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 8 of 10.
“The problem is particularly difficult if the breach is a short intermittent one which disturbs sleep or rest but it is difficult to regulate a complaint against. It only takes a short burst of noise to disturb rest. Why do we allow contractors working on a site less than 150 metres from residential buildings to start work at 7.00 am on Sundays? I am not suggesting we have strict rules like they have in some countries where the noise regulations are so strict that, for apartments, they cannot even take a shower during certain hours at night. But I think the pendulum has swung too far in favour of contractors and developers. I, therefore, ask the Minister to review the rules on noise. Does the Minister not agree that Singaporeans should be given at least a day or some hours of a day or a weekend of peace and quiet? Can we not have stricter rules about noise at construction sites, particularly those near residential areas and particularly during the usual hours of sleep? Is it really going to create difficulties for our contractors or developers to start work, say, at 9.00 am on Sunday? Tackling Noise Pollution”
“Sir, on 18th November last year, this House was informed that the number of construction sites increased from 5,023 in 2006 to 6,098 in 2007. That is an increase of about 20%. However, the number of complaints on construction noise received by the NEA increased from 6,160 in 2006 to 9,228. That is an increase of 50%. We live in a country where space comes at a premium. Having more apartments and houses mean that we are living closer and closer to each other. In a crowded and developed society like ours, it is impossible to guarantee complete peace and quiet for residents. There must be an element of give and take, of live and let live. But Singaporeans also deserve an opportunity to rest and spend quality family time without being constantly harassed by noise pollution. The rising number of complaints is evidence of an issue worth looking into. The Environmental Protection and Management (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations have a detailed and complex list of noise levels allowed in different areas, times and duration. However, the current regulations are difficult to understand and are unrealistic. Let me give some examples. Part 1 of the Second Schedule says that the maximum permissible noise level between 7.00 pm and 7.00 am for construction sites affecting residential buildings located less than 150 metres from the site (reckoned as an equivalent continuous noise level over a period of 12 hours) is zero. But for periods of one hour, 55 decibels is allowed between the hours 10.00 pm and 7.00 am. From 7.00 am on Sunday mornings, which is the only time, I suspect, many of us are able to sleep, the contractors are allowed 75 decibels. How is the public to know when the contractor has breached the regulations?”
“Finally, we have, thankfully, not experienced any major incidents for many years but this raises the concern that Singaporeans may not know how to react or what to do in the event an attack happens. Sir, we have often seen images of American kids ducking under their desks during air raid drills in the 1960s, during the Cold War era. That may be a bit extreme for us but such exercises do increase a sense of awareness of the problem. Should there not be more public education to impart some basic protection of survival tips to Singaporeans, so that they will know how to react or what to do in the event such a disaster happens? Terrorist Attacks and Responsible Media Reporting”
“Sir, the terrorism attacks in Mumbai were a grim reminder of the terrorist threat, and, more importantly, that terrorists will continue to attempt new audacious ways to destroy, strike fear and advance the agenda. The terrorists came from the sea and were able to infiltrate largely unmolested. We are as vulnerable as Mumbai, if not, more so. By the time a fast boat enters our territorial waters, it will take just minutes to reach our shores, and we have people living and working almost at the waters' edge. There will be little time to react. There are also parts of our coastline which are not developed where terrorists can slip in undetected and cause mischief further in land. I, therefore, ask the Minister what will be done to protect our coastlines from such possible infiltrations. Second, I would like to ask whether we can use technology to assist in our security efforts. Aircraft have transponders and are required to submit flight plans in advance. This gives us fair warning when an unauthorised aircraft approaches us. Cannot something similar be posted for ships? There will, no doubt, be a cost but is our safety not worth paying for? Thirdly, if terrorists do strike, do we have a proper disaster or rescue plan? The recent incident involving the Singapore Flyer was more than just an embarrassment. It shows that there are no adequate rescue plans for private buildings or installations, or at least no proper coordination of such plans between public services and building owners. If we have difficulties rescuing those trapped in the Flyer, does it mean that we will have similar difficulties for those in the many buildings in the Central Business District or other strategic areas?”
“Our reserves are there because of the hard work of earlier generations of Singaporeans, coupled with sound and prudent management and leadership. Now, more than ever we need the Government to exhibit those qualities. The problems we and other countries faced are exceeding volatile, exceeding complex. They will not be solved by spending some money here or some money there. We are in this for the long haul. The measures we implement have to be sound and steady. They also have to be flexible to meet new and unexpected challenges. This budget is evidence of that measured, mature approach. Hopefully it will put us on the path to find good fortune in these times of calamity. I support it. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. – [Mr Tharman Shamugaratnam]”
“I understand from the CDCs that a large number of job seekers are classified as "not job-ready" or "near job-ready", meaning that, in some cases, they are not prepared to accept work that is offered them because of inconveniences like shift work. One CDC officer told me that one out of every 10 job seekers it helps, only one is "job-ready". The overwhelming majority are not. And some live in rental flats, which means they receive large subsidies. I understand that although they reject suitable job opportunities, they continue to enjoy these subsidies. So this connect does not make any sense. We have to send a strong message that we cannot afford the luxury of being selective, not in these times. We need all hands to the pump to keep our economy afloat even if it means making or compromise or personal sacrifices in the short- or medium-term. I, therefore, urge the Government to re-examine the way it gives assistance. It is important to incentivise people to find work with programmes like WIS. It is equally important to address those who ask for or get assistance but refuse to help themselves for no good reason. Madam, there is one significant difference between our fiscal measures and those announced by some of the major developed nations. We are in a position to call on reserves, while they intend to fund programs by borrowing and make future generations pick up the tab. As times get tougher there will be more pressure on the Government to spend. Many economic experts and lay persons alike will have different ideas on how much to spend, what to spend it on and where to get the money from. The Government may have to take tough unpopular measures. But being tough alone does not mean that you are right. That takes intelligence, experience and mature judgment.”
“I urge the Government to come up with and announce concrete plans as soon as possible so that they can be implemented quickly if needed, and Singaporeans will know sooner what the conditions are to qualify for help. It would be a major source of stress relief to know that the Government will help and it keep a roof over our heads until the storm passes. I am not suggesting that the Government bails out everyone who defaults on a mortgage. There should of course be restrictions. For example, it should only be for those with one home; the inability to pay should be on account of the current economic downturn; it should not apply to those who still have the ability to downgrade, albeit at a loss. I also accept that we cannot ignore the "moral hazard" arguments, and that public funds should not be used to bail out bad decisions or risky behaviour. So the Government's role should not be just to hand-out money but to clearly articulate, its principles and philosophy and to ensure that the measures it implements is consistently these. One important message that must be convey is that this exercise is a two-way process. While it is the Government's duty to offer assistance where it is needed those who ask for or receive help must also take positive steps to get themselves back on their feet. My concern is that some, despite losing their jobs, will not see the need to get back quickly into the market, preferring to wait for work which is similar or equivalent to the one they have lost. This time they could be in for a very long wait. I have encountered too many cases like these in my MPS, it is a real problem. There are also those who are able to work, but are not inclined to because they are able to just get by on the assistance they receive.”
“I, therefore, hope the Government will have plans to deal with other likely points of stress, and one of these will be the ability of Singaporeans to keep their homes. To a large extent, we are fortunate that most Singaporeans live in HDB flats and I know from my MPS experience that HDB exercises considerable flexibility to help families that are unable to meet their loan payments. But over the last few years, because of regulations, many have had to finance their purchases through commercial banks. We also cannot ignore the large numbers who live in private properties. They may not have the option of downgrading because their loans exceed the value of their homes or they may not be able to get a loan to buy an alternative home. If they are retrenched and unable to service their mortgage, foreclosure is a serious risk. And a spate of foreclosures and forced sales will only depress the property markets, put more loans at risk and therefore more homes at risk. There are a number of ways the Government can help. For example, easing the current restrictions on obtaining HDB loans, allow those with commercial bank loans to refinance with the HDB, impose a moratorium period on foreclosures, require banks to restructure default loans, including offering interest-only payments for a specified period of time. Other countries have and are planning schemes – the HOPE for Homeowners programme in the US; the Homeowners Mortgage Support Scheme in the UK. These programmes are calibrated to meet the challenges in their own countries, but the objectives are largely the same.”
“In that regard, I would like to touch on one issue which the Budget does not address and that is helping Singaporeans keep their homes. First, let me say that I support the Government's focus on helping companies and businesses stay afloat by addressing their cash flow and credit issues and, thereby, save jobs. Few would disagree with these objectives. But make no mistake, we will all face a stressful time in the coming months to hold on to our jobs. No industry will be immune. It will also not matter how senior or experienced you are. I am often told by clients that this is a good time to be a lawyer, because when businesses fail, there is more legal work. That may have been true in previous recessions, but this one is altogether a different creature. Over the last few weeks, the news coming out of the United States and United Kingdom, including major international law firms, have been the thousands of redundancies of lawyers, including senior lawyers and even partners of major law firms. So the reality is that despite the measures being taken in Singapore and the billions of dollars other governments are injecting into their own systems, the world economy will be in decline for some time, businesses will go under and Singaporeans will lose jobs. More will need help. The Government has increased financial assistance payments to PA recipients, CCCs’ Comcare fund, GST Credits and such. Every bit helps and is welcome. Incentivising companies to retrain and retool are also important. But with limited opportunities, it may take time for those who have lost their jobs to find employment. Stress levels will go up. Now more than ever, we need to ease the pressure off Singaporeans.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is late and I will be brief. More than 2,000 years ago, a great Chinese philosopher said, "In calamity lies good fortune, and in good fortune lies calamity". It was a shrewd observation of human enterprise and fallibility. We are now witnessing the calamity lurking in the economic run which started some years back – a run driven in large part by greed, complacency and ignorance. These are mistakes people have made many times in the past, and are condemned to repeat again in the future. Experts continue to debate about when this mess started, or who or what was responsible. But it does not change the fact that the world faces its most serious economic challenge in 60 years. This $20.5 billion package is a significant response. But, in reality, what it does, or hopes to do, is to help us tread water until the situation becomes clearer. No one knows for sure how long this situation will last, how bad it will be and how much more it will cost the Government to keep our heads above water. Many predict that the Government will have to inject more funds in the future. If anything, this Budget is a sobering testimony of how vulnerable we are and the difficult times we face. So as time goes on, there will be increasing calls on the Government to do more for different groups, sectors or industries. We have seen examples of this around the world. In the United States, different industries have argued forcefully for a share of the bailout fund, including the pornographic industry! But our means are not unlimited. The solution cannot be to throw money at every problem but to pick the right battles and the right weapons to deploy.”
“For these families, the Mental Capacity Bill has come too late, as it were. Perhaps, the MCYS could set up a team of pro bono lawyers who could assist such average or low-income distressed families to deal with the problems faced. My conversations with service providers on the ground has indicated that this is a gap in the current provision of social service delivery that should be looked into, in the same spirit that the Mental Capacity Bill is being seriously considered today in front of us. With that, Madam, I support the Bill. 6.28 pm”
“I am especially concerned that when this Bill comes into effect, if the Code of Practice is not ready and available, those professionals who have the "duty of care" towards the mentally incapable will face many problems in explaining to the public and informing them about the meaning and the reach of the Mental Capacity Bill or Act. The UK website of the Office of the Public Guardian is very informative and the Code of Practice carries relevant examples to enlighten the public. I urge the Minister to look into the possibility of such information being easily accessible in Singapore, as the baby boomer generation would make full use of it. The list of certified medical practitioners who are trained to do the assessments of mental incapacity should also be posted on the website. Some of this information could be posted in different languages on the website as well as flyers and posters on public notice boards. Madam, the Bill does not specify the qualifications needed for a deputy to be appointed by the court. In my view, there should be a short but comprehensive training provided to the deputies, as the kinds of issues they are likely to face could be highly complex, and not just legal. A reasonable amount of time should be given to the deputy to complete his or her investigations, as quality could be compromised in the name of efficiency. On a final note, I would like to enquire from the Minister whether he has any plans to assist those families whose aged relative may already be diagnosed with dementia and they have legal and financial problems that require the application for a Lasting Power of Attorney. Currently, the family would have to approach a lawyer and incur heavy costs in order to obtain an LPA.”
“Second, clause 42 refers to ill-treatment and/or neglect of the donor by the donee or deputy appointed by the court. As it is not uncommon in wealthy families for one sibling to be jealous of another sibling, and in order to inflict punishment, may argue that "emotional injury" has been inflicted upon the donor by his/her sibling donee. The motive could be revenge. Another scenario could be that in the course of the duty of care, the donee may have just uttered once a negative complaint of the aggressive behaviour of the donor. Does this constitute ill-treatment? The clear definitions of ill-treatment, injury and abuse should be set out in the Bill or in the Code of Practice so that all parties concerned are clear and room for maneuvering is diminished. I would request the Minister to assure the House that in the implementation of this aspect of the Bill, extra caution and professional assessment be exercised in the process, so that family caregivers would not be discouraged from taking on the roles and responsibilities of a donee. Third, the current Singapore Mental Capacity Bill has many similarities with the British Mental Capacity Act (2005) as my earlier colleagues have mentioned. Since then the UK has adopted the Code of Practice in April 2007 and subsequently the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in June 2008. Since there is a reference to a Code of Practice under clause 41, I would like the Minister to inform the House when can we expect the Code of Practice in Singapore to be ready and available for the public and professionals to use?”
“First, for the establishment of whether a person lacks capacity, it is stated in clause 2 that, "it does not matter whether the impairment or disturbance is permanent or temporary". This means that, at the moment in time when the assessment is done, if the donor was in a momentary unstable state, either due to effects of stress or depression, the potential donee could take over his financial/property/personal welfare/housing decisions if he/she has been nominated at an earlier period. I think that it would be better if the medical practitioner suspects a temporary unstable state, the donor could be brought back for a second assessment perhaps a week later. A family physician who knows the donor well may "smell" something suspicious and may not be comfortable with immediately classifying the donor as mentally incapable. Through my conversations with GPs I have learnt that they find this task of assessment quite “heavy” in terms of the responsibility they are required to undertake. Such an option of a second assessment would allay the anxiety of medical practitioners, in cases of doubt. Tom Kitwood, a well-known British psychology expert on dementia, has written in his book titled, "Dementia Reconsidered", about physical conditions that can have side effects that 'mimic' dementia. Some of these physical conditions are confusional symptoms that accompany or follow pneumonia, delirium, chronic infections such as that of the urinary system, and even inadequate nutrition over a lengthy period. I would add that the stigma and shock that accompany the diagnosis of dementia, especially Alzheimer’s disease for the patient and his family members, deserve a second assessment, whenever some doubt exists in the doctor’s mind.”
“With an ageing population, this group of dementia patients will definitely grow, and their welfare has to be protected, as the Minister has described earlier. On the other hand, the lifespan of mentally disabled persons is also increasing. Hence, we face the future scenario of a sizeable sector of older people, who are likely to be neglected or abused, unless individuals are empowered by state legislation to do proper planning. The Bill addresses the difficult question that troubles many elderly: how can I ensure that good and proper care will be exercised if and when I am not capable of deciding about my own medical treatment, day-to-day decisions, financial matters or even housing? The Bill provides for the nomination of a donee (or donees) in an affordable way, through the Office of the Public Guardian. The Bill clearly spells out the limitations of the donee’s power as well as age, ie, minimum 21 years. The donee cannot change the will, Advance Medical Directive, or CPF nomination made earlier by the donor. There are safeguards in place to limit the lasting Power of Attorney of the donee as well as the deputy, who is appointed by the court if a certain situation requires the appointment of a deputy. To carry out the work spelt out in the Bill, the Minister would appoint the Public Guardian as well as the Public Guardian Board. To assist the work of the Public Guardian, a Board of Visitors would also be appointed. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to mention some of my concerns and recommendations, which I hope that the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports will consider.”
“Will the Minister confirm that the exception under clause 32(9) will apply to all communications which the common law regards as privileged? Second, the privileged communication on document will in all likelihood also be in the possession of the client. But the Bill only gives protection to the legal adviser from disclosure. The Bill, therefore, suggests that the client is required to produce all legally privileged materials in his possession. If so, that undermines the fundamental basis of legal privilege. Could the Minister clarify whether this is the intention of the Bill? Finally, and in conclusion, this Bill has wide-ranging implications. It is a good Bill and Singaporeans and others should be made aware of the various avenues available to them to help manage the personal and property affairs of those who are mentally incapable. In this regard, I share the call of the MPs before me that the Ministry devotes enough resources to educate Singaporeans on this law. 6.18 pm Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Mental Capacity Bill. It symbolises the determination and the concern of the Government to protect the interests of persons who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves due to, I quote, "impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain." Importantly, an assessment by a certified medical practitioner is required to establish that the individual lacks capacity. In Singapore it has been documented that there are 22,000 persons suffering from dementia, and each year 7,000 are diagnosed with the disease. (This is from a Straits Times' report "Alzheimer’s set to grow with ageing Singapore", 22nd September 2007).”
“It would therefore be prudent to allow an independent third party, such as a doctor, to have regular access to the subject person to ensure that his interests are being taken care of and there is a need to continue the appointment of the deputy. Fourthly, clause 32(4) and (5) gives extraordinary powers to the Public Guardian to have full and free access to all buildings, places, documents, etc, and to take away such documents in the discharge of his duties. There is already a provision under clause 32(1) which gives the power to the Public Guardian to require any person to deliver any information or documents under the pain of penalty. So what is the purpose of these wide powers under clause 32(4) and (5)? If there is any suspicion of criminal offence, the Public Guardian should enlist the assistance of the police, and the provisions relating to search and seizure under the Criminal Procedure Code will apply. If there is no suspicion of any criminal offence, it is difficult to see why the Public Guardian requires such wide powers under clause 32(4) and (5). Even if necessary, such power should only be exercised with the leave of the Court. In this regard, I have some concerns with respect to clause 32(9). This provides that clause 32 shall not compel a professional legal adviser to disclose or produce any privileged communication made by or to him in that capacity. This recognises the principle of legal privilege and the importance of preserving the confidentiality of privileged communication. There are, however, two problems with clause 32(9). First, the common law definition of legally privileged information does not just include communication made by or to the professional legal adviser. Why therefore have that qualification?”
“The fact of the application may be reported by the newspapers using their right to report on judicial proceedings. In the circumstances, while a frivolous application will no doubt be dismissed by the Court, the damage from the adverse publicity to the subject and his family may already be done. I therefore believe it would be preferable for any application for permission of the Court under clause 38(2) be heard in camera. This will protect the subject and his family. If the application for permission has merit, the main application can be heard in open court consistent with the principle of open justice. Secondly, there should be stricter rules relating to those who apply. In particular, the applicant should be made to declare if there are any conflicts or facts relating to him which may make him unsuitable to be appointed a deputy, eg, where he has previously been made bankrupt or convicted of any offence involving dishonesty or sexual misconduct. The Bill does not provide for any obligation to disclose. Thirdly, there should be greater supervision of the appointed deputy. Clause 24(10) provides that the Court may require the deputy to submit to the Public Guardian such reports as the Court may direct. The Bill should make clear that, unless the Court otherwise directs, such reports should include regular medical reports on the subject person. If there is a change in the subject person’s health, the deputy’s appointment may no longer be necessary. But where the deputy finds himself in an advantageous position, he may be reluctant to give up his appointment. The Public Guardian may not have the resources to supervise or scrutinise each case.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I apologise for my lack of voice. I am down with a flu. Let me first declare my interests. In 1999, I was a member of a sub-committee of the Academy of Law chaired by a High Court Judge, which recommended extensive changes to then Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. This Bill is a vast improvement over various provisions of the old Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. The most significant change is the recognition of the concept of limited incapacity, ie, that while an individual may lack the capacity to make some kinds of decisions, he may well have capacity to make others. The old Act did not make that distinction. Further, an application under the old Act to appoint a Committee of Estate or Person required a finding that the subject was “unsound” and incapable of managing his affairs. That was because the old Act was based on the English Lunacy statutes, which have long since been repealed. Hopefully, applications under this Bill will not carry the same stigma. I also applaud the introduction of the Lasting Powers of Attorney as this enables individuals to have as much say as possible over their own welfare and property even after they no longer have capacity to make decisions. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me touch on some technical aspects of the Bill and seek some clarifications. Firstly, the issue of abuse and publicity. Under clause 38(2), and save for a narrow class of persons set out in clause 38(1), any person may apply to appoint a deputy over another person with the permission of the Court. However, any application under the Bill, even one for permission to apply, may cause embarrassment to the subject and his family.”
“At the end of the day, we have to decide what is most important to Singaporeans and for Singapore. The underlying premise of the motion is the assumption that there is a direct relationship between the number of elections and the strength of the democracy. That is a fallacy. You can have as many elections as you want but, if the candidates are dishonest or the voters intimidated, if there is no secrecy in the voting process or integrity in the counting process, then elections are simply a song and dance, a device to disguise the lack of democracy, instead of being its symbol. There are too many examples of this around the world. Singapore, thankfully, is not one of them. Singaporeans know the difference between substance and form. They are less concerned with dusty law books and chocolate croissants. What we want and what they want are honest, dedicated MPs and Ministers, and an effective Government, which will listen to our people, make decisions for the benefit of Singapore and, ultimately, to deliver on the ground and in this House. On that score, this motion does nothing to advance our common cause. I oppose the motion. 4.58 pm”
“Elections can be called at any time, and the Prime Minister is not compelled to wait for the full term of Parliament to expire, and often it does not. Lest anyone should think that what we do in Singapore is at odds with all democracies around the world, that is not the case. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are no prescribed time limits for a by-election to be called in the event of a vacancy. The three months Prof. Thio refers to is only a convention. It is not prescribed law. In other words, the UK Prime Minister may call a by-election whenever he wishes. It is certainly not the extreme position advanced in the motion. And allow me to read to you an excerpt from the information posted on the website of the UK Parliament on vacancies. It says this: "While a vacancy exists, constituency matters are handled by a Member of Parliament of the same party in a neighbouring constituency. When a new Member has been elected, all outstanding matters are passed to him." So we do not do things different here. Neither are we doing something extraordinary. We are not dealing with The Beatles or The Bangles. We are not even dealing with Earth, Wind and Fire. It is, therefore, only sensible that we keep things flexible. Let the Prime Minister be the Prime Minister. Let him do his job and make the decisions. There is no need to tie his hands. As I have said, it is not the case that the ruling party, whichever it may be, can act with impunity and ignore the needs and wants of its voters. It will ultimately have to account for its decisions at the next elections. And, "If the voters do not find in favour of the ruling party, they will dismiss the rulers without bloodshed", quoting again from Karl Popper.”
“Therefore, to compel by-elections every time there is a vacancy does not necessarily advance "representative democracy". Indeed, the motion recognises that. It proposes that a by-election only be held if the vacancy occurs when there is at least six months left of the Parliamentary term. This recognises another reality of elections, ie, that they are expensive, both in direct terms and in lost opportunities, and undeniably disruptive. They tie up the resources of the state: the police, the schools, the civil servants. Businesses are disrupted. People have to take time off to vote. These matters cannot be ignored. And it is not an issue of whether Singapore is rich or poor, or whether we can afford such expenses. All these must be taken into account. There obviously has to be a balancing exercise. The motion purports to achieve that balance by prescribing the six-month timeframe. But this does not make sense. Firstly, why six months? It appears to be a completely arbitrary figure. Secondly, it is simply not practical. The motion mandates that the by-election be called within three months from the date of vacancy. Taking into account the time to complete the election process, that would mean that the new Member may only have about two months before he has to stand for elections again. That is clearly not enough time for him to do anything meaningful, and we would have had a by-election simply for the sake of having one or, as Prof. Thio says, simply for the reason of giving the Government a bloody nose. It is a waste of time and money, and it does not advance representative democracy. Thirdly, and most importantly, the motion presumes that every Parliament will complete its full term. But that again ignores the reality.”
“Voters will expect the MPs of the party to stand in for their colleagues and take over their duties. The position is even clearer in GRCs, where the whole team is responsible for the entire GRC and not just the division they stand in. To respond to Dr Loo, the people's vote will not count any less. They will have their representation in Parliament. The reality of the matter is that, if that team of MPs fails to deliver or the voters feel that their needs have not been adequately taken care of, the party will face the consequences at the next elections. That, in all democracies, is the real remedy, the ultimate check and balance. It, therefore, does not matter whether one Member or the majority of Members vacate a GRC, or even if the SMC Member leaves, the reality of the politics is the same. In this regard, may I remind this House of what Senior Minister Goh said when moving the GRC Bill in 1988: "The issue before us is not GRCs per se. It is whether we should entrench in our Constitution the right for all communities – Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others – to be always represented in Parliament. The GRC is only a means to an end. It is the best means we can think of. It is democratic. You retain the right to elect the government you want. You still have your one vote. You still choose the MPs you want to represent you except, in the case of the GRCs, you elect a group of three MPs. All three MPs in the group will serve you, and not just one of them. Whichever group of MPs you vote in, whether it is the PAP’s or the Opposition party’s, the result is a multi-racial Parliament; always. Your democratic right remains intact. Singapore’s future is safeguarded." That statement holds just as true today as it did 20 years ago.”
“The right question is: how do the remaining Members of that GRC, Opposition or otherwise, think it is best to serve their constituents? They can do one of two things. They can continue and serve their constituents to the best of their ability, or they can all resign and force the Prime Minister to decide whether he wants to call a by-election or not. And if he does not choose to call a by-election, then the Opposition MPs can no doubt go to the elections and complain to the voters as to why they did not deliver their promises. The voter will then decide whether that is a good excuse or not. Ultimately, it is for the Opposition party or any party to make a political judgment on that question. They do not need rules to dictate what they should do and not do. That is what politics is about. No one said it was easy. Sir, the Government would, of course, have to address a situation where all or most of the minority Members vacate their seats. It is difficult to imagine how such a scenario may occur. If by accident, then we may have to change the feng shui of this House. If by design, then I suspect by-elections may be the least of our worries. Since this is not a situation contemplated in the motion, I need not say much more about it. That brings me to another assumption this motion appears to be premised on, ie, that where a Member vacates his seat, whether in a GRC or SMC, the residents of the relevant division or constituency will not be served on the ground or represented in Parliament. But that is not the reality of politics in Singapore. It is not in the interest of any party, whether ruling or Opposition, to neglect the voters in any of their divisions. There are no free rides.”
“But that is no different from the Chinese Members of this House who serve a similar national role for their race as well. Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether a by-election should be called when a GRC seat is made vacant, there is really no basis to draw a distinction between the minority Members and other Members. It is unnecessary to have a rule mandating a by-election simply because the minority Member vacates his seat. His constituency role will be fulfilled by his colleagues, and his national role by the other Members of his race in Parliament. In any event, it is just plain wrong that the vacation of the minority seat should cause all the other Members of the GRC to lose their seats as well. One of the concerns raised, when the introduction of GRCs was first debated, was that it will relegate minority Members to second class. This proposal swings the other way, by elevating the minority Member, by giving him extraordinary powers, including the power to force a by-election. In other words, who calls the by-election? Is it the PM or the MP? With this motion, the power to call a by-election is placed in the hands of one MP, whether in the GRC or SMC. I do not understand our laws to confer such privileges to any single Member, whether minority or otherwise, whether in the GRC or SMC. Nor do I believe that such powers should be conferred. Sir, in the course of her speech, Prof. Thio raised a number of extreme examples. I will deal with just one. She cited the example of an Opposition GRC where one Member vacates, and she says that there needs to be a by-election so as to enable the Opposition party to fill up that seat in Parliament. That, Sir, is flawed, because it asks the wrong question.”
“First, the proposal that a by-election be called if the minority candidate in the GRC vacates his seat. With respect, this misunderstands the reasons for having GRCs in the first place. I can do no better than to quote excerpts of the speech of Senior Minister Goh, then the Deputy Prime Minister, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill introducing GRCs. He said this: "This Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, and the one following it, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, will together secure the long-term political stability of Singapore in two ways: first, by ensuring that Parliament will always be multi-racial and representative of our society, and second, by encouraging the practice of multi-racial politics by all political parties." "This Bill also has a larger objective beyond merely guaranteeing that Parliament would always be multi-racial in character. It makes it necessary for all political parties to adopt a multi-racial approach in their competition for seats in Parliament if they hope to form the Government. Constituencies to be contested by multi-racial teams of candidates will require political parties and their candidates to take a moderate, multi-racial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach." So there can be no doubt that GRCs were introduced to ensure minority representation in Parliament, not in the GRC, and to ensure that political parties do not run on platforms which will undermine our multi-racial society. When a GRC team is elected, the entire team is expected to serve and represent the needs of the entire GRC, and not just the racial group they belong to. In addition, the minority Member serves a national role of representing in this House the minority group he belongs to.”
“The President’s Cabinet members are also not elected, but are selected by him. Theirs is a form of representative democracy which is somewhat alien to us and maybe unusual to most Singaporeans. But the purpose of my speech is not to do a survey of how different countries implement their concept of a "representative democracy". Nor is it to suggest that one form is superior to another. I cite the American example to illustrate one point, that we cannot blindly transpose rules set by others to our country and our circumstances. It is for Singaporeans to determine what works best for us, and I do not think Prof. Thio disagrees with that. Our concern should really be whether our rules reflect the fundamental principles of democracy: free and fair elections, and where our citizens can genuinely feel that their interests are being adequately represented, and their needs taken care of, on the ground and in this House. And we have adapted our system of representative democracy to meet our unique circumstances. There is no better example of this than the formation of GRCs, which is unprecedented around the world. It was our way of dealing with the fact that ours is not a homogenous society, and to ensure that there is a place in our country for all, regardless of race, language or religion. I was not in this House when that landmark piece of legislation was debated but, reading the transcripts now, I was struck by the uncertainty expressed by some Members as to whether having GRCs was the right way to go. Today, I believe most Singaporeans would agree that it was the right thing to do. That is why I was puzzled by some of the specific proposals in the motion before this House.”
“Sir, thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to take part in this debate. I rise to oppose the motion. I will put my points shortly and simply, because when one cuts through the arguments and rhetoric, the issue before us is really a simple one. When I first read the motion, I found myself thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of its various specific proposals. But I was putting the cart before the horse. This motion purports to advance its proposals on the basis that they affirm the importance of "representative democracy". But what is "representative democracy"? To my knowledge, there is no universally accepted practice, and I did not hear any being advanced by the hon. Members proposing the motion. In my view, that is the most fundamental question to ask. Webster's defines the term as: "a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives". As far as I know, all types of democracies around the world purport to do just that in one way or another. But the laws and rules by which these democracies are practised are not identical. This includes the manner and process by which their officials come into office. So, in the United States, for example, which is often cited as the poster boy for a modern democracy, the President is not elected by the highest number of individual votes, but the highest number of electoral votes. Each of the US States is assigned a different number of electoral votes. So a person can be the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the country and arguably the world, even if more people and more states vote for his opponent. In the year 2000, Al Gore received half a million votes more, but still lost.”
“Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not entertain the possibility that fewer people go to stadiums after 8.00 pm because they know it is going to close at 8.30 pm? Mr Teo Ser Luck: Yes, we are all a very obedient lot. The SSC and our sports policy objective is to encourage sports participation, and we want to build a sports culture. As I have mentioned, if lifestyles have changed the habit of putting sports within their everyday life and the timing needs to be more flexible, we are more than willing to be open about it. So, there could be stadiums where we know there is a higher demand after 8.30 pm, eg, maybe a stadium that is nearer to an industrial area that operates irregular hours that need us to open at different times and we know that the workers around there need that flexible time to go to the stadium to work out, we are happy to consider that and to open it. At the end of the day, our objective is to have better utilisation of the stadiums. That is what public sports facilities are for. CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS (Safety measures) 15. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Transport what can be done to make cycling on our roads safer for cyclists. 16. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Transport in view of bicycles and motorcycles using barrier free access paths meant for pedestrians, what is being done to ensure the safety of pedestrians as we continue the drive for barrier free access. 17. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport whether there has been a policy shift with regard to cycling as a mode of transport, given his public statement referring to a shift of thinking on cycling.”
“In the circumstances, can we expect similar amendments to legislation governing the conduct of all other professions? Finally, Sir, with respect to the remarks by the hon. Member Dr Teo Ho Pin, can I just say this: It is because the vast majority of lawyers are honest and honourable that, when one falls, it makes the news and the public expresses its surprise and outrage. So, let us keep things in perspective. I think we will really be in trouble when lawyers fall and no one really thinks much about it.”
“This, of course, does not address whether there is consistency in the actual penalties given to lawyers and doctors for similar transgressions, but that is a different debate. There is also proposed a whole slew of changes to streamline the disciplinary process to shorten the time to dispose of cases. I welcome this, as it does the legal profession little credit to have complaints against its members pending or unresolved for any considerable length of time. Such new measures include the step of reducing the Disciplinary Tribunal to just two members, and not requiring unanimity of the Tribunal in making the decisions. So, where there is a disagreement, the decision of the President prevails. Sir, the fate of the respondent solicitor, therefore, effectively lies in the hands of one person, the President of the Tribunal. I understand that there has been much discussion on this issue with the Law Society, and this is a compromise solution. I will, therefore, not go over the same issues and arguments. I would, however, like to draw a comparison again with the medical profession. A medical disciplinary committee consists of three registered medical practitioners of at least 10 years' standing, of whom at least two shall be members of the Medical Council. There is a lay observer, but he cannot vote and his presence is not even required. This is a bit odd but, again, I will leave that to a different debate. Therefore, unlike the proposed new law for the legal profession, the doctors are still judged by a majority of his peers. I would imagine, Sir, that any concern over the length of time it takes to dispose of complaints against lawyers would likewise apply to complaints against doctors and other professionals.”
“He puts his certificate at risk, but that is his choice. And if he chooses to subject himself to an examination, he should, like doctors, be entitled to furnish the report of a physician of his choice as well. Second, the proposed section 25C(6) spells out that "the solicitor shall bear all costs of incidental to his medical examination …". Could the Minister clarify whether it is intended to include the costs of the legal proceedings to compel the lawyer to undergo the medical examination? In this regard, I hope the intention is to leave such matters, as is usually the case, to the discretion of the Courts. Sir, on the issue of the penalties and the increased penalties, clause 26(e) of the Bill proposes amending section 82A(12)(d) increasing the monetary penalty that could be imposed on a legal officer or non-practising solicitor from the present of not more than $5,000 to not more than $20,000. Clause 27(a) of the Bill proposes to amend section 83 to allow for the penalty of not more than $100,000 on a practising solicitor. In both cases, the monetary penalty is but one of the various possible punishments that could be imposed. The questions are: Why the disparity of increase? Why the disparity between $100,000 and $20,000? The nature of the penalty raises another issue. What is the basis of the new upper limit of $100,000? I note that the upper limit for medical practitioners stands at $10,000. A lawyer may also be suspended for up to five years, while a doctor can only be suspended up to three years. May I ask: why the disparity in treatment, particularly where there is an equally strong, and arguably even higher, public interest in the regulation of doctors?”
“However, I would like to raise a few points. First, the Bill provides that where an application is made by the Attorney-General or the Law Society Council, and it appears to the Judge that the fitness of the solicitor may be impaired, the Judge shall order the solicitor to be examined by a registered medical practitioner who meets certain criteria as the Judge may specify. However, it is unclear whether the Judge merely specifies the criteria, or identifies the actual medical practitioner. If the former, who selects the medical practitioner? In this regard, I note a striking dissimilarity with the law governing the medical profession. The Medical Registration Act and its regulations also empower the Medical Council to take steps to deal with doctors who may not be able to discharge their duties on account of their physical or mental condition. In that case, the Complaints or Health Committee may invite the doctor to be examined by at least two medical practitioners to be appointed by the Committee, but the doctor is also entitled to nominate his own medical practitioners to report to the Committee on his fitness to practise. Sir, there is a more fundamental difference between lawyers and doctors in this regard. Where a doctor refuses medical examination, he risks his practising certificate. Under the Bill, the lawyer who refuses risks not just his practising certificate, he would be in contempt of court as well. There may be many reasons why a person may refuse a medical examination, particularly when the report will be disclosed to the Council (which is made up of his peers) and the Attorney-General. We are not dealing with a public health issue. A lawyer, just like a doctor, should be entitled to refuse examination without the pain of contempt.”
“I know there are some areas of practice, such as litigation, which will remain the domain of local law firms. But there is no assurance that these will remain protected. More importantly, once foreign firms are permitted to practise Singapore law, there is a serious risk that they will, inadvertently or otherwise, extend into such areas as well. For example, while a foreign firm cannot appear in our local courts, what is to stop them from doing the substantial litigation work in the background, including advising the clients, taking witness statements, overseeing the discovery process and even drafting submissions? Singapore lawyers may eventually be nothing more than the mouthpieces of the foreign firms in our courts. And I hope there will be clear and practical rules in place to ensure that this does not happen. The effect of these changes may well be the dominance of the foreign firms in the Singapore market, and a gradual diminishing of local firms, both in size as well as the nature of work they perform. I do not believe these are fanciful concerns, and Mr Sin has outlined what has happened in Hong Kong. I will not repeat that. I know it is not the Government’s role to protect local firms or to preserve their livelihood. It is a challenge to our lawyers in the local law firms not to confine themselves to Singapore, but to make themselves relevant in the globalised economy. Some will succeed, others may not. But all must be prepared for change. On that note, I would like to touch on two specific matters in the Bill. First, the provisions to compel a solicitor to undergo a medical examination if there are doubts that he is physically or mentally capable of discharging his duties. It is difficult to argue against its rationale.”
“Sir, in my 17 years of practice, dealing with both my fellow members of the profession as well as foreign lawyers, including those from the "magic-circle" firms, I can say with conviction that our best minds are more than a match for theirs. But the glitter and the deep pockets that these foreign firms have will present local firms with serious issues. First, there will be clients who will engage foreign firms for high-end corporate work simply on the basis of their name and standing. Today, Singapore firms get involved in international deals to advise on Singapore law issues. By this involvement, our local firms build up their skills and expertise. Now, there is a serious risk that they will be bypassed, and I share the concerns expressed by my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann. Second, the issue of talent. There will be an outflow of talent, particularly of younger and mid-level lawyers from local to foreign firms. Local firms will not be able to compete with the packages of the large foreign firms. We are seeing this already. I personally know of younger lawyers who have moved from local to foreign firms and who have had their monthly salaries doubled and even tripled. Foreign firms also offer potential recruits stints in their home or overseas offices, and the opportunity to get involved in the larger, sexier deals. It will be difficult for our young, talented lawyers to resist this pull. And this will have a knock-on effect on the Legal Service, which has already witnessed a brain drain to the local private sector, even without these new players in the market. It is important that we keep good people in the Legal Service. I ask the Minister how the Legal Service proposes to meet this challenge.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I declare my interest as a lawyer and a Director of a local law firm. Sir, the practice of law has always been a challenging one, particularly in the last 20 years or so. A combination of tight deadlines, demanding clients, stiff penalties for failure and long, long hours in the office have contributed to a serious attrition from the profession. So while the Singapore economic pie has grown considerably in the last 10 years, the number of practising lawyers has been stagnant. Despite the claims that great amounts are earned by lawyers, there are many who obviously feel that they are paying too high a price for staying in the profession. Well, to borrow a phrase from the Americans, they ain't seen nothin' yet. This Bill represents a dramatic transformation of the Singapore legal landscape. And it may leave some Singapore lawyers wondering whether there is future for them in the profession. The most significant change is, of course, the opening up of legal services to foreign law practices, including granting them the right to practise Singapore law, save in certain excluded areas. Sir, I support the reasons behind opening up the profession. Any move which benefits Singapore as a whole should be given the highest priority, even if it may adversely affect a particular profession or business. What I believe requires greater explanation from the Minister is the correlation of this move with the growth of the economic pie for all, and not primarily for foreign law firms. Will the Minister give concrete examples of how this will help Singapore as we all move to the next level of economic advancement?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions. First, is the Minister aware of the Sunday Times' article, following the sitting last month, highlighting a village in a foreign country, where a good number of inhabitants had traded their organs and had operations in Singapore, in particular, highlighting a case where a farmer gave up what he thought was his heart to someone he had never even met before? Second, would such cases not indicate that the procedures currently adopted by the Ethics Committee are not robust enough to ensure that donations are all bona fide?”
“It has even done away with parking charges at most carparks in the HDB estates during weekends to encourage family togetherness. This policy, regrettably, is not followed through in the Ministry of Transport. Instead, I would regard the evening ERP as a policy that works against pro-family. Parents may stay longer in the office to avoid the evening ERP. Children may avoid going home to have dinners with their parents or grandparents because they do not want to be hit by the evening ERP or, as some of my residents call it, "Every Round Pay". You turn here, you pay. You turn there, you pay. Or, in Malay, we say, "Pusing sini, bayar. Pusing sana, bayar." Perhaps, this is "Uniquely Singapore". By the way, my residents told me that they have to go through three gantries along CTE in the morning as well as in the evening, though we are all in the Prime Minister's ward.”
“And we should do so more aggressively. We can do that now with the COE system. We should then let the market decide the price of the COEs. It is for the public to determine how much they are willing to pay for a car. If they want to pay more, so be it. The barrier to owning a car may be raised, but at least we make the commitment to buy with our eyes open and a better appreciation of the true cost of owning a car. And there are cheaper alternatives, like second-hand cars. That market has been in the doldrums in recent years because the circumstances have been such that it has become more viable for Singaporeans to scrap their cars early and buy new cars. It is simply wasteful and unnecessary. Sir, finally, there are other aspects I would like the Minister to comment on. (1) We used to be strict on car finance. Finance companies now offer 100% financing. You can drive a new car off the lot without putting a cent down. There are no redeeming features to this. It only encourages poor financial management. Can we relook that policy? (2) If we are reviewing transport policy, we should take the opportunity to encourage the use of green vehicles as well. I know this has been touched on in previous debates. But why can we not compel our taxi and bus operators to, over time, replace their fleet to vehicles with green engines? I note that green cars will enjoy higher road tax rebates. But this is not sufficient to bring down their costs and, on that point, why are we giving higher tax rebates in absolute terms to higher capacity fuel guzzling vehicles? (3) Why not create a new COE category for green vehicles to encourage people to switch over? Evening ERP Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, the Government has been promoting family cohesion among our people.”
“So, why do we think that Singaporeans will significantly change their driving habits by raising ERP rates by a dollar, or even $2, or $3? Let us do the Mathematics. Even if you paid $10 a day in ERP charges, and assuming 300 days a year, the amount of ERP a driver pays in 10 years is $30,000 which will not even come close to what Singaporeans are willing to pay for a COE in the first place. Now, those charges will be offset by even lower road taxes and registration fees. Sir, I appreciate the Government's desire to make it easier for Singaporeans to own cars. But to persuade someone not to use his car after he has paid so much for it is a tall order. So, increasing ERP rates will not dissuade people from driving. As rates are raised, drivers simply will pay, as we have seen happened. They may initially look for alternative routes but, as those get congested, gantries will be raised again. So back to square one. This is similar, Sir, to the well-known analogy of putting a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water. It will simply die before it jumps. The result will be congestion despite ERP. And as the Singaporean driver sits idle in traffic, he will no doubt wonder whether this was all just a revenue generating measure in the first place. The increase in the car population has had other negative effects. I have many HDB residents in my constituency complaining that they have difficulty finding carparks, even when they have season tickets. More residents in private estates are parking their second cars along the roads outside their homes, causing congestion within the private estates and, in some cases, tension between neighbours. Sir, I share Mr Seah Kian Peng's views that the only real way to fight congestion is to control the population of cars.”
“Sir, I commend the MOT for its recent comprehensive review of bus, rail and car issues. The announcements in respect of the first two are welcomed. More buses, trains and a wider network will always be applauded. The changes in respect of cars have, however, left the public less convinced. Sir, I agree that it is necessary for the Government to take strong measures to curb congestion. It is easy to leave things alone, but the horrible gridlock which suffocates so many of the major cities of the world is a testimony of what happens when governments lack the political will to do what is right. My difficulty with the proposed measures is whether it applies the right antidote to the problem. The Government's current solution is mainly to calibrate ERP charges and to widen the ERP network to control car use. The current thinking is not to increase charges by small doses of 50 cents but larger doses of a dollar, thinking that this will persuade enough Singaporeans to alter their driving patterns or give up driving altogether. That makes, in my submission, a flawed assumption about the relationship between the Singaporean and his car. It was not so long ago that our road and registration taxes were very high. We did not even have 100% financing, but Singaporeans were not dissuaded from buying cars. COE prices hit $100,000. No problem. Today, despite the record fuel prices, SUVs and other gas-guzzling models are as popular as ever. Now, road taxes and registration fees have been reduced by thousands of dollars. COE prices are down below $20,000 for all categories. You can now buy a new car for under $50,000. We have had over 30 ERP rate adjustments in the last two years. That only proves how ineffective they have been.”
“Yet, I was once informed by an owner of a well-known restaurant that she had difficulty hiring dishwashers, although she was willing to pay over $1,000 a month with CPF. This situation, Sir, was confirmed by a contact of mine who is in the business of sourcing for foreign workers. And among the positions he has been asked to fill are dishwashers, paying about $1,200 a month, retail service staff which pays between $1,200-$1,500 a month and even Class 4 drivers, paying between $1,400-$1,800 a month. I would like to ask the Minister therefore whether our job matching systems are comprehensive enough to know what jobs are available in the market so that we can swiftly and effectively match Singaporeans who need work or who need a better paying job. Are we also ensuring that employers have made reasonable attempts to recruit Singaporeans before we approve work permits for foreigners to do these jobs? Are we also doing enough to encourage Singaporeans in low paying or part-time work to upgrade themselves? The schemes and incentives may be there but do Singaporeans know the how and where. Foreign Workers”
“Sir, our employment rate is down to its lowest in the decade. For the whole year of 2007, overall unemployment rate averaged 2.1%, down significantly from 2.7% in 2006 and 3.1% in 2005. The strong economy led to another record breaking year for employment creation in 2007. Total employment creation in the whole of 2007 was 236,600, fast surpassing 176,000 in 2006. This is a very healthy growth. Both locals and foreigners benefited from the strong job creation. Local employment grew by 92,100 in 2007 and this is the third successive year of increase. Foreign employment also rose to a new high of 144,500 in 2007. Sir, these are all impressive figures. Yet, there are Singaporeans who have not benefited from the boom. We have seen them in our meet-the-people sessions. Their tales and woes are strikingly similar. Some say they are finding it hard to find a job because of their age. What is of concern is that they are only in their 40s. Some have ailments which restrict the kind of work they can do, and some are single parents with children or sick parents to attend to and are unable to juggle their family and work responsibilities. Sir, I appreciate that the Ministry cannot solve all these problems. But I have some difficulty understanding why some residents who are fit have difficulty of changing jobs, be it through the CDC or other Government job matching agency or have to wait some time to find work. Yet, at the same time, we see foreigners doing jobs which we Singaporeans can do. Sir, there is another group of Singaporeans which need assistance, and these are so-called employed Singaporeans but who are very lowly paid. I have encountered residents who work part time, earning about $500 a month and who say that they cannot find full-time positions.”
“We will no doubt encounter more incidents, some innocent, some less so, which will test the strength and depth of our inter-racial and religious relationships. We cannot anticipate what form these will come in. The only real defence is for us to ensure that our relationships stand on strong foundations. And the best place to start is in our schools. If our children are unable to integrate in schools, then there is little hope that they will do so when they grow up. And part of that process must be to demystify issues of race and religion to our children and encourage an understanding and appreciation of their fellow schoolmate who appears different from them. In this regard, I am told by several teachers, particularly from neighbourhood schools, that there is still a tendency for students of different races to stick together when in school. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to promote racial and religious integration in our schools. I know that schools organise events, such as cultural or racial harmony days or occasional trips to the mosques or temples. Are these really effective? Should we not have a more structured and sustained programme to help our children understand the issues, not just theory but real interaction? Further, what are schools which are under-represented or have no representation of minorities doing to ensure that their students have the opportunity to interact meaningfully with them?”
“Sir, in the first few days after I entered junior college, I attended a CCA - then called ECA - briefing. Behind me were two boys I did not know from a prominent Chinese school. During the briefing, they exchanged remarks in Mandarin making fun of me, particularly my race. They did not know that I understood Mandarin, or at least enough of it to know what they were saying. Then the teacher came up to me and said that she saw from my records that I took Mandarin as a Second Language. The look on the boys' faces was priceless. We later got to talking and I asked them what I had done to offend them. They said that, throughout their lives, ie, about 16 and a half years, they had never known a person of a different race. Having me in the same ECA group therefore put them a bit off balance. I am glad we had that conversation. We became friends after that. I still keep in touch with one of them and, recently, visited him and his family during Chinese New Year. Sir, I do not think my experience is exceptional in any way. It confirms what we all know about human nature - that we tend to fear and distrust things we do not understand. Despite the great strides we have made in racial and religious integration, our mission will never be accomplished. We have to remain vigilant, particularly nowadays, when there are forces at work to divide us. We all know about the uproar caused in respect of the incident at Boon Lay Gardens Primary School. MOE acted decisively in overturning the principal's policy. But one thing that remains uncertain is how this incident has shaped the views of the students in the school on racial and religious matters. Has anything been done to assess the impact of the incident on the students?”
“All these cause frustrations to the drivers, encouraging impatience and aggressive driving. Sir, clearly more needs to be done to educate drivers and passengers and drive home the safety message. I am loath to suggest another campaign, but if they work, why not? In the meantime, there is no substitute for enforcement. The message should be driven home that inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated. For example, many park indiscriminately because they are willing to risk the fine. It is time to come down harder, particularly on multiple offenders. It is also time to give the Traffic Police greater flexibility in the punishments it can dish out. For example, if fines do not work, why not allow for short suspensions? We should also review the competency framework, like Dr Teo Ho Pin suggested, for example, how realistic are our driving test? Now you learn on a 1.3-litre Toyota and on passing, you are allowed to drive a Ferrari. We make distinctions for engine capacities of motorcycles. Why not the same for cars? I am not advocating more tests or more costs but we can have a simple mechanism of only allowing those who have, say, three years of driving experience before they can handle high-capacity cars. Finally, the rise of drink driving is a concern. The Police has implemented new measures to monitor hot spots but prevention should not left to the Police alone. Owners of drinking establishments should be given some responsibility to check that their patrons are capable of driving and to make arrangements to send them home if they are not. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this. Crime Statistics”
“Sir, we have had and will continue to have long debates on road congestion. But it is not just the number of vehicles on the roads which contribute to it. Driving habits cannot be ignored. We have all seen it. It just takes a minor accident to cause a massive jam, not along just the same road, on the opposite as well as drivers slow down to take a look. With our car population now surpassing 800,000, we have seen a steady rise in the number of accidents with fatalities and injuries over the past three years. Some accidents are unavoidable but most can be prevented with diligence and better driving habits. The Traffic Police cannot be everywhere every time. Most of us would rather they would not. So much depends on individual drivers. And many drivers leave much to be desired, they switch lanes indiscriminately, they do not signal their intentions, they wait in yellow boxes, do not allow others to get in front of them, and so on. This is, of course, not unique to Singapore but those who have driven in other developed countries will know that while we are far behind in road manners, better discipline on the roads is not a pipe dream. Recently, we have read about tragic deaths involving backseat passengers. These tragedies could have been avoided had they worn seat belts. We have seat belt laws but rear passengers regularly flout them. The driver and front passengers invariably belt up, but rear passengers do not. I have also seen children jumping up and down in cars unrestrained while their minders have their seat belts on. These double standards are inexplicable. And it is not just about moving vehicles. Drive down Battery Road or Serangoon Road during peak hours and you will discover that congestion is partly due to the indiscriminate parking and pedestrian crossing.”
“The PLC focuses on matters more practical and relevant to the practices of law. Its examinations can be the sole gatekeeper and be set at a standard which separates the wheat from the chaff. Those who have the quality should have no concern. This will also be a second chance for those who did not do well enough in the university examinations. And we can also do away with the Diploma in Singapore Law (Dip Sing) Course at the same time. By this simple mechanism, we will be able to address the issue of supply and quality more directly and immediately. This is not a unique proposition. The New York Bar examinations are well known for its high standards, the failure rate is high and they make no apologies for that. It is, therefore, no coincidence that passing the New York Bar is seen in the US and in many parts of the world as the gold standard for US lawyers. There is no reason why our local Bar examinations cannot be a standard bearer for quality as well, not just in Singapore but for Asia. At the time when we are trying to promote our legal services and the use of Singapore lawyers globally, this mark of quality will be an advantage. Review of Criminal Procedure”
“Now, graduates from the selected universities who meet a lower academic standard will qualify, provided they have engaged in work of a legal nature for at least three years. Sir, these changes are welcomed but we need more immediate measures. Currently, law firms are finding it extremely difficult to recruit. Big firms are seeing high turnover despite paying record salaries. Many medium and small law firms do not even receive applications. Some cannot even find pupils. The situation will be aggravated when we open our doors to foreign law firms to practise Singapore law. It will not just be the private practices that are affected, the drain will affect the Legal Service as well. Ultimately, those who remain will face even greater stress and longer working hours. I suggest we do away with these qualifying criteria. The many exceptions and qualifications have made them too cumbersome. Besides, to use a person's academic results to determine his ability to practise is a blunt and sometimes unfair instrument. There are many good lawyers now in private practice who may not have qualified under the current criteria. Others have spent enormous resources getting a degree but cannot realise their dreams of becoming a lawyer. These criteria can also be counted as intuitive. It may make more sense for a person to go to an Australian university of a slightly lower standing to ensure he gets into a top 30% instead of a top-notch university where he faces more competition. In that event, how are we better off? Madam, if the quality of lawyers is a concern, we should have better control of the admission criteria. Why rely on foreign university to determine who gets in and who does not? We can do that by a simple mechanism of setting appropriate standards for our Practical Law Course.”
“Madam, the supply of lawyers in Singapore is an issue which has vexed this House for a number of years. In 1993, restrictions were imposed on who may practise law in Singapore, eg, a minimum Second Class Lower Honours from NUS or a minimum Second Class Honours or Upper Honours from a list of 15 UK universities. The rationale given then was a need to check the growing numbers of lawyers which could lead to a misallocation of valuable manpower resources, result in the creation of an over-litigious society and lower the standard of practice. Specific universities were identified to ensure quality control. But like our family planning policy, these measures proved too effective. In 2001, Members of this House highlighted the growing shortage of lawyers in Singapore. That same year, the Minister for Law informed this House that based on projections concerning the size of Singapore population and the growth of the economy, there would likely be an increased demand for lawyers in the next 10 years. So over the next few years, the qualifying criterion was relaxed to allow more to qualify, eg, the top 30% of some Australian universities, the top 40% of four US universities. But the problem did not go away. Despite the perception that lawyers earn a good living, reasons such as job stress and long hours kept law graduates away from the profession or hasten their departure. So, in the period 2001 to 2006, while the population and the economy grew, the number of legal practitioners actually fell from 3,524 to 3,476. More worryingly, most of those leaving were young lawyers. So, far from growing in numbers, like the rest of the general population, lawyers were not replacing themselves. Recently, we have further relaxed the rules.”