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 6 of 10.
“Sir, for the last 20 years, we have had a Code of Barrier-Free Accessibility for Buildings. The designs of our buildings have come a long way since then. Accessibility for wheelchair users has now become a standard feature in our new buildings. It has also become more common to see wheelchair users moving about freely on their own, with their friends and family. Such measures benefit both the disabled as well as the elderly. However, making new buildings barrier-friendly is of little use if the disabled and elderly cannot get to them in the first place. The challenge is to make the existing road and transport infrastructure, such as overhead bridges and pedestrian walkways, barrier-free as well. The issue of upgrading overhead bridges, in particular, has been raised a number of times in this House. The need is particularly acute for bridges where it is not possible to build ramps and where the nearest signalised crossing is some distance away. Such bridges are practically impossible for the elderly and the disabled to use. The result is that they take a chance and they jaywalk, sometimes with tragic results. I think one can make the reasonable argument that overhead bridges make for smoother traffic, and we cannot have signalised crossings at too regular an interval. But as with most issues, there are compromises to be struck, this time, between pedestrians and drivers. As our society ages, should that line not lean towards the pedestrians? Could the Minister share with us his plans to make our roads, walkways and crossings barrier-free? Will overhead bridges be gradually phased out in favour of more signalised crossings? And, in particular, what would the Ministry do about bridges where it is not possible to build ramps?”
“Could the fare structure not be revised to encourage the use of mobile phones and other technology to make the system more efficient? And, finally, does the Minister also have any plans to further raise the standards of taxi services, including allowing the public better access to infomation on service performance of the different taxi companies? 4.15 pm”
“Sir, there are seven taxi companies and 29 types of taxis in Singapore. The basic fare structure is not hard to grasp. There is a flag-down rate, beginning just from $2.80 to $5.00, depending on the type of taxi, and increments per distance or waiting time. However, many extra charges and fees apply which make calculating the final fare confusing, eg, there may be a location surcharge, which is a flat rate if you board or alight at certain locations. There is also a night surcharge of 50% between 12.00 midnight and 6.00 am; a peak surcharge of 35% which is from 7.00 am to 9.30 am and 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm, but which is not applicable on Sundays and public holidays; and a public holiday surcharge of $1.00. Is there no way to keep the fare structure simple? This will benefit residents and tourists alike. Does the Ministry have any plans to better inform users of the fare structure? Second, should we not encourage the use of technology for taxi bookings? Today, almost everyone owns a mobile phone. It would be a better use of resources for taxi companies to encourage phone bookings, instead of driving around looking for passengers. Phone bookings will help match supply to demand. This will help taxi drivers save costs and time. It will also be more convenient for passengers. However, the current booking fees are a deterrent. The booking fee for peak hours is $3.50; non-peak hours is $2.50 and advance booking fee is $5.20. Booking fees also make it more difficult to flag down taxis in certain locations, especially during peak hours. Since the demand for taxis in these locations is high, taxi drivers would rather wait for a call to benefit from the booking fee. Although this problem has been alleviated by the location surcharge, it is still counter-intuitive.”
“00 pm on Saturdays and they spend about two to three weeks of their summer programmes in school. Cape does not teach more but take more time so that the students understand what is being taught. What is the result? In all of South Bronx, only about 16% of middle school students are performing at or above their grade level. At Cape, by the 8th grade, 84% are performing at or above the grade level. About 90% of Cape students get scholarships to private high schools, more than 80% go on to university. Can we not implement a structured after-school programme to help our weaker students? If it means making it compulsory for students to remain behind to attend extra classes, if it means having to regulate their CCA activities, then so be it. This may sound draconian or demanding but if it works, we should not discount it. Quantity can be a quality. Spending more time on your studies helps. A structured programme will help those who lack structure at home. 4.15 pm”
“Sir, I take a contrary view to Members on school hours, at least for weaker students. The Government has created more paths for those who are not academically inclined. But the question is, whether we are doing enough to help weaker students before they go down those paths? There are programmes out there which help them. Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC conduct tuition classes. The problem is that many of these programmes are voluntary and some parents do not send their kids to them. Teachers tell me that they conduct home visits when a student is performing poorly or is absent or has discipline issues, only to be confronted by parents who do not know what to do or, worse, do not care. The reality is that many kids who struggle in schools come from poor or dysfunctional families, but for them, an education is the only way out of poverty. Can we do more to help those who are falling behind? Is it enough to say that there are programmes for the children and then hope that parents take advantage of them? In Malcolm Gladwell's book, " Outliers", he gives an account to the Cape Academies in the US. These are chartered schools and one of its first was opened in the South of Bronx in New York – very poor district, almost all students non-white; 75% come from single-parent homes and over 90% receive financial help so that the children have a meal at lunchtime. You would imagine that these children were likely to struggle in school but the Cape students spent 50% to 60% more time in school compared to its peers in other schools. They start at 7.25 am and they finish school at 5.00 pm. All students do music and orchestra. After 5.00 pm, there are homework clubs, detention and sports. They do not have two to three hours of homework. They are in school until 2.”
“" Madam, this is unhealthy. If the trend is irreversible on account of lifestyles and personal choices, then perhaps we should not be throwing good public money at the problem. But if it is important enough, then we should commit to it wholeheartedly. No half measures. We need a more comprehensive plan including looking at our education, housing, employment, CPF and taxation policies. We have done so in the past to boost marriages. We can do it to boost fertility. Finally, elections tend to focus minds on the here and now but the real challenges will be in the future. The Americans say they want to "win the future", and I am sure so does every other country. We are investing large sums of money for the future, including in the National Productivity Fund. But how will Singapore continue attracting investments so that we can continue to create jobs and growth? What industries are these investments going to be in? There is now a lot of buzz about clean energy investments but can we realistically compete against the might of China and the US in that area? What niches are we going to carve for ourselves and how are we going to remain relevant in these challenging times for the next 10, 20, 30 years? These are questions which require serious reflection and bold strategies which we need to re-visit constantly. The Budget, I am glad to see, is a lot about the future and not just about the here and now. So, with this Budget, we are moving in the right direction. With that, Madam, I support the Budget. 4.18 pm”
“I would therefore ask the Government to address the disconnect between what employers are saying: that it is difficult for them to find Singaporean workers or that Singaporean workers quit after a few days because the work is too hard or too far away. And what the workers are saying: that companies prefer foreign workers because they are supposedly cheaper, better and faster. Everyone has an anecdote to support the argument he is making. The owner of a food centre in my constituency recently told me that he cannot find cleaners although he is willing to pay up to $2,000 a month, and so he does not mind paying a higher levy to secure foreign workers. Then why is it that I have cleaners earning $600 a month coming to see me for assistance? Why the disconnect? The truth probably lies somewhere in between but what is the real situation on the ground? Can we not end this debate? The real question is whether our job matching or training efforts are robust or comprehensive enough to address both sides' complaints. I urge the Government to have a more robust system not just to ensure employers do not turn to foreign workers as a first option but to have disincentives for those who turn down a job or a better job for no good reason, and yet seek social assistance. Second, we need to decide if we want to do something about our fertility rate. It is going down and there is no reason to believe that that trend will reverse. Even if it does, no one realistically expects it to return or go back up to replacement levels. This is an issue for many developed nations. But to what extent does the State get involved? If Members read the letters to the Forum or the postings on the net, the question has essentially become like this: "How much is the Government going to pay me to have a baby?”
“Our problems are the opposite. We were one of the first countries to bounce back. Instead of unemployment, we do not have enough workers to fill the jobs created. Instead of worthless homes, we are grappling with rising property prices. Instead of recession, we have, beyond all expectations and odds, achieved double-digit growth. And, improbably, instead of Budget deficits, we have a surplus. It is only right that Singaporeans share in some of that surplus, election year or not. But a large part of the debate so far has been concerned about the fringes. Tweaks which Members would like to see include a larger cash component for WIS, raising U-Save eligibility limits or reviewing foreign workers levies. But this Budget, and any Budget, should be more than that. A Budget should be about who we are, what we think is important and where we see our future. In this regard, I would like to raise three issues. First, social welfare and jobs. The Government's philosophy has always been to encourage a strong work ethic. We calibrate our social assistance to help those in need without creating a disincentive to work or upgrade skills. If enough people find it easier or more profitable to fall into the net, it will collapse under their weight. This is a difficult balancing act. The introduction of WIS, while necessary back then, has somewhat blurred the line. And it will get fuzzier if WIS becomes a permanent feature. But WIS is only a band-aid; a plaster. We must not just keep Singaporeans employed but upgrade their skills at the same time. That is the only way for them to genuinely move up.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this Debate. Members of the Opposition have criticised this as an election Budget; that the Government has been unduly generous to win favour. At the same time, they say that the Government is not doing enough to help Singaporeans deal with rising costs. So, which is it? I think it is less a case of an election Budget and more one of election posturing from them. But the criticisms ignore two fundamental points. First, the amount given out in immediate social benefits is less than the amount we are paying back to our reserves. Many were uncomfortable when we dipped into our reserves to help Singaporeans during the last recession. We are now paying back all that money – a move even the hon. Member for Hougang supports, but other critics are reluctant to acknowledge because it is against their DNA to say anything good about this Government. More importantly, Singaporeans can be assured that financial prudence will always be the hallmark of this Government, election year or not. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Indranee Rajah) in the Chair] The second is the context in which we are debating this Budget and the reason why we dipped into the reserves in the first place. Just over two years ago, the financial and economic experts around the world said that the sky was falling and the world was spiraling into the next Great Depression. All around the globe, economies shrank, hundred-year-old institutions disappeared overnight, jobs disappeared, vanished and homes were lost. Thousands, if not millions, suddenly discovered that the monies they had diligently squirrelled away for their retirement were no longer there. Many developed countries are still trying to turn things around and are embroiled in bitter in-fighting.”
“Supplementary question, Sir. I often get complaints from hawkers who say that they are paying rents higher than a comparable stall elsewhere. May I ask the Minister whether the rents are publicly available and, if not, would he consider publishing them for greater comparison and outcomes? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as I have mentioned in my reply, even within centres, there could be different market rents depending on the location of the stall in question. The market rents are not made available at this point in time because they are charged directly to the stallholder. Tender rents are available because when the tender goes out, they put in a bid, and we will decide on which bids to accept. I will consider the Member's proposal as to whether we want to make the rental data available. The point is that there will be variations even within centres and across different centres.”
“Supplementary question, Sir. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the reduction in the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is on account of changing priorities or mindsets and, if that is the case, whether he considers increasing financial incentives will solve the issue?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I just clarify the Minister's clarification on my speech. The Minister mentioned that those who have been unfairly dismissed will have recourse. I was not talking about or referring to unfair dismissal. The vast majority of full-time contracts and almost everyone I have seen, allows an employer to terminate a contract with notice or with payment in lieu of notice, without assigning a reason or without cause. And because the contract allows you to do that, that is not deemed unfair termination. The only reason why I raised this is because there are many people out there who assume that just because they faithfully discharge their obligations under a contract, they will be entitled to keep their employment until they reach retirement. And I think that is a dangerous assumption. I wanted to make that clear.”
“In conclusion, while the Bill has noble intentions, it would be highly detrimental if we ended up creating unrealistic or impractical expectations. I therefore hope the Minister will ensure that the reasons and rationale for this Bill, including its limitations, will be explained clearly to all Singaporeans. With that, I support the Bill. 4.44 pm”
“This raises some concern as older employees, particularly those less educated, may not know their rights or be aware of these deadlines. Why can the obligation not be placed on the employer to refer all disputes to the Commissioner? The employer would be well placed to do so. If the burden is to remain with the employee, what steps will the Ministry take to ensure that all employees are aware of their rights under this Bill, particularly the need to file on a timely basis? Will the Commissioner accept complaints filed out of time, even if the only excuse is ignorance of the law? Thirdy, even if an employee is successful in his complaint, the remedy he gets is that the employer will be compelled to do what he should have done in the first place. Only a failure to comply with the Minister’s order results in punishment. In short, the employer has no incentive to be reasonable from the outset. The employer can therefore take the chance, at no risk to himself, that the employee may not complain, or may not do so in time, or may just give up. There should be some compensation to the employee for being forced to prosecute a meritorious complaint. Finally, one of the remedies the Minister can impose is to compel the employer to re-hire the employee. I question whether this is wise. The relationship between the employer and employee is likely to be strained. Indeed, the Courts have long recognised that it is unproductive to compel two parties to work together if the relationship has broken down, which is why they will not order an employer to hire someone. Hence, compensation is the answer. I submit that this Bill should take the same approach.”
“The reality again is an employer would likely keep an employee so long as he continues to have value or bring value to the company, and that will take into account amongst other things of what the employee earns. Under this Bill, when an eligible employee hits retirement age, he can choose whether he wants to continue working. The Bill seeks to reduce discrimination based on age and provides an avenue for relief should an older worker feel he has been unfairly treated. This Bill therefore advances employees' rights. I hope that this Bill will not be portrayed as forcing Singaporeans to work longer or on inequitable terms or an attempt to delay or deny them their benefits. But with most other laws, the difficulties will be in its interpretation and implementation. In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some issues. Firstly, the Bill provides that employers are not obliged to re-hire if the employee is assessed by the employer to have performed less than satisfactorily. An employee is allowed to file a challenge to the Commissioner against an unfavourable assessment. But many companies do not maintain regular and documented performance reviews, so how is this issue going to be determined? Is MOM going to examine the work of the employee and decide what is satisfactory for that company, when expectations may vary from company to company? How will it do so? Or will it be the case that the employer’s assessment will be accepted, unless clearly rebutted by the employee? Secondly, where there is a dispute between the employer and employee, the Bill places the onus on the employee to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner within a specific deadline. Presumably, if he fails to do so, he will be barred from seeking relief.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. If there is one thing I have learned from being in this House for the last five years, it is that too little of what is debated here is followed by many outside. There is sometimes misunderstanding over the reasoning behind a policy or law, or what it seeks to achieve. That, at times, arises because our efforts to reach out and explain are not as effective as what we would like. I fear that, if we are not careful, misunderstanding will happen with respect to this Bill. Whenever a government is seen to be tinkering with the retirement age, it can be assured of some suspicion. But this Bill is not about prejudicing the employer or employee. It seeks to offer workers more options when they reach retirement age, and to provide a framework for both parties to reach a reasonable compromise on how the employee can continue to work, or receive financial assistance. To better appreciate the Bill, we must first understand where we stand today. One of the questions I am often asked as a lawyer is whether an employee can be asked to leave his job although he has faithfully discharged his duties. The answer is "yes, he can", and without any compensation. Most contracts give the employer the right to terminate with notice without cause or reason. Sir, to impose on employers stringent obligations to keep an employee when he reaches retirement age, only encourages employers to let the employee go well before he reaches retirement age. How does that benefit Singaporeans? The reality is that despite our best intentions and the cleverest of drafting, it is next to impossible to force employers to hire people they do not want to hire.”
“However, I understand from my friends who practise matrimonial law that such plans are often treated as a form-filling exercise, lacking in detail or given little weight. It is troubling to come across cases where the needs of the children have not been adequately taken care of, particularly their housing needs. It is even more troubling that one parent is allowed to marry again and start a new family when the needs of his first family remain unresolved. Divorce should not be an opportunity to cash out or get out, with the welfare of the children treated as an ancillary matter, like the division of property. Parents must accept that their own rights should become secondary to their child’s. They should not be entitled to exit a marriage until there is a comprehensive binding and properly documented plan to take care of housing, schooling and other needs of the children until they turn 18 or 21. I ask the Ministry to conduct a review of matrimonial cases to determine whether they are being dealt with in a manner consistent with its policies and objectives, and to enact more effective rules to improve outcomes for children. 5.11 pm”
“The exercise is really no different from the maintenance of parents, for which we have set up special tribunal to deal with claims fairly and expeditiously. There is no rationale for treating the obligation to maintain spouses and children differently. Indeed, the number of maintenance claims for wives and children easily exceed those for parents, making the need for a special body even more relevant. Like the Parents’ Tribunal, procedures can be simplified and the agency given the power to get information. This would relieve the applicant of the need to investigate the spouse’s claims or file affidavits, and result in quicker and more equitable orders. Would the Minister consider setting up such an agency to deal with maintenance issues? Our efforts should also begin upstream. I therefore support the move to require marriage preparation courses for some. A number of religious organisations have had this for some time. Could the Minister tell us if any prescribed classes have been identified, other than for minors and divorcees? Further, would there be a need to undergo such courses if the couple has already attended one conducted by their own religious groups? If not, how will MCYS ensure that such courses will meet required standards? Finally, subsequent to the amendments to the Women’s Charter in 1996, our Courts are given a broad discretion in respect of the division of matrimonial assets and to take into consideration the needs of the children. This includes the power to defer the sale of the matrimonial property or to refuse a divorce order in the absence of a proper plan for the children. Currently, divorcing parties are required to file parenting plans to deal with the welfare of the child after the divorce.”
“However one looks at it, the enforcement of maintenance orders is tedious and can be discouraging. Many applicants are women with little financial resources. Usually, they cannot afford a lawyer. They will typically be juggling work and raising their children, and can ill afford time to keep going to Court when their ex-husbands do not keep up with payments. Even after an application is filed, the hearing may be adjourned because parties will ask for time to file affidavits or get information. Many are litigants in person, and so the Courts will likely give them more time or the benefit of the doubt. Even after an application is resolved, she will have to file another application if there is another default, and the process goes on and on. The Family Courts, with its heavy workload and adherence to strict and formal procedure, may not be best suited to deal with matters of maintenance. I understand that the Government has rejected suggestions to set up an agency to handle maintenance payments and defaults. The reasons given include the fear that the State may over time be required to take over basic family responsibilities; and that more resources may be expended chasing what is ultimately secured. This response is not persuasive, particularly as we have set up a whole regime to allow parents to apply for maintenance. Substantial resources are currently being undertaken at the Family Court, including the time of District Judges in dealing with maintenance application. This is unnecessary as determining the quantum of maintenance is almost always not a legal exercise. It turns on matters such as the earnings, needs, financial obligations and lifestyles of the parties.”
“Our laws should make clear that the decision to divorce does not just involve religious, moral, social or emotional considerations, but will have direct and severe financial and practical consequences. Parents, whether divorced or not, should not be allowed to shirk their responsibilities, particularly towards their children. The majority of parents are responsible, but there is a good number who are not. This Bill makes an attempt to give the law more teeth in enforcing maintenance orders. These are useful. But allow me to make some observations. The amendment to allow community-based sentences makes sense. It is of little use to the applicant if the ex-spouse loses his job or income because he is sent to jail. We should also consider expanding the types of orders and sanctions to encourage the errant spouse to try harder to meet his obligations. In the UK, for example, the defaulting party may be required to surrender his travel papers or driving licence, or even have a curfew order slapped on him. What will work will depend on the facts, and we should give our judges a wider discretion to make effective orders. The amendment to allow the Court to order a spouse to furnish a bank guarantee is less helpful. Banks will require an applicant to furnish security before issuing the guarantee, which will be a stumbling block for many. It may also create more problems as parties may dispute over the terms of the guarantee and which will give rise to more litigation, where calls on the guarantee are made wrongly or are challenged. But, more importantly, we need to take a step back and rationalise the system so that maintenance issues can be dealt with simply and expeditiously, and no party can frustrate the process by employing delaying and other tactics.”
“Sir, I support this Bill. I wish to touch on aspects of the Bill governing divorce and ancillary matters. I do not practise matrimonial law. Frankly, I have little stomach for it. Many years ago, a man came to see me about getting a divorce. He said his wife was mad and had attacked him a few times with a pair of scissors. He could no longer live with her because he feared for his life. He wanted to know whether their HDB flat would be sold and how much he would get. I asked whether they had children, and he said one young son. I asked what provisions he was making for the child, and he said that his wife could take care of the child. I said, "I thought your wife was mad", and he said, "Well, she is not that mad." So, it was really about him cashing out and moving on. Divorce is difficult, and particularly painful when young children are involved. But if two people decide that they do not want to stay married, then that is their decision to make. Our laws should facilitate a smooth and equitable separation. However, different considerations should apply where one spouse is financially dependent on the other, and particularly where young children are involved. Children should not have to suffer for their parents' decisions. I have encountered a number of cases at the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) where one divorced parent, almost always the mother, appeals for a rental flat for herself and her young children. Usually, the matrimonial home is sold following the divorce and the mother has no ability to buy another home. While a rental or interim housing is usually found for them, the question is why no provision was made for the children in the first place before the divorce was allowed.”
“Litigating parties have often found this extremely helpful. Having the Tribunal facilitate conciliation will therefore streamline and expedite the process. And the final order made can expressly reflect the fact that it was reached by settlement instead of by compulsory order. The parties will also likely treat the conciliation efforts of the Tribunal more seriously as opposed to the efforts of a counsellor. My third clarification is this. The Bill gives the Tribunal or the Commissioner extensive powers to obtain information from Government agencies or statutory bodies. This is a powerful tool, which some other agencies do not have. I have one query. Is the Tribunal permitted to disclose the information it obtained in the course of the proceedings, such that it will be revealed to all the parties appearing before the Tribunal? There is no expressed reference in the Bill to this. If the Tribunal cannot disclose the information, then it may be unfair to the parties as they will not have the opportunity to know the information the Tribunal is relying on to make its determination or to respond to that information. I hope the Member can clarify whether the Tribunal can disclose that information. 4:25 pm”
“First, a new applicant must refer his claim to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner may refer him to any relevant Government agencies for assistance. Two points arise: First, while I understand the rationale for this step, is there not a real risk that the resolution of the application will be delayed? For example, if the applicant is referred to, say, the CDC for assistance, time will be taken to investigate the claim. The end result may be that the agency may refuse assistance because the applicant has got working children who can support him, which brings him back to square one. Second, and I think more fundamentally, by sending the applicant to a Government agency first, are we not sending a message about who bears the primary responsibility for maintaining one’s parents? I understood from the hon. Member's speech that the first line of care should remain with the family. My second point of clarification is this: section 5(6) of the current Act directs the Tribunal to refer the parties to a conciliation officer before hearing an application. The Bill now brings that step forward by directing that all new applications be referred to the Commissioner, who may then refer the parties for conciliation. I support the conciliation-first approach. However, is there a need to refer the matter to a different officer for conciliation? That adds another layer and will delay matters. Can the Tribunal not attempt conciliation before deciding on the application? After all, the facts relevant for conciliation will likely be the same facts for the final determination of the application. This approach is not unprecedented. Our Court judges often help parties to explore settlement before trial and only proceed to hear the case when it is clear that settlement is not possible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Let me first commend the hon. Member for Marine Parade and his Committee Members for the work they have put into this Bill and for tackling probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent times in Singapore. The Bill does not seek to do away with or undermine the principles which underpinned the original Act. But in seeking to improve its administration and operation, it reinforces the policy behind the Act. The controversies of this legislation have been fully debated and will continue to rage on. I cannot add to the arguments made by both sides. I am heartened to learn about the results of the survey done by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy about what our youths intend to do when they grow up and to look after their parents. But what will they do when the rubber hits the road? It may be that as our society evolves, the policies and the laws we have to maintain our elderly will have to be radically changed. But I do not believe that time has come. One thing we can agree on is that despite the increase in the number of applications, the absolute numbers remain small. What that means is also debatable. But it is clear that taking your own flesh and blood to Court or the Tribunal is still a bridge too far for many. I do not think that is entirely a bad thing. But if parents or siblings do take that step, we should make the ordeal as quick, efficient and as fair as possible. I would like to have added "painless", but I think that is a bit difficult. I therefore support the measures to streamline the process and to enable the Tribunal to have access to as much information as possible so that they can reach a just decision. In this regard, I have a few points I hope the hon. Member will clarify.”
“And what is the average length of ownership – that is, are foreign owners likely to hold on to purchases for an extended period of time as long-term investments or are they are more likely to be flippers? Second, if one intent of this Bill is to stabilise property prices, will the Minister consider extending regulation of foreign ownership to other private properties like condominiums and high-rise private apartments? The primary aim of residential property should be to promote home ownership. We believe that an increase in homeownership among citizens will contribute to the growth of engaged stakeholders. While HDB has been very successful in growing the proportion of homeowners among Singaporeans, we also note that as our society matures, more Singaporeans aspire to own private properties. Given that private properties – both landed and high-rise – are valued commodities in land-scarce Singapore, will the Minister consider restricting foreign ownership of condominiums and high-rise apartments, especially those purchased purely for investment and not residential needs? This may place the coveted ownership of private property within the reach of many more Singaporeans.”
“If so, what is the rationale for this and should the confiscation provisions not apply generally to give the Courts the power to seize any benefits enjoyed on account of any breach of the RPA? The offender could benefit significantly as there may be a lengthy period between the time he improperly acquires the interest and when the notice to sell lapses. 4.59 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Home ownership is a highly desired aspiration for a large proportion of Singaporeans. The discourse on property prices in the past year is testimony to this. I see this Bill as the latest response of the Government to address the concerns on rising property prices in land-scarce Singapore. The amendments detailed impose stricter rules for foreign owners of restricted residential property. These changes will further differentiate citizens from non-citizens with regard to rights of ownership of restricted residential property. Together with the series of measures announced by the Government over the past year (which include HDB ownership and balloting of places for primary school registration), we see the privileges of being a Singapore citizen enhanced. Mr Deputy Speaker, on this Bill specifically, I have two queries. First, can the Minister comment on the expected effects of this Bill on the property market? To help us better understand the potential implications of this Bill on property prices, may I ask the Minister for some details of ownership patterns: What is the proportion of restricted residential property that is owned by foreigners? What proportion of these is owner-occupied?”
“There is no reason why they should not be treated like any other foreign person and it is good that this loop hole is closed. I have, however, two issues for the Minister to clarify. First, where an owner of restricted property passes away, bequeathing it to a non-citizen, the Bill requires the legal personal representative to dispose of the property within five years from the death of the deceased person. This is shortened from the current 10 years. Nonetheless, I believe five years is still a tad too generous. He should sell expeditiously. Our probate procedures have been greatly simplified. There is also no longer any estate duty to pay. If he requires more time on account of any complications here or in any foreign probate proceedings, he can apply to the Controller giving good reasons. Second, the Bill introduces a new section 4(a), which allows the Court to make a confiscation order where a defendant is convicted of an offence under section 4(6). Now, section 4(6) offence is one where a foreign person has improperly acquired an interest in a development and fails to comply with a Controller’s notice to sell it off. However, a notice to sell can only be issued after the person is convicted under section (3). That deals with the offence of improperly acquiring the interest in the first place. In the circumstances, the confiscation order will not apply to a person who has improperly acquired an interest, but complies with a notice to sell. I would like to ask the Minister whether such a person would be entitled to keep any profit he makes, or any other benefit he receives, although he has violated the RPA.”
“I am not advocating the same protection for this segment. We should not interfere too much in the private market. But there is merit in discouraging speculation in this segment of the property market by foreigners. As I have said previously in this House, I have no issues with genuine investors or home owners. They are important to the growth of the market. It is the "flippers" that concern me. I understand that the majority of private property purchasers are by Singaporeans and PRs, and "flippers" may represent a small class. But that is not the point. Property prices can be driven by sentiment and the activities of a few at the fringes can have an impact. Even if foreigners do not significantly affect prices, how do we benefit from foreigners who flip properties for their own gain? I, therefore, ask the Government to consider imposing some form of a tax, like the capital gains tax, on foreigners who sell their properties within a short time after purchase. We also need to address option flipping. Buying and selling options is a pure speculative activity. It adds absolutely no value, other than to artificially drive up prices. I, therefore, suggest that we make options purchased by foreigners non-transferable, or impose a tax on profits gained on the sale of options. As I have indicated, the measures should not be targeted at genuine investors or home owners; so those who buy with those intentions should not have any concern. But there should be no sympathy for foreigners who protest that they cannot make a quick profit. On the Bill, I support the enactment of the new section 3(a), which obliges those who have lost or given up their citizenship or permanent residency to dispose of their restricted property in Singapore.”
“I rise in support of the Bill. Property is a sensitive, sometimes emotional, subject among Singaporeans, primarily because of how much it costs, how it can create enormous wealth and how ownership is tied to social mobility and personal success. This has been brought into sharp focus by the current buoyant market, where billionaires are made in months, simply by flipping properties. Some say it makes a mockery of hard work but there it is. Land in Singapore is also scarce resource and, therefore, a prime target for speculation and investment both by Singaporeans and foreigners. The RPA has, therefore, served an important role in imposing restrictions against foreigners and permanent residents from owning land and other property in Singapore. They will have to demonstrate that they have or will contribute substantially to our country before they can enjoy some of the privileges Singaporeans have. I say "some" because even if they receive approval to buy a restricted property, that approval comes with conditions on selling or against renting. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] This Bill seeks to enhance those restrictions and ensure that any privileges given are less likely to be abused. In that regard, I support it. I do have a few points of clarification for the Minister which I shall come to later. I would first like to start by asking whether we are doing enough to protect ourselves from foreigners who seek to profit at our expense. The RPA protects essentially landed properties, while the HDB Act protects public flats. Everything in between is fair game. But we should be equally concerned with that segment of the market as that will define social mobility for a good proportion of the middle class.”
“Mr Speaker, I just listened to the speech of the Non-Constituency Member and I would like to clarify a couple of things she said. First, she makes a point that she disagrees with items (f) and (i) of the Fourth Schedule – these are matters relating to no appeals on further and better particulars and for no appeals from an order giving or refusing interrogatories – and implying that this application is just heard once before the Judge and, therefore, by denying leave to appeal or denying appeal, no justice will be done. Is the Member not aware that such applications are typically heard by Registrar first before it goes to a Judge. So, there is one appeal. The second clarification is this: she says or she implies that where a Mareva order is made by a Judge, the right of appeal is now being circumscribed or taken away. Could she clarify which part of the Bill that particular provision appears because I do not appear to see it?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like some clarifications from the Minister on the details of his escape. While I accept the investigations are not complete, have the authorities determined whether Mas Selamat was aided by others in his escape? If so, how was he able to communicate with them while in detention? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, as I said earlier, the investigators are keeping an open mind and they will pursue all angles. But the investigations are indeed still ongoing and not complete. As such, I am not able to comment further on whether he was aided in any way by anyone in this escape. Even during the investigation into his escape in 2008, the investigators did not rule out the possibility that Mas Selamat could have received help from inside or outside the WRDC. But at this stage, it is premature for us to jump to conclusions.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the average time taken to resolve a workman's compensation claim and is the Ministry taking steps to reduce the waiting time? Mr Hawazi Daipi: The majority of claims, about 75% of permanent incapacity or fatal claims, are resolved within six months of the claims being filed. For workers with complicated injuries, more time would be needed for investigation. However, we try to speed it up. All claims must be made within one year. In a nutshell, I would say that we try to speed it up and most of the cases, about 75%, are resolved within six months.”
“If I can clarify, I think there are some allocated under the ethnic quota policy, which have not been taken up.”
“Only then, can we render deviant norms, like smoking, irrelevant. 4.35 pm”
“Section 10 in the Smoking Control Act spells out provisions for enforcement on prohibition of supply of tobacco products to persons below 18 years old. In addition to policing establishments that sell tobacco products, we must also enforce punitive measures on those who supply or acquire tobacco products for underage smokers. Second, to further discourage the violation of section 10, will the Minister consider raising the penalty for repeat offenders? My third suggestion focuses on the root cause of deviation from the prescribed norms. An important question that I have been asking is, what puts youths at risk for smoking? Sociological research shows a very strong link between detachment from schools and family, and underage smoking. In her thesis on young smokers, Karen Cheong, who is an Health Promotion Board (HPB) scholar, completing her PhD in Sociology under my supervision, found that teens who perceive that mainstream goals were not within their reach were more likely to embrace sub-cultures and seek affirmation from like-minded peers. For example, teenagers who do not fair well academically would turn to affirmation from peers in similar circumstances. Sadly, there is also a strong correlation between detachment from schools and detachment from the family. For these marginalised teens, family support was also challenged. As we discussed the ill-effects of tobacco use, I would like to seize this opportunity to focus our attention on this group of young Singaporeans who are at the margins. It is important that we continue to look into the needs of our youth, strive towards a broader platform for recognising achievements so that all young Singaporeans will be able to find resonance with the goals we set for them as a community.”
“The amendments detailed in this Bill, taken together, further reinforce the commitment our Government has taken to alleviate the prevalence of smoking in Singapore and to protect the health and well-being of Singaporeans, in particular, non-smokers from the ill-effects of second-hand smoke. The Smoking (Control of Advertisement and Sale of Tobacco) Act as well as the Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Places Act are the pillars which uphold Singapore's tobacco control efforts and sustain a smoke-free Singapore. The prevalence of smoking among Singaporeans aged 18-64 years has decreased significantly since 1975 (when it was at about 27.5%) to the rate that it has been hovering now, at about 13.6% and this is indeed a remarkable achievement. I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Health for this. However, while the overall prevalence has declined, we also note a disturbing trend; an increase in the prevalence of smoking among younger Singaporeans, which the Minister has already highlighted. The prevalence rate of smoking among those aged 18-29 years has increased from 12.3% in 2004 to 17.2% in 2007. Research on young smokers shows that the experiment with smoking in their adolescence, starting from as young as when they are 12 years old. In our current climate where strong anti-tobacco norms prevail and the harmful effects of smoking are well documented and publicised, these trends are both surprising and alarming. What additional measures can we take to stop teens from experimenting with cigarettes, to alleviate the risk to nicotine addiction? On this note, I have three suggestions. First, we must step up on enforcement to prevent supply of tobacco products to teens below 18 years old.”
“The Minister has mentioned certain limits in his speech and I hope that will not be the final limit he sets. The tobacco companies will no doubt ask for time to adjust to new regulations, but if pushed, they will no doubt find a way to comply. Where there is a profit, there is a way. Could the Minister share with this House his plans in relation to the exercise of his powers under section 15(2), both immediate and in the future? Finally, while I accept that this is not within the Minister’s remit, will the Government consider measures to protect children from the effects of second-hand or side-stream smoke? At the very least, the Government should consider regulations against smoking whether in public or in private within close proximity to children? I know it is difficult to regulate what happens in the privacy of a person's home. But we have done it before for other undesirable conduct. And I think there is great value in such a law as a symbol of what we consider to be appropriate and responsible social behaviour. 4.30 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for this opportunity to share my reflections. Smoking kills. Addiction to smoking is the greatest cause of avoidable mortality and morbidity. Smoking causes harm to almost every single organ in the human body and is a risk factor that is associated with numerous diseases. In addition to harming their own health, smokers also put non-smokers at risk. Therefore, I give my strongest support to this important Bill that will reinforce the strong anti-tobacco stance adopted by this Government.”
“I therefore support the proposed amendments, in particular, the new section 17A, which prohibits the use of any term descriptor or trade mark which creates the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products. And I hope the Minister will ban any statement which is not supported by independent research. I also support section 15, which prohibits the sale of chewing tobacco and also give the Minister power to prohibit other tobacco products. I would, nonetheless, like to raise three points. First, the amendments also deal with new products touted to be nicotine alternatives. I understand these to be tobacco-free products with added nicotine, intended to deliver the nicotine-kick without smoking. Examples include: nicotine pellets or candy; nicotine water, as the Minister said, which incidentally contains enough the equivalent nicotine of two cigarettes; and nicotine wafers. As with chewing tobacco, these products may be attractive to younger people, and create a new generation of nicotine addicts. Further, the marketing of such products is troubling. For example, nicotine water has been marketed as a "dietary supplement". These are relatively new and unfamiliar products which may result in people consuming larger doses of nicotine unsuspectingly. So over and above banning them, will the Government also educate the public about the harmful nature of these products so that they will not unknowingly purchase them when they are abroad or bring them back to Singapore for their friends or families to try? Second, I urge the Minister to use his powers under section 15 to progressively lower the nicotine and tar limits of tobacco products sold in Singapore.”
“Nonetheless, the increase in awareness of the health risks and the crackdown on smoking in public areas have obviously caused tobacco companies concern about revenue loss. That has prompted them to develop and market an increasing range of alternatives to the conventional cigarette. The Minister has given examples of these and they include: safer cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products and alternative nicotine products. Examples of "safer cigarettes" marketed elsewhere include a cigarette that heats up but does not burn tobacco and is advertised with claims of "less risk" of certain smoke-related diseases. The problem is that these products have not been proven to be medically safer. Smokeless tobacco has been marketed as useful alternatives where smoking is prohibited, or when it is inconvenient to smoke. These include flavoured chewing tobacco, with flavours such as peach, cherry, wild berry, mint, green apple and wintergreen. There is even now a tobacco lozenge – a mint-flavoured, smokeless, compressed tobacco lozenge (a "cigalett" – about the size of a Tic-Tac breath mint). So while you may be dying of cancer, your breath will always be minty and fresh. More worryingly, these flavoured tobacco have candy-like appeal, which make them attractive to children. The flavours also make the product seem more harmless. This is a good way to get children started on tobacco-use. The use of smokeless tobacco is more discreet than smoking, which may mean it is easier for children to use without drawing attention to themselves. The tobacco companies cannot be expected to regulate themselves. Their track record speaks for itself. So unless we act firmly and decisively, a whole new generation may end up being addicted to tobacco and nicotine.”
“That, however, has not stopped them selling the stuff. The stark reality is that the smoking culture has become entrenched in our society. Smokers now say it is their human right to light up. Addiction has the effect. Governments around the world know that even if they wanted to, they are powerless to get rid of smoking completely. A complete ban is political suicide. In some countries, campaign contributions from tobacco companies will dry up or, worst, move to your political opponent. Significant tax dollars will also be lost. So we take little steps, like putting warnings on packages, or pictures of diseased organs or, like in Australia, having nothing at all on the packages, as if all this will really stop a smoker from getting his fix. And then we rationalise. We say that smokers now have been warned about the ill effects. We ban smoking in public buildings and say smoking in private places is a matter of choice, except that that choice has been compromised by the drugs deliberately introduced in cigarettes to make them addictive. And what about the children? Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke because their bodies are still growing and they breathe at a faster rate than adults. In the US, between 150,000 and 300,000 children under the age of 18 months get respiratory infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) from second-hand smoke. More than 40% of children who visit the emergency room for severe asthma attacks live with smokers. I have on many occasions seen adults smoking with children nearby. Who is looking after the child’s interests? What choice does a child have?”
“The Marlboro Man, expertly herding cattle on the great plains while puffing on his cigarette, became the symbol of manhood. Generations were drawn to cigarettes, and became addicted without even realising it. Allegations of health risks were dismissed or demolished. Adverse reports were suppressed. All in the name of profit. But we now know the truth. Litigation in the US has exposed what some tobacco companies have been doing to protect and expand their business. These include engaging in schemes to defraud smokers and potential smokers by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking; falsely denying that nicotine and smoking are addictive; falsely denying that they manipulated cigarette design and composition so as to assure nicotine delivery levels that create and sustain addiction; representing that light and low tar cigarettes deliver less nicotine and tar and therefore present fewer health risks than full flavour cigarettes; falsely denying that they market to youth; falsely denying that second-hand smoke causes disease; and, finally, suppressing documents, information and research to prevent the public from learning the truth about these subjects and to avoid or limit liability in litigation. One would have thought that with this knowledge, cigarettes would be banned forever. If tomato ketchup or milk had half the carcinogens and toxins cigarettes have, or carried half the health risks, they would be removed from supermarket shelves in a heartbeat. We banned the sale of chewing gums for much less. With cigarettes, somehow it is different. The debate over the harmful effects of smoking has long been over. Today, tobacco companies openly acknowledge that their products cause cancer and increase health risks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is strange why there is even a sensible debate about smoking in this day and age. The harmful effects of smoking are well established. I came ready to this House to cite facts and figures to back this up, but many Members of this House have cited the same figures. So I would not trouble the House to repeat them. However, we all know that non-smokers are also at risk. Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in mainstream tobacco smoke. There are 69 identified carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Indeed, there is a higher concentration of carcinogens found in sidestream smoke than mainstream smoke because the former is produced at a lower temperature, resulting in incomplete combustion of the tobacco. Studies have shown that non-smokers increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30% and heart disease by 25% to 30% when they are exposed to second-hand smoke. This has had a direct economic impact. According to the Health Promotion Board, the social cost of smoking in 1997 ranged from $673 to $839 million. This includes the direct costs such as payments for hospitalisation and healthcare, morbidity costs (lost of production due to smoking-related illnesses) and mortality costs (lost production from people who died early due to smoking). This social cost therefore overwhelms the economic benefits of smoking – about S$600 million or so collected in Government taxes every year from tobacco products. The facts and figures I have cited are not new. Yet, large numbers continue to smoke, increasingly so. Why do they do it? For many years, the tobacco companies ran advertisements to promote how "macho" and how "cool" smoking was.”
“One was audio or video-taping the statement-taking process. The Government, I believe, has responded that it would still be open for the accused to claim that he was threatened before the taping began and therefore the statements may not reflect the truth. Again, I do not fully agree with this but I accept that such a system is not foolproof and presents certain logistical and other difficulties. Can we at least try something simpler? All we need is to ensure that the accused understands what he is signing, and its consequences. If he cannot have his own Counsel present, then we should at least allow for an independent third-party who is legally trained to be involved in the statement taking process or at least in the signing process. Such a person already exists, for example, a Commissioner for Oaths or Notary Public. These are officers of the Court who are under duty to ensure their independence and the integrity of statements signed before them. They have no reason to favour either the prosecution or the defence, so the Police's concern about interference does not apply. The rights of the accused will be better protected and the State is more assured that the statement they are relying on has been freely made and fully understood. Challenges against the statement will be more difficult, and therefore, less likely attempted. There will be substantial savings in time and costs. But, more importantly, justice will be the ultimate winner. 6.08pm”
“I now touch on the Explanatory Statement to clause 258 – Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Michael Palmer have touched on this – where the subparagraphs (a) to (d) are concerned. The Minister states that it reflects the existing law and so this is not anything new. But now that we are revamping the CPC, does he consider that law to be fair? If a person is intoxicated and does not realise the implications of the statement he is signing or does not understand what he is agreeing to, would it be fair to then use that statement against him? The Minister then said that sub-section E is new. Sub-section E suggests that the statement may be admissible even if he does not comply with clauses 22 and 23 of the Bill and that includes where an accused does not understand English but is nonetheless made to sign the statement although if is not interpreted to him in a language he understands. Again, is that a fair outcome we want to achieve? How does this promote public confidence in the justice system? Would the Minister not agree that it is in the interests of justice that the statements the prosecutor intends to rely on to mount its prosecution are accurate and truthful? And can the Minister categorically say that there has been no instance of an accused signing a statement he did not fully understand or where he has not appreciated, or has been misinformed of the consequences of doing so? The real issue is how we strike a balance in order to get things right, whether or not that results in a conviction or an acquittal. The statements of the accused have an important influence in a trial. So one of the things we can and should do is to ensure the integrity of those statements. There have been suggestions in the past on how to achieve that balance.”
“I move on to the issue of recording and admissibility of statements. This has been debated in this House before. But now that we are revamping the CPC, it is an opportune time to look at it again. An accused person has right to Counsel of his choice but this right is not unqualified. In particular, he will not have immediate access. We have been through the arguments before. The Police are concerned that access to Counsel may prejudice their investigations, and that we have to be realistic and acknowledge that the presence of Counsel may sometimes hinder the administration of justice. If that is accepted as a valid argument, then it must equally be accepted that leaving the accused alone with the Police without Counsel over a lengthy period of time may likewise hinder justice. Just as Defence Counsel wants to get a discharge or an acquittal, the police want to secure a conviction. Further, being hauled up by the Police is a harrowing experience. The individual is subject to an alien, hostile environment. It would be naïve to assume that innocent people will not make mistakes after hours or days of questioning. It is often said that the truth has only one version and honest men will not change their story. But that is yet another slogan. People are made up differently. There are those who may say anything to make the unpleasant experience end, and to return to their families, or may simply be confused. Indeed, I have spoken to highly educated people who tell me that that they cannot remember what they told the Police, or what is in the statement they signed, even within hours of being released.”
“It is essentially a quid pro quo. But it will only work if both sides comply with their obligations in good faith. In that regard, I have two concerns. First, why do the discovery provisions not apply to all criminal trials if openness and fairness is something we want to achieve? Why is it made an option for the accused to opt in some cases, and only applies if both accused and prosecutor consent in other cases? Second, are there any consequences if there is deliberate concealment of material evidence? Clause 169 of the Bill says that the Court can draw an adverse inference or order a discharge not amounting to an acquittal if the defence or the prosecution fails to disclose some items. That implies that there is a choice and that both parties may choose to exclude evidence for tactical reasons. But if the State has evidence, should the Court not be entitled to order disclosure at the pain of contempt? The State should have a higher duty to ensure fairness and due process. Where discovery is concerned, it should not be permitted to make tactical decisions. Sir, just a comment about NCMP, Ms Sylvia Lim's comment on clause 231 where she asks how much prior notice should be given where you seek to introduce evidence which had not been given in the case. Speaking as a practitioner, I think it is very difficult to prescribe how much notice can be given. If something has been left out, it should no doubt be given as soon as possible. Nonetheless, what the Bill does not say or does not require is an explanation from the party who seeks to introduce evidence at a late stage as to why that evidence could not have been introduced earlier. And, again, it does not give any consequences as to when there is a lack of reasonable explanation.”
“But matters of procedure can be the tail which wags the dog, and the nature and implementation of procedural rules may well determine the outcome of a case. How rules of procedure are drawn up are therefore the subject of intense debate. They differ from country to country. In some, they are weighed so heavily in favour of the accused that securing a conviction becomes difficult. Some may say that is an acceptable situation, and cite well-known edicts that a man is innocent until proven guilty and that it is far better for nine guilty men to escape punishment than an innocent one to be convicted. But we should not govern by slogans but by substance. Writing the rules heavily against the State while attractive to some does not make sense. That makes our laws less effective and only compels the bending of rules to secure convictions, as we have seen in other countries. Ultimately, justice is not done and everyone is the loser. The touchstone of the criminal justice system should be about doing what is right. It should do so by ensuring that the playing field is a level one and no party is unfairly treated. While the interests of the parties are different, the goal should be a common one: that justice be done. That is the role of the CPC – to ensure that there is procedural fairness and that there are safeguards against abuse. The new rules on discovery are designed to achieve that end. Previously, discovery was non-existent and both parties held their cards close to their chests. The proposed amendments are therefore welcome steps to enable a more open and fairer process. The amendments set out what both the prosecution and the defence must do to share information with each other, including what must be shared and what they must be produced.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I support the proposed new CPC. First, let me declare my interest as a lawyer with some heart. [Laughter]. The overhaul of the CPC is a timely one. The CPC is a critical piece of legislation in our criminal justice framework, yet it has received relatively little public attention. Its length and dryness are no doubt responsible for that. Yet, its provisions have the power to determine the effectiveness of investigations, the powers of arrest, the fate of those suspected of committing crimes and, ultimately, whether justice will be achieved. I will be addressing two points. First, the new discovery process, and second, the taking an admissibility of statements of the accused. Sir, justice and fairness in the criminal justice system are difficult concepts. When a crime, particularly a heinous one, is committed, the human response is to seek retribution and redress. That means identifying someone responsible for the crime and ensuring that he, she or they receive the appropriate punishment. Nothing frustrates the public more than when a crime goes unpunished. They expect the Police and prosecutors to ensure that that never happens. Yet, it is for that precise reason that the rights of the accused must be protected, and that convictions are not secured simply to satisfy the public need. The law prescribes substantive safeguards, such as ensuring that a person can only be convicted absent reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution must, in most cases, prove not only the making of the offending act, but that the accused had the necessary state of mind. Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the process. They include the ability of the police to search premises and seize evidence, or to take statements.”
“However, 10 years is too short a time to justify the need to re-develop. It is a waste of resources for buildings that are relatively new to be demolished. It is difficult to see how national interest can override the rights of private ownership in such cases. Likewise, there is a more compelling case to reduce the threshold for buildings which are 30, 40 or even 50 years old. Would the Government therefore consider reviewing the current age under which a building qualifies for en bloc sale and to reduce the thresholds for very old buildings? Third, a point of clarification on the issue of conflict of interest. Under the proposed amendments, a person standing for election as a member of a collective sale committee must declare any conflict of interest, failing which his election shall be void. That is clearly a sensible move. Likewise, a serving member of a sale committee must also declare conflicts within seven days of being aware of the same. However, the amendments do not specifically prescribe any consequences of his failure to do so. Could the Minister clarify what consequences apply or are intended? 3.29 pm”
“Although some safeguards should be put in place to protect the minority, are we going too far by dictating when owners can even embark on the process? I accept that repeated attempts can be very inconvenient and frustrating for unwilling sellers, but this is something owners should work out on their own collectively. It is no different with how owners decide what rules should govern the management of their property. There is no limit to the number of EOGMs owners may call may call on other issues. Why should en bloc sales be any different? I therefore suggest that the threshold should remain 50% for all subsequent attempts. If more than 50% of owners want to explore a sale, we should not stand in their way. Ultimately, if they cannot secure the necessary 80% or 90% consent, the sale will fail. The law should not have to step in just because of possible inconvenience and annoyance. Those who disagree simply have to say "no". If the concern is that MCST funds will be wasted by the calling of numerous meetings, then all we need to do is require those who requisition subsequent meetings to bear the costs of those meetings, to be reimbursed only if the subsidiary proprietors agree to embark on the en bloc process. That should be sufficient to discourage frivolous requisitions of meetings. The next issue I would like to raise is whether the Government should review which buildings qualify for en bloc sale. An en bloc sale essentially concerns three interests groups – the majority, the minority and the State. As the building gets older, the national interest in redevelopment becomes more important. For buildings that are 20 years or older, an 80% majority is required. For those that are between 10 and 20 years, a 90% majority.”