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 5 of 10.
“Recruitment remains a challenge for many employers in Singapore – be it in the public or private sector. However, it is clear that the Ministry will require more officers to meet its plans, including performing the new bicycle patrols and foot patrols that we have heard about and which it is rolling out under its new Community Policing initiative – more boots on the ground needed. As the capability to attract and retain talented candidates in our Home Team was identified as a key area of focus in our strategy, I would be grateful if the Deputy Prime Minister could give an update on the effectiveness of the new Page: 125 measures implemented last year. I understand that higher starting salaries and retention payouts were some of the measures implemented. Have these measures been successful in attracting high quality candidates and lowering the attrition rate in the Home Team? I would also like to ask the Minister what the Ministry has done and is doing to ensure the Home Team is able to meet its operational demands for future. Will recruitment challenges adversely impact plans such as the "Next Generation Frontline Policing Model", which was announced in November 2011. Also, will any refinements to the four key areas identified last year be necessary? In essence, my question is whether the Ministry remains on track to deliver the plans it has announced. Overview of MHA's Priorities”
“What are we doing to help those who may have difficulties doing so? For those who return to drugs, what does the Ministry intend to do differently since previous efforts have not worked? Recidivism is not just an issue for drug offenders. Every Singaporean caught in a cycle of offending and imprisonment is effectively a life lost, and in many cases, pain, despair and an emotional burden on his family. No one is born wanting to commit crime and we need to do what we can to help put them back on the right path. I know from my work and interaction with the Ministry that much effort is being put in to help Singaporeans escape this trap. There are many civil servants and VWOs working passionately to keep people away from a life of crime and save Singaporean families. Singaporeans should be told about these efforts. They should also know what the challenges are, so that they can be part of the solution. I, therefore, ask MHA to give an update on our efforts to reduce recidivism and helping ex-offenders reintegrate into society. People and Innovation Madam, it was pointed out in last year's Committee of Supply debate that terrorism, transnational syndicates, technology and the changing profile of our society are some of the key challenges that we face in maintaining public order and security. In response, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about strengthening our capabilities to deal with present and future threats to our security by focusing on four key areas: enhancing organisations and systems, investing in our people, exploiting technology and partnering the community. At the same time, it was mentioned in this year's Budget Statement that our economy is running almost at full capacity and that there is virtually no unemployment.”
“Trivial on its face, but done on a regular basis, causes tremendous stress and anxiety, and increases tension between neighbours. The truth of the matter is that we have no effective recourse to such behaviour. We ask the RC to intervene. Sometime it works, most of the time it does not or at least only provides a temporary fix. We refer the cases to voluntary mediation, but that is the problem. It is voluntary, so if the respondent declines to go, there is very little we can do about it. As our population grows, and more live in high-rise homes, the number of incidents will grow. We need to put together a practical and effective framework to resolve such disputes. It has to involve empowering people on the ground to resolve disputes quickly. If that fails, compelling the disputing parties to attend mediation or some form of dispute resolution, and having trained individuals who can make decisions and most importantly, having sanctions that have some teeth in the event the meditation fails. This is not intended to impose more laws, rules and regulations on society. But such a framework will reflect what society deems acceptable, facilitate good neighbour neighbourliness in high density living and improve the lives of everyone. My second main point, Madam, relates to repeat drug offenders who have already been released and will continue to be released from the Long-Term Imprisonment Regime. This issue was highlighted in a Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister last year. It involves about 3,000 repeat offenders. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for an update on this issue. In particular, have those who have been released been able to reintegrate into Page: 124 their families and society, and have they found homes and jobs?”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Let me begin by commending MHA for a very busy legislative agenda last year. We have seen a number of significant moves, not least of which were the changes to the mandatory death penalty. We have also seen changes such as the introduction of the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus Scheme to complement the existing Long-Term Visit Pass Scheme. Given the upward trend in marriages between Singapore residents and foreigners, this scheme will give couples greater peace of mind to set up families and sink roots in Singapore. Page: 123 One change which will have significant and beneficial impact on the ground is the Community Policing System, an islandwide installation of closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras in common areas, such as HDB void decks and carparks, and more foot and bicycle patrols will benefit residents. This will hopefully enable quicker response and more effective policing. Just as important, it changes the role of our police officers, as being part of the community they help protect. It also demonstrates that although crime rates are falling, the Ministry is constantly looking for ways to be more efficient and effective. But there is one challenge we need to tackle – that of resolving neighbourhood or community disputes. Crime prevention is important. But what disturbs the peace for most on a regular basis is conduct which the police does not consider crimes or serious crimes and will therefore decline to take action in a timely manner. Members of this House are all too familiar with these neighbour disputes, including loud and indiscriminate noise, dragging of furniture, thumping of floors, hanging of dripping laundry, obstruction of corridors and so on.”
“Madam, the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) Scheme was introduced last year to cater specifically to foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. In light of the increasing number of marriages between Singapore residents and foreigners, this was a welcome move. With greater security, it is likely that children from such marriages will become Singapore Citizens and the family will grow their roots in Singapore. On this note, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following: first, how many foreign spouses have been given LTVP+? Second, does the Government intend to liberalise the granting of LTVP+? And, third, with this scheme in place, will it be more difficult for foreign spouses to secure permanent residency or citizenship? I end with a request. I urge the Government to take a more flexible view with respect to foreign children of Singaporeans who apply for citizenship or PR. We should help such families stay together in Singapore. The children's connection with Singapore is significant. If the concern is of false claims and that can easily be verified by simple tests. Page: 89 Attracting Malay/Muslim PMEs for Citizenship and PR”
“Nonetheless, we must remain a multi- Page: 133 racial, multi-religious society defined by values embodied in our pledge of unity, democracy and equality to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for all. I support the Budget. 6.27 pm”
“It was something that Singapore did very well. In one of my first speeches after becoming a Member of Parliament, I told of an encounter which made that clear to me. More than 20 years ago, in 1991, shortly after my final University examinations, I undertook a backpacking trip with some of my friends around Asia, the ASEAN countries. So, on a hot day in Bangkok, my two Chinese friends and I walked towards a street vendor selling drinks. Before we could open our mouth, he looked at us and said "Singaporean". We asked him, "How did you know?" And he said, "Different colour, walk together; must be Singaporean." We laughed at the incident but, you know, I have never felt prouder to be a Singaporean. I hope always to feel that way. We have lost our way somewhat on integration. It is not too late to get back on the right road. The Government must lead the national debate on immigration and integration. It should come up with a comprehensive package which Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners can accept as sound, compulsory community service, monetary and non-monetary measures, carrots and sticks. We should not avoid this sensitive topic, but embrace it as part of the evolution of our young country. It is a fallacy to think that a country can stand still, frozen in time and never change. Change is inevitable, and change can be a good thing, provided we manage this process fairly and rationally, involve Singaporeans and, most importantly, act in the interests of Singapore. We are a very different Singapore from the Singapore of the 1970s and we will be a very different Singapore in 2030.”
“This story is always different, depending on who you speak to – employers who say they cannot find Singaporeans despite their best attempts or that Singaporeans are unrealistic about pay and benefits; Singaporean employees who say they have been discriminated against because their employers want to hire cheaper foreigners or help their fellow nationals. I know of cases where my constituents have gone to the CDC looking for jobs, only to be told that nothing was available, or to be sent on interviews which proved a waste of time. This should not be happening in a tight labour market. So, where is the real problem? Let us get to the bottom of it and show where the truth lies. Page: 132 Some have mooted rules or laws to compel employers to prove that they cannot find Singaporeans before they are allowed to bring in a foreigner. We should find simple ways of doing this. For example, the CDCs and NTUC can help by offering a comprehensive job matching service, not just for low-income workers, but for PMETs as well. To make sure their efforts are sincere, we can have them certify that job matching has failed before an employer can make an application for a foreign worker. In this regard, an employer who has proven that he is unable to secure a Singaporean for a reasonable wage should be given some leeway to bring in foreign workers. For some industries, you can only improve productivity so far and workers are needed to keep the business going. But it cannot all be one way. Singaporeans must also bear responsibility for themselves. Singaporeans who unreasonably refuse to take up jobs or to improve themselves should not expect to keep getting support from others, whether through the Budget or otherwise. Mr Deputy Speaker, integration is a long and complex journey.”
“Not clear. Is it because of his lack of education? But he is the son of a Singaporean, who wants to live with his father and do NS, and does a job which Singaporeans apparently shun. Why do we regard him as less qualified to be here compared to sons of Permanent Residents, who may or may not choose to stay and do NS when they come of age? Fifthly, we should have new citizens and PRs perform some form of compulsory service. If NS is not suitable by reason of age or other circumstances, other forms should be introduced. This can be for short periods annually, much like how Singaporean men do reservist training. The point is not to discourage foreigners from sinking their roots here, but to emphasise that they now have a stake in the country as well. One commenter on my Facebook page mooted the idea of having some of them serve in the Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC). It is worth exploring. There are even practical benefits as it helps with the current manpower shortage in the Home Team. In fact, there are currently 52 Permanent Residents serving in the VSC on a voluntary basis. At a recent award and appreciation ceremony, I met one of them, Cpl (V) Yanase Yoshitaka, a Japanese who has lived here for 12 years. He is proud to serve in the VSC. He told me he wants to become a Singaporean. Others can do the same. Give them a chance. They may surprise us. Finally, we need to have a more robust and effective response to those who undermine our efforts to integrate. I have spoken about PRs who send their sons away to avoid NS. We also need to deal with allegations that some employers favour hiring foreigners at the expense of Singaporeans, or retrench Singaporeans before releasing their foreign staff.”
“We become a better, stronger society when the lot of all Singaporeans are improved. Thirdly, while foreigners and PRs are important, we must also demonstrate that there are privileges in being a citizen. We have thus far largely dealt with this on a piece-meal basis, with different Ministries announcing changes or measures at different times, whether it is securing places in Primary schools, differentiating medical fees or property ownership. We should have a comprehensive review of all these measures and look at how we can make changes on a fair and principled basis. Some have said that such a move would be xenophobic. By that definition, any privilege given to a citizen is xenophobic. Of course, it is not. It is legitimate for a government to draw distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. In any case, I firmly believe that most Singaporeans are not xenophobic. But they are genuinely unhappy because of perceived unfairness of treatment. We, in this House, need to address this squarely and rationally because if we ignore this, this only gives cause and strength to the less rational voices. Fourthly, we should review our approach to granting citizenship and permanent residency. It has to be more than just satisfying criteria or completing forms. I have a constituent who is a Singapore Citizen. His wife is a Malaysian, gave birth to their son in Malaysia and the boy became a Malaysian citizen. The boy is now about 20 years old, not well educated but hard working and wants to improve himself. He has been working as a cook in Singapore for Page: 131 about two years on a work permit. The boy wants to live in Singapore with his Singaporean father, become a citizen and do NS. This is what he tells me. His application for PR has been rejected several times. Why?”
“That is why I proposed the National Defence duty − as a practical response to a practical problem. We cannot force people to remain in Singapore who do not want to stay here. But we can make it so costly that they would think twice or three times before taking PR status or arranging for their child to dodge NS. As with all proposals, some liked it; some criticised it; some felt it did not go far enough. Some even accused me of proposing that PRs who were liable for NS be allowed to pay their way out of their obligation. Of course, I never made any such suggestion. But one thing most appeared to agree on: something needs to be done. The status quo will not do. Page: 130 This issue should be tackled as part of a national effort to promote integration. We can and need to do a number of things, and these are my suggestions. Firstly, at a macro level, we need to explain better the importance of keeping Singapore an open society with an open economy. "Singaporeans first" does not and cannot mean "Singaporeans regardless". These issues are complicated and, frankly, we do not do a good job of explaining things. This is sad because we have such a compelling story to tell. Neither will the approach that people should trust us because we know what we are doing works. We cannot take the people's trust for granted. Secondly, we need to convince Singaporeans that Singaporeans remain central to Singapore and its future. This year's Budget takes a step in that direction. More is being done to help members of our Singapore family who are in need of more help – increasing incomes for low-wage workers; securing their children a better education; helping the elderly age with more dignity. More is being done to share the prosperity that Singapore has achieved.”
“Second, many want to see new citizens and PRs genuinely integrate better with Singaporeans and be part of our society. We want them to demonstrate that they regard this land as their home; that they believe in our cause; and that they, too, have a stake in Singapore's future. What grates most on our nerves is the thought of those who seek the privilege of citizenship and permanent residency do so purely out of convenience or economic gain, and that they will abandon us at the slightest risk or sign of trouble. That is why National Service is such an emotional topic. Doing National Service, or giving an undertaking that your son will do National Service, is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. Many talk about shedding blood, sweat and tears. But it means more than that. It forges a common bond which is unique to us and, in some ways, helps define who we are. There is also a real financial sacrifice. For men from poorer Singaporean households, it means two years of earning a nominal allowance when they could have joined the workforce and helped supplement the family income. So, it disturbs us when we perceive others avoiding NS by playing fast and loose with the rules and taking easy rides in the system. That is the true cheapening of National Service. Thirdly, most demand that those liable to do NS must perform their duty. It is not enough that NS-dodgers pay a penalty and are barred from returning to Singapore. We would rather that they stay and serve with us. But we must accept the reality that some PRs will arrange for their sons to leave when they reach a certain age. Not a single person who has posted or given their views believes that the current sanctions against this are adequate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am part of the post-65 generation born in Singapore after Independence. I served my National Service in Infantry. I carried my M16, wore my No 4 and ate what the SAF optimistically called "combat rations". I spent time in the soil of the jungles of Singapore and Taiwan with other Singaporean males, who have become my friends. I view my NS with pride, just as I am sure many Singaporeans do. NS is a common touchstone for us. We will never do anything quite like it, at least we hope not to. Even decades later, we talk about it with friends. It brands us as Singaporeans. When people talk about a "Singaporean Core", NS is one of the ingredients that lie at the heart of it. Last month, I wrote a series of posts on my Facebook page suggesting that we impose a national defence tax on non-citizens as a way of sharpening distinctions between citizens and non-citizen residents, and using the proceeds to benefit NSmen. I was happy that my posts sparked a lively debate. It brought into focus the larger issues of whether Singaporeans, new citizens, PRs and foreigners are successfully integrating in our society and the implications for us if they do not. The problem, I think, is that we have largely dealt with these issues on a superficial level. I would like to share with this House some things I have been told online and in person in the course of the debate. I believe they represent the views of a good number of Singaporeans. They raise serious issues which I hope the Government will look into. Page: 129 First, many Singaporeans recognise and appreciate the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreigners. They have no desire to discriminate against them. They acknowledge that this country would not be the success it is without their contributions.”
“We should not be distracted by numbers, nor should we use numbers to distract. I hope the Government will deal with the issues of today and give confidence that it will be able to solve those of tomorrow. New plans and programme initiatives are good, and we have heard many from MND, LTA and so on. All these are good. All these are something to look forward to. But Singaporeans need to see them work and feel their own lives improve. That, I believe, is the only way to ensure that Singaporeans will take the next leap forward with the Government. 6.04 pm”
“Businesses in Singapore will not invest and expand if labour is tight and growth is low. To say that we can have the same growth as other mature economies is no answer as it ignores the problems that these other economies have today. This is not about having good GDP numbers, but having a future. Having a job makes a world of difference to a person and his family. If you have no job, no prospects, no hope, everything else is pretty much moot. What about other effects? Will we have to pay more taxes? What will it mean to our retirement age? Will we have enough workers in essential services, such as domestic, health and geriatric care, and construction to meet the additional infrastructure and healthcare services we need? These are important to the daily lives of Singaporeans. Under the Workers' Party plan, there will not be enough, and it is a pipe dream to believe that Singaporeans alone will make up the difference. These and other questions have to be answered if there is to be a credible alternative or, at least, a meaningful debate. It is not enough to simply say that there has to be "structural changes". It is clearly not enough to say you empathise with local SMEs, which you kill off with your plans, and then say it is for the Government to find a solution to help them. It is also not intellectually honest to suggest that shareholders will suffer and Singaporeans will not, when what we are dealing with are Singaporean owners, Singaporean employers, Singaporean employees, Singaporean shareholders – all Singaporeans Page: 119 supporting the Singaporean families in Singapore. Ultimately, we are engaged in this debate because we want all Singaporeans to have a better life and future, and to help Singaporeans understand and deal with the realities on the ground.”
“We need to address these and other difficult questions now. If we do not, few will trust that the Government will get it right in 2020 or 2030. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the hon Member Liang Eng Hwa as they put the issue in better context, better perspective. Just as important, we should not mislead Singaporeans by simply telling them what they want to hear. It is easy to discount projected population figures by a million or so, and then say that the workforce shortfall will somehow be made up by foreign brides and productivity, then we can simply decide how many percent of GDP we want, as if we can push it with a magic machine, and then we can all live happily ever after with lower growth. There is a difference Page: 118 between a vision and a fairy tale. We have to compare something with something, and this debate will not be advanced or served by comparing Singapore, as envisioned in the White Paper, with something that only exists in fiction. Singaporeans are best served by details, not posturing. And I do not mean simply throwing numbers around. Let us deal with the real effects on real Singaporeans. For example, what will low growth mean to employment opportunities for young Singaporeans? All around the world today, youth unemployment is increasing at alarming rates. The ILO 2012 report puts "Youth Unemployment for Developed Economies and the European Union" at 18% in 2011 and about the same this year. In Spain and Italy, as of July 2012, youth unemployment was 52% and 35% respectively. This is because businesses are not investing or growing, and cannot absorb the many young people who are graduating from schools every year. Why do some assume Singapore will be different?”
“But the question is, would Singaporeans be better off if the Government had kept silent? And would you trust a party that ducks difficult questions? No one can predict the future, and, as Minister Lui said, it is difficult to visualise how the future will look. So, we do what comes naturally – as people, we project what we see today as a basis of what will happen in the future. And the problem is that many Singaporeans do not quite like what they see today. The White Paper plans for a "good quality of life". But that means different things to different people. To most Singaporeans, day-to-day issues weigh most on their minds. So, how will the building of new MRT lines and housing make our lives better if we are, at the same time, growing the population? Will the added capacity only be sufficient to cater to the increased population? In basic terms, will Singaporeans have to wait longer, shorter or the same time for their flat or the next train? Or is it the case, as in Alice in Wonderland? Are we running as fast as things move, so that we can stay on the same spot? The distinctions between Singaporeans and foreigners must also be carefully reviewed, as this is a matter which will have growing significance as the Singaporean Core diminishes. How do we deal with the issue of PRs not doing National Service, as Mr Inderjit Singh raised yesterday? How are we going to ensure that jobs which Singaporeans are ready, able and willing to do are not given to foreigners? How do we help our children secure places in good schools and universities? How do we ensure that foreigners do not speculate and drive up property prices, and put it beyond the reach of Singaporeans? Essentially, how do we ensure that those with no skin in the game do not walk away with all the prizes?”
“They say that the Government has over-stated the problems of the elderly to working adult ratio, that we have not done enough to boost productivity and birth rates, and that the elderly can retire later and work longer. But frankly, we are all crystal-ball gazing. No one wants to hit 6.9 million people. Every Member in this House wants a stronger core of Singaporeans. Everyone supports the Government building ahead of demand. We all want TFR measures to work so that there will be less dependence on foreigners. Future technology and advances in healthcare may well help our seniors remain active and productive longer. Other innovations and mechanisation may reduce our dependence on unskilled labour. Technology can change life dramatically in the next 20 years, just as it has done in the last 20 years. But the problem is, no one here can say with certainty about what will happen. The issue is, therefore, not 6.9 million, 6.5 million, or who can assert a more acceptable number. Numbers will change over time as circumstances change, as assumptions are either confirmed or debunked. However, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo said, we have reached a turning point and we have decisions to make today about what we do about our future as we see it today. And we have to take the next leap of faith. The issue is, therefore, one of trust and confidence. The Government has done the right thing to talk about the future and show its vision of it. It has stuck its head out and is prepared to take the blows. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo said, it is far more politically convenient to do or say Page: 117 nothing. There are many who have written that the Government is politically naive for issuing this White Paper.”
“But is there any doubt that these measures were necessary and have benefitted the vast majority of Singaporeans? I think few would argue against it. Today, we are the beneficiaries of these long-term policies, of this long-term strategic thinking and of the hard work of the previous generation, many of whom are not alive to enjoy the fruits. But it is also common for people to view the past with rose-tinted glasses. Despite the current and legitimate unhappiness about over-crowding, high property prices and such, we are today far better than our parents' generation. All the objective facts show that education, home ownership, employment, wealth and household income, quality of life, health and longevity – all point to a better standard of living for Singaporeans today. But today, we are also an older society – less resistant to genetic defects. The current has become as important, if not more important, than the future. The White Paper is very much about the future. But its acceptance by Page: 116 Singaporeans will depend very much on how we deal with today's problems. That will determine if Singaporeans will give the Government the time and the space to re-shape the future like they did in the past. So, to persuade Singaporeans to come on this journey, we have to do two things: (1) we have to paint a full picture of the future for Singaporeans, highlighting both the good and the bad; and (2) we have to give Singaporeans confidence that the Government will be able to address the challenges of the future. Chief among these challenges are the questions of over-crowdedness and the advantages of being born a Singaporean. Some in this House and many outside have questioned the numbers and assumptions in the White Paper.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh is a difficult act to follow [Laughter]. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial fiasco, the editor of Newsweek International observed that the crisis had demonstrated one thing: that Page: 115 democracy has a genetic defect – it emphasises the current, usually at the expense of the future. Intuitively, we recognise this. So, while politicians often speak eloquently about promises of the future, they know what really matters is that they must deliver on the real and tangible issues of the present. And policies are often driven by this reality. Singapore is not immune to this genetic defect. And it would be foolish to think that we are different. However, when we were a young nation, we showed strong resistance to it. When former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said that the Government was going to transform Singapore from a swamp to a gleaming metropolis, not many believed it could be done. The key was that Singaporeans allowed the Government time and space to embark on its vision, to effect medium and long-term strategies – on the economy, housing, transport, health and so on. And Singaporeans took a leap of faith with the Government and were rewarded for doing so. Did some Singaporeans suffer as a result of these policies? Some clearly did. Take, for example, land. In order to build housing and hospitals, roads and rail network, industries, the Government acquired property from Singaporeans. And this included farms and business premises. Some were dislocated, lost their homes, their inheritance, even their livelihoods. And I still have some residents who complain bitterly about this today. We can understand why they were all unhappy.”
“Such a scheme would also have the advantage of building up and improving the quality of the criminal bar, as well as exposing our younger lawyers to such work. Page: 54 I started by saying that Legal Aid is just one tool, albeit an important one. But the duty to providing good counsel to those in need should not fall entirely on the Government. The principle of "many helping hands" should apply here as well. Private practitioners, retired lawyers, academics, corporate counsel and even lawyers in foreign law practices in Singapore should get involved. There is enough legal talent in this country to do this. Despite the long hours and the stress, we should acknowledge that we – lawyers, that is – belong to a privileged group. We should offer our time and expertise to help those who are not so fortunate. There is now a strong drive, led by the Law Society, to have lawyers in private practice do more pro bono work. We should support it as best we can. There is still much to do, but if everyone does his bit, we can significantly reduce the risk of an unjust result and have a legal system we are all proud of. 3.32 pm”
“At first blush, there may be some conflict in the Government expending resources to investigate and prosecute crimes, and then giving legal aid to the accused. But it is not the Government's role simply to arrest, try and jail. Government's role is to ensure the rights of all citizens are protected, and that includes making sure that those who are accused have a fair hearing. Its KPI should not be the number of successful prosecutions, but rather that, in every case, a fair and just result was achieved. There have been cases of accused persons taking what they consider to be the easier path – pleading guilty to an offence they did not commit simply because they cannot afford the cost of a trial. Whenever we have cases of wrong convictions, it is a blight on our legal process and the administration of justice. And there is no higher cost than the indelible stain of a wrong conviction, particularly where the cause is one of lack of resources. As a society, we have a shared interest in ensuring that the rights of all are protected. In that respect, there is no conflict in administering criminal legal aid. Thus, I would like to urge the Minister to extend legal aid to criminal cases or even consider a public defender scheme to provide legal assistance and representation for those who cannot afford legal counsel in criminal proceedings. We may not need to expand the legal service to achieve this. The solution could lie in assigning lawyers criminal legal aid cases with a modest fee rate set by the Director of Legal Aid. This is not unlike the situation where applicants for legal aid may be assigned an external solicitor.”
“Recently, it was reported that a foreign worker who had been injured in an industrial accident had difficulty obtaining his compensation award because his employer had failed to purchase insurance for him. There have also been reports of employers withholding salaries to their employees for months on end, or who do not provide sufficiently for their welfare. They are exploited simply because they are vulnerable. If left unchecked, workplace abuse can have negative repercussions on Singapore's reputation, industrial relations, and public order. Under the Act, only citizens and permanent residents can avail themselves to legal aid. I am not advocating legal aid for foreigners. However, there is no reason why employers should not bear the costs of their employees receiving proper representation in relation to work disputes. And this should be made part of the true cost of hiring foreign workers. Page: 53 My last point concerns legal aid for criminal proceedings. We do not have a criminal legal aid scheme administered by the State. The only form of criminal aid provided by the State is for capital crimes under the LASCO scheme. Those who are unable to afford a lawyer in non-capital criminal proceedings are faced with defending themselves, unless they qualify for aid provided by volunteer lawyers from the Law Society. Based on figures provided by the Subordinate Courts, up to 41% of accused persons are without counsel at the pre-trial stage. More should be done to help those who need counsel for criminal matters. Laypersons find it extremely challenging to navigate the legal process. Whenever an accused person is unrepresented, the risks of an unsatisfactory outcome are higher.”
“Under Page: 52 the proposed amended section 9, however, this $2,000 lower limit is abolished. Instead, all persons are liable to make contributions, except where the Director exercises his discretion to reduce, waive or refund any contribution. My question concerns how section 16(4) operates in situations where the Director has exercised his discretion to waive the contribution. Section 16(4) states that only persons who are "not liable to make a contribution" are required to pay the Director out of the monies recovered. A literal reading of the section suggests that only persons who had their contribution entirely, and not partially, waived would be liable to the Director for sums payable in the event that he recovers money. Could the Minister clarify if those who had their contributions partially waived are still liable to make contribution in the event that they recover money? Third, clause 20 of the Bill expands the scope of the Act to allow aid to be granted for proceedings before the Commissioner for Labour under the Work Injury Compensation Act. Such workers are a vulnerable class of people, and legal processes are often alien to them. It is important they are able to enjoy the full benefit of the statutory protection accorded to them. They will need legal assistance to navigate such proceedings in order to do so. Unfortunately, this is often too expensive and, again, intimidating. The Bill deals with this problem by extending the scope of legal aid. And, again, this is a good change. This topic brings up the plight of foreign workers. As we have seen in recent months, unscrupulous employers can and do take advantage of their foreign employees.”
“However, it does not distinguish those families who may have higher expenses because the child or the dependant is handicapped or chronically ill. So, the Act is not flexible enough to embrace different circumstances. I accept that it would be impossible to legislate for different situations. That is why the Director should be given wider discretion to allow or disallow applications, and to ask for information which will enable him to exercise that discretion. This would allow the means test to be applied in a more effective and accurate way. The means test could also be made more flexible. A good example of its rigidity is the deduction for rent in calculating disposable income. In this Bill, the amount of deductible for yearly rent has been revised upwards from $1,000 to $20,000. Would that figure still be relevant next year or the year after that? It could, depending on the economic situation, be either insufficient or too generous. Rather than having to wait for Parliament to legislate changes which takes time, we should use a more flexible formula which takes into account fluctuations in inflation or cost of living. This would allow the means test to remain relevant as time and the economy changes. The second is a point for clarification on the issue of contribution. Section 16(4) applies to a person who is not initially liable to make a contribution, and who subsequently recovers money in legal proceedings or by virtue of a settlement. This section operates to make such a person liable to pay the Director for sums payable on his account out of the monies he recovered, and that is a good thing. Under section 9 of the Act, persons whose disposable capital and annual disposable income fall below $2,000 need not make such contributions.”
“Mdm Speaker, first, let me congratulate the Senior Minister of State on her maiden Second reading Bill. I promise to be nice and polite. I support any measure which promotes access to justice. The Court's role is to resolve disputes, protect rights, interpret and clarify the laws we live our lives by. Ultimately, it is there to do justice. But it cannot achieve that role if people are unable to put their grievances before it. I, and I am sure many in this House, have come across cases where Singaporeans have been reluctant to pursue good cases, because of costs. Often, it presents a chicken-and-egg problem – a wife who needs a lawyer to recover maintenance but is unable to pay for a lawyer because she does not receive maintenance. Individuals are entitled to represent themselves, but many shy away from doing so because the process appears too intimidating and they believe they cannot cope. Legal Aid will not solve all these problems and not all problems can be solved, but it is an important tool to help those in need. I am, therefore, glad Page: 51 that the Government is changing the criteria for a person to qualify for Legal Aid, so that more Singaporeans can benefit from it. There are, however, four points I would like to raise about the Bill. The first concerns the amended means test. In order to qualify for legal aid, the applicant's disposable income must not exceed $10,000. To calculate disposable income, clause 21 stipulates that a maximum amount of $6,000 can be deducted from the applicant's income in respect of maintenance of each dependant. I accept that $6,000 is a significant increase from the original deductible of $3,500.”
“Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 3.22 pm”
“I accept that companies will likely want to act before their systems are attacked as their own commercial reputations will be at stake. However, they may be less inclined to do so if the threat does not prejudice them but another party. In any event, companies should be encouraged to take proactive measures. So, would the Minister, therefore, also consider having the power of granting immunity to companies which may have acted in advance of any directions he issues to deal with cyber threats? And this can be for deserving companies on a case-by-case basis, in addition to the blanket immunity which the Bill confers. Finally, a matter for clarification. Could the Minister explain the relationship between section 15A sub-section (8) and sub-section (10)? Sub-section (8) states that information obtained from parties may be disclosed to the Police or any law enforcement agency, if the information discloses an offence. Presumably, that is to facilitate the investigation of and prosecution for that offence. However, sub-section (10) states that where an offence is disclosed, pursuant to the exercise of powers under the section, no information for that offence may be admitted as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings. If so, what is the referral to the Police for? On the whole, I commend the Bill for enhancing Singapore's regime against cyber threats and cybercrime. As computer hacking techniques become increasingly sophisticated, we must protect ourselves from those who seek to exploit our dependence on computer systems. In these times, national security is not just about defending our physical borders. There is clearly much at stake here. At the same time, we must always remain aware of the potential for over-reaching and implementing the appropriate safeguards.”
“However, the enormous power and wide discretion the Bill confers on the Government to affect measures and to obtain data from private companies and individuals will inevitably raise questions about whether those powers will always be properly used. Such power, while conferred in the national interest, should go hand in hand with increased accountability and appropriate checks and balances. Thus, the legislative framework should provide for proper safeguards to prevent abuse or an over-reach of powers. It is unrealistic and would defeat the purpose of the Act for the Minister's decision to be reviewed at the time he exercises it. However, would it not be possible to institute periodic reviews by a separate panel to ensure that such powers have been properly exercised and information gathered properly used or archived and, in the appropriate cases, destroyed? These reviews may be held in camera to strike a balance between accountability and confidentiality. They will promote public confidence in the system. The second point relates to the proposed section 15A(6). This sub-section confers criminal and civil immunity on anyone who in good faith implements any measure or acts according to directions he receives under the Act. And this gives rise to two issues: Page: 51 First, whether the threshold for immunity is set too low. Under the Act, all that is required is that the person acts in good faith. Should he not also be expected to act with some reasonable care? Second, this provision may have the counter-intuitive effect of causing companies to be less proactive in implementing measures to detect or deter cyber threats, and only act when the Minister issues his directions so that they can enjoy their legal immunity. This is clearly not desirable.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The new section 15A gives the Minister wider powers to take action once he is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent, detect or counter a cyber threat to Singapore. It also provides that the Government may require persons to provide information concerning such threats. Failure to comply with the Minister's directions will be made an offence. The cumulative effect of the Bill is to give the Government greater teeth to deal with potential cyber threats. In particular, the Government is conferred Page: 50 wide discretion in the exercise of such powers and I can understand that approach. Cyber threats, obviously, cannot be dealt with like conventional armed or terrorist threats. Anticipation, detection and timeliness of response are particularly critical. urther, the intrusion or attack may be through privately managed systems. The Minister therefore requires the necessary tools to deal with these threats. There are, however, three points that I would like to raise in relation to the Bill. First, the Minister may invoke such powers not only in the prevention or the countering of threats to Singapore, but also in the detection of such threats. These powers may be invoked in the context that extends beyond our national security and defence concerns, such as to preserve foreign relations. I accept that there are practical reasons for granting the Government such wide powers. As I have said, given the reliance of critical industries on computer systems and the sophistication of modern hacking techniques, it is vital that we cast a wider net to better protect our nation against cyber threats.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his answer. Do the recent prices for ECs not suggest that those purchasing can afford to purchase private property? And, if so, how can the Government ensure that even with the new rules, that ECs are only intended for those that the scheme is designed to benefit? If they cannot ensure that, should it even continue with the EC scheme?”
“I would also like to enquire as to what circumstances to justify the suspension of an international market agent licence in the public interest as provided for under the new section 110C. Sir, there is no doubt that the IRs have provided a tremendous boost to our economy and created many jobs to Singaporeans. Yet, we also concerned by the social costs we have to pay. The fact that the Ministry is taking steps to tighten regulations, including imposing limit visits, suggests a concern over problem gambling, and I hope this is an issue we will continue to keep our focus on. 4.12 pm”
“Page: 1389 My second comment relates to the amended section 165 which grants the Committee of Assessors the power to exclude or impose a visit limit on a person if it comes to the Committee's attention that the person has a poor credit record. This is a proactive step and I support it. However, my concern is how the Committee may find itself privy to such information. A person's credit record is private and confidential. It is one thing if an individual voluntarily submits such information, though I rarely think it will happen, or a family member provides that information. It is quite another if the Committee receives such information from other sources and acts on it. It seems rather inconsistent that we are nowadays concerned about protecting personal data but appeared to be willing to allow personal information to be used without an individual's consent. Hence, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister regarding the receipt of such information and whether the Committee will act upon information that has not been provided by the individual, or his family members, or at least without his consent. My final comment relates to the new sections 110, 110A and 110B which collectively set out new regulations pertaining to casino marketing arrangements. I welcome the prohibition against such arrangements involving Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents. However, having junkets or casino marketing arrangements present and operating out of Singapore may lead to an increased exposure to international criminal syndicates and organised crime. I would like to seek clarification as to how such problems may be dealt with under the Act.”
“The debate may well continue as to whether it is a good idea to bring gambling to Singapore, whether it is a moral activity, but I think you cannot deny that it is really an irrational way to spend your money. Sir, the Minister spoke of emerging unhealthy trends in gambling in Singapore. So, in relation to the visit limit, do we really think that limiting the visits of our problem gamblers to the IRs will address or mitigate the problem? He is simply going to find some other outlet and he does not have to try very hard because there are so many options today – Internet, or online gambling, cruise ships, football, horse racing, jackpot machines, Singapore Pools, and the list goes on. If the gambler knows his visits to the IR would be limited, would that not give him an excuse to place higher bets, raise the stakes each time he goes there? One of the emerging trends, as the Minister has referred to just now, was about people who actually place higher and higher bets each time they go. If we are serious about addressing problem gambling, we should not simply limit the number of visits. I would suggest that we should make it mandatory for the subject, the person, to attend counselling. If we have given the family the power to stop the gambler from entering the casino, why can we not give the power to send him for professional help? And if he refuses to go, he should be excluded altogether, or make it a condition of his appeal if he wants to appeal against the limit ban. That would give him the incentive to attend counselling and get help, and that would be a more effective step in identifying and tackling problem gambling.”
“Sir, I support the Bill's objectives of providing more regulatory oversight over the activities of the casinos in our Integrated Resorts. I would, however, like to comment on some provisions. First, the amended section 153 which introduces the concept of a visit limit. I can understand its rationale. It provides the authorities and families with more options to deal with problem gambling and having more options is rarely a bad idea. However, I am not sure what this option actually achieves. Sir, I can understand the Government being careful about setting restrictions on people visiting the casinos. There has to be some freedom of choice, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. But I think that assumes everyone behaves in a rational manner. But gambling is not a rational activity, and responsible gambling is an oxymoron. Problem gambling is a disease. In my work as a litigator, I have had to deal with several cases where clients have lost money on account of gambling because the employees or agents stole their money to fuel their habit or where they have been exposed to claims from third parties because their employees have stolen from others. There is one thing these addicts share − one thing they have in common. It is their unshakeable belief even as they sit in their prison cells that if only they had not been caught so soon, if only they had a bit more time, they would have won all their money back. They acknowledge that the house always wins but believe that it will be different in their case. They tell themselves that they have had a run of bad luck and things were going to turn very soon for them. These are all illusions, a symptom of that disease and the desperation it often breeds.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare I am a Catholic as well. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. I wonder if I could get some clarification on a recent event. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain or tell the House whether he had any discussions with the Archbishop on the subject of the event organised by Function 8 (F8) and, if so, what transpired during those discussions?”
“Are we enroute to achieving the targets that we have set in the various industries? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Page: 754 4.50 pm”
“Sir, let us take an example. Not too long ago, my feedback on unsanitary and over-crowded, living conditions in an apartment, a single apartment, which was filled with foreign workers, took longer than expected to be handled and processed. When efforts were initialised at my urging, illegals were found, and just in that one particular site, 18 dengue breeding sites were located in that one apartment. So, there are multiple breaches and issues in just one location and I hope all these can be sorted out together at the same time. I urge that community and ground feedback must be taken seriously and acted upon expeditiously as well. The Minister himself has mentioned how employers are getting very creative at circumvention. And, thus, all these show that we must certainly work very closely with the community. Now, Sir, employers will have to pay for the upkeep of their foreign workers who are waiting for claims to be resolved. Those who fail to do so can be fined up to $10,000, jailed a maximum of one year, or both fined and jailed. What about deducting from foreign workers salaries for payment of acute medical care required by these workers whilst they are still being employed? I see this very often when the foreign workers come for acute medical illnesses, not requiring hospitalisation and they actually have to enquire on the costs because they state that this amount would have to be deducted from their salary for that particular month. So, I hope MOM can clarify and advise on what is accepted practice pertaining to this matter. Finally, Sir, since the last Budget announcement was made to cut back on foreign manpower quotas in the various industries and sectors, how are we progressing in this area?”
“However, those who commit offences, such as receiving kickbacks, will be classified as criminal offenders and will be brought to court appropriately. These must all act as deterrent factors to employers. Those who are faced with costs issues and problems should find ways to resolve their staffing issues, rather than utilise illegal options, which can lead to their detriment. Sir, I would like to ask, how widespread is the current practice by companies who flout the rules to gain access to cheaper foreign labour? How many employers have been convicted in the last five years? And which industries are the most notorious or the most commonly affected? With the new legislation, how about enforcement? Without effective enforcement, some companies may be even bolder, when they know how to circumvent the system. Page: 753 Sir, in this Bill, we have clause 4, which states employers must act "in accordance with the conditions of the work pass". Clause 12, section 16b, where "employment inspectors and authorised officers will have the general power to enter and inspect any premises or part thereof", and clause 12, section 16c, where the range of powers has been expanded and "employment inspectors are given power of forced entry onto premises" as well as other responsibilities. Can I please also request that these inspectors do not just look at employment breaches when they visit the sites because they can, at the same time, also assess if there are issues such as accommodation issues, unsanitary living conditions and other related issues and also let other personnel follow up on these matters. It is not uncommon for us on the ground to see that Government department officers working in silos and we get deviated all the time. Very often, the "no wrong door" policy does not work.”
“Hence, this new scheme again has the effect of trading fairness for administrative efficiency. There is no reason why the employer should not be allowed legal representation if it wishes it. I hope the Acting Minister will be able to address my concerns regarding this new provision as well. Page: 752 4.45 pm Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, this Bill is an important and timely legislation. It seeks to tighten regulations on the employment of foreign manpower to ensure employers do not exploit foreign workers. It is also to prevent companies from circumventing existing foreign worker quotas, and hiring foreigners at a cheaper rate, thus denying Singaporeans from getting employment. This tougher legislation is also welcomed as it protects foreign workers, whom we all agree must be decently treated. We rely on foreign workers for their contributions to our workforce, in building our infrastructure and looking after our families, thus we must be fair to them. How we manage and treat our foreign workers certainly have an impact on Singapore's reputation. There is a need to be strict and not allow companies to circumvent the rules, otherwise, the recent moves to tighten the tap on foreign workers will not be effective and will never effect the change we want to see eventually. I am also glad to note that the new laws will accelerate the punitive processes. It is good that infringements which do not cause direct harm to foreign workers – such as those circumventing foreign worker quotas – will be categorised as administrative offences. I am hoping that with this delineation, these cases can be dealt with much faster and more efficiently.”
“The amendments to sections 5(7) and 15 are not reflective of the power imbalance between foreign employees and their employers. Specifically, the fear of criminal sanction may prevent illegally employed workers from coming forward or seeking help, even in extreme circumstances. Employers may use the threat of exposure against foreign workers to keep them under control. The increase in the maximum imprisonment sentence for foreign employees under section 5(7) may aggravate this problem. Enhancing penalties against illegal foreign workers and making it easier to prosecute them is not a deterrent. That presumes they know the law, which is unrealistic. The focus should therefore be on restricting the demand for these foreign workers. We should enhance penalties against errant employers. We should also consider alternative approaches. For example, granting amnesty or repatriation for illegals who turn themselves in and testify against their employers. My final query relates to section 25. This provision reclassifies certain offences under the act as "prescribed infringements". These prescribed infringements attract a financial penalty, and deal with situations such as employers inflating their foreign employee entitlement. While this scheme allows such cases to be settled quickly and easily, justice may be compromised. One reason is that the standard of proof has been lowered to a balance of probabilities unlike the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Furthermore, section 25(4)(c) states that no party may be represented by an advocate or solicitor. In the case of SMEs, this may be difficult if they do not have in-house legal expertise to deal with such matters and make effective representations.”
“In contrast, employers who employ foreign workers without a valid work pass are only subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months. This limit of 12 months applies even on a second or subsequent conviction. This disparity in sentencing appears anomalous. First, there are cases where illegal foreign workers are victims of human trafficking, and have been lured to work in Singapore under false pretences. In such cases, surely the employer is more culpable if he hires him. Second, even where trafficking is not involved, greater culpability lies with the employer where he has deliberately hired illegal workers to cut business costs and compete unfairly. In fact, it is the demand for illegal employees from these errant employers that fuels the supply. Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify the reasons for the difference in punishments? Related to this issue is the repealing of section 15 of the Act, and replacing the burden of proving the truth of the contents of a written application for a Work Pass with the presumption that the foreign worker had knowledge of the information provided in the application. This presumption has the effect of making it easier to convict foreign workers. However, the reality of the situation is that foreign workers are in a position to be exploited by unscrupulous employers. If an employer chooses to falsify the contents of his application to aid his application, the foreign worker in question is unlikely to protest. The point to be made is really this: the foreign employee or worker is in a vulnerable position relative to the employer. He is likely to be less informed about his obligations. He is also unlikely to question his employer's actions because of the financial pressure he is under.”
“There is a broad range of people who are defined as "associates", and may catch people with little connection to the debarred person. To give an example, a person whose partner in a partnership is a relative of a debarred person and who is engaged in a similar trade as the debarred person may find himself unable to employ foreign workers because he is deemed an "associate" of the debarred person. The answer I suspect will be that it is necessary for the Controller to have a wide discretion to do his job, and he will know how to properly exercise it. But that should not be the starting point. Surely, there must first be some evidence that the associate is acting with, or at the direction of, the debarred person. If so, that will be caught by the first category and there is no need for the second. Not being able to employ foreign workers may well break a business, and we should not draft our laws in the name of expedience to give such wide discretion as to make things less certain for employers. There is, of course, the option of appealing to the Minister under section 7(5). But this process may prove too long, onerous or costly, particularly for SMEs. And who is going to do the job while the appeal is pending? Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify how the subsection relating to "Associates" will be applied? In particular, under what circumstances will an "associate" be debarred in the absence of any evidence that he is working in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in relation to the employment of foreign persons? Page: 751 My second query relates to the protection of vulnerable foreign workers. The proposed amended section 5(7) imposes a longer maximum term of imprisonment of two years on foreign workers who work without a valid work pass.”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It really goes without saying that foreign workers have contributed significantly to Singapore's economic growth. However, over-reliance on cheap foreign labour has had negative effects, not least of which is the disincentive to increase productivity and wages. The Government has implemented measures to ensure that Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. This includes compelling employers to face the true costs of employing foreign labour. It is therefore important to ensure that the playing field is kept level and these efforts are not undermined by employers who resort to illegal means of procuring and employing foreign labour. Page: 750 This Bill, which tackles these issues amongst others, is therefore well intentioned. That said, I would like to seek clarification on three issues from the Acting Minister. First, the proposed new sections 7(4C) and (4D) of the Bill allow the Controller in some instances to debar a person from applying for or being issued with a work pass. I understand the need for this amendment – it deals with previous offenders circumventing their debarred status by enlisting the help of others to employ foreign workers. However, the net may be cast too wide. There are two categories of persons who are debarred. The first is those who act in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in connection with the employment of any foreign worker. This clearly makes sense and is directly relevant to the problem. The second is more problematic – it covers associates of the debarred person who are engaged in substantially the same trade or business as the debarred person.”
“Other jurisdictions invest in a large armoury of options to deal with youth crimes. The United States, for example, has the Juvenile Mentoring Programme (JUMP). Grants are provided on the competitive basis to community-based non-profit organisations to implement and expand collaborative mentoring projects. Screened volunteers serve as mentors to youth, who need adult figures in their lives. These mentors will show troubled youth ways to use their leisure time more positively, with the aim of diverting them away from further offending. The programme has apparently seen positive results. Could the Minister share with this House what programmes the Ministry has and will be implementing to address the issue of youth crime? Rehabilitated offenders’ work and shelter”
“Sir, there has recently been public concern about the increase in youth crime. Statistics may show that youth crime is down but it is not just about numbers. As our society develops and education levels rise, we have come to expect better from our youth. It is therefore disconcerting to see them involved in illegal activities, particularly violent crimes. Our measures to rehabilitate youth offenders have therefore been put in sharper focus. They are at the age where the importance of support and opportunities is especially acute. Our Courts have, since 2007, similarly urge the legislation to explore more creative sentencing options that might further assist youth rehabilitation. Currently, Courts can either make a provision order under the Provision Offenders Act, where the offenders go through a structured probation regime, where he or she will be placed under the supervision of a probation officer, and their progress reviewed by the adult or juvenile probation case committee respectively. The Courts are also empowered by Section 305 of the CTC to impose reformative training in lieu of any other sentence. This offender will be detained in the RGC for a period between 18 months and three years. While there, the offender undergoes a comprehensive rehabilitation programme in a close and structured environment. Sir, researches have identified various factors that point to increased risk of offending. Troubled home life has seen absentee parents, trauncy, deprivation such as poor housing and homelessness, and peer group pressure. At the core, offenders lack a responsible adult figure in their lives to give guidance, moral, spiritual or otherwise. We must question if our current rehabilitation measures are sufficient to address these problems.”
“What assurance do we have that our checks are rigorous enough to ensure the safety of travellers?”
“Sir, we live in an age where news of terrorist attacks around the world no longer surprise or shock us. Singapore has escaped thus far, but we know that we are on the terrorists' radar, and it would be naive to believe that we will always be safe. We all agree that we have to remain vigilant. We have to accept some sacrifices and inconveniences in favour of security. Perhaps, the best example of this inconvenience is the increased security checks we face whenever we cross the border or get onboard an airplane. But there are some lines people will find difficult to cross. The best example of this was the fierce debate in the United States when their Transportation Security Administration (TSA) stepped up their airport screening measures using invasive see-through scanners and extensive pat-down procedures which some have called legalised molestation. The result is not only a public that is angry and unhappy, but higher costs and longer waiting times. But without more invasive procedures, how would our officers detect new types of devices which terrorists may bring onboard our aircraft or new methods of doing so? One cannot but feel the security services are always a step behind. We had to remove shoes after the shoe bomber. Then, new checks were implemented after the underwear bomber. And further, it does not appear that Singapore has taken the checks to the same degree as, for example, the Americans, while I had been through other airports where checks were perfunctory. What is a reasonable level of security checks? I would like to ask the Minister where Singapore stands on this issue. How do we balance between protecting our people and borders and yet allow the flow of people and goods which are the lifeblood of our economy?”
“Sir, the Police Force has reported a growing number of people who treat the emergency hotline "999" as their first port of call, even for trivial matters or community or family disputes. The Police has said that it would be more selective in how it responds, giving priority to serious law and order cases. It is difficult to argue against this. Resources are limited. But this creates frustrations on the ground as calls are not attended to, or attended to quickly. The problem is many people do not know who else to turn to if they need assistance especially if they considered it urgent. It has been suggested that neighbour or family disputes, for example, be directed to the Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) instead. However, this option is not viable. It is not immediate, it lacks enforcement powers, it requires both parties to agree to mediate and further legal proceedings are required in order to enforce any settlement arrived at. Could the Minister look into the possibilities of establishing a body to step into this bridge or empowering existing agencies to do so? Such a body must have powers of enforcement. For example, in the United Kingdom, local authorities are given extensive powers to deal with noise nuisances and impose sanctions. Unless a more convenient and effective option is available, "999" will continue to be the first port of call for many. Public security”
“Finally, if the Ministry needs to do a pilot project, may I suggest the overhead bridge outside Thomson Plaza, which I think will provide a perfect opportunity to test any new measures that it may have.”