assigned to me. Therefore, I felt that I should consult the Central Committee of the Party before I made any decision. Regrettably, Parliament immediately approved the appointment of the Select Committee and I had no chance to make known my position. To the best of my knowledge, the main function of the Select Committee is to look into the details of the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Bill, and, if necessary, to make the necessary amendments thereto. There is no room for opposition to the principle of the Bill. It is also not possible to reverse the Bill which has already gone through its Second Reading. In other words, the Select Committee may even have to study and discuss how the GST could be effectively levied on the people.”
“How will civil servants, for example, teachers, who are presently under the pension scheme, be affected by the Bill? Does it mean that they can only enjoy their pension at the age of 60 years or older rather than at the age of 55 years?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a question I raised in my speech which the Minister has not answered. Can I repeat my question?”
“One clarification, Sir. The Minister just now mentioned that it will observe how the new system works under the Presidential Elections. Would the Minister tell this House when would the Presidential Elections be held?”
“Sir, now I understand why some Members think I am wrong. They think that the figures were based on the price increase together with GST, and I did not separate them. They are assuming that when price increases, the increased price should be separate from the GST. This means that the calculation should minus the 3% GST, and take the original price and increase from there. But, in actual fact, when a shop or organisation increases the price, it will add the increase to the existing price, which comprises GST, and the fact remains that the higher the price, the more GST Government will collect.”
“What is the difference if you impose now or later, because you still need to increase, and the impact will still be there.”
“Clarifications for the Minister, Sir. First, does the Government need to increase the GST rate under the unfavourable situation when it arises which the Minister described just now, even if the GST is imposed now? Second, does the Minister agree that when the GST rate needs to be increased under that situation, the impact would be not much different regardless of whether the GST is imposed now or later? Third, the Government's measures to help the lower-income group will decline in value. What is the Minister's assessment of its effect on the lower-income group when these measures become zero effect and when this cushion becomes hard? As regards the Table on private consumption expenditure, is it based on current price? And is it factored into the computation that when these prices increase the expenditure will also increase correspondingly?”
“Sir, I hope the priority on ERP will not be based on Opposition or PAP considerations. Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I have a clarification for the Minister. First, is the Minister saying that the COE will remain even if the ERP is in place? Secondly, the Minister mentioned about priority in determining congestion at defined areas. What is the basis for priority? The Minister mentioned about necessity. I think we should distinguish between who needs to have a car and who does not. I hope the system will be able to distinguish that. For instance, people who are handicapped may need a car to travel. People who are salesmen need a car obviously more than a person who is doing office work, who just drives and parks his car. At the end of the day, he drives back home.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA01989003. (In Mandarin) Sir, by 1992, the Government has spent more than $8 million on the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. However, up till now, neither the Government nor the Minister has given us any progress report on this ERP system. That is why I am moving this amendment to ask the Minister for Communications to tell us what is the progress on the Electronic Road Pricing system, when will it be implemented and how is it going to improve our road traffic system. I would also like to ask the Minister the following questions with the hope that he would consider my points when he starts to plan the implementation of this system: First, privacy of individuals. When the ERP system is implemented, I presume the system will record the movement of each vehicle, which roads it has passed and at what time, in order that the driver will be charged accordingly. In other words, the movement of the person driving the vehicle will be recorded. How is the Government going to ensure that this information will not be misused? Second, will public transport vehicles such as buses, taxis, school buses, etc. be exempted or granted concessionary rates under the system, so as to avoid any price increase by the operators? Third, will this ERP system take into consideration the necessity of the vehicles being used in business, by sales personnel or handicapped persons, where the use of a car is not a luxury but a necessity? For them, will there be a waiver or a concession under the pricing system? Lastly, will this ERP system be extended in future to cover car parks as well?”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Would the Ministry be hosting a lot of conferences this year because the expenditure has gone up so much? Would the Minister highlight some of the important conferences?”