Chandra Mohan K Nair
Singapore
“Therefore, in the case, for example, which he mentioned, if a person lends a vehicle to another person and there is no reason for him, having known that person and having carried out sufficient checks as to why he wants the vehicle, and he tells him a very plausible story to suspect that he would use it for some crime which makes the car…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst all these avenues are very commendable, I would still like to ask whether we could formalise by having a student form of Parliament. The perception in Singapore is that the youngsters may not be that actively involved in politics.”
“Sir, may I declare my interest in the matter. I am a Council Member of the National University of Singapore. I am also the Honorary Secretary of the National University of Singapore Society, the Guild House. I am also an old graduate from the Bukit Timah campus. With that, could I ask this question, Sir?”
“Therefore, in passing this Bill, I hope that the enforcement agencies will take note of the points that have been raised here. I would also like to add that I am involved in this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.”
“I believe that some of these countries do allow but there may be stumbling blocks by way of immigration and work permit or employment pass restrictions.”
“Lastly, Sir, are there facilities within the prison for work-related activities and facilities for studies for prisoners? We must do our level best to give these prisoners a second chance in life. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update of the new Changi Prison Complex.”
The complete record
Every one of 244 lines we hold for Chandra Mohan K Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Sir, on the issue of right of appeal in criminal cases, may I bring up this point that most of the criminal cases are tried or heard in the Subordinate Courts. If there is an appeal, either by the prosecution or by the defence, then it goes to the High Court before one High Court Judge. Usually, it is heard by the honourable Chief Justice. If the prosecution fails in the appeal, then the prosecution is entitled, under the Supreme Court Judicature Act, to appeal to the Court of Appeal as the final arbiter of that particular case. If the accused should fail in his appeal before the High Court judge, then he is not automatically entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal unless it is what is known as a "point of public interest" or the like. In other words, the accused has one step towards the appeal, as compared to the prosecution having two steps, so to speak. 4.00 pm If that is so, would it be timely to consider the position of fairness to both sides and granting the accused the right to also go to the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding whether it is a point of public interest or not, so that, in the eyes of the public, it is seen to be in terms of rights of appeal, it would be equal to both the prosecution and the accused person. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, before I take this point, I think I missed out an earlier point from Mr Mohan about using private sector lawyers as DPPs. Sir, here again, one has to question whether it is practical and whether or not there is a need. We have got a very strong Criminal Justice Division in the Attorney-General's Chambers, both in terms of the expertise which resides there, as well as the number of DPPs, now aided by Assistant Public Prosecutors who prosecute minor cases in the Subordinate Courts.”
“This serves the purpose of showing to the public that these prosecutors are impartial and independent, and they may carry a better weightage, compared to what we have now. This is something worth pursuing and, for a start, if it is something worthwhile, perhaps, in terms of trust, we could consider the ex-District Judges or Magistrates, or even ex-DPPs who may be in private practice to be the first prosecutors. And, as it develops, perhaps this idea of having prosecutors, both from the practising field and from the State, could be enhanced in the years to come.”
“Sir, on the issue of Legal Officers and Deputy Public Prosecutors, the Legal Officers are qualified persons under the Legal Profession Act and under the Constitution would be graduates of law. I would like to suggest whether it is feasible to consider dividing between Legal Officers and Judicial Officers. The Legal Officers are legal advisors to Government Departments and they are mainly at the Attorney-General's Chambers where they are either State Counsel dealing with civil matters, civil law, or Deputy Public Prosecutors dealing with criminal matters. You do have in the present setup under the Legal Service Commission the transfer of Legal Officers to be Magistrates or District Judges also. At times, a setup like that might create some concern that a Legal Officer becoming a Magistrate or District Judge may pose some problems, although there has not been any case in point. But would it be feasible to have a judicial institute where our young lawyers can be trained to be judges, and the procedures and behavioural attitudes of these young lawyers to be good judges? It might be a good idea to have such an institute. On the question of Deputy Public Prosecutors, Sir, the system that we have right now is that they are all Legal Service officers. In England, there is what is known as a Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Deputy Public Prosecutors, so to speak, are actually barristers who may be a prosecutor one day and, the next day, he may be defence counsel. Is it possible for us to consider the feasibility of having an equivalent system, where the Deputy Public Prosecutors can be practising lawyers who may be conducting prosecutions and, on another occasion, be defence counsel?”
“[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 3.40 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Attorney-General is appointed under the Constitution of Singapore and his duty shall be to "advise the Government upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President of Singapore or the Cabinet and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law." He is in fact the Chief Legal Advisor to the Cabinet. There may be situations, Sir, for the need for independent legal advisors or assessors on legal opinions in very sensitive political cases especially. And would it be prudent or practical to consider the point that the legal opinion that might be given by the Attorney-General to the Cabinet on political matters, especially during general election time, when there are issues involving the general election, or even when there are legal issues involved between nations and some form of second opinion may be of use, the legal assessor could come in to give an opinion. This would, in some ways, enhance the independence and impartiality of legal opinions, as perceived by legal minds and the public. This would, in many ways, create a just and effective administration of justice in the eyes of the public. So I would suggest that this be considered, although it may be very isolated cases. But it may be useful to have such a mechanism. And in order to get legal assessors, we can always have people who are very knowledgeable on that particular matter, like some law professors, or some senior counsel, or even Queen's Counsel, who may be able to assist in many ways on the advice given by the Attorney-General's Chambers.”
“I like to thank the Minister for his clarification. I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Ahmad Khalis.”
“Some people from overseas have experience of their own Parliaments which are very exciting because there is drama or fighting. But ours is quite a sedate affair. An hon. Member: Boring!”
“The Budget Speech, for example, was a live telecast. From the ratings, I note that not a very large number of people watched the live telecast. So, I do not think it is necessary to have webcasting. I know there are certain countries which have webcasting. These are big countries like the United Kingdom and Australia. If you happen to live in Canberra, of course, you can go to the Parliament in Canberra. If you live in London, then you can go to Westminster. But if you happen to live in Scotland or Wales or you happen to live in Western Australia, it is quite a chore to fly to the capitals to listen to parliamentary proceedings. In our case, it is very simple. You just take an MRT and drop off at City Hall, or take a bus, and you can find your way here. And I do not think it is totally unproductive at all to watch what goes on on television when it is telecast. If people think it is unproductive to sit here to listen to the proceedings, then how could it be productive for them when they are doing their work and, at the same time, watch the webcast on their computer? Regarding Mr Chandra Mohan's suggestion to have more publicity, our parliamentary proceedings are already open to the media, both local media as well as the foreign media, as I have just said. The press may not be up there listening to the proceedings, but actually they are in a different room listening to every word of what we say. We cannot tell the press or the media how much to report. If there are matters of interest to the public, they will report. If MPs take up time and not say anything useful to add value, then there is nothing to report. So, really, much depends on the content of MPs' speeches. Our Parliament is very different from other Parliaments.”
“So, it is not practical at all to have MPs circulate their speeches in advance. The best way is really for MPs to sit here and listen to what the others say and, if they happen to miss it, then they could read up the Hansard and they will know what it is all about, and they can avoid repeating the views, or they may feel happy if others also share their views. Mr Chandra Mohan also suggested that an annual report be made to the citizens. I am not sure what that means, because all our parliamentary proceedings are open to the public. Anyone who has an interest in Parliament can always come here to observe parliamentary proceedings. The issues, questions and answers are reported in the media, and parts of them are also telecast. The official records of the parliamentary proceedings called the Hansard, are available in hard and soft copies, and members of the public can easily buy these from a particular bookshop called Myepb. So, our public is generally quite aware of what goes on in Parliament, particularly when there is an issue that interests them. They know what our MPs say, what position the latter take on these issues. So, I do not think there is a need for a separate report to be rendered by Parliament to the people at large. After all, the records speak for themselves. As regards Mr Steve Chia's suggestion to have webcasting of our parliamentary proceedings, I do not think there is a need for webcasting of parliamentary proceedings. As I said earlier, anyone who has an interest to know what goes on in Parliament can always come here. If he has not got the time but wants to listen to a summary of the proceedings, he can always watch the television summary at night or read the newspapers the following day. We have tried live telecast for key issues.”
“The purpose of this Branch, which came into existence in 2001, is to enable our parliamentarians in the region, eg, Malaysia, to share experiences and views amongst themselves and with members of other Parliaments in other parts of the Commonwealth. Our MPs also get in touch regularly with Indonesian MPs. So, Mr Chandra Mohan can be assured that we have indeed very close ties with our neighbouring Parliaments. The other avenue for contact is the Singapore Parliamentary Society, which also has relations with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. Every year, there is an ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) meeting. These meetings are rotated among the capitals of ASEAN countries and many of our MPs take an active part in it. We also take part in the various committees of AIPO and we make valuable contributions at these meetings. Mr Chandra Mohan also suggested that MPs circulate their speeches and keep each other informed of their views, so that they can either reinforce one another's views or at least know what the views are, so that they would not repeat some of these views. There is no requirement under the Standing Orders for any MP to circulate their speeches in advance. In fact, the Parliament Secretariat has checked this up and found that the UK, the New Zealand, the Australian, the Malaysian Parliaments and even the US Congress do not have such a practice of circulating speeches in advance. Besides, Members of Parliament have different ways of delivering their speeches. Some write down every word of their speech. Some have a gist of what they want to say and they would speak from an outline, and some would just speak impromptu.”
“The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, may I answer this on behalf of Parliament as Leader of the House. Mr Chandra Mohan asked what we have done about improving our relations with other parliamentary organisations and also international organisations. I would say that our Parliament has indeed been very active in maintaining warm and friendly relations with many international organisations and other Parliaments. For example, we are an active participant in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation meetings. From time to time, our MPs attend the conferences organised by these organisations. They also attend courses organised by other Parliaments. Our Speaker also visits other Parliaments and the Presiding Officers of these Parliaments also come to our Parliament. So do many delegations from foreign Parliaments also visit our Parliament, and our parliamentarians themselves are also sent on these delegation visits together with our Speaker from time to time. We have, on our own, formed several groups of MPs who may have an interest in a particular sector or region. For example, we have five parliamentary groups - Singapore-West Asia & Africa, Singapore-Asia Pacific Rim, Singapore-Southeast Asia, Singapore-Europe and Singapore-Americas groups. If Mr Chandra Mohan is not aware of these, he can make inquiries from Parliament and, if he has an interest in any of these organisations, please do so and join them. The Singapore Branch of the Singapore Parliamentary Association, together with those of Malaysia, for example, formed the Southeast Asia Regional Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.”
“On the issue of staff support for parliamentarians, it may be important to engage more professional staff like lawyers, accountants, political scientists, economists, sociologists, etc, to help Members of Parliament in their research so that a higher standard is achieved in their parliamentary speeches, preparation, statistics, etc. It may well be that MPs may have this kind of support but perhaps we could institutionalise the whole thing and have the staff housed in Parliament though the cost might go up, but this is one of the most important institutions in Singapore, and what better way than getting enough expertise and people in the know, in particular specialised fields, to help parliamentarians in the preparation of their research in order to prepare their respective speeches. Sir, it is just like in the Supreme Court where we have Justices Law Clerks who are very high performers, who have achieved very well in their law degrees in NUS or in foreign universities, and these Justices Law Clerks do assist the Judges in a great way in doing research, so that the presentation by the Judges of their judgments would be of a higher standard too. Similarly, perhaps, we could look along the same line. In terms of welfare for staff, Sir, I am sure there are ways and means of doing it and I am sure there are mechanics that are in place right now. But could I just say that I hope there will be staff welfare and improvement in the upgrading of the staff both at the senior level and junior level too? Perhaps we could send them on scholarships and also for local studies in Temasek Polytechnic, a form of diploma courses in business studies, law, banking, etc. And I think in this way, there would be a higher morale of staff in Parliament and also upgrading of their standards.”
“I am obliged, Sir. The issues are publicity and airing of parliamentary debates, staff support for parliamentarians and welfare for staff. As regards publicity and airing of parliamentary debates, I would like to ask: is there a concerted effort on the part of Parliament to improve the publicity and airing of these debates, (1) on TV; (2) radio; and, (3) the mass media? I remember a couple of years ago, there seemed to be more time allocated on television for parliamentary debates. It would appear that now it seems to be much shorter, about 15-20 minutes or so, except on exceptional grounds. I would urge Parliament to try and liaise with the mass media to try and enhance the time period and the concentration of parliamentary debates, both Ministers and MPs' speeches, to be aired on TV and radio, and to try and liaise with the press to have a supplementary page whenever Parliament is sitting, especially during the time of the Budget debate. It is important for us to disseminate as much information as possible and arguments and counter arguments for the citizenry to make an assessment and to decide, so that they also would improve on their understanding of politics and issues that concern them and the State. And I think, overall, there will be an enhancement of the educational process of parliamentary debates and politics in Singapore. So I cannot see but an improvement, Sir, if these things are seriously considered and steps taken to improve them.”
“Sir, on the topic of written and oral presentations in Parliament and reports on Parliament, what is the current practice of written presentations in Parliament? I notice that in the short period that I have been in Parliament, it has been on an individual basis where oral presentation of course is done on your own. As far as written presentations go I do not see a form of exchange of our written presentations in advance to our colleagues. It may be worthwhile considering, perhaps, for our colleagues to exchange our written submissions, so to speak, so that there is less repetition amongst us, although it may not be a bad thing to have repetition, because it is also an endorsement of that particular view by more than one parliamentarian. This could be extended even to the Ministers of State and to the Minister in charge of that particular topic and vice-versa. And that might go a long way towards parliamentary debate and the level of debate, and the upgrading of our standards in parliamentary debates in Singapore. As far as reports on Parliament are concerned, Sir, it is important to disseminate whatever reports we have to the public at large because we are in a sense accountable to them. No doubt, the Internet and website will go a long way to assist our citizenry to participate by listening to speeches and making assessments. It is a good sign to see many members of the public, and especially the young, the school children, attending parliamentary sessions and getting an idea of what Parliament and parliamentary sessions are all about. So I would encourage Parliament itself to enhance the image of Parliament and the reports and what goes on in Parliament.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I would like to know which other parliaments and international organisations are we connected with, and have dealings with. It is my view, Sir, that it is crucial that we have better rapport and relationships with parliaments of other countries and international organisations like the United Nations, EEC, ASEAN, etc. We have the Inter-Parliamentary Association. Perhaps some clarifications could be made on this as to how active the Inter-Parliamentary Association has been, and will be, in future. More activities and meetings, forums and seminars should be organised for greater interaction between the parliaments of the world and I hope we can be pro-active in this regard. And what could be done to improve ties with ASEAN countries, especially so with Malaysia and Indonesia, having regard to the need to build better relations between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia?”
“I would urge therefore - although maybe not compulsorily made - that in some form, the bankers, who are directors of banks, should have a limited span of, say, 10-15 years at the most in the banking industry.”
“Sir, on local and foreign bank licences. The granting of banking licences for local and foreign banks is controlled by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. There are only a few bank licences granted by the State. Generally speaking, there is a great deal of money being made by the banks over the years, compared to other industries, and even during recessionary periods. There must therefore follow that benefits must also bring in good deeds, a sense of responsibility and assisting the customers of banks. When times are bad, I think there is a responsibility on the part of banks to reconsider - although one could argue that it is not feasible, in terms of making profits - the duty of the banks towards the nation and its citizens. Therefore, the interest rates should be reconsidered. Although the State cannot govern what the banks should do, there must be an imposition of some sort to make sure that they are fair about the interest rates. If the interest rates being charged or being given to customers are at a very low end, then the interest rates to be charged for borrowing of money, mortgages, etc, should also be reduced. The other point I would like to raise is that the bank licences that are given by the State are given sparingly. In this connection, there is only that number of bank directors. I think it is important to spread the wealth of the nation amongst the citizenry. If we look at directors of banks, they are only a limited number over the last 10-20 years or so. Perhaps the State should consider whether a banker should be allowed to be a director for a certain number of years, beyond which it should be then spread to other bankers. In this way, the experience is spread and wealth is also spread.”
“Also, why can we not have a provision for a banker's guarantee to be provided in lieu of payment of cash and this should be allowed because most clubs cannot afford to cough up that large amount?”
“Sir, tax on clubs and associations. Most, if not all, member clubs and associations, that is, non-proprietary clubs, especially those registered under the Societies Act, are non-profit making organisations. They survive financially mainly on entrance fees and monthly subscriptions. There is tax imposed on clubs. Could the Government consider reviewing the imposition of tax on member clubs as most of them are just surviving financially, especially during these difficult times? And many of them do a lot of charitable work and also yeoman service for the State. This is especially so when it comes to jackpot or fruit machines found in the clubs. There is tax of, I believe, about 43% of the gross takings of each jackpot machine in each of these clubs. Could these rules be reviewed by the authorities so that there will be no tax, or that there will be a reduction in tax, to save an enormous tax of 5% or 10% of the gross takings of jackpot machines? Also, I am informed that there is a requirement now that member clubs must deposit a sum of $10,000 cash per jackpot machine with the income tax authority. Therefore, if the club has 10 jackpot machines, that club must pay $100,000 cash and that is going to be very difficult for most clubs. I understand the tax authority may allow instalment terms, where there is an application made. Why the need for this deposit when there were no such rules all these years, I believe? Would the Government kindly consider waiving this sum? If not, would the Government consider reducing the deposit required to a lower sum, say, about $1,000 per machine, instead of $10,000?”
“Sir, having regard to what we have heard in the debates of the last three days, I wish to withdraw the cuts for these two items.”
“I am obliged, Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $364,870 for Head G ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head M -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head G of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. On this item, Sir, again Part VA of the Constitution of Singapore provides for the Council of Presidential Advisers. It talks about the tenure of office of the President and other council members. As discussed earlier, Sir, there is a period of six years of tenure, plus four years each as the years go by. I would like to ask if this should be reviewed and more persons be given the chance to be in the Council of Presidential Advisers as I had discussed in the earlier parts. Also, the issue of the Report of the Council of Presidential Advisers is presented to the Prime Minister and to Parliament under Article 37K. It is important, Sir, for the citizenry to know about this. Although it may be presented to Parliament, is there an avenue whereby some of these matters can be presented to the citizens so that they know that there is in existence such a body? Very often, our citizens may not be fully aware of what is going on in Parliament. So, in some ways, all these could be disseminated to our citizenry so that they have an idea of what is going on and that they are made aware of the workings of the office of President and the Advisers to the President. It is important that we have a good mix of officials in the Council of Presidential Advisers, including different races and religious persons, so that it will be a balanced set of advisers who are advising the President. This can be disseminated to the public so that we are accountable to the public and they would be made more aware of what is going on in the workings of very senior positions and senior organs of the state. 12.15 pm”
“Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $555,970 for Head D ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $80,000 for Head D ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head G -”
“Although it is not in the Constitution, there may be some rules as regards secrecy and for how many years papers must be kept secret. I understand, like in England, if I am not mistaken, it is about 30 years or so, and in Singapore it may be likewise. Should this be reviewed so that historians and people who are interested in knowing the deliberations of Cabinet and decisions made could have access to some of the information and these could be declassified at an earlier period than what we have at the moment? It will give a better insight into the workings”
“Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Singapore provides in Articles 23 to 36 the Executive, which includes the Cabinet. With respect, Sir, should there be a need for a Prime Minister in any country? Why must there be a Head of the Cabinet all the time? Why can we not have a group of persons and they can take charge on a rotational basis, say, change every two to three years? This will give all of the senior Cabinet Ministers higher responsibility and they can also decide whether they want to hold or aspire for the highest office in the Cabinet. Should the Prime Minister and other Ministers serve not more than one term of 4-5 years, or two terms of 8-10 years? In a sense, Sir, no one should be indispensable and no one should be burdened with such serious responsibilities for too long. Others must share in the pressure, and perhaps pleasure, of high office. And all must be given a chance to excel, and that is meritocracy, Sir. In other countries, Prime Ministers do change often after general elections. That has got its merits or demerits. It may be healthy to have changes. I would therefore urge that a study be done by the Cabinet on this and report to Parliament to see what is best for Singapore in future. As for Cabinet meetings, Sir, Article 36 of the Constitution provides for a Cabinet Secretary for the arranging of the business and for keeping of minutes of Cabinet meetings. How do we educate Parliamentarians and our citizens on Cabinet meetings and Cabinet matters if it is done in such secrecy in many senses of the word? It is important that although these may be classified, may be secret, perhaps there should be a review of Cabinet proceedings so that Parliamentarians would also be educated about what is going on in Cabinet.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Could I take the two items?”
“At the end of the day, Sir, Parliament is there to serve the people of Singapore, no matter what party or affiliation they belong to. Let us all work together as parliamentarians and, thereafter, think of each person as a PAP MP, Workers' Party MP or SDP MP or even NMP. I would therefore like to urge the Government to review the election system generally and that a special committee be formed to study this proposal carefully so as to serve Singapore in a better fashion in the years ahead.”
“Most nations may not even think about these things, but let us try, if it is possible, having regard to our circumstances and local conditions. These problems that we have, in terms of quarrels, animosity or wastage of time, may not be good as our citizens would then not respect our politicians, which they well deserve. It is important to give the citizens a good system so that our politicians are well respected by our citizenry. We could have around 50 candidates in 50 constituencies on a single seat basis to run individually and, perhaps, we do not need GRCs. And, perhaps, we could have another 50, appointed by an elections board of senior wise and intelligent people, who have been ex-politicians, civil servants, and representatives from the judiciary, business groups and all religious groups, perhaps, in a sense similar to the House of Lords and even, in a small sense, like NMPs. This will get rid of constant complaints that we cannot get good people to run for elections because many wise and intelligent people and good people may not want to get into the arena of almost a litigation form of politics, but are willing to serve in a quiet way when they are appointed. There are many people who are capable of doing that but may be very reluctant to run for elections. As far as the Elections Department is concerned, I would like to say that we must ensure that it is as independent as possible and is perceived to be, and the citizenry must respect that and believe that it is independent. On the point of whether they are involved in the issue of electoral boundaries, this is an issue that has been debated before in Parliament. Perhaps it should be revisited to make it a fairer playing ground for all parties.”
“Yes, Sir. On General Elections and Elections Department, Sir, under our Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act and other relevant statutes, it is the honourable Prime Minister who plays the major role on when to have the general elections and, usually, it is every four to five years that we have our general elections. In a sense, the Hon. Prime Minister is the only or main person in Singapore who decides on this - of course, I am sure, with the Cabinet. Should this be reviewed and should Parliament decide, together with the Prime Minister, on this issue? Should the citizens decide, through Parliament and the President of Singapore? To make it fairer and in order to be more certain, should it not fix, say, on a particular month, every five years, and not leave it to the discretion of the Hon. Prime Minister? Is this not fairer and more just to the nation as a whole and not leave it to any political party? Only if there is an emergency situation, for instance, some natural disaster in the country, a serious civil strife or disquiet, which the Prime Minister has to justify to an independent body to be created, can that date then be vacated so that there is finality as regards the date for election. 11.45 am What is the ideal, Sir? What is the experience in other countries - USA, UK, Australia, Canada, France or Germany? Should we also modify the system of general elections, lessening the need to have political parties as the years go by, so that we do not go by way of political parties but by way of good citizens serving the nation in the political arena? There is a great deal of energy and time spent under the current system, and a lot of uncertainty and even animosity amongst political parties and politicians. Is this ideal? Is there room for improvement?”
“Sir, with your permission, I am obliged that I can take 1(h) and (i) together. Could I also just include (l) also, as it is in a way intertwined? The Chairman: No, you cannot. The cuts must run sequentially.”
“If so, what are the reasons for this increase or decrease? Overseas corruption, Sir, is corruption committed by Singaporeans. Should the law be reviewed considering anecdotal evidence that our businessmen and entrepreneurs are at a disadvantage compared to businessmen from other countries who are more prone to corrupt ways? What is the business efficacy of this, and the morality and ethics of all these? Should we study this matter and decide what is best for Singapore in today's context?”
“Sir, the Prevention of Corruption Act provides for the establishment of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Is the autho- rity in charge of the CPIB and the go-ahead to prosecute in court, besides the Attorney-General who puts on the hat of the Public Prosecutor and grants the fait to prosecute, the Prime Minster's Office? If so, should this be reviewed? The Ministry of Home Affairs normally handles all arms of the Police Force and the Prison Authority, etc. Why not the CPIB too if the former is the case, and as I mentioned, why under the Prime Minister's Office? After all, the CPIB officers, from what I understand, are also police officers and their powers of investigation are carried out under the Criminal Procedures Code, like other criminal matters? How independent and transparent is the CPIB? Is there a report of the workings of the CPIB available to Parliament like many other reports? I perused the report of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the year 2002, but I could not find anything on the CPIB - I stand to be corrected here - but I could not find it. It only talks about our own Home Team's department, which includes the Singapore Police Force, Singapore Civil Defence Force, Prisons Department, Central Narcotics Bureau and Singapore Immigration and Registration and the statutory boards - the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation and Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises. Should the CPIB's line of reporting therefore be reviewed and Parliament be informed with an annual report so that parliamentarians can consider the workings of the CPIB? Also, Sir, is there an increase or decrease of corruption cases and cases brought to court on such matters for the last three years or so?”
“Yes, Sir. The LSC could be expanded to include two new members, besides the current LSC members, comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of PSC, a Judge of the Supreme Court and two members of PSC. In this way, a good feel and feedback of the whole legal fraternity could be better obtained and it could be said that the legal service officers, who also include magistrates and district judges appointments, and their promotions are considered by a better spread of citizens of Singapore. Finally, Sir, my view is that, as far as possible, the people's voice and representations must be respected and allow to come to fruition wherever possible, so that there is a good synergy and symbiosis of minds and hearts of the people in high office and the citizens of Singapore.”
“Whilst there are very distinguished people and a good mix of people in the PSC and the Legal Service Commission, it could be said that the composition of the LSC might not have a good mix of persons from the legal fraternity, ie, lawyers from the NUS Law Faculty, the Law Society of Singapore and the legal fraternity as a whole. Would the Government, therefore, consider revamping the composition of the LSC to incorporate a better mix amongst members in the legal fraternity? We could have, for instance, the Dean of Law, the President of the Law Society, or their representatives, as representatives of the LSC.”
“My other query, Sir, is whether there is a strategic planning exercise, say, every three to five years, to assess the quality and quantity of civil servants required by our country. And do we have too many civil servants today? If so, should this be remedied? The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides in Part IX, Articles 102-119, the public services of Singapore. The public services consist of the Singapore Armed Forces, the Singapore Civil Service, the Singapore Legal Service, and the Singapore Police Force. Article 105 provides for a Public Service Commission consisting of a Chairman and not less than five and not more than 14 other members appointed by the President of Singapore. And Article 107 provides that the tenure of office of every member of the Public Service Commission shall serve five years and may be re-appointed. My question, Sir, is this. Should these appointments be constantly reviewed so that the best and most capable people, and with sufficient time and keen interest, be appointed? What is the best or preferred criterion to decide these? In order to give an opportunity to more people, who are qualified and capable, to offer fresh ideas to the Public Service Commission (PSC), should there be a cap on the term of service of PSC members to a maximum of one term or five years? Also, should the tenure of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman be up to a maximum of three years, so that there is fresh blood and rotation of chairmanship and, therefore, opportunity given to others to take on leadership roles? Sir, Article 111 of the Constitution provides for a Legal Service Commission (LSC).”
“Much obliged. Sir, our civil service is the backbone of the Government. They have improved over the years and do provide, on the whole, very efficient service to our people, and we should be proud of their capabilities and their just and fair dealings with the citizenry. There should not be discrimination amongst civil servants. We believe in meritocracy in school and working life and, therefore, it should follow in the civil service too. Therefore, why should there be Article 111A in the form of Administrative Service Scheme of Service and the Administrative (Foreign Service) Scheme of Service? It is a form of elitism within the civil service and it can be perceived as lacking in the concept of meritocracy in the pure sense. As and when a civil servant progresses in life, he or she should be judged by competency, and a public officer must be treated equally and given an equal opportunity to excel, notwithstanding he or she may be a secondary, junior college or general degree holder, or first-class honours, masters or Ph.D graduate. Once he or she comes into the working world, the promotion prospects must be based on merit, both in terms of ability, personality and the handling of life's problems and coming up with solutions as a whole. Should we therefore remove the categorisation of civil servants into Administrative Service and the rest of the civil service? My query, Sir, is the necessity for dividing the civil service, wittingly or unwittingly, and the Administrative Service, and whether civil servants are discriminated in their promotion prospects, although they may not express it so openly.”
“Sir, with your permission, may I address this House on items (1)(b) and (c) together?”
“Yes. Would the Minister consider a group of parliamentarians from Malaysia to appear before the Parliament in Singapore, and vice versa, to present our cases to each Parliament and present the facts? And by having this kind of dissemination of information, would it somehow minimise the problem, and the Ministers with powers would know what their responsibilities are in trying to resolve the problem? And the people's power would sort of override and say, "Let us resolve the problem." Because we are not finding a solution. And, over the years, this has happened.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, perhaps we may need to consider alternative forms of discussion to try and resolve the problem or, at least, minimise the problem. Would this House consider alternatives? For instance, if it is possible, let us disseminate information as much as possible in Singapore - which is being done now by the Hon. Minister, which is a positive point. Let the mass media disseminate that and perhaps on the Internet. Let the Malaysian press be told to disseminate there too, because this is a serious problem. I cannot understand why human beings need to have this kind of problems when the citizenry, the people, just want to carry on with life. And if there is a problem and an impasse between Ministers or Cabinet, I think let us look for alternatives. I would even suggest ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I now refer to clause 6 (section 13H), which provides as follows:- "The Registrar shall remove from the register and from the DNA database the registrable particulars and DNA information of any person - (a) whose death has been registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Cap. 267); or (b) who, the Registrar is satisfied, has attained 100 years of age." This so-called concession is really of very little value to the person whose registrable particulars and DNA information are kept by the said Registrar. I would propose that for the details about the "registrable particulars" the age should be reduced from 100 years to, say, 55, or use a different criterion, namely, to remove the "registrable particulars" 10 years after the date of conviction by a court of law (for non-custodial cases) or 10 years from release from prison. Most human beings do not live beyond 80 years of age and, therefore, 100 years is not a practical age. The proposal I am suggesting will give a more realistic approach to wanting to give a clean slate to the convicted person and to remove the stigma and bad image that is connected to any form of criminal record. Everyone deserves a second chance in life and hopefully through such amendments, the State is seen to be compassionate and caring to its citizens who may have committed some crime at a younger age.”
“It is also to ensure the efficiency of the Registrar of the Register of Criminals, and to ensure that he complies expeditiously with the duties under this Act. I would also suggest, as an alternative, that a provision be added to require the Registrar to return the record of photographs and finger impressions and registrable particulars to the person concerned. If he or she does not want them, then the Registrar shall destroy them. This was the case when the Registration of Criminals Act was passed in 1949 in the Legislative Council of the Colony of Singapore. Clause 5 gives far-reaching powers to the "authorised officer in charge" to take body samples of persons arrested and accused of a crime, or convicted of a crime, or is serving his term of imprisonment in connection with a crime of which he has been convicted. These are provided for in the proposed section 13B of the Act. The accuracy of the DNA tests and the proper and competent management of the samples taken must be observed carefully, and it is the responsibility of the relevant Government authorities that there is absolutely no abuse. Are we absolutely sure that DNA tests are accurate enough? Do we have enough competent officers, both scientific and law enforcement officers, to carry out these tasks? There must be proper training for these officers, so that the system is respected. I do hope that investigating authorities would still rely on the age-old tool of proper and thorough investigation in any case, big or small, to arrive at the truth of any case.”
“It would therefore be prudent that proper warnings of adverse inference be administered to the arrested or accused person along the lines of section 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code about adverse inference and, in this case, with the appropriate modifications of course. Section 122(6) provides as follows: "Where any person is charged with an offence or officially informed that he may be prosecuted for it, he shall be served with a notice in writing, which shall be explained to him to the following effect: 'You have been charged with/informed that you may be prosecuted for ...' and the charge is set out." And the question will be asked: "Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? If there is any fact on which you intend to rely in your defence in court, you are advised to mention it now. If you hold it back till you go to court, your evidence may be less likely to be believed and this may have a bad effect on your case in general. If you wish to mention any fact now, and you would like it written down, this will be done." So this is a precautionary measure that is very useful, and the courts would take into cognisance this fact whether the accused did give his defence or not. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 3 relating to section 10(b) of the Act could also be modified as follows:- "(b) the Registrar shall cause the finger impressions, photographs and registrable particulars that he had received in respect of that person under section 8(c) to be destroyed ..." and I would add these words: "... and the Registrar shall notify in writing to that person within 14 days". This is to ensure fairness to that person who has been acquitted or discharged without a conviction being recorded against him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Bill introduces the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests into the criminal law. The DNA information, ie, the genetic information derived from the forensic DNA analysis of a body sample is being introduced to assist the law enforcement agencies and the prosecuting authorities to investigate and obtain evidence against accused persons. There is also a provision in the proposed section, ie, section 13(C)(3) which provides as follows:- "Where it is shown that the appropriate consent required under subsection (1) for the taking of a sample of blood from a person was refused without good cause, the court, in determining - (a) whether to commit that person for trial in connection with the crime of which he is accused of committing; (b) whether there is a case to answer against that person; or (c) whether that person is guilty of the crime with which he has been charged, may draw such inference from the refusal as it thinks proper and, based on such inference, may treat the refusal as corroboration or amounting to corroboration of any relevant evidence against that person." In this regard, I am in agreement with Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung who made the observation that this is a matter of concern. There is therefore the introduction here of an almost or close to the concept of "presumption of guilt" in a sense, if the accused does not cooperate in giving his DNA sample. Because of these powers being conferred, the enforcement and prosecuting authorities must ensure there are enough safeguards and proper checks and balances so that there is no opportunity for potential abuse to the detriment of accused persons, and to ensure that there is proper administration of justice according to the rule of law.”
“Not at all. I think it was unfortunate in terms of the timing. It was a mood in which the country was progressing, and when a term like "quitter" is used and some people are affected by it, they get a bit concerned and disappointed. But I am sure the Prime Minister, when he addressed Singaporeans, he meant well, and that is what I have stated in my speech.”
“These include, inter alia: 1) the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, especially Articles touching on fundamental rights and citizenship; 2) the Societies Act, to liberalise activities of our more than 5,000 civic and non-governmental organisations, sports organisations, religious bodies and voluntary organisations, and less control of and sanctions against them; 3) the Internal Security Act; 4) the Vandalism Act; 5) the Penal Code and other criminal laws; 6) the Criminal Procedure Code, and review of Singapore society's need to adopt the preferred principles of sentencing, such as deterrence, rehabilitation and reformation, and modes of punishment like imprisonment, fines, caning, probation, etc; and 7) Statutes governing the press and mass-media and the need to liberalise these and have less governmental control. We should also consider the merits of introducing the equivalent of the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, a Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information Act, and amend the various "stifling" legislation touching on life in Singapore as a whole, so that we will have a more fair, just, compassionate and more participative society, where citizens and residents are given more say and power in deciding the future of our lives in Singapore. Finally, Sir, it may be prudent to set up a machinery to interview citizens who are migrating from Singapore in order to obtain frank disclosure and genuine feedback from them as to why they are leaving. The Government can then take remedial measures to minimise this perceived problem. This would, in some way, reflect the compassionate side of our Singapore Government.”
“The Remaking Singapore dialogue sessions have seen many good and innovative suggestions which, in many instances, have been voiced by citizens, including professionals, non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and grassroots leaders in the last decade or even longer. These ideas must now be seriously considered by the top and elite Government leaders fairly and justly with an open mind. A national debate for, say, one or two months, on television, radio, newspapers, seminars and conferences, with all sectors participating, without exception, might do good for the soul and spirit of Singapore. It will create a greater sense of togetherness, comradeship, camaraderie, gelling of minds and consensual style of life in Singapore henceforth, and anyone who is against proper discussion and debate should be enlightened and led to see the light in proper dialogue sessions. It must not be a top-down system of accepting views and suggestions. Singaporeans may be tired of this style of government and want a change, preferably a more liberal, democratic way of governance. We should also review and, if thought fit in today's context, amend the relevant legislation in Singapore to create the right spirit and way of life in Singapore, so that people who are thinking of leaving Singapore for good could be persuaded to change their minds, and stay and contribute towards the well-being of Singapore.”
“They have more open and liberal minds. They want political and social freedoms. And they want politicians to open up and be less powerful and paternalistic. They have greater options. They are more mobile and are more confident and ambitious. Their parents are wealthier and have fewer children to support - two or three today, compared to larger numbers in the 1950s and 60s. Most of our top civil servants and Government officials, Ministers included, studied abroad. They may have been on scholarships and, therefore, bonded and had to come home. I would like to think they came back to serve our nation besides their own families. All our citizens who go abroad temporarily or permanently should be treated as Singapore's "ambassadors", and they can serve Singapore as our external friends, both in the region and globally. They will be Singaporeans at heart. Treat them well. It is never too late. Keep in touch with them. Help them where possible. The current exercise of remaking Singapore must be carried out across-the-board in all sectors of Singapore society. In discussing remaking Singapore, citizens, residents in Singapore, senior civil servants, the Cabinet, legislature and judiciary must all come to one level playing field and toss their ideas and long-held beliefs to be tested by others. The top echelon should not only receive reports from the various main and sub-committees of the Remaking Singapore Committee. Their ideas must be tested and approved also. If not, the result may not be very effective for Singapore for the next lap.”
“All these and many more reasons are subjective and very personal (and they may be real or perceived) - and the Government may not have all the expertise to resolve these issues, or the moral or legal authority to stop these thoughts and therefore movements or migration from Singapore to especially Western, ASEAN or Asian countries. Just like so many foreign citizens from these other countries are coming to Singapore to make it their temporary or permanent home. Perhaps we should just leave these people to decide whether to leave temporarily or to migrate permanently. We should not have double standards - on the one hand to invite foreigners to come to Singapore and not be happy when Singaporeans leave Singapore. One might guess that it is the better off citizens (financially and education-wise) who are leaving and therefore the Government is concerned and unhappy. It is part of the fear of brain drain syndrome. These people may also be, relatively speaking, more critical and cynical citizens who have exercised their own preference. And unless the above-mentioned complaints are addressed and remedied, migration by Singaporeans might not diminish. What the Government can do to try and attempt to minimise the outward flow, if really necessary, is to review the mindset of the political and other leaderships, to see if they are able to accept these facts of life. And if the people give feedback that there must be changes and the powers-that-be do not wish to make changes, then there is an impasse. The problem would then remain and it would be sad for the nation as a whole. Many citizens, especially our younger people, are more internationalised, having been better educated beyond O-levels, A-levels, polytechnics and universities, having studied locally and abroad.”
“What about culturally, in terms of liberalisation of the arts, theatre, plays, films, forums, seminars, night life and leisure-related activities; what about political freedom, removal of OB markers, less fear of defamation suits by Ministers against opposition politicians. There may be more complaints in these fields. The Government may need to be more enlightened and more liberal so that our citizens are exposed to and allowed to experiment more. They need to be given that choice. Citizens should not be made to feel restricted, disorientated or alienated. Further, there should be less stress in life. The sector that feels so may want to leave the country for good. It is a major decision to leave one's country for another. It is preferable if he or she is not labelled. Ask ourselves why they are leaving. Very personal and subjective reasons will be given - for greener pastures, perception that there is too much of stress at home, school and workplace, greater opportunities for them and especially their children's future, get away from high cost of living, high cost of medical care, no social or welfare care compared to other countries, like Australia, Canada, England or United States of America, too competitive to get to tertiary institutions, no space for different forms of liberal recreation, get away from over-regulation, over-governance, too much of paternalistic governing, too rigid laws and too harsh punishments, too much or overzealous prosecution in court, perceived unfairness in treatment of opponents, opposition parties, non-political party individuals, non-governmental organisations, school system and ranking system causing trauma, tension and unhappiness amongst children, parents, teachers, principals, etc.”
“The Government should be less interventionist in their approach towards governing Singapore in this context. The preferred way to ensure that not too many caring Singaporeans leave Singapore permanently or temporarily is to ensure that our Government (the Executive and civil service), the Legislature and the Judiciary run the country and our national institutions fairly, justly, equitably, compassionately and democratically - giving space and choices wherever possible to all our citizens and residents in Singapore. And therefore, there would be less opportunity for complaints amongst disgruntled citizens. A government that is self-disciplined with responsibility towards the nation and its citizens, having compassion and kindness, doing their level best to give as much happiness and peace of mind as possible to its people, creating friendship between government and its people (whether PAP or opposition supporting), encourage better work, respect and dignity given to each worker and improved wages for them, spreading of wealth amongst citizens more equitably, having a sense of honesty and loyalty to citizens, creating space for non-politicians - these are the areas the Government must review and improve upon - and more citizens who are thinking of migrating, may decide to stay in Singapore. Generally, they want more political space and that the Government should have less power and control of their lives. Generally, most people will accept that our Government has done well in bringing about economic prosperity, security and a comfortable life to most people in Singapore compared to ASEAN countries as a whole. How about other sectors of activities in Singapore? Will the way Singapore is run and managed make its people truly happy and contented?”