Hansard, Thursday, 8 March 2018

10.21 am Ms Sylvia Lim.

10.21 am Thank you, Speaker. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the House on Tuesday, 6 March, I wish to make my Statement.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am The Prime Minister's statement was made on 19 November 2017 with the Budget Statement for 2018 just three months away. 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.

10.21 am 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."

10.21 am 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".

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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).

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am Leader, do you have any response to the clarification?

10.21 am Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for admitting that she had made a suspicion, although she has said that she has not accused the Government of dishonesty. But let me put the facts here.

10.21 am She made the accusation, she made the statement in the House. At that time, she did not have the facts with her. The Minister for Finance put the facts squarely before the House, inviting her to question as a witness. She did not make any attempt to do that. So, here you are, Minister for Finance, together with the Prime Minister with Deputy Prime Minister, putting their statements, explaining to the House their plans all along, they had been thinking about it, in the long run, planning for tax increases for the next decade. And you have an MP coming here to make statements that basically accuse them of doing otherwise. Ms Lim is saying that the Government is saying one thing in public but planning secretly to do another.

10.21 am So, I am disappointed that she has failed to apologise to the House for making these false allegations.

10.21 am The allegations have, indeed, harmed and tarnished the reputations of other Members, namely, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat, because she has put questions, she has not withdrawn the allegations, she has not apologised.

10.21 am I think the privilege that Parliamentarians enjoy come with responsibility, that whatever we say here, if you do not have the facts, you should check them, and having checked so, you should consider whether the remarks have, indeed, hurt the integrity of the Members. And I put to the House that, indeed, they have.

10.21 am So, I would just like to remind Members of the House that they may not abuse this privilege to misrepresent facts or mislead Parliament. They are not entitled to make unsubstantiated allegations without taking steps to check the facts or knowingly maintain the allegations they have been shown to have no factual basis.

10.21 am Unlike her colleague Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera, who both withdrew and apologised to this House for making misleading statements in a recent case, Ms Lim has refused to apologise.

10.21 am By so refusing, her conduct falls short of the standard of integrity and honour expected of all Members. I must, therefore, put the hon Member on notice and the rest of the House, too, that if she repeats such dishonourable conduct and abuse Parliamentary Privilege, I would refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

10.21 am Ms Sylvia Lim.

10.21 am 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?

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am 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?

10.21 am Leader.

10.21 am In this Chamber, we often make representations and bring forth the views from our constituents, from our stakeholders. This is expected of us. We are MPs; most of us are elected to do so, to be the voice of the people. We are fully expected to do so, there is nothing wrong with it.

10.21 am But we have a responsibility when we bring this matter to this place. Because this Chamber is for serious debate, is for making laws, is where we have serious discussions about the future of Singapore. So, before we bring the opinions, the speculations, the views, the unhappiness, to this Chamber, we need to check the facts.

10.21 am Ms Lim has admitted that she did not do so in the first instance. But having said so, after she has brought the matter here, we have laid down the facts to her. The Finance Minister had plainly said that there was not such an intention. And yet, she continued to insist on that allegation. That is the matter that we are discussing here. And this is the difference between what we say in this Chamber and what economists, analysts say outside this Chamber. We have a duty to fellow Members, we have a duty to fellow Singaporeans that whatever we say here carries responsibility. And this also is the standard that the Prime Minister has said earlier.

10.21 am Ms Sylvia Lim.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am I duly note – Leader, anything else?

10.21 am I would just like a clarification. Does Ms Lim not retract her allegation?

10.21 am I believe she has been quite clear on that.

10.21 am I thought I made it very clear that I am not retracting.

10.21 am So, I misunderstood earlier. I thought that Ms Lim has admitted that those were her suspicion and that she would retract it. But that being the case, I must say that we are deeply disappointed. For someone of her experience should accuse the Government for lack of candour, even though the facts had been explained to her clearly, both in the public domain in statements made by MOF as well as here, by the Minister for Finance.

10.21 am I would like to say that her conduct falls well short of the standards of integrity and honourable conduct we expect of all Members, and, regrettably, to say that it reflects the low standards which the Member and her Party have set for themselves with regard to commitment to truthful and honest debate in Parliament.

10.21 am I repeat again – it is expected of us to bring our views forth here. It is expected of us to debate. But if the facts were wrong, and we have said that the facts were wrong, we had not had this plan of floating a balloon, only to retract after public pressure, that is just not existent, it is a figment of her imagination, she continues with this accusation, which is deeply disappointing and deplorable.

10.21 am I have permitted both sides of the House to state their respective positions. Minister for Finance, would you like to add?

10.21 am Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take up this matter. I think Ms Lim made a statement on 1 March and let me quote, "We do know that in the run-up to the Budget discussion, there were some test balloons being floated out 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", "I" meaning Ms Sylvia Lim, "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."

10.21 am I think what Ms Lim meant by that statement is that she was suggesting that the Government would have raised GST immediately, if not for that adverse public reaction when it "floated" the suggestion late last year and if it had not "stuck" with the previous statement that it had enough money for the decade.

10.21 am Ms Lim was, in fact, accusing the Government of being untruthful when it says that it had planned ahead and that its proposal to raise the GST between 2021 and 2025 was a result of such planning.

10.21 am Ms Lim asked earlier why is it that MOF did not come out to reveal details at the Budget. The Budget is a serious matter. We take great care in preparing the Budget and that the details are kept as secret until the day of the Budget. Because it has got impact on the market, not just in Singapore but internationally.

10.21 am So, I do think that these are serious matters. What Ms Lim is saying is that your allegations, you made the allegations, you claim to reflect the views of the public. But you said "I suspect that this is the case".

10.21 am Parliament is a serious forum for us to discuss serious matters. Now that you have the opportunity to gather all the facts, now that I and my colleagues have made all the clarifications, and you had the chance over the last few days since you made the statement to check the Hansard, to check whatever facts, I think it is only right and honourable that you withdraw the statement. Unless you have a basis for that, that you cannot come here and say, "I heard this. I am repeating this". You need to have a basis.

10.21 am So, having examined all the facts, do you have a basis? And if not, I think it is only right and proper that you withdraw the statement.

10.21 am Ms Lim.

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.

10.21 am 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.

10.21 am Mr Low Thia Khiang.

10.21 am Thank you, Sir. I do take it that Budget is a serious matter, and there is always secrecy because it might affect market movements and all that. But since the Government has no intention to raise GST, I think there is nothing wrong for the Government to come up earlier to say that, "Look, we do not have the intention to raise GST at this Budget." That would have cleared the air and the confusion on the ground of speculation that, "Well, you are keeping quiet, you are raising tax, but not mentioning what kind of tax." GST is a form of tax.

10.21 am And that, I think, contributed to ground confusion, and leading to the impression formed. I can understand that in the heat of exchange, that it comes to your mind, you articulated that. I think Ms Lim accepted that that was at the point in time and now it is clear that the Government has no intention to raise GST. And her suspicion was not really correct – at that point in time.

10.21 am I duly note the positions stated by both sides of the House unless there are any other points to be raised by either side that would provide further clarity. Minister for Finance.

10.21 am I think I can accept that in the heat of the exchange, you may be saying things which you did not intend. But now, having had so many days to examine the facts, I would like to know whether Ms Lim, do you have a basis for your belief? And now, do you accept the explanations that have been given that this has been the intention of the Government, there was no back-tracking, that this was the fact as we had put out? In fact, the issue of raising taxes had been raised many times before that. It is just that the timing and the details are not revealed. And I do not think it is proper for us to talk about the details and timing of it, way in advance of a Budget.

10.21 am Ms Lim.

10.21 am 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 As I have said earlier, I duly note the positions stated by both sides of the House. I propose that we move on. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 - Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 13 of 2018 [(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 - Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 13 of 2018 [Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.00 pm Order. In view of the statements and several clarifications made in Parliament earlier and the amount of time used, I would now revise the guillotine time for Head X – Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth to 2.30 pm. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

2.00 pm Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head X of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

2.00 pm First, let me just wish all our lady colleagues within the Chamber a Happy Women's Day.

2.00 pm It is said that if the country's economy is the lifeline of our country and infrastructure is the skeleton of our country, then arts and culture must be the soul of our country. It is the arts and cultures that define us. Through arts and culture, we forged a national identity that unites all of us as one people, one nation, one Singapore.

2.00 pm As a multicultural and multi-religious society, we have done well to respect and appreciate one another's cultural differences to practise acceptance and compromise. Yet, the threat of social division and fragmentation can never be completely eliminated. Even as we observe the civil conflicts occurring around the world from afar, we cannot take our peace for granted and assume these problems will not happen in Singapore.

2.00 pm This is especially so when there are strong external influences that can disrupt our social cohesion. There have been Singaporeans who were self-radicalised to embrace extremist beliefs and even wanted to head overseas to support armed conflict or conduct attacks here. Fortunately, in some cases, family and loved ones had stepped in to intervene. Meanwhile, concerns of social divide were sparked following a study that revealed a clear divide among social classes in Singapore. Rising living costs and other challenges give rise to problems that may estrange certain groups of people. The cumulative effect of segregation and dissatisfaction can result in an "us versus them" mentality, which will lead to larger cracks over time.

2.00 pm Since the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) inception in 2012, Singapore has made excellent progress in the sports, youth and community sectors. Active participation from Singaporeans in these areas have helped to foster a stronger sense of unity and pride. We must continue to encourage greater vibrancy and participation in these sectors to create shared experiences, ensuring that our society remains resilient and cohesive. The Government is planning to do more at the school level, but how about the older youths who are more inclined to feel disillusioned?

2.00 pm We want a nation that all Singaporeans are proud to call home. What are MCCY's strategies to achieve this? How do we measure the strength of our social fabric? What more can we do to strengthen the Singapore spirit and identity?

2.00 pm [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

2.00 pm Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.00 pm (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In order to help children from disadvantaged families, it is important that we give them a good foundation and provide them with quality preschool education. By virtue of their family's social and financial situation, some of the children from low-income families may not have the opportunity to grow up in a learning environment to prepare them for primary school education. There are a few occasions during house visits in my neighbourhood where I will meet children aged four to seven who did not attend preschool, and there are those who do, but for certain reasons, are unable to read at Primary 1. When they were asked to attend and learn to read, some of them manage to excel in primary school. They are actually quite smart but they need some help and close guidance.

2.00 pm We need to make a concerted effort to help these children, including getting the support of parents, teachers and allied education professionals, to get the children involved and engaged in activities that can enrich their young minds to be interested in learning, asking questions, and wanting to listen and understand. I agree that childhood is not a rat race to get the child to read, write and count quickly. But it is important that we lay the foundation so that when the time comes, they are on the right track. Children learn best in an environment that provides high-quality human interactions and learning from the same group of teachers over a long period so that they are at ease.

2.00 pm Hence, I note that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has already recognised that the early years are crucial for a child’s holistic development. The Ministry’s view is that quality preschool education would provide the child with opportunities to gain self-confidence, learn social skills and develop learning dispositions. So, I hope that, as a community, we can work together to ensure that these children get what they truly need.

2.00 pm Can we have an update on the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community's (MENDAKI’s) programmes to increase access to quality preschool education and how it can involve the larger community, for instance, parents and preschool professionals, to ensure that children are schooled earlier?

2.00 pm Access to education, regardless of family background, ensures that the entire community can progress together. With this, the next generation would have greater opportunities to excel.

2.00 pm Today, MENDAKI runs a tuition programme, administers the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) and provides student loans to help our students financially. Will MENDAKI be doing more for education? May I also ask the Minister what are MENDAKI's efforts to support Malay students from lower-income families?

2.00 pm (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our madrasahs are key institutions that produce our future leaders and religious teachers to guide and provide advice to the Malay/Muslim community on religious matters in a context that is suited to our multiracial and multi-religious society and our customs.

2.00 pm Several of our madrasahs also have long histories and legacies that can reflect the development of Islam and the Malay/Muslim community here.

2.00 pm Madrasah Wak Tanjong is one such institution. I understand that Madrasah Wak Tanjong, which has a very long history and legacy, is due for its lease renewal and this involves very high costs. May I ask the Minister how the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) plans to help Madrasah Wak Tanjong in this matter to ensure that the legacy and history of Madrasah Wak Tanjong can be preserved?

2.00 pm Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.

2.00 pm (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is important to ensure that madrasah students and teachers in Singapore receive support and opportunities to upgrade themselves in order to grow a strong socio-religious sector.

2.00 pm Our asatizahs play an important role in providing the community with sound religious leadership and guidance that are suited to Singapore’s context and modern realities.

2.00 pm Madrasahs play an important role in developing future generations of asatizahs with a strong foundation in both religious and secular subjects.

2.00 pm In 2017, the Government announced greater support for the madrasah sector with $1.5 million set aside annually to help madrasah teachers and students in secular subjects.

2.00 pm Can the Minister provide an update on any other efforts to further strengthen our madrasahs and better equip our madrasahs to produce graduates who are future-ready?

2.00 pm The Minister had also announced the new location of Madrasah Al-Arabiah in Toa Payoh. He said that the new campus would be equipped with the latest technological infrastructure and facilities to serve its students and the community. I would like to request for an update on the timeline for the construction of the new campus.

2.00 pm Sir, in Malay.

2.00 pm (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last year, when the issue of the Elected Presidency caught our attention, there was a discussion on the issue of Malayness. This discussion did not take place among Malay Singaporeans only but also received significant attention from Singaporeans in general.

2.00 pm The question being hotly debated was how a person is recognised as a Malay or who can be called a Malay. Many questions were asked, views being brought forward and many examples were also highlighted. In short, there was a robust and lively discussion, just to seek a real answer on the issue of Malayness.

2.00 pm I understand, and I believe the other Malay Members of Parliament (MPs) in this Chamber do, too, why this issue of identity cropped up. However, in order to explain this matter clearly, I would like to give an illustration or example.

2.00 pm For instance, an individual who sees himself as a Malay/Muslim was informed by MENDAKI that he is not eligible for the TTFS scheme because his identity card showed that his race is Indian. This individual tried to explain that he speaks Malay at home and he leads his life as a Malay; he eats asam pedas, wears baju kurung during Hari Raya and so on. But the reply he got was "Sorry, your identity card shows that your race is Indian."

2.00 pm Time passed, and the same individual obtained his degree, started work and got married. He then decided to serve the people through politics. He wanted to contest in the General Elections.

2.00 pm During the General Elections, this individual then decided to contest in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) as the Malay minority candidate. He submitted an application form to the Elections Department to obtain the Certificate of the Malay Community Committee, but he is not that confident whether his application will be accepted or otherwise, since his identity card showed that his race is Indian. At the same time, he does not feel comfortable to apply as an Indian minority candidate since he does not possess any characteristics as someone who is Indian.

2.00 pm When this individual was informed that his application to obtain the Certificate of the Malay Community Committee was approved, he thought about the reason given to him for being ineligible for TTFS because his race was Indian.

2.00 pm Sir, to sum up, the purpose of my speech is to call upon the Minister to initiate efforts to study the issue that I have shared, in order to achieve consistency or harmony in the way someone is recognised as a Malay or otherwise. I suggest that a committee be established for this purpose to make things clear and, at the same time, avoid any confusion in the future.

2.00 pm Chairman, Sir, the dollar-for-dollar matching grant offered by the Government to self-help groups (SHGs) and some voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) as well as Malay/Muslim organisations thus far is well received and has gone a long way in helping these organisations extend their outreach and help to those in need. Many of these organisations often tapped on the same pool of donors and this limits their fundraising effort to a certain extent. Thus, the matching grant that the Government provides helps ease the load for many of them.

2.00 pm Over the years, the Government has made injections to the various grants enabling organisations to benefit more from the grants. However, there have also been instances where the matching grants have been reduced or re-allocated from the organisations. When this happens, it means these organisations have to work even harder to raise their own funds to make up for the shortfall from the deduction of the dollar-for-dollar matching grant. This can also distract the organisations from focusing on what they should be doing best, that is, providing programmes for community benefit rather than spending time to look for funds.

2.00 pm It may be made worse when a matching fund can become the end game of these organisations. During times of economic downturn, raising funds becomes an even bigger problem when people are less likely to donate and yet, at the same time, the demand for the services provided by these organisations increase. So, this, essentially, means the organisations may be in a situation where the number of clients in need increase and yet their funds decrease. This may end up in organisations having to scale down their operations or the extent of their services, causing them to be unable to serve those in need effectively. Ultimately, a reduction in funds leads not only to operational challenges for the organisations but may also exacerbate challenges for Singaporeans in need as their needs are left unserved.