Hri Kumar Nair
Singapore
“This has a direct bearing on how liberally orders for OCPOs and FROs will be made. To conclude, the Bill gives us more tools to attack and dismantle OCG and ensure that they and their sympathisers do not benefit from the proceeds of crime.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. Could the Minister let us know what is the number of pending cases with MOM on unpaid salaries?”
“According to section 11, such a landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and can re-possess the property a minimum of 14 days after giving notice. Could the Minister give an estimate of how much the bond is likely to be?”
“LTA has announced that beginning February 2015, the contribution rate of deregistered cars to the Open Category will be reduced from the current 15% to 10%. But why not just scrap the Open Category entirely and transfer its quota entirely to Category A?”
“Second, I renew the call I have made since 2010 to lift or remove the income ceiling. The income ceiling is too blunt a tool. It does not take into consideration the circumstances faced by each family, such as the number of dependants.”
“This will enable students to make informed decisions before and during their university. Second, by better matching demand with supply. I understand that the Law Society currently maintains a page of training contract listings.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Hri Kumar Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“Instead, we should "hand hold" the ex-offender by guiding and providing a structured environment to help him adapt to the post-imprisonment realities. The prison environment is very much a controlled environment, while the post-prison environment is very much an "uncontrolled" one where it can be all too easy to slip back to a criminal lifestyle, given the challenges of adapting to the "ex-offender" label. The proposed throughcare system is necessary in this regard to help reintegrate an ex-offender into society through progressive step-down arrangements. To some, the MAS might be too interventionist on the part of the state. However, it is a big undertaking that the state is taking on. But for difficult ex-offenders or those who have committed serious offences, this could be a lifeline to help ensure that whatever progress made during the period of imprisonment will not go to waste. I hope the MAS will help these inmates avoid the revolving door back into prison. Madam, many of the ex-offenders to whom the proposed MAS would apply are likely to have long-standing problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction, poor educational attainments, family dysfunctionality and a society still somewhat wary of ex-offenders' antecedents. Offender management, therefore, requires the careful and customised assessment, planning and implementation of work with offenders in the community and, while the offender is in custody, to address the factors, such as his attitude, behaviour and lifestyle, that could contribute to the ex-offender re-offending. The MAS seeks to enhance offender management. As such, the transition from a prison environment to a non-prison environment must be treated as an integral whole, a seamless one.”
“Remission would then be a transactionary discount on time that is needed to serve – a mere quid pro quo for good conduct but with little internal change on the part of the inmate. Hence, I welcome the move to impose conditions upon early release. Divisions 1 to 4 of the proposed Part VB of the Bill will help to add proper form and needed substance to the remission process. The Conditional Remission Order issued upon remission for good conduct and behaviour must help encourage continued good conduct and behaviour, especially when ex-offenders are most vulnerable in the first few months of release from prison. Madam, my reading of clause 7 of the Bill as they relate to the CRS gives me the impression that the Commissioner of Prisons shall be required, by default, to make a remission order at a specified time of a prisoner's imprisonment term. If so, does this amount to an automatic discount of the imprisonment term, barring the President directing that a remission order not be made in respect of a prisoner? Does this not devalue the meaning of good conduct and behaviour in prison since the basic condition attached to the remission order is not too high a bar for the majority of inmates? I would like now to address the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) provided for in the proposed Division 5 of Part V of the Prisons Act. I hope the MAS will significantly help reduce the recidivism rate. Madam, a structured aftercare regime must play a critical role in the rehabilitation and reintegration of an ex-offender. We cannot assume that the Page: 104 imprisonment term and other punishments received by an offender would be sufficient to reform him.”
“If our penal system, in particular, the prison process, produces recalcitrant or hardened criminals, then we should question the resources placed and the system we have. Our prisons must aspire to provide a safe and controlled environment by which an inmate's behaviour and attitude can be challenged and, hopefully, reformed for his own good and that of our society. The "clang of the prison gates" principle argues that if the utility of an immediate custodial sentence as an appropriate method of emphasising specific deterrence in the case of an offender of previous good character, the deterrent effect may be achieved by a short term of imprisonment. I would go further and add that the clang of the prison gates in our penal system must go further than mere deterrence, important as deterrence is, especially for inmates who have committed serious crimes. Page: 103 Madam, with those broad considerations, I would like now to specifically address the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS), the two pillars of this Amendment Bill. On the CRS, it is timely to close the "loop hole" in the longstanding practice of granting inmates a one-third remission of their prison terms for good conduct and behaviour in prison. In essence, remission is an incentive for good behaviour. However, remission cannot be an end in itself for the inmate and our administration of criminal justice. Remission must also be a means for the inmate to recognise that he can conduct himself well even in the austere and demanding conditions of prison. If an inmate is only interested in remission to get out of custody early but not genuinely interested in turning over a new leaf, then the remission process becomes a mere game to secure early release.”
“44 pm Page: 102 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. Much as the recidivism rate of ex-offenders has seen a decline, as a society, we can always do more to reduce the likelihood of ex-offenders re-offending. As it stands, repeat offenders comprise in excess of 80% of the prison population, with drug offenders released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centres tending to show a higher susceptibility to re-offending. Reducing re-offending and making it a core part of the imprisonment process has a dual benefit: (a) the rehabilitation of the offender; and (b) the protection of the public. The two are not mutually exclusive but are inherently inter-dependent. The less we are able to successfully rehabilitate the offenders, the less secure and safe will our society be. That, of course, raises questions of what the Singaporean public expects from the Singapore Prison Service and what the Prison Service regards as its fundamental mission. The Prison Service's vision is that of being "Captains of Lives", with the aim of helping inmates "rehabilitate, renew, restart". These three broad principles guide the Prison Service in their noble aspiration to make a difference in the lives of inmates. Is the prison, therefore, a place where inmates are simply imprisoned, albeit securely, as a just retribution for the crimes they committed? Or should we expect more from the incarceration process, given that significant resources are spent on the penal population? I think the answer is that we do expect a custodial sentence to not only punish but also to rehabilitate and reform the inmate.”
“These regulations are after all concerned with comparatively minor disciplinary issues. Furthermore, a breach of these regulations may not, by itself, suggest that the inmate needs special help reintegrating into society. Could the Senior Minister of State explain the reasoning behind their inclusion in the First Schedule? Finally, I have some concerns on the practical implementation of the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. With the institution of the Scheme, we can expect a surge in the number of inmates being placed in halfway houses and on home supervision. We can also expect a demand for counselling and case management services. To my knowledge, there are currently only eight halfway houses working with the Singapore Prisons, with a total housing capacity of about 450 ex-offenders. It is likely that more halfway houses will have to be established, and more counsellors trained. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what steps his Ministry has taken to meet this demand, or this increase in demand, and whether it is ready to implement the Scheme. Also, what steps will be taken to ensure that it will continue to have sufficient infrastructure and resources to meet its needs? Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, in our endeavour to make Singapore a more inclusive and caring society, the importance of rehabilitating and reintegrating ex-inmates cannot be overemphasised. Hence, this Bill's incorporation of not only the tough, embodied by the Conditional Remission System, but also the tender, manifested in the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme, represents a positive step forward in our efforts to help ex-inmates break the cycle of re-offending. Ultimately, this will benefit both the individual and our society. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 5.”
“Second, the distinction between "minor" and "serious" breaches of mandatory aftercare conditions in sections 50X and 50Y is unclear. What is a "serious" breach, as opposed to a "minor" breach? The distinction is important as a person who commits a "serious" breach shall be guilty of an offence and, if convicted, shall be sent back to prison for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order. In short, mandatory imprisonment. Further, what is "minor" is determined by the Commissioner and what is "serious" is determined by the Court. It would be better for clarity and consistency for all breaches to be dealt with by the same body, with the gravity of the breach determining the consequence. If, however, this distinction is retained, the Bill should give some guidance on what constitutes each type of breach. An apposite example of the degree of clarity sought can be found in sections 72 and 73 of the Prisons Act. These two provisions prevent any ambiguity from arising by listing the types of offences that constitute minor and aggravated Page: 101 prison offences. Thirdly, the First Schedule. Under the First Schedule, inmates convicted of the offences listed in the First Schedule will be placed on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. Broadly speaking, this includes (i) drug offences, (ii) property offences with drug antecedents, (iii) serious crimes and (iv) offences with sentences of more than 15 years. Given that the aim is to break the cycle of re-offending for ex-inmates, it is questionable if offences, for example, the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations and the Misuse of Drugs (Controlled Equipment, Material and Substances) Regulations should be included in the First Schedule.”
“This enhanced sentence should serve as a deterrent Page: 100 for ex-inmates and help keep them on the straight and narrow. At the same time, the Bill recognises that those released from prison may find it difficult to journey and start a new life alone. If there is no support network after release, the prospects of returning to bad company and re-offending are higher. Recidivism is a real problem in many countries. In Singapore, more than 80% of Singapore's prison population are repeat offenders. The Bill reaffirms that ex-inmates are valuable members of society, and gives them a second chance by supporting their reintegration and rehabilitation. Under the Bill, ex-inmates falling into certain categories will be placed into Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. Through progressive step-down arrangements, supervision and counselling, they will be given structured and targeted assistance in their efforts to start anew. This Bill is a culmination of months of work and consultation with many stakeholders and it represents the Ministry's unwavering commitment to rehabilitating ex-inmates. And I know that the Senior Minister of State has put in a lot of personal time and effort behind this particular Act. I would like to thank him for this. That being said, there are several points that I would like to raise today. The first is a simple point of clarification. The proposed section 50E(2) states that "prisoners committed for debt" are precluded from Part VB regarding the remission of sentences. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the scope of offences contemplated by this phrase. Also, the proposed section 50G states that Division 2 does not apply to prisoners serving default sentences. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why this is so.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. Many of us view "crime and punishment" in black and white terms. From a retributive standpoint, if a person has done the crime, he should do the time. However, it is far more complicated than that. "Crime and punishment" is also about rehabilitation – we want those sent to jail to put the past behind them, reintegrate and become useful members of society. It is also about protecting the public by removing criminal elements from society. All these objectives sometimes conflict, and the real challenge is to find the right balance between them in relation to each and every inmate. Because the circumstances of each crime and of each offender are never identical. But we must try, because how we seek to treat those who have done wrong is a marker of a mature society. And this Bill seeks to strike that balance. Let me first begin by commending the Bill for its nuanced and well-calibrated approach. It is an approach that ensures that our criminal sentencing system marries an effective increase in deterrent value with a reasonable dose of compassion. Under our current remission system, inmates are granted early release for good conduct. Even those serving life sentences may be released after 20 years. Notably, such inmates are granted remission without any conditions imposed. The Bill gives the law and home affairs agencies more teeth. The release of inmates will no longer be unconditional. Instead, ex-inmates will be issued with a Conditional Release Order valid until the end of the remission period. Should they re-offend, the Court is empowered to sentence them for a term up to the remaining portion of the remission period, in addition to the sentence for the new offence committed.”
“And that means they will have to apply for a writ of seizure/sale, or pay additional fees such as stamp fees and bailiff's fees in order to recover the amount which is owed to them. Can we simplify the process to make it easier for the employee to recover what is properly due to him so that he can enforce his rights, again in a faster, inexpensive manner? With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 5.14 pm”
“These are individuals who would have already lost their jobs and are either looking for work or having to prove themselves to a new employer and they are in no position to wage a long and extensive legal battle. We should recognise that employment disputes are different from other private disputes. Employment is a bread and butter issue, and it affects not only the individual, but the entire family he or she supports. They will be up against employers who have stronger bargaining power, better resources and there is a strong public interest in ensuring that all employees, regardless of rank and income, or at least up to a higher income ceiling, are treated fairly. We should help such employees by giving them a simple platform to resolve disputes with their employers quickly and inexpensively. We can do this by extending the scope of the Act such that all PMEs, or at least PMEs below a higher income ceiling can have access to MOM's Labour Court. As the Labour Court is already well positioned to deal with such issues, it makes sense for us to tap on its strengths and expertise and to extend its reach. It will also be able to maintain a database of cases and precedents, which will allow the Ministry Page: 86 to observe trends and practices, and even identify those employers who regularly avoid their obligations. Consistent with this, we need to review the powers of the Labour Court to make it more effective. Currently, problems arise when employers do not comply with the decision handed down by the Assistant Commissioner for Labour. In such cases, the employee has to turn to the Subordinate Courts to enforce the order.”
“Today, professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) make up about 32% of our workforce, and that figure is set Page: 85 to rise rapidly as years go by. It is clear that our employment legislation cannot exclude this growing sector of our population. This Bill does cast the net wider and give PMEs more rights but PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month continue to be excluded from this ambit. It is one thing to be given rights but they are elusory – they cannot be enforced when necessary. One of the benefits that will not be available to many PMEs is the right to bring their employment disputes to MOM's Labour Court. Instead, they are expected to enforce their rights in our civil courts. I would ask the Minister to look carefully at this. It is not within the ambit of the current Bill but I think it is something worth considering for the future. PMEs will not likely satisfy the means test for legal aid. This means that they would either have to sue and engage lawyers or represent themselves in court should their employment rights be violated. And how many are realistically in a position to do this? Unions can represent PME members who are working in unionised companies and are eligible for representation under the Industrial Relations Act (IRA). Yet, the scope of the IRA is limited. Not all PMEs are covered, and even if they are, unions are only able to represent them for a restricted number of purposes. So, some employers take advantage of this. They avoid their contractual obligations, knowing that the employees will not have the time or resources to take them on.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The challenge of any employment legislation is to find the right balance between the interests of employers and employees. The law, by and large, allows parties to contract freely, and to include any terms they want in their employment contracts, save for those that are illegal or offend public policy. When jobs are plentiful, this is usually not a problem. Employees who are unhappy move on to other jobs. But when they are scarce, employees may find themselves in difficulties. One thing that has struck me as a lawyer and as a Member of Parliament is how many people know little and understand even less about their employment rights. Many assume that just because they are called "permanent" employees, that means they have a job until retirement. They believe they are entitled to bonuses every year, and that when they are retrenched, they will receive some form of gratuity to recognise the many years they have given to their employer. I would urge them to read their contracts carefully. Almost all contracts allow employers to terminate by giving notice, usually one or two months, regardless of whether you are a permanent or contract staff. Almost all contracts provide that any payment beyond the monthly salary is discretionary, regardless of your position or how long you have worked. The Employment Act offers some protection on such issues, but these are largely for lower wage, or what was commonly referred to as blue collar workers. But our workforce is not the same as it was when the Employment Act was first enacted, and neither are the challenges we face. We have become and are becoming more educated, better trained.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, supplementary questions. I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I should say that I fully support the objectives of the EIP programme. I think it is right. I just have two questions. First, a question of clarification: would I be right to say that new flats are allotted to Singaporeans after the EIP quotas are already taken into account. So, in other words, if a person of a minority race receives a flat under the BTO allocation system, is it because his quota has already been taken into account in the allocation? The second question is really one to narrow the exception I alluded to. Can the Ministry at least consider an exception where a minority seller has to sell on account of arrears or on account of order of court, or in other words, where he is forced to sell the flat? In those circumstances, will the Ministry consider waiving the EIP requirement?”
“It is unclear whether match-fixing warrants invoking the CLTPA, just because it is done in a manner where elements of an organised crime are present. We have to be careful because an inappropriate use of the CLTPA will only strengthen the arguments of those who oppose it. The second point is I would be grateful if the Minister could set out a road map for the future of the CLTPA. Using the CLTPA for match-fixing suggests that our current laws may be inadequate. I understand that the Ministry is working on Organised Crimes legislation. That will presumably deal with secret societies, gambling and vice syndicates and other elements the CLTPA was directed at. Will the proposed legislation provide for preventive detention as well? And will there still be a need for the CLTPA if that legislation is enacted? With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 3.32 pm”
“We must continue to ensure a rigorous review of the use of the CLTPA in every case. In this regard, the CLTPA does provide that an independent Advisory Committee will review all Detention Orders and Police Supervision Orders. The Committee will then submit a report on their recommendations to the President, who will confirm, cancel or vary the Orders on advice of the Cabinet. The Committee comprises prominent individuals, including former judges and experienced lawyers in private practice. There are, therefore, significant checks and balance in the process. However, there are two points that I would like to raise. The first concerns the scope of the CLTPA. Recently, it was reported that Detention Orders under the CLTPA were issued to four Singaporeans involved in a global match-fixing syndicate. The explanation given for the use of the CLTPA was that the criminal syndicate was a complex and multi-layered one, witnesses able to provide testimony were unwilling to do so, and that the cross-border nature of the criminal activities gave rise to evidential difficulties. I understand the difficulties in prosecuting the crime. But it has always been the Government's position that the CLTPA will only be used as a last resort where a serious crime is involved. So, the question is: is match-fixing, regardless of how wide-spread it is, a sufficiently serious offence to invoke the CLTPA? Page: 55 It is of a different order from crimes involving secret societies, drug trafficking or loansharking. Match-fixing is essentially cheating and it is really driven by the gaming industry. In other words, many who lose money as a result of match-fixing, were gambling in the first place, and some illegally. There is no apparent threat to life or limb, or to security.”
“You would think that many people would be against this, but according to a Washington Post poll released in February this year, 70% of respondents either "strongly" or "somewhat" approved of keeping the prison facility open. Why? Because when the rubber hits the road, and where public safety and human lives are at stake, certain realities sink in. This part of the world is no more ideal. The fact of the matter is that there are criminal syndicates operating here and in the region which are a direct threat to our safety and security. They know what the rules are and how to get round them with impunity. You cannot bring a case to Court in Singapore if there is no evidence, and one way to keep the evidence out is to make sure that you keep your operations overseas or you intimidate people from testifying Page: 54 against you. As Al Capone said in the movie "The Untouchables", "Somebody messes with me, I mess with them." I cannot do the voice! And if they know that the Police are powerless to prosecute, there is nothing to stop them from committing or continuing their activities. In other words, there is no deterrence and that is the reality. So, we can shrug our shoulders and say that is the price we have to pay or we can arm our agencies with some teeth to better protect Singaporeans. We can acknowledge and accept that special circumstances call for a different solution. I, therefore, support extending the life of the CLTPA which has served Singapore and Singaporeans so well. But giving such wide powers always carries the concern of abuse or misuse. Will the CLTPA be used in cases for which it was not intended? Will the Police use it as a convenient tool where it is too costly, or time consuming or otherwise difficult to prove the crime?”
“Mdm Speaker, this is one of those Bills one will face criticism from some quarters for supporting it. Detention without trial does not sit comfortably with commonly accepted notions of justice. Everyone naturally and understandably insists on more openness and transparency, particularly if a person's liberty is at stake. In an ideal world, if a person is accused of a crime, he should be entitled to confront his accusers, challenge the evidence and defend himself in a public forum before an independent judge. But we do not live in an ideal world. In 2011, the Malaysian government limited the scope for preventive detention by repealing the Internal Security Act and Emergency Ordinance. In recent months, Malaysia has been hit by a wave of violent crimes. It was reported that 74 people in Malaysia were shot and killed by criminals between January and September this year. The Malaysian police blamed the surge on an increase in gang activity following the release of detainees under the now-repealed Emergency Ordinance. In response, the Malaysian government has performed a U-turn. It is now seeking to reinstate a wider scope for preventive detention and detention without trial by amending the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act and Prevention of Crime Act. We have long been criticised by Western governments for having detention without trial which is something we inherited from the British. Then on 11 September 2001, things became less black and white. The US established Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba, which sanctions, among other things, preventive detention and what has been called "enhanced interrogation techniques" – what most people would understand as "torture".”
“A supplementary question, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister for the answer. My question is related to the on-going and never-ending debate on tuition. Could I ask whether the MOE is looking at ways to reduce the dependence on tuition, including setting a realistic amount of content being taught in our schools, and, therefore, ensuring that teachers are able to complete the syllabus comfortably?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. A supplementary question: could the Minister clarify the position of residents who may be in transition, those who are old enough to qualify for SAs but may not have the cash or CPF balances to place a deposit, for one, but have equity tied up in their current flats. They cannot sell without buying and they cannot buy without selling. Could these residents be helped?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have had instances of residents coming to me saying that they are unable to sell their flats which have been on the market, in one case, for at least eight months, because they did not receive offers from persons of the relevant race. In cases like that, where they can demonstrate that they did not receive offers, will HDB exercise some flexibility?”
“In this regard, I reiterate my call earlier this year that we seek to promote and create greater awareness of adoption as an alternative to ART for married couples. This is not to suggest that adoption is the panacea. Sir, notwithstanding the concerns that I have, I support the Bill. 5.30 pm”
“It is "loaded" in that there is an inherent moral dilemma in providing the legal architecture that the Bill seeks to provide. For those who object to ART, creating this regime can be perceived as signalling a wider approval of ART and encouraging the expansion of ART because it reduces the "planning costs" for the stakeholders. For example, where the mother and male partner are not married to each other and the child was not brought about with the sperm of the partner, they can still avail themselves to the Act. On the other hand, by not providing the legal architecture, we would also be prolonging the legal uncertainty, and generate potentially contentious and heart-rending litigation over who has parental rights over an ART child. The Bill conveys the idea of the need for a father and families, and implicitly creates the notion of the inferiority of other family types. This is a very complex matter and I worry that this Bill raises more questions than answers. Not so much relating to the legal parentage of the child but to other matters. This Bill makes an important first step but much more needs to be done to develop a working consensus that takes cognisance of individual rights, and the delicate balance between the individual and society and public policy. Sir, ART facilitates the formation of alternative families, for example, without sexual intimacy, where the mother and male partner are not married to each other, or with two parents of the same gender. We have to deal with the greater uncertainty and the ambiguity of kinship relations including those of motherhood and fatherhood. Legal ambiguity in such scenarios would not be in the best interest of the child.”
“The changing trends in our society point to more couples wanting to achieve their desired families even if they do not conform to the traditional family form of husband, wife and biological child. I appreciate that the above matters are not under the ambit of this Bill. They are very complex and controversial issues, and defy the jurisdictional boundaries between the Law and Health Ministries. But they also highlight that what the Bill and other legislation on our statute books do not deal with are also life issues that present real concerns. They are very much the proverbial "elephants in the room". As a society, I hope we can engage them proactively, rather than leaving such children in a state of legal limbo. The House would also be mindful that this Bill can be criticised for not being pro-life by not adequately promoting respect for the embryos, sperms and eggs, since ART involves creating, transferring, freezing and the discarding of embryos. These ART processes connect with the right to life issues and for which I recognise that the pro-life and the pro-choice advocates in Singapore contest passionately over. We cannot hide from the reality that not all Singaporeans share similar religious, moral and ethical concerns. For some Singaporeans, as Mr Hri Kumar had pointed out, ART is critical to their having their own children. Objectors to reproductive autonomy rights will, however, appreciate that it is important, given the boom in the fertility business, that we properly regulate the regime governing the legal parentage of ART children. Not to do so will render it injustice to these children. Page: 86 Sir, this Bill is primarily procedural in that it prescribes how fatherhood will be accorded in different situations. Yet, this Bill does have a signalling effect.”
“Sir, I find the Bill interesting for what it does not cover. I recognise that this is deliberate as the Bill does not seek to regulate ART services and treatment in Singapore which comes under the purview of the Health Ministry. Even then, this Bill in seeking to provide for the legal parentage and status for children conceived through ART has a limited scope. For example, the Bill is clear that it only applies to heterosexual couples, whether married or not to each other at the time of the fertilisation procedure. The "de facto partner" in the Bill refers to the male partner and, as such, excludes same-sex couples. Page: 85 I have several questions which I hope the Minister can enlighten us on. One, does the Act apply in cases where the fertilisation procedure is carried out overseas, but the child born in Singapore? Two, clause 4 relates to the giving and withdrawing of consent to a fertilisation procedure. However, it is silent as to whether the consent can be withdrawn after the fact, that is, after the fertilisation procedure has been carried out and before the child is born. Three, the Bill does not specifically address the issue of surrogacy. Again, would it be correct to assume that a child born to a surrogate mother from a fertilisation procedure overseas does not come under the purview of the Act? Going by a plain reading of clause 6, however, it would appear that gestational surrogate mother would be treated as the legal mother of the child. Sir, in situations where the Act does not apply – such as in surrogacy – there arises the real possibility of uncertainty and conflict over who the child's parent or parents are.”
“The woman who gives birth to the child is the mother and the man presumed to be the genetic father is the father. With ART involving the use of donated sperm, such children would be raised by a man who is not their biological father. This separation of social and genetic fatherhood is inevitable in such a situation. Sir, as I see it, one objective of the Bill is to promote heterosexual nuclear families with the father as the basis for defining and organising family life. Underlying the Bill's regulation of fatherhood is primarily the view that a father is the person with genetic ties to the child. But the Bill does not take a strict view on this and the various provisions in clause 7 provides recognition of social fatherhood – that what makes a parent is not just biology alone but about the everyday activities relating to the care and custody of a child such as meal times, cleaning, washing, education and the like. This course of conduct approach is a sensible one to take since it privileges substance over form in determining legal fatherhood. The Bill is relatively straightforward in spelling out how parents of an ART child is to be recognised in selected situations. I welcome the drafting intent of ensuring that the ART child does not have a single parent, even though the child's mother has a spouse. The proposed parenthood regime avoids situations in which an ART child would have a set of parents who are not in the same marriage or be left effectively parentless. In this regard, clause 8 is to be welcomed for granting the High Court the flexibility to take into account specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis. There is only so much that legislation can do in such a situation, but case law can augment what it means by "the best interest of the child".”
“As a result, someone with an interest in the well-being of the child, but who is not seeking to be treated as the parent of the child – for example, an older sibling or grandparent – will be unable to contest an application. This appears to be an anomaly. In any event, we should allow the Courts to determine who should be allowed to be heard and not seek to restrict its jurisdiction. I, thus, urge the Minister to consider widening the scope of section 10(6) to allow persons with "sufficient interest" in the parenthood of the child to contest an application. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill deals with real life problems that we cannot and should not ignore. The issue of legal parenthood is far more than a question of legal status. It has a direct impact on lives and families. This Bill is, thus, both practical and timely. I support the Bill. 5.21 pm Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is timely with the growing popularity of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) in Singapore. We now have more ART children in Singapore. I understand that in 2006, 720 children were conceived through ART, a figure that doubled to 1,308 in 2010. The number of ART cycles done has grown from 2,432 in 2006 to 4,672 in 2011. These figures reflect the growth in demand and supply of ART-related services. ART is a growth industry, indeed, but it also raises questions over the genetic, gestational and social aspects relating to procreation on children, parents and their families. Page: 84 Through ART, the likelihood of separation between the gestational, social and genetic parenthood is greater. The legal regime that governs who is the parent of a child in a non-ART birth is relatively uncontroversial in our family law.”
“While I understand that these provisions must be applied flexibly, it is uncertain what conduct or actions will be sufficient to constitute acceptance. And there are important consequences: the interpretation of the phrase determines whether a man owes legal duties to the child and, if so, when he becomes subject to these duties. Furthermore, section 11(c) sets out that a child shall be treated as legitimate from the last date a list of events occurs, one of these events being "the date the child is accepted as a child of the marriage by the man who is to be treated as the child's father". Section 11(c) is phrased differently from sections 7(3)(d) and 7(6)(e). Nonetheless, I assume that section 11(c) really provides the same condition of "acceptance" of the child by the man through a course of conduct. If so, the Page: 83 interpretation of this phrase affects the legitimacy of the child as well. Given that so much turns on the interpretation of this phrase, I hope that the Minister will shed some light on what actions are intended to demonstrate acceptance. I accept that the Minister cannot give an exhaustive list, but some guidance would be useful to help interpret the law. My last point is that section 10(6) may be worded too narrowly. Section 10(6) allows an application to Court to determine the parenthood of a child to be opposed by either the child or any person who is treated or is seeking to be treated as the parent of the child. In contrast, section 10(3) provides that an application to determine the parenthood of a child may be made by "any other person" who has "sufficient interest" in the parenthood of the child. To put it simply, the scope for making an application is wider than that for contesting an application.”
“We should clarify the law so there will be a measure of certainty. There must be clear rules that we can follow in times where emotion is likely to reign. I, therefore, commend the Ministry for tackling these difficult issues. Like any good piece of legislation, the Bill seeks to anticipate as many possible scenarios as possible, and tackle them in a clear, consistent manner. Nonetheless, I wish to highlight three aspects of the Bill that may require further consideration. First, the extra-territorial application of the Bill may give rise to a conflict of laws. The Bill does not only apply where the child is born in Singapore. By virtue of section 3(1)(b), it also applies to persons, such as the gestational mother of the child, husband, donor of the egg or sperm and other connected persons who are domiciled in Singapore. Problems may arise where the ART procedure is carried out overseas and the child is born in another country. Singapore law and the law of the country where the child was born may apply conflicting laws on the issue of parenthood. How will such conflicts be resolved? Given the increased mobility of Singaporeans and the availability of ART overseas, this is a problem that we may encounter. I hope that the Minister will clarify this point. Second, sub-sections 7(3)(d) and 7(6)(e) of the Bill provide that the husband or "de facto partner" at the time of the fertilisation procedure may be treated as the father of the child where he has "through a course of conduct accepted the child as a child of the marriage or of the relationship". This applies, notwithstanding the fact that he did not consent to the fertilisation procedure and did not provide the sperm.”
“The man attended the birth of the child and visited him regularly, until the relationship between him and the mother broke down in 2011. A Family Court judge awarded the man equal parental shared responsibility of the two-year-old boy. Should a similar dispute arise in Singapore after this Bill is passed, the man would not be the legal father of the child, given that he was neither married to the mother nor was he her "de facto partner" at the time of the fertilisation procedure and he was not her "de facto partner" after the fertilisation procedure either. Further, the man may not even be able to make an application to determine parenthood under section 10 since he does not fall within the ambit of section 10(2). In the UK, in Leeds, there was an IVF mix-up with the result that a lady's eggs were fertilised with the sperm of the wrong man. That man and his wife were undergoing treatment in the same clinic at the time. The lady had twins as a result of the IVF procedure. The biological father applied for access to the children in 2002. The Court decided that he was the legal father of the twins. Should a similar dispute arise in Singapore after this Bill is passed, the default position under section 9 of the Bill is that the gestational mother and her husband will be the legal parents of the child. The biological parent will, however, be able to make an application to the Court to contest this position by virtue of section 9(3). Section 9(4) states that this application must be made within two years of the mistake, negligence, recklessness or fraud being discovered. Page: 82 So, whatever the religious, ethical or other sensitivities which may arise, we should not shy away from addressing the difficult problems that will arise.”
“This Bill deals with controversial issues, such as conferring parental rights to a man even if he is not the sperm donor. It also gives a man parental rights where he is not married to the mother at the time of the procedure. There will be concerns that we are sanctioning ART for single women and compromising the family unit. As difficult as these issues may be, it bears reminding that this Bill is intended to tackle real life problems. ART exists and ART procedures are being carried out. And there are real situations and circumstances where the law is unclear or unsettled on paternal rights and legitimacy of the child. One example is where the husband or partner of the gestational mother has not given consent to the use of his sperm. Another example is where the wrong egg or sperm is used in the fertilisation procedure, as has happened in Singapore. As the use of ART becomes more prevalent, we will have to confront disputes similar to those which have arisen elsewhere. Let me cite a few Page: 81 examples around the world. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a lady became pregnant after her divorce, using her ex-husband's previously-stored sperm from a failed IVF treatment. The man applied to disown the child because the woman did not obtain his consent for the procedure and he failed in court. If this Bill becomes law, and a similar dispute arises in Singapore, the ex-husband would not be the legal father of the child, given that he was neither married to the lady nor her "de facto partner" at the time of the fertilisation procedure, and he was not her "de facto partner" after the procedure. In Australia, a couple lived together for six months before breaking up in 2002. They remained friends and began IVF treatment in 2008 after the man agreed to donate his sperm.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Science and technology have improved our lives and enabled us to live Page: 80 in a manner our forefathers could not even conceive. And every time we think we have reached our capacity, we are often reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. So it is with Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). It is a cold, clinical term. What it really represents is HOPE – hope for childless couples around the world and in Singapore to bear children, to hold their own flesh and blood in their arms, and to experience the joys of parenthood. It has been said that life affords no greater responsibility, no greater privilege, than the raising of the next generation. As a father myself, I cannot agree more. Becoming a parent is a life-changing and humbling experience. It is, therefore, no wonder that many have turned to ART in the hope of becoming parents. And the Government has supported the hopes of such couples. In 2008, the ART treatment co-funding scheme was introduced to subsidise the cost of ART. This scheme was further enhanced earlier this year. As of March 2012, a total of 3,841 couples had benefited from the subsidy. And I have no doubt that the numbers will continue to rise. All this has resulted in more births in Singapore using ART – from 720 in 2006 to 1,308 in 2010. It is the same story around the world, with reported increases in countries where such facilities are readily accessible. In Japan, for example, there were 26,680 babies born through IVF in 2009, compared to just 11,119 in 1999. So, more than double in 10 years. When this Bill was introduced, some raised concerns about the ethical issues it gives rise to and such concerns are inevitable.”
“The exception under section 10B(5) should, therefore, apply to any legal counsel who provides advice to any entity in the group of companies, provided it is within his job scope to do so. As the legal counsel would still have to fulfill the conditions of sub-section 4, there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the provision is not abused. With that, Madam, I support the Bill. 3.15 pm”
“This mirrors the language in section128A of the Evidence Act in relation to the scope of legal privilege. But that serves a fundamentally different purpose. The fact of the matter is that there are corporate counsel who advise companies or entities within a group of entities which do not fall within this scope. This would also include Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) and their related entities which are not granted any Page: 46 protection. In the 2012 parliamentary debate on the amendments to the Evidence Act, I queried why legal privilege was extended to companies and their related corporations, but not to LLPs and their related entities. The Minister for Law's response was that this was a concession to corporate reality; many MNCs operate under a group of related companies, and the CA has a definition of "related corporation", but no similar definition exists in the Limited Liability Partnership Act. The concern was that the extension of legal professional privilege to related legal entities of a limited liability partnership may run the risk of the privilege being abused to hide communications or material that ought to be disclosed. While this is a legitimate concern, the same rationale does not apply in the present context. Sub-section 5 is an exception to the offence and should be drafted in a wider manner. In fact, sub-section 5 stands in sharp contrast to the wider exception under sub-section 6. Under sub-section 6, an exception is granted for legal counsel employed by a public agency who renders legal advice to other public agencies as part of his duties of employment, provided that the conditions in sub-section 4 are fulfilled.”
“It is paramount that the exemption provision is drafted as narrowly as possible, so that there is no possibility of funds being channelled towards terrorist activities. In this regard, section 7(1) may be too broadly drafted. It confers upon the Minister the discretion to exempt any person from section 4(b) and section 6, which prohibit the provision of property and services for terrorist purposes and dealing with property of terrorists respectively, so long as the property or services will not be used by or benefit a terrorist entity. I urge the Minister to consider drafting the provision more narrowly, perhaps by articulating the precise circumstances in which an exception may be granted. On the same note, I would like to clarify how section 7(1) is intended to operate. At the point when the exemption is granted, how will the Minister be able to determine whether or not the property or services will be used by or will benefit a terrorist entity? Can the Minister revoke the exemption, and, if he does, what is the status of acts already carried out when the exemption was in force? My third point concerns the scope of the exceptions to the new section 10B, which makes tipping-off an offence. Sub-sections 3 to 6 set out a series of exceptions for advocates, solicitors and legal counsel to ensure that advice rendered, or information disclosed for professional purposes and for the purpose of legal proceedings will not constitute tipping-off. In particular, my concern is that section 10B(5) is too narrowly drafted. This subsection extends the protection granted under sub-section 4 to legal counsel employed by one of a number of corporations related to each other under section 6 of the Companies Act (CA).”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill represents Singapore's continuing resolve towards combatting terrorism and to join hands with the rest of the international community to battle this scourge. I, therefore, welcome this Bill. There are, however, a few points that I would like to raise. First, a point for clarification. Sections 8 and 10 of the Bill make it mandatory for persons with information about transactions relating to terrorist property or acts of terrorism financing to disclose it to the Police. However, the Bill does not protect the identity of informers. As a result, those who may otherwise aid the authorities may be deterred, for fear of reprisal. The Bill addresses this gap by introducing a new section 10A to protect the identity of informers during legal proceedings. However, the protection given to informers is not absolute. Under the proposed section 10A(3)(b), if the Court is satisfied that justice cannot be fully done between the parties without the disclosure of the name of an informer, the court may permit inquiry and require full disclosure concerning Page: 45 the informer. This provision, as broadly phrased as it is, creates some uncertainty. Could the Minister clarify what sort of circumstances would justify the disclosure under section 10A(3)(b)? Furthermore, should further safeguards be implemented to ensure that informers are adequately protected? One way this can be done is to require the Minister's approval before disclosure of the informer's identity is allowed. My second point concerns clause 4, which refines the scope of exemptions the Minister may make in respect of terrorism financing prohibitions under the Act.”
“Mdm Speaker, supplementary questions, please. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answers. In an organisation as large as the Civil Service, it is inevitable that some officers will, from time to time, be found to have acted inappropriately. The real question, therefore, is one of accountability. Could the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify under what circumstances the different disciplinary measures he mentioned apply? In particular, there has been mention of public servants being issued letters of warning. What are the consequences of a public servant receiving such a letter of warning? Will this, for example, affect his increment, his bonuses, or his prospects of promotion? And when investigating a public servant's wrong-doing, how far up the command chain does accountability then go?”
“Mdm Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I have encountered instances of low-income residents who have asked their employers to not give them increments for fear that that would push them over the edge in terms of either qualifying for a flat or having to pay a higher rental. I appreciate that the HDB has discretion as to whether to impose an increase or not, but I think the difficulty, essentially, boils down to the fact that the discretion will be exercised after the increment is given or accepted. The fear is that this discretion may not be exercised favourably and so they would rather not take the chance. Could the Ministry consider communicating these efforts and policies clearer to low-income families so that they can be rest assured that they will be treated fairly and properly when it comes to accepting increments? I also thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the statistics in terms of families that move from rental to ownership. However, my experience is that there is a number of families which are really in a chronic stage, which are not likely – in the short term – to go into ownership status. Is there a long-term solution for such families? Because the way we were continuing to build up our rental stock, it is likely that more and more families would go into a rental status and then Page: 36 possibly create a permanent underclass sector.”
“There has not been a significant number of car loan defaults and, in any event, I think the Government should take a step back in relation to financial decisions made by people. People should decide what is in their best interests and make their own decisions. COE Prices”
“Neither should it matter whether they are diesel, petrol, LPG or hybrid. Such cars occupy the same space and contribute to congestion. But it will make a difference if we promote cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. Therefore, substantially more COEs should be allocated to those cars which are environmentally friendlier and a smaller number for "dirtier" cars. And this will set a clear and defensible policy and send a strong message about what we value. It will also indirectly help those who can only afford to purchase smaller and cheaper cars as these tend to have lower emissions and be more fuel-efficient. My second point is about the timing of changes to policies. We have a habit of springing them suddenly on people, such as the recent curbs on car loans, property cooling measures and so on. This makes it difficult for individuals and businesses to plan, and where plans are affected, it causes frustration and resentment. Why can we not give reasonable warning so that everyone can plan and make informed choices? I can predict the response – if we had given six months' notice, for example, before imposing the car loans, everyone will rush in and purchase a car in those six months. Yes, they may, but so what? Those who rush in will know that others will do so as well, and so they must be prepared to pay more. Others who can choose to wait out the market, in their expectation that prices will fall, will wait out the market. For the rest of us, there will still be the same number of cars on the road. The concern for those who may over-extend their finances, I think, is overstated. First, it will only affect a small number of people because only a Page: 16 small group can buy in that short time.”
“That is the intention, but what is the likely consequence? It may mean driving more people to the small car market, which will push up COE prices for that segment. And the latest MAS curbs on car loans will make it even more difficult for low- and middle-income persons to own cars in any event. So, is there a principle which governs car ownership in Singapore? And frankly, I do not see any. I think we get into these difficulties because we try to fit conflicting principles of free market, social equity and financial prudence. It does not work. It raises expectations and ends up frustrating and confusing many. I, therefore, ask the Minister to review the system and the principles of COE allocation. It is time to pull the handbrake on the current COE system, send it Page: 15 back to the workshop for overhaul. First, let us have a simple and clear objective which most, if not all of us, can agree to. Since we cannot please everyone, I suggest that instead of focusing on who gets a COE, we should look at what kind of cars we want to have on our roads. Like Mr Cedric Foo, I think we should put more emphasis on environmentally friendly cars. Cars can be simply categorised by their emissions, or other environmental factors. The Europeans have done this well. They are car manufacturers. So, over time, they have enforced higher emission and other standards for their cars. The result is that European car manufacturers have had to step up their game, and today, most Europeans buy cars which are well engineered, cleaner and more fuel-efficient than compared to, say, American cars. We do not manufacture cars, but with the COE system, we can effect similar changes. The engine capacity of cars we buy should not matter.”
“Madam, the COE system was introduced over 20 years ago, but cannot shake off controversy. Never has so Page: 14 much been said by so many over so few pieces of paper. Most people accept the logic in restricting the number of cars on the road and the need to keep traffic moving smoothly. But no one likes to pay more. As a result, we have heard many suggestions on how to change the system, usually with a view to keeping COE prices low for some. I say "some" because there is no one suggestion that really benefits everyone who wants a car. So long as we agree that the car number must be controlled, there would be no solution that pleases everyone. The real question is what the Government's role is when it comes to determining who gets a car? The problem is that there has been no consistent policy when it comes to cars. When then Minister Dr Yeo Ning Hong introduced the COE system in 1990, he said that the rationale for having categories based on engine size was to "benefit the lower and middle-income owners". In other words, there was an element of social equity in the system. That rationale appeared to be premised on the fact that back in the 1990s, luxury car makers generally produced cars with larger engine capacities. But this has not been the case for some time. European emission standards and the introduction of turbo charging and supercharging has seen luxury car makers move into the small car market. So, today, luxury car makers dominate the small car category as well. So, lower- and middle-income owners no longer benefit. So, why do we still maintain categories based on engine capacities? But the latest changes to the ARF appear to reaffirm the principle of social equity, making those who purchase large, luxury cars pay more.”
“They pay a high price for their flats and they end up being angry, disillusioned and unhappy with their homes, and they end up blaming the very people who were trying to help them in the first place. I, therefore, urge MND to focus on providing good quality public housing for the masses for the benefit of most Singaporeans. MND can offer a suite of choices with different amenities and sizes, but retain ownership of the process and the legal relationship with the purchaser. Let us keep separate private and public housing, and not have one morphed into the other, so that everyone functions and benefits at the same levels, and Page: 139 those who aspire to something different should look to the private market. In the same light, I ask that MND reconsider the ceiling level for the purchase of HDB flats. Let us raise it beyond $12,000 so that more Singaporeans can enjoy and purchase a flat and make their choice. Financial Prudence”
“This also means that taxpayers' monies are effectively being used to subsidise the purchase of ECs for those who may not need a subsidy, and, no doubt, in some cases, to make a profit. Subsidies should be used to help Singaporeans buy homes, not make windfalls. The Ministry has implemented measures to deal with some undesirable aspects, such as capping the size of EC units. However, that does not address the problem I have highlighted. I accept that it will be difficult for MND to investigate the financial backgrounds of purchasers to assess if they belong to the class of Singaporeans intended to be helped. But if we cannot ensure that the objectives of the EC policy can be met, perhaps we should reconsider having the policy in the first place. The problem is also, I believe, this concept of hybrid housing – public in some respects, private in others. In the case of ECs, public evolving to private. But, again, I understand the intention behind these policies is to give Singaporeans more choices, better quality homes/housing if they can afford it. But, again, what is the result? In my division, there is a running battle between the residents and the private developer of The Peak, the DBSS development, over quality issues. One of the residents' complaints is that the HDB is not taking a more active role in resolving matters. But I can understand why HDB is not, because the contractual relationship is between the purchaser and the private developer, and HDB has limited powers to intervene. But as far as the purchasers are concerned, they bought the flats under HDB rules, under HDB restrictions, and, therefore, they deserve help from the HDB. So, the intention of DBSS was to provide Singaporeans with better quality flats but, again, what is the result?”
“Sir, the key to assessing the success of any policy is to distinguish the will from the deed. In other words, we do not look at what the intention behind the policy is, but what its effect is. Nowhere is that more relevant than in public housing. As the salaries of Singaporeans, especially professionals, rise and as they marry later, a good number of couples will have combined salaries which will disqualify them from buying a new HDB flat. At the same time, they find private properties out of reach. So, ECs are intended to help this growing group. The problem is that ECs are also an attractive financial proposition. Minister Khaw recently described the scheme as offering residents a Lexus for the price of a Corolla. That is a good analogy. But because it is such a good deal, those who could otherwise have afforded to purchase private property are buying ECs as well, and some who may not be able to afford it are being helped by their parents and others. The critical question, therefore, is whether ECs are only being sold to the class of people they are intended to benefit. The selling prices of ECs suggest that they are not. This is best illustrated by the recent sale of $2-million EC penthouses. And even for the more regular priced units, prices have risen in tandem with the private property market. We cannot blame Singaporeans for taking advantage of a good deal. Neither can we blame developers for high prices. They bid competitively for the Page: 138 land; they take risks and, therefore, want to maximise their profits. Developers are not the least concerned that their units may not be affordable to couples who earn up to $12,000 a month because that is not their only pool of buyers.”
“Mdm Chair, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their responses. I think that MinLaw had a full plate Page: 58 last year, and I think they have a larger plate but no less fuller this year. Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly but bad people will find a way to get round those laws anyway." So, on behalf of my Members and other Members of this House, I would like to record my appreciation for the officers of the Ministry for the hard work and the diligence and passion with which they performed them. With that, may I have leave to withdraw my amendment? [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $242,042,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $565,072,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Our judicial system is difficult for ordinary folk to navigate without incurring significant costs to obtain discovery and, subsequently, redress. There should be a facility to enable discovery of the identities of persons who put up inappropriate posts and for effective remedies for these posts to be taken down swiftly. I ask the Ministry to consider setting up a bureau or agency to offer such services to the public. Finally, may I ask the Minister for an update on the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) scheme? How many more licences does the Ministry intend to Page: 39 issue? And what gaps in our legal services does it hope to bridge in the next round of licences? 1.30 pm Criminal Procedure”
“While rude expressions per se should not be restricted simply because they are unpleasant, we should be concerned when hate speech and hateful ideas are spread online by vilifying, disparaging, ridiculing or inciting violence against particular groups of people; hate speech threatens social cohesion and stability. Some countries have enacted legislation prohibiting and criminalising hate speech, and even speech online. We have the Sedition Act but that may be too blunt a tool to use in some situations. A more focused legislation against hate speech or inappropriate conduct online may be timely for it to give more responsive and effective remedies. Related to this is a need for stronger privacy laws. In January this year, following the horrific accident in Tampines that claimed the lives of two young brothers, photographs showing the mangled state of their bodies were circulated rapidly on the Internet. The photographs made a spectacle out of a tragedy and robbed the family of their privacy and dignity that they deserved. This is only one incident. The recent sex corruption cases have seen photographs of innocent women circulated on the Internet, speculating whether they were the parties involved. There are many instances online where people snap photographs of others in public spaces for the purpose of subjecting them to online ridicule and scorn. The question is whether we as a society find this acceptable and, if not, whether the Government should step in to do something about it. At the very least, we should allow persons who are aggrieved the facility to bring an effective response themselves. Most people will not have the ability or resources to discover the persons behind inappropriate posts online.”
“This will reduce the fear and anxiety many of them faced when they appear before the court, and allow them to make more informed decisions about how they respond to the charges. We could involve law students or those doing their Practice Law Course to assist in this. It will provide them valuable hands-on training and may even encourage more of them to practise criminal law when they qualify. Related to this is an issue I raised in 2010 and that is the recording of statements of accused or witnesses in criminal proceedings. Recently, there has been a number of high profile cases where the time of the court has been taken up to determine whether statements of the accused and witnesses were properly recorded or accurately represent their evidence. I had raised in 2010 the possibility of having a more independent check on this process and that would include having the statements recorded by video – by having a video recording of the statement-taking process – or at least having an independent third party, like a Commissioner for Oath, sign off on the statement before they are made final. These would cut down the costs of trial – of court time – to determine the integrity and accuracy of the statements and will give more confidence in the reliability of these statements when they are used in court. Page: 38 My next point relates to the need for laws against hate speech and greater privacy laws in Singapore. The advent of the Internet and social media has improved access of information and allow the ordinary citizen to air his opinions online. This is a good thing. However, the anonymity that the Internet affords has also led to a deterioration of social mores and etiquette on online platforms.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100". I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer. I would like to begin by commending the Ministry for the many legislative and policy changes implemented in the past year. One key move was in respect of the mandatory Page: 37 death penalty. On the whole, the move to give our courts wider discretion in sentencing has been applauded. Likewise, the changes in respect of legal aid, to refine the means test to allow legal aid for proceedings before the Commissioner for Labour, this allows more Singaporeans to receive legal aid and, therefore, legal representation. Madam, these changes signify a shift in putting more heart in our laws and policies. Consistent with this approach, I would like to highlight several areas for consideration. First, I believe more can be done to expand the pool of resources available for legal aid. There are untapped legal resources we should explore. These include retired lawyers, in-house counsel and academics. One problem would be that these individuals would have to apply and pay for practising certificates, which is sometimes inconvenient. Will the Ministry allow a limited practising certificate which can be issued without payment or other usual formalities solely for the purposes of appearing in legal aid or probono cases? Further, I am troubled by the high number of accused who appear at their first criminal mention unrepresented. I mentioned the figure at 47% at the debate on the Legal Aid Amendment Bill. Will the Ministry consider enacting a scheme where accused with legal representation can obtain simple advice and guidance in respect of the charges against them and their options, at least before their first mention?”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Iswaran and Mr Masagos for their responses. I hope Mr Masagos recovers quickly. One thing that stands out for me in all the questions asked and the speeches made is the absence of any suggestion that the Ministry's efforts have been lacking or left wanting in anyway. That speaks volumes of the good work done by the Ministry and its officers. In the circumstances, it will be entirely remiss of me to ask for its Budget to be reduced by any amount. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $3,511,799,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $379,826,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”