SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX BILL

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Member for Hougang, be discharged from the Select Committee on the Goods and Services Tax Bill."

(In Mandarin):

Sir, on 19th March 1993, when we were debating the Goods and Services Tax Bill, I made it very clear in my speech that I was against the implementation of the GST. The Workers' Party has also stated in the press that we were against the GST. However, after the Second Reading of the GST Bill, the Minister for Finance suddenly announced that I was appointed a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill. Then, in a manner as sudden as lightning, Parliament approved the appointment of the said Select Committee.

My immediate feeling then was that acceptance of appointment as a Member of the Select Committee on the GST Bill would be contradictory to my stand. I also considered the fact that as a Member of Parliament I had certain responsibilities to the House for whatever duty it assigned to me. Therefore, I felt that I should consult the Central Committee of the Party before I made any decision. Regrettably, Parliament immediately approved the appointment of the Select Committee and I had no chance to make known my position.

To the best of my knowledge, the main function of the Select Committee is to look into the details of the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Bill, and, if necessary, to make the necessary amendments thereto. There is no room for opposition to the principle of the Bill. It is also not possible to reverse the Bill which has already gone through its Second Reading. In other words, the Select Committee may even have to study and discuss how the GST could be effectively levied on the people. So to be a member of this Select Committee will be inconsistent with the stand of the Workers' Party which is clearly against the implementation of the GST. Accordingly, my Party feels that I should ask to be discharged from the Select Committee.

On the other hand, according to the procedure of the UK House of Commons, for appointment of Members to Select Committees, the Party Whip would normally be consulted first, and the party would then nominate its Members for appointment to the Select Committee concerned. But in Singapore, the appointee has absolutely no prior knowledge at all of his appointment to the Select Committee. The Parliamentary Committee of Selection does not consult the Members concerned before making the appointment.

Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I know I am obliged to obey the decision of Parliament and to accept the assignments given to me by Parliament. However, when a Member has clearly stated that he is against the Bill in question and yet forced to be a Member of the Select Committee on that Bill, and compelled to participate in the process of improving the Bill, I think it is against the wishes of the appointee and it is unfair.

Furthermore, the people will be very confused about the stand of the Member concerned. Just imagine, the Workers' Party and its Member in this House have clearly stated that they are against the GST, yet the same Member is sitting in the Select Committee to discuss how to more effectively collect GST from the people, and even to convince the people to accept GST. Is it not ridiculous? I therefore urge the House to consider my position and my predicament and discharge me from the Select Committee.

Question proposed.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, I am really disappointed with the position taken by Mr Low Thia Khiang. When Parliament debated the Bill on 19th March 1993, he was present and all of us know his views. We all know his Party's views. It objected to the GST Bill. When the Minister for Finance named the members to the Select Committee he was present. He did not object to it. As he said just now, he would wish to go back and seek his Party's approval. I think he has got to ask himself: is he here to represent the people, the people of Hougang, or is he here to represent his Party's CEC? Does he really need to seek his Party's approval to serve in the Select Committee?

Sir, Select Committees are part and parcel of the parliamentary process. It is part and parcel of Parliament. It is part and parcel of the debates, deliberations and proceedings we have here. It is not an appendage to Parliament. The Committees are set up to help in the deliberations of Parliament. They are very important and it is an important process of parliamentary democracy. I am therefore very disappointed that Mr Low decides not to serve in this Committee.

He has given several reasons. One reason is that he has objected to the Bill and, therefore, he should not serve. Does it, therefore, mean that any Member who objects to a Bill can refuse to serve in the Select Committee? Of course, the Member may have his views about a particular Bill but that does not stop him from presenting those views even in the Select Committee. If he does not agree with the Select Committee's Report, there is again nothing to stop him from having a minority report in the Select Committee.

I know Mr Chiam opposes many Bills. I also know that Mr Chiam was appointed by the Committee of Selection to serve on Select Committees. He has from time to time said that he has no time to do that, but he took his duties seriously. He took his duties seriously as the unofficial Leader of the Opposition. So he attended the Select Committee meetings and took part in them. I have sat with Mr Chiam on many Select Committees and I know he has played an active part. I had also hoped that Mr Low would take the same attitude, but alas, he did not.

Mr Low also quoted the example used in the British Parliament where before a Member is appointed to a Select Committee, the Whip is consulted. There is no Whip in the Workers' Party. Here, he is the only person. We have no such practice of consulting the Whip. We also have no such practice of consulting individual MPs, because we believe that every MP who is here takes his duties seriously. Therefore, whenever he is called upon to do so by the Committee of Selection, he will take part in the Select Committee. That is the assumption that we have always made on all our Members of Parliament, be he from the Opposition or from the Government Party.

As the Chinese saying goes, you can bring an ox to the water, but you cannot force the ox to drink. So since Mr Low so strenuously objects to sitting in the Select Committee, we can express our disappointment that he is not taking his duties seriously, but we cannot force him to be in the Select Committee. But I hope that he would not take the same position again in future when he is appointed to any Select Committee. I hope that he would represent the people's interest and not that of his party.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not know why the Leader of the House should drag my name into this short debate. I hope he is not trying to divide the Opposition. I can assure him that he has to try very, very hard to divide the Opposition and he will not succeed.

On this principle of consultation, I notice that the Leader of the House has said that the PAP does not believe in consulting its Members before appointing them to any Select Committee. But I would certainly think that it would be better if each of the Members were asked first before he is put into certain Committees. They may have reasons of their own for not wanting to be in the Committee. If they are so obedient, as most PAP Members are, they may in fact in their heart reluctantly join in the Committee and not give of their best. Those people who are consulted and willingly accept the post will then certainly make a good job of it. I think it would be better if Members were consulted first. If not for anything else, I think it is out of sheer politeness.

The other principle I want to point out is the freedom of choice. I think each Member should be given a freedom of choice whether or not he wants to be in any particular Committee and not be dragged into it. I notice the PAP's practice is not only applicable to selecting Members to Select Committees but in fact to most other matters concerning Members. For example, naming Members as delegates to go on a certain conference or seminar. The only time he knows he is selected is when he receives a notice with his name on it. Perhaps in this respect also, I think it would be better if Members were informed first.

I do not know why Mr Wong should be so disappointed in Mr Low Thia Khiang not wanting to be in this Select Committee. There are 77 other PAP Members who can easily be selected. Anyone else can replace him. I do not see why he should be so disappointed.

An hon. Member: Do you want to take his place?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am in it already!

I do not think it is improper for him to ask to be not included in the Committee. As I said, I think it is a question of freedom of choice. So I do not think it would be fair to allege that because the Member for Hougang does not want to be in the Select Committee, he is irresponsible. Try him in other Committees. I am sure he will make a good job of it and he will prove that he is not really irresponsible.

The other point I want to bring up is about his loyalty, ie, whether it is loyalty to his party or to his constituents. I think he should be loyal to both. Because without his party, he would not be a Member of Parliament in any event. His party supported him and, as a result, the constituents voted him, and he is their representative. I think his loyalty and duty, in fact, are to both his party as well as his constituents.

Mr Speaker: Do you want to reply, Mr Low?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: On the point of consultation, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for the answer. But I would like to add that, as a matter of courtesy, at least, I think, Members who are selected should be notified in advance, and their will be sought. As Mr Chiam has rightly pointed out, it is a question of will and freedom of choice.

As regards my responsibility, I am aware of my responsibility as a Member of Parliament, and the fact that I did not object to sit on the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill. The whole question here is not a question of responsibility or whether you force an ox to drink water. It is a question of taking a position. It is a question of principle. We have objected to the Bill very strongly and to show that there is a clear stand, I think it is wrong for me to be in the Select Committee. That will confuse the members of the public, and that is a matter of public interest. It is not a matter of selfishness and neither is it a matter of party interest. Let us face it. Any Member of the PAP can say that he represents the national interest, but he should go against the PAP and vote against it if he thinks that a Bill or policy is not in the interest of the public.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, do you want to make a clarification?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, Sir, with your indulgence.

Sir, on the question of consultation, Mr Chiam was wrong to say that the PAP does not go around consulting. It is not the PAP that goes around appointing Members of the Select Committee. Parliament, at the beginning of every session, appoints a Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection will then decide on the Members to sit on any Select Committee that is to be appointed. So it is not the PAP that is involved. Since we have Opposition parties in Parliament, it is only natural that, from time to time, it will have to include Members of the Opposition in the Select Committee. If not, they will say that all this is a PAP show.

Now that we have included both of them, one has decided to opt out. Well, so be it. At least, we have made a point that we have not forgotten Mr Low of the Workers' Party. He is still in Parliament and there is also another party in Parliament, and he represents a segment of Singapore (Hougang people). Therefore, he should be in the Select Committee. But for some strange reasons, it is not a question of party loyalty, it is a question of what he believes in. It is not a question of freedom of choice either. By standing for election and coming into Parliament, you have undertaken to carry out all the duties that are assigned to you by Parliament. And when you are appointed to the Select Committee, it is the duty assigned to you by Parliament. Therefore, you ought not to opt out of it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer.

First of all, on the question of belief. It is because I believe that GST is not good for the people that I objected to it and I do not want to sit in the Committee. The Select Committee cannot reject the Bill. It has already gone through the Second Reading stage in Parliament. You can only refine the Bill and, possibly, how to effectively implement GST. So it is incongruent and in conflict with the stand I have taken.

As regards the Committee of Selection, in the United Kingdom there is also such a Committee. I do not deny the fact that this Committee selects Members for parliamentary committees. But in the UK, though there is this Committee, in the process of selection, members are consulted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Member for Hougang, be discharged from the Select Committee on the Goods and Services Tax Bill. - [Mr Low Thia Khiang].