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 7 of 10.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I wish to raise three queries. The first relates to the proposed two-year restriction period following a failed en bloc attempt. En bloc sales have generated much debate, controversy and litigation. But at heart of the legislation lies a fundamental principle – to what extent should the Government interfere in the rights of parties to own and dispose of their homes? For older apartments and condominiums, we have given legal effect to the concept of majority rule because it is in the interest of Singapore to maximise the use of land. The potential of high sale prices have led to instances where en bloc sales have been pursued relentlessly by some to the anger and unhappiness of those who oppose them. Neighbours have turned against each other. It leaves a bitter taste, whether the sale is ultimately successful or not. So we are now introducing more measures to temper the powers of the majority. One proposed amendment creates more barriers for owners to make repeated attempts to restart the en bloc sale process. A two-year restriction period is being proposed after a failed en bloc sale attempt. During these two years, the first attempt to convene an EOGM to appoint a sale committee will require the agreement of 50% by share value or of the total number of owners. Any subsequent attempts to convene an EOGM within this period will require 80%. I understand the rationale for the proposal. It has the benefit of preventing unnecessary depletion of management corporation funds and provide owners disinterested in selling with some reprieve. However, the Government has to be clear what its role is. An en bloc sale is ultimately an agreement between private home owners and subsequently, the developer.”
“Yes, clarification. First, Assoc. Prof. Straughan is not my colleague. [Laughter.] And, second, would the NCMP confirm that what I read out represents her own speech? Because I have taken it directly from the website and if there is a misprint then, perhaps, she should tell us.”
“I say that it is false because you do not need the majority to think that way. In a very hotly contested election like what we have been seeing in the last few years, a swing of 5% to 10% may well be the election itself. So you do not need to appeal to all or the majority of Singaporeans, but so long as 5% or 10% believe that race is an issue, that could beat the election. So we cannot deny that position. Now, do the Opposition themselves believe their own argument? Look at the facts, they do not believe in their own argument. In the last three General Elections, look at all the candidates they filed for the Single Member Constituencies. They have all been male Chinese – not even a woman – they do not even put a woman in a Single seat. All of them had been male Chinese. So they do not believe in their own argument that race does not matter, they fight to win and they know what it takes to win. So, I ask the Opposition not to engage in political or self-serving arguments. The question is: what system best works for us, what system best represents our multi-racial culture? And I think minority representation is important and, until and unless a better system is found, a GRC system ensures that and that is important for the make-up of Singapore. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Mr Speaker, I would now like to touch on some issues regarding the GRC system which Ms Sylvia Lim brought up in her speech. Now, I speak as a member of the minority community and the GRC system is an important component, I say, about our parliamentary system because it ensures minority representation in this House. What is troubling about the Workers' Party and other Opposition parties is that they have not suggested a concrete alternative. How do you ensure minority representation? They do not say or they give very wishy-washy ideas. Their main argument is that minority candidates have always been elected in the past and we should therefore feel confident that this will always happen. I think that is a fallacy because race does matter and I do not think any of us can deny that. Let me give you my personal experience and I see this when I do my walkabouts. No criticism of anyone but it is a fact of life. When I go door to door, knock on the door and the door opens, and if it is a Chinese speaking or non-English speaking person who will then stare at me and then immediately turn to my grassroots leader and say, "gen ta jiang, wo bu ke yi jiang ying yu ". And immediately a barrier comes up and I try my best in my terrible Mandarin – I speak a bit of Mandarin – and immediately the barrier melts away and some form of connection is reached. Then I speak some more and they realise that I cannot speak Mandarin at all. [Laughter. ] I am not suggesting – not for a moment – that any of them are racist. No. But there is some connection which you reach with someone who speaks your own language which cannot be underestimated. The other false argument being made is that the majority of Singaporeans do not think this way.”
“The Workers' Party, Ms Sylvia Lim, says that she opposes the amendment and that NCMPs seats should not be increased, or they play no role in this House. I am a bit puzzled by this because that is not the position she took last year. During the debate on the President's Address, she said the following and I quote, "although the NCMPs can never replace having elected Opposition MPs, it is overall supportable because it will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for Opposition candidates in significant numbers which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system. It will also facilitate Opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections". To be fair to her, I lifted this from the Workers' Party website and so it may not have been updated. But whatever the views, one thing is undeniable, having more seats in this House will give the Opposition a larger platform to inform Singaporeans of what they are about and they are capable of doing. The increase in the number of seats will also likely see the presence of other Opposition parties in this House, and so Singaporeans can judge which party plays that role better. Their performance will, no doubt, be taken into consideration at the following General Elections. But at the end of the day, the amendment only gives a platform. Whether it translates into a more robust and constructive debate is up to the NCMPs and the parties they represent. Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves. So, I therefore urge the Opposition to support this change and regard it as the opportunity for larger representation, something which they have always craved.”
“This is a public office and public scrutiny comes with the territory. As parliamentarians, we must stand by our convictions, regardless of pressure we may face from the media or any section of the public. We must be prepared to be criticised or even mocked for speeches we gave or positions we take. That is part and parcel of the political process. If an applicant fears the loss of "face", then he does not belong in public office, and certainly not in this House. Next, I touch on the amendment to increase the NCMP seats. The amendment is an unusual one because I do not know of any government in the world which amends the law to allow their opponents more seats in Parliament. But we should not be concerned by that. Different democracies have different methods of appointing their representatives. The UK has non-elected Ministers and a person does not need to win the popular vote in order to be the President of the United States. So we have to decide what works for us. Over time, we have modified our Constitution to introduce the GRC system and the NMP system and we have allowed the best losers in an election to come in as NCMPs. There is no doubt that MPs should ideally be elected, but it is also useful that we have a system that ensures that no one party will completely fill the seats in the House, regardless of what happens at the polls. Both NMPs and NCMPs serve that function. Perhaps one day, when other political parties become more established, this scheme will become a footnote in our history. But in the meantime, it serves a useful way of bringing diverse views into this House and to keep the ruling party on its toes.”
“So, to the Opposition MPs, I ask and I paraphrase the title of a well-known hit song, "What have you done for the people lately?". Mr Speaker, I say we will be poorer without NMPs' participation in this House. I therefore welcome the move to make them a permanent feature. But consistent with this recognition, we should review how they are selected. To occupy a seat in this House is a great honour and brings with it enormous responsibilities. An NMP wields considerable power. He is not bound by any Party Whip or discipline. He has the privilege of questioning the Government on any issue and may speak on any topic. He may also introduce new legislation and seek to amend existing laws. Yet, so little is known about how NMPs are selected. Like the Member of Parliament for Tampines and Assoc. Prof. Straughan, I believe there should be more transparency in the process of selection. Let us start by disclosing to the public the names and backgrounds of all who apply. Candidates should also disclose to the public the reasons for applying and what their specific goals are, if selected. The public has a right to know what their interests are and what they stand for. Candidates from political parties must deliver on their Party's manifesto and campaign promises. How are NMPs accountable? How is the public going to understand the motivations and goals of a candidate unless he makes them clear? Such basic information should be made public, unless there is good reason why they should not be. I cannot think of any good reason. The only plausible one is that such disclosure may discourage good people from applying as they may be concerned that they would lose "face" if they are not selected. That, in my view, is a poor reason.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise to support the amendment. I would first touch on the NMP provisions. The NMP Scheme was controversial when it was first introduced, but Nominated MPs are now very much part of the fabric of this House. The institution has earned its place because it has worked well. The Workers' Party says it opposes NMPs and I believe on the basis that NMPs have no electoral mandate. I find this very peculiar because NCMPs also do not have the mandate of the electorate because they did not succeed at the polls. The question also arises as to why the best loser cannot come from the ruling Party. The question also arises to why we set the very low threshold of 15% before a Member can be considered part of the NCMP scheme. But Ms Sylvia Lim did not let such technicalities stand in her way before she accepted her place as an NCMP. So what is the Opposition's real fear? I think it is obvious. It is that NMPs will outshine them in this House and make them relevant in the eyes of Singaporeans. In fact, NMPs have done very well. If you recall, one NMP actually drafted an important piece of legislation, very controversial – the Maintenance of Parents Act. Others have moved relevant and thought-provoking motions such as the by-election motion, the three 777A debate, the debate on the Pledge. All these have generated much discussion and debate in this House. And just as important, they generated much discussion outside of this House. Singaporeans have participated in these debates and they have raised the general political awareness amongst Singaporeans. So NMPs have more than justified their existence. And their efforts only exposes the relative lack of contributions by Opposition MPs.”
“This would be in line with the Government's vision of a learning nation, a social environment that promotes lifelong learning in our people. The downsides are limited, frivolous cases can easily be detected and rejected, and most recipients are likely to pay back their loans. The upsides, however, are unlimited, a better educated and trained Singaporean will be an asset to his employer and the country and will return the investment many times over. The institution of such a facility will also be a clear message to all Singaporeans of the Government's commitment to lifelong learning and that it is determined to help Singaporeans achieve the highest potential. Talent hub and career destination”
“Madam, the Government has frequently hightlighted the importance of continuing education for all Singaporeans to upgrade their skills and increase their productivity and employability. It also provides financial assistance to needy Singapore citizens until junior college or centralise institute level. This is commendable. However, in this day and age, more and more employers demand education levels beyond junior college. Technical qualifications are also critical. Currently, the Government provides some relief by allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF savings from the Ordinary Account to pay for their children or their own tuition fees. However, only full-time subsidised course at approved educational institutions are included under this scheme. For example, institutions like the BCA conduct many useful, practical courses. However, those who are not employed or are self-employed may not obtain a subsidy or have a sponsor for their course fees. This is particularly so if they wished to switch industries and pick up new skills. If they do not have the means to pay course fees, they must turn to commercial banks, but it is not easy to secure study loans from commercial banks. There are strict eligibility requirements, it only applies to certain designated partner institutions, there are minimum income requirements and some applicants must even furnish guarantors. Furthermore, repayment terms of commercial banks are not rather friendly. In some cases, payment kicks in after draw down, interest rates are high and the repayment period is strict. Could the Minister look into the possibility of establishing a Government-run student loan programme to help Singaporeans of all ages improve themselves, whether by way of a post-graduate degree or technical diploma?”
“Can we, therefore, expect to see much heavier ERP charges and more gantries in the future? Is the principle to enable as many people as possible to own a car a realistic one and will it raise unrealistic expectations? The second aspect I would like to raise concerns overhead bridges. All around Singapore, there are many overhead bridges, particularly over busy roads. Bridges, as opposed to signalised or zebra crossings, allow for smoother traffic flow. However, I am receiving more feedback from elderly residents that it is getting harder for them to negotiate such bridges. It is a real problem climbing if your knees or legs are weak and we should recognise this. These calls for help will get louder and more frequent as the population ages. May I ask what is the Ministry's long-term plans for such bridges? Will the Ministry provide signalised crossings to help elderly residents even if there is a bridge available? If so, will there be a need for bridges as no one will likely use them? Or are there plans to upgrade bridges to incorporate lifts and escalators to help those who cannot climb them? Park and Ride scheme”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister for his plans on two issues. First, on the long-term vehicle population growth and the other, which is less directly linked to road usage, long-term plans for overhead bridges. We are different from other major cities in the world. They have large suburbs where most of their residents live. The residents own cars because these are necessary for travel around the city areas. And many switch to public transport to travel into the city. In Singapore, that distinction between city and suburbs is more difficult to make. I appreciate the Government's efforts to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans to own cars. Singaporeans are willing to pay a lot for their cars and, once purchased, expect to be able to use them. To accommodate greater numbers, we are building more roads both above ground and underground. We are widening expressways and creating more lanes. But eventually, we will run out of space and roads to build. In that event, what is the strategy to control car growth or usage in the future? 1.15 pm Despite the ERP, the effect of the growth of car population is plain to see. There appears to be less predictability on our roads. Many people tell me that the time it takes for them to drive to work varies greatly everyday. The unpredictability makes it difficult to plan and undermines the efficiency we pride ourselves on. The situation may be manageable now but will deteriorate as car numbers grow. As a matter of logic, we cannot allow car growth to continue indefinitely. So, what is the long-term strategy, particularly when we run out of roads to build? Is it the Minister's intention to use Electronic Road Pricing as a primary tool to control car usage?”
“Why do we classify Euro V and VI engines together with lower technology diesel engines for the purpose of the tax when the former are clearly more efficient and environmental friendly? I understand from the last time the Minister spoke in this House on this issue the concern was the amount of particulate emission and the matter was being studied. Could the Minister tell us whether the study has been completed and what the results are? Development funds for social concerns”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he is proposing to amend the road tax formula in particular for clean diesel vehicles. There are two aspects to my query. First, in relation to the green vehicle rebate, currently, only owners of brand new green vehicles are entitled to green vehicle rebates. To encourage a greater use of low carbon transportation, the scope of the green vehicle rebate scheme would be extended to include imported used green vehicle with effect from 1st July 2010. The definition however of low carbon transportation is currently applicable to CNG petrol biofuel vehicles, petrol electric hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. If the policy is to promote green vehicles, then why are clean diesel vehicles excluded? Let me give two examples. First, a Mercedes Benz C Class petrol propelled 1800 cc has a CO2 emission of 216 grams per kilometre. The petrol CNG propelled vehicle is 170 grams per kilometre but the larger capacity CDI vehicle Euro IV compliant is 139 grams per kilometre. So the higher capacity lower emission. A Toyota Prius has a CO2 emission of 104 grams per kilometre but a Volkswagen's Polo Bluemotion, which again is Euro IV compliant vehicle, is only 99 grams per kilometre. What should not be overlooked is that diesel is cheaper and gives far better fuel economy than petrol engines. Less fuel is burnt, less cost incurred and less harmful pollutants are emitted per kilometre driven. So why are clean diesel engines then excluded from the rebate and why are they taxed higher than equivalent petrol vehicles? The second aspect is the continuing lack of distinction for the tax levied on the different Euro standards for diesel engines.”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that there are long-term plans to stop construction activities on Sundays and public holidays altogether. I think many will welcome that announcement. But could the Minister be a bit more specific on when these long-term plans will be implemented? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I mentioned in my reply that it will come in full effect exactly 1st September 2011. From 1st September 2011, all construction sites within 150 metres of residential areas cannot do any activities within Sundays and public holidays. We will start from 1st September this year 2010 only for one part of the day and then we will extend it to next year. The reason is that companies have to factor this in their tender for contract, and so we need to allow companies to progressively work their way through to manage the amount of time that is available for them to do their construction.”
“I propose that construction activities near housing estates should cease or at least be heavily restricted on Sundays. Sir, Sundays are important time for recreation for most people. It may be the only time of the week that they get to rest at home or spend quality time with their families. Yet, the current law allows construction work to begin as early as 7 am on Sunday mornings and for construction work to continue throughout the day. This is not the case in some other developed countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, several town councils, including the city of London, prohibit construction work on Sundays and bank holidays. New York city goes further. The New York City Noise Control Code provides that construction activities can only take place on weekdays between 7 am and 6 pm. These cities recognise that managing areas of high human density requires special rules. Is there any reason why rules in Singapore are different? The inevitable argument is that such rules will delay projects and increase costs. However, has such a study been done to determine the extent of the increase? Are developers suggesting that such rules will not make development commercially viable? It is difficult to believe that. In any event, can the developers not work smarter and conduct other kinds of activities on Sundays? Is this not a situation where we are leaning too much in favour of corporate interest? I therefore ask the Minister to review the rules on noise. Food hygiene”
“Sir, construction projects are a sign of progress and renewal. They are a welcomed sight. However, in a small country like us, they inevitably caused inconvenience. The issue is how to balance different interests and whether we have got the balance right. I ask the Minister to review the balance where the issue of noise is concerned. I have raised this issue before but complaints from my residents compel another try. This is an important issue as it affects our well-being. International organisations, such as the WHO, have highlighted the negative effects of noise on the physical, psychological and social functions of people. Currently, the environmental projection and management regulations set out the noise levels permitted at different areas. Their levels vary according to time, place and duration. The current regulations permit construction work to be carried out near housing estates on Sundays. It only provides for very slight adjustments in terms of timing and noise levels. For example, Part II of the Second Schedule states, "that the maximum permissible noise level between 7 am and 7 pm for construction sites affecting residential buildings located less than 150 metres away from the site is 75 decibels. From 7 pm to 10 pm, the contractor is allowed 55 decibels." In both cases, there is only a 15 decibel reduction from that allowed from Mondays to Saturdays. But, more importantly, construction work does not progress at this steady hum. There will be instances where their work, over from time to time, exceeds the limit but not breaches the regulations because it is not sustained. This is of little comfort to those who have had their rest disturbed. I make this plea for peace and quiet one day a week.”
“I ask the HDB to make it five years, just like new flats. Finally, just a couple of points on private properties. For private properties, market forces should be the prime driver. Although I appreciate the Government has to, from time to time, step in to implement temporary measures to address bubbles, but there are two things I would like the Government to consider doing on a permanent basis. First, we should discourage foreigners from speculating in our property market. I have no difficulties with genuine investors. It is the flippers that we should target. How do we benefit from their activities? I therefore ask the Government to impose a capital gains tax on foreigners who sell their properties within, say, three years of purchase. Second, we need to address the issue of option flipping. Buying and selling options are purely speculative activities. They add absolutely no value and only serve to drive up prices. I urge the Government then to make options non-transferrable or impose a tax and profits scheme on transfer. 4.45 pm”
“Let any Singaporean who wants to buy a HDB flat do so. Lift or do away with the salary cap. Those who earn high salaries will probably buy private properties anyway. But that may be high earners who, for various good reasons, wish to start off with an HDB flat. They may want to be financially prudent and we should encourage them. They may have other commitments like raising aged parents and children and we should recognise that. If they wish to live in public housing, let them. But the right to buy public housing must come with restrictions. That is only fair. We should therefore disallow individuals who own private properties from purchasing HDB flats including resale flats. Why should an individual be allowed to live in an HDB property and get rental income from a private house and vice-versa? Those who have the means and wish to buy or invest in private properties should not take public housing. Second, the HDB should maintain a small but ready stock of flats reserved for first-time owners so that those who wish to get married may get a flat more quickly. Third, there should be more control over subletting of HDB flats. Currently, there is very little control and that goes against racial integration. Fourthly, there should be an increase in the time bar before an HDB flat bought in the resale market can be sold. It currently stands at one year. The one-year bar encourages speculation. The point is not whether the unit is bought with a subsidy or concessionary loan. Public housing is public housing – whether it is new or resale. They should all be treated alike. Resale flats give the buyer more choices in terms of location and immediate availability and he pays a premium for that. There should be no other difference or advantage.”
“Sir, my parents bought their first and only HDB flat in 1976 for $30,000. It was the first house they ever owned. It helped them raise nine children in a stable home. My parents passed on some years ago but the house remains with my family. Most of us had got married and moved out but our old flat would always be home to us. All over Singapore, there are countless similar stories. The houses HDB built improved the lives of the majority of Singaporeans. They provided us with a good home and financial security. Most importantly, it gave us a stake in this great nation of ours. It also allowed the Government to promote national policies such as racial integration and even marriage. But the HDB's success, with their current success, there is also some disquiet. Some of the complaints we have read and heard about – high prices, unavailability of flats – are politically driven – but some, not all. The important question is whether the current situation continues to promote our national policies. If a couple puts off marriage because their flat will only be ready in three years and they cannot afford a resale flat, how does that help them and how does it help Singapore? How does it help integration if different ethnic groups are allowed to congregate by renting flats near each other? And would my parents have been able to buy a flat and raise a family today? I am not asking HDB to re-write its policies. There is no need to. But I do urge the HDB to implement rules which encourage home ownership and not property ownership. It should significantly advantage first-time owners and have no room for those who wish to speculate or invest in it. I have four suggestions to make this happen. First, let us start with the policy principle.”
“Mdm Chairman, it is never pleasant to talk about terrorism but it is one cause we and the rest of the civilised world will have to bear for some time. I appreciate that much of the work to detect and prevent such attacks go on behind closed doors. However, there are some important issues we can and should tackle openly. In particular, whether Singaporeans are psychologically prepared to such attacks and will react in a manner to ensure that the terrorists do not win. Most Singaporeans I spoke to do not regard terrorist activities as a serious threat to Singapore, and believe it is a problem for Government agencies to handle. But events round the world show that it is the citizen population that usually bears the brunt of the attacks. What is worse is such attacks have been known to create divisions between racial and religious groups. That is a consequence I dare not imagine for us. The terrorists are also employing different methods. The shoe bombers have aimed higher and have graduated to underwear bombers. What will they think of next? This raises the question of whether our checkpoints have the necessary equipment and capabilities to keep up with these changing threats. In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could do the following things. One, please let us have an update on the assessment of the terrorist threats in our region. Two, let us know whether our road, sea and air checkpoints are able to keep up with the new threats and methods employed by terrorists. Three, most importantly, what steps his Ministry will be taking to educate and prepare Singaporeans for the dreaded possibility of one terrorist making his way on board or into an airplane, boat or building and wreaking havoc? Regional anti-terrorism measures”
“We know that there is no end to the means to get illegal money and before long drug trafficking and organised crime would become part of their routine. We need to help these youths kick their gambling habits by designing specific educational and counselling programmes targeted at youths. I urge the Government to do more to help these innocent and impressionable youths to get their lives back together after being arrested. Help for them should not merely cease at apprehending them for their crime. With no more income source, perhaps no more friends and a poor education level considering that some of them may be drop-outs or expelled from school, they are likely to go back down the slippery road. These youths should be re-integrated into school and counselled on the consequences of their actions. In the long run, this will be more effective in steering them away from delinquency and crime. They are young and they still have a long way to go. The number of youths nabbed for activities related to illegal moneylending and laundering has been on the rise over the past few years, from 12 in 2006 to 94 in October last year. This distressingly sharp increase is a strong indication that the involvement of youths and students in loansharking activities demands our attention. I hope my appeal for these youths to be given the opportunity to continue with their studies, to be given more counselling programmes and resources dedicated to this problem area will meet with your approval. In case of the moneylending syndicate members, I think we should consider their crime as sufficient to consider meting out caning for the kingpins as well as detention without trial. After all they too are like drug dealers who prey on the weaknesses of their victims.”
“Broken homes and poor financial situations are not the main stimulants for delinquency as frequently assumed. Common reasons cited by these youths include peer pressure, boredom, money to satisfy material needs and paying off debts accumulated from online gambling. The online gambling undoubtedly poses greatest cause for concern, but allow me to first present some general solutions for these troubled youths. Parents and family members need to pay attention to their children's activities and their circle of friends. Teachers are already shouldering heavy responsibilities, but as schools have been noted as places where students get recruited into syndicates through friends, teachers, too, should keep a look out on suspicious behaviour and send students for counselling if required and alert their parents. As such, we need to look into developing more training programmes for school counsellors and volunteers in youth homes to counsel youths with such issues. Largely populated and costly youth hangouts, such as arcades and night spots, are common places where loansharks recruit runners. Law enforcement teams may consider including such locations in operations for scouting out loanshark activities. I sense that the Police should put more resources on intelligence gathering of these groups of people. The fact that more youngsters are getting addicted to online gambling is in itself an alarming occurrence. If they do not curb their gambling addiction, they will become social burdens to society, resorting to criminal activity to get money to feed their gambling needs, as some of them are already doing so by becoming runners for loansharks.”
“Senior Minister of State Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that penalties are practical when they are targeted at loan sharks' bank accounts. After all, the moneylending business is all about making profit. However, it is precisely this aggressive pursuit for ill-gotten gains that I fear may spur these loansharks to persist with their activities in spite of the increased risks of getting prosecuted. Casinos are gold mines for loansharks. With the opening of two new casinos in Singapore, loansharks are likely to jump at the lucrative opportunity of baiting more borrowers trying to gamble their way to prosperity. To avoid run-ins with the law, they may bring their activities underground, find ways and means to get around the law and hire easily manipulated runners to cover their track. It is difficult to put a complete stop to loansharking activities as long as demand for easy loan exists. Innocent youths and school children now remain favourite targets as loanshark runners. The gullibility of these youngsters would enable the unscrupulous moneylenders to manipulate them just as the gangsters of yesteryears took advantage of their young egos and turned them into street gangs to do their bidding. I ask that the Government put in place even stronger measures to prevent impressionable youths from being recruited as runners. These youths are easy preys because some of them may fall for the money, the challenge and the daring-do ego to become runners. These measures should go beyond tougher laws and punishment and venture towards identifying the root of the problem – why these youths are easy baits for loansharks. A recent media report gave some reasons from the viewpoints of youth loanshark runners.”
“The authorities would have details of these individuals and where they have moved to. There must be some way to make them accountable. Can they, for example, not be made responsible to make good the damages caused by the moneylenders? We also need to help those who buy over flats from debtors and who may therefore unwittingly inherit the problem. Can the HDB not require the seller and the occupants to furnish a statutory declaration that they are not indebted to illegal moneylenders? If the seller comes clean or opts not to declare, the buyer can then decide with full knowledge whether he wants to proceed with the purchase. If the seller is eager to sell his flat, he will have the incentive to settle the debt. If the seller lies on oath, he can be prosecuted for making a false statement. The proposed amendments are a good step in the mission to rid us of this illegal moneylending scourge. We can be sure, however, that the kingpins will try to find new ways to entrench and extend their business and keep one step ahead of the law. The Senior Minister of State has said that he will monitor how these changes have effect on the ground. I, however, urge the Ministry not to wait to see how these new steps work before introducing other measures. You see, the thing about cockroaches is that just when you think you have stamped them out, they tend to spring back to life. Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the amendments made to the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill. Loansharking is a vice that strangles far too many innocent victims. In lieu of our upcoming casino launches, it is an absolute necessity that we suppress illegal moneylending and its accompanying myriad of social problems with harsher penalties before these issues escalate to unmanageable levels.”
“Could the Senior Minister of State therefore assure this House that this weapon will only be deployed in clear cases, and that where funds are frozen, the Police will expedite their investigations to minimise prejudice? Sir, there have been calls to prosecute borrowers as well – to attack the demand to get rid of the supply. I have no doubt that some Members of the House will repeat this call. I hope we do not go that way, at least not for the time being. As an argument, it has logic. As a policy, less so. Most people do not go to illegal moneylenders and pay those blood-sucking rates because they want to. They are desperate. Borrowing from banks and other licensed institutions is reserved for those who are creditworthy. The typical customer of an illegal moneylender is not. His need for money may, however, be no less real or compelling than the next person. Not everyone has family or friends he can turn to for help. More importantly, regardless of the reasons behind the borrowing, criminalising borrowing would have little deterrent effect on individuals who are desperate. It would only serve to compound their problems and, worse, those who depend on them. But that is not to say that borrowers should be let off the hook. This Bill aims to criminalise provision of false information to illegal moneylenders. This is a good step forward as it punishes those who take loans and leave innocent third parties to face the despicable recovery methods. We should throw the book at them. But even this does not go far enough. How do we deal with those who provide correct information but subsequently change their place of residence? The problem is the same and yet they get away scot-free. They move out, fully aware of the problems they will be saddling future occupants with.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Loansharks are a menace to society. They have no scruples. They prey on the weak and the desperate for money. They exploit the young to do their dirty work for them. Their chief weapons are intimidation, shame and violence. They think nothing of harassing and destroying the property, not only of their debtors but their innocent neighbours. They will vandalise houses even when the debtor is no longer living there, thus proving that not only are they nasty, they are also not very clever. Indeed, to call them sharks, I say is an insult to those creatures of the ocean. May I suggest cockroaches instead? I therefore support amendments which will give the Police more teeth to rout this growing menace. From January to September 2009, there were 13,771 complaints, compared to 11,789 for the whole of 2008 and the figure was even lower for 2007. So this is a growing problem. We obviously need greater deterrents. I therefore support increasing the punishment for carrying out or assisting in the carrying out of illegal moneylending activities. But as we all know, the real culprits are the kingpins and not the riff raff who do the running for them. For every runner we arrest, another takes his place. I therefore welcome the new measures to deal with the procurement of minors to carry out illegal activities. Likewise, the new power to freeze funds that the Police believe to be related to loansharking activities. By this, we can hit the syndicates where it hurts the most. To trace and uncover the funds, however, will be difficult but it is certainly worth trying. This may however cause hardship to innocent individuals and family members who depend on them.”
“While certain groups may be more vocal, it is important that we listen to and recognise the concerns of other groups in our community as well, and strike the right balance. I am confident that the CRC will consider all views fairly and objectively, and ensure that our content standards and regulations are in tune with the times but, at the same time, reflect and uphold our societal norms and values.”
“In addition to recommending refinements to existing content policies and standards, the Committee is also expected to propose ways to improve community engagement, public education and industry co-regulation. Like previous CRCs, it is important that this CRC seeks public feedback from a cross section of our society. Hence, the Committee has conducted eight focus group discussions with representatives not just from the industry, but also the community, to gather views and suggestions from them. For the community groups, discussions were held with parents, educators and youths. In addition, the CRC has consulted with the various advisory committees of the Media Development Authority (MDA), whose members come from all walks of life, and understand our community's concerns and sensitivities relating to content across the various mediums. The CRC has also been receiving feedback at its website from members of the public since the website was launched last month. I would like to encourage Singaporeans to give their views and suggestions to the CRC via the website at www.crc2009.sg. In addition, the CRC will be commissioning a nationwide survey this month to seek the public's views on major content issues and content standards. The survey's sample size will be representative of the Singaporean population. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure Mr de Souza and the House that the CRC will seek views and suggestions from the various segments of our society so that the Committee's recommendations will reflect our societal norms and values. Let me emphasise that fundamentally, it is societal norms and values that shape our content standards and the extent to which we should liberalise or tighten.”
“Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I suspect that the answer is going to lead me to have long discussions with my wife which I always look forward to. In light of the many different permutations and now the greater flexibility of choices given to parents, is the selection of race on their identity cards going to become an artificial exercise, ie, you pick a race of convenience? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in multi-racial Singapore, we still need the race classification. In fact, we celebrate our diversity and this is our strength. Unlike other societies, for example, in France, to be politically correct, they do away with recording and reflecting race, but that does not mean that race problems will go away. So I think our approach is better where we give more choice and flexibility but still continue with the current practice of recording the child's race. FEEDBACK TO CENSORSHIP REVIEW COMMITTEE 11. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts what will the Censorship Review Committee do to obtain the views of the average Singaporean who may not necessarily be part of an organised campaign to liberalise censorship as opposed to just receiving feedback from such organised campaigns. The Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Censorship Review Committee (CRC), was appointed in September last year to conduct a mid-term review of content regulation issues across the spectrum of broadcast, films, videos, publications, audio materials, the arts and new media.”
“I am trying to understand why you need to have a declaration of a dominant race. So, perhaps, the Minister can help us to appreciate the implications of registration in real terms. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The key reasons are, first, practically, I think, a child even of mixed parentage will be acculturalised and probably will identify better with one race. Indeed, how the parents bring the child up would probably be a situation where they have decided in their mind whether the child would embrace one race more than the other. But the other key reason is that we have ethnic linked policies, for example, HDB's ethnic integration policy. In Singapore, these are key policies. So we do need to know which classification to put the child under. So we need the parents, even though they have a choice now, to still indicate the dominant race.”
“Of course, parents can still go with the default option of following the father's race, which is Indian, if they are undecided on which race to choose or follow the mother's race (Chinese), if they so decide and need not go for the double-barrelled race option. So, flexibility is now greater and there are more choices. But let me just add that there is really no need for parents to rush to register the child's double-barrelled race classification at birth because even after that point in time, there will be other points in time when they can do that. Indeed, they can change the race classification. For children going to school, the natural point in time will be when they register for Primary One – I think we had a discussion here in the House – and, also, when they register for their identity card at age 15. One other caveat is that for practical reasons, this relaxation cannot be allowed to go on ad infinitum. I think Members will appreciate that. So if the child goes on to marry someone of another race or indeed of a mixed race, what happens is that when they have children, then they will have to choose which two of the three or four races to be declared as the child's race. Let me also say that the public should not rush because Government agencies will need time to make the necessary system changes to accept double-barrelled races. Once the changes are in place, ICA will allow such registration and we will announce the details in due course and when this new approach will be come into effect. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Sir. May I follow up with a supplementary question? My kids are also one of these double-barrelled things. I am so glad to hear that the Ministry has decided to allow registration of both the parents' cultural heritage.”
“Sir, I should declare my interest that my child has parents of mixed race. Will the Senior Minister of State clarify his answer? Will his Ministry allow parents of different races to reflect both races on their child's identity card? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Government has considered this matter carefully and has decided to allow parents of different races reflect both their races as a double-barrelled race in a child's identity card. This is on top of existing expanded options of choosing only one of the two different races for the child. Some examples could be Indian-Chinese, Caucasian-Chinese or Malay-Indian. This policy change will be subject to certain rules. We all know that societal trends suggest that a child of a mixed-parentage tends to identify himself or herself more closely with one of the two races. So, for parents who prefer their child's race to be double-barrelled, they will have to decide the dominant racial identity for the child, and this will be put as the first of the two components of a double-barrelled race. Take the example of an Indian father and a Chinese mother, which I believe Mr Hri Kumar is of that category. The parents decide that Chinese will be the dominant racial identity for the child, the race will be Chinese-Indian. So Chinese becomes the dominant race which is reflected first. If the mixed-parentage parents have not decided on the race to be reflected but still prefer the child's race to be double-barrelled, ICA will reflect the race of the father first (Indian-Chinese) and that is when the parents do not make a choice.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his response. The rental flats are scarce commodity and generally families or individuals that enjoy them are in difficult circumstances. May I ask, does MND work or share information with CDC and other organisations to bring help to families and individuals staying in rental flats, so that they can help improve their situation in going forward?”
“In the US, reputedly the most advanced democracy in the world, the entire cabinet is appointed by the President; they in fact cannot be elected members of Congress. Other democracies like Germany and Spain have that facility as well. And these are countries far larger and with longer histories than us. It will also not offend our democratic principles. As the Prime Minister said in the by-elections debate last year, our Parliamentary system has evolved and places more weight on the party instead of the individual. But this does not mean that elections are not important. They are still critical. Parliamentarians must still win the support from the ground and, ultimately, the Prime Minister and the ruling party and his Cabinet team will still be answerable to the electorate at elections. They will be at risk if they fail to perform or deliver on their promises. I believe there are merits in introducing some flexibility into our system to increase the talent pool available to us. The critics may cry that this will dilute democracy. But it really does not, and the fact that larger, more established Western democracies have taken this route demonstrates that. Our political system is not cast in stone, and it is our obligation to keep improving it. And as we have done in the past, I hope we will not shy away from doing what is good for Singapore. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“I do not think anyone will argue that our system is so perfect that it cannot be improved on. As the Opposition Member also acknowledged on Monday, while we have inherited a parliamentary system from the British, ours has developed and is now different from theirs and others in many ways. We now guarantee minority representation; we have Nominated MPs to bring greater depth to debates in this House and we allow the best losing Opposition Members to sit as Non-constituency MPs. No ruling party, I know of, willingly gives people outside its party a platform in Parliament; but we do it and I think we are better for these changes. So how can we increase our talent pool? Today, a Minister must be appointed from the ranks of elected MPs. But it is not easy getting good people to run for office. Standing for elections is not everyone's cup of tea; neither is running a constituency or serving residents on the ground. An MP is judged by what he does for his constituency and how he serves his residents. It may sound sacrilegious in a democracy to say so, but a person who is popular on the ground may not necessarily be the best person to run a Ministry, or vice versa. So why not give the Prime Minister the option of appointing outstanding individuals from outside the rank of elected MPs to his Cabinet? The pool of talent available to the Prime Minister will increase substantially and we can draw on the experience of many capable Singaporeans. For example, who better to look into improving entrepreneurship in Singapore than a successful businessman and successful entrepreneur, and not many of them have interest in running for elections? This is not a novel concept. It has been done in Commonwealth countries, such as the UK and Canada, where they have similar parliamentary systems.”
“In my short time as MP, I have faced many questions from irate residents: why do you raise GST, why do you have COEs or ERP; why so many ERP gantries; why are Government salaries so high; why do we have so many foreigners in Singapore taking away Singaporeans' jobs; why have means testing; why can we not give more welfare; why have GRCs; why raise bus and train fares? Why not let people withdraw their CPF funds when they like? Critics say that we are able to make these decisions because we have too much power, and that makes us arrogant and not caring of the impact on the man-in-the-street. But that argument does not make sense because it is easier to make popular decisions. It is also far easier to tell people what they want to hear, never mind the consequences. It is much harder work implementing tough policies and explain it to the electorate on the ground. With one stroke of the pen, this Government can lower GST; can get rid of COEs; can get rid of ERPs; can allow people to withdraw their CPF funds when they like. But at what cost to the country and what cost to future generations of Singaporeans? It is easy to take the path of least resistance. To stay on the right path takes intelligence, character and guts. In short, strong leadership. But will we continue to attract the best into politics and to run our Ministries? We have a small citizen population, and growing smaller by the generation. It is difficult attracting good people into politics. I think that is a statement we have all heard many a time. But we can ill afford a situation where we do not have the best team possible to lead our country. While we currently have a solid team leading the Government, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Should we not do something now to address this?”
“I am not for a moment suggesting that we compromise our training or do anything to adversely affect our national security. That must be the paramount aim of our NS. However, we have a valuable two-year window, which we should capitalise on to teach and train those with low education and little skills, which they can then use to manage their lives after they leave NS. The enlistees would be older and, hopefully, more sober about the future they face. The discipline which the army brings means fewer distractions. Appropriate incentives can be given to those who are willing to apply themselves. In this way, we can continue working towards the promise of not leaving anyone behind. Let me now deal with political reform. The President alluded to possible changes. I would like to offer one suggestion. Ask anyone why Singapore has been successful since Independence, and the list of reasons will run long. Top or near top of that list will be the strong leadership we have had. I believe even the Member of the Opposition acknowledged this in his speech on Monday. There are too many examples around the world of democratic countries crippled by short-term thinking; where leaders are afraid to make necessary but unpopular decisions because they fear losing the next election. We have always functioned on a different principle. We have never shirked from making unpopular decisions we believe to be in the interests of Singapore, even if it comes at some political cost.”
“We must find a way to help them. I, therefore, urge the Government to step in and offer a comprehensive programme of student loans to encourage and facilitate Singaporeans to improve themselves and acquire new skills. This is a loan, not a hand-out, so no one will think they are getting an easy ride. The downside risks are low. Some may default, but I am confident that the vast majority is responsible and will meet their obligations. More importantly, this will be a real investment in Singaporeans on which we will receive an immeasurable and meaningful return. Second, for all the excellent schools and programmes we have, there will be a good number who will not cope and will fall out. I have again in my MPS sessions encountered many who have done poorly in schools and who now face difficulties getting jobs. Some accept that they should have tried harder in schools, but now feel that the die has already been cast for their future. So much of what we are today turn on decisions made when in school, and some are suffering the consequences of the lack of guidance in their youth. We seek different peaks of excellence from our students. We have also introduced schools like Northlight to help those who do less well academically prepare for the future. However, despite these varied opportunities, there will still be a good number who, for different reasons, will cross into adulthood without the education and skills they need to cope in an increasingly difficult environment. Once they leave our classrooms and institutions, it is very difficult to get them back in. We must try and help them as well. There is one other institution we could involve to address this issue, and that is the institution of National Service (NS).”
“Students in major economies around the world, like the US, China and Europe, are obtaining second degrees, Masters, doctorates and professional and specialist qualifications. There are now many Americans and Europeans studying in China because they recognise the shift in power and they are getting ready for it. In short, they are investing heavily for the future, and we must too. We need to inculcate in Singaporeans the virtues of life-long learning. More and more, we need Singaporeans to understand that education does not stop once we leave school. We must continue learning beyond our diplomas and degrees if we want to enter or develop the highly specialised industries that will help us make the next lap of our development. I believe many are willing to do so. But one major obstacle is cost. The cost of obtaining degrees and professional qualifications is high. Not all schools and training institutes offer scholarships and bursaries, and even those are in limited numbers. Our limited public university places, and their high standards of admission also mean that many have to turn to private institutions to further their education and these can be very expensive. While some financial institutions offer student loans, their terms can be difficult to meet. They charge fairly high interest rates; they require the borrower to have certain minimum annual incomes or to get a guarantor, and they require the loan to be serviced almost immediately. This can be a big deterrent, especially to those from lower income families. Even if you meet the criteria, the banks may still refuse to extend credit. I have met a fair number of people during my meet-the-people sessions who tell me that they do not go further in their studies because they simply cannot afford it.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the motion to thank the Honourable President. Many Members of this House have called for a review of our economic and business model and I add my voice to that. I will not repeat the same arguments. Instead, I would like to make specific suggestions on two other issues raised by the President – education and changes to the political system. First Education. Everyone knows and accepts the importance of education. Singapore’s success is due to and dependent on Singaporeans. Our people are our most valuable resource and the Government must continue to invest in them. We must enable all Singaporeans to be educated and trained to their highest potential. A good education does not guarantee success, but those who do not have it will find it hard going, particularly in this knowledge-based economy. Our education system has done well. It is not perfect but it has done a good job in raising standards. It recognises that different people have different abilities and tries to help each one realise their potential. New programmes and systems are regularly being introduced to enable our students to step up to the next level. Such changes often cause stress to students, and more to their parents. But such change is inevitable if we want to compete with others around the world. There are, however, two areas which I believe we can do better. First, we need to encourage further and continuing education. Our primary and secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics are great institutions for learning foundation subjects. But that is clearly not enough today. Even a university education is fast losing its lustre and significance.”
“Other Members of this House have raised many good questions as well. We should debate these questions in this House, instead of giving a committee, which has not even been formed, a blank cheque to decide them. May I also ask the Minister if his Ministry intends to take a similar light-touch approach with this committee as it does with the Hospital Ethics Committee. If it does, then I have serious concerns. A compensation regime which does not adequately address the interests of donors, or worse, encourage less than altruistic behaviour, will undermine the very amendments that we are being asked to vote on today. If the system is inadequate, and there is exploitation as a result, the failure should be ours and not laid at the door of some committee. I hope that the Minister will clarify these matters so that we can take this important step, confident that we are doing the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. But absent of the overhaul of the approval process and clarity in the compensation scheme, which I say is fundamental to this Bill, I cannot support it.”
“Otherwise, a law which has such good and noble intentions may fail in its execution and that would be a real shame. These matters should be addressed in HOTA, or at the very least, in subsidiary legislation. If any Hospital Ethics Committee is not prepared to assume these basic obligations, transplants should not be carried out at the hospitals it represents. There is also no reason why MOH should not audit every approved transplant to ensure that the letter and spirit of HOTA have been observed. It will provide an essential check to ensure that the committees are doing their job. Surely, that is not an onerous obligation. How many living donor transplants take place every year? Even if many, is that not the least that MOH should do in the public interest? If it does not, who will? So improving the process will not reduce the number of genuine donors. In that light, may I ask the Minister if he intends to improve the current approval process and, if so, what he proposes to do. Likewise, I am not comfortable leaving the details of the compensation scheme to another committee without any legislative guidance or oversight. Delegating may be a convenient and efficient way of dealing with these issues, but the devil in these amendments is really in the details. I accept that it will be impractical for this House to deliberate on all the details of the compensation formula or mechanism. But there are some fundamental questions we should talk about. For example, what does compensation for "loss of earnings" mean? Should compensation be restricted only to Singaporeans and PR donors? Should there not be a cap on the amount of compensation? Should foreign donors and recipients be subject to different rules? How is the compensation sum to be disbursed?”
“The committee has complete discretion in the manner of its deliberations. It has the power to make rules to regulate its own procedure. There are no requirements to keep a record of the proceedings or the interviews with the donor or the recipient, so we do not know what questions, if any, were asked. In fact, the committee is not even obliged to interview the donor or the recipient. Why is that not a mandatory requirement? How is the committee able to properly discharge its duties unless its members actually speak to both the donor and the recipient? A committee can therefore rubber stamp an application and no one would be the wiser. The committee is obliged to have regard to the considerations of "public interest and community values" when assessing applications, but these terms are not defined, so the committee decides what they mean. There is no accountability for its decisions. The Ministry of Health does not carry out audits of the files, if any, kept by the committee, and I can go on with other deficiencies. The Hospital Ethics Committee currently represents our only real check against abuse – yet we demand so little of it. The hospitals may argue that it is not their responsibility to determine if what is declared by the donor or the recipient is true. If that is the case, then it would appear that no one is taking any responsibility for this entire process – not the doctors, the hospital or the Ministry. If we are going to allow compensation, and if we are serious about not allowing organ trading, there clearly needs to be a complete overhaul in the manner in which applications are approved. I know the Minister would prefer to keep things flexible. But flexibility without accountability is not a good recipe.”
“Therein lies my difficulty with these amendments, and with HOTA in general. The vital organs are missing. Let me explain. The way the Act seeks to ensure that organ trading does not take place and that donors are not exploited is to depend on the Hospital Transplant Ethics Committees to assess the application, and to approve genuine ones and to reject non-genuine ones. But HOTA and its regulations make it clear that this committee is not equipped for this important role. Section 15B of the Act provides that the committee shall consist of not less than three persons, of whom one shall be a medical practitioner not employed or connected with the hospital and one shall be a lay person. But the lay person apparently can be employed or connected with the hospital. In other words, that committee can be constituted by a majority of persons who have an interest in promoting the business of the hospital. In fact, the third person, ie, the medical practitioner not connected with the hospital, may be from another hospital which carries out transplants or is otherwise interested in promoting transplant operations. Next, of the persons sitting on the committee to decide a particular application, the only disqualification from participating is that they cannot directly be involved in the care of the donor or the recipient, or will be involved in the transplant procedure itself. Surely, there are other obvious instances of conflicts, such as blood relations or friends. But the members of the committee are not even required to declare their interests. Further, neither HOTA nor any other law or regulation sets out how the committee must discharge its duties. All it has to do is to submit a report of its decision to the Ministry of Health. What that report should contain is not clear.”
“So there is a thriving black market, where organs are traded for huge sums of money, and the poor, the ignorant and the desperate will continue to be a ready source of organs for those who can pay. HOTA did not bring about that situation, and these amendments, if properly applied, are not going to make it worse. In fact, creating a framework to handle compensation for organ donation may help stem the rise of a black market. But there is no doubt that even with the enhanced penalties, introducing a financial element will prove too tempting for some to make money from donating their organs, and for others to take advantage of that temptation. We cannot leave the weaker members of society to fend for themselves. We need to ensure that the law and spirit of HOTA are preserved. The key phrase, which appears in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, is altruistic living organ donor. In other words, the amendments are not supposed to facilitate transplants by persons who are motivated by money. Further, as I understand them, these amendments do not remove the requirement that there must be a deep emotional connection between the donor and the recipient. Could the Ministry clarify that this remains the position? If a relative or close friend of the patient is willing to give up his kidney to save him, but is naturally concerned about his own future medical expenses and potential loss of earnings, why should we not allow the patient to compensate that relative or friend? The problem, however, is that the amendments do not say all this. The phrase altruistic living organ donor appears in the Explanatory Notes, but not the amendments themselves. The requirement that the donor and recipient must have deep emotional ties is also not found in HOTA.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the good intentions behind these amendments. They are clearly noble. Who could disagree with giving more hope to those whose lives hang in the balance, and whose only prospect of survival is to receive a transplant? The repeal of the prohibition against removing organs from a deceased person over 60 years old is timely. So long as the organs are healthy, there is no reason to impose artificial age limits on prospective donors. Likewise, the enhancements on penalties. The amendments to allow a donor to receive compensation are more controversial. Many around the world will criticise us for this move. But as a matter of principle, I see no difficulty with it. Some have argued that many countries have not allowed this, so we should not. That by itself is not a good reason not to do something. Some say it is immoral to donate your organs for money. I say it is equally, if not more, immoral to simply ask patients to accept death gracefully when there is a feasible option. It is also immoral to stop someone from saving a life, if that is his real intention. What are the critics really concerned about? That this new regime will prove an irresistible source of income for the poor, the ignorant and the desperate, and that ultimately, the rich will obtain transplants at the expense of the poor. These are powerful, emotional arguments that cannot be ignored. But what is the reality? A father of a friend died on an operating table in India during a kidney transplant; an acquaintance of mine is still alive after receiving a kidney in China. Many of us know similar stories. This is a life and death issue. People who face death will move mountains to survive, and do things and take chances which most of us do not even want to think about.”
“But, at the same time, we should also ensure a level-playing field for local and foreign graduates. Many foreign law schools have three-year law degrees while our local law school is a four-year law degree. The system we implement should not enable a foreign graduate to be admitted quicker than a local graduate. Finally, on the issue of reciprocity and fairness. Many legal systems are closed to foreigners and foreign graduates, including Singaporeans. While we open up our country and our legal market to foreigners, it must be on the basis that their home countries are similarly open to us. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure a level-playing field in any scheme to allow foreign lawyers to practise law in Singapore.”
“Sir, the supply of lawyers in Singapore is an issue that has been raised a number of times in this House. I spoke about it last year. The regulations have since been amended to allow foreign firms to enter the marketplace and practise Singapore law in certain areas. But since then, the world economy has taken a turn and lawyers in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries are losing their jobs by the thousands. So under-supply of lawyers in Singapore may not be a problem in the short or medium-term. Nonetheless, there is still reason to fine-tune our admission criteria to make it more rational and responsive to the circumstances. The rationale for identifying and limiting qualified universities was to a large extent, to ensure quality control. But we are, in fact, placing quality control in the hands of foreign universities who determine what class of honours to confer and therefore who gets to practise law in Singapore, either immediately or after a two-year stint. Sir, I repeat my call last year to do away with these incremental changes to our admission criteria. To use a person's academic results to determine his ability to qualify is at best a blunt and, sometimes, unfair instrument. There are many good lawyers in practice who may not be qualified or qualified immediately under the current criteria. If the quality of education is an issue, we should control standards ourselves and simplify the whole process. In this regard, I agree that we should get rid of the DipSing programme. What we should do is to have a common practice law course and examination for all graduates, local or foreign, and the standard of the examination will ensure the quality. And those who have the right quality should have no concern passing this examination.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for updating us on the number of complaints in relation to noise pollution. The numbers are telling – 6,000 to 9,000 to 14,000 over the last three years. I understand there is a need for contractors to finish their work, but can there not be a compromise halfway? I have asked for just a few hours' ban on Sunday mornings on construction work. Is there any study or suggestion that such a ban will affect contractors in meeting their legal completion dates, or that they would suffer a significant loss?”