Alvin Yeo
Singapore
“This is important as, while we all want to make Singapore free of organised crime, we do need to respect the rights of individuals who may be accused or suspected but not yet convicted of organised crime offences. Overall, I agree that we need to enhance the measures to combat organised crime and I do support the Bill.”
“I do not see in that any danger that they will suddenly Page: 65 become short-term in their thinking and this somehow undermines their independence. So, far from breaching the protective wall around the independence of the Judiciary, I see these changes as strengthening our Judiciary and, thus, upholding the rule of law.”
“Poorer households should, of course, be spared the need to pay more and should continue to receive subsidies to allow their children to avail themselves fully of these educational opportunities.”
“First cut on ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting. Mdm Chairman, our defence cooperation agreements with other ASEAN countries is an important aspect of our regional security framework.”
“Mdm Chair, on the drug situation, the worsening regional situation has made its impact felt even in Singapore, with the growing use of recreational or party drugs, especially among young adults. Singapore has fought hard to contain the drug menace and it is important that we do not let up on our efforts now.”
“In this way, anyone can rise higher, no matter what his or her starting point or background is. This is a true democracy; this is a true meritocracy; and what our nation is founded upon. It is natural for a nation that has developed as much and as fast as Singapore has done, to want to do more for the disadvantaged in society.”
The complete record
Every one of 183 lines we hold for Alvin Yeo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“We have seen in a different context how a well-meaning attempt at competition can turn out badly. I am referring to the media industry where SPH was allowed for a time to offer its own TV channels, while MediaCorp set up its own newspaper. In the limited domestic market, both companies suffered such substantial losses that the experiment was called off after a few years. I do hope our Transport Ministry will review the long-term viability of our present setup and consider whether, given the limitations of the domestic market, Singapore's interest would be better served by having a single public transport operator. Such a company would still operate as a private entity and be required to account to its shareholders for its performance. But it would enjoy greater economies of scale and being a single entity would have every incentive to enhance the interfacing of bus and rail services, which is another bugbear of our consumers. But even market forces have to be tempered where public service is required. So, for instance, in areas which are newly developed or not so heavily populated, there does need to be some regulatory intervention to ensure that the profit motive does not mean that those residents are under-served. It should be a condition of the licence to offer transport services that all areas should receive acceptable levels of service, even if it means some routes are less profitable for the operators or even money-losing. That is why I was happy when one of the conclusions of the review of our transport system released last year was that LTA would take over the centralised planning of bus routes, rather than to simply leave it to the bus operators. Transport is the lifeblood of our society and country.”
“Sir, our public transport system is the envy of others. Modern, efficient and relatively inexpensive, it has been lauded as one of the key advantages Singapore has in terms of infrastructure. Even other countries come to study our innovations like the Area Licensing Scheme before and, now, our Electronic Road Pricing. But, lately, some cracks are appearing and more complaints are being raised by how crowded our MRT trains are, how slowly our buses move on congested roads, how new or sparsely populated areas are poorly covered. I am sure my colleagues in the House would have had their share of feedback from their residents. Singapore's way has been to reject the idea of a nationalised public transport operator and to rely on market forces to drive the efficiency and economies of our bus and rail providers, as private companies. I agree with this approach. One need only look at the disastrous experiences of other countries with the nationalised transport system to see how that breeds inefficiency and waste and, ultimately, serves the public the poorer. But I do question the viability of having two private companies as transport operators in a small market like Singapore. After all, it is not as if they are competing head-to-head in every place for the users from the same area. Rather the MRT lines and bus routes are allocated between them, and instead of one larger monopoly, we have two smaller ones. Of course, we want competition. But having two separate operators, each with a monopoly over different segments of the transport network, is not, in my view, effective competition. And the smaller size of each operator means they do not even enjoy the benefits of scale that a single monopoly would have. So, how is the consumer better off?”
“But inventors, writers, scholars and even future Government leaders need time to dream and spread the wings of imagination. They need time to develop the character and resilience that sports can build. They need time to obtain experiences outside the classroom that shape their lives. Yes, we produce more 4As students per capita than any other country but what of Nobel Prizes, original inventions, artistic masterpieces, breakthrough discoveries? Knowledge can always be acquired although one must have a certain foundation to build on. However, the challenges of the world today and tomorrow call for more than pure knowledge but rather, original and innovative thought. The move to holistic education is a step in the right direction but it cannot be achieved simply with more facilities and more courses. Rather, something has to be give in terms of the overall syllabus and I hope our educators would keep on striving to strike the right balance. Primary Education Review”
“The teaching as such takes place in tuition centres and at home where it seems many students would not keep up with the syllabus without this extra or core-curricular activity. All of us who are parents of school-going children can empathise with this. If we had the students in school for a full day, there would be enough time to actually teach them and let them do their assignments in a supervised setting where teachers are available to explain or help with some stumbling block and maybe, we can break the tuition crunch that whole generation of students have grown up with. There are other benefits that could accrue. Having children in school the entire day would avoid the phenomenon of latch-key children. They would help to reduce the burden for paying for student care centres to look after children after school. Perhaps, most significantly, this could allow children to spend their evenings with their families rather than "mugging up" on more schoolwork. Aligned to this is the need to give our children a more holistic education. It is not the case that an emphasis on languages, Mathematics and Science is bad. These are the essential building blocks of education. But a child also needs to engage in sporting activities, artistic pursuits and simply to find out more about the world around him. And it would not work to simply introduce more courses on all these unless there is some lessening of the content in the main curriculum. Otherwise, we are just adding to the burden of an already stressed primary education. While curriculum developers need to review and evaluate just how much bits and bytes of knowledge a child really must have and how much they should be allowed to, just think or even to dream, I do not wish to undermine the healthy work ethic of Singaporeans.”
“Sir, the plans to move all primary schools to single-session and to introduce a more holistic all-rounded education should be music to most parents' ears. Just as important, the other right step is towards grooming our younger generation to be the future pillars of Singapore. I hope we can do even more. I believe the single-session primary schools should have the students with them for longer hours, indeed for the full day. That is from 8 or 9 am in the morning to the late afternoon. In this way, there will be time for the regular classes which typically take up half a day, and if enough time left over, for sports, arts, music and the other activities which help to broaden a young person's horizons. There should also be a study halt period which allows students to do their homework and assignments and later on revision for the examinations all within the single-session. The benefits of a full-day session would be many. Right now, anything outside the main curriculum is very much secondary in priority. Having to jockey for time outside the school day or school half a day, one even hears stories of physical education and music periods being sacrificed before the examinations period for revision classes. Is it any wonder that our nation struggles to produce the sporting and artistic talent that our neighbours achieve without the level of infrastructural support found here? Yet, it is this broad range of skills outside just the hard sciences that are increasingly in demand. We in Singapore also have a tuition culture, where teachers with the heavy syllabus to get through, concentrate on drilling our students with content rather than exploring concepts and broadening their range of thinking.”
“For if that were to happen, one would expect even wider cherry-picking of our best lawyers and the relegation of the Singapore practices from the premier league of law firms here. It is precisely because Singapore has to have its own representatives in the top tier that we need to pay serious attention to how our law firms can enhance their skills to compete at the highest level. The liberalisation proposal has my full support. The local Bar does not seek protection from competition, but a platform to upgrade themselves to compete with the best. Therefore, in closing, I do urge the Government when it comes to implementing the scheme of EJLVs and QFLPs, to have in mind these concerns. In this way, we can make strides towards having the best of both worlds - a leading financial centre served by top-notch law firms but whose ranks would include some of our very own Singapore practices. 3.31 pm”
“The authorities, as the Minister has mentioned, also have the discretion to permit even greater integration between the two partners which can only serve to foster greater cooperation and to facilitate the transfer of technology which will benefit the Singapore law firm in the long run. All this is not to say that the qualifying foreign law practice, or QFLP, proposal is not required. Indeed, it complements the EJLV Scheme in that it permits a foreign law firm to practise Singapore law on its own, that is without a local firm as partner, provided it satisfies the authorities that it will bring greater economic benefits to Singapore. This measure recognises that market forces are what drives our economy and that the Government will not attempt to prescribe how a foreign law firm wishes to organise its presence here if overall Singapore would benefit. But the key difference between the EJLV and the QFLP is that in the former, a local law firm has the opportunity to upgrade its skills and experience of its lawyers while the QFLP will doubtless pass on the same benefit to the Singapore lawyers it hires as its employees, the upgrading effect will, by definition, be more limited. I recognise and agree that the authorities cannot set perimeters for the QFLP Scheme that are so narrow that prospective applicants are put off from applying, nor can it bar firms that could have formed an EJLV from opting to go it alone as a QFLP. If the economic benefits stack up in favour of Singapore, that must be the telling factor but the criteria must not be so relaxed that international law firms see little incentive in pursuing a partnership with local law firms because the QFLP licence is easily attainable.”
“As part of a local law firm, their practice was centred in Singapore and steeped in our home-grown values and culture. Will we have the same pool of talent to draw on if our best lawyers have all joined foreign law firms and are practising outside Singapore? I think not. Hence, the need to strike a balance between providing the financial institutions that demand legal advice of the highest quality with the full suite of choices, whether the applicable law is English, New York or Singapore law, and between providing our Singapore law firms not to shield from competition but with the platform to upgrade themselves and participate in the growth of Singapore as a financial centre. How do we achieve this balance? I believe the Enhanced Joint Law Venture (EJLV) Scheme holds the key. It is the means by which a top international law firm can link up with one of our leading Singapore firms to offer legal services through a common vehicle. In the process, the local law firm will gain exposure to the cutting edge transactions that the international law firms handle, their greater knowledge base and more advanced infrastructure. Put another way, the local law firm gets a transfer of technology and sharpens its competitive edge. The reason why the earlier JLVs did not do as well as planned was because their financial interests were not aligned, the two partner firms did not share profits and would compete as much as cooperate with each other. This has been addressed in the new EJLV proposal which makes it clear that they can share in the permitted areas of practice up to 49% of profits.”
“To support the flourishing activities of the market and to compete with other centres like Hong Kong which are not so restricted, we do need to provide the widest range of choices for the various players in the market which includes their choice of law firms and their choice of law. In allowing international law firms greater latitude in practising Singapore law, we will also widen the knowledge and acceptance of Singapore law which not only extends the reach of our home-grown lawyers, but enhances the soft power of Singapore as a whole. So why has it taken so long? The need for caution arises from the fact that the greater size and reach of the international law firms means they could cherry-pick our best lawyers, leaving our Singapore firms as second-tier outfits, unable to participate in the cutting-edge transactions that lead the market. What this also means is that, if owing to recession here or some change in business strategy decided in the head office in London or New York, an international law firm could choose to close down its office here and move their lawyers elsewhere to what is perceived to be a more lucrative market. It is for similar reasons that when liberalising the Singapore banking sector, the Government stressed the importance of having local banks that will stick by Singapore through good times and bad. This is, in my view, also why we should not allow our local law firms to become simply middle of the road outfits focused essentially on retail business. If a further reason is needed, there is a further reason for upholding the standards and status of our Singapore law firms. This is where we have drawn many of our judges, including our present Chief Justice and even including our present Law Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by disclosing that, apart from being a partner of a local law firm, I was on the Committee headed by Justice V K Rajah whose report was adopted by the Government in formulating the present amendments. However, the proposed liberalisation of the legal sector will change the landscape so significantly that I feel compelled to add my voice in support of the Bill and to raise some further points for the Minister's consideration. Before I launch into the main thrust of my speech, I do feel compelled to add my comments after hearing the learned Member Dr Teo's speech in terms of the legal profession. It is my view that the state of the profession is perhaps not as bad as may be painted in some press articles and that the number of cases involving rogue lawyers is a very, very small minority in the context of a profession of over 3,500 practicing lawyers. The Bill does address and streamline the disciplinary process and I believe it is a step in the right direction. It is my considered view that added regulation will not improve the situation and I do believe that the vast majority of the practicing lawyers do behave honourably. Returning to the main thrust of my speech, the liberalisation of the legal sector is, in my view, unavoidable for Singapore if it is to continue to grow as a financial services centre to become a leading hub not just for Asia, but the world. Underpinning our financial and capital markets are the bankers, accountants and lawyers who service these markets and make them tick. We have the international banks here, the international accounting firms, but the international law firms are restricted in their practice of Singapore law, as opposed to English or New York law.”
“I thank the Minister for his clear answer and am heartened by the affirmation of the Government's stand of presumption of innocence. Could I ask whether the Minister is prepared to consider a system of compensation for defendants who are in fact acquitted and whom they consider factually innocent?”
“Sir, I just want to seek clarification on the proposed fourth university. Given the importance of developing a research culture in Singapore, I was going to ask whether the Minister would consider positioning the new university as a science and technology type of institution modelled along the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or California Institute of Technology (Caltech) where there is a strong focus on both pure and applied research. RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, it is probably a little bit early to try and determine an exact model on what the fourth university would be like. But because NUS and NTU are already fairly strong research intensive universities focusing particularly on the basic and fundamental research, we thought that for the fourth university, we could take a somewhat different approach, which is to look more at solutions directed research, meaning research that is done to meet immediate near-term problems faced by companies and industries, and have their students who are going to spend quite a significant amount of time in internships and a more applied-type learning style to be able to work on these problems, and provide solutions that meet some of these immediate near-term challenges, rather than to spend much of their attention on basic and fundamental research. So we thought that is the approach and the direction that the fourth university could take with regard to research.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister, since smaller class sizes were introduced for Primary 1 and Primary 2 students in 2004, what have the results or feedback been and whether there are plans to extend that to other primary level students.”
“However, this would be addressed by the adoption of a portfolio approach to CO2 emissions, keeping emissions within overall allowable limits. It is hoped that NEA will consider this approach to allow Singapore to secure its energy supply, bring down the cost of electricity and still protect the environment. No Green Light”
“The main issue, however, surrounding the use of coal lies in the CO2 or carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, the most advanced ultra super critical plant today in the world has a CO2 emission rate of about 790 grams per kilowatt hour. This is in excess of NEA's standard of 730 grams per kilowatt hour. However, that standard is on a per unit basis, that is, for each generating unit. Without detracting from the need to protect the environment, we need to consider if there are other ways to manage the differing concerns. One way is to adopt the portfolio approach to CO2 emissions whereby a power station has access on the overall rate of emissions taking into account the rate of emission of each generating unit. To illustrate, a power station might have one unit of co-plant with the CO2 emission rate of about 800 grams per kilowatt hour and two units of gas-fired combined cycle plant with the CO2 emission of about 400 grams per kilowatt hour. The combined emission rate would work out to significantly less than the emission standard of 730 grams per kilowatt hour. So the coal unit on its own would not. The plant-wide portfolio approach on CO2 emission is being practised in countries like Japan. A utility company, such as J Powers' 16,000 megawatt capacity, comprising 50% coal-plant and 50% hydro-plant, their plant-wide CO2 emission rate is 720 grams per kilowatt hour which would meet NEA's standard but, on its own, its coal-plant portion would not meet it. The use of coal will complement gas and LNG and enhance Singapore's energy security and competitiveness. Modern coal plants have incorporated features to reduce pollutants with the exception that its carbon intensity is higher than coal-fired plants.”
“Sir, our national energy policy seeks to address the objectives of energy security, economic competitiveness and the protection of the environment. The need to balance often competing concerns, calls for flexibility of approach on the part of the various agencies involved, including the National Environment Agency (NEA). I should disclose my interest as an independent Director of Tuas Power, presently a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings but in the process of being divested. Tuas Power has an interest in the matters to be discussed as a significant player in the power generation sector. At present, Singapore's electricity is generated primarily for natural gas, around 80%, which is amongst the highest dependency on gas in the world. With rising oil prices, oil-fired power plants are no longer competitive. While the move to diversify to liquefied natural gas (LNG) goes some way to addressing this issue, Singapore's fuel mix is still much less diversified compared to the global average. Given our heavy dependency on gas imports, we are extremely vulnerable to supply disruption and price escalation due to political tension and natural disasters in our neighbouring producing countries. Our economic growth can also be undermined by rising energy prices. We need to further diversify energy sources to buffer us against disruption, price increases and other threats to our supply. There are limited options in our drive for diversification. Hydro geothermal and wind power are not feasible in Singapore while nuclear energy brings its own problems. Solar power is potential but its contribution is limited. The only other viable alternative fuel source is coal which constitutes about 40% of diversified power around the world and is substantially cheaper than gas or oil.”
“But what we have now is accused persons who are questioned for several weeks or even months without ever seeing a lawyer. No one wishes to hamstring our law enforcement agency so that they cannot carry out their duties efficiently. But it is necessary to maintain a proper balance between the interest of the individual and the State. It is possible to introduce these measures and still maintain our sparkling enforcement record with additional effort and discipline. It is feature of a civilised society that rules of fair play prevail, and if one needs an economic reason, it contributes to the overall attractiveness of Singapore as a place to work and live. Review of the Dip Sing Course and Criminal Procedure Code”
“Yet, it has its blocks and it is hoped the upcoming review of the Criminal Procedure Code will seize the opportunity to clear these away. Like Dr Teo, I am referring to the dearth of protection given to accused persons in terms of getting copies of the statements they have given to the Police during investigation and also getting access to legal counsel. The absence of strict rules relating to discovery in criminal proceedings means that all too often a statement is sprung upon the defendant at or shortly before the trial. For an accused who has undergone a lengthy investigation, given several statements, it might be almost impossible to recall in detail everything that was contained in the statement signed maybe a year ago. After all, which of you in this House would consider it fair to sign a document and not get a copy of it. Yet, that is the system that prevails in our Subordinate Courts. In the High Court, they have adopted the procedure of giving an accused copies of his own statements, which makes the dichotomy of practice all the harder to justify. Another area where we can surely improve on is giving an accused person access to legal counsel. Again, many of us have seen televised legal dramas where the accused refuses to answer any questions before he sees his lawyer. Well, that would not get him very far in Singapore and probably rightly so. In some countries, the scales are so tilted in favour of an accused that murderers can walk free on a technicality. We should not aspire to that model. But that does not mean we cannot impose some time period, say, one to two weeks for the Police to complete their investigations and then let the accused see his lawyer. Provision can be made for extending that period in more complex cases by applying to a judge.”
“Enhanced joint venture should be targeted at the very largest international firms – those with extensive branch networks - which aim to capture a substantial share of the legal market, both here and in the region. They should be encouraged to link up with the local partner to their mutual benefit. The international firm will benefit from the local firm's contacts and highly educated workforce. The Singapore firm will benefit from the extensive know-how and infrastructure support of the international partner. In the process, our Singapore lawyers get to learn from the best international practices and gain exposure to cutting-edge transactions in the region. Some of these lawyers will leave our shores but a good number will stay here and the upgrading effect on them can only serve our country well. The qualifying foreign law firm structure where the foreign firm does not need to have a local partner should be aimed at those firms whose main objective is to follow their clients to Singapore, rather than to compete for local or regional clients. Typically, it would be those servicing the international investment banks, hedge funds and the like, but not trying to grow their presence beyond that. To attract those law firms here and in turn make the environment more conducive for the financial institutions, they advise that they should be allowed the greater freedom of flying solo without having to pair up with the Singapore law firm. Turning now to the other aspect of the laws governing the individual. Our criminal justice system has rightly attracted widespread praise for its rigour, efficiency and the results it has delivered over largely crime-free Singapore.”
“But then, why do we not simply allow any foreign law firm to set up here and advise on local law? The answer lies in the integral role that the law plays in the fabric of our society. Our well-regarded legal system rests not just on the law books but on the whole panoply of judges, state counsels and private practitioners. If we were to allow foreign firms to practise here totally without restriction, we would see, over time, that our local law firms would weaken before the greater economic muscle of international law firms who could hire away their best lawyers, and they would slide to become second or third tier firms. This has quite a deleterious impact on our legal profession - to give just one example on the quality of our judges. We draw our judges from the local firms because we need judges who are not only proficient in the law but steep in our culture and beliefs and embracing the values of our multi-racial society. Weaker law firms mean fewer outstanding candidates to become our judges. So the key is to strike a balance between liberalisation and liberalising too fast. This is to allow our homegrown firms some scope to adapt and upgrade themselves to compete with the very best foreign firms. 5.15 pm The devil, as usual, lies in the details. The Ministry has rightly formed sub-committee to oversee the implementation of these recommendations. One key task would be to identify the target group of foreign firms which should be encouraged to partner local firms in forming joint law venture and the sort of firms which should be allowed to go on their own as a qualifying foreign law firm. This is my suggestion.”
“Mdm Chairman, the rule of law is a value readily associated with Singapore in the vast hinterland that is Asia. It is also one of our most important competitive advantages up there with our political stability and our educated workforce. It is a principle we should hold dear and strive to enhance. I would like to address two key aspects of our legal system. The first relates to the business law regime which supports Singapore's financial sector and the commercial dealings that underpin our economy. The second relates to the personal or criminal law which affects all of us as individuals and contributes to our social environment. Taking the first aspect, and as mentioned by Dr Teo, the comprehensive report was issued last year by a committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Justice V K Rajah, Judge of Appeal. I should disclose my personal interest as a member of that committee as well as being a partner in a law firm. The report covered the entire spectrum of legal services and made far-reaching recommendations in many areas, including the liberalisation of our legal profession. This calls for the introduction of two vehicles for international law firms to practise Singapore law - an enhanced joint law venture (JLV) and qualifying foreign law firms (QFLF). These recommendations have been accepted by the Government. Why do we need to allow foreign practices into the Singapore legal market, which has traditionally been the preserve of our local firms? This is to attract foreign lawyers to Singapore and to anchor those already here even more firmly - all to swell the pool of intellectual capital within our shores, the better to service the mega deals that are becoming common place here.”
“Even then, discussions and consultations are going on within the Muslim community and outside, to remove this particular difference. Again, the principle of equal treatment of all has to be moderated by our aim of preserving harmony among our different races, of mutual respect for each other's beliefs. I do not believe that anyone seriously contends we should not continue to uphold this. Having said that, there may be something to be learnt from HOTA and the discussions relating to its possible change. To those who support the removal of section 377A, it is an object demonstration that laws can and do change based on a reconciliation of different views. But such changes, particularly where they involve deeply-held deep-seated religious and moral beliefs, do take time and they cannot be forced. Indeed, I hope that all concerned in this particular lobby effort will be patient and understand that the views of others do count as well and try to give this issue more time and not let it be something that divides our society. Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes to the Penal Code may keep it more relevant to this day and age and are to be welcomed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 7.29 pm”
“Mr Siew also says that he does not agree with this "signposting" argument because, to him, signposting is an all-or-nothing approach. Again, I have to respectfully disagree. There are certain key markers in all our laws which reasonate through the fabric of our society more than others. For instance, how many of you have heard of section 498 which has to do with enticing a married woman, and how many of you consider that doing away with that law means that this House is permitting adultery or promiscuity? Certainly, from all the press reports, none of them seem to labour under the misimpression that the non-repeal of section 377A was what that particular signpost was about. One of the points made is about equal treatment for all before the law, including homosexuals, which I think is the central plank of the petition that has been presented. Equality before the law is a fundamental concept. But it cannot be looked at in vacuum. It does not deprive a state, a government, of regulating what it considers to be proper and correct behaviour. It is equal rights for all, as measured against the values and beliefs of our society. And our society is a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural one. So, for instance, we have an Administration of Muslim Law Act which imposes a separate regime on Muslims in family and estate matters. Yet, we do not hear complaints about unequal treatment from either Muslims or non-Muslims. It is accepted as part of our multi-cultural, multi-religious Singapore. To take another more recent example, the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA), where Muslims are not subject to the same opting-out provisions on account of their religious beliefs.”
“Those of the Muslim faith, many with Christian beliefs, oppose the condoning of homosexual conduct. Do their views not have to be taken into account? Is this tyranny of the majority? Some commentators think that it is outmoded for our laws to reflect the moral and social values of the people it governs. I disagree. In our nation which has, as one of its ingrained principles, the rule of law, indeed it is usually considered one of our competitive strengths as well, the law stands, not just as a boundary line of what conduct will or will not be prosecuted, but as a moral compass of what we stand for. It is a benchmark of our values, our beliefs, not just a reference book to determine when we can sue and when we can be sued. That is why our courts, in interpreting the law, have always required parties to observe not just the letter of the law, but also its spirit and its purpose. In this regard, I do take issue with the two points that Mr Siew, notwithstanding his forceful and loquacious arguments, has made. The first is that, because the Ministry has said that section 377A will not be proactively enforced, it is an admission that no harm results from it. I think other speakers, more eloquent than me, have spoken of the social and psychological and moral harm that can result from embarking or slipping down the slippery slope. I prefer to think that the stand of the Ministry is not because they recognise that there is no harm, but because they wish to show some degree of tolerance to those who subscribe to different views to give them some space in their personal lives. But they are standing firm on what the principles and beliefs that our society stands for in continuing to have this law on the statute books.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate at this late hour. After such powerful moving speeches from our two Nominated Members of Parliament, one is tempted to remain silent. But allow me to respectfully add my perspective. In the run up to this debate, I read an interview or feature in the New Paper where Mr Siew Kum Hong was asked for his personal background and his reasons for bringing this parliamentary Petition. He replied that his personal background was irrelevant to the issue and that he was bringing this Petition as he supported the principle of equality of treatment, including for those who engage in homosexual conduct. I should say that I agree with Mr Siew that one's personal background is simply not relevant to the issue and, personally, I applaud Mr Siew for his willingness to subject himself to intense media and public scrutiny for a principle he subscribes to. I say that one's own background and indeed one's own personal views are not what is really important. Because our role as Members of this House is to represent not so much our own views, but those who have placed us in this position of responsibility. This means that one has to take account of not just the minority views but the majority views as well, to not just listen to the vocal, the articulate, the high profile spokesmen for their various causes, but to try and discern the views of the vast and silent segments of the population whose views and feelings run just as strong. It is generally accepted that a large portion of the population remains uncomfortable with, even troubled, by homosexual behaviour. The Straits Times ran a poll where something like 70% expressed discomfort with these views.”
“I would propose that the Act spell out standard terms and conditions and, indeed, a standard form agreement for collective sale. There are differing interests at stake. The majority owners, most of whom have no real control over the sale and they would entrust it to the sale committee. And, equally important, the minority owners whose wishes not to sell are being over-ridden by the majority. A standard form agreement would reduce uncertainty as well as the scope for unfair dealing and, hopefully, avoid disputes. With such an agreement, the rights and liabilities of all parties, including the sale committee's duties and immunities, could be balanced and spelt out. The issues of mandate, reserve price, options for extending time and appointment of professional advisers can be addressed with certainty. Overall, with greater certainty, this will facilitate the en bloc sale process. Mr Speaker, overall, the changes are a useful step in the right direction, and I do support the Bill. 1.55 pm”
“And, of course, the question does arise if a substantial number of owners do reside overseas, what is the protection they receive under such a provision. The cooling-off period is also a good move to allow any owner to change his mind if he has been unduly pressured in signing the agreement or for any other reason. However, I do opine that the proposed regulations, while an improvement on the current regime, do not go far enough in regulating the collective sale process. There is still a great deal of latitude given to the sale committee and, sometimes, their lawyers and consultants, and many issues could arise therefrom. For example, what is the length of the mandate that is given to the collective sale committee or to the marketing agent? How long does the reserve price remain valid? Who exercises the option to extend the time for fulfilment of conditions? In most cases, from my experience, the period for a mandate or reserve price is about a year. In a fast-moving market, even six months is a long time. And the reserve price given in the mandate may become outdated after a while, and indeed that was one source of unhappiness in the Horizon Towers case. Where there are important or differing interests to be considered, our legislature has seen fit to impose standard terms and conditions, or even a standard form of agreement to protect these interests. One example is the standard housing developers' condition and standard form sales and purchase agreement under the housing developers' rules. This is designed to protect buyers who have handed over the purchase price by ensuring that monies are kept in a separate account to be used for completing the building.”
“That is not listed in the Fourth Schedule, and indeed there was a case involving the Waterfront View in April 2007 where the Strata Titles Board rejected an owner's objection on the ground of financial loss, because there was a shortfall in terms of the CPF monies and interest to be refunded to the member's CPF account. Because the CPF Board did not require him to refund that interest in full, that was not held to be a financial loss. Mr Speaker, Sir, this House has just spent three days debating the important changes to the CPF system. Given the importance of CPF savings, I do suggest that the CPF monies and interest thereon to be refunded to a member's CPF account upon the sale of his home should be treated as a permitted deduction as it does represent a real asset of that owner. The third area that I wish to touch on relates to the regulation of the collective sale agreement. As the Deputy Prime Minister has stated, this will include a preface to set out the key factual information of any sale, including the reserve price, apportionment method for the proceeds of sale, and it does provide for the collective sale agreement to be signed in the presence of an advocate and solicitor. I also note the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that it is intended that this collective sale agreement be explained by that lawyer to the party who is signing it. However, that is not expressly stated in the Bill, and I would suggest that it would be advisable to, in fact, include a requirement that the collective sale agreement is to be explained by the lawyer. In addition, the presence of a lawyer is only required where the agreement is signed in Singapore.”
“Was it the committee's responsibility to make a proper application to the Strata Titles Board or was it each individual owner's responsibility? Can individual owners be sued and can they, in turn, seek an indemnity from the committee if it is proved that the application to the Strata Titles Board was indeed defective? In my view, it is important to clarify these issues for the future. As mentioned before, the Horizon Towers case should be left to the courts and the parties involved to decide and to resolve. But it is important to address this issue because, otherwise, owners who would support a sale may refrain from signing a collective sale agreement because they fear the potential liability that could engender, which itself would defeat the important social policy of encouraging the redevelopment of our older estates. The second area I wish to comment on relates to the definition of "financial loss" which the Strata Titles Board considers in deciding whether or not to approve or reject a sale. The change here does inject greater certainty by spelling out four examples in the Fourth Schedule of what are deductions. But there is still room for argument, because the provision says that the Board may allow whatever deductions as they see fit, including these four examples in the Fourth Schedule. I do ask the question whether the Bill should go the entire way by spelling out the exhaustive list of deductions so that the position is made clear to any owner as to what can or cannot be counted in deciding whether or not to make an application to the Board. I would like to raise the issue of one specific deduction which I say should be counted, and that is CPF monies or interest thereon.”
“Given the importance of the safeguard that no one owner of several units would be allowed to dominate the sale committee, it should be incumbent that any nominee must disclose in full any arrangement by which he represents the interest of another, whether it is through family relationship, a nominee arrangement, trust arrangement or other vehicles. This is to allow the prohibition against one party unfairly dominating the sale committee to have teeth. Further, I believe that this Bill should seek to make the powers and duties of the collective sale committee clearer. For instance, does the committee act as an agent for the majority owners? Or is its role more akin to a board of directors? Does the committee owe fiduciary duties to the owners and can they be sued for breach? What is the standard for performance of their duties, given that many of these people are not legally trained or not from the property industry and are doing this on a voluntary basis in their spare time? We should bear in mind that the owners entrust the sale process to the sale committee, and very few owners who sign a collective sale agreement actually bother themselves with the details of the process. And, of course, if the requisite majority is obtained, the minority owners, subject to their right to appeal to the Strata Titles Board, are swept along by the process. It is important that the committee should have their duties and responsibilities spelt out clearly so that all parties know what they can expect or cannot expect from the committee members. On the flip side, the committee members should also know what immunities they have if they carry out their jobs diligently and honestly. One illustration involves the Horizon Towers case.”
“I should clarify that my remarks are directed at similar situations that could arise in the future. The Horizon Towers case is before the court and should be dealt with by the court. The three areas on which I wish to comment relate to the regulation of the sales committee, the definition of "financial loss" which the Strata Titles Board is entitled to take into account in deciding whether to approve or reject the sale and the regulation of the collective sale agreement. First of all, in terms of the regulation of the sale committee. The changes provide that the committee members must have certain qualifications, and one of the key qualifications is that he must not be a nominee of someone who owns a number of units, such that this owner of several units ends up with nominees of a greater proportion than his share of the total share value or, in any case, not having more than 49% of the members of the collective sale committee. There is also a disclosure of interest provision, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, whereby someone standing for election has to disclose his interest, direct or indirect, in any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or legal firm. Mr Speaker, these changes are welcome, as they attempt to ensure that there is fair representation that no one person or group can dominate the committee and the sale process. However, the disclosure of interest provision, in my view, does not go far enough.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks an important step in the evolution of a quintessentially Singaporean innovation - the en bloc sale. I said "quintessentially Singaporean" because the subject tends to possess the features of a local soap opera. Especially nowadays, we have neighbours squabbling, different factions, legal suits, money, sometimes, lots of it. But what is often overlooked is the important policy that underlies the en bloc sale, which is to spur redevelopment of ageing estates in our land scarce country, and any legislative amendment that furthers this policy should be supported. This Bill contains several amendments that enhance the en bloc sale process, either by injecting greater certainty, giving greater flexibility to the Strata Titles Board and improving the protection for owners. These include the addition of a second condition for consent based on the total area of lots. This is a good move because share values are sometimes not correlatable to the actual proportion of built-up land area, and this will make the obtaining of consent a fairer process. Another welcome change is the power of the Strata Titles Board to allow applications that have technical errors, provided they do not prejudice any owner, and to allow such errors to be rectified. All these changes are and should be welcome. There are a number of other areas of change where I feel the changes do not go far enough. But perhaps before I talk about them, I should just disclose my interest as a partner in a law firm which is involved in various en bloc transactions. This includes acting for one of the members of the consortium that bought the Horizon Towers project, which is obviously the subject of litigation today.”
“How then is the party appealing against the refusal to bring forward his case? The situation is probably unavoidable as with all matters of national security, but it remains an issue to be grappled with nonetheless. These two points notwithstanding, the move to tighten the regime against identity fraud is welcome. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 6.05 pm”
“The Deputy Prime Minister himself gave the example of Hambali using a forged Spanish passport. In a globalised world of today, acts of misuse could occur anywhere in the world. However, the question does arise - how could we effectively investigate and later charge someone whose actions were taken totally outside this country? We probably have no choice but to retain the power to prosecute such persons for such action, but we must take care that these provisions do not become merely symbolic. The second comment or point I would like to raise relates to the right to refuse or cancel Singapore passports. Under clauses 19 and 21, the Controller of Immigration may refuse or cancel a Singapore passport. The grounds upon which he can do so include whether either a competent authority has made a request or the Controller himself believes on reasonable grounds that (1) it might prejudice the security of Singapore or any other country; or (2) endanger the health or physical safety of other persons in Singapore or overseas. This power is highly relevant in this day and age where the threat of terrorism and also of epidemics like avian flu is increased by the facility of modern travel. However, the concern I have is this. This right could be seen as a restriction on civil liberties. It thus becomes vital that the process, including that of appeals to the Minister, is handled in a fair and transparent manner. This may well pose difficulties as the person appealing is required to specify the grounds upon which the appeal is being made. But if the decision to refuse a passport was made on grounds, for instance, of national security, the sources and items of information for that decision are likely to be confidential.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new Act aims to combat identity fraud and the possible misuse of Singapore passports as well as the misuse of foreign travel documents in Singapore and elsewhere by creating new offences and widening the scope of and increasing the penalties of all offences. These changes and the heavy penalties the offences will carry all serve as a deterrent to the commission of identity fraud involving the Singapore passport as well as the misuse of foreign travel documents in Singapore. The signal being sent is that Singapore will not tolerate such activities and will come down hard on the perpetrators. These measures are especially relevant in the light of the dangers posed by terrorism today. This is vital not just for our own security, but also that of our neighbours. We should thus close every loophole and strengthen any weak link in our vigilance against international terrorism. Having said that, there are two points I wish to raise in relation to the changes. The first relates to the extra-territorial jurisdiction conferred under the proposed Bill. Clause 4 provides generally that the Bill will apply to acts done outside Singapore and to all persons irrespective of citizenship. Clause 34 provides that the offences under Part V will apply whether or not the illegal conduct or its result occurred in Singapore. This means that under the new Act, a person may be prosecuted for an offence even if the offence was committed overseas. The misuse of passports or travel documents for illegal purposes is, by its very nature, a crime that cuts across borders, eg, a radicalised UK national might well use a forged Singapore passport to commit a terrorist act in Australia, thousands of kilometres away.”
“We have to ensure that the Legal Service and Judiciary continue to attract the best of Singapore's legal talent so they can just not maintain a high standing but also to grow and adapt to ever-changing circumstances. The move to enhance the position of the Legal Service Commission which oversees the Legal Service signals a clear intention to strengthen one of the pillars of our society and economy, and should be welcomed. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“They are required so that communications can be freely made to and within the Legal Service Commission without fear that such communications can be used in subsequent legal proceedings. They are required so that information given to the Legal Service Commission will carry sanction with it if made falsely. And finally, they are required so that the Legal Service Commission members can go about their work independently and impartially without the risk of being sued for their decisions. More symbolically, this puts the Legal Service Commission on the same footing and position as the Public Service Commission. The signal being sent is that the Legal Service Commission and, by extension, the Legal Service is as important to the smooth running of the country as the Public Service Commission and the Public Service. These amendments go hand in hand with the amendments made to the Constitution which seeks to enhance the composition of the Legal Service Commission and provides the establishment of Personnel Boards. Together, they constitute a step towards taking our well-regarded and respected legal system to the next level. Singapore is regularly rated as one of the most competitive economies and among the best countries in the world to carry on business, and that is due in no small measure to the sterling quality of our Judiciary and Legal Service. We have a world-class Judiciary. And I consider that this extends both to our Supreme Court Judiciary where the Judges enjoy tenure until age 65 as well as the Subordinate Courts Judiciary where the Judges do not enjoy similar tenure. The reputation of our Judiciary stands out especially in the region for its quality, efficiency, impartiality and integrity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Amendment Bill extends the scope of the protections afforded to the Public Service Commission to the Legal Service Commission. There are three main protections conferred on the Public Service Commission, first, by clothing communications of the Commission with privilege and confidentiality. For instance, section 3 provides that communications of the Commission are privileged. No person in any legal proceedings is permitted to or can be compelled to disclose any communication made to the Public Service Commission, whether between the Commission and other parties, such as the Government, or between its members. Section 4 prohibits the publication of disclosure of information with respect to the Commission's functions to any unauthorised person and make such disclosure an offence. The second main protection is by the imposition of sanction to uphold the integrity of the Commission's exercise of its powers and functions. Section 2 makes it an offence for anyone to give false information to the Commission. Section 5 makes it an offence to influence or attempt to influence the Commission. The third main protection is by affording members of the Public Service Commission with the same protection and privilege as extended to magistrates in case of any action or suit brought against them for anything done in execution of their duty. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the amendment, the Legal Service Commission and its members will be accorded the same rights and protections as the Public Service Commission and its members. These protections are necessary for the Legal Service Commission to carry out its public function in an effective manner.”
“But in those cases, the Government agencies should be prepared to be flexible in allowing more time for affected parties to relocate. Sometimes, there are complaints that affected parties are served very short notices and required to vacate the land within a very short period of time, thereby causing them loss either through lost business or relocation cost. There may be very good reasons why such a short notice of period can be given, but one should try to avoid or minimise such situations from arising. Sir, as land acquisition has a drastic impact on property owners, the State must do its utmost to respect the property rights of owners and exercise due diligence to ensure that acquisition is really necessary for the good of the country and not simply because it is more convenient for the agency concerned. In this regard, I would propose that the Ministry set up some process or mechanism whereby Government agencies should explore all possible options when considering an acquisition to build amenities for public purposes. Where possible, Government agencies should consider in-fill development on vacant sites in the city areas or upgrading of existing infrastructure as alternatives to acquiring private land. Sir, the Government needs to be transparent in its feasibility studies for land acquisition and development and to provide information to convince the affected parties of the need for compulsory acquisition. This will reduce the unhappiness of affected parties and enhance the Government's image of being transparent and fair. Overall, I do believe the amendments take us closer to that ideal. Sir, I support the Bill. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 6.57 pm”
“These definitions or purposes for compulsory land acquisition are wide and necessarily so, since not all users can be anticipated in the Act. However, the width of the purposes means we need to ensure that there are proper checks and balances to prevent mistakes or even abuses. One criticism that has been made of land acquisition in the past is that acquired land parcels were not developed for many years after acquisition. One such example was brought up at Question Time, although I must disclose my interest in that my firm acted in that case for the company concerned. Sir, the Government must properly time the acquisition of land in accordance with the proposed development programmes under the URA Masterplan. Land should only be acquired when needed for development, as stated in the Masterplan, and not earlier or otherwise. In this way, the Act will not affect more than it is necessary the property rights of owners and give rise to any allegation that the Government agencies are being cavalier or high-handed. Further, to avoid disruption to parties affected by land acquisition, the Government agencies concerned should try to give sufficient notice of intentions to acquire and allow sufficient time for affected parties to relocate. One suggestion is to consider land acquisition in the first year of the release of the URA's five-year Masterplan. Upon serving acquisition notices, the Government agencies can provide a grace period of perhaps two or three years for affected parties to relocate. Thereafter, the proposed development can proceed within the five-year period covered under the Masterplan. Sir, I accept that it may not always be possible or practicable to adhere to such a schedule and to provide such early notice for acquisition.”
“This is particularly so if we want to construct infrastructure necessary to support such a population, in particular, to build a comprehensive transport network of trains and bus services to serve the greater needs of our population. Some of these new developments will require the acquisition of privately-owned land. So it is heartening to note that, with effect from 12th February 2007, affected owners will get compensation based on market value as at the date of acquisition. This amendment will remove a major criticism of the Act it made in the past and bring compensation in line with market conditions. This is fair and just to affected land owners and will increase public and investor confidence in not just the property market, but in our country overall. In relation to outdated provisions, Sir, the previous regime had several technical provisions which were difficult for many land owners to understand. In this regard, the abolition of the two-year and seven-year rules regarding improvement works made by an owner and infrastructure works are value attributable to infrastructure works. The abolition of those rules is welcomed. This will not work to the disadvantage of the land owner as market valuation will take into consideration all of the value that is attributable to such works or such improvements. This is likely to increase the compensation to affected parties, which is surely good news for them. In relation to the criticism about unchecked powers, section 5 of the Act provides that the State may acquire land for any public purposes or, in the opinion of the Minister, it is of public benefit, or public utility, or in the public interest, or for any residential, commercial or industrial purposes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Since its implementation in 1966, the Land Acquisition Act has served as an essential instrument for our Government and its agencies to acquire land in Singapore. The land acquired has enabled our Government to develop the necessary infrastructure to support our economic and social development and transform Singapore into a world city. Many Singaporeans understand the need for land acquisition and have accepted the principle that on certain occasions, some land owners will have to forgo their land in return for compensation for the common good. However, the Act has attracted its share of criticism for being unfair, outdated and giving the Government unchecked powers. Sir, I wish to address these common criticisms in the context of the Bill. Sir, the chief criticism of the Act in the past has been the basis for compensation and how that was based on the lower of two values, including the value taken at the particular date, the statutory date. The proposed amendments in the Bill do away with the alternative of the statutory date in determining the compensation for land acquired. This is a major breakthrough towards aligning compensation to how the market will value the property. This will ensure that land acquired will be compensated based on the market value as at the gazetted date of acquisition. This move will boost the confidence of existing and future land owners in Singapore, be they occupiers or investors. As our population increases to possibly as much as 6.5 million, there will be further demand for land for future developments.”
“35 pm. Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS Debate resumed.”
“To take the three most obvious examples - not the only examples, I hasten to add - of the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and the Minister Mentor, I suspect that the majority of our population would not begrudge paying them several times over the benchmark. With the right leaders, no amount is too much. But with not-the-right leaders, any amount seems too much. That is the heart of the issue. The proposed revision is not an end unto itself - some clever method to fatten the wallets of our Ministers. If that were so, some quieter way, without the need for this public debate or public statements, could be found to achieve that. Rather, it is a means to an end. And that end is the search to find the leaders of tomorrow while developing the leaders of today. The pay revision is but one element in this drive - albeit an important one. So we should look at it in its proper perspective, as one component of the renewal of our leadership. And one should assess that search for talent by the results it yields. So if this revision helps to bring our civil service to the highest standards of service, helps us to build a world-class judiciary, to find the leaders to take our country to the next level, it would have been worth it. As the Minister remarked, there is no perfect formula, no magic bullet to derive the benchmark. But let us look at this issue in the wider context as part of the drive for the wide talent to lead our country. And let us judge it on the track record of the Government, both now and in the future, and the leaders that come to the fore. On that basis, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the revision. Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.13 pm until 4.”
“This will expose our Ministers to the risk and rewards of the overall economy in the same way private CEOs' pay gyrates with the financial results of their companies, and would serve to bring down our leaders' pay in times of recession where it seems only right to do so when many workers would be struggling. My second suggestion for the Minister to consider is rather to adjust the benchmark based on the figures from year to year, to derive it from a moving average over the preceding 3-5 years. This would help to smoothen out the swings, up and down, of executives' pay which tends to move in line with the economy. That is, after all, the aim of good government, to build sustained growth by adopting policies which may have a long lead time, rather than artificial pump-priming. A moving average basis seems consonant with the medium to long-term outlook that we want our leaders to adopt. My third suggestion is to borrow a concept from private-sector corporate governance - that of the Remuneration Committee. Perhaps an independent body could be set up with members from leading non-political organisations and the public, possibly including some NMPs, to review the manner in which the benchmarks are derived. Such a move would increase public confidence that the benchmarking policy set by this House is being implemented in a fair and transparent way. And, hopefully, we move some of the niggling doubts in people's minds about certain issues, like whether the Ministers' pay includes free COEs, waiver of maid levies or other suspected "perks". In the final analysis, the issue comes down to the selection of talent - the calibre of our Ministers.”
“And to learn that after the revision, there will be a hundred people in the private sector who would earn more than the Prime Minister, and that there would be about 400 people who would earn more than an entry-level Minister does not make the revision seem out of balance when one considers the importance of their role and the heavy responsibilities they bear. This does not mean that the revision cannot be improved or refined. I would like to put forward three measures for the Minister to consider. I am happy to note that there will be a substantial performance element to the Ministers' remuneration. I think the figure mentioned was 47%. I would suggest that the performance element should be at least half and maybe up to 60-70% of the total package. This is to bring it closer in line with private- sector pay packages, which is, after all, what we are benchmarking against. This would also help to refute the notion that the Minister's pay is somehow all locked in - he, basically, just has to avoid any major bungles to get the full amount. The performance element has two main components - one, based on the performance of the individual Minister, and the other on the performance of the overall economy. The first is necessarily based on individual assessment. But the second, based on the GDP growth of the Singapore economy, can be objectively worked out, and the Minister has clearly explained how that ranges from zero to a maximum of eight months, depending on the GDP growth figures. I would suggest that this GDP component, which is said would come up to something like 20%, should form either 25% of the total package or at least half of the performance element.”
“Something more than that would still represent a pay cut to such a person, now or in the future, but may be a sacrifice that he or she would be prepared to make. In the run-up to last year's General Election, I read that the hon. Member for Hougang proposed that Ministers' pay should instead be based on the median salary for the lowest 20% of the workforce with a multiplier of 80 or 100 times. That sounds appealing at first blush. But does it represent market reality? I do not know of any major commercial organisation that derives its CEO's pay from a multiplier of its workers' salaries. I doubt very much if one asks compensation consultants whether they would recommend such a formula for a high-level hire. The harsh reality is that when looking for a CEO-calibre person, you set his pay based on what other CEOs are getting, not a multiplier of their workers' pay. That is the market economy at work. That is the world we live in. This sounds elitist. But do we not want our leaders to be the elite in terms of ability? At the end of the day, are we looking for the 10 or 20 people with the most ability to govern, or the 10 or 20 people who are most willing to take pay cuts to join the public service? Being typical Singaporeans, the answer is we want both. But unless one can find the ideal combination in a person and a number of such people, we do need to strike a balance. That is what, I think, the proposed revision sets out to do.”
“By way of comparison, the top legal firms - and I note that lawyers form probably the largest single block of Members in this House - were paying newly-qualified lawyers that kind of salary - $2,800 - 10 years ago. Now, the major law firms pay new lawyers about 50% more - between $4,200 and $4,500 per month. On top of that, they can get good performance bonuses of up to six or seven months. As regards the Ministers, well, we live in a world where the average income last year of the CEOs of our three local banks was over $7 million, where the Chief Executive of our largest property company was paid in excess of $5 million, where his counterpart in our largest conglomerate got over $5.5 million the year before. And where the CEO of our largest telecommunications company - both the outgoing CEO and the incoming CEO - got an annual package which, together with stock options, was worth $5 million or more. These figures have all been widely reported in the press, including in the Business Times today in a story at page 7. $5-$7 million a year is a huge number by any measure. But even if one says, "That's for the No. 1 person in the organisation, and we should be looking at the No. 3 or No. 4", if you halve those figures, you would still be in the $2.5-$3.5 million range, which approximates to the $3.3 million median derived from the 48 top earners. To then cut that median by a third or 33% is no small matter for the person who stands to earn that amount, but reflects the element of sacrifice that public service demands. The market reality is this. Someone earning $2.5 to $3.5 million, or with the potential to earn that much or more, may not give that up for an annual package of $1.2 million, no matter how public-spirited.”
“Most of the public's attention has been focused on the Ministers' pay, and now perhaps also the MP's allowance, which is only natural and understandable, given that we are elected by the people. But the sweep of the revisions and the objectives behind them are much wider than that. There are several measures in this package to make sure that our civil service remains strong, is adequately staffed and is staffed by the right sort of people, which are too important to overlook, and we should not overlook them. So, what is it about the pay revision that sparks such outcry? Without a doubt, it is the $2.2 million benchmark or the sticker price on an entry-level Minister. The Minister's statement that pay will go up to less than the benchmark, and only in stages, will make it easier for the public to swallow, but only slightly easier, I suspect. So, should we be outraged that entry-level Ministers would, I think, earn something like $1.6 million with effect from this year, going up to close to $2 million next year, assuming that the benchmark remains the same? It is correct that that is a lot of money. It is correct that that is more than some Singaporeans will earn in a lifetime. However, we need to look at what the private sector, which is the other competitor to the public sector, what they would pay for people of similar skills and abilities. In that regard, I note the Minister's statement that fresh Honours graduates joining the civil service will have their salaries pegged to be competitive with the private sector. I think he mentioned that an SMU graduate would earn, on average, $2,800 per month.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my first reaction, and I suspect the same of many of my fellow MPs, when I heard that there was going to be a pay revision for Ministers and also MPs was: how to explain this to our residents, especially coming in a matter of months after the announcement to increase the GST? There was surely going to be a chorus of disapproval and complaints about this or that Minister not deserving his or her high pay. But amidst the heat and dust, we will do well to bear in mind two points. The first is that the Government is coming out in the open about what it proposes to do and that we get the opportunity to debate the merits, and the people get the opportunity to vent their feelings, with the Ministers and MPs having nowhere to hide. After all, the policy of benchmarking was adopted some 10 years ago in the 1990s. There would have been nothing to stop this Government from just following the benchmark to its full extent without any public debate. Indeed, as someone who was not in Parliament at that time - in fact, not until last year - I had simply assumed that that was being done. So, the present figures, where the Ministers' salaries at the entry level come up to 55% of the benchmark, came as something of a surprise to me. I consider that whatever our views about the pay revision, whether for or against it, we cannot complain that it is not being done in a transparent and open manner. The second point to bear in mind, which is easy to overlook, is that this proposed revision covers the entire civil service of tens of thousands of employees, roughly half, I think, are made of teaching staff, and another 15-20% made up of Police and Civil Defence officers. It also covers our Judges and statutory appointment holders like the Auditor-General.”