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 5 of 5.
“More transparent evidence is required to convince the man or woman in the street that there are many quitters - a percentage that is too large for the nation's good. The public should be given more information and statistics of people migrating from Singapore, in terms of race, sex, age groups, educational level, income level, those with relatives who are already abroad, where they are migrating to and why they wish to migrate. On the contrary, there seems to be more "quitters" from abroad coming to Singapore to work and live and try and apply to be "stayers" - even permanent stayers by trying to be permanent residents or applying to be citizens of Singapore under the Constitution of Singapore. "Stayers" from Singapore, or abroad, are a good thing for Singapore as a whole. "Quitters" are, we are told, bad for Singapore. Is the basis for "good" or "bad" measured mainly by "economic" yardsticks? Some people may argue that, in certain quarters, it is perceived as an insult to Singapore and our Government leadership for any citizen to leave Singapore because the Government cannot understand why some of our citizens do leave Singapore to go abroad temporarily or permanently, although the Government has put in so much of hard work to make Singapore a success, and internationally recognised as such. It is best to leave human beings alone on this matter - let them decide what to do with their lives. Quitters may not be disloyal to the nation. Also, stayers may not be the greatest of loyal citizens. Quitters may want to leave Singapore for various reasons - and the reasons are very personal and subjective. And the Government need not and should not decide for them, nor should they judge them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Motion. "Stayers" and "quitters" have been talked and written about by our citizenry more frequently since August this year. And it would appear that these words have brought about unhappiness and uneasiness in our Singapore society generally since they were highlighted on 18th August 2002 at the National Day Rally speech by our hon. Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. I am sure he was sad and concerned when he said it, and our people were sad when they felt some of them were being labelled, in some ways, unfairly. I am sure our Prime Minister meant well. However, on hindsight, it could be argued that such a topic need not be raised, especially at a National Day Rally speech. It does not help our people at this stage, when the spirit of the nation is down and not shining as it used to in yesteryears. The Prime Minister was careful in his speech when he restricted the ambit of "quitters" by saying "fair-weather Singaporeans will run away whenever the country runs into stormy weather. I call them "quitters". Fortunately, "quitters" are in the minority. The majority of Singaporeans are "stayers". "Stayers" are committed to Singapore. Rain or shine, they will be with Singapore." Perhaps, this topic, having been raised and discussed, might give us some insights into our citizens' hopes and aspirations whilst staying in Singapore. Thus far, from information readily available to the public, that is, from the press, television, radio, Internet websites and Government statements, it does not appear to be a problem or a major problem. If it is a problem faced by the Government, it has not been felt too strongly by the people.”
“I would support the amendments, but with these observations in mind. Can these transportation companies and entities hold on until next year when, hopefully, there will be better times? If my speech would lead to something that is not relevant to the amended motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will stop here. But as far as the amendments are concerned, I would support what has been proposed.”
“It is important that locally, amongst our people and also in the international arena, we are seen to be more liberal, just like in our other walks of life, including trade, business, professional work, cultural works and sports.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Act was passed in 1994 to regulate dealing in, operation of, and ownership in broadcasting services and broadcasting apparatus. Our Government should, as far as possible, let market forces decide on ownership of broadcasting companies. We should have a more liberal approach to ownership of broadcasting in Singapore and open up to internationalised broadcasting, in line with internationalisation of businesses, professions, cultural activities and sports. The need, therefore, to get approval to appoint the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman or Director from the Singapore Broadcasting Authority seems to go against normal market forces. And I wonder if there have been any negative appointments recently to introduce this strict rule in this proposed Bill. The Broadcasting Authority may also wish to consider and be allowed to have more liberal ways of broadcasting programmes from abroad, especially ASEAN countries. We should broadcast more ASEAN countries' programmes on radio and television, so that we become more educated and enlightened about our neighbours. What do we know about Myanmar, Kampuchea or even Thailand? I will be the first one to admit that I know very little. Perhaps the Broadcasting Authority and the printing presses likewise have a national duty to educate our citizens and leaders. The Internet and modern communication systems traversed by our people abroad would certainly allow them to have more access to broadcasts of these countries. Let us, as Singaporeans, take the initiative of promoting ASEAN broadcasts in Singapore. We could perhaps start with their channels involving culture, songs and sports. In this way, other ASEAN countries too would do likewise.”
“As a side note relating to the newspapers' ability to educate their readers, may I also encourage our newspapers to cite in their articles or stories, all the relevant websites and articles and Government materials and their websites being relied on by journalists, politicians and civil servants so that the reader would be aware where the sources came from. So, at the end of each article, there must be, almost compulsorily, websites and articles that were relied on, so that the discerning reader would move on to read those articles, and we would find better debates, not just in Parliament but in Singapore as a whole. Our citizens are more intelligent, I would say, and more discerning these days, and let them decide, after analysing the facts and issues as they perceive it.”
“We in Singapore and Malaysians in Malaysia, have free access to the Internet, foreign newspapers and magazines from all over the world, but not from each other's countries. Information is available and accessible very easily. Then why this restriction between Singapore and Malaysia on the availability of our respective newspapers? There may be political reasons in the 1960s, and perhaps 1970s and 1980s. It shows how suspicious our politicians and Malaysian politicians were and still are, but our citizens may look at things differently. I for one do. We need a set of new thinking amongst our political leaders and Malaysian political leaders. It is about time political leaders from both countries revisited these rules with a genuine interest in building more trustworthy and practical approaches to dissemination of information and political and social issues between our two nations. The political leadership must venture to close the gap and create the right ambience and environment to learn from each other, to respect each other and create positive rapport between the citizens of Singapore and Malaysia. And once the citizens of both countries read each other's newspapers, both sides would appreciate each other's political arguments and rationale for political, economic and social decisions made by our respective leadership. Let us all be more enlightened and progress on with accurate facts, critical arguments and various arguments, and let the citizens and people of both countries decide for themselves and respond genuinely and more positively based on ideas and thoughts, and not manouverings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Act was enacted in 1974 for the licensing of newspaper companies. Newspaper companies are private in nature and not state-owned. There should, therefore, be liberal market forces at play, with regard to ownership of shareholdings in these companies. Take precedents like in USA, England, India and Australia, I wonder if there are similar provisions restricting the shareholdings of shareholders and directors. We are, Mr Speaker, Sir, a democratic nation and there must be freedom of the press and ownership of the press. The Government is here to govern and should be less involved with newspaper companies and about shareholders of such companies, just like other private and public companies, where the Government should be least involved. There should be, preferably, a hands-off approach as the years go by. And let there be more liberal ways so that we have a more vibrant and dynamic newspaper and printing presses industry in the days ahead. If there is abuse or danger posed to the security or well-being of our nation, there are enough laws in Singapore to deal with such potential offenders. Having read the provisions, Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision under clause 12, relating to the compounding of offences, is most welcome, and the Hon. Minister will have the discretion to allow compounding of relevant cases and that will avoid the necessity for prosecution in a court of law. Related to the newspaper industry, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted also to say that since Independence in 1965, we, in Singapore, I understand, cannot purchase Malaysian newspapers in Singapore. Similarly, Malaysians cannot purchase Singapore newspapers in Malaysia.”
“I would urge, therefore, maybe in futuro, that this provision, and provisions of a like nature, be considered in the various statutes of Singapore that we have currently. With that, I support this Bill.”
“As I read section 69H in clause 31 of the Bill, it says, "Protection from liability", and this is actually a general principle that needs to be considered, not just this particular Bill but also quite a lot of statutes that would be relevant. It says in section 69H: "No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Authority, the Director-General or any authorised officer, police officer, officer of customs or any other person acting under the direction of the Authority or Director-General for anything which is in good faith done in the execution or purported execution of this Act or any rules made thereunder." In a sense, this is a provision to exculpate the State from any form of liability. On the whole, it may be a good provision. But it may be timely to note that if you look at the legal entity called the "Republic of Singapore" or the State, it is the richest legal entity in Singapore. It has also, arguably, the most number of civil servants, staff and legal officers who are competent and well informed to carry out the duties under the Act. Therefore, should they be given the extra privileges of immunity from legal suits, ie, not being able to be sued at all? Unlike private citizens, companies or NGOs, it is something to be reviewed perhaps, although one can well understand the State needs to be protected as much as possible from legal liability. But there must come a time when there is a sense of responsibility and fear of potential legal action for damages or other legal remedy by which then, there would, in all probability, be higher standards of professionalism, and this surely must be good for the State as a whole in the long term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This Act was enacted in 1965 for, inter alia, the prevention of cruelty to animals and birds, for measures pertaining to the general welfare and improvement of animals and birds in Singapore. The proposed amendments are timely and to be welcomed. There was a recent newspaper report that the Housing and Development Board does not allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Dogs are allowed. The relevant non-governmental organisations have voiced their disappointment and made submissions to the HDB to review their position with regard to the prohibition against cats. It may be argued that this is discriminatory in nature. HDB may well have good reasons for their current position. Perhaps the HDB could further review, together with interested parties, including relevant NGOs, to see if their rules could be modified to allow one cat per household as a pet for a start. We should also encourage our children and adults to promote in schools, homes and workplaces, the prevention of cruelty to animals and birds. They must be encouraged to promote the general welfare and improvement of animals and birds, both at home and in the environment as a whole, and, I would add also, prevention of cruelty to animals in the zoo. This will, I believe, make us, as human beings, more caring and compassionate and, hopefully, less selfish and self-centred. One or more of our polytechnics and/or universities should also consider, if found practicable, to introduce veterinary science as a discipline, either as a diploma or degree course, to encourage our young boys and girls to take up this course, so that in the process, it will improve the welfare and care for animals. I would like to bring up another point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions Act was enacted in 1978 to provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities in respect of service as Members of Parliament and as holders of ministerial and other offices. My understanding is that over the last decade or two, the emphasis has been to convert the pension scheme and encourage the granting of Central Provident Fund for our civil servants and employees. Of course, as volunteer employers, one can make voluntary contributions towards their respective CPF accounts. Would it, therefore, not be in line with the general policy of the Government to also convert pensions for Members of Parliament, ministerial and other offices, to keep in line with the rest of the working people in Singapore? In this way, our citizens would observe that Parliament has not introduced in any way any form of discrimination, as perceived by them, in favour of MPs, Ministers or other officers connected to Parliament, eg, Mayor, that is being introduced through this proposed amendment.”
“No doubt, there may be information from the internal and external security agencies to convince our Minister that we must not have overseas voting at the moment. But the lack of information disseminated to the citizenry brings about this form of suspicion that there could be other motives. So, perhaps we will have to find some sort of balance where this could be taken care of. One could argue, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are really serious about it, then do not call for General Election until just before August 2002. One could argue, why the hurry? What are the good reasons why we should have, from what we hear, election to be held soon? If there is a pressing problem of security of our nation, then why call for General Election, because life goes on in Singapore, especially since it is a situation where there have not been any major changes to bring about General Election, for which our Government still has time? It has got another nine to 10 months. And if you are going along that line, let us see what happens in the next few months. If there is a reduction in the discussion and acts of terrorism, then perhaps this particular Bill would not be necessary at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, voting at the General Election is a right of every Singaporean and this extends to some of our citizens living abroad as a result of the recent amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act. I would submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, let our citizens decide whether to vote or not to vote given the opportunity to vote when they are living abroad, even if it means a threat to their security, perceived or real. Security considerations are important, no doubt. So is the right to vote. Can we not utilise electronic filing system and electronic voting system to see how it works? And this can be devised as soon as possible so that the market talk about the suspension of voting by our foreign citizens is quelled. Can we not in the process also secretly inform our citizens, who are living abroad, that voting can be held at a secret location? And if you are really serious about this, if we want to do it, we can. Let us see how ingenious our Government is. One of the problems in this kind of issues is the lack of information, or there is very little information available to our citizens. No doubt, the reason or the excuse is security reasons. And all in the name of security reasons, there is very little information for most people, including parliamentarians. Perhaps, more information could be disseminated to our citizens and parliamentarians. We must have confidence in our citizens to analyse this information and decide for themselves. We must not treat it as though they will react adversely to any information that is disseminated to the citizens. We must have confidence in their sensible and rational ways. What are the danger signs of terrorism against Singapore and our Embassies outside Singapore? At the moment, we are not quite sure.”
“Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF OVERSEAS VOTING) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.38 pm”
“He made the point that Singapore's position at the UN and elsewhere must be to condemn terrorism anywhere and not just terrorism that occurs in the United States. But it has never been our position that we only condemn terrorism which has taken place in the United States. If he had read all the statements made by Singapore on terrorism, on acts committed elsewhere before September 11th or after September 11th, and if he had followed the speeches given, starting from DPM BG Lee's speech at the Forbes, then the Prime Minister's speech at the memorial service, right up to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, if one thing should be clear to Singaporeans as well as to people outside Singapore, it is that we have been consistent in condemning all forms of terrorism, whoever perpetrates it against whichever country or whichever people it is directed against. This continues to be our firm stand, both within and outside the United Nations. His final point was about banking secrecy. Let me assure him that whatever is necessary to implement the UN Security Council's resolution to give effect to UN Security Council's resolution on freezing of funds, giving information to the UN on whether funds of terrorists have come to Singapore, if it is not already covered by the relevant amendments to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act last year, then it would be covered under the new regulation. But we find that the requirements of the UN Security Council's resolution with regard to freezing of assets and so on can be adequately done under the amendments to the MAS legislation. If it is not sufficient, then, of course, other measures may be needed. I think I have answered all the questions. Question put, and agreed to.”
“It is really not a case of Singapore proposing our own resolutions to the Security Council. It calls for international discussions in various forums, both within as well as outside the UN. Thus, while we are active in the UN Security Council, you would have read in the papers that ASEAN recently had a ministerial meeting on transnational crimes where they had also decided to take specific cooperative measures on terrorism. It is a matter which must be tackled at all fronts, both on the wide global plane at the UN and also outside the UN at the relevant forum, including law enforcement at expert levels where the people are engaged in exchange of information and operational cooperative measures. He asked about the definition of terrorism. I must say that this is one of the most difficult issues in any discussion on measures against terrorism. It is a difficult issue for the Security Council, for the General Assembly and in any other forum where they are discussing this. The Member was thinking aloud the definition of a terrorist as anyone "who commits terrorism" on a large scale, or something to that effect. Then you would have another nice debate as to what is "terrorism" and what is not terrorism. I think the approach taken by the Security Council was that this issue may have to be tackled at some stage, but you cannot allow this lack of agreement or lack of clarity on the details to prevent international committees getting together and taking a collective action. When the Committee, established under Resolution 1373, gets down to business, they will have to address some specific issues and this will be one of the issues that they will address.”
“But we did not do so because we found that our previous practice had served us well. By that I mean that where we have not been able to give effect to the Security Council's resolutions, we amended legislation as and when the occasion arose. Because there was no pressing urgency to have this kind of enabling legislation. Most of the resolutions give ample time for implementation. And also we found that we were able to implement previous resolutions either through administrative measures or through existing legislation. As and when we need it, we amend other legislation, as I mentioned in my main speech. But what has happened really is that the scope and nature of UN sanctions have changed recently. And I would say up to the early 1990s, the sanctions were relatively straightforward such as trade and arms embargoes, but the comprehensive nature of sanctions now being implemented by the United Nations Security Council presents a completely new picture and this is why we have decided that the previous system of ad hoc amendment of legislation may not be workable anymore, and that is why we have come to this House for this kind of enabling legislation which will enable us to implement the resolution which is, as you may have seen, very sweeping in nature. It has changed in the sense that time becomes of the essence. You have to implement speedily and report speedily to the Security Council. In most cases now, after the resolution is adopted, a committee is set up, which is loosely referred to as the Sanctions Committee. The members would be asked to report very soon what they have done and what kind of follow-up actions they have taken. So really there is no luxury of time anymore. He has asked how active we are at the United Nations in proposing resolution on terrorism.”
“The fact that we have come to Parliament to get this authorisation is, in fact, in keeping with the principle of getting parliamentary approval, as many other countries have done. He has also raised the issue of the Genocide Convention. His point is that apart from this legislation, have we looked at other obligations we may have in the United Nations, and have we ensured that our domestic laws are adequate to give effect. Let me assure him that we always examine this issue carefully. In other words, if we are committing ourselves to an international obligation, such as conventions and treaties, have we got our domestic legislation adequately in place to be able to give effect to our international obligations? So, as a general answer, let me assure him that it is so. Specifically, about the Genocide Convention, I can only repeat what I said at the last occasion when, I believe, it was he who also raised this point. We were advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that there was no mandatory obligation to enact express enabling legislation and that most, if not all, of the requirements under the Genocide Convention could be done through existing legislation and that we could also enact legislation to the Penal Code to give effect to the Genocide Convention. But there is no pressing urgency to do that, and it is a matter that our draftsmen in the Attorney-General's Chambers have on the agenda. I believe I have answered most of the questions of Mr Simon Tay. I thank Mr Chandra Mohan also for his support, and he has raised a few questions too. One is: why is it that we did not enact the UN Act earlier; on reflection, we should have anticipated this? Yes, we could have enacted this earlier.”
“Having said that, let me also say that, in a sense, this legislation is unusual in that it is regulation to give effect to the UN Security Council resolutions, but it is not unusual in the sense that in our body of laws, we have many examples where domestic legislation has empowered the Minister to be able to make regulations and rules to give effect to the basic norms set out in the parent legislation. He has asked, following his first premise, whether we could consult a small group of Members of Parliament. I think this is not really practical in order to be able to give effect to the purposes for which we are enacting this legislation. Let me take the example of UN Resolution 1373. One of the provisions asks for almost effective action to arrest and take other measures with regard to terrorists on the list or organisations under the Executive Order of the United States, which, in a sense, has been adopted by the Security Council's Committee under Resolution 1333. When the UN Security Council does that, it is not a question of us having to consult with the GPC and so on. We have to implement it immediately. So, in that sense, we have no choice. Otherwise, we are in default of UN Security Council's resolutions. I am sure the Member will understand that this is an obligation on Singapore and all other members of the United Nations. And if we were to tell the Secretary-General or the Chairman of whichever sanctions committee that we are going to hold it up, and we are not going to arrest, or we are not going to take other necessary actions, because we have to consult the GPC - without any disrespect to the GPC - then we may have a situation of having failed to do what we must do. So it is not in any way undermining Members of Parliament.”
“We have, in the UN, a very hardworking team of officers led by our Permanent Representative, and I think they are doing a very good job in representing Singapore's interests. When we ask for consultation, it is not because we are a small state. The consultation would be useful for ensuring that whatever decisions that the Security Council takes have as broad-based a support of the UN membership and of the international community. His third point is that the structure of the Bill is that of an enabling legislation and most of the details will have to be implemented through regulations, and whether this somehow undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. I would like to assure him that this is not so. When we come to questions of implementing UN Security Council resolutions, particularly of the nature of Resolution 1373, often speed and timeliness is of the essence. And as he knows, since he has taught international law, the inadequacy of domestic law cannot be an excuse for failure to perform international obligations. Therefore, because of the breadth of the Security Council's resolutions and because we expect many follow-up of the Security Council, which will require other measures to be taken effectively and promptly by UN members, we cannot anticipate that there will always be timely occasion to come to Parliament to pass legislation through First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading. So this is the reason why we have to structure the Bill as it is and, as I have mentioned in my main speech, in fact, this is the approach taken by most countries whose legislation we have surveyed. And I guess they too realise the need for speedy, effective and prompt implementation.”
“Let me assure him that clause 2(b) is not intended and, in fact, does not empower non-Singaporean law officials to exercise powers of investigation for offences under the regulations which may be made under the Bill. This power is restricted to giving powers of investigations to persons within Singapore. It does not have extra-territorial scope, either for non-Singaporean officials to exercise jurisdiction here or for Singaporeans to exercise jurisdiction in other countries. In most cases, offences under the Bill will be investigated by the Police. However, we can conceive of situations where it may be necessary to confer powers of investigations on other persons. They may be customs officials, immigration officials or commercial affairs officers. These officers, of course, do have powers of investigation with respect to the Acts under which they have been appointed. But if not for this Bill and the regulations, they may not have powers of investigations for offences under the proposed Bill. That is why we have clause 2(b) of the Bill. Mr Simon Tay also asked about the process in the UN Security Council, the role of smaller states and so on. Yes, it is true that the permanent five, in reality, are key to most of the decisions of the UN Security Council. But if he is asking whether Singapore and other small states do have a role and whether they are consulted in the process, the answer to that is yes, they have a role. It depends on the kind of ideas and constructive suggestions they bring to bear on either the principle being discussed, in the details of the implementation, or on procedural matters.”
“Whilst all of us are very sad and sympathetic to the families whose dear ones have passed away during this incident and others who are affected adversely by this tragedy, we, as parliamentarians, must be seen to be legislating local laws based on consistent principles. And I would submit that our UN Representative should be more active in this regard, not because of the September 11 incident, but any incident relating to such matters affecting terrorism in other parts of the world too, and not just the United States. There is also a financial provision in the Bill. I would like to seek clarification on this. I am not sure of the exact impact of it. Would the provision in the Banking Act on banking secrecy be involved when this piece of legislation is enacted? In terms of banking secrecy, there is the secrecy not to divulge any form of information relating to bank accounts. Would the authorities now have the powers to investigate and look into the aspect of where finances have been banked into or transferred to, so that acts of terrorism are not just a physical act, but to find out where the finances have come from and are going to, so that terrorism could be minimised in Singapore, the region and the world at large. With that, Sir, I would support this Bill. Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I will now respond to their specific comments. I also wish to thank them for their support of the Bill. First, Mr Simon Tay asked for clarification on clause 2(b) of the Bill, whether this is in any way conferring powers of investigation on non-Singaporean officials.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. I just have a few comments. This Bill could have, on reflection, been introduced earlier perhaps. There have been many acts of terrorism in this world. Over the years, since Singapore became independent and a member of the United Nations, were there not earlier resolutions in the United Nations relating to acts of terrorism or related matters where Singapore had been a participant in the debates, and therefore we could have adopted the resolutions that were passed in the United Nations, as in the present form of legislation in Singapore? If not, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister why this has not been done. Also, how active has been the Singapore Representative to the United Nations, in terms of promoting resolutions to prevent terrorism? The other point I would like to raise is whether, in the course of the debates in the United Nations - and I am sure there must have been - the definition of "terrorism" was debated and defined. And if there was a proper definition of "terrorism", whether that could be incorporated into our local legislation, so that we know exactly what "terrorism" means. A simple definition of "terrorism" could be one who terrorises, a nation that terrorises or a group that terrorises. So it could be a very wide definition. Perhaps a form of definition would be helpful. Sir, in a sense, it could be argued that this Bill is being introduced rather urgently because the United States of America, a giant, is involved. The September 11, 2001 tragedy has been responsible, in a sense, for us to introduce this Bill in Parliament.”
“One popular refrain from many small businesses is the request to downsize the Government-linked companies' (GLCs) preserve so that they do not soak up all the available opportunities, and perhaps, even to get the GLCs to boot-strap the SMEs as they go into new fields together. Lastly, give more Government contracts to SMEs by tendering out Government jobs in smaller chunks so that they can manage it and, together, we can rebuild the economy. 5.12 pm”
“I know of a quadriplegic who earns his own keep painting with his mouth. A large chunk of what he earns is swallowed up by the maid that he employs to look after his needs. He does not have any family members to help him and, in fact, does not want to because he is trying very hard to be independent and to stay away from an institutional home. Last, Sir, the deprived. We have some who are poor because they are deprived or bereft of opportunity. These include single mothers with young children, who cannot leave home to work; elderly persons who are physically and/or mentally active but not trusted with most types of work; young and old in between jobs, perhaps as they are in the throes of a long course of study; and well-educated, well-trained people who have come out into the job market at the wrong time. I am glad that there are many loan suspension and grant and aid schemes for such people, especially those in full and part-time courses and for the new graduates. But, Sir, I would like to suggest some more ways of creating opportunities and I hope the Government will consider these. First, for those who can work at home, can we find some ways of providing that work to them, such as the setting up of cottage industries? For this, perhaps more relaxed rules for home offices/businesses. For those who are elderly, some special schemes for job matching, jobs that allow them to keep their dignity and also schemes to encourage employers to look for these elderly. There should be more publicity for job-matching schemes. There should be continued efforts at pump priming and job creation.”
“The 10% rebate for class B2 and C charges and subsidised day-care surgery and the 40% additional fee assistance for the families of retrenched citizens is a very huge load off their shoulders. We need a rational, level-headed Government when all around us is gloom, panic and paralysis. We need it to be decisive and firm. Yet, all these do not mean that Ministers do not have EQ (emotional quotient). Perhaps, we just need Ministers to wear their hearts more obviously on their sleeves, more visibly at this period of time. And I think 17.3% pay-cut is one such gesture. Is enough being done to help the sick, disabled and elderly in this new package? Maybe, though I feel the assistance schemes could also be extended to those whose family members are not just retrenched but others who are severely, chronically or terminally ill. These are burdens which are beyond the ordinary citizens even in good times but at times like these, they become onerous and can drive many to desperation and deep despair. Perhaps, to put a soft edge to our policies, we need more representation from the gentler sex in policy-making. As they say, women hold up half the sky. God made men and women complementary and a softer touch is lacking perhaps because we have too few women involved. On this count, I am very heartened to hear rumours that the Government party has indeed selected many women candidates for the next election. Some seats in this House may, of course, be vacated for them, but that is the way of things, the political eco-cycle at work. As for the softer touch, and here I am just giving an example, should we not have, for example, waived maid levies for those who are quadriplegic, or severely handicapped, especially if this encourages them to be economically productive?”
“The business cost reduction exercise announced is wide ranging and very welcome, but my point is that more non-financial measures will also be helpful. I will venture to raise the difficulties of another group of the unfortunate. These are the property owners whose most costly asset has gone into negative equity. The amount they owe CPF and the bank is more than the amount they can recover from sale of their asset. If they sell, they will not be able to find the cash to top-up their CPF and the balance of what they owe to the bank. Hence, while they realise that it is better for them to downgrade their residences, and though they are willing to do so, many in fact cannot. There is assistance aplenty for HDB householders with schemes which include the Reduced Repayment Scheme, Staggered Downpayment Scheme, extension of loan payments and the contra-facility scheme. Would it be possible for the Government to add to its package a scheme to allow householders to downgrade to reduce their commitments and postpone their repayment back into their CPF accounts (with interest of course) till the sun is shining again? Could the HDB contra-facility scheme, or some sort of bridging loan scheme, be extended too to landed and HUDC property owners, so long as what they are selling is their own residence and not some investment properties? Next, the sick. The category of poor who most need help are those who cannot help themselves. We have the reputation of having a hard-headed, no-nonsense Government. Many even think that we have a hard-hearted, no-sensitivity Government. As this package shows, this is an undeserved perception. There is a whole gamut of assistance measures for those who face medical emergencies at this time.”
“In service jobs, for example, and many service jobs are crying for workers, it could be in the form of upgrading the image of professionalism of certain jobs and changing the mindset of both the served and the serving. Next, the unfortunate. This category of people includes those who are struggling to set up new businesses or striving to keep old ones above water because of September 11th; people who face untoward tragedies like the recent deaths of breadwinners, people who have been retrenched and people who have been impoverished by an unexpected turn of events. Many of these just need short-term help, a booster which will heave them over the unexpected hump. For some of the retrenched, the retraining and re-education being given to the skill-less may be relevant too. But for others retrenched, perhaps the only help required is provision to weather the storm till the jobs return. I believe that another way of helping such people is to work out a scheme which allows them a moratorium on debt repayments. The previous speaker, Mr Chandra Mohan, mentioned the reform of bankruptcy laws and I think we could look into this too when we reform those laws. Viable businesses may be cash-strapped and close up because they are unable to resist the creditor pressure. My colleague, Mr Leong Horn Kee, referred to banks, for example, who take away the umbrellas when the rain starts coming down, the umbrellas that they lend to you when the sun was shining. Judicial management procedures are costly and not available to all forms of business. If businesses close prematurely, more jobs will be lost and more pain inflicted. In these exceptional times, when even the mighty Swiss Air can fall, how much hope do the small businesses and hawkers have?”
“Perhaps, this may be due to the imperfect dissemination of job information, and I welcome the efforts to beef up the CareerLink service and CDC services to find jobs for those who want to work but perhaps are looking at the wrong places. On the other hand, if the jobs go a-begging because job seekers are still picky, they must be shaken out of their unrealistic expectations. With a perfect storm brewing, the fishermen cannot afford to sit down and do nothing. They may not have the luxury of waiting out the storm, as Mr Chiam would like them to do. Next, the skill-less. Some jobs have left Singapore, never to return. Some people have no education nor skills to take up the jobs available. Retraining and re-education are indeed very important to give these poor ones hope. The package has a very extensive scheme of help for those who need to improve their employability. Yet, at the same time, the Government, as the policy implementer, must realise that some people may really be too old or too intimidated to learn new things in unfamiliar circumstances. Aptitudes therefore have to be considered. I may know that aircraft technicians are in short supply but I may not have the aptitude for that. And what if I choose to upgrade to a skill which, in itself, would become obsolete before I complete my retraining? Financial help to pay for courses and training is good, but not enough. I think the Government must make an effort too to match the right people to the right courses of training, and actively encourage them to keep them on course through counselling and motivational measures. This need not always be in the form of money.”
“And they are better able to pull through than the truly poor that I will be describing. Sir, this package is indeed good and we should not criticise it like the Opposition, who, as usual, leaves no stones unturned. Sir, while it is true that we will always have the poor with us, that should not stop us from helping them. Some are poor because they are idle or irresponsible; some are poor because their skills or education levels are low; some because of unplanned events, commitments or tragedies have drained their resources; some because of sickness or disability; and some because of lack of opportunity. I will deal with each of these classes one at a time. First, the idle. The Government must continue to create jobs. This package may not exactly promise that, but it at least enables the bulk of companies to stay afloat so that more jobs are not lost in the days ahead. If people are idle because there are no jobs, the Government is to blame. If they are idle because they shun work, they need to wake up. No amount of financial assistance will help them if they are irresponsible, if they spend more than they earn. The Government cannot help such people. They must first help themselves. As the Book of Proverbs says, "A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest - and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man." There should be no handouts to those whose only activity is to stir themselves out of their sleep to open their hungry mouths or stretch out their empty hands. Despite increasing retrenchment, the Ministry of Manpower has found some jobs still going a-begging.”
“We have been thrown into exceptional times, and the adverse conditions created by the terrorist actions of 11th September need exceptional measures of succour. This package is comprehensive, covering big business, SMEs, white-collar and blue-collar workers, the retrenched and the unemployed, the ill and the underclass. As my colleague, Dr Ong Chit Chung, said, it leaves no stone unturned. What is distinctive about this package is that it acknowledges as well the woes of the middle management middle class worker, the so-called "sandwich" class. This is much to be lauded. Innovative measures, such as the New Singapore Shares and the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme, are also praiseworthy. Referring to the NWC recommendations, the Deputy Prime Minister said, "... we should expect wage settlements to be restrained, or in many cases frozen. Workers should be prepared for lower bonuses, wage cuts through the variable component, or at best minimal wage increases." This is a very important message to give at this time when we realise too that even profitable companies may need to preserve a little bit of fat for the bad times ahead, and we should not have workers who unrealistically push for higher increments at the risk of losing their jobs in future. I read recently about some people calling our middle class the "New Poor". Some people would like us to think that this so-called "new poor" need exceptional help. I do not deny, Sir, that they need some help in these unprecedented circumstances. But in times like these, the ones truly deserving of exceptional help are not the middle class. The middle class workers who still have jobs can learn to moderate their expectations and spend more frugally on necessities and not luxuries.”
“I would suggest, in this instance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that they must reduce interest rates to tide things over. They, I believe, would have made fairly huge profits in the last few years, and now it is necessary for them to be generous and help their customers by reducing interest rates on mortgages, loans and overdrafts. Overall, we must work hard and work hand in hand with other countries, because we live in an inter-dependent world. I would like to commend the Government's kind gesture and care shown to our citizens and people staying in Singapore. If more could be offered in future, it would be most welcome. I do hope and pray all these measures are sincere and that it is a genuine gesture and not too related to the coming General Election. Singaporeans will have to judge that, not just during General Election time, but in the months and years ahead. Wisdom requires that the Government of the day review our current economic policies. Global events are beyond our control. It could be said that Singapore can do little about that and, therefore, there is little our Government can do about major crises when they arrive on our shores. Be that as it may, let us all do our best, both the proposition, ie, the PAP Government, and the Opposition too, and also the academics, the professionals and the citizenry as a whole, and come up with new ideas. And concrete steps must be taken to tackle as best as we can and minimise our economic and social problems. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I congratulate the Government for its generosity in presenting this $11.3 billion off-Budget package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“There should be more money pumped in for the following areas, including job retraining, temporary child relief for families who are struggling to pay for school fees, food, uniform, textbooks and transportation to and from school. These are sectors I am sure the authorities can look into. Due to the economic crisis, there may be more cases of bankruptcies and company liquidations. Professionals, including architects, doctors, lawyers, etc, are not allowed to practise if they are pronounced bankrupt by a court of law. Can the laws be reviewed to make Singapore a more forgiving society, because persons may go bust and be bankrupt not because they are immoral, corrupt or lazy, but due to economic circumstances beyond their control? Can we relax our bankruptcy laws if we want to have a more creative and risk-taking society? Could I also raise the issue of Goods and Services Tax? The GST is presently 3%. Can we not temporarily suspend it or reduce it to 1% or zero, with effect from November this year to December 2002? The GST was introduced, I believe, in a sense, with a lot of flexibility. So, if the demand is there for flexibility in times of crisis, this is one sector where the Government could seriously look into and, if need be, increase it back to 3%, and hopefully not more, when times are better. What are the national duties of banks in terms of times of crisis? The Monetary Authority of Singapore gives limited licences to very few entities for them to practise banking. In that sense, it is the state's asset that is being given to these banks to practise banking. So when a national asset like that is given to banks, the banks have to now turn around and contribute to the nation's interest in times of crisis.”
“I hope the Government and the private sector would work hand in hand in a symbiotic fashion and revisit basic policies, review these policies critically and come up with fresh ideas in order to keep pace with all the changes that have taken place globally and locally for the last few years. I am sure, if given the opportunities, Ministers, parliamentarians, the civil service, the private sector, including businessmen, professionals, academics and non-governmental organisations, could all discuss and come up with some concrete and consensual ideas. We need to ask why Singapore is doing, on a relative basis, a lot worse in terms of GDP growth. This year, we are told, it is minus 3%, compared to our usual competitors, eg, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia or Taiwan, despite our understanding that we have stronger fundamentals and policies in Singapore, as we are told by the authorities. Our Government is constantly stressing on the need to retrain our workers. Whilst this is necessary and prudent for our economic progress, is there any clear direction where the new and growing industries are so that workers can get useful guidance and, thereafter, make a more intelligent move as to where they want to be retrained? How much is the Government willing to shoulder the cost of such retraining in these uncertain areas? Those aged 40 to 50 are especially vulnerable when they have families to feed and mortgages and other payments to make. Our citizens and persons working in Singapore have paid taxes, both direct and quite a lot of indirect taxation. This is indeed a rainy day today. If it is necessary to dip into our nation's reserves, the budget surplus or the interest from the nation's reserves, the country should assist its citizens to retool and tide over this difficult period.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the package of measures offered by the Government is most welcome and should give fairly sufficient comfort to various sectors of our society, including employers and employees, property owners and tenants, and also our senior citizens. There may be certain sectors of our society which may not benefit from this package. This will probably be announced by them, in no uncertain terms, through Members of Parliament or through the press, and I hope the Government would hear them out and help them, if possible. For Singapore, in order to tackle the economic downturn, as expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, we must generate wealth. How? There must be more investments in Singapore, both foreign investment and local investment. There must be more opportunities for the manufacturing sector to be increased and enhanced, both locally and globally. More markets must be located and nurtured, both in the ASEAN region and in the world at large. For this, we need more joint ventures and good relations between partners in industry and corporations of various nations, and also between various governments. The financial services and professional services must also find new areas to expand into. Various professions, including the banking sector, must liaise more with our neighbours to form liaisons and joint ventures, and the Government could come in to play a major role in this. Like Mr Inderjit Singh and other colleagues in this House, I am also concerned about the swift downturn and the overall economic crisis in Singapore and, no doubt, in many other countries in ASEAN and the world as a whole. The question is: what are the fundamental areas which we need to address as soon as possible to arrest or, at least, to minimise the problem?”
“And if they want to go out and hang up a signplate that says they are consultants, we should not stop them from doing so. Otherwise, it is rather anomalous. We allow them to appear before the courts, we allow them to advise lawyers, but, for a lesser privilege such as a title, we say no to them. I think this would be relevant, Sir, when, for example, one day, after many years of teaching, they decide to come out, but they do not want to be a partner and, of course, they are too senior to be a legal assistant in a law firm. I think these are times when they would want to be called consultants. There are also serving staff of the different universities who would want to take up a full practising certificate because they are qualified persons and their employers allow them to do so, but because they are too senior to be legal assistants and they do not want to be employees of any law firm in Singapore, it would not be right for them to take up a practising certificate as a legal assistant or even as a partner. So, this is when, again, a title like "consultant" would be useful to them. Perhaps, it is also anomalous that after 10-15 years as a law lecturer in the Law Faculty you can come out and practise as a law consultant but nobody else can do so even though he may be an expert, say, Dr Andrew Pang. I think this is a reasonable request to make. I hope the Minister would consider this. As I have said, I would like to reiterate that these points are not relevant to me because I hold a practising certificate and by the time my practising certificate expires, I have the number of years needed in practice to be called a consultant. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“When the Minister introduced this section in 1996, he mentioned in this House that it was important - this was in relation to a request from the Law Society, and maybe Mr Chandra Mohan was there then - and it was a request that we should not allow just any person to hang up a signplate that says he is a consultant. And I agree that anyone who calls himself a consultant has to have the experience and the expertise. I would like to raise to the notice of this House and to the Minister that with the universities we have now, eg, in the Singapore Management University, our foremost expert on contract in Singapore and Malaysia, Dr Andrew Pang, is there. Under section 75D, as it stands currently and there is no amendment today in this House, it would mean that the years that he spends in SMU are useless to him. He cannot count those years towards being called a consultant. There are others: Dr Low Kee Yang, who is an expert in guarantees, also in SMU; in NTU itself, we have several doctorates in law who are experts in Internet law, intellectual property rights and e-commerce; in the National University of Singapore, outside the Law Faculty, there are experts on land law. I say these are experts, not because I say so, Sir, but these are recognised experts in the profession because they have been asked to write volumes in the Singapore edition of the Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, and they are also well-known authors of different books on different areas of law. Sir, if these experts - and I believe they should be qualified persons also, with more than 10 years' experience - if the Minister feels that should be so, I think these are experts that we ought to recognise.”
“I would like to applaud the Minister for extending this now to law lecturers in all the law departments of the other institutes of higher learning and other law departments of the National University of Singapore. This is because I have always believed that law lecturers, whoever they may be, wherever they may be, should have practical experience. They should stay in touch with business realities, and what they teach ought to have relevance to the students. Therefore, these opportunities to appear before the courts and to give legal opinions without breaching any provision of the Legal Profession Act are much to be welcome. I see this also as a fulfilment of the Minister's promise, in response to what Prof. Walter Woon said in this House in 1996, when the Minister introduced, for the first time, amendments in sections 75C and 75D. These new amendments recognise the fact that, since 1996, there have been many law departments filled and there are now new universities which have staff who are every bit as good, if not better than, the staff from the National University of Singapore. In particular, I want to ask the Minister to consider if there could be further amendments on the lines of section 75D. I know Prof. Walter Woon mentioned these points in 1996, but let me assure the Minister I am not retreading the same ground. Prof. Woon wanted to see that sections 75C and 75D be extended to law lecturers who have no experience, perhaps very young and inexperienced law lecturers. My purpose, Sir, is to urge the Minister, perhaps in the next amendment of the Legal Profession Act, to consider this point, that there is in section 75D this entitlement to be called a "consultant", to practise as a consultant.”
“This is a welcome provision because, as indicated, there may be some persons who may not be willing to stand for elections but who are capable and can contribute to the Council of the Law Society, including lady members. Now we have a legal profession where women make up at least half its membership, and they could be of much benefit to the efficacy of the running of the Law Society. In sections 93, 94 and 97, the further amendments empowering the disciplinary committee and courts with greater powers and a variety of punishments are also welcome where there is more discretion given to these bodies to impose punishment instead of having stricter rules before. I would also welcome the monies that are paid in the form of penalty to be used by the Law Society for public service, eg, criminal legal aid and law awareness, instead of passing it on to the Consolidated Fund. That is a welcome sign. With that, I support the Bill, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply obliged to you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. I rise to support the Bill and, before I do that, I would like to declare that I am a Member of the Nanyang Technological University's Law Department in the Nanyang Business School. But the topic I raise will not have any effect on me. Sir, firstly, I would like to mention that I support the Bill because, as the Minister has said, where clauses 7 and 10 are concerned, these are amendments to allow law lecturers to enhance their skills. In the past, the Legal Profession Act only allowed the law lecturers from the Faculty of Law to have these privileges.”
“There is also a provision which provides for the Board of Legal Education to be allowed to invest in other business or professional bodies. Perhaps, there could be some clarification of the ambit within which we would include business or professional bodies. As regards the provisions regarding dining terms, Sir, this is an English concept that we have. I hope, in introducing the concept of dining terms, that it will be done professionally so that the young graduates do benefit from it, and the senior members of the Bar, the judiciary and the legal fraternity would participate so that it will come to fruition where there would be dissemination of experiences of senior members and the professional standards as a whole would be increased. The ethical standards could be imbibed into younger members through the concept of dining terms, provided it is done properly. As Prof Chin has indicated, in new section 7, there is the removal of the term "exceptional cases", and there seems to be a more liberal approach even to allowing non-qualified persons to be qualified persons because, under the Legal Profession Act, the term "qualified persons" is defined, and I would think that, through these amendments, it is given a wider scope now. And what exactly would it mean by "or the economic or technological developments of Singapore"? In a way, it is progressive but, as indicated, it could have some negative effect, if there are too many of them coming in a little too easily. I would welcome the amendments in section 48 where there is provision for the co-option of new members into the Council of the Law Society.”
“Sir, I rise to support this Bill. As regards the amendment to section 5 regarding the Board of Legal Education's powers to invest its monies, my comment is: what is the effect of this amendment on the finances of the Board of Legal Education? These are trust monies, and the persons in charge should be careful in venturing into perhaps speculative forms of investment. It may be prudent to remain conservative and obtain modest returns instead of being too active in wanting to get higher returns. The Trustees Act must be observed by the custodians of funds belonging to the Board of Legal Education. No doubt there are responsible persons in charge of these matters, but it would be prudent to be careful. I would suggest that the experiences of other similar organisations, including the Singapore Academy of Law - and the Board of Legal Education is, in a way, part and parcel of the Singapore Academy of Law - the Law Society of Singapore and other professional groups, such as those of accountants, doctors and engineers, be studied closely before embarking on any speculative investments. As the Board of Legal Education is part of the Academy of Law, I would also suggest that the members of the Singapore Academy of Law, which include both practitioners, legal officers, the judiciary and the Law Faculty members, be consulted as they are the equivalent of shareholders, and the Board of Directors should give the members a chance to give their inputs on this matter. And it may be a point to note to see whether even the Academy of Law should have an annual general meeting where these matters could be reviewed by all the members of the Academy of Law.”
“In a sense, although there are, as indicated, other jurisdictions that have this particular kind of law, would it be proper for me to suggest also, for purposes of parliamentarians to consider some of the Bills as presented to Parliament, that there would be access to information and material that are prepared by various Ministries to be made available also to those parliamentarians who are interested in having access to them, except perhaps on sensitive pieces of legislation where sensitive information is made available to the Minister or to the Minister of State, for instance, on Defence matters perhaps. If so, parliamentarians would have access to this research that is probably thoroughly done by Permanent Secretaries from various Ministries and legal officers and senior officers of the relevant Ministry. And if that is so, it will give a more positive approach to us parliamentarians also doing research and contributing in a better fashion in Parliament. Sir, in conclusion, I do support this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your leave, may I firstly say that it is an honour and a privilege for me to be chosen to serve as a Nominated Member of Parliament. Sir, I rise in support of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill. This Bill is to be welcomed as it protects third parties in certain instances, as the Hon. Minister has indicated, even though there may not be what is known as privity of contract (or agreement) between the parties, ie, the parties were not originally parties to the agreement. On a proper construction, may I just clarify that I take it that this Bill covers both written contracts and oral, or what is known as verbal contracts, so that that point is clarified and members of the public would be fully aware that it applies to all contracts, and not just to written contracts. Other than that, Sir, I think the provisions in this Bill are to be welcomed, as indicated by the Minister. It would save, in many ways, legal costs and also documentation that might be required if third parties are involved subsequently, in terms of assignments of contractual rights. I take it that in this situation, it is only the benefits that are passed on, and not the burdens of a contract that applies to the original parties.”