Christopher de Souza
Singapore
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. My supplementary question arises out of our deployment of our Multi-Role Tankers Transport. I think our airmen and soldiers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and MINDEF should be commended. It was a complex high-altitude mission, and it was successful.”
“Much obliged, Sir. My supplementary questions draw from the fact that the situation displays: one, how Singapore has agency; and two, how Singapore can use the situation as a catalyst.”
“It cannot be allowed to be the master. It does not moralise. Thus, as we embrace AI, we must do so with discernment. We should use it to the extent that it facilitates decision-making, but it cannot be allowed to usurp our decision-making. Innovation cannot come at the expense of trespassing on some existing IP rights.”
“In relation to the study on the drug trafficking and the death penalty. In fact, in response to that, I think there is a very good statistic that we should elaborate on in this House and also out there in education that 15 grams of diamorphine feeds 180 drug abuses for one week.”
“The Singapore Land Authority plays an important role in unlocking the value of state land for community use. As a sportsman, I have personally seen with immense joy how underutilised spaces, such as areas under flyovers, can be transformed into safe and vibrant places for sport and recreation, whether for pickleball, futsal, badminton, te…”
“To propel our status as a hub, Singapore will need infrastructure, such as exhibition facilities, to showcase mediation capabilities, breakout rooms, bilateral mediation hearing rooms as well as printers, laptops and screens for settlement agreements to be typed out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,264 lines we hold for Christopher de Souza, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 26.
“In particular would (a) a donor who earns less (ie, has lower salary and therefore has lower loss of earnings) be reimbursed less than a donor who earns more? (b) would a recipient be expected to pay towards such reimbursement? If yes, this means that a recipient who has more disposable income will be in a position to pay more than a recipient with less disposable income. This leads to two inequalities. Firstly, there is more incentive for a donor to donate his organ to a recipient who can afford to pay larger compensation. Secondly, the wealthy recipient has a wider range of potential donors to choose from, as he can afford to pay more compensation. This shows that a consistent and transparent method to quantify compensation is needed. One way is to introduce, by way of a Schedule to the Act, compensation caps or ceilings. Such caps are needed especially in light of the proposed section 14(3)(c)(ii) which allows for compensating the donor's costs of travel, accommodation, domestic help and child care. The latter two – domestic help and child care – could be lifelong expenses incurred by the donor. In which case, the reimbursement or compensation package could be huge. An open-ended and loose method of calculating compensation could open a backdoor to organ trading. Compensation caps are important. These will ensure the amended HOTA is well and truly facilitating a not-for-profit compensation mechanism. I note that clause 5 of the Bill amends section 21 of HOTA to empower the Minister to make regulations pertaining to the payment of costs and expenses and medical benefits. However, details pertaining to the administration and payment of costs and expenses are central to this entire Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment displays the MOH’s ability to look at unconventional methods to solve sensitive issues. There is nothing wrong with reimbursing a living organ donor for his altruistic act. But the Bill needs considerable tightening up in order to prevent abuse. I will raise five possible abuses. The aim of this is to request MOH to give further thought to how it will ensure that any reimbursement will be not-for-profit, transparent and devoid of abuse: First, altruism – how will the Minister assess whether a donor's motivation is altruistic? How will the Minister ensure that the donor is not donating his organ because of the potential benefits he stands to reap from the compensation? I use the adjective "altruistic" because it is found in the Explanatory Statement attached to the Bill. It is a criterion which has to be fulfilled before a donation will be compensated. This is a relevant issue because the Bill does not state that donors must be Singaporeans or residents in Singapore. And this was a concern raised by Mdm Halimah Yacob. In fact, this was a concern raise by members of the public who responded to the Public Consultation Paper on the Bill. Simply put, how will MOH ensure that foreign donors travelling to Singapore for the transplant operation, or local donors for that matter, are donating for altruistic reasons? Would MOH consider implementing a detailed interview process of the donor – whether the donor is Singaporean or not – to ensure that he has not been cajoled or forced into the donation? This leads me to the second point. Compensation or reimbursement – I seek the Minister's clarification on how reimbursement will be quantified.”
“Sir, at present, holders of Second Lower Honours or equivalent law degrees from scheduled Universities who were full-time internal candidates must fulfil a two-year legal work requirement in order to qualify to practise law in Singapore. I ask that this two-year requirement be abolished. These students should only be required to meet the same conditions that apply to overseas law students who have obtained First Class or Second Class Upper Honours. This is because we should let the market forces recognise talent. I have practised law in the Legal Service and in the private sector with lawyers who obtained Second Lower Honours. I have found their work exceptional, deserving of recognition and promotion. Therefore, would the Ministry of Law consider abolishing this two-year practice requirement and allow market forces to attract and recognise talent? Admissions”
“This will also assist in meeting the increasing demand for more lawyers who have been called to the Singapore Bar. Legal Services”
“Judge of Appeal V K Rajah’s report stated and I quote, "the Committee received anecdotal feedback that the Diploma in Singapore Law Course has outlived its utility and that some DipSing students find the course to be unproductive". Taking a little bit of Dutch courage from the GPC Chairman, I also say I strongly agree that the DipSing has outlived its utility. Allow me to explain why. In November last year, the Chief Justice and Justice V K Rajah flew to London to visit Singaporean law students studying in the UK. The trip was organised by the Legal Service Commission Secretariat and its purpose was to reach out to and meet and inform the law students of law-related job opportunities here in Singapore. Private sector firms were invited to accompany the Chief Justice. I was the representative of Lee & Lee. Various other firms also sent representatives. We had the opportunity to meet with close to 80 Singaporean students and 50 working professionals. They were candid about wanting to return to Singapore, fully intending to return but equally candid about how the one-year full time DipSing course was a major deterrent. As I had spoken at the last COS, would MinLaw be open to removing the DipSing requirement for returning law students? Instead, returning law students could undergo training more relevant to practice, along the lines of a training contract. By fusing the DipSing and the current Practical Law Course into a one-year training contract, the returning law student receives his first pay cheque sooner, has greater incentive to return to Singapore and be a resource in our growing legal hub and studies areas of law relevant to practice, rather than repeating basic subjects he would have already covered at university even in his first year.”
“I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there was going to be an organic Opportunity Fund managed by the principal. My concern and query is how autonomous would the management of the Opportunity Fund be. Is there any other fund organic to the principal where the principal can release monies on an expedited basis, especially if they come and see the Member of Parliament, given that time is always of the essence in these matters?”
“In view of these expectations on our teachers, I feel we can do more to decrease the administrative workload of our teachers. Would the MOE consider this suggestion? Third, I support the move to single-session schools, but seek MOE's assurance that the single-session schools would not mean the schools taking on an after-school-day-care-service run by none other than teachers. I say this because teachers need time to prepare lessons, mark and discern ways to improve the students. This in turn will benefit the students. This time is best done after a single-session school day. How will the MOE ensure this? Fourth, I request that schools be given a lot more independence to assist needy students financially. Sometimes at my Meet-the-People sessions, I meet families who are unable to pay for school uniforms and books. I am sure many of my fellow Members here would attest to the fact that it would be more effective to write directly to the school principal highlighting the student's difficulties. It would be ideal and efficient if the principal has the ability to give the help needed. Would the MOE elaborate on whether a decentralised fund, managed by the school principal, is feasible, and if it is indeed feasible, how independent will the principal's discretion be in managing it, bearing in mind that timely assistance is almost always of the essence. In conclusion, I would like to underscore my great appreciation for all the tireless efforts that the teachers do. I remain indebted to my teachers and it is of little surprise that we have been rated as an excellent education service. So my congratulations to all the education staff.”
“Recently, MOE announced that it was initiating a significant recruitment campaign for teachers and staff. This is an excellent initiative. It gives students, in the graduating classes of 2008 and 2009, comfort that purposeful and meaningful jobs are being created by the Government. It also means that the increased number of teachers will reduce the heavy workloads of existing teachers. However, I ask MOE to consider four further suggestions. First, in support of what the Minister for Education has just said, MOE should make efforts to employ those who really have a passion to impart knowledge to students, and who want to inculcate values to nurturing minds. After all, teaching is a vocation, not just a career, and teachers must continue to be those extra special people that we can entrust our children's education to. Therefore, MOE's assurance that the teachers it aims to recruit are men and women who have a true desire to nurture and develop young minds is of much comfort to Singaporeans and Singaporean parents. Second, I suggest decreasing the workload of teachers. I am afraid we are not in such a happy position as Japan. I think we are really overloaded. The teachers in my age group often tell me about their daily toil – wake up early for school, teach, prepare lessons in between classes, coach and supervise a CCA after school, return home in the evening, cat-nap for an hour, wake up and finish the marking till midnight; wake up at 6 am to start school again the next day. Some teachers are required by parents to "parent" their child – many teachers have told me how parents call their mobile phones to ask where their child is. We require a lot of our teachers.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his reply and in reply to his request, I am asking for a preemptive clarification. Three points, Sir. First, given the promise that adult stem cell research has shown, both in the US and around the world, and given the amount of resources that we are pumping into this new biomedical field, would MOH consider a push for adult stem cell research over and above embryonic stem cell research? I ask this question because it leads to the second point. If there is such a push, then it obviates or avoids the issue of cybrids because cybrids only come into play in the field of embryonic stem cell research. My last point of clarification is: if the 2004 Act was introduced so as to keep up with times and to immediately prohibit what we think as a Government, as a people, what ought to be OB markers? Surely, the 2004 Act must continue to be fluid and up-to-date with the times. I must confess that five years is a very long time in the biomedical field. Would more amendments to the Act be made more expeditiously in future?”
“The 2005 UK Pattison Report raised the danger of tumours arising from embryonic stem cells. In contrast, the danger of tumours arising from adult stem cells is believed to be insignificant, based on the past 40 years of bone marrow transplants. I would urge therefore – my fourth point – that the Government consider the recent scientific breakthroughs and economic benefits of adult stem cell research, as opposed to embryonic stem cell research and the use of cybrids. A recent 2009 article – 31st January – by Mr Andy Ho in the Straits Times gives evidence of why adult stem cell research is the more promising of the two, ie, between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. In conclusion, in light of the meteoric pace at which this industry is advancing, it is our duty to carefully discern what to permit or prohibit on our shores. I believe for the best interests of Singapore that the creation of cybrids ought not to be allowed on our shores and an amendment to the 2004 Act should be made to list the creation or use of cybrids as prohibited practices. Would MOH consider these proposals?”
“The time has come for a fresh look at these OB markers. And I would urge that one such OB marker is cybrids. I am of the view that the Government should not permit the use of cybrids in the therapeutic cloning for the following reasons. Firstly, the danger of cross-species diseases. The cybrid's human-animal genetic composition triggers the danger of retroviruses migrating from the domain of the animal kingdom to mankind. Significantly, there can be no assurance that these viruses, residing within the cytoplasm or mitochondria of the animal egg, will not mesh with or integrate into the human nucleus within it. Such occurrence will significantly reduce the utility and raise the harmfulness of any stem cell line derived from cybrids. Second, by fusing animal eggs with human DNA, a fundamental concern arises about the dissolution of the very nature of man. Our existing legislation already cautions against cross-species development. Underlying these prohibitions, ie, against women surrogating an animal embryo and animals surrogating human embryos, is the legislation's apprehension towards cross-species tandem-development. If the Act specifically prohibits the growth of humanity in an animal, how then can the growth of human life within an animal egg be allowed? I hold the view that the creation of cybrids is intrinsically incorrect since to create something part human-part animal at the stage of conception of life is to dissolve the very nature of Man. These fundamental objections against cross-species development arise regardless of whether cybrids are statutorily required to be destroyed within 14 days of development. Thirdly, there is the danger of tumours arising from embryonic stem cells.”
“In 2004, Mr Chairman, MOH introduced the Human Cloning & Other Prohibited Practices Bill. This Bill was subsequently enacted. The Act strictly prohibits reproductive cloning. However, the Act does not prohibit what scientists term "therapeutic cloning". This was back in 2004. It is now 2009. Five years is a long time in the field of stem cell research which continues to grow at a meteoric pace. We should take a fresh look at the advances in stem cell research from around the world, and decide for ourselves whether there are any more practices that should be prohibited. If yes, the Act should be amended to include these prohibitions. One major consideration is the use of cybrids. I will just give a quick layman's summary of what cybrids are. In "normal" therapeutic cloning, human eggs and human DNA are fused, the egg is then stimulated, and the resulting embryonic stem cells are removed. However, due to the shortage of human egg donations, scientists have resorted to using animal eggs. Animal eggs are fused with human DNA to create embryonic stem cells. So in essence, cybrids are a fusion of animal eggs with human DNA. Cybrids are very advanced methods in stem cell research. The Government's bold vision of being at the forefront of bio-medical research is admirable. The desire of scientists to find cures for diseases is just as admirable. But we must also be prudent about the methods we choose to achieve these aims. The prohibition on reproductive cloning in the 2004 Act was a wise step by the Government. The Government saw in 2004 that there are OB limits in scientific research beyond which Singapore should not accept. We are now five years down the road. There have been rapid advances in the bio-medical field in the past five years.”
“The second point is about sex shops, and about trying to shield young people from knowledge about these toys or sex apparatus. What we are saying is that young people nowadays, in fact, are very knowledgeable. I am sure Mr de Souza, if he has children, will know that. So if you go into the Internet, you will see all kinds of things proliferating there. Will young people go into these sex shops to buy? I do not think so, and indeed like I have said, the shop operaters know that those under 21 are not supposed to go into these sex shops. And that is the context in which this debate takes place. 7.15 pm”
“With respect, I do not understand two points in reply to the questions. I do not see the logic in them. It seems that the Ministry of Home Affairs is using the 190,000 tourists per week to justify the 100 vice arrests per week. I am sure MHA will not just use the 190,000 tourists per week to justify 100 drug traffickers per week. Second, on the ease of access to the Internet and purchase of items on the Internet - how can that be used to justify a lack of enforcement or regulation against the sex shops sprouting up next to schools? I am in favour of pragmatism being married with principle, but I must say that I am not in favour of weak practical arguments. And I display this with two points and two questions. First, on principle: do we want to see the prostitution numbers reduced? And second: if we, on principle, do not agree that a woman should be pimped or trafficked, then ought not we to look at the UK suggestions very seriously? On principle, do we want to see sex shops sprouting next to schools? I am sure the answers to these questions are all obvious. So I ask that practicality and pragmatism be put in their place and principle override them. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, we cited the figures so as to put things in context because Mr de Souza cited 100 arrests per week. The majority of these people who are arrested are foreigners who come to Singapore on social visit passes. 90% of them, in fact, come on social visit passes. So I cited the figures to show the ease with which people can come into Singapore. This is part of our effort to promote tourism in Singapore. So when you let in 190,000 tourists into Singapore every week, you will get some who will come for these illegitimate purposes. And that is the context to the figures.”
“A good example of a legislative framework to regulate sex shops through zoning (for example, for our purposes, not near schools) is found in Part III of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, read with Schedule 2 of the Act. I ask and urge MHA to study the framework contained therein. Of course, MHA should make a policy decision as to whether it wants to allow such shops in Singapore, in the first place. But if it does, the least it could do is to regulate their location. If we have licences for bars, it seems illogical that we do not require licences for sex shops. Therefore, would MHA consider putting in place a regulatory framework to ensure that the shops do not proliferate into inappropriate areas, such as near our schools? Vice Activities”
“Second, would any prostitute really say that she would like her daughter to end up as she did? Therefore, the real question we have to ask, and MHA should be asking themselves, is whether this is a trade we want to see contract, or flourish. I personally want to see it contract. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to want to see it diminish. We owe it to the women – the mothers and daughters – living in our society to protect them from being traded and used as commodities. Being pimped is to be traded and used as a commodity. No argument can rebut that. Therefore, in addition to increasing the Police anti-vice enforcement to curb the supply dimension of vice, would MHA consider a policy shift to prosecute men who pay to have sex with women who are not free agents? This would be a much needed "panacea" for what the AG's Chambers itself describes as a "disturbing trend". I move on to sex shops. I am also concerned about the location and proliferation of sex shops in Singapore. The majority of these shops are currently located in retail areas, such as Orchard Road or Chinatown. However, what will MHA do to prevent these shops from setting up in inappropriate areas, for example, next to schools – secondary schools, junior colleges – or in the heartland neighbourhoods? Will MHA introduce zoning restrictions on these shops? Will MHA set up a licensing authority to regulate these shops? One aspect that could be regulated is the location of the shops. Such "zoning" regulation will allow MHA to keep a check on how many of such shops exist and the location of shops.”
“In particular, how will MHA ensure the Anti-Vice Branch is fully equipped with additional manpower, intelligence officers and resources to (a) identify new locations where sex-syndicates operate; (b) eradicate such operations; and (c) curtail the spread of sex-syndicate operations into our heartlands? Given the figures show that relying on police enforcement to curb vice numbers has serious limitations, would MHA consider enacting legislation to deter the vice numbers from increasing further? In the United Kingdom, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has announced that England and Wales are recently considering criminalising paying for sex with someone who is "controlled for another person’s gain". The law will cover activity controlled by a pimp. This will be a "strict liability" offence, and ignorance of the circumstances will be no defence in court. The UK legislation envisions that men paying for sex could be fined £1,000 if they bought it from a woman who was not a free agent, ie, under the control of a pimp or traffickers. The aim of the law is the protection of women – that women should not be traded or used as a commodity. I fully support this aim and believe that we should take concrete steps to achieve it. By enacting such a law on our shore, ie, by addressing the "demand" side of prostitution – I am convinced the vice numbers will go down. Do we not owe it to women to ensure that they are not traded or used as commodities? Before we become pragmatic about prostitution, pre-empting possible arguments against what I am suggesting, with arguments like "it’s always existed, always will exist" – why not pose a few questions to ourselves. First, would we want someone we love to become a prostitute?”
“The number of foreign prostitutes arrested in 2006 was 4,310. This was a 34% increase over 2005. In 2007, Police arrested some 5,400 female foreigners for vice-related activities. That is an average of about 100 vice-related arrests per week. Four thousand and nine hundred or 91% of these were in Singapore on Social Visit Passes. The numbers are cause for grave concern. Another source of concern is that prostitution has worked itself into our heartlands. In January 2009, just last month, it was reported in the press, and I quote: "A bar owner illegally hired a Philippine national on a social visit pass to work at a Duxton Road pub. However, the 23-year-old woman not only drank and chatted with male customers, she also exposed her breasts and touched their private parts." The Police, during a spot check, also found that the woman's details were not recorded in the staff record book, as required under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. The bar owner was fined $12,000 in court for amongst others allowing her to work illegally as a hostess and allowing her to carry out immoral activities at the venue. I urge Parliament and MHA to act on what the prosecution had stated in its legal submission to Court in this recent case and I quote the prosecution's submission: "The immoral actions of the hostess was part of a 'disturbing trend' and that if left unquelled, it will have far reaching social implications, resulting in the proliferation of social ills," including but not limited to the "spread of sexually transmitted diseases." Sir, the numbers speak for themselves. The case speaks for itself. The prosecution's submission speaks for itself. What concrete steps will MHA take to curb this "disturbing trend"?”
“I note that the Government's recruitment is also targeted at workers seeking jobs in project management, IT, accounting and urban planning, therefore offering a wide selection to graduating classes. This form of job creation will tide young Singaporeans over the difficult near future. They will also benefit from learning about the mission, vision and values of our first class armed forces and civil service. In conclusion, Madam, I support the Budget, not only because of its generosity towards Singaporeans, but because it essentially displays the Government's resolve to secure jobs, keep its promise that each student will be given a first rate education and shepherd the economy through a tumultuous time. To have the wherewithal to put Singapore on such a track at a time like this is admirable. To do it without borrowing, sets this Government apart. Madam, I support the Budget. 6.46 pm”
“The lady invested her life savings as an assistant nurse in Lehman-linked products – over $200,000. She informed that she had parked her money in POSB for the longest time before putting her money in Fixed Deposits. She told me that the only reason she moved her money from Fixed Deposits to the Lehman product was because a Relationship Manager came to her home and persuaded her by saying that the principal would be secure. She did so very reluctantly. Her investment is now worth next to nothing. She went to FIDReC only to be told that it handles claims up to $50,000. My resident’s only option is to pay legal fees out of the little left she has to trial her chances against the bank. In light of examples such as these, which I am sure are repeated in many of the Members’ constituencies, would the Government consider increasing FIDReC’s jurisdiction to the Subordinate Courts' limit of up to $250,000? The fourth point I wish to make is not so much a suggestion but a strong endorsement on behalf of the P65 Singaporeans I had a dialogue with, of the Government’s concerted effort to employ up to 18,000 workers in the uniformed and civil services. One of the main concerns of the P65ers was job prospects for those graduating from ITE, University and Polytechnics in 2009, and those who graduated last year. I strongly support the Government's strong recruitment drive, and urge the Government to continue to create more of these useful employment prospects. There is, no doubt, gauging from the responses of the P65 Singaporeans at the dialogue, that these recruitment drives have created a significant sense of comfort among the younger Singaporeans. The sense of comfort comes in knowing that the Government is actively and innovatively creating new jobs.”
“Presently, FIDReC has been the authority of choice for Singaporeans seeking redress for mis-sold financial instruments. FIDReC is a lot cheaper than seeking independent legal advice and pursuing litigation. However, FIDReC’s jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between banks and consumers only goes up to $50,000. A resident in my constituency who lost a considerable amount of his life savings informed me that consumers could appeal for adjudication up to $100,000. But this is only an avenue of appeal, which if unsuccessful means that the consumer has recourse to adjudication for up to $50,000 of mis-sold products. This is too low a cap. Why not create parity between FIDReC’s jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts – that is, allow FIDReC to adjudicate matters involving sums of up to S$250,000? This will allow many Singaporeans caught out by the Lehman minibonds, and other structured products, to take benefit of an adjudication without expensive legal redress. I give two real examples from my constituency of why FIDReC’s limit is too low. First, when I went for a recent market visit in my constituency, a wet market stall holder informed me that his wife had invested their life savings in Lehman-linked mini bonds – $200,000. They worked day in, day out. They saved about $1,000 per month and they have been working for about fifteen years. The money was meant for their children's education. Should my resident have to pay substantial legal fees for representation in Court just because FIDReC cannot adjudicate matters beyond $50,000? It does not make sense. The second example is an elderly couple who live in my constituency.”
“However, when I do supermarket shopping with my wife, we observe that most of the check-out counters are manned by Indonesians, Filipinas or Malaysians. It seems very few staff in the supermarket are Singaporeans. The same is happening in hawker centres – many stall assistants or coffee-shop assistants are PRC Chinese nationals. English is being spoken less in the retail and service industries. In restaurants, waiters and waitresses come from around the region – Indonesia, China and so on. The feel and environment in these places is changing and changing rapidly. Because these places are in the heartlands, the environment in our heartlands is changing. I ask: Is it the Government’s intention to have the service industry, such as waiting tables, check-out counter staff, manned by foreigners? How does this benefit Singaporeans who would be willing to take on these jobs? Given the flourishing numbers of foreigners in service industry jobs, would the Government consider tweaking the quota system to ensure that the minimum number of Singaporeans employed by a company at any one time is increased, and the number of foreigners decreased? This is not to question the service standards of foreigners – my main concerns are two-fold: (i) whether Singaporeans who want and need these jobs are unable to get them due to the large number of foreigners, and (ii) whether the Government has given serious thought to the rapidly changing cultural dynamic, feel and environment in our heartlands? A more strict Singaporean-foreigner worker ratio could make these changes less rapid, and more manageable. The third proposed area where we can help Singaporeans in these difficult times is by giving more power to FIDReC.”
“For the sake of clarity, I am in support of tying Jobs Credit to the CPF payroll, since this will give employers added incentive to pay their workers CPF. But WIS is different – it is meant to incentivise the worker not the employer. Therefore, given the worker has taken the step to work, he should be given WIS regardless of any contribution to Medisave. I have two more suggestions for how the Government can alleviate the plight of contract workers and other vulnerable low wage workers. The first suggestion is based on the fact that the Government provides jobs to many Singaporeans. My suggestion is that the Government, together with GLCs and Town Councils, should lead the way in ensuring that all workers who provide the Government with services, such as cleaning services, receive matching employer-employee CPF contributions. This will also ensure that they can receive WIS and the job security that Jobs Credit seeks to achieve. The second suggestion is for the CDCs. When CDCs give financial assistance to residents, the CDCs should also automatically deposit a portion of the financial assistance into the residents' Medisave Accounts. This way, if the resident is working he will receive the WIS component from the Government. This could also incentivise residents who are not working to work so that they can receive WIS. Madam, the second suggestion about what more we can do to help Singaporeans in these difficult times, arising from the Budget dialogue I had with P65 Singaporeans, has to do with the foreigner-Singaporean worker ratio. We have heard how a foreign workforce adds value to our economy and, in fact, creates more job opportunities for Singaporeans.”
“With growing numbers of workers hired on a contract or casual basis, this problem must be quickly addressed. The second reason for changing the treatment of contract workers is because without CPF contributions into their Medisave account, the contract worker will not get the benefits of WIS or the WIS special payments envisioned under Budget 2009. Therefore, this WIS (the fourth pillar of our social security system), to quote Budget Debate 2008, is not available to the contract worker. Without the matching employer’s contribution, the contract worker is unlikely to voluntarily put a portion of his limited wage into Medisave. Additionally, the job security which Jobs Credit is envisioned to bring is unavailable to the contract worker – if he is not on the employer’s CPF payroll. So, in order that this Budget well and truly achieves its aim of giving (a) job security to Singaporeans and, (b) targeted assistance to vulnerable workers, surely the Government should first ensure that as many people qualify for the Jobs Credit and WIS as possible. Since the qualifying mechanism is CPF contributions, I urge the Government to embark on major efforts to ensure that all workers who qualify for CPF are in fact receiving it from their employers. In the meantime, as a temporary stop-gap measure, would the Government consider removing the requirement to contribute to Medisave in order to receive WIS payments? I fully understand that WIS is meant to be "Workfare not Welfare", but is not the worker already helping himself by working? Hence, as a worker, he should be legitimately qualified to receive Workfare. This will encourage people to work.”
“This goes against the principle of Home Ownership, which is a "key pillar" of our economy. Importantly, for the purposes of Budget 2009, a worker would need to (a) contribute CPF, and (b) contribute towards his Medisave account to receive the knock-on effects of Jobs Credit and the WIS and its special payments. Contract workers, often a highly vulnerable group of Singaporeans, will therefore not benefit from either. There are several solutions to this: Firstly, to step up education of employers to ensure that they are aware that they must pay CPF for contract workers who receive more than $50 a month. Secondly, to embark on a major increase in enforcement measures and impose hefty penalties on recalcitrant employers. Thirdly, to educate and empower the contract workers themselves so that they are aware of their rights and are not afraid to report employers who fail to pay CPF. These measures are necessary because employment contracts often see the employer in a strong bargaining position; and the potential employee or worker in a weak position. This especially applies to our Singaporean contract workers, such as contract cleaners, who lack formal education, speak dialect, are elderly, and are in desperate need of a job. Such inequality of bargaining power, a principle recognised in contract law, becomes more acute when the workers know that 30,000 people may lose their jobs. If their employer refuses to pay CPF, they may be afraid to speak up, because they worry about the fact that they may lose their job. Hence, we need to do more to ensure that these vulnerable workers receive CPF contributions, have a retirement income, and are able to purchase a home. I hope that the Government seriously considers ramping up these measures.”
“We live in capricious times. Two days into the New Year the Government was forced to cut its growth forecast for 2009. The numbers keep on changing; current estimates for 2009 are -5 to -2 %, about 6,400 people lost their jobs in the last nine months of 2008. Today, there is wide speculation that the figure will surpass 30,000, dwarfing the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Madam, Budget 2009, delivered early, gave needed reprieve to Singaporeans. It injected a sense of confidence in the Government – this confidence derived principally, from Singaporeans realising that the Government knows the cause of the problem, and, equally important, has the wherewithal to address it. That the Government is able to do so without borrowing, unlike many economies in the world, sets it apart. These were also the sentiments of the P65 Singaporeans with whom I had a Budget dialogue on 30th January. The purpose of the dialogue was to analyse the Budget, from a P65 Singaporean’s perspective. While fully supporting the watershed Jobs Credit and SRI Bank Lending stimulus (both schemes using past reserves), and the business cash flow and direct assistance to households initiatives, the discussion veered to four further concrete ways of how to alleviate the hardships of Singaporeans. I would like to discuss these four today. We need to reconsider the treatment of contract and casual workers. Why? Two reasons: Firstly, because the people who hire contract workers often do not contribute CPF for them. This lack of CPF means that the contract worker, who is likely a low-wage worker, does not grow his retirement nest egg. It also means that he has less to pay towards his housing asset, which gives him more incentive to rent.”
“Will the Minister be bound to spend the full $X, or can he spend less than the full amount if the global outlook has changed within that year? Must he wait till the following year before he can ask the President for a different, for example, lower amount of money? My fourth point, Sir, relates to what this additional money should be used for. There seems to have been a lot of discussion and excitement over the use of this money for social infrastructure. While I am fully in favour of improving our social infrastructure in these capricious times, through worthy programmes like Workfare Improvement Scheme and ComCare, I would urge the Government and the House to remember other areas of infrastructure that are in need of funds. For example, although I notice the Minister for Health has just left the Chamber, healthcare is screaming for funds with our ageing population. There is also the need to invest in R&D and our education infrastructure, so that we can educate our young. Not to mention the need for job retraining and investment in our physical infrastructure. Hence, my last point is to emphasise that it is not only for our social infrastructure that injection of funds is needed. There is also a need to invest in long-term infrastructure development in other areas of this nation. With that, I support the Bill principally because it displays how the Government has a multi-pronged strategy to keep our economy competitive and our infrastructure modern. 4.51 pm”
“" And it seems "long term" is over 20 years, a 20-year horizon, and three business cycles. But I ask for a better definition of "expected" and "long term" because the past 11 years have seen unprecedented upheavals in the global economy, starting with the Asian economic crisis in 1997; September 11; SARS in 2003, and now the world economic crisis in 2008. With this in mind, I ask the Minister for his clarification on how the projection of "long-term" and "expected" is calculated. And if there is a formula for projection, would the Minister consider adding this in the amendments for the sake of certainty and predictability? My second point is in relation to the proposed Article 142(1A)(b) of the Constitution which states that the Minister will certify "under his hand to the President the spending limit for that financial year, specifying an amount which shall not be more or shall not exceed 50% ...". My question is: how will the Minister calculate what the amount shall be within the cap of 50%? There is a vast difference – and I think Members of the House will appreciate – between, say, 10% and 45%. Hence, I wish to enquire on the considerations the Minister will bear in mind when deciding which percentage to use up to the maximum of 50%. The third point is a clarificatory point. I wish to ask: once the President has assented to $X money being spent, has the Minister the discretion or ability to decide how much of that $X will actually be spent in the year, or must he spend the full amount? The reason I ask is the economic outlook could change dramatically in the space of a few months, and I think this point was touched on very eloquently by Mr Singh.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I fully agree with the position of the Minister in his Second Reading speech that "A country's reserves are a key asset in a globalised and uncertain world." The idea of redefining our NII was first raised and mooted by our PM in 2006 to include realised capital gains, well before the global financial crisis we see today. While certainly not a knee-jerk reaction to or a spontaneous remedy for the global financial crisis, it certainly gives comfort to Singaporeans and my residents that the Government has a slew of initiatives and a multi-pronged strategy to keep our economy competitive and our infrastructures modern. Who would have thought that an initiative mooted in 2006 would have been so welcome at its time of launch in 2008? I wish to raise four points, Sir. The first point relates to the proposed Article 142(1A)(a) of the Constitution which states that "before the start of any financial year, the President acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Minister responsible for finance on the long-term real rates of return which are expected to be earned ...". However, I searched through the amendments and was unable to find a definition for "long-term" or "expected". I did find a definition for "real rate of return", which refers to adjustment for inflation, deflation, and deduction of expenses in relation to managing the assets. However, this does not give us a definition of "long-term" or "expected". Hence, my question to the Minister is, and to echo Mr Singh, how does the Ministry for Finance define "long-term" and "expected"? I know the Minister has said "we are estimating what actual returns in the years ahead will look like when averaged out over the long term.”
“Sir, it says on the MDA website that the feedback mechanism includes interested parties like gaming industry key players and gamers themselves. Would not a more objective feedback mechanism include, say, people who deal with youth crime, like Deputy Public Prosecutors and Community Court Judges, to see the real effect, if any, of the game on offenders' propensity to commit crime? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: We certainly welcome feedback from all interested parties. We have been monitoring the reaction to Grand Auto Theft IV. So far, there has been no reaction from our gaming community, as well as from the larger public, to the introduction of this game into Singapore. FREE-TO-AIR SPORTS CHANNELS 4. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in view of the upcoming Youth Olympic Games and our national agenda to cultivate the spirit of a sporting nation (a) whether he will consider having free-to-air sports channels; (b) if so, whether they will cover a wide spectrum of sports; and (c) if not, why.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the reply. Does the Minister appreciate that the M18 rating is largely artificial, given that students or children under 18 can easily access the voluminous number of copies already in the market? If so, the question ought really to be whether this game should enter the market in the first place? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: I think what we have in place is an enforcement measure to try and prevent retailers from, first of all, selling games to those who are underaged. I recognise that the games that are already available may be passed from friend to friend. But part of the process, I think, is in educating gamers as well as the general public of the need to take appropriate measures, including parents, so that they are mindful of the activities that their children are into, as well as a cyber wellness programme to help educate our children about the overall impact of playing such games.”
“I fully appreciate that the economies of scale between the individual agencies will now help in tackling crime. But how quickly will there be officers outside the Golf and Alpha Divisions being allowed to investigate and level charges against vice-related activities? I think time is of the essence. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this should happen over the next few months. RAISING OF HOSPITALS' WARD CHARGES 15. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) whether it is necessary for hospitals to raise ward charges during this period when people are worried over the high inflation rate; (b) whether there is an increase in the number of patients defaulting in payments of hospital bills compared to 2007; and (c) how will the Ministry assist these patients.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the reply. In light of the figures, especially given that 91% of women who are arrested for vice-related activities are either on Social Visit Passes (SVPs) or SVPs that had expired, what will MHA do to enhance the enforcement side, especially for the Anti-vice Branch, to further deter the rise of vice activities in Singapore and to deter the vice activities from encroaching into the heartlands? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said in my answer, the number of raids, in fact, has increased. About 950 were conducted last year and it is about up 9% from the year before that. And in terms of beefing up of manpower, actually this is what the Police has done. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has, in fact, reorganised its branches within the CID so that the four specialist branches – suppression of vice, gambling suppression, secret society, as well as unlawful moneylending – have now been put together under investigation branches that will look into these four topics, and then there is an expert branch that looks at the research or the background. This is because sometimes the areas overlap. So to work in silo is not practical. In this sense, more officers at the CID level are now available to do anti-vice work, including, of course, looking at the larger picture, intelligence gathering, and so forth. And on the ground, currently only selected officers from 'G' Division and 'A' Division have been empowered, under the Women's Charter, to carry out these vice raids. In fact, there are now moves to empower more officers from the other divisions to do likewise. So I do see a stepping up of enforcement on the ground.”
“Notwithstanding this pilot programme in the three GRCs, residents in private estates can continue to approach the various Government agencies directly to provide feedback on or seek resolution of estate maintenance problems. On the use of CIPC funds for projects in private estates, the Government had earlier announced that the CIPC scheme would be extended to private estates to allow for timely and small-scale improvement works in these estates. In order to cater to the specific needs of the private estate dwellers, we have decided to expand the Estate Upgrading Programme to allow small-scale upgrading works that will complement the EUP. Similar to the EUP, the small-scale improvement works will be funded by the Government, but subject to stipulated cost caps. MND will be announcing the implementation details of the scheme shortly. Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation. I have two supplementary questions: (1) Just now the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it will take two years before deciding whether or not the programme is to be extended to the other GRCs. That would mean that Ang Mo Kio may be getting it in 2010. My question is: why is it is in two years' time? (2) Can the CIPC funds be used to build barrier-free access in private estates, which is a very common request from the private estate residents?”
“I just want to thank him, Sir. PRIVATE ESTATE RESIDENTS IN ANG MO KIO GRC (Hotline for non-emergency estate maintenance matters) 10. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will his Ministry introduce a dedicated telephone hotline for private estate residents in Ang Mo Kio GRC that will assist them to liaise with Government departments and agencies on non-emergency estate maintenance matters; (b) how much funding will be provided for this project; and (c) whether Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds can be used for projects in private estates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, I believe that Mdm Lee Bee Wah is referring to the Aljunied Connect for Estates (ACE) project launched by Aljunied GRC on 6th July this year. This two-year pilot project arose from a recommendation by the Committee on Private Estates chaired by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua last year. The Committee had recommended that resources be allocated to Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to help private estate residents coordinate estate maintenance issues with the relevant Government agencies. As part of the scheme implemented by the CCCs in Aljunied GRC, public education and a telephone hotline are provided for private estate residents to help them address estate maintenance matters. This pilot programme will also be implemented in two other GRCs with a large number of private estates – Tanjong Pagar and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. At the end of the two-year pilot programme, the Committee on Private Estates will review the scheme and assess if it should be extended to other constituencies and, if so, in what form.”
“I would just like to thank the Minister for answering very objectively and his answers were very helpful.”
“I thank the Minister for his response and I agree that in 1974, the Termination of Pregnancy Act was not introduced as a curbing population mechanism. It was, nonetheless, introduced as being consistent with the Government's policy then of population control. I have four supplementary questions. First, given that the Government's position, as I take it, is that viability is at 24 weeks, will the Minister review this limit if future research shows that viability is before 24 weeks? Second, in light of the Minister's reply, will the Minister consider setting up a soft and caring regulatory framework to put couples, struggling with fertility or couples seeking to adopt, in touch with pregnant ladies considering abortion? The purpose would be to see if the pregnant ladies are willing to give their babies to the couple for adoption, thereby, creating a win-win situation. Thirdly, given that the Ministry of Health is thinking out of the box in regulating organ trading, would the Minister consider this adoption proposal? Unlike organ trading, no payment for profit would be involved in this proposal. Fourthly, Sir, would the Minister consider this proposal, given that this particular proposal envisions that the lady considering abortion would still be able to terminate her pregnancy if she decides not to give the baby up for adoption, making this proposal beneficial to the ladies as well as the couples.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his bold vision of what he predicts the landscape in the legal profession will be in 10 to 15 years' time. I think, if I could take one certainty out of that bold vision, it is that there will be further liberalisation and that is my concern. Would the Minister clarify what he deems or predicts will be the further liberalisation in those areas that are excluded in the current form? For example, in litigation, will the litigation Bar, often cited as a very strong and well-qualified Bar, be reduced to mere voice boxes in the Court where QFLPs or JLVs do almost all the preparatory work and the Bar just argues in Court? I asked for this clarification, bearing in mind that, under current law, there is a very high threshold the party must meet in order for that party to have a QC represented in Court. This illustrates that we deem our litigation Bar to be very strong. Will the QFLPs endanger that? May I have the Minister's clarification?”
“This vision will also assist lawyers and law students in planning their future career moves. It also seems that five QFLPs is just the start. Could there be more? If so, how many? Has the Minister considered how a strong QFLP local presence and a migration of younger Singapore-qualified lawyers to them will affect the traditions of our unique legal heritage – to quote the learned Member of Parliament, Mr Sin Boon Ann – and the impact on our local law firms? Also, given that more and more young lawyers may leave to join the QFLPs, which trait has already begun as they are presently joining JLVs and Foreign Law Practices, has the Ministry of Law considered how this will affect recruitment to the Singapore Legal Service, which has the important function of advising and servicing the Government? Also, has the Minister considered whether the migration of lawyers to QFLPs will cause a shrinking of the pool from which the illustrious Supreme Court Bench are appointed? The potential consequences of the amendments should not be underestimated. In supporting the Bill, Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to paint a vision of what he anticipates the legal landscape will be in future in order to convince lawyers that this is, in fact, the correct path to take. 4.35 pm”
“I would, therefore, appreciate the Minister’s clarification on the reasons for the devolution of such powers from Act to Rules, and the reason for the inclusion of this discretion for the Attorney-General. In addition, would the Minister clarify if he sees the list of protected, or what the Minister calls "ringfenced" areas of Singapore law shrinking in the future? If so, what we have really is a moving target. This creates an environment where our Singapore-qualified lawyers have to constantly worry about whether the area of law which they practise, eg, matrimonial, criminal, conveyancing, litigation, trusts or otherwise, will be liberalised. If so, they would have to consider the following options: should we join a QFLP, learn a new area of law or, worse still, give up practice? Has the Ministry of Law considered the very real uncertainty these amendments create for the Singapore-qualified practising lawyer, especially if further liberalisation is envisioned? This brings me to another issue. Given the shifting nature of liberalisation and the potentially shrinking carpet upon which Singapore lawyers can perch their practice, would the Minister care to share what is his vision of Singapore’s legal landscape in the future, say, in 10 or 15 years’ time? What does the Minister see as the impact of these changes on our legal landscape and our law firms? Will there be room on our shores for our larger law firms and our sole-proprietorships? Or does the Minister see the QFLPs dominating the legal landscape? In fairness to those joining the profession in the future, those currently in practice, and those considering moving to offshore firms, I would urge the Minister to share his vision of Singapore's future legal landscape.”
“(3) The scope of areas of Singapore law in which JLVs and QFLPs can practise will be all areas of Singapore law, save for only certain areas that are specifically excluded, such as litigation, conveyancing, family, trusts, wills and probate. In addition, all FLPs may practise Singapore law in areas to be prescribed by the Rules, and the relevant Rules will permit such practice where international commercial arbitration is contemplated. The very fact that we have ringfenced a host of areas of laws shows that there is merit in leaving the practice of some areas to, and solely to, Singapore Law Practices. How are the areas left outside this list different? Why is there a need to retain local practices in some areas of law but push for liberalisation in others? Another concern is that the amendments seem to envision further liberalisation in the future and that this liberalisation may take place via secondary legislation rather than primary legislation. For example, the amendments to the LPA envision that FLPs may practise Singapore law in areas to be prescribed by the Rules. I would query the reason for the devolution of such issues from Act to Rules since such devolution may mean that there is less debate on such weighty issues. In addition, the Bill provides for discretion for the Attorney-General, with the approval of the Minister for Law, to approve JLV structures that may go beyond the conditions prescribed in the Rules. So it appears that there is room for even further liberalisation, and such liberalisation need not come before this House in the form of primary legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and to lend my support for the Bill. I think our learned and honourable friend, Mayor Teo Ho Pin, has suffered enough, so I will go straight to my point. Let me start by asking two questions: (1) What is inferior about the manner in which Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) and Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) presently offer services to clients, both local and international? (2) Singapore Law Practices are rooted here, they will continue to service their clients, both domestic and international, through financial and economic crises. Can the Minister ensure that foreign legal practices will do the same? In asking this question, I disclose my interest that I am a partner in a Singapore law practice. Let us not be numb to the fact that the amendments will quite obviously hurt the bread and butter of many corporate lawyers. So, surely, a case must be made out for liberalisation before it is introduced. In summary, it appears that the major amendments to liberalise the Singapore legal sector are: (1) The amendments allow the award of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences to foreign legal practices. These licences will allow them to practise Singapore law in permitted areas through Singapore law-qualified solicitors. (2) The existing JLV scheme will be enhanced – the hon. Member Mr Alvin Yeo calls it E-JLV – firstly, to allow profit sharing of up to 49% of the SLP’s profits in permitted areas of practice, and, secondly, to allow foreign legal practices to hire Singapore lawyers.”
“On the issue of cost and on the arguments on cost, should not the real question be whether the prosecution should have been commenced in the first place and not whether a man who has been acquitted is factually guilty? I think there is a distinction in that and I would like the Minister's response. Should not the question be, at the cost hearing, whether the prosecution should have been commenced in the first place, ie, it was not frivolous, and not whether a man who has been acquitted is factually guilty?”
“Thank you, Minister, for your response. I am afraid I do not agree that the issue of cost creates opportunity for parties to second guess judicial pronouncements. So, I do have three questions arising out of this. First, if we take the argument on the issue of cost to its logical conclusion, would the Minister then think it is acceptable for a defence counsel, whose client has been found guilty by the Court of Final Appeal to say publicly that his client could be factually innocent and, therefore, need not have to pay cost? This is possibly a real issue because under section 401 of the CPC, prosecution can request cost. Secondly, does the Minister agree that the principal and unique role accorded to our Courts in criminal cases is to vindicate or to convict? If so, what right do parties have to second guess such vindication? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that where a man has been acquitted by the Court of Final Appeal, it must be unjust for parties to the proceedings to cast aspersions on his guilt that will hang over him all his life? More so, if the Court has pronounced a "not guilty" verdict.”
“Assuming the ratification process is completed, how would the behaviour of the Myanmar government sit with Article 36 of the Charter and one would appreciate that Article 36 of the Charter says that the collective motto of ASEAN shall be One Vision, One Identity and One Community? What is Singapore's position on this as Chair and member of ASEAN?”
“I have three questions. First, how long will it be before a new purpose-built detention centre is completed or the centre co-locates within the Changi cluster? Second, in the meantime, how will MHA step up incarceration standards within Whitley Road Detention Centre without compromising the disarming environment needed for the investigative and/or intelligence gathering role at the Centre? And thirdly, Sir, what is being done to assist and strengthen ISD and ISD officers to break the fatigue or routinisation which may have resulted in the lapses?”
“In other developed nations such as Australia, France, some Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, the state provides caregivers with a regular allowance. For reasons also listed by my Parliamentary colleague, Dr Lam, I hope that our Government could consider giving direct financial support to our army of invisible caregivers for their years of sacrifice and hard work. Elderly Care”
“Recently, Sir, the Government looked into schemes to assist the disabled. For example, there is talk of a trust scheme to assist the disabled with their finances after their caregivers die. There are also existing measures such as income tax relief for the families of disabled persons and a discount on the foreign workers levy for families who employ maids to look after disabled persons. However, in addition to these schemes, I would like to propose along the same lines as what Dr Lam has proposed, that the Ministry reconsider the provision of a monthly allowance to the carers of disabled family members. Let me give three reasons why. Firstly, roughly two-thirds of Singaporeans do not pay income tax, so the number of carers who can benefit from income tax relief is few. Second, many carers do not have an income to begin with as they provide full-time care for their disabled relatives. Thus, the income tax relief scheme is of little or no assistance to them. Third, many carers providing full-time care do not employ helpers. This may be because they are unable to afford a helper, or they prefer to care for the family members themselves. So the levy concession is irrelevant to them. Similarly, carers who care for their disabled relatives at home do not benefit from the subsidies given to families of the disabled in institutional care. Our current policies are geared towards getting family members – that is, the potential caregivers – out of the home to work, entrusting the care of the disabled to maids or institutions. This seems to be at odds with our vision of building stronger, closer families with institutional care as a last resort.”
“We want to do it in a way which will be acceptable to Singaporeans because not only those who are the borrowers will be affected but the family members as well.”
“One clarification coming out of MHA's description on the UML activities in Singapore. Given that there has just been a 4% drop in reported cases from 2006 to 2007, despite the many enforcement actions taken up by MHA and in light of what SMS Ho had said that the syndicates in fact used borrowers like manipulating them as runners and so on, does this not signify an urgency to make borrowing an offence so that the borrowers themselves do not get involved in this industry? I know MHA will consider studying it but when will the review be done? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As Mr de Souza has said and I have also said in my speech, the range of borrowers is wide-ranging. Some of the backgrounds of borrowers can be genuine; but some are not. Many borrow because of gambling activities, and some may have genuine need for funding. So this will affect a lot of people if we go ahead with it. But the fact that we are prepared to consider it is already a step forward because we have been thinking about it. We have thought about the suggestion before but we said no. So we have tried all the other measures. It is, in fact, a significant step that now at least we are prepared to study it and we are open to doing it. But we want to study it further, partly in terms of the impact on the ground. In the meantime, of course, we also draw a distinction between what may start off as innocent borrowers and then they slip down the slippery slope and become abettors. Therefore, you start from being a borrower who has a legitimate cause to borrow and later on then abet the UMLs in the operations and become a harasser, or you lend them your bank account number. Then you are part of the problem by becoming an abettor. Let us take some time to study this issue because it will be impactful.”