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 9 of 10.
“Until then, we will be happy to receive feedback as to how we can address the concerns of the residents further.”
“Sir, the Sin Ming area is already populated by funeral parlours and places of worship. There are concerns by residents that it is now being earmarked as a "hub" for such activities. May I know from the MOS whether more parlours will be built in the Sin Ming area? In addition, there is a concern that the new parlour will attract businesses into the industrial area which are ancillary to the parlour business, therefore entrenching such trades in Sin Ming and reinforcing the perception that it will become a hub. May I know from the MOS how the Ministry proposes to deal with this? Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. First of all, let me assure the Member that there is no plan to develop Sin Ming as a funeral parlour hub. We are piloting a purpose-built funeral parlour and if that proves to be popular, we will consider building more such facilities in other locations where there is demand to serve residents in other parts of the country. As to the question about whether they will be attracting ancillary services, let me assure the Member that funeral parlour services such as embalming, prayers, rituals and rites, and so on, are strictly not allowed in any industrial building. They are classified under a different land use and, therefore, subject to tighter controls due to potential disamenities that they introduce. So, there is no question that the industrial site will be attracting such ancillary services. Let me just say that, at the moment, we will look at the situation, particularly, as I have said earlier on, we have decided to delay the development of the funeral parlour until the industrial site is developed.”
“I hope that it will not be too long before we feel ready to do so, because I think that is a sign of our growing maturity. But when we do debate this issue, I hope that the debate will be calm and measured as that typifies the way we do things in Singapore. Certainly, we do not wish to see any proliferation of hate messages of mails and other things which Professor Thio Li-ann has talked about. That is certainly not the way we do things in Singapore, and long may that continue. Ultimately, laws should be passed or repealed not only because the majority wants it that way, but because it makes sense and it is in the interests of Singapore as a whole, including the interests of all minority groups. Column No : 2292 Column No : 2292 ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“That will restrict the ability of the Government to respond to the HIV threat through promotion and education, when Government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one. Finally, Sir, is the argument that the repeal is a slippery slope, that it will herald the end of the family unit. As I have said earlier, there is no consistency in our laws to support this argument. Further, while society may frown on homosexuality, that, by itself, does not justify criminalising it. A number of speakers, at least one of them, have highlighted the surveys in the Straits Times where the public was polled and 70% were said to frown on homosexuality. I can understand that. Seventy percent frowned on it. But how many actually said that they were willing to criminalise it? That question was not even asked, and that is a serious question because that is the issue we face today. Some Members have mentioned the possibility of same-sex marriages occurring here. That, no doubt, will be an issue which gay activists will push further down the road. But that involves the Government actively endorsing and passing legislation to recognise same-sex marriages. So the arguments here do not apply. Sir, can I end by putting the question in another way? I say there is another way to test the issue: assume we are here debating whether to include section 377A into our Penal Code, would we do it? I am not sure we would, because we would hesitate about passing laws to deal with private acts in the bedroom. But because it is already there, we are comfortable living in there. Sir, it may well be that our society today is not ready to debate this issue.”
“However, likewise, I hope that any decision not to repeal will not be regarded as an endorsement for some of the reasons that have been advanced to oppose it. What are some of these reasons? First, the argument advanced by some religious groups that section 377A should be retained because homosexuality is an abomination. I respect their right to express their views, and I do not think this is the appropriate time or place for me to discuss it. But we must remind ourselves that we are a secular state, where every one is equal in the eyes of the law, and it is important to assure all citizens of Singapore that decisions will always be made on secular grounds. Second is the notion that section 377A reflects our Asian values. But section 377A is not even Asian in origin. Section 377 was originally based on an English criminal law which sought to prohibit sodomy, and was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code in late 1862. It was also adapted for the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871. Section 377A was later added under the sub-title "Unnatural offences" in 1938. Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Code when the latter was passed by Singapore's Legislative Council on 28th January 1955. In short, we inherited this from the British. There is nothing distinctly Asian about it. Third is the argument that repealing section 377A will lead to a rampant increase in homosexuality, and thereby increase HIV rates. First, retaining the law can make no difference because offenders have already been told that they will not be prosecuted. Second, Sir, it is stretching logic to suggest that the repeal will lead to a sudden proliferation of homosexual activity. Thirdly, making something illegal only forces it underground.”
“So this law is rarely applied or, if applied, it applies to minors or acts in public. Does that mean that private consensual homosexual acts do not happen in Singapore? To believe that would be naive. The truth is that it is virtually impossible to enforce this law. Now that the MHA has said that it will not actively pursue offenders, we are not likely to see any prosecutions in the future, certainly not many. Sir, I accept that even if a law is difficult to enforce, it can still serve a legitimate purpose in its underlying message, and section 377A sends the message that those who engage in homosexual activities are criminals. But at the same time, we have been saying that our society will not reject those with alternative lifestyles. We have even said that such individuals have a place in our civil service. It has also recently been said that homosexuality may be genetic, and the debate on this issue is still raging on. Now, the MHA says that it will not prosecute offenders. So what is the message we are sending? Are we for or against it? What do we stand for? While this may be an uncomfortable issue, we should at least make our position clear. Just to cite an example by Mr Christopher De Souza, he says, messaging is important, and he cites the example of suicides, that if we do not make it an offence to commit suicide, we are sending the message that suicide is acceptable. But there is no inconsistent messaging for suicide. So it is not such a clear issue. Sir, my second issue is with the arguments put forward by the opposing camp. The opponents of the repeal have expressed concern that any repeal may be construed as endorsement by the Government in favour of alternative lifestyles. That is a fair point.”
“But society has done away with criminalising a whole host of other conduct, which is far more damaging to family values, such as adultery, which carries a more direct threat to the integrity of the family. And adultery was one of the original Ten Commandments. Further, it is not always true that laws always reflect society's or the moral position. Marital rape is a good example. I cannot imagine any Member of the House believing that it is acceptable for a man to force himself on a woman under any circumstances, regardless of whether they are married. But we do not completely outlaw marital rape. The Bill here certainly protects a woman more by prescribing circumstances under which her husband can be charged with rape, but the protection is not absolute for wives. Why? Over and above the reasons that have been given - and in this respect I share NMP Ms Eunice Olsen's criticisms of those reasons - more importantly, the law knows its own limits and it is practically impossible to properly enforce a law by giving a wife absolute protection. So, likewise, we also accept that the Penal Code is not the appropriate tool to legislate or regulate the private heterosexual behaviour of consenting adults. Indeed, it is almost impossible to effectively do so. In addition, the question arises also why section 377A does not deal with lesbianism. Over and above the legal basis for discriminating between men and women, where is the consistency? Thirdly, Sir, the law has no real substance. Through a 15-year period, ie, 1988 to 2003, there were only eight convictions under section 377A involving seven incidents. Two convictions were for the same incident. Moreover, it has not been invoked in respect of consensual sex since 1993.”
“In my submission, laws must meet the three Cs, ie, be clear, consistent and concrete, meaning that they must be substantive, effective and make sense. What I find difficult about this issue before us is that while the majority do not wish a repeal for good reason, intellectually, section 377A does, in some respects, fall short of what a good law is or should be. Sir, first, it is unclear what the current legal position is. In a statement on 7th of November 2006, the Ministry of Home Affairs said that, with respect to section 377A, it will not be proactive in enforcing the section against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the Police will not act on complaints or that suspects may be investigated but ultimately not arrested or prosecuted? Or is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has prosecutorial discretion, may prosecute some but not all offenders? That puts the Attorney-General in a difficult position because selective prosecution will give rise to more issues. But if the intention is not to do anything at all, then what is the purpose of having the law? Does it not hurt our credibility that we have laws that are toothless? The Penal Code is an important piece of legislation and, in the long run, making some conduct criminal under our Penal Code whilst stating that the law will not be enforced, simply invites attacks on the integrity of the Code. Second, we are not being consistent. The retention of section 377A is often justified as being consistent with the importance society places on family values.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate at this very late hour. I promise to be very brief. I rise to support the Bill. A major overhaul of the Penal Code was timely, and the Ministry of Home Affairs has obviously put in much effort and thought to the amendments. I particularly commend the new laws to protect minors from sexual predators, whether here or abroad, and I support the amendments fully. Let me touch briefly on the issue of section 377A. As Professor Ho pointed out, this is one debate which will not see people switching sides easily. Both proponents and opponents of the law have deeply entrenched views on the subject, and that is unlikely to change for some time. I have personally asked many people, both young and old, what they think of this issue, and the almost common consensus is that they do not want this law to be repealed and that is consistent with the feedback the Government has received. So I do not wish to engage in a moral debate, and certainly not a long one, and I have no rousing speech to deliver. What I wish to do is to approach it from a lawyer's point of view and how I see Parliament and Parliament's role in making laws. Sir, as a lawyer, the power of Parliament to make law is of particular interest to me. When judges and lawyers interpret laws, they are, in certain instances, permitted to refer to Hansard to determine the intention behind any word, phrase or provision in a piece of legislation. Parliamentary debates, therefore, play an important role not just in the passing of laws but how they will be understood by those who later apply them. What we say here or do must be consistent with the law we promulgate and also make sense to those who will scrutinise our words perhaps years from now.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions. The Minister spoke of the Subordinate Courts reviewing its processes. I was wondering whether he could enlighten us on when that process is likely to be completed. The second question is whether the Minister could update us on the status of the settlement talks with the family.”
“It may be a question of presentation and explanation, but in matters such as these, which are emotional, I think presentation and explanation are just as important.”
“Sir, my final point is about symbolism. At the end of the day, whatever formula one chooses, the Government must serve and be accountable to all segments of the society. The formula should properly reflect that. Mr Low Thia Khiang had, some time ago, suggested that Ministers' salaries should be a multiple of salaries of the bottom 20%. Politically very convenient to argue but really practically makes little sense. Mr Low obviously agrees because he did not repeat the suggestion at this debate yesterday. In the same vein, this formula should not just take into account the top 48. We cannot ignore the perception that if the formula is tied just to the top, Ministers and civil servants will always enjoy the upside regardless of how the rest of Singaporeans are doing. Indeed, it is well conceivable that the top 24 could continue to earn well and do better even in an economic downturn and increased unemployment. In that event, the Government may be compelled to impose salary cuts and pay below the benchmark as it had done in the past. But what is the point of having a formula if you are only going to follow it some of the time? More importantly, if the formula results in figures which the Government is not comfortable paying, then perhaps there is something wrong with the formula. I believe the formula should contain elements which will tie salaries to the general well-being of Singapore, for example, the GDP, the unemployment rate, the cost of living. We can work out the details. I know these matters may be taken into account when deciding performance bonuses, but I think it is important that we spell this out expressly to demonstrate that they will have a direct bearing on salaries as well.”
“If the intention of the formula is to be in line with market, then these super earners are not a reflection of what the market pays a successful professional. Second, the earnings of the top 48, particularly those in the profession, are not really salaries. Although I do not know who they are, I believe they are probably senior partners or sole proprietors of their own firms. They are not just lawyers or accountants but entrepreneurs running a business of providing legal or accounting services. They are very different from salaried persons. Their earnings represent a return on their enterprise and risk. If the business fails to generate a profit, they earn nothing and they may even lose money. So in a real way, their entire earnings are effectively performance based. It is therefore inappropriate to take their figures and translate them into a regular monthly salary. In the circumstances, if the intention is to continue using the top eight individuals of each profession, then we should compare like for like. A substantial portion of our Ministers' and civil servants' pay should be made performance related. I note that the measures announced yesterday seek to place a greater emphasis on performance but, if you want a proper comparison, a larger portion should be performance based. In addition, the key performance indicators should be spelt out clearly so that the public is left in no doubt of the standards that are expected. We are more than willing to pay our public servants a fair wage and, in return, it is reasonable for us to know what we will get in return. There is nothing that will reassure Singaporeans more than a clear set of concrete deliverables from our public servants and if they do achieve their targets, no one can reasonably begrudge them what they earn.”
“What other leaders earn should not be how we value leadership in Singapore. Then we have a third argument of Mr Chiam yesterday comparing the Government to a charity. I am flabbergasted by this. It is completely different. A charity's deliverables are limited. It has no obligation to grow its business. It does not have to look after its donors or give them returns. The comparison is completely misplaced. So the basic question is: what is a fair wage? At first blush, it seems a difficult question. But once we agree on the principle, it is fairly simple to resolve. Sir, I fully accept the principle that we should let the market determine the value of our Ministers and senior civil servants. Benchmarking Ministerial salaries to the private sector is a sensible basis. Like many who have spoken before me, I believe the formula requires some fine-tuning so that it fairly represents the market and takes into account other important factors. Why fine-tune it now? It was simply because the formula was devised in 1994 when salary structures were somewhat different. It is clear that there has today been a significant widening of the salary ranges and these have occurred even at the very top. Take the law as an example. According to the Sunday Times of 1st April this year, in 1998, the difference between the top earner and the eight highest earner in law was $1.2 million. Today, I believe that figure to be much larger and may even exceed $5 million. In other words, there is a vast difference in remuneration even among those who are successful. The amounts earned by those at the very top are therefore no longer representative of what most successful lawyers take home.”
“In fact, despite the salary increases in 1994 and thereafter, the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that it is still difficult to persuade good people to step forward. Why? Because asking someone who is probably already successful and comfortable in his career to completely overhaul his life, and more than that the lives of his family, is very difficult. What value do we place on that? Do Singaporeans really believe that keeping salaries low will discourage greedy and dishonest people from trying to get into office? The many examples around the world tell us differently. The wrong people will always try to take control because they know that if they succeed, they can rewrite the rules to benefit themselves and they will not bother about having a debate in Parliament or elsewhere about it. But there is a more fundamental point, I submit. There is nothing wrong with factoring salary in your career choice. We all do that. Why is it regarded as an imperfection when our Ministers do it or when the formula allows our Ministers to do it? If people demand their politicians take an oath of sainthood with their oath of office, then they are just asking to be deceived. The other common argument is that other countries do not pay their leaders as much and the figures often cited sums which are officially declared. The additional perks and advantages received during and after office are usually left out. We have heard some examples yesterday. But, more importantly, again, so what if we pay the highest? Singaporeans should decide for ourselves what value we place on having an honest, dedicated, competent leadership. We should not be dictated by considerations and circumstances of other countries which have absolutely no relevance to us at all.”
“This had in fact happened in the past in Singapore. So, performing a public service is not inconsistent with receiving good pay. The position of lawyers has evolved. Why should it stand still for Ministers and civil servants? Yes, it is the duty of Ministers and the civil service to serve the public. Yesterday, Mr Siew Kum Hong spoke passionately about how Ministers should be cut from a different cloth and how they should be driven by the privilege of leading this country. I agree with him. A person in that job should not have to be motivated by anything other than the privilege and honour of leading Singapore. He should be someone who thinks that destiny demands of him to service. If he does not have that drive or mindset, how will he be able to make the tough decisions which he will inevitably have to make? But why does this mean that Ministers should be paid less than what they are worth or what their job demands. And why should their moral authority be questioned or eroded in the minds of right-thinking people simply because we seek to give them a fair wage? Just because someone should not do this job for money does not mean that you should not pay him fairly. What are the common arguments we hear? First, there is a fear that the wrong type of person may be motivated to take office. I think that is overstated. One does not get the job simply by applying for it. You first have to establish a good reputation. You then have to satisfy the Prime Minister's standards, no doubt highly stringent. You then have to be scrutinised by the electorate and prove yourself in the office of a junior Minister before you are asked to step up. It is clearly not in the PM's interest to appoint someone who is not competent and dedicated to Singapore.”
“They must act in the interest of justice. They are held to a higher standard and respect of their character and conduct compared to any other profession. They are expected to serve the public good. But no one, and absolutely no one, expects lawyers today in England, Singapore or anywhere around the world to work with the same financial constraints of days gone by. Why? Because those rules are outdated and unrealistic. Today, having a clean and competent legal system is an important part in any country's economy. And to achieve high standards, you need bright people willing to take up the law as a career. We all know that financial rewards play a part in someone making a selection of his career. And I do not think I will be wrong to say that today in law school in Singapore, the United Kingdom, United States or anywhere around the developed world, very bright students are attracted to the law largely on account of financial opportunities which the legal profession offers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Is the legal profession worse for this? Clearly not! In fact, by paying well, you are actually raising standards and also levelling the playing field. Otherwise, you will be left in a situation where only the rich can afford to be judges and lawyers, which was the situation in England many years ago. You also need good legal minds, both in the private as well as the public sectors. The system will not work if you have bright judges and government prosecutors but less qualified lawyers in the private sector, and vice versa. So, the financial rewards in both these sectors must be compatible, otherwise there will be an imbalance of talent and an exodus from one to another whenever that imbalance is not addressed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, different points of views have been given, I will not try and cover the same ground. Let me start by talking about what I know best - my own profession, the law. Our court system is based on the British model. Many years ago, lawyers in England called barristers were regarded like public servants. They were expected to use their skills and training for the benefit of all whose cause was just and innocent, without fear or favour and without reference to power or wealth. Consistent with their calling, their fees were regarded as honorarium which they cannot sue to recover. In other words, you have no recourse if your client decides not to pay you. Barristers were also not permitted to pick and choose their cases for their clients. A barrister was expected to represent all to the best of his ability, whether or not he found them loathsome or whether or not they were princes or paupers. Their overriding duty was to serve the public. And legend has it that after a barrister finished his work in court, his client will deposit his fee in a little pocket in the barrister's robe or gown. And this pocket was located at the back of the robe so that even the very act of payment could not be seen by the barrister, because such matters of money were beneath him. So, if you look carefully at the back of a lawyer's robe today, you will see a tiny pouch. That pouch is all but sewn up, so you cannot put any money in it anymore. It has no function but merely a vestige of time past. That story may not be entirely accurate, I should say. But it is dutifully told by one generation of lawyers to the next to emphasise the nobility of the profession. The legal profession today is still an honourable one. Lawyers have a higher duty to the court.”
“Sir, firstly, may I know the number of couples who are currently undergoing ACP. Secondly, in relation to the survey results that the MOS just mentioned, may I know the age of the couples surveyed?”
“Sir, on the issue of parental involvement, the Minister of State has cited the example of Fengshan Primary School as a school with a good programme. My question is really whether there is a consistent standard for all schools and whether the Ministry should set a minimum expectation for all schools and, if not, why not. RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: I think for parent support groups, we have got to remember that, first of all, they are volunteers and, therefore, sometimes, the commitment, the amount of time that they can give to the school and even the skill sets that they bring may differ from school to school. So it is difficult to really prescribe and say that this is what we expect of every parent support group. I think it is up to the educational leaders in the school, the school advisory committee to go and work with the parent support groups and try and find their different strengths, different networks and connections that they bring and use these to their best advantage. What we have tried to do so far really is to make sure that there is such a facility in as many schools as possible where parents can come forward, volunteer their time in very meaningful ways and make a difference in the lives of the students of that school. If he wants some data, I can share that with him, in terms of how successful we have been in that regard. But we have not tried to prescribe exactly what they ought to do in each of the parent support groups.”
“What on? On constitutional issues. So there is really no connect between what they are going through and what they are debating on and, ultimately, the "mock" parliamentary debate just becomes any other debate. So there is no real life context for them. Second, they should be given the power to deal with disciplinary matters including deciding on punishment for their peers. And a third suggestion is for them to run their CCAs with minimal involvement from their teachers-in-charge. These are all just suggestions. Again, based on anecdotal evidence, the practice is not consistent between schools and some schools still employ a very top-down approach. Again, without taking away flexibility from principals and administrators, I would like the Ministry to consider setting some guidelines or best practices for schools to develop leadership in schools. Teaching Money Management”
“The sooner such children are identified, the quicker we can help them. It may seem that I am asking for much, but over and above, improving the child's academic performance, I think that schools can help bridge the connection between parents and child by having more comprehensive parent-child projects and programmes and getting parents to take greater ownership of the child's education. While principals and teachers should be given the flexibility to develop and manage their own programmes, I would like to ask the Ministry if some minimal standards should be set in our schools and whether assistance can be given to lower performing schools to help them bridge the gap. Student Leadership Training Sir, the second aspect, I would like to touch on leadership training in our schools. I would like to ask the Ministry if our schools are doing enough to develop leadership and decision-making skills in our students. Our schools are the ideal place for our young to learn lifeskills, take on responsibilities, such as leading their peers and develop their EQ. As the Minister earlier said, give them the opportunity to kickstart new ideas. But more importantly, this is the time when they can most afford to make mistakes. We have prefects, monitors, student counsellors, but I think our students can be challenged more. I would like to see our students have a greater say in actually running the school. This could include a number of things, for example, their involvement in drafting the school rules. This could be done with inputs from the elected representatives from each class. It involves school debates, and therefore, be an introduction to law and policy-making. I spoke to a college student last night who told me that in their school, they conduct "mock" parliamentary debates.”
“Based on my conversations with teachers in different schools, it would appear that the practice between schools varies. Some have parent-teacher meetings regularly, some only once a year. The impression one gets is that the better schools in Singapore probably place greater emphasis on and enjoy greater participation from parents. 1.45 pm Second, the involvement is generally limited to informing parents of their child's performance and little else. Here again, the better schools have more detailed programmes, including involving parents in farm trips and projects. Most importantly, the programme favours parents who take an active interest in the child's education. That is usually the case that the children most at-risk are those whose parents do not take an interest. For example, I understand that attendance of parent-teacher conferences varies from school to school, with some being quite poor. In some cases, there is no or little follow-up if parents fail to attend meetings with teachers. Teachers do make the effort to visit the parents of kids who miss school regularly, but truancy is not the indicator of this. Sir, I know that there is great pressure on our teachers and principals, but I wonder if this aspect of a child's development should not be given more emphasis. During the debate on the President's Address, I spoke of a growing indifference of our youth. I believe that this indifference takes root at home with an ever-growing disconnect between the parent and child. How can we expect our youth to feel connected to their country and community if they do not feel connected to their family? Anecdotal evidence also suggests that children who do poorly and/or drop out of school usually have poor family relationships.”
“Sir, I would like to ask whether the extent to which the Ministry emphasises and facilitates the role parents play in the education of their children. When I went to school, the extent of my parents' involvement in my education was largely confined to reminding me to study and the two times a year when I had to show my report card to them. And if there was any red ink in my book, then involvement took a more painful dimension. Studies show that when parents are more actively involved in the child's education, the child is more likely to earn better grades, be more motivated in school, do their homework, have better self-esteem, and demonstrate fewer behavioural problems, in other words, a better all-round student and person. Countries around the world place great emphasis on parental involvement in their children's education. The Scandinavian countries, for example, take the matter very seriously. For example, in Finland, parents participate in setting their children's school curriculum. In Iceland, every compulsory school must have a parents' council made up of three representatives for parents. In Denmark, parents sit on policy-making committees at local and national levels. Perhaps, it is no coincidence that Scandinavian countries enjoy the highest literacy rates in the world. Other countries are also starting to look into this matter seriously. In Singapore, we have come some way since Members of this House last went to school. Schools now have parent-teacher meetings to update parents on their child's performance. Teachers give out their email addresses and even mobile numbers so that parents can reach them directly. But I would like to offer some observations.”
“More Singaporeans are turning to green vehicles and I think we should encourage it. But I must also emphasise that our transport policy is not just about motor vehicles, but also about public transport. We must also encourage Singaporeans to use public transport so that we can balance the modal split between public and private.”
“Sir, a clarification. I accept that the purchase of a car is a lifestyle choice, but surely one of the most important considerations in making that choice is the cost. While hybrid cars are substantially more than equivalent petrol cars, most consumers will not make that choice. Just as an example, the last time I checked, I do not believe that there is a hybrid car which is below $80,000. I think the Minister missed out on the mass market car section. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the cost of a hybrid car depends on two things. One, technology. As we understand it, some American car makers are now looking into slightly less efficient hybrid cars, as compared to the Japanese model. That may lower the price. Second, is the question of volume. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. If more people are prepared to buy hybrid cars, more cars will be brought into Singapore. I met up with Toyota in Japan about two years ago. They told me that Singapore is not their primary market. Their market is in America, where the Hollywood stars and other personalities who are more green in nature are prepared to purchase such cars as a lifestyle choice. But as a consequence of that, the number of green cars have grown in America and the cost has begun to come down. On our part, we will continue to work with MOF to see how much more we can move, in terms of the rebates, to encourage Singaporeans to take the first step. I agree with Mr Hri Kumar that cost is an important factor and Singaporeans, by nature, are sensitive to cost. So 40% is already a good start. But, at the same time, we should continue to encourage Singaporeans. When we started the GVR, the number of the take-up rate was very low. It was only about 70 car buyers. Now, we have got 300 buyers. I think this is a good sign.”
“As far as the consumer is concerned, it is really a no-brainer which one they will buy. In addition to that, hybrid cars are taxed according to their power or engine output, which means they pay quite a high road tax as well. So even with the green rebate which is in place, again, it is a no-brainer on the choice of cars. Finally, Sir, I notice that this particular issue of which technology to promote and so on is featured in a number of the COS debates, which gives me the impression that there are a number of Ministries which are looking at this particular issue. But what has not come out clearly is which Ministry is actually taking the lead in this particular issue. I would like the Minister to clarify that. Hybrid Vehicles”
“Sir, I do not have bad breath! Any effective regime which encourages efficient energy usage and good environmental practices must include measures to encourage Singaporeans and local businesses to purchase and use energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly cars. The two areas we are focusing on are diesel technology and hybrid technology. The Minister has made reference to the changes in the rules in relation to diesel technology earlier. He said that from October 2006, all diesel engines imported into Singapore must be EURO IV compliant. That is correct. However, what we did see in the market was that there was a rush to purchase EURO II compliant cars before the deadline took effect in October 2006, with the effect that there are actually many EURO II compliant vehicles right now on our roads. The Minister did mention that, over time, these would be phased out. But it really depends. If the COE premiums work a certain way, it may just encourage owners to renew the EURO II compliant cars and therefore keep those cars on our streets for far longer than we anticipate. So we are looking at years before all diesel engines actually become EURO-IV compliant. In the meantime, as the Minister cited the statistics in relation to the PM2.5 hazardous level, we are 40%-50% over the US EPA-recommended range. 2.15 pm On the second issue of hybrid technology, I understand the Minister will be commenting on this later. I hope the Minister will address what I consider to be the anomaly in our tax regime. While hybrid technology is obviously much more efficient, the cost of a hybrid car is almost 20%-30% higher than the equivalent petrol car. And in Singapore terms, that translates to many thousands of dollars.”
“The point is that the system has to be fair. We should have processes to ensure that the system is fair. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: He has spoken like a lawyer. No, we do not intend to paint all lawyers with a tar. But, essentially, Police wants to do a job. Without the presence of a third party, whether a lawyer or, in fact, a family member or other person, an innocent person will just have to tell the truth. That is the purport or the intention of an interview. Basically, the person is there to tell the truth. So who will benefit more with the presence of a lawyer? An innocent person or a guilty person? Indeed, surveys from other countries have shown that when a lawyer is present throughout the interview, it is more difficult to elicit the truth and the interview then becomes a process which, instead of serving public interest, makes it a bit more difficult. Let me just say that we will review the pilot that we are doing in the middle of the year. The Law Society knows about this. My own sense is that it will help the process. At the same time, it is not as though there are so many cases where accused persons are remanded beyond a week. As I have said, it is only 1% of the cases. So, let us see things in perspective. To me, it is an improvement of the system, and let us assess it after a few more months. 6.30 pm”
“Sir, I would like to make two points. First, on the access to counsel. What I am talking about is in the interest of justice. Where counsel is excluded because investigations are not complete, the implication is that the involvement of counsel somehow subverts justice. Whatever you may think about lawyers, and some do not think much about us, it is often forgotten that we are officers of the court and we hold a higher duty to the court and to justice than to the client. I am for one uncomfortable with the suggestion that once we involve a lawyer, somehow justice is perverted. The second point is on the public confidence in the judicial system. I think the public has confidence and every reason to. But the issue is not about the system but the processes. And most Singaporeans have not been hauled up by the Police for questioning, thank goodness! But if we do a survey of those who have been, you will feel that the confidence is not as high. The reason is that anyone who has been questioned - and I have clients who have been - even if they are innocent, if they are going before the Police simply to tell them what happened, they come out feeling that they have done something wrong. And the reason is ---”
“The Police are less likely to be accused of improper conduct and the videos can be reviewed by experts and used as part of the Police training to improve interrogation skills. Police Officers”
“In any event, there is no reason why the accused or his lawyers should not be given copies of all statements given by the accused. We need to draw a distinction between aiding the investigation and aiding the prosecution. Sir, lawyers are not permitted to be present when the statement is taken or signed, then the least should be done is to videotape the interview with the accused. A number of countries adopt this practice, including the US, the UK and Australia. Not only does this make the process more transparent, there are a number of tangible benefits. It would drastically reduce the scope of an accused claiming that he was threatened or improperly induced into giving a statement. Such an allegation often leads to a postponement of the main trial to enable the Court to conduct a separate hearing on the admissibility of the statement. I believe the suggestion to videotape was raised in this House in 1994. Prof. Ho replied it was still open for an accused to claim that he was threatened before the statement was given. Although this is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely because that would mean the threat and inducement would be made even before the Police knows what the person is going to say. Further, the Court will have a contemporaneous record of the statement taking and will be in a position to assess the demeanour of the accused at the relevant time. In any event, not taping is not a better solution. But there are other advantages and I will just give a few. There will be a complete, accurate and permanent record with the statement. There will therefore be no scope for the argument that parts of the accused's statement were omitted.”
“Sir, I first declare my interest as a lawyer on this issue. The Constitution guarantees an accused person right to counsel of his choice. The Courts have on several occasions clarified that that right of access is not an immediate one but should be accorded within a reasonable time and that a balance must be achieved between protecting the accused's rights and allowing the Police to carry out investigations. Although an accused is required to be brought before the Court within 48 hours of his arrest, what reasonable time the Police requires to complete their investigations differs from case to case and the Court will generally accept the Police's request for more time. Sir, I recognise the importance of not hindering the Police in their investigations. Like Mr Alvin Yeo who spoke on this during the Budget, I wonder if we are drawing the line too far away from the rights of the accused. While we embrace the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, our practices fall short. Being hauled up by the Police is in any view a traumatising experience, especially for the innocent. It is unsafe to assume that innocent people will not make mistakes in an alien, hostile environment and after hours of questioning. This is aggravated by the fact that most do not know their legal rights, for example, the right against self-incrimination. In many cases, by the time the accused is given access to counsel, he would have furnished a signed or several signed statements. He may subsequently be convicted on those statements. Sir, even if the Police believe that questioning the accused without counsel is necessary for their investigations, there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of legal advice at least before he signs that statement.”
“That is the first point. The second point is, like I have said, the CPC amendments would formalise the framework, which currently is in place, which is basically fair because, in a sense, it is like both sides coming together, there is mutual discovery. You show me your case, I show you my case. So, here, the prosecution would be required to make available statements which he will rely on to substantiate his case. I think any witness who has made a statement, assuming he is an honest witness and particularly the accused person, will know what he has said. This current process is one that will serve the public interest because if, in court, he makes a statement which is inconsistent with what he had said earlier on, then, indeed, the statement can be introduced with the leave of the court to show that, no, this is not what he has said. But I would say, whilst we are working out the CPC review, let us wait for the details to be out and, like I said, there will be public consultation. So, at that stage, when the scheme is clear, we can consider all these points.”
“Sir, two points. First, taking from Mr Michael Palmer's point about moratorium in favour of the debtor, what happens in the bankruptcy proceedings is that once a person is declared a bankrupt, all further legal proceedings and executions against him are stayed? This is to ensure that no one creditor steals a march on the others. You may encounter a situation where some creditors are subject to the DRS scheme and because there is no stay of proceedings, any other creditor can then take up execution proceedings, for example, by garnishing the debtor's salary, and therefore stealing a march on the other creditors. Would that situation be addressed? That is the first question. The second question is on the release of statements made by the accused. There is a danger of releasing some, but not all, statements. One of the criticisms often made in court, or in the argument about statements, is that the accused did not say one thing or another in that statement, or he did not, at the first available opportunity, raise a particular defence or fact to the Police. But it is unsafe then to make that argument because you do not have all the statements made by the accused. So what assurance will the public have when an argument is made that the accused did not say any particular thing in the statement, that he may not have said that thing in other statements he has made? [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.42 pm Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think the OA, when it operates and runs the plan, will ensure that there is fairness. In other words, it should not be the case where, if the DRS scheme kicks in, some creditors would get preference. I would expect him to then look at what is the list of creditors and ensure that he works with that list.”
“Debtors have an avenue of proposing a voluntary arrangement, but this involves engaging a professional to supervise its implementation, which is really beyond most. In any event, this arrangement will only be approved by the courts if it is supported by a majority in the number of creditors and at least three-fourths in value. This is difficult to achieve. Sometimes, creditors have no idea about the debtors' true worth and whether the proposal is a genuine one. I, therefore, hope that the bankruptcy regime will be refined so that most debtors have a real chance to get their life back together. All that most creditors really require is that the debtors' circumstances be properly evaluated and there is a genuine plan to repay his debts. So I call on the Government to facilitate this compromise between the debtor and the creditor to reduce the number of bankruptcies in Singapore and to ensure that no party is prejudiced.”
“Sir, when I was a junior lawyer, a judge I appeared before, since retired, described bankruptcy like this. He said, "When you die, your body remains on earth and your soul goes to heaven. When you are bankrupt, you keep your body but your soul goes to the Official Assignee's Office." The point made is that bankruptcy is a serious matter involving the forfeiture of a person's legal rights. A bankrupt loses his right to manage his affairs and he faces many restrictions, including his ability to travel. Over and above the legal restrictions, there is a strong social stigma. Employers are often reluctant to hire bankrupts, which only aggravates their financial problems. Bankruptcy is usually for a minimum of three years. By the time a bankrupt gets back on his feet, he may have lost a large part of his best working years. Many are bankrupt because of unfortunate circumstances or poor financial management. They are not dishonest people. The problem is that where a person cannot pay his debts, there is really little alternative to bankruptcy. Creditors, particularly financial institutions, are required to take reasonable steps to recover the debt before they can write it off. Often, this means bankrupting a debtor, even if there is little hope of recovery. Creditors also do not know if the bankrupt is hiding assets and hope that these will surface during the bankruptcy administration. The bankruptcy threshold is now $10,000. The law, therefore, makes no distinction between a person who owes $10,000 and one who owes a million dollars. Surely, many can be saved from bankruptcy by way of a sensible debt repayment plan.”
“Ms Ellen Lee Sir, I shall not repeat what my learned friend has said, but I shall speak in Mandarin on other aspects. (In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A* . ] Sir, our Government has announced that Singapore has the capacity to accommodate 6.5 million people. This means that more land will be allocated for construction of residential property. Currently, we are witnessing an increasing trend of en-bloc sale of private properties for redevelopment. For the majority, they will be more than glad if the en-bloc sales will yield high returns and capital gains. But for the minority, no amount of compensation can make up for the permanent loss of their cosy nests; money is not able to substitute for this loss because they have had many sweet and fond memories in the house. Therefore, it is not fair to force the minority to comply with the mandatory 80% agreement by which we decide on whether an en-bloc sale proceeds. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government whether it will consider revising the law so that the minority is protected under the law, especially for the elderly living alone, those having difficulty getting about, or the feeble and weak. They are the ones who are likely to lose out and they face uncertainty because they are not familiar with the new environment, and they will hesitate and panic. Also, they feel helpless under tremendous pressure from the property agents. Therefore, I hope that the Government, before approving more en-bloc sales, will make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the minority rights are protected. *Cols. 2439-2440. Bankruptcy”
“Thus far, distribution is by share value, but some have argued that this is insufficient and inequitable because the distribution should take into account the size of the units, their renovation costs or their superior views. The Strata Titles Board can oppose the application for en-bloc sales if an owner can demonstrate a financial loss. Right now, financial loss is said to have been suffered if the sale proceeds of a unit, after the deductions allowed by the Board, are less than what the owner paid for the unit. But, again, the Act does not define what "deductions" are. There are, in fact, conflicting decisions on whether withholding costs and interest charges are deductibles. The Act also places unnecessary obstacles to applications. Right now, the Board is obliged to reject applications for technical non-compliance with the regulations even when there is no prejudice. In one case, an application was rejected when a notice was issued a day late. Time and cost are wasted. Different en-bloc applications involve different circumstances and throw up different issues. It is difficult to legislate for every situation. That is precisely why a rigid structure is likely to give rise to unjust results. What comes out is that the Act is not clear and certain enough and does not confer enough discretionary power on the Strata Titles Board, a fact which the Board itself has observed in its decisions. If the purpose of the Act is to facilitate en-bloc sales and, at the same time, ensure that owners are treated fairly, then it should make sense to confer more discretionary powers on the Board to ensure that justice is done in each case. For the Minister's consideration.”
“Sir, en-bloc sales are a very important part of the renewal of the estate. As buildings grow older, they cost much more to upkeep. Like HDB estates, private estates also need upgrading. However, individual MCSCs often do not have sufficient funds to upgrade. In one instance I am aware of, residents of a private condominium were faced with a bill to replace six dirty old lifts at a cost of $300,000 per lift. This far exceeded what they had in their coffers. Often, the only solution is for a single developer to purchase the entire estate and put something new and more efficient in its place. A few years back, the Government revamped the law to allow older estates to go en-bloc if 90% or 80% of the subsidiary proprietors agreed, depending on the age of the estate. That freed up many estates, and has accounted for the wave of en-blocs we are now experiencing. Unfortunately, the issue of money often brings out the worst in some, and they have tried to benefit unconscionably from the situation. There are also some who understandably want to remain in their homes for sentimental reasons. Conflicting interests have raised temperatures and breakdowns in relationships. This is unfortunate. But the underlying premise must be that the law should facilitate well-founded applications, with the protection that, if you are forced to sell your home against your wishes, you should at least be reasonably compensated. That has given rise to another problem. The law provides that the Strata Titles Board will allow applications for en-bloc sales, unless the distribution is inequitable. But the Act does not define what "inequitable" means.”
“It has always been our philosophy that the better argument must always prevail and there is no good argument against educating Singaporeans and encouraging them to be environmentally responsible. What a wonderful opportunity we have today. Because of the sweat of the previous generations, this generation has the economic and political stability to take Singapore to the next level and we must not dither. We must become a First-World country in every sense of the word - economy, infrastructure and values. I am confident that we can be a shining red dot not just in the region but in the world, an example to the world of the great things that can be achieved when there is real goal to do the right thing and, when Singapore is mentioned, it will not be just for food and cleanliness but of a country others aspire to emulate and of a people proud to be Singaporean. And the next time I step off a train in a foreign country, I would love it, if people saw my Singapore passport and, instead of asking, told me that they know of Singapore because it is a model for the rest of the world. With that, I support the Budget. 3.37 pm”
“We should also invest in infrastructure to make owning such vehicles more feasible, for example, by having a wider network of refuelling stations for CNG vehicles. (3) We need to invest in educating Singaporeans to instil good environmental habits, and this includes habits such as recycling. One of my town councillors lived in Japan for a few years and he says that the culture where he was living was such that, in sub-zero temperatures, even when he was feeling unwell, he would bundle up, walk seven blocks down, just to deposit his trash in the recycling bins. The recycling habit is so ingrained where he lived that any contrary behaviour was frowned upon and simply deemed unacceptable. In Singapore, we pay lip service to recycling. We should drive the message home about its importance, especially in schools and with our children. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am speaking about are not luxuries. These are imperatives for our survival. There will also be all manner of tangible benefits. Any measure which makes us less reliant on oil must be a good thing. We will also need to use our resources more carefully, bearing in mind that we are now looking towards increasing our population to 6.5 million. Major MNCs are now becoming more environmentally-conscious and are more likely to invest in a country which shares their same values and beliefs. It will also be difficult for others to criticise and accuse us of being environmentally irresponsible. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is special. More than any other place in the world, if we truly believe in something, we have the infrastructure and the people who can make it work. There are many governments which shy away from doing the right thing because they fear of losing power.”
“There needs to be an urgent and radical change to the way we live, if we want to preserve the planet for our children and for future generations. We can build as many iconic landmarks as we want, but it only takes a choking haze to remind us about our vulnerabilities. In keeping with that, we should send the message that Singaporeans care for the world we live in and will do our bit to keep it safe for our children. Although we are small - indeed, because we are small - we should place great value on preserving our environment, and there are several ways to do this in the context of the Budget and I will just give a few examples. (1) We should give more and larger tax breaks or other incentives to companies which adopt green practices or which are engaged in research or businesses which help the environment. We should make it more attractive for Singaporeans and businesses in Singapore to purchase hybrid or other green vehicles. This should include altering our tax structure to make such cars cheaper and/or make environmentally-unfriendly cars more expensive. Today, despite the green rebate, a hybrid car is still far more expensive than an equivalent petrol car, in some cases, about 20%-30% more expensive. That makes it very difficult for most Singaporeans to even consider them. (2) All public transport should use clean energy without having to pass the extra cost on to commuters. Recently, Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the taxi companies announced that they were going to purchase vehicles which are environmentally-friendly but at the cost of a higher flag-down rate for consumers. That is not a good move, because we are equating good environmental practices with higher cost.”
“Our work ethic is what makes Singapore successful, and I hope Workfare will not change that. In particular, it should not encourage lower-paid Singaporeans to allow their skills and earning power to remain stagnant in the belief that they will continue to receive top-ups from the Government. I therefore hope that the Government will marry Workfare with an effective skills retraining programme to give recipients the opportunity to step up on their own, and to review the position of those who refuse to do so for no good reason. But I would like to see Singapore send other positive messages, and one of the messages we should send is that we are a responsible global citizen as well. One way we can do this, and I believe Ms Jessica Tan has alluded to this, is to become a shining example to the world in the way we deal with the environment. For many years, Singapore has been environment-conscious. Long before it became fashionable, our country paid attention to saving water and water recycling. We introduced a campaign to encourage tree-planting and set aside land for parks and nature reserves. Now, our goal is not to become just a Garden City but a City within a Garden. We were the original green party. These initiatives were born largely out of necessity. As a small young city, we knew the importance of creating a sustainable environment to live and work in and to attract investments and tourism. That is even more true today. Just as our island cannot escape the effects of globalisation, neither can we avoid that of global warming and other environmental hazards. Today, the world is just waking up to the realisation of the damage being done by mankind to the Earth.”
“In considering the Budget, I was reminded of a television advertisement a few years back - I am sure Members of this House will remember it - it showed Singapore actor, Lim Kay Thong, stepping off a train in a foreign country and a porter asked him where he was from, and he replied that he came from a country known for chilli crab. A reporter then asked, "Are you from Chile?" And the joke was that nobody in the rest of the world knew much about our island. That has since stayed in my mind because it addressed an issue which has always concerned me, and that is our national identity. When asked about Singapore, the rest of the world often cites our clean streets, efficient transport, airconditioned malls, cheap and good food. Our best known icon is the Singapore Girl, hopefully. We are consistently ranked as a great place to do business. These are important, but is this really how we want to keep being identified? What is going to make our children and future generations proud to be Singaporeans? Do we have something more to offer the world beyond sarong kebayas and cheap and tasty food? I believe we do, and I hope the future Budgets will reflect this. Any Budget is about choice. It is about the efficient allocation of limited resources. How a country allocates those resources necessarily reflects its values. In a very real sense, the Budget is nothing less than an unambiguous declaration to the world stating in numerical terms what we as a nation regard as important and what kind of people we are or want to be. For example, by providing now Workfare, the Budget sends a message that, while the state will help the disadvantaged level up, the onus remains firmly on individuals to work and improve their lives through their own efforts.”
“So he ignores all the other measures and just focuses on one. And all these investments require money. So he comes to his third point which is, "Right, let's not increase the GST now. Let's wait because we are doing so well, we must be earning money. Let's wait till later." In other words, let us wait when the Singapore economy is not doing so well, then increase taxes. It is completely logical. We should have a prudent fiscal policy. When times are good, let us raise the funds we know we need to make sure Singapore takes the next step forward. Mr Speaker, Sir, there will also be Singaporeans who are dissatisfied with the Budget because they have received fewer benefits compared to others. But the reality is that it is impossible to give everyone everything he wants and still be fiscally prudent. Nor is it sensible to give everyone the same benefits. I believe many Singaporeans support the principle that more help should be given to those who need it more, for example, low-wage earners, senior citizens and, on the corporate front, our local SMEs who need a boost to remain competitive in the face of global competition. All I wish to add is that I hope that those who administer the scheme will be given the flexibility to ensure that Singaporeans who genuinely need help will not fall through the cracks. Even if those dissatisfied remain unconvinced, we should nonetheless move forward with the knowledge that we have done the right thing. We have never shied away from making tough and difficult decisions, and doing the right things has been the hallmark of this Government and those before it. And doing the right things is what I would like to talk about today.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to commend what is undoubtedly a comprehensive and forward-thinking Budget. The plans and investments announced will keep our economic engine running and create wealth and opportunities for all Singaporeans. My colleagues in the House have commented on them and I will not repeat the points they have made. I share in the enthusiasm for the future. I would however like to make a number of points about what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said. He, I am glad to say, acknowledges the significant change the Workfare is going to make to our welfare philosophy. And, in fact, he is pushing for it to be permanent. On any view, this will cause a significant increase in spending. But he does not want us to increase GST. So how do we pay for this increased spending? He gives very few details. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, a major argument he makes is that the casino which will come in 2009 will bring big money and, therefore, we should wait for it. I think Mr Low is getting a headstart because he is really gambling on our future. Of course, we all hope that the casino will generate revenue for us and, if it does, I am sure the Government will share the wealth with Singaporeans, just as it had done many times in the past. In the meantime, let us not base our fiscal policy on speculative future income. Mr Low then says that a corporate tax reduction is not sufficient to attract business. I agree that if that is all we are relying on, then that is not a good thing. But we are not relying solely on the corporate tax reduction. There is a whole slew of packages and measures and which is why we need to invest in our infrastructure, which is why we need to invest in our people and upgrade their skills so that we can attract businesses to come to Singapore.”
“Will the HDB consider being more flexible in granting concessionary loans to those who may not qualify because they have already had two such loans previously?”
“I know this as three of my sisters are in the teaching profession, and family dinners will be distinctly uncomfortable if I advocate them having more work. I therefore share Dr Fatimah Lateef's call for time to be taken from the traditional subjects. Reduce the examinable workload. I do not believe that this will in any way cause an erosion of our student's abilities or work ethic. In summary, let me say this. Students take their cue from their teachers, and teachers take their cue from the Government. So long as subjects such as National Education, Moral Education, PE, no matter what you call it, are treated less seriously than the traditional examinable subjects, they will be taken less seriously. So long as issues affecting Singaporeans, our community and our country are not dealt with in school, our youths will be indifferent to them. We should devote more time to teaching young Singaporeans about Singapore and to prepare them for life. We should teach it as if our lives depend on it, because it does. With that, I support the motion. 3.20 pm”
“Our CPF began primarily as a retirement fund, but over time, has morphed into an instrument to purchase our homes and make investments, sometimes without fully appreciating the risks or understanding the relevant regulations. So along the way, we tinker with the rules, increasing the Minimum Sum, and so on. But one size does not fit all. A person suffering from, or at risk of, serious illnesses will need to set aside much more than just the Minimum Sum. I believe there is a serious disconnect between perception and reality because Singaporeans simply do not appreciate, or appreciate fully, how the CPF works and what their real financial needs are. This disconnect was driven home in the Straits Times' report just last Saturday, two days ago. A survey done by the Life Insurance Association (LIA) found that more than a third of Singaporeans surveyed "had no clue about what constituted a sufficient level of cover." The report also stated that Singaporeans do not buy policies which best fit their needs, and that one of the reasons for this is that agents sell them policies which earn the highest commissions. This only happens because of our ignorance in such matters. It is vital that Singaporeans are taught at an early age the necessary tools to work out what they need for their own health, financial planning and retirement plans. These are important matters which should be addressed before Singaporeans start their careers. It will be too late when they are ready to retire. We need to help Singaporeans to help themselves. Sir, in concluding, I know what I am suggesting will put greaten burdens on our schools. Mr Christopher de Souza had already spoken of the enormous pressures teachers are under.”