Response to Leader's Statement on 6 March 2018

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.

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.

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

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Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat, because she has put questions, she has not withdrawn the allegations, she has not apologised.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

I believe she has been quite clear on that.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.