Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer attached to a firm that practices criminal law. Sir, the long title of this Bill states that the changes will enhance the fairness of procedures and ensure correct and equitable outcomes in the criminal justice system. While I agree that the Bill carries important and progressive reforms, I do not think it is possible for any law to ensure correct and equitable outcomes in the criminal justice system. There will always be a risk of the innocent being convicted, the guilty being acquitted and victims being left without redress even with the best laws in place. Nevertheless, I do welcome the significant reforms being made to the CPC to give greater assurance of good and fair outcomes. In my speech, I will first highlight what I see as enhancements to the law, after which I will articulate some concerns which I believe the Ministry should address. The Bill has rightly slaughtered some longstanding and sacred cows. First, under clauses 6 and 7, the Bill provides for the video-recording of statements of an accused person during an investigation. This is something which practitioners, including myself, have called for over the last 10 years as this is an important safeguard, not just for the accused person but also beneficial for the state. Based on experiences in other countries, a video-recording will not only give some protection to the accused person from giving statements under pressure or duress, but it will also reduce the likelihood of frivolous allegations being made against investigators which, in turn, will save Court time. The Bill starts small, with compulsory video-recording applicable only to Third Schedule offences which, for a start, will mean only rape cases under section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code.”
“The former National Stadium was our nation’s primary venue for events, big and small, including the National Day Parades, and a source of national pride and connection. The $1.3 billion new Singapore Sports Hub, mooted as a replacement for this icon, was the biggest Public-Private-Partnership project at its inception, and was noted to have three cornerstones: an integrated hub for sports and entertainment, a commercially viable model, and a national and global icon. Since the beginning of operations in 2014, three years after its project, however, the Sports Hub has been plagued with questions on these cornerstones. Even as it saw the opening of the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games in 2015, and the National Day Parade (NDP) in 2016, there were well-publicised disputes over management woes, consortium disagreements and even tensions between the Government and the consortium over the NDP. The NDP held in the Sports Hub in 2016 had a bill of $39.4 million, over double the bill for the NDP held at the Floating Platform in the past years, and only costing $1 million less than the SG50 NDP held at the Padang. Perhaps, it is little wonder that the Floating Platform is now mooted as the primary venue of the NDP, with its redevelopment to NS Square. Even as the Government preaches patience, can the Ministry explain what benchmark it is using to measure the Sports Hub’s viability and success? On the issue of the Hub’s cornerstone as a national icon, there seems to me a real risk that it might become a white elephant. Now that the NDP is not going to be held at the Sports Hub most of the time, how will the Government steer or nudge the Sports Hub to have a strong connection with Singaporeans at large?”
“Sir, I have nothing substantive to add to what I have already said. I have said in my speech earlier that I can accept that my suspicion may have been wrong. But I do not accept that my suspicion had no basis and I do not accept that I had failed or been derelict in my duty as an MP to this House. 10.21 am”
“Thank you, Speaker. I do not think the Minister for Finance was listening to my speech. I set out in my speech the basis for my suspicions, going through the chronology of events that led me, and not only me, others to have that suspicion. The Minister for Finance mentioned that, of course, Budget preparation is a secret and so on. And I think that is part of the whole issue. Only the Cabinet knows the truth. And as I said in my speech earlier, the Government has said it has refuted that they had any intention to raise the GST this year. I do not know the truth so I can accept that I may have been wrong. But I do not accept that my suspicion had no basis. And I do not apologise.”
“I thought I made it very clear that I am not retracting.”
“Sir, I think it is clear where we stand and I would just like to make it plain what my position is. I do not see any reason for me to retract the statements which I made during the exchanges with the Ministers. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, there was a sequence of events which led me to have that suspicion, contributed to by the Government. And secondly, Sir, I will not apologise to this House because I believe that I was doing my duty as an MP in the Constitutional role that we have been elected into, to give the Government the forum to account to the people. And for that, I make no apology.”
“Thank you, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to respond. I would just like to make two points at this stage, depending on where the Speaker wants to take this debate. If the Government had, indeed, been so clear of its intentions not to raise GST before 2021, why is it that the public was so worried that this would happen? Why was it that the economists came up with reports after the Prime Minister's speech at the PAP Convention to predict that the GST rate would be increased in this Budget? Are they all dishonest and hypocritical? Secondly, perhaps we can get some clarification from the Leader on the standards expected in this House. And I would like to quote this statement from Cabinet which was made in the House quite recently. I begin the quote, "If MPs believe that something is wrong, it is MP's job to pursue the facts and make these allegations in their name, decide whether something seems to be wrong and if you think something is wrong, even if you are not fully sure, then come to this House, confront the Government, ask for explanations and answers." This is a quote from Prime Minister Lee during the closing debate on 38 Oxley Road. So, I would like the Leader to clarify. Is there a difference in standard here? One standard when the Prime Minister's name needs to be cleared and another standard when we are talking about raising taxes on the people?”
“What is notable is that nowhere in the discussions just before Budget 2018 did the Government publicly commit that it would not raise GST before 2021. This was only announced on 19 February 2018 during the Budget Statement. As an Opposition Member of Parliament (MP), it is my duty to watch every move and signal from the Government for the future of Singapore and the welfare of Singaporeans. Hence, I admit that I did suspect that the Government intended to raise the GST. However, the Government contributed to this suspicion by its non-denial of reports and economists' predictions of an immediate GST rise. Based on the sequence of events, I believed that the Government could have intended to raise the GST at this Budget. Thus, during the heat of the exchanges at the Budget Round-up, I articulated my suspicion. In doing so, I believe I was doing my duty as an MP to convey ground concerns, reactions and confusion. I did not accuse the Government of being untruthful as alleged, and neither had I intended to accuse the Government of dishonesty. I do not accept the over-characterisation the PAP MPs have put on my words and intentions, based on their own interpretation borne out of over-active imaginations and over-sensitivity. Since the Government has now refuted that it had any intention to raise GST immediately, I can accept that my suspicion then may not have been correct.”
“Literally, these announcements concerning tax increases set off public discussion and speculation. Three days later, on 22 November 2017, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued a statement that Prime Minister Lee's announcement at the PAP Convention was in line with a much earlier statement made by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman when he was Finance Minister in 2015. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman had then said that the revenue measures that the Government had already undertaken would provide sufficiently for increased spending planned until the end of the decade. In reporting the MOF statement, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) commented as follows, and I quote, "The Ministry's statement came after Mr Lee's comments on the impending tax hike triggered public discussion that the Government is making a U-turn." MOF further stated that planning for the issue now would allow the Ministry to, and I quote, "better ease in the needed measures and to give our people and businesses some time to adjust". The MOF statement did not definitively say that there would be no tax increase in this Budget. The fact is, raising taxes in the Budget and only announcing it in the Budget Statement was what the Government had done in the past. Hence, the uncertainty over whether taxes and, in particular, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be raised in this Budget continued even after the MOF statement. This was further fuelled when MOF officeholders kept up the discussion on raising taxes in the immediate run-up to the Budget Statement, saying they were working on when. Prominent economists went on record to predict that the GST rate would be raised in 2018 or 2019. Such economists included those from the United Overseas Bank (UOB), Ernst & Young and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS).”
“Thank you, Speaker. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the House on Tuesday, 6 March, I wish to make my Statement. I had written to Speaker on Monday evening, 5 March, to inform him that I wish to make a statement in the House concerning the exchanges I had with Ministers Heng Swee Keat and Shanmugam during the Budget Round-up on 1 March. The next morning, on Tuesday, 6 March, Speaker informed me that the Leader of the House also wished to make a statement on the matter. I was not informed of when the Leader would do so. The Leader subsequently made a statement that same morning at the start of the Sitting while I was on my way to Parliament. She has extended a copy of her statement to me by email. Speaker, Sir, after the debate on 1 March, I had time to track back what led me to have the impression and suspicions I articulated during the exchanges with the Ministers. I would like to share these findings. Since 2013, the Prime Minister had said that our expected increases in spending would require more tax revenue. Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat had also made a similar statement in last year's Budget, saying that the Government was studying how it would raise revenue through new taxes or raising tax rates. These statements were very general and did not specify any timeframe for the raising of taxes. In November 2017, during the People's Action Party (PAP) Convention, Prime Minister Lee announced definitively that the Government would be raising taxes as Government spending on investments and social services grew. He further stated that Finance Minister Heng was right when he said raising taxes was not a matter of whether but when. The Prime Minister's statement was made on 19 November 2017 with the Budget Statement for 2018 just three months away.”
“Finally, the United Kingdom (UK) in 2017 set up its Healthcare Safety Investigation branch, an independent body to conduct no-fault reviews of incidents to enhance patient safety and knowledge sharing across healthcare institutions. How are we doing this here? Personalised Medication and DNA Edit”
“Sir, over the years, I occasionally encountered residents dissatisfied with the quality of care received at our public hospitals. Their grievances range from an unexpected death in hospital, to a physical accident while conveying a patient, causing patient injury. In cases of unexpected death, the Coroner and the Police are likely to be activated, ensuring a strong measure of independence into the inquiry. However, in non-fatal cases, the hospital is usually the one which conducts an investigation or review into the incident. As the hospitals are investigating their own handling of patients, a question that arises would be: what safeguards are there to ensure there is independence injected into the review process? How far is input from patients or next-of-kin sought in such investigations? Will the patient or his representative have the opportunity to contradict evidence presented by the staff? What role does the Ministry itself play in ensuring that hospital investigations are fair and transparent to patients? In a 2004 article entitled "Quest for Quality Care and Patient Safety", MK Lim of the National University of Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Medicine noted that Singapore had more than 10 years ago, moved to a broader concept of quality assurance in healthcare that included the monitoring of clinical indicators and medical errors. According to him, what was lacking then included public involvement and patient empowerment. Have we made any improvements in these areas? I am aware that MOH has since moved on and now has a healthcare performance group that oversees clinical quality and care effectiveness. Could the Ministry tell us more about the priorities of this group?”
“Do these reasons indicate that there is some lack of understanding of how the LPA works? 1.45 pm Eldercare Leave”
“Chairman, Sir, according to section 31 of the Mental Capacity Act, the Public Guardian has a total of 11 functions that are geared towards enabling and protecting persons who lack mental capacity. These functions include setting up and maintaining a register of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), setting up and maintaining a register of Court orders that appoint deputies, receiving reports from donees and deputies, and investigating any alleged violation of any provision in the Mental Capacity Act, including complaints about the way in which donees and deputies are exercising their powers. Given the many onerous functions of the Public Guardian, I would like to find out how many staff work in the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) and whether there is enough manpower to handle the work. To illustrate, OPG has, in recent months, written to applicants to register LPAs that it would take longer than the preferred 15 to 20 working days to review their applications due to a greater than expected volume of LPA applications. I know of one case where an LPA sent to OPG for registration is still pending after three months. Such delays might also have serious consequences, if the donor's mental state is fast deteriorating and he becomes mentally incapable while his LPA application is pending for registration by OPG. I am concerned that if the function of registration is already backlogged, how does the OPG carry out the other more difficult functions, such as investigating alleged violations of the Act? Sir, I also note from the OPG's website that there is a list of Revoked LPAs that is updated periodically. As at 28 February 2018, the number of Revoked LPAs was recorded as 1,841. Does the Ministry know what the common reasons were for the donors to revoke their LPAs?”
“Chairman, Sir, Singapore has acceded to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which defines children as persons below the age of 18. Being a signatory, Singapore is obliged to take all measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. Our Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) currently only protects youths up to the age of 16. This means that youths between 16 and 18 do not enjoy the Act’s protections, such as not having their particulars published in the media and having more sentencing options. In February 2017, an interagency committee chaired by the Attorney-General's Chambers submitted a number of recommendations to the Government, including the recommendation to raise the CYPA cut-off age from 16 to 18. One year on, has the Government come to any conclusions on doing so, and when will this be effected? If not, what are some issues the Government is grappling with? Enhancing Intervention for Child Neglect”
“While it would be ideal if all disputes between neighbours could be resolved through mediation, much depends on the nature of the problem and whether there are structural issues involved. It is not my intention to criticise BCA, as I am aware of the good and efficient work it is doing in many areas. The fact is that residents look to BCA to uphold standards in construction works. Developing the Railway Corridor”
“Chairman, Sir, home owners, from time to time, will redevelop the houses they own. Sometimes, the works on landed property will involve breakaway works, when, for example, a semi-detached house is redeveloped to become a bungalow, or an intermediate terrace house is redeveloped as a corner terrace. These works involve breakaways from another house. I have observed a few cases in my ward where such breakaway works have caused significant difficulties and anguish to neighbours, that is, the houses that are exposed after the detachment. One problem would be water seepage, as a party wall that formerly separated two adjoining houses would now become an exposed blank wall. Another concern that has arisen is whether works done by one party have affected the structural integrity of the neighbour's remaining party wall. URA and BCA have issued a very helpful advisory guide entitled "Be Good Neighbours" that provides useful guidance on how home owners should go about doing their rebuilding works. It is stated that due consideration should be given to neighbours, such as doing Pre-construction Surveys of properties nearby and asking a Professional Engineer (PE) to conduct an Impact Assessment. The guide understandably spends a few pages on Breakaway works, due to the potential difficulties with newly exposed walls and roof structures. When problems arise, for example, seepage occurs in the neighbour's home, how will BCA approach the issue? How far does BCA rely on the Qualified Persons engaged by the project owners to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, or will it actively investigate?”
“So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOF actually has any specific parameters for Temasek as to certain things that should or would not be condoned as investments. I understand, by comparison, the Norwegian Government has got certain excluded investments. I would like to ask whether MOF also has something similar with its investment companies.”
“Chairman, I have got three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on the role of Temasek and also MOF. Earlier on, in her reply, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that Temasek was very active in promoting good governance, for example, by conducting seminars, training and so on. I think that is more on a general level. But she did not touch on whether Temasek had been active in, for example, querying suspicious practices in the companies that they invest in. So, I would like to ask her whether she is aware whether Temasek has been playing that role, specifically to query what has been going on in some of its portfolio companies. That is the first clarification. The second clarification is, in my speech as well as in her response, the Senior Minister of State did mention the Chinese New Year lunch sharing that the Chairman of Temasek had recently, where it was quite clear from his speech that corruption is an out of bound (OB) marker now specifically expressed as something that Temasek would not want to tolerate. Is she aware of any other unethical practices that are OBs for Temasek? For example, do they avoid investing in companies that promote unclean energy or promote tobacco, for example? Is she aware of any other OB markers for Temasek to invest in? And, finally, the third clarification is: on the role of the Ministry itself, as the sole shareholder of Temasek, I think at least Mr Lim Boon Heng accepts that Temasek is flying Singapore's flag and, if anything were to happen that affects the reputation of its portfolio companies, our country's reputation would be affected as well.”
“While the Santiago Principles require that SWFs like Temasek be operationally independent from their owners, that is, MOF, how has MOF worked with Temasek on areas, such as its investment policies or otherwise, to maintain ethics? Will MOF add further accountability for Temasek on the ethics front? I am of the view that reputational challenges to Singapore’s integrity as a country should not be left to be steered by what is legally just a commercial entity. Role of Temasek Holdings and GIC”
“Chairman, Sir, back in 2008, the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) was part of the pioneering effort to develop the Santiago Principles, a common global set of 24 voluntary guidelines that assign best practices for the operations of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs). These principles address concerns about visibility, accountability and the governing structure of SWFs, and include ethics and professionalism in the ability to follow foreign rules. Though Temasek does not direct business decisions or operations in its portfolio companies, it pitches itself as an active promoter of sound corporate governance in them. As a sole shareholder of Temasek, the Government should naturally be concerned that the entities in Temasek invest and adhere to the spirit of the Santiago Principles in order to safeguard Singapore's Reserves and international reputation. To this end, it was reported yesterday that Temasek has now taken some steps in tackling corruption within its portfolio companies with Chairman Lim Boon Heng announcing a roundtable "in the next few months" focusing on questions of governance and ethics. Turning to what other countries have done, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global has led the way. Through an ethics council established in 2004, companies that are unethical are excluded from its investment portfolio. It appointed a corporate governance advisory board in 2013 to be a more engaged and more responsible investor. The Oil Fund has tackled issues, such as high executive pay, by voting against pay proposals at Alphabet JP Morgan and Volkswagen in 2017.”
“Chairman, Sir, in reply to a 2013 Parliamentary Question (PQ) on measuring social mobility, the Government highlighted only two types of metrics: percentages of Singaporeans who did not complete secondary education as well as post-secondary education, and growth in the median gross monthly income from work. Some governments, notably the United Kingdom (UK), have developed a dashboard of social mobility indicators based on a lifecycle framework. The objective is to make life chances more equal at the critical points for social mobility, such as early childhood development, school readiness at age five, secondary school attainment, opportunities for tertiary education and getting into and on in the labour market. I would like to ask the Minister for Education whether the Government monitors indicators at critical points in a person’s development that contribute to mobility, such as early childhood development, and how do our current indicators compare with countries with comprehensive dashboards, such as the UK? Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS)”
“Do developments with private international law as well present new opportunities for Singapore lawyers or that arise from clients in India or other ASEAN countries, as an example? Finally, Mr Chairman, are steps being taken by the Ministry and the Singapore Academy of Law to harness the potential of law and technology? Specifically, what may be the role of lawyers and how are lawyers encouraged to play a role in emerging areas of the regional technology space as well as Smart Nation, as we could see from the cuts that were filed yesterday? Optimisation of Land Resources”
“On a more general level, does the Government plan to increase the number of countries which Singapore has extradition agreements with? Currently, Singapore has arrangements with 40 declared Commonwealth countries, as well as bilateral agreements with the US, Germany and Hong Kong, which makes only 43 out of nearly 200 countries. Does the Government find it an acceptable coverage? The Rule of International Law Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, international law has been described as a shield for Singapore as a small island-state as well as the occasional sword as well. Could the Ministry update us on our current interstate international law disputes and if public international law remains exclusively important for Singapore? We called in the Permanent Court of Arbitration that administered the land dispute resolution as it is the amicable enforcement of this award that helped to pave the way for us to work with our immediate neighbour on the Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail Network as well. In addition to interstate disputes, could we know the Government's position on investor-state dispute settlement, and if the Ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) have taken steps to safeguard our sovereign regulatory space against investors' claims? How does international trade law, on the other hand, help the Government to respond to announcements of fresh tariffs by the US Government that have been recently announced, but in consultation with the US, and also on negotiations of the next-generation mega regional agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)?”
“Sir, the rationale for extradition arrangements is long-standing. Offenders who manage to leave the countries where the offences were committed should not escape justice. At the same time, countries that do not have extradition arrangements with others risk becoming magnets for fugitives, which will affect their own security and reputation. Understandably, one cannot rush into concluding extradition agreements. According to the Government, besides the need for a mutual desire for extradition arrangements, the compatibility of the two legal systems is another consideration. In September 2016, Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah told the House that as far as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was concerned, there was a model ASEAN Extradition Treaty being worked on, which would function as a sort of template to enable ASEAN members to enter bilateral arrangements. While I can understand that ASEAN member states overall have very different legal systems, does this mean that there is no plan or desire for an ASEAN-wide mutual recognition of arrest warrants? One only needs to look at the case involving David Roach to illustrate the ASEAN challenge. Roach was suspected of committing a bank robbery in Singapore in July 2016, one-and-a-half years ago. He escaped to our ASEAN neighbour, Thailand, was arrested and convicted of other offences under Thai law and is only now being extradited from London to Singapore because he was being deported from Thailand to his home country, Canada, via London. With the move towards greater ASEAN integration, the fact that such suspects can go to a fellow ASEAN country to escape justice does not seem acceptable.”
“Chairman, separate surveys completed by researchers in a university and a private polling firm indicate that Singaporeans have greater ambivalence, less interest and less sense of belonging towards ASEAN, compared to our ASEAN partners. According to one of these surveys, only 13% of Singaporean respondents indicated an interest in ASEAN news and information. There is indifference and even scepticism towards ASEAN, even though there is some acknowledgement that the grouping benefits Singapore in terms of economic opportunities and regional stability. I find these results not satisfactory, since our future is inextricably linked to the success of ASEAN. Given that these views are about how Singapore relates to and interacts with our closest neighbours – countries with which Singapore has to work with closely with on various issues. I wonder if such sentiments and ignorance might harm Singapore in the longer term. I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he thinks that the relatively low opinion of ASEAN among Singaporeans is of concern for Singapore’s foreign policy and interests. May I request that the Minister share with the House the reasons why he thinks this issue is anything to be worried about? I would also like to ask the Minister if he intends to do anything to promote more positive views of ASEAN among Singaporeans, especially given the fact that Singapore is serving as ASEAN Chair this year. If the Minister wishes to pursue such action, I would like to invite him to explain what these initiatives are. I would also appreciate the Minister informing this House about how he expects such plans to continue past Singapore’s chairing of ASEAN, and how they relate to the ASEAN Social Cultural Community. Human Tragedy in and around Rakhine State”
“One recent example is the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) when, in a 2017 Court case, the Government tried to claim that it was a person entitled to seek relief under POHA. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal as invalid because nowhere in the Second Reading speech of the Minister was Parliament told that the Act was intended to apply to persons who were not human beings and not vulnerable. Public Service”
“In recent times, there were instances when laws seemed to be rushed. For instance, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill was only put up on the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) portal after it was presented in Parliament for First Reading and a petition filed on this Bill was somehow not sent to the Public Petitions Committee. While a Ministry may certainly choose to adopt other methods of consultation, for example, closed-door focus groups or stakeholder discussions, I would say that this should not replace an open consultation on the actual Bill if the Government wants to have a bigger buy-in, especially in controversial matters. I next move to the Parliament stage. There seems to me some scope for improvement, too. Regarding the explanatory statement to Bills, sometimes, we find explanatory statements that simply repeat the wording of the Bill without explaining how the clauses will improve things. On the other hand, we do see some more helpful explanatory statements. A recent example is the Public Sector (Governance) Bill where it was stated that the clause setting out the Minister's powers over public bodies was necessary due to inconsistencies in existing legislation and to avoid duplication. Here, an attempt is made to give a reason for the new law. One useful initiative is the ongoing pilot by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to show the changes made by Bills in tracked mode, but I believe this is currently only available to MPs. I hope this can be available to the public to facilitate greater understanding of changes made. Finally, Ministers' statements to Parliament at the Second Reading of Bills should be as clear as possible.”
“Sir, while Singaporeans elect the Government and their Members of Parliament (MPs) to make laws, there are benefits in consulting outside this Chamber and putting out the Government's intentions well before Bills come to Parliament. First, policymakers and lawmakers may not be able to foresee gaps and unintended consequences. Secondly, opportunities to the general public to participate and comment on draft laws will foster greater trust between the Government, Parliament and citizens. It will build confidence that policies were not being rushed and that citizens could participate meaningfully in policymaking. To this end, I would like to ask if there is a guideline or standard operating procedure (SOP) on how Ministries should approach law-making. I would divide my discussion into two parts: the pre-Parliament stage and the Parliament stage. First, the pre-Parliament stage. When is public consultation on a Bill a must and when is public consultation deemed not needed? There are many positive examples of public consultations where a Ministry would publicise the consultation and invite public comments on draft legislation, after which it publishes a summary of the comments received and the Ministry's responses. Are there any guidelines about the consultation period? It goes without saying that the consultation period should give sufficient time for people to respond. The recent consultation on the Films (Amendment) Bill illustrates the problem when the consultation period was too short, initially for a period of about 11 days in the month of December, which is generally a month where persons may also travel. It was sensible then that the Ministry extended the consultation period after request from the public.”
“Speaker, to make clear, we are unable to support the announcement on the GST hike.”
“Yes, Sir, I thought I made it clear earlier that we support this Budget, as far as the measures in the Budget go. But the GST announcement was an announcement which is not being implemented in this Budget. So, in accordance with the usual procedure, I do not think we are voting on the announcement; we are voting on the measures.”
“Sir, I have listened to the Finance Minister's response. I still feel that there is nothing wrong with what I have said. But I have noted his answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege. And if I recall earlier debates, even People's Action Party (PAP) MPs were encouraged to come to the House to convey even rumours, so that the Government has the opportunity to refute them. This is the value of this Chamber. I do not agree with the Minister that I am somehow not up to standards. This is what we as Members of Parliament have to do to get better clarity on matters of public interest. Of course, the Government can rebut our speeches robustly – that is fine. But I do not think I am disentitled to come to Parliament to advance honestly-held beliefs or suspicions.”
“Sir, I clearly said that it was my suspicion. I clearly said that. You can check the Hansard. And it is my honest suspicion.”
“Sir, I never said that the Government behaved dishonestly. I said that the Government is stuck with the announcement that they have enough money for the decade.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Law Minister for his questions. I can understand why he wants to accuse me of various things, because he probably was not happy about past debates where I had disagreed with some of his legislative changes, and in typical fashion, he always accuses me of dishonesty, when, as far as I am concerned, I acted honestly. Sir, the basis for my statement was that it is my belief that the announcements by the Government earlier on, that they had enough revenues for this term of Government, have now tied their hands as to when the GST increase can kick in. One can look at the principles that our Government uses for budgeting, which are usually very conservative, and we also have heard the Finance Minister talk about the fact that we must be prepared for all contingencies, so, if those announcements had not been made, we may be facing a GST increase in this Budget Statement. As to the chronology of events that the Minister recited, I do not have them on hand, I have to go back and check – to be fair to him – but this is my honest belief.”
“But I think the Minister can clarify that it is not quite like that. Land sales actually include many leases which do come back to the Government after the tenure of the lease. It is not a case of it being gone forever. Or even 10 years for the commercial leases. Finally, my last clarification is, the Minister pointed out about the social mobility insofar as educational attainment of 15-year-olds in the performance of science in the PISA report to say that our poorer students are doing better than their poor counterparts in the OECD countries. I have filed a Parliamentary Question on this before. But I think the report also highlights that as far as equity is concerned, our poorer students seem to be further behind our richer students − the gap internally, domestically − compared to the OECD countries. So, is it not really comforting for our poorer students to tell them that they are doing better than their poorer counterparts in other countries when really, in their class, they are actually further behind them, on the average?”
“It may be seven years from today. And, of course, we do note that in the run-up to the Budget discussion, there were some test balloons being floated up about the fact that the Government needs to raise revenue. And immediately the public seized on the fact that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman and perhaps other leaders had earlier said that the Government has enough money for the decade. So, the public pointed out, "Hey, you know, is this a contradiction?" And I rather suspect, myself, that the Government is stuck with that announcement. Otherwise, if the announcement had not been made, perhaps we would be debating a GST hike today. Earlier on, Minister Heng also said that the Government has not made a decision on when, because it has itself to look at prevailing conditions, economic conditions and also our needs at that time. Fair enough. Similarly, I do not think we will be in a position to take a stand on that until the information is available at the relevant point in time. So, I think it is ridiculous for the Government to expect us, as a responsible Party, to support something when all the information is still not available and we do not have a crystal ball. Related to that, I should clarify, in case anybody misunderstands, that it is our intention to support the Budget when the vote is called but this should not be mistaken as a support for this announcement of some possible GST hike in a later Budget. It should not be mistaken as such. The third clarification, I think the Minister touched on why it is not prudent to use land sales as part of Government revenue. This is an issue that we have debated before. But the analogy he gave was, we have five parcels of land and if every few years, we sell one parcel, there will be none left.”
“Yes, Sir, I have clarifications for the Finance Minister. I have four clarifications for the Finance Minister. But before that, I would like to thank him for touching briefly on longitudinal studies. I will be taking this matter up further with MOE at the COS. On the first clarification, the Finance Minister referred to Mr Low Thia Khiang's speech yesterday. I am sorry Mr Low is rushing to Parliament right now after attending to some family matters. And he mentioned that somehow, the Workers' Party was not being upfront because we did not want the Government to distract this debate by announcing the GST. Now, if I heard him correctly, actually, his speech was focused on supporting the Government's accurate identification of the challenges going forward with becoming a Global-Asia node and so on. He did actually specifically say that it is fine for the Government to announce the GST hike, or intended hike, in advance of time and we can actually have a separate debate about it. His main point was that by doing it in this Budget, it distracts the debate from the other things that are being done in the Budget because everybody is focusing on this thing which is not even a Budget measure. So, that is the first thing. And of course, there was a bit of a cut and thrust about whether we should debate it at the election rally and we do welcome the early announcement because we think the voters should also make a decision on this. The second clarification is about the Party position on the announcement of the GST – and I think Mr Pritam Singh may also elaborate on this further – about why it was said by him that we cannot support the announcement at this point in time. Now, the Government itself is not definitive about when this is going to happen.”
“Very briefly, Sir. I would like to clarify with Mr Ang Wei Neng that I never said that the Government is not doing anything, and I do not disagree with him that there are schemes available to help the lower-income. My question was: what efforts have been made by the Government to study the longitudinal fate of families over time? Also, there are some care gaps, for example, workers who work shifts. What care arrangements can be made for the children at night? These are things that we need to discuss further. So, I just wanted to clarify that point.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Government Whip for his confirmation of the prior communication about our preference to speak on Day 2, and I do accept his point. I should have informed him that I would want to speak today, as earlier indicated. Thank you, Sir.”
“To give one specific example, operating on a trigger finger release usually costs less than $2,000. So, those aged 80 and above cannot claim the expenses for the surgery, but those who are younger can claim part of the expense as the deductible is lower for younger people. Premiums are already higher for older people. Why are deductibles also higher when, in general, the older people have less financial ability to pay? Why this reverse discrimination for our older citizens? Coming back to the private "as charged" insurance policies, there is another aspect that needs review. Has the Government studied the effect of such full coverage policy on the behaviour of patients and its implications? When a person has to undergo a minor surgery which could be done at the outpatient clinic, does he choose instead to do it as a day surgery or as an inpatient in a hospital, so as to be able to tap on the insurance for full coverage? Does such insurance result in some unnecessary surgeries when more conservative treatments will suffice? Are there inefficiency and a waste of expensive resources caused by such policies? Sir, I am not suggesting that patients or the medical profession is doing anything unethical, as this behaviour is sanctioned by the regulators of the insurance industry. It is important to review the kinds of insurance schemes in the market, so as to discourage over-consumption and inefficient use of resources. There have to be deductibles and co-payments for all medical insurance schemes. Regulators have to direct their attention to this area. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that inequality is a threat to our solidarity as a nation. We have to drill deeper into the sources of inequality and take concrete steps to remedy it.”
“But will the day come when Singaporeans, who find Singapore a cold and cruel place, have no motivation to defend it? This will be a disaster at all levels. Sir, next, I move on to one aspect of inequality that I believe needs to be reviewed and, that is, healthcare coverage under medical insurance. If one compares the coverage of private insurance plans and the coverage under MediShield Life, one will observe that there is significant inequality in access to healthcare that affects the poorer and older Singaporeans. As regards insurance coverage, there are some practices in the healthcare industry that need looking at. One such practice is that of some insurance policies providing full coverage for hospitalisation bills. Such insurance policies undertake to pay for surgeries as long as they are done as day surgeries or if the patients stay at the hospital. All charges will be paid by the insurance company "as charged". Such policies do not require the patient to pay any deductible or make any co-payment. In contrast, MediShield Life understandably has deductibles and co-insurance to avoid over-consumption. One feature of MediShield Life, however, is that the annual deductible rises when one passes 80 years old. While the annual deductible for persons aged 80 and below is between $1,500 and $2,000, the annual deductible for those aged 80 and above is between $2,000 and $3,000. Thus, the most senior of our people, aged 81 and above, who have the least income and most health problems, have to foot bills up to this higher deductible before MediShield Life will kick in. Has the Government analysed how this increased deductible has affected the consumption and delivery of medical services to our most senior citizens?”
“These are serious questions deserving our serious study. To get answers to these critical questions, it is important to do longitudinal studies to track the fate of families over time. In 2013, the Government told Parliament that it intends to do longitudinal studies. What has the Government done since then? Has the Government, for example, started commissioning independent studies on social mobility using longitudinal data? The Government has noted in the past that we must not allow an underclass to form, and so, the Government has to show commitment to this goal. Sir, I should add here that where there is lack of social mobility, it is not only the poorer families that are stressed, even those higher up in the income chain, including the middle class, have the stress of ensuring that they retain their current positions or climb up. The competition in the education system is high. Just look at the money spent on private tuition and other enrichment classes which, in turn, adds to the economic stress that families face. Why is it so important to show a commitment to the goal of reducing inequality and increasing social mobility? Because it is vital to our very existence as a nation. We recite the words of the pledge daily. How can we say these things about justice and equality, happiness, prosperity and progress for the nation, if we are perpetuating a society where citizens are not equal, where some are seemingly having little hope and doomed for failure, while others boom ahead? Will there eventually be an erosion of trust where a class divide makes it harder for people at the bottom and the middle to identify with those at the top? We fiercely guard our sovereignty and expect Singaporeans to defend Singapore.”
“Richer children are served and even spoilt by domestic help. Poorer children shoulder responsibilities, like caring for younger siblings and even being spokesmen for their parents who do not speak English. In a Parliamentary answer in February this year, Prime Minister Lee emphasised, and I quote, "Every citizen, no matter what his social background is, must have the opportunity to do better and move up in society based on his efforts and talent. Nobody should feel that his social position is fixed based on his parents' income level or position in life." Can we say today that the lot of our poorest fellow Singaporeans is due to their lack of ambition or talent? Or does the system itself inadvertently make it difficult for them to succeed and thus perpetuate inequality? For example, do Government policies support poor families with adequate and sustainable care for children? Does our education system penalise those who did not have a leg-up in preschool? Do housing policies unjustly discriminate against those whose marriages fail? How have children been impacted by their parents' circumstances and were they supported or facilitated to break out of the poverty trap? Earlier, the Member Mr Ganesh Rajaram shared his own experience of social mobility. And I do not know how old he is. But looking just at physical appearance, he could be born between the 1960s and 1970s. And I think we can all agree that for persons born during that period, there was probably significant social mobility when compared to parents of the earlier generation. But an important question is, moving forward today, for the new generations of Singaporeans, is social mobility still there or is it becoming more and more difficult for people to move out of certain social classes?”
“The Department of Statistics' data on key household income trends indicated that in 2017, there was a slower pace of income growth for the bottom 15% of households, showing a widening income gap. Beyond numbers, it is also necessary to dig deep into the daily lives of poor Singaporeans and evaluate the reasons why they do not seem to be able to catch up with the rest of society. In her recent book, "This is what inequality looks like", sociologist Prof Teo You Yenn shares powerful stories from her years of field work with families living in HDB rental housing. She writes, and I quote, "I saw how tough it is for them trying to balance wage work and care responsibilities. By hearing their stories about jobs, I saw how hard they have to work and how little they get in return for their labour. By asking them about their children, I saw how much their kids struggled in school and how worried parents are that they would eventually have difficult lives. By listening to them talk about their crises, I heard about their feelings with humiliation, trying to access social assistance. In paying attention to their everyday experiences, I saw how little dignity they are accorded in our society." What Prof Teo observed resonates with what we see, too. While better-off Singaporeans plan for family holidays with their children, poorer families feel demoralised that they cannot afford to buy needed items that their children ask for. While better-off parents are busy at weekends, sending children from one enrichment activity to another, poorer parents spend weekends working and worrying about whether their unsupervised children will fall into bad company. Many of our lower-income residents work hard and even two jobs but may still be unable to pay their bills.”
“Another long-standing policy to mitigate inequality is that Government transfers are generally weighted in favour of those who live in lower-cost housing or have lower income, such as the GST Vouchers and service and conservancy charge (S&CC) rebates. But, for all these moves made now and over the years, how well are we doing to reduce inequality and how much do we really know about the inequality that exists in Singapore? What else do we need to look at or change? Discussions on the status of inequality have tended to focus on numerical data, such as the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality. Our Gini coefficient in 2017 stood at 0.459 before Government transfers and 0.402 after transfers, which has improved from 2013. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged in January that our Gini coefficient was still higher than that of many developed countries. If one looks at household income from work, in 2017, the household income for the top 10% is more than $13,000 per person per month while that for the 20th percentile at the lower end is about $1,000 per person per month, or 12 times more unequal. Our national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita last year was nearly $80,000, which means that the national GDP, when averaged out per person, is $80,000 per person per year. However, when we look at median income or the halfway point for households, the Department of Statistics' data shows that for 2017, the median income per household member was only $32,400 per year, based on a monthly median per person of about $2,700. All these point to high levels of income inequality.”
“Mr Speaker, before I commence on my speech proper, I wish to refer to a report in The Straits Times today that erroneously mentioned that I was scheduled to speak on the Budget yesterday. I think we had an arrangement with the Government Whip that under the original schedule, I would be speaking today. So, I think The Straits Times was not aware of this. But I hope that they would print a correction to correct any misimpression that has been generated by this report. So, Sir, I would focus my Budget speech on inequality. This Budget has, as its third plan, a fostering of a caring and cohesive society. The concept of care and cohesion, though not new, is timely, given the current public discussion of a class divide in Singapore. The recent study on social capital by IPS confirms what we already anecdotally knew. It found, for instance, that, on average, Singaporeans who live in public housing have fewer than one friend who lives in private housing. It found that people who study in elite schools also tend to be less close to those in non-elite schools and vice versa. And earlier, the Member, Mr Ganesh Rajaram also shared his own experience, coming from a non-elite background going to such an elite JC. Sir, this Budget explicitly highlights inequality and social mobility as a concern. We also see some measures in this Budget in the direction of mitigating the class divide. For instance, tax measures, such as raising the top marginal BSD rate by 1% for residential properties valued at above $1 million are geared towards requiring the better-off to pay more taxes.”
“Sir, I believe that Mr Png has asked for excuse from Speaker because he has a family matter to attend to urgently.”
“Mr Speaker, perhaps, I will wait for the Minister for Finance to clarify.”