Consider this amazing exchange in Parliament on 5 November 2025.
Minister Chee Hong Tat: … But we need to adopt a sensible and calibrated approach and should refrain from a kneejerk over-reaction when cases happen from time to time. Similar to all major financial centres, it is not possible to have zero incidence given the complex nature of the financial services industry and the high volume of daily transactions. … Compared to other financial centres, many industry stakeholders already consider Singapore to have more stringent due diligence standards for high net-worth clients. If we were to tighten further to the point where processes become overly cumbersome, it will affect our competitiveness, deter legitimate investors and put many local jobs at risk. This is not the outcome we want for Singapore. … This is the approach we take in Singapore: risk proportionate not zero risk. MAS will continue to take a risk proportionate approach to maintain our status as a trusted financial centre. …
Member of Parliament Kenneth Tiong: … As more cases of criminality associated with family offices that have been set up in Singapore have come to light, will the Government start to work on the assumption that illicit money generated by scams and other cross-border crimes have already penetrated Singapore and therefore will the Government mandate enhanced due diligence on existing client relationships across all regulated financial sectors, not just new client onboarding?…
This is a sensible question or suggestion.
Chee: … May I ask Mr Tiong to clarify if The Workers' Party's position is that we should adopt a zero-risk approach or would he agree with me that we should adopt a risk-proportionate approach … ?
What was the relevance of Mr Chee's question? In addition to onboarding due diligence, Mr Tiong was suggesting ongoing due diligence. There was nothing in Mr Tiong's question to suggest that he or The Workers' Party advocated a zero-risk approach.
The Speaker should have asked Mr Chee to explain the relevance of his question in the context of Mr Liong's question or simply to answer Mr Liong's question, but he did neither.
Tiong: There is a pattern of ministers and public office holders asking very rhetorical, you know, like rhetorical questions which have no meaning ...
It is understandable why Mr Tiong was exasperated with Mr Chee's response.
Speaker Seah Kian Peng: You could just respond to him, to Minister.
Tiong: So the answer is no and I don't think and I don't think it is the Minister's point of view that we should in fact have a zero-risk approach, because it is impossible. So he is asking a stupid question.
Mr Tiong was saying that Mr Chee's question was stupid, not that Mr Chee was stupid.
Chee: Sir, I think it is not quite appropriate for Mr Tiong to use the word "stupid" when we are having a discussion in this House, I asked him a question what is his position and I respectfully ask him to withdraw that comment and to apologise.
…
Seah: Let me read what [Standing Orders 50 Section 4] says, "It shall be out of order to use offensive or insulting language about Members of Parliament." … [A]nd the use of such language about a fellow Member of Parliament is not par for the course.
Mr Seah was mistaken: Mr Tiong said that Mr Chee's question was stupid, not that Mr Chee was stupid. There is a crucial difference between criticising what another person says or does, and the person himself.
Several minutes later:
Chee: … MAS will continue to review our rules and procedures. I think Mr Tiong is mistaken that we do our checks only at the point of application and not on an ongoing basis.
Surely, that should have been Mr Chee's reply to Mr Tiong's question, instead of asking him about The Workers' Party zero-risk approach.
Note: The words spoken by each of the persons above were taken from video clips on the internet, which might have been edited by the entities posting them online.
No comments:
Post a Comment