Faizah Jamal
Singapore
“How do we plan to extend the liabilities to these companies or persons who own the accused entity or burnt land? Will there be specific clauses included to ensure clarity so that we can execute these?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. There has been a recent report just about last week, I believe, where there were fish deaths at Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve where the river turned black and there was a horrible stench coming from it.”
“What is heartening from the MSF survey is the headline finding that more than eight in 10 parents with teenage children or younger were satisfied with their relationship with their children as well as with their family life. We still have much work to do in the area of family justice.”
“It is not the intention of NLB to exclude any group in society. But we cannot pretend that we can have every possible book in the universe in the Library. It does not happen anywhere in the world. Some curation is possible because we need to draw certain lines.”
“The Vietnamese government has also given its assurance that it will provide compensation and due assistance to the affected foreign companies, including Singaporean firms. We will continue to work with the Vietnamese government to ensure that the interests of Singaporean companies and investors in Vietnam are protected.”
“I planted it for my children and my children's children. It does not matter that I may never get to see it. That is how we walk lightly on earth." Walk lightly on earth.”
The complete record
Every one of 133 lines we hold for Faizah Jamal, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“I am, however, mindful of the need to protect the work of licensed and experienced tourist guides who might reasonably be concerned that my suggestion might tread upon their territory. I would counter this by suggesting that, like the nature guide scheme, which is limited to specific nature areas, these senior citizens are limited only to their sphere and place of residence. Further, such specialised heritage guides with their passion, their ability as story tellers, as many of the elderly ones in our society are capable of and the ease in which they express themselves, provide quality, authenticity, credibility and an all-round more enriching experience for visitors, both local and foreign, as their tours will be based on their personal stories and anecdotes. Is "quality growth" not, after all, what the Budget wants in the end? Another reason for my suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is my concern on reading reports in the press last year of the increasing incidence of elderly suicides. Many reasons may, of course, have contributed to this. However, I would be so bold as to say that the fast pace in which Singapore is changing and the loss of the places that were familiar to our elders, may well be contributing factors. After all, it is known medically that when a place that holds a deeply cherished memory disappears, a part of our psyche dies and we deeply grieve the loss and we are emotionally affected. By encouraging and rewarding our seniors to open up and share their stories, we would be supporting them in more ways than one.”
“Even more striking was how the seniors themselves felt touched when young people were interested in what they had to say. I daresay, Sir, that there are seniors who are just as personable in estates like Tiong Bahru, Queenstown, Toa Payoh and many others. It is from this experience that I realised the extent to which these senior citizens are an untapped resource and not just for the transactional reasons we are all familiar with. Simply getting them to share their stories for documentation, with perhaps a mention in the credit roll at the end of a video, does not do justice to their potential as "true leaders" or "ripened leaders". So, my suggestion is that the relevant Government agencies seriously consider accrediting and licensing such senior residents who are able, willing and qualified, as specialised heritage guides where they are allowed, as licensed guides, to share their stories on site, and for the time and effort and contribution that they make, that they be paid for their work. Page: 137 Such a licensed specialised scheme is not new. Some years ago, STB licensed Singaporeans with the requisite experience, skills and knowledge as nature guides, who are duly entitled to earn an income from the nature-guiding work that they do. In this way was a new industry created, where visitors, both local and foreign, engaged the services of such guides and, as a result, got a richer experience of our natural world. I suggested this in the background of questions in this House some months ago regarding tour guides who are not licensed and, worse, who provide inaccurate information to visitors.”
“If, in the words of the Budget, we want to "harness the value of older Singaporeans", then it would be from where they stand and their gifts, talents, passion, their wisdom, their resilience, their courage that they already have, Page: 136 rather than only by thinking that as long as we provide jobs for them that fit our flawed economic model, we have done enough. It also seems to me that in our society, the familiar and repeated refrain seems to be the burden that seniors put on our economy, our medical care and our savings rather than the strengths that they offer us. Sir, last year, in July, and then again in November, together with an open group of people calling ourselves "Singapura Stories", made up of academics, students, history enthusiasts, ex-residents of Kampong Glam and just about anyone interested in the rich layers of the Kampong Glam heritage area, I co-organised two gatherings for ex-residents of the area to get together and share stories of their life prior to the hip and trendy Kampong Glam that we know today. Both these events were open to the public. It is truly humbling how the senior ex-residents were so willing to share their personal stories that were new not only to those who did not grow up in the area but also those, like me, who were born and bred there and yet did not have the experience or even knowledge of such stories. Beyond hearing such a rich tapestry of the place where my family has been for four generations, what struck me most was how these senior citizens were so articulate, so measured, so humorous in the way they spoke, having grown up in an era when people were taught to take pride in language, in demeanour and in how they speak.”
“In fact, just two days ago, on 4 March, in the TODAY newspaper in an article entitled "Bridging the generation gap with yarns of yore" through an initiative by the NTU students of Wee Kim Wee School of Communications, young people were invited to share stories and memories of their seniors through Instagram photos, which aims to encourage 19- to 26-year-olds to communicate with their elders. In the course of all of these documentations, interviews with people who used to stay or are still staying in these areas were conducted and formed a large part of the end product. However, it seems to me that not enough is being done to acknowledge the contributions of the people, mostly seniors, who contributed to these initiatives. It seems to me the end product of such rich stories and experiences of the seniors have made them no more than sound bites or a name on the credit roll at the end of a video documentary as we seem to focus more on the marvellous technological tools that have made this initiative possible. Sir, in the Budget is the phrase "harnessing the value of older Singaporeans". Gerontologist Linda Fried, the Dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health, had this to say, "Older adults constitute the only increasing natural resource in the entire world." Sir, in many traditional and indigenous societies, there is even a term "true elders" or "ripened leaders", meaning people who have, as a result of accumulated life experiences, are ripe with wisdom and who are revered as keepers of ancient knowledge, responsible for imparting their experience to the next generation through songs and stories.”
“In my COS speeches, I will detail a missing element in the present early childhood education and training which must be included because it will reflect our acknowledgement of the bigger world that we are connected to. Thirdly, healthcare financing. In my COS speeches, I will detail this further. For this Debate, I will focus on the fact that the Budget is silent on the issue of preventive healthcare. Mr Deputy Speaker, a common thread that runs through all of these themes for me is how the preservation and conservation of nature and heritage spaces is one way towards "quality growth", a term that has been chosen as this Budget's tagline and a step closer to the vision of how the new economy should function, as laid out by the Prime Minister of Bhutan mentioned earlier. First, the issue of transforming the economy. It seems to me unfortunate that the details in the Budget show that the underlying paradigm is the same one of increasing productivity within the existing industries. Page: 135 Let us take heritage. Young though our country is by comparison to other developed countries, there is much that we can be proud of, coming as we all did from such diverse races, dialects and religions. I am therefore heartened that, increasingly, there has been support from the Government, particularly the National Heritage Board, to encourage the documentation of the old way of life, both through creating self- guided heritage trails as well as by using the latest technological tools. Among such examples are the Kampung Glam Heritage trail, the MyQueenstown app and the documentation of disappearing trades and the Memory Project.”
“" Mr Deputy Speaker, a Budget reflects not only the values that the Government espouses but, in many respects, is also a reflection of the society that we are and what we feel is important to us. While indeed the Budget has much that is commendable, there are some fundamental areas which I believe are not thought about, which upon reflection, are ideas that are not only obvious, but also doable, and what is even better, accords a win-win-win situation for all concerned. All it takes is some imagination to believe in Page: 134 impossible things. This is the reason why I believe that I would rather focus not on the specific goodies in the Budget like many Members of this House have done so well but rather to focus on something that quite a few Members had alluded to – questions raised, for example, about how Singapore should be resilient and flexible and the importance of being "one united people". In other words, the fundamental issue of values. Sir, I am struck by four themes that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned in his speech – "transforming our economy" and "partnering the community" and, in particular, his words "the emphasis on harnessing the value of older Singaporeans" and the focus on flexi-work practices. I will submit that how we treat our elders reflects on the kind of people we are and, in that context, I will make suggestions as to how we can acknowledge and value their contributions. In addressing the issue of transforming the economy, I will share some thoughts on potentially new economic growth sectors yet untapped which is not just about making money but also has an underlying basis of our respect for something bigger than ourselves, the Environment. Secondly, pre-school education.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Budget debate. When my daughters were younger, I used to read them Lewis Caroll's "Alice in Wonderland". Of our many favourite parts in the story, one particular exchange between Alice and the Queen stays in my mind until today. This is where Alice said, "There's no use trying. One can't believe impossible things." In reply, the Queen said, "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it half an hour a day. Sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." It is in this spirit of "believing in impossible things" that I wish to add my perspective on the Budget debate. At the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me unequivocally say again what I had stated in my speech on the Population White Paper debate, which is that I believe that an economy for the 21st century has to be one that goes beyond the idea of limitless growth or one based on material gains and numbers only as the only measurement of well-being. Indeed, to borrow the words of the Prime Minister of Bhutan Jigmi Thinley at the United Nation's first High Level Meeting on Happiness and Well-being last April, the new economic system should be, I quote, "a system that promotes harmony and respect for nature and for each other; that respects our ancient wisdom and traditions and protects our most vulnerable people as our own family, and that gives us time to live and enjoy our lives and to appreciate rather than destroy our world. It will be an economic system, in short, that is fully sustainable and that is rooted in true, abiding well-being and happiness.”
“However, sadly, along the way we have forgotten that, in the end, it is about connecting with people, connecting with our natural environment and the recent events of the past few years bear this out. Mdm Speaker, the public already know this. They want to choose a different paradigm. The time has come for the Government to do likewise. We too are going to our next level of existence in Singapore's history. It will take great courage to change what no longer works. It is interesting to me that the word "courage" itself comes from the French word "coeur" which means "heart". I would like to think that the Government of the day has what it takes. As it stands, speaking for myself and on behalf of many, not just in the green community that I represent, but all right thinking Singaporeans who are increasingly making their voices heard that there is more to life than GDP, I cannot, I cannot in all good conscience, endorse the White Paper. Page: 74”
“It speaks to me that it will not tolerate Page: 73 companies who treat relationships with workers as mere transactions, who choose the cheap foreign worker option, because the White Paper understands that there is a bigger humanity at stake here, which is that for every company that leaves our shores to another country because we have no more cheap labour, that these same companies will have no compunction about leaving that other country and seek cheap people elsewhere. It will therefore consciously choose a different economic paradigm, one that is based on consciousness. It will implement policies that understand that our choices have an impact on something bigger than ourselves and even the GDP. Lastly, Mdm Speaker, in the Ancient Egyptian embalming practice, all organs of the body are taken out of the body and then they are placed in four decorated porcelain jars. All, that is, except two. One is the heart, which is put back in the body because it is believed that it is the most vital organ and the only one that will allow the soul to be taken to the next level of existence. And the other is the brain – and guess what the Egyptians do with it? They throw it away. Why? Because, to them, the brain is not important at all. I suggest that these ancient wise ones have much to teach us about the limitations of thinking from the head, and the true power of being in the heart. We have been very good at thinking with our heads and devising linear systems from our educational system to our economic system. They run really well. We believe that in all things, only what is "practical" and what can be counted in tangible terms, rule.”
“If we continue to act as if human beings are no more than economic digits, as if human beings are the top of the heap and think we can get away with it, we will continue to be an egocentric society which has cut off its own heart and then attempts to live without it. How is that "sustainable"? To me, that is the height of insanity. There is so much we can plan and manage and do before Nature takes its course. Far better it is then to manage our consumer lifestyles, our quest for ever growing "economic growth" to sustainable levels and change our paradigm from a linear, GDP-driven basis to something that is way more humane. So, what would a White Paper that speaks to and from the heart look like? First of all, this White Paper will not even exist until the Government addresses the trust issues that have taken a severe beating in the last few years. It will first repair the relationship with the people and, like in all good relationships, choose to listen not just with the ears but with the heart. Then, if there is to be a White Paper, this is how it is going to look like to me, the ordinary Singaporean. It will make me long for the immensity of the sea. It will present to me a society that is kind, generous in material as well as in spirit, compassionate, believes in and acts upon equality for all, regardless of not just race, religion and language, but also gender, political beliefs and sexual orientation, low-wage workers, both local and foreign. It would speak to me of places I can go in Nature, untouched by the human hand, unmanicured, unlandscaped, because it sees value in the intangibles.”
“Mdm Speaker, only last year, in this very space in my maiden speech as a newly-minted NMP, I had given anecdotal evidence of how my 19-year-old students learnt to connect to something bigger than themselves and certainly beyond connecting WIFI to iPods and iPads, as a result of being taken into the forests. They felt a sense of who they are, what they are, of place and of identity, a love for Singapore. Beyond their expressions of awe and delight at discovering the treasures of wild spaces that no park, no landscaped or manicured lawns and gardens can give them, they also expressed feelings of peace, well-being and even feelings of spirituality. Interestingly, these anecdotal examples were given solid findings in many a scientific paper. For example in the latest article of The Atlantic, 22 January 2013, "when trees die, people die", environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan said that nature has apparent restorative ability. "Natural Page: 72 scenes", they said, "effortlessly are able to capture people's attention, take the place of negative thoughts and emotions which are then overtaken by a positive sense of well-being". Imagine how much this can reduce the burden on our healthcare system and in reducing stress. I would submit that it is all the more imperative that we leave whatever we have left of such places, well and truly alone. I would go so far as to say that rather than fit such nature areas into our lifestyle, our increasing wants and desires, that we, instead, downsize our wants, that we learn to co-exist and fit ourselves into these areas for a change. Mdm Speaker, environmentalism is not an interest group; it is the foundation of all else. If there is no environment, there is no economy.”
“Having EIA laws that are compulsory also serves Government agencies because they can then use this to defend themselves against any public reproach in the future. Mdm Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, together with sustainability consultant Mr Eugene Tay, I co-organised an "Our Singapore Conversation" in collaboration with and support from the OSC Secretariat for members of the green community. It was arguably the biggest gathering of environmental activists from animal welfare to nature lovers to the "brown" issues proponents of waste and water management, from well-known academics to Secondary school students, from veteran activists of 30 years' standing to fledgling student-led environment clubs. To a man, and woman, and beyond our individual passion and interest, each and every one of the close to 80 people called for a society based on compassion, justice, graciousness, the "kampung spirit" and for a life that goes beyond the material success that we are so used to hearing. We went further and called for such values to be evident not just between human beings but also in our relationship with all sentient beings and with nature. We called for a recognition that as human beings we need to realise and recognise that there is so much we can do when we put human beings front and centre of everything the way the White Paper has done. It is time that we stop having the notion that natural spaces are good to have but will be set aside "when it is practical to do so", which is the language of the Land Use Plan as if even nature is an economic digit. It is time that we move away from the anthropocentric view that the White Paper and the Land Use Plan continue to base policies on.”
“The Land Use Map shows major reclamation works taking place in Pulau Tekong, Tuas, changes to Pulau Ubin, Kranji, Mandai, Pasir Ris, Changi, Tanah Merah as well as the Southern Islands of Pulau Hantu and Pulau Semakau. There are valuable areas of rich native biodiversity, not least of which is Chek Jawa on Pulau Ubin, which many Singaporeans have grown to know and love, which will be lost. It is also noteworthy that in our seas are dugongs, wild dolphins and even the endangered green turtles and the critically endangered Hawksbill turtle. Should these non-human species not count, too, in our definition of a "liveable city"? Reclamation on such a massive scale will lead to serious environmental consequences to all these areas and marine species. It will effectively choke live-bury fish, corals and marine life in our waters. How will this affect our sea water, our rivers, our drinking systems and indeed the very liveable city that the White Paper proposes? Is this yet another example of a policy made from the head and not from the heart? So, I repeat my request for clarity on whether there had been an EIA done on these areas as well. Missing in the Land Use Plan is also any mention of planning for climate change and rising seas levels. I note that Singapore's northern shores and Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong, where most of the new developments will occur, lies at the mouth of the massive Johor River. Does the plan take into account the possibility of more rainfall and storms, and how these will affect water flows down the Johor River and, inevitably, towards us? Mdm Speaker, I call for compulsory Environment Impact Assessments and that these be open to public scrutiny so that there is openness, transparency Page: 71 and accountability.”
“In all these areas also are some rare and endemic species, found not only nowhere else in Singapore but nowhere else in the world. Not for nothing are they given a "nature reserve" status. And yet the Line proposes to cut through these precious forests. Perhaps because they do not seemingly contribute towards GDP growth? While I understand that LTA has informed Nature Society that there is no decision on what kind of line it is going to be, whether it is above ground or underground, I have several questions: (a) Has any EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) been made, no matter how preliminary, to warrant the plan in the first place? (b) If there had been, no matter how preliminary, who were these agencies, what were the terms of their reference, what were their preliminary conclusions, and may the public have access for the sake of clarity and transparency? (c) If these proposals pan out, what is of concern is that beyond the MRT line, and the plans for housing so close to the vicinity, the forest habitat in the Page: 70 Central Catchment areas will deteriorate and become like an island or a fortress surrounded by an inhospitable sea of concrete jungle. When we were fighting for Bukit Brown last year, we were told then that we were making too much fuss because it is not as if Bukit Brown is a forest to begin with, and it is not so bad because it is not as if it affects the Nature Reserve. So, a very pertinent and a more fundamental question to ask now is: how did the Government agencies justify the encroachment on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve now, on what is supposed to be areas that are inviolate? Or is nothing inviolate anymore? Mdm Speaker, I turn now to our coastal and marine areas.”
“We act as if all that economic growth, all those companies and talent that we want to entice, all the goodies that we want in life, all the construction that is going to happen, do not, in fact, come from somewhere and have to end up somewhere, in the environment. Yet, there is no mention in the White Paper about the impact of so many people on our carbon footprint, our food security Page: 69 – which, as it stands, we are almost 90% dependent on outside sources and what does it do to our vulnerability − the higher cost that Singaporeans have to bear in the years ahead as the pressure on water and energy mounts as we race towards the dream GDP. It seems to me, Madam, that the policy-makers have a different definition of what "greenery" means. Perhaps they have a different connotation of "forests" and "nature areas". That they have a different shade of green in mind. I especially note with concern that they are encouraging parks, recreational areas and gardens, and the familiar slogan of "City in a Garden" and the word "parks" that is emphasised in the Land Use Plan, with the implication of the heavy intervention of the human hand in landscaping and shaping such manicured spaces. I note especially with concern the potential disappearance of natural areas with regard to the 50-km Cross-Island Line (CRL) which begins in Changi, cuts through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve and ends in Jurong Industrial Estate. The fact that it goes through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve is a serious concern. This reserve encloses four reservoirs – MacRitchie, Upper Peirce, Lower Peirce and Upper Seletar. In these areas are the oldest patches and some of the least affected forests, the green lungs of Singapore.”
“It includes the intangible benefits of nature as free eco service providers by being self-balancing systems for clean air, water and land that cannot always be defined in monetary terms and cannot always be computed through a GDP paradigm but which nevertheless offers benefits to our lives. In a PQ I submitted a few months ago, I asked about the fate of the Sungei Road Second Hand Market. MEWR responded that this has to go by 2016 to make way for the Jalan Besar MRT and for commercial and residential purposes. Madam, this iconic place has existed in Singapore for more than 50 years and has become entrenched in the hearts of Singaporeans, even the younger ones today, as a place, even in all its messiness and quirkiness, has colour and meaning, and appeals to the heart. The letters to the press that ensued from my PQ, the Facebook posts and even a petition to save it, show that this place that MEWR describes as "temporary" despite being in existence since the 1930s – thank you very much – begs the question just what exactly is the meaning of "temporary", shows how people feel about the place. To discount that in the name of development, to me, is a decision that comes from the head and not from the heart. Yesterday, Singaporeans were told to heed the Government's call to get married, for women to be mothers and have babies. Being a mother myself, I agree completely about the joys of motherhood, challenges as a single mum notwithstanding. Yet, not once during the debate of the last two days did I hear anyone talk about our connection to another Mother − Mother Earth. In the midst of all those numbers we were crunching, it is astonishing to me, Madam, that no mention was made at all on how these numbers impact on something bigger than ourselves − the Environment.”
“I will explain what I mean and why I think this kind of language no longer works. Not only is it based on assumptions that warrant a closer look, from the link between immigration and economic growth to why it is assumed that an ageing population is a bad thing, what alarms me most about the White Paper and the Land Use Plan is the emphasis placed on "economic growth" measured in GDP terms. I know many Ministers have assured the House that this is not the case. Let me explain why I and many members of the public are not convinced. While there were references to Singapore being a "liveable, lively and well-loved city", the tenor of the White Paper is, to my mind, utilitarian. It is based on the assumption that our needs, human needs – and, in fact, I would even go so far as to question whether these are even "needs" at all, for they are rather "wants" and "desires" – count more than anything else and that anything that stands in the way has to go. Land, even valuable nature areas which are in the way, has to go. It must support our GDP growth. The words "our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy" in the White Paper continue to make Singaporeans feel that we are economic digits rather than individuals Page: 68 whose hopes and aspirations increasingly do not have a whole lot to do with the usual material definition of "success" anymore. Mdm Speaker, well-being goes beyond GDP growth. It is about fulfilling careers, emotional security, equitable distribution of wealth, affordable housing, healthcare, education and factors in the existence of places that evoke childhood memories, natural spaces and access to these places, based on the well-proven understanding that these spaces provide physical, mental and emotional wellness.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood. Don't assign them tasks and work. Teach them rather to long for the endless immensity of the sea." Not my words, unfortunately, but the wise words of Antoine de Saint Exupery, the famed author of The Little Prince. Words, Madam, that to me mirror just what is wrong with the White Paper. Page: 67 From the hasty manner in which it is put to Parliament, the tenor and language of the document, as well as the exhortations for Singaporeans to please hurry up and get down to work both in our careers and in our bedrooms, to bracing ourselves for what can only be a more crowded city than it is now, we are asked to collect wood, and it certainly looks like there is not a whole lot of sea for us to long for either. Mdm Speaker, it is only barely a week since the White Paper and the Land Use Plan were announced. To be debating on what is arguably the most significant and far-reaching plans for all Singaporeans within such a short space of time is, to my mind, not prudent to say the least. These are proposals that should be open for public consultations, particularly in view of the recent unhappiness over many issues that are now the subject of the White Paper. After all, the White Paper itself states "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core". Should not this then be a serious issue, the subject of the Our Singapore Conversations so that there is at least a bigger context to all that sharing? Madam, not only does the White Paper not give Singaporeans any longing for the immensity of the sea, the language and the tenor speak more to the head and not to the heart.”
“Sir, I thank the Second Minister for her reply. The reason I asked this question is because according to the River Safari website, it says specifically that before you can even see the pandas, you have to go through the zoo. You have to pay $20 per adult and $13 per child, not including the entrance to see the panda which, to me, adds up to quite a hefty sum for a family of four. Sir, because it is based on goodwill and good faith between the two countries, I am wondering, for at least this period of time before River Safari takes on board the role of looking after the pandas, whether this can be something to be taken into account in the interest of the public. Page: 1455”
“When the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about "community", may I seek a clarification as to whether it meant beyond the Kampung Glam Business Association. Kampung Glam is now no longer the residential area that it used to be before. It is now very much business. So, when we say "community", do we mean the business community or the Malay-Muslim community or do we mean the ethnic community? What is the definition? Page: 1448”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have two clarifications to make. I understand that, at first, they were not allowed to have the murals and that was the reason why URA came in quite strongly to say they had to do something about it. And then, there was a change of mind about it and they were allowed to keep the murals. My clarification is: what is the reason for the change in decision from not allowing to allowing? The question I want to ask is: does it mean that this is actually a relaxation of the guidelines under the URA guidelines on the website which defines it as "traditional hues"? If so, is this a recognition that there are certain aspects of Kampung Glam that, in its essence, are different from other parts of Kampung Glam and this is something that URA is, in fact, encouraging?”
“Page: 1114 Perhaps, this is a good time to relook at how we are delivering the anti-drug message beyond the "Say No to Drugs" campaign which, in my opinion, seems to be based on fear. It is a doom-and-gloom scenario which, to me, does not seem to deal with the fundamental issues at hand. Perhaps, it is time for a more life-affirming message through a creative public education and awareness through providing structured positive life skills in our schools and communities, so that we all have healthier coping mechanisms, especially our young people, to draw upon, and would be less inclined to seek validation outside of ourselves. 6.03 pm”
“In a compassionate society, that person is given a second chance, even as we send a strong message of the severity of the consequences of his actions. It does not have to be a zero-sum game. Lastly, Sir, while harsh penalties are indeed a way of dealing with the drug problem, and, yes, we must send a strong message of the dire consequences and punish those who destroy the fabric of our society through their drug trafficking acts, the challenge, in my opinion, is to always remind ourselves to take a more holistic view of the issue. I am reminded of this line by American naturalist John Muir. He said: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else." Surely, it is not just about foreign citizens bringing drugs into Singapore and our citizens being mere victims. We have to reflect upon what is lacking in our society and why people turn to drugs because surely there is a connection. For this, we must all take back that collective responsibility beyond meting out punishments by asking ourselves some really hard questions and the lives that we are leading that make it attractive for young people to turn to such activities to find solace. I realise, of course, that this is not a simple issue, and the reasons vary widely. Yet, I cannot help but feel that more needs to be done to provide not just our young people but everyone in all our community and society in tackling this problem at its very root. My concern is how we can support these people and help them understand that there is little need to escape or seek acknowledgement of the self through such destructive acts.”
“I am also mindful of the destructive consequences of such crimes not only on drug abusers, but also the untold tragedies of their families, their children, and to our society at large. Page: 1113 At the same time, I realise that these are incremental steps and the Government is not ready yet to do away with the death penalty altogether. In fact, the mandatory death penalty has been credited for our low drug crime rates which has been the reason given for why it should stay. In this regard, there are a few more points I wish to ask the Government. I would welcome the Government's evidence to show this causal link between the low crime rates that we are said to have and the mandatory death penalty to help the public understand better the Government's position on keeping the death penalty. The publication of such data and information that we have carried out would be in line with the Government's commitment under the UN Human Rights Council to make available such information on the death penalty. It would also be in line with the Government's greater willingness to be responsive and transparent in its decisions to members of the public. Based on these troubling questions, especially with the definition of "substantial assistance" as the only way for an offender to obtain the court's discretion, I would argue that more needs to be done. There is a vast difference between a life sentence and the death penalty which, by its nature, is irreversible. Between the long period of time that a convicted person is in remand, things can change. The offender may change for the better, and may well prove to be a different person, useful to society.”
“It is strange to me that the party with the task of prosecuting is also given this power to decide, which should rightfully belong to the court and its discretionary powers, and all the obligations it has to provide the grounds of decision to the public. (f) What is also troubling is the fact that the PP's decision in making that certification is not open to question, unless it is done with bad faith, and as we all know, that would be a tough one to prove. Does this not give rise to issues of lack of transparency on the part of public officials? (g) Lastly, with due respect, Mr Speaker, if the definition of "substantively assisted" is to be based on outcome, it seems that only offenders who are "useful" may fall under the court's discretion not to impose the death sentence. Surely, there are moral and ethical issues that, as a society, we should be concerned with here when we have such a utilitarian paradigm of human beings in our judicial system. Here, I echo Mr Lawrence Lien and Mrs Lina Chiam's comments in making this statement. My third point relates to section 33(B)(3) which specifically provides that the mandatory death penalty sentence be lifted for offenders with "abnormality of mind". This is a very laudable move. My only concern with this provision is that since "abnormality of mind" has been defined following the case of PP vs Rosman bin Jusoh as a "recognised psychiatric illness", could the definition not be broadened to cover offenders who may not be diagnosed as such, but who is, for example, intellectually challenged? Sir, we are now on the threshold of a major and much welcomed reform in our criminal justice system. I am in no way urging the Government to be less tough on such crimes.”
“I would argue that this more flexible definition is in alignment with the underlying philosophy behind the Government's proposed amendments, which is to provide the courts with discretionary powers. Secondly, I come to the really troubling definition of "substantively assisted" in the proposed section 33B(2)(b). While I understand that this is to provide latitude on the part of the Public Prosecutor, these questions arise. (a) Is it based on the intention and good faith of the offender, or the outcome? Page: 1112 (b) If it is based on the intention and good faith of the offender, if, for example, the Public Prosecutor is privy to situations where the offender's family members have been threatened and puts pressure on the offender not to reveal such information, would this be taken into account so that the offender gets a chance to fall under the court's discretion not to impose the death sentence? (c) If it is based on the outcome of the case for CNB, would this not be too much to ask of each offender, seeing that oftentimes such offenders are very low in the chain of command and control, and very rarely would have been privy to substantial information? (d) Also would not each piece of information given by each offender build upon the next piece in the puzzle, so to speak, which begs the question, which piece of information is "substantial" and which offender would qualify as having "substantively assisted"? (e) Next, the issue of the Public Prosecutor (PP) being given the right to "certify" whether an offender has "substantively assisted".”
“Mr Speaker, I must confess to have been pleasantly surprised by the announcement made by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Law Minister K Shanmugam when they introduced the proposed amendments in this House in July. Let me at the outset acknowledge and credit the Government for taking the direction it has taken with these amendments with the current mandatory death penalty regime. By empowering the courts to impose life sentence instead of the mandatory death sentence in prescribed circumstances, there is now room for discretion on the part of the courts, where none existed before. It seems to me that this is recognition that discretion in such situations is not only good to have, but, in fact, it is necessary if our criminal justice system is to be based not only on good law but also on compassion. Mr Speaker, the portions of the Bill that I am raising relate to the new section 33B. There are several issues that arise from these amendments which I find troubling. Firstly, the amendments specifically define what acts are deemed "involvement". With respect, this exhaustive list gives too narrow a scope and does not seem very clear in providing for different levels of culpability. In an operation as illicit as this, oftentimes, different people are involved with limited functions to prevent each from being privy to too much information. Could this definition not be more flexible so that each offender's relative role and responsibility be taken into account? For example, in the Definitive Guidelines of the Sentencing Council of England and Wales, a "mule" is identified for sentencing purposes based on their limited function, their influence on the entire operation, and so on.”
“As far as possible, teach them family planning, help them increase their understanding of their own bodies, in ways appropriate to their levels of understanding. I believe these will allow Singapore to be in greater alignment to the UN Convention that we will be signing. Page: 993 Sir, I acknowledge the amendments and I support the Bill. At the same time, let us also recognise that a person's right, especially a woman's and a child's rights to her own body, regardless of mental capacity, is inviolate. Let us support such members of our society by valuing their rights, turn to less intrusive ways as far as possible through education, awareness, self-empowerment tools and resort to sterilization only with sensitivity and compassion. 4.24 pm”
“The absence of recourse to a higher authority in this aspect of the Bill is also not in alignment with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child as set out in Article 3 where, and I paraphrase again, the primary consideration in any action for children must be that it is in the "best interests of the child". So here are my recommendations: firstly, with regard to people below 21, set a minimum age for minors which should be 18, the age of majority in most jurisdictions. Second, both parents to be required to give consent and the Bill adopt the approach in Schedule 2 of the Women's Charter. Third, for persons below 18, the courts or an independent committee made up of, for example, psychiatrists, reproductive health medical practitioners and social workers who are not in a position of conflict, to make the decision and/or give consent. With regard to persons lacking in mental capacity, educating and giving even more support, financial, moral as well as with infrastructure, to caregivers who understandably are already overstretched and may be making decisions based on their own challenging situations, help them understand not only the serious implications of their consent, but also that disabled persons have rights too, under the Convention for People with Disabilities. Lastly, extending the same support to affected persons, especially in view of evidence that people with mental disability can indeed increase their skills. In fact, the UN Convention for People with Disabilities, which we will be signatory to, recognises that disability is an evolving concept. Society's attitudes based on empowerment will support these members of our society.”
“And here I would like to refer to Article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which specifically states that both parents have "common responsibilities" and also that parents be given assistance in carrying these out. Compare this with the provisions in the Women's Charter Schedule 2 which sets out who is to give consent in a marriage of a minor, where various scenarios of parental situations are listed, for example, where one parent had abdicated his or her responsibility, etc. Page: 992 In a serious matter like sterilization, it is even more imperative that a more rigorous regime with regard to parental consent is laid out. Further, there are also precedents from jurisdictions like the UK and Australia which recognise that while parents are in charge, in matters like sterilization which are irreversible, parents must answer to a higher authority, like the courts, if need be. It takes cognizance of the many instances where parents are in contentious relationships and may themselves be making the decisions based on their own emotions and not in the best interests of the minor. I do not see this concern reflected in the Bill. I compare this with section 3(2)(e), under clause 3 of the Bill where a High Court order is required in a case of persons lacking mental capacity. It is disconcerting to note that no similar requirement exists for very young minors who would not be in a position to give fully informed consent and who, for all intents and purposes, can be likened to "persons without mental capacity". With regard to "best interests", it is worth noting that in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, there needs to be approval by an independent committee.”
“In the Bill, under clause 3, section 3(2)(b) states that, and I paraphrase, a married person below 21 has to give consent, while section 3(2)(c) states that, for unmarried persons below 21, consent from a parent or guardian is needed in addition to the consent of the affected person to the sterilization procedure. I acknowledge and I applaud the amendment from the original draft to include a requirement in these situations, that the registered medical practitioner not only certifies that the affected person clearly understands but also it specifically makes it incumbent on the medical practitioner to give a full explanation of the treatment. However, my first concern with regard to this aspect of the Bill is that no minimum age is stated in the amendment. I do not see a distinction being made between minors who are capable of understanding the implications of the decision and minors who are not mature enough to do so. Sir, in order for consent to be valid and informed, the person has to fully understand the implication of that consent beyond just the medical procedure. In this, I quote Dr Lam Pin Min, in the case of sterilization, the need for capacity for consent is even more crucial. I am doubtful that minors, especially younger ones, would have the capability or maturity to do so. Yet, the Bill does not reflect this distinction nor does it provide for a more rigorous regime. My second concern is that for unmarried minors, only one parent or guardian needs to give the consent in this case. There is no requirement that both parents need to do so. With due respect, I find this troubling. It is against the established laws of guardianship where both parents have joint responsibilities.”
“The Convention also recognises that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination when compared to able-bodied women. Thus, Article 6 makes it incumbent on signatories "to take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms", whilst Article 23 is more specific in stating that persons with disabilities, including children, have the right to retain their fertility on an equal basis with others. Page: 991 With that as a backdrop, I have two main areas of comments and concerns with regard to the Bill. They are, firstly, the proposed increased protection for persons with disabilities and, second, the proposed increased protection for persons below 21. With regard to persons with disabilities, I acknowledge and applaud the amendment from the original draft of the Bill to now include a requirement that a Court Order is now required over and above the consent of the spouse of the married person lacking in mental capacity, and over and above the consent of the parent or guardian of an unmarried person. It seems to me that this shows that the Bill rightly takes cognisance of instances of family disputes which can complicate decisions that are purportedly in the affected person's "best interests". It also shows it recognises that caregivers of such affected people are already overstretched and may make decisions based on their own challenging situation. Caregivers now have recourse. Turning now to the protection for persons below 21, I echo what Asst Prof Eugene Tan has said.”
“Mr Speaker, I commend the Minister for Health for the amendments to the Voluntary Sterilization Act. In particular, I acknowledge the heightened protection the Bill seeks for persons with disability. It is also heartening to note that underlying these amendments is the intention to align with the Mental Capacity Act and, more importantly, with the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities, which Singapore will be signatory to, very soon. This is, indeed, the right move and also in line with the vision set out in Budget 2012 for an "inclusive Singapore" and our vision for a more caring and compassionate society. Indeed, sterilization is a major procedure. It is the irreversible termination of a person's reproductive function. It has serious implications that go beyond the physical. It has long-term psychological, mental and emotional consequences. More importantly, the issues are intertwined with a person's right to his or her own body, his or her sexual and reproductive choices. Without a fully informed consent, voluntarily given, it is invasive and a violation of a person's integrity, and violation of the choice and ability to reproduce, have children and a family. In the case of Singapore, female sterilization is more common than male sterilization, and it is with this background that I base my comments. Sir, every woman has the right to make informed and responsible decisions about her body. Where this right is in jeopardy, the state should step in and protect this fundamental right. In the case of women with disabilities or who lack mental capacity, the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities recognises that persons with disabilities have individual autonomy and independence, including the freedom to make their own choices.”