Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 46 of 51.
“And it is the housing aspect that I would like to touch on, because, in the past year, with rising inflation and rising prices of housing, the lower income group has been very badly affected. For this group, purchasing a house is out of the question. They do not have the money to buy a house. Their only option is rental housing, and they cannot afford to rent private property. The prices are way out of reach for them. In fact, with respect to private property, I see this phenomenon because my constituency is actually like a microcosm of the whole of Singapore. My constituency is called Tanglin-Cairnhill, which is a bit of a misnomer, because I have Tanglin, I have Cairnhill, I have Balmoral, but I also have the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, which is Henderson that has 1- and 2-room rental flats. So, I have the whole spectrum. In districts 9, 10 and 11, we have this phenomenon where rentals used to be $7,000, now it has gone up to $10,000. So that group will move out of districts 9, 10 and 11, and they go into the outlying or suburban areas, where somebody previously would have paid $3,000, now the landlord can give it to somebody for $4,000. And this continues and we have this effect where slowly people are pushed out and it goes all the way down along the line until we get to the person who has nowhere else to go except the HDB rental flat. Of course, when it comes to HDB rental flats, the difficulty is that there seems to be an acute shortage of HDB rental housing. I know this because I see many residents who come to me for appeals for HDB rental housing. In fact, I know the HDB's answer by heart.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I would like to speak in support of the Budget Statement which was obviously well thought out and strove to cater to different segments of Singapore society to try and make sure that almost everyone was catered for. I say "almost everyone" because there are some for which the Budget Statement does not cater entirely, and I would like to deal with these groups. In this Statement, the Finance Minister laid out Singapore's strategy for dealing with inflation, and he laid out five planks. I would like to comment on two of these - the fifth and the third planks. The fifth plank mentioned by the Minister was that the most fundamental strategy of coping with rising inflation is to keep our economy competitive and to build up our capabilities so that we can enjoy good economic growth, and that is the best offset to global inflation. In essence, that clearly makes sense, and it works, I think, for the vast majority of people. Because the idea is, let us say one's household expenditure is increased by $100 and with economic growth such that his household income is also increased by $100 or more, then he is buffered. So, that is fine, and that takes care of the large group. But there is a small group of people who consistently do not really benefit or at least get to receive the benefit of economic growth, and that is either the very elderly who cannot work or the very low income with low or no skills. In a scenario where we have rising inflation, obviously, the key concerns are food and basic necessities, utilities and housing.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to clarify a certain portion of his answer. I would like to know whether it means that in all situations, a person will never receive more than 24 strokes. Let me explain what I mean by this. The Attorney-General has said that in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion, he would proceed only on a limited number of charges in case of multiple charges, such that the total number of strokes will not exceed 24 strokes. If you have a situation, for example, where there is one trial, three offences and the sentence is 24 strokes, and let us say that the same person is charged in a separate trial for a different offence and gets 10 strokes, does that mean that, at the end of the day, he gets 24 only for the two trials? Or does it mean that he gets 24 plus 10, ie, 34?”
“And in my respectful view, removing marital immunity altogether would send a strong signal that sexual relations in a marriage should be based on mutual consent and be an incentive for both partners to conduct themselves accordingly. With that, Sir, I support the amendments. 6.50 pm”
“And that would be a very good thing, because for far too long, we have people who are living in Singapore who do not do anything wrong here as far as commercial sex with minors is concerned, but they go into the neighbouring region and they perform these acts with minors which are heinous, reprehensible and abhorrent. For too long, they have been able to maintain that hypocrisy of staying here and maintaining a perfectly respectable facade whilst going overseas and conducting these abhorrent activities. This, in my view, is a particularly apt amendment and one that I would certainly support. The last point I just want to talk about is on section 375 and marital immunity. On this, I think I would have to align myself with all the others who have spoken before to ask the Government to reconsider and still have retention of parts of marital immunity. The fact that certain inroads have been made into marital immunity is good. But I think the point is that the reality is violence would have occurred before any of these exemptions would have come about before someone gets an interim judgment for divorce, before he gets interim judgment of nullity or before he gets a personal protection order, there would have been occasions where there have been domestic violence and very often a case of marital rape. In many instances, women are afraid to step forward and take the formal steps of estrangement, which may result in all these formal orders taking place. So, I would strongly argue that whilst marriage is a prima facie indication of consent, it does not mean that when the marriage in ongoing, the wife must be deemed to have consented on all occasions.”
“Members will recall that Ms Sylvia Lim said that the Workers' Party had debated it for a long time, and they basically could not arrive at a consensus. And because they could not arrive at a consensus, they figured that they should let the status quo remain. And until such time when society is ready to move, the Government's position is the correct position, which is - let things develop but, in the meantime, obviously, they have signalled that they will not actively prosecute, although that may be different if the act is done in public, and it certainly may not be the case if a minor is involved. In that way, it is a compromise of sorts, but we always have to have a compromise when we live in a society where there are diverse groups. Having dealt with section 377A, I just want to make two other points. I want to comment on the sexual offences which protect minors, especially vulnerable ones, and this is what I call the 376 series. I think these are laudable amendments. I just want to make a comment on section 376B, which is commercial sex with a minor under 18 overseas. I think this is a particularly good and timely amendment. And I think that at the time it was being considered, one of the considerations was the difficulties of enforcement and whether or not something like that could be effectively enforced. The recent case of the paedophile Christopher Neil who was caught in Thailand after cooperation by the public and with the use of technology and the Internet. I think this is an indication of promise that we can have effective enforcement of this particular section. With technology, with public cooperation, I think it would be easier to have enforcement of this section than we had previously thought.”
“And our society, obviously, has not arrived at the stage where we can just separate the two. It is not as easy as that, and people see it as an important form of public signalling. Therefore, the stance which the Government is taking is, in fact, an exact reflection of what Singapore society in general think, which is that if you really have to do it in private, the Government and the Police will not take a proactive enforcement policy but, at the same time, we do not want to send a message to everybody that this is correct, because we have to take into account the majority view. And I think that many liberal groups have, for a long time, thought that the Government was exaggerating the extent of the conservatives in Singapore, but that is not so. I appreciate Mr Siew's point that there were many people who would have written, emailed or given support to the Petition on the Internet. But I can tell you that for every one of those, there was someone who emailed us as Members of Parliament to say, "Do not repeal. Keep it. We thank the MPs, we thank the Government for keeping this law." Sir, when we have a situation like that, when we have one group that feels very strongly to keep the law, and another group that feels strongly to do away with it, what do we do? We have to make a decision. And the obvious decision in such a situation is to maintain the status quo, and to recognise that somewhere along the line, the situation may evolve. It may well change, just as the position on slavery changed, just as the position on a woman being a chattel changed, thank goodness, just as many other things have changed along the way. Actually, we think about it, that was the conclusion that the Workers' Party arrived at.”
“In this case, the public reaction has shown that the majority of Singaporeans do not agree with or accept homosexual behaviour. I think it will be fair to say that most Singaporeans do not want to see somebody jailed for homosexual practices, but most would definitely not want to see any public demonstration of the conduct. They may be prepared to tolerate it if it is done in private, but they do not wish to see it in public and, very importantly, they do not wish to have their children see it in public. Then, of course, the argument comes, "OK, fine, if we do not do it in public, what if we just do it in private?" And that is where the signalling concern comes in, because people are concerned about the impact that a repeal of section 377A would send. Many Members may recall that some years back, the Senior Minister had made the statement that the civil service would not discriminate against gays. And that was a progressive statement because it indicates that the civil service would not discriminate against employing a homosexual just because he is a homosexual. That was already an advance of a public position from what we had 20 years ago. I do not think the Government would have made such a statement like that 20 years ago. That shows that we have evolved to some extent where a statement like that can be made. But immediately after that statement was made, I had a number of pastors coming to speak to me to say, "Why is the Government endorsing homosexual behaviour?" The Government was not endorsing. The Government was saying that we would not discriminate against a homosexual in terms of employment because he is a homosexual. But the immediate public perception, at least for many people, was that it is just not discrimination, it is an endorsement.”
“A murderer could say he is free to kill but society disagrees. Murder is a crime. The right to free speech, for example, does not extend to vilifying another race or religion. And once you have different groups that live in a society, you have to accept that there will be some restrictions on behaviour, and particularly so in Singapore, where we have a small land area and a population of diverse races, religions and beliefs. If we have a difference of views then, what do we do? One group says, "I want this". Another group says, "No, I want that." How do we decide? We have to come down to a decision one way or another and, in most cases, we would go with the majority view, unless there is a reason to protect the minority position. So, under the Constitution, for example, there is no discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Why? Because society as a whole accepts that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race or religion. But that is not the universal principle. That is something we accept here, but there are some countries where there is institutionalised discrimination on the basis of either race or religion as part of their official policy. And for those countries, they consider it right. But in Singapore, we do not. So, in each case, we have to consider what the society regards as the correct or the right way to decide for that society, and particularly so in a State like Singapore which is a secular state. A secular state's position should be that we go with the majority view unless there is a particular reason to uphold the minority position, and legislation has to be a reflection of the societal norms and what is acceptable to that society.”
“But all of us accept that distribution of pornographic materials is something that should be regarded as an offence. So in exactly the same way, it is the broader concept of what we regard to be a safe and secure society. When we look at the safety and security of Singapore, we also look at the question of public morals, public decency and public order. Mr Siew also talked about public morality as being the wrong touchstone. I think he said that public morality has been cited as the basis for legislation to enforce slavery, discrimination against racial and religious minorities, discrimination against women, etc. But in a way, that exactly proves the point. At the time when they had slavery, there were laws in place which reflected the public morality of that time. If you had been in America at that time when they had slaves and you had said to somebody, "You should not have slaves because slavery is wrong", nobody there, at that time, would have agreed with you because the society was such that that was the correct thing at that time. And that is precisely the point because societies do evolve. Clearly, we have evolved to a stage where we now regard slavery as wrong. We certainly regard discrimination on racial and religious grounds as wrong. But in some places, that is still regarded as correct, which just brings us back to the point that in each case, it is a question of what society is prepared to accept. I come to what is Singapore prepared to accept. I do not think we want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans. But the point is: what does our society want for itself? Societal rules are not purely a matter of free choice.”
“An example of this is section 376A on sexual penetration of a minor under 16, irrespective of consent. Because, for someone above 16, you look at consent and you see whether or not that person consented, and then it is fine. But in the case of a minor under 16, there is no consent. The minor may well say, "But the law says that all persons are equal before the law. I am under 16. I give my consent. You should treat me equally as an adult." But we do not argue with that. And why do we not argue with that? We do not argue with that because we recognise that minors are a special group and have to be treated differently and they require certain protection. Of course, that comes to the issue of whether or not you should treat homosexuals differently. I would come to that in a moment, but I just want to address another legal submission made by Mr Siew which is that we can have a departure from Article 12(1) if there is a rational nexus or legitimate purpose for the statute in question. Then, he went on to say that the purpose in question for the amendments in the Penal Code is that Singapore is a safe and secure society and there is no rational nexus between the keeping of section 377A to this stated purpose. The first thing I would say is that that purpose was a purpose stated in the public consultation paper of the proposed Penal Code amendments. It does not come from a statute and it is not part of legislation. It is very obviously a summary of the purpose of the amendments. But if you want to take that sort of argument, then what about the distribution of pornographic material? You could, if you want to take the same argument, say that distribution of pornographic material has nothing to do with a safe and secure society as it is not a threat to persons and property.”
“I would like to say in response that in Europe, I think, in many countries, it is considered that they have lost the battle against drugs. In Singapore, that is not the case. We have more than held the line, we have pushed back the frontiers and we have, in fact, managed to make great inroads into containing the drug problem. So for those reasons, I would not agree that the death penalty should be done away with. I turn now to the comments made by Mr Siew Kum Hong, both in respect of his Petition and section 377A itself. I think I can have some sympathy with the concerns that the gay community or the homosexuals in Singapore have, but I would like to address some specific legal points made by Mr Siew. The entire basis on which the Petition rests is that it is a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution which provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. But actually, the submission that has been made by Mr Siew is not quite correct in its interpretation and taken out of context. What Article 12(1) really means, by way of an illustration, would be this. If somebody is charged with theft, for example, you cannot say that, " I will prosecute you if you are a homosexual, but I would not prosecute you if you are a heterosexual." That would be an unequal and discriminatory application of the law. So that is what it means when you say that all persons are equal before the law. We do not look at your sexual orientation in determining whether or not you should be prosecuted or you should be charged. Article 12(1) of the Constitution and the provisions on equal protection do not mean that the same law applies to every group.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the Bill. Before I go on to my main points, may I just address some of the points that have been raised by Mr Chiam See Tong as well as by Mr Siew Kum Hong. First, Mr Chiam made the point that the penalty for negligence was too harsh and he equated it to just being negligence. The point I would like to make is that negligence under the Penal Code is not mere negligence. It is criminal negligence, and criminal negligence carries with it a higher degree of negligence than civil negligence. For that reason, the penalties that go with criminal negligence have to be higher and have to be reflective of the fact that it is criminal, not civil. Mr Chiam then made the point that now that life sentencing has been clarified to mean an actual life sentence, perhaps, we ought to reconsider the death penalty. He cited the example of Great Britain which has done away with the death penalty as well as countries in Europe. Yet, it always amazes me that when people point to Great Britain and Europe and they talk about the doing away of the death penalty, they never, in the same breath, also talk about their crime rates. They should compare the crime rates in Great Britain and the crime rates of countries in Europe, with the crime rates in Singapore, crime for crime. I think it cannot be disputed that the crime rates in Europe are higher than ours and that the incidences of violent crimes are much more than ours. Mr Chiam also called for the abolition of the death penalty for drug trafficking. He suggested that we should instead have life imprisonment and he pointed to Europe again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. The Minister has indicated that there were three breaches, as it were, one of which was delay in post-incident reporting. My question is: what was the reason why there was a delay? And the wider question is: is there a general mindset that where something goes wrong, there is that instinctive urge to hold back the reporting until, hopefully, they can do something to rectify it? If that is the case, it is something that has an impact on the SAF at large and is something that would need to be tightened up. That is the first question. The second supplementary question is this: the Minister mentioned that all the ammunition was accounted for. In the case of CPL Dave Teo, he was found with five rounds and three rounds. The five rounds were the ones that he had when he was on guard duty. For that, the Minister has explained. But the three tracer rounds came from two weeks previously which would indicate that the camp was not aware that those rounds were missing. My question is how that was overlooked and whether that is something that has since been tightened up as well.”
“There is no reason why it should give anybody this perception of interference by the Executive if they read the amendments to the Constitution which provide that the appointment is by the President in his discretion and only if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.”
“So what it means is that you can have two people, each going up one staircase and they will never meet. One is always on top of the other and they are just going round until they emerge, and one is always at the lower level than the other. And from the point of entry, they are set on different paths. They also have different emerging points when they come out even though it is on the same floor. If progression within the Legal Service is largely dependent on the initial class of Honours, whether it is First Class Honours, for example, you are a JLC, then you will have this double helix effect where your entry point determines your progression and where you emerge, and it is not how fast or how hard you run up the stairs. That does not take into account the late bloomers or those who did not shine academically initially, but later on, are able to do well. I would hope therefore that the establishment of Personnel Boards will allow things like this to be addressed so that, ultimately, we can have a stronger, more robust performance-based Legal Service and also one where legal officers can find satisfaction in their career development. With this, I support the proposed amendments to the Constitution. 4.20 pm”
“I am not suggesting for one moment that academic grades and good performance are mutually exclusive. Usually, top grades are indicative of top talent. However, in practice, we do encounter people whose grades are not in the very top category academically, but they really come into their own, when given a practical problem to resolve - they deliver solid results. Grades should therefore not be the sole or major determinant for career advancement once a person gets into the organisation. As far as possible, there should be performance-based advancement and everybody should have the opportunity to shine. In this regard, I see this issue of advancement depending on entry level as something I would call the "double helix staircase" syndrome. I am not sure if Members have had the opportunity to visit the Loire Valley in France. It is famous for its many beautiful chateaus built by the French Kings in the area. One of them is the Chateau de Chambord built in Loire by King Francis I. It is the largest castle in the Loire Valley and one of the most recognisable with its blend of medieval French and Italian architectural styles. It is well worth a visit, not on public funds, but on a private visit. But a cheaper option is to check it out on Wikipedia. But, anyway, I visited Chambord in my fourth year in law school before I started pupilage. And one of the most noticeable features at Chambord which I saw then, and which I still remember to this day, is the double helix staircase, the conception and design of which has been attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci. It is a rather remarkable design. Essentially, it comprises two spiral staircases, one built on top of each other. They twine round in parallel, from the ground to the third floor of the castle.”
“It is almost a full-time function in itself, and this is what we in the private sector have to contend with and I do not think that the Legal Service is any different. So having a Personnel Board will allow for more efficient HR management in this respect. I would, however, like to seek clarification from the Minister for Law as to what is meant by having one or more Personnel Boards having charge over different classes of Legal Service officers. What exactly is it meant by "different classes" and how would different Personnel Boards dealing with these different classes work in practice? I am concerned about a possible "silo effect" where each Board does what it likes, because there must be some consistency in dealing with the legal officers. I would also hope that the establishment of Personnel Boards would allow the Legal Service to develop an overall structure that would allow legal officers to progress based on performance. From feedback that we get as practitioners - and I say that this is feedback as I do not know whether it is actually the case - it would appear that the type of Honours that a legal officer gets for his initial degree, ie, the LLB, pretty much determines not only his entry level but also his advancement for many years after. If this is so, then it does not take into account late bloomers or those who may not be academically brilliant, but who have good practical skills, are dependable and get the job done. Progression based on the original university degree is actually markedly different from private sector practice where grades are only your passport to entry and that is all. Once you get in, in private practice, the clock is reset and all promotions and advancements are performance-based.”
“Next, we have no issue with the appointment of our High Court Judges whose reputation as administrators of justice not only in Singapore but internationally is a sterling one, and each and every single one of them is appointed by the President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the quality of our High Court Bench is something that is internationally respected and renowned, then I see no reason why we cannot have the same procedure for the appointment of the Legal Service Commission which, in turn, obviously will decide who gets to enter the Legal Service. The objections to these amendments also, I think, unjustifiably denigrade or take away from the people who are appointed, because it assumes that they will not act without fear or favour. It assumes that they will not act and carry out their duties in the best manner possible. But all these people who are appointed have, at least, as far as I can see, carried out their duties properly and with a full understanding of what is required of them. So, for those reasons, I do not agree to the objections to the provision for the Prime Minister to nominate two nominees to the Legal Service Commission. I move on now to the third point, ie, the Personnel Boards. The setting up of Personnel Boards is a progressive step. Recruitment in today's world is not just about hiring and firing someone. HR management is a much more complex process today than it was in the past. Now, apart from just paying competitive salaries, it involves a HR environment that takes into account the employees' aspirations for training, advancement, quality of life, work-life balance, continuing legal education, etc.”
“The Chief Justice is appointed under Article 95 of the Constitution. And guess what? He is appointed by the President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister. Second, in Article 111(2A), the second member of the Legal Service Commission is the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is appointed under Article 35 of the Constitution. And guess what? He is appointed by the President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister. Third, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the members of the Public Service Commission, who are actually appointed under Article 105 of the Constitution, are also appointed by the President, acting upon the advice of the Prime Minister. Under the current provisions, it would have been a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated specially by the Chief Justice. But, of course, Judges of the Supreme Court, like the Chief Justice, are appointed under Article 95, also by the President in his discretion, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. Of course, two members of the Public Service Commission, who, as we have already seen, are also appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. Sir, what I do not understand is this: why is it that it is fine to have the current Legal Service Commission all appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, but it is not all right to have two additional nominees nominated by the Prime Minister who would only be appointed if the President, acting in his discretion, decides to do so? Logically, it does not make sense. That is why I do not agree with the objections to having the Prime Minister add two nominations.”
“When you really examine it, you will see that there is nothing there. The first point is this. The suggestion is that a nomination of two people to the LSC by the Prime Minister will somehow politicise the work of the LSC. But what people forget - in fact, this was actually alluded to indirectly by Prof Thio - is that it is not the Prime Minister that appoints. The specific amendment and provision provides that the President appoints and he appoints, acting in his discretion, and it is only a matter of whether he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. The point to remember is this. Our President is not an appointed President. He is an Elected President. He derives his power, authority and mandate from the people of Singapore. And when he makes this decision, he makes it acting in his discretion and not simply because the Prime Minister requests him to do so. So, that is the first and overriding consideration to remember. This is not a political appointment. This is the Prime Minister giving advice to the President who acts in his discretion with a direct mandate from the electorate, the people of Singapore. The second point is this. Ms Sylvia Lim has suggested that the Legal Service Commission should remain as it is. She is happy for it to remain as it is because she feels that the amendment, together with the proposed amendment for the appointment of the Prime Minister, would interfere with the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary. Let us examine the composition of the current Legal Service Commission. That is provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution. Article 111 provides for five categories of people from the Legal Service Commission. First, the Chief Justice, who is the President. Who appoints the Chief Justice?”
“In this regard, I should declare my interest as a private practitioner and also the Recruitment Director of my company, because we are in direct competition with the Legal Service Commission, and we will do our utmost to attract and retain the top legal talent. And it is not just about recruitment. It is also a question of retention. More and more, players in the legal industry are finding that getting in talent is one thing, but keeping it is quite another. And the Legal Service is no exception. Typically, in the private sector, we find that attrition tends to occur after about three to four years when people start to take stock of their careers and decide what they want to do for the future. In dealing with all these challenges in attracting and retaining legal talent, the Legal Service Commission has to be au fait with developments in the legal industry. This includes having to keep up not just with salaries but also understanding what attracts law graduates to join them and what people outside are doing to attract the same people. Sir, the proposed amendment to Article 111 of the Constitution to allow for expanded membership of the LSC is a step in the right direction, because including or allowing the possibility of including people from the private sector or with personnel management backgrounds will better equip the LSC for its task of recruiting and retaining talent in the face of the fierce competition for talent. This brings me then to the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim and Prof Thio Li-ann on the question of whether one should include the Prime Minister's nominations to the Legal Service Commission. A lot of noise and smoke have been generated by this discussion. But it is like a mirage in the desert.”
“How do you punish someone for the crime? Does he go to jail or probation? The adjudication of commercial disputes which, in turn, affects Singapore's reputation as an economic and financial hub? Sir, the quality of our administration of justice and our ability to maintain our reputation in this regard depend very much on the quality of people that the Legal Service is able to recruit. Poor quality recruitment means poor administration of justice, something that we cannot afford. Under the Constitution, the Legal Service Commission is tasked with the appointment, confirmation, placement, promotion, transfer and dismissal of all officers in the Singapore Legal Service. In order to fulfill this task, the LSC has to be up to speed, not just with the developments within the Legal Service and Government but also with developments in the private sector, because the Legal Service Commission has to compete with the private sector in order to recruit and retain legal officers. This competition should not be underestimated. We have a relatively small pool of legal graduates. Currently, our law graduates come from NUS, although the SMU graduates will come onstream in a few years. There are, of course, students with overseas law degrees, but these are also a relatively small number, due to the strict quality control requirements that have to be met in order to practise in Singapore. There is limited supply and, currently, there is a very high demand. And the LSC is faced with stiff competition for the recruitment of talent. Its competitors are not just the local law firms but also foreign law firms, companies which need inhouse counsel, and even employers from non-legal industries who nevertheless want legally-trained people for positions which are not law related.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, in particular, the amendments to Article 111 of the Constitution which expands the composition of the Legal Service Commission, and, secondly, the amendment to insert a new Article 111AA to provide for the establishment of Personnel Boards under the Legal Service Commission for the Legal Service. I have three main points. (1) It is vitally important for the Legal Service to attract and retain top talent; (2) The expansion of the membership of the Legal Service Commission to include appointees from the private sector is a step in the right direction that will help the Legal Service to attract and retain talent; and (3) The establishment of Personnel Boards is also a progressive move that will enable more efficient HR management within the Legal Service. On the first point, legal officers, being involved in the administration of justice as they are, have a direct and significant impact on the day-to-day lives of people in Singapore. In their capacities as prosecutors, registrars, district judges and as drafters of legislation, legal officers interface with ordinary people in almost every aspect of their daily lives. The work that the legal officers do and the decisions which they make can change the course of a person's life. As prosecutors, they make decisions on whether someone should be prosecuted for a crime, the way in which a matter is prosecuted determines whether or not someone goes to jail or is otherwise penalised. As registrars, magistrates and district judges, legal officers have to decide on cases. Their decisions affect people in a myriad variety of ways. Should a divorce be granted? Should maintenance be paid? Who gets custody of a child?”
“For that, the point that I wanted to make was, it is not just the methodology of carrying out the search or seizure, but the training in when to exercise that discretion, how to exercise that discretion, particularly when dealing with civilians. These are the main points that I wish to make, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would also like to say that I do support the amendments to the SAF Act. 5.25 pm”
“I appreciate that there are already built-in safeguards because he cannot exercise these powers unless the deployment order has been made and unless the Minister has given the authorisation or a superior officer has given the authorisation. But once those three things have occurred, the serviceman is actually in a position where he will have to exercise some element of discretion, particularly when he is exercising any of the powers conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapters 4 and 12, or section 68, or, for example, if he is deciding to arrest without warrant or to stop and search any vehicle in connection with the two Acts mentioned earlier. In this respect, I suppose the need for proper training is very important. I was reassured to some extent by the Minister's speech where he outlined the type of training that the serviceman would undergo. I think what is of importance is the serviceman's ability to carry out those powers when they are dealing with civilians, because there will be a time when he has to exercise his discretion. If he stops a vehicle and he thinks, for example, that there has been a commission of an offence under the Arms and Explosives Act, he has to take a decision because he has the ability to disarm such a person; he has the ability to seize what is in the vehicle; he has got to take a judgment call on the spot whether to do that or not. There will also be times when he may have to decide whether to stop and search a civilian. So, for these instances where the discretion is necessary, because I appreciate that the serviceman cannot stop on the spot and call back for orders and say, "Excuse me, do I search the person now?" He cannot do that. The training is extremely important.”
“I assume that comes from section 201E(5) but I thought that it would be best to seek clarification here. So, at least, there is a clear chain of command - from Minister to superior officer, and then from the officer to the serviceman. There are two aspects of the Act that I want to touch on. One, that the provisions of the Act are quite wide-ranging and understandably so, because of the need to be able to respond to a security threat. One item that was of interest was section 201C, because there are three instances where the Minister can make an order for deployment. Of course, he has to do it after consulting the committee. The first is when a relevant event has occurred. When a relevant event has occurred, there is no problem, because I think the public will understand that there is a clear danger. It also allows the Minister to make an order if a relevant event is likely to occur. That is not a problem as well because people know that there is a probable danger. It is the words that the Minister can deploy the SAF where a relevant event could occur, because "could occur" is where anything is possible. In this respect, I would like to ask for the Minister's assurance that such an order would not be made lightly or arbitrarily, and would be really made in a situation where there is a real need to do so. I think that is where the need for public reassurance comes. The second aspect is the powers that the serviceman would have, because these are quite wide-ranging and, importantly, the serviceman has an interface with the public in the exercise of these powers.”
“The way the regime works, as I understand it, is that, first, the Minister must think that a relevant event has occurred, could occur or would be likely to occur, and then he can order the SAF to be declared for the relevant event for such period as is specified in the order, and that is a relevant event. That would be something like terrorist attacks, injury to life, damaged infrastructure, taking of hostages, unlawful carriage of weapons or explosives. Only when the Minister makes the deployment order, the serviceman is deployed and then he has certain powers. And these would include various things, one of which would be the exercise of any powers conferred on a police officer under Chapters 4, 12 and 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also has certain powers of arrest without warrant and powers of search and seizure if he has ground to think that an offence has been committed under the Arms and Explosives Act and the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act. The serviceman cannot exercise these powers unless he is authorised either by the Minister or under orders from a superior. In the context of being authorised under orders of a superior, I had heard the Minister say in his speech that the orders of the superior must in turn be authorised by the Minister. I would be grateful for a clarification from the Minister with respect to section 201E of the Act, because it says, "a serviceman may exercise any power either in accordance with the Minister's authorisation or under the authority of an order of a superior." I would like to seek clarification that under the Act, the order of the superior must be authorised by the Minister. Otherwise, the superior would be acting on his own.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to speak in support of the amendments to the SAF Act. These amendments which are really intended to put in place a proper legal framework are timely. They are reflective of the changed security situation of the world that we live in today. In the past, it was possible to have a clear divide between external threats to security and internal threats. Those were clear. The SAF dealt with the external threats and defence, and the Police and the Home Team dealt with internal threats. But, of course, 11th September 2001 changed all that. On September 11th, the line between the military element and the civilian element had blurred, and the problem we face today is that an external threat would not necessarily come from the foreign armed forces of another country. It could quite easily be initiated by terrorists and their civilian associates. The enemy no longer needs to wear a uniform which identifies him as such. The enemy could be from within and be just like one of us. And in our new security climate, it is no longer just military targets but also civilian targets as well. Hence, the need to amend the SAF Act to allow for the SAF to assist in situations where they have to act in support of civilian authorities. I have been looking at the structure of the Act and there are really two parts to it - one, the ability to deploy the SAF for air and sea operations in aid of civilian authorities; and, second, the deployment of the SAF for land operations in aid of civilian authorities. And it is the part on land operations that I would like to concentrate on.”
“Just a very quick point of clarification for the Minister for Law. It is correct the Minister mentioned that, for part-lot acquisition, the "before" and "after" method of valuation is used. I would just like to ask the Ministry of Law to consider, for future, that in the context where you acquire a strip of land that is zoned "road", what happens is that when the Land Tribunal calculates the "before" value, the "before" value is already lowered because the part that is zoned "road" is valued at zero. So, if something could be done about that valuation of the land at zero, ie, if it was not zoned "road", it would have a different value. Then, your "before" value would actually be a higher value. That was the point that I was making. But, perhaps by way of clarification, I should say to the Minister for Law that I shall not give up. I shall be back, Sir.”
“What happens somewhere along the way is that the Planning Department changed the practice. And instead of drawing road widening lines, they zoned the strip of land for "road". The moment it is zoned as "road", then any potential buyer looking at it is going to give it a zero value for that strip. And in the context of land acquisition, because in land acquisition, zoning is one of the factors we have to take into account in determining compensation, and we must look at the market value just before the land is acquired. If there is a strip of land there which is zoned for road, that basically means that that strip is worth zero. And for compensation purposes, we have got to exclude the value of that strip of land. I suppose the Ministry of Law's response to this is, "Well, that is the basis on which a willing buyer is going to buy from you." This is at the point he buys it, assuming that there has been no acquisition. The difference is this. In some cases, the willing buyer may feel that if he is not going to redevelop, he will have the use of the land with that strip. So he may be still willing to pay for that strip even though it is zoned "road". But in the case of land acquisition, we cannot, because it is frozen at the time of acquisition, and then we must take into account the zoning requirements. And if that strip is zoned "road", we have to give a zero value to it. Sir, I hope that something can be done as far as road zones are concerned, whether under the Land Acquisition Act or through the practice of the Planning Department, as I feel that that would be a fairer basis on which compensation to landowners can be calculated. With that, I support the Bill, Sir. 7.10 pm”
“The appellant argued that we should disregard the decrease and we should assume that there was no decrease and we just take the market value as if it had not been known, as it was in that case, that a road was going to run through the property, and the Court of Appeal held that well. In other Commonwealth jurisdictions, it may be disregarded. But under the current wording of our Act, the drop in value should not be taken into account. Basically, the landowner lost out in that case. What I think we ought to do is to make a legislative amendment to allow for the application of the negative Pointe Gourde principle. That may not be possible at this particular reading of the Bill but, hopefully, this is something that the Ministry of Law can look into. The second point I wanted to raise was the application or the impact on land acquisition, of the way the Planning Department zones strips of land for road widening. I appreciate that this may actually be more a point for the Ministry of National Development and the Planning Department and I am happy to raise it with that Ministry, if need be. But I have encountered this in the context of land acquisition and therefore thought that it should be appropriate to raise it here. The problem arises in this way. In many cases, land was purchased, let us say, back in the 1960s or 1970s. The way the Planning Department provided for roads in the event of redevelopment was that if you had a piece of land, they provided for a road widening line. The land would still be zoned residential, commercial or mixed use with a road widening line running through it, so that whoever bought it would know that, in the event of redevelopment, it would be set back and a road would run through it.”
“The majority of the Court of Appeal felt that the wording of the Act conflicted with the negative Pointe Gourde principle and, on that basis, they excluded the negative application of the principle. They also felt that if any changes were to be made, they would have to be made in Parliament. The majority of the Court of Appeal said: "Neither are we swayed by counsel for the appellant's corollary argument that undue hardship has been visited on the appellant in this case. We do not find hardship alone sufficient to justify the adventurous restatement of the law that the appellant invites us to make. The argument of hardship in this instance is more appropriately made in Parliament and not in the courts." So, in the light of that, I am making this argument now. Most times, people would not know about an intended acquisition until it is gazetted. So, when land is gazetted and we take the market value at the time of acquisition, there is no problem because the public did not know about it before. Under the proposed amendments, that is fine. However, we will occasionally have a case, like the Ng Boo Tan's case, where the scheme or the planning behind the acquisition was known in the public domain before the land was acquired, with the result that the value of the land decreased even before the formal acquisition. And what the appellant had argued in that case was that because it was known in the public domain and because the value of the land had decreased as a result, and at the time of acquisition, when we take the market value, the market value was already lower.”
“I am very pleased to note that the Ministry of Law appears to have taken note of this and deleted that reference. The current wording is much better, simplified and it expresses the intention in plain English, which is good news for all practitioners and landowners whose land is acquired. Having said this, I need to touch on two areas which I believe require either legislative amendments or some change in practice. The first of this is the Pointe Gourde principle. The Pointe Gourde principle is a common law principle which simply means this. It says that when the land is acquired, you must disregard any increase in the value of the land which arises as a result of the acquisition. That is fair, because the landowner should not get a windfall. If, for example, the land is acquired because a MRT station is going to be built nearby, then immediately that would increase the land value, and it is not right for the landowner to get a windfall as a result of that. Under the common law and in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, if there is a decrease in the value of the land as a result of the acquisition, then you disregard that decrease as well. Otherwise, the landowner is prejudiced. However, in Singapore, the way our courts have interpreted the Land Acquisition Act is that it upholds the principle that you disregard any increase. This is known as positive Pointe Gourde, but it has not included the fact that you should disregard any decrease. And this was actually held in a Court of Appeal case of Ng Boo Tan against the Collector of Land Revenue in a split decision by the majority of the Court of Appeal with a strong dissenting judgment by Justice Chao Hick Tin, as he then was.”
“I therefore welcome and fully support the proposed amendments to the Act and, in particular, the amendment to section 33(1) which changes the basis of compensation from market value as at a fixed rigid statutory date to instead market value as at the date of acquisition. The date of acquisition under the proposed amendments would be the date of the Gazette notification under section 5(1) of the Act, which is when the President declares that the land is required for a public purpose specified therein, or the date of the Gazette notification under section 3(1) of the Act which specifies that the land is likely to be needed for public purpose under section 5(1), and then where this notification is actually followed up by a declaration under section 5. The effect of these proposed amendments effectively allows the market value to be taken at a time when it is publicly made known that the land is to be acquired, and it is therefore a much more accurate reflection of what the owner would be able to get from a willing buyer but for the acquisition. This is subject to qualifications which I will touch on shortly. This is, of course, much more equitable. I am also happy to note that the proposed amendments to section 33(5)(e) of the Act include a deletion to the reference to the development baseline. Section 33(5) of the Act sets out various things which can and cannot be taken into account when deriving the market value of the acquired land. When I last spoke in this House on the Land Acquisition Act, I had made the point that the current wording which attempts to define the purpose of land use, the reference to the development baseline in the Planning Act, was so convoluted and tortured that was guaranteed to give an instant migraine.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the Bill. Before I do so, I also wish to declare my interest as a practising lawyer. In some cases, I do land acquisition cases and it is because of that, that there are some points which, I think, may be of interest to raise. I would like to touch on three points. Firstly, the main amendment to the Act which changes the date to which compensation for acquired land is to be taken, from certain specified dates to the market value as at the date of acquisition. Secondly, it is a legal thing, what is known as Pointe Gourde principle, which I will explain later, and whether it should be applied in the reverse. And, thirdly, the impact of the Planning Department's practice of zoning road widening lines as road zones and how this impacts on land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. First, market value as at the date of acquisition. Under the current Act, the owners of land whose property is acquired do receive compensation, but that compensation is pegged to certain statutory dates. And these were dates which were really not reflective of market value. The most common one will be for land acquired on or after 27th September 1995, the compensation will be taken as at the market value as at 1st January 1995. Whilst this device of pegging compensation to a fixed statutory date far back in time may once have served the purpose, it is now anachronistic and out of touch with the reality of property prices, especially where property values have risen over the years. Under the current Act, the owners of land acquired on, say, 1st December 2006, will be compensated on the basis of the market value of the land as at 1st January 1995. This makes no sense, and, in some cases, can operate very inequitably.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, may I thank the First and Second Ministers for Defence and Minister of State for their comprehensive, thoughtful and in-depth replies. We are reassured that the rather large budget that we hope to approve in a short while has been put to good use to acquire not just an entire arsenal of weapons but a menagerie as well. With that, may I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $10,227,179,040 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $351,000,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 2822 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS”
“May I seek the following clarifications from the Minister for Defence? A lot of emphasis has been placed on high technology for the SAF. But in the context of the current security threats, especially terrorism, the terrorist approach appears to be low-technology, high-impact, such as September 11th, for example. My question is: what is the SAF doing in anticipated response to that kind of situation and appreciating of course that there has to be coordination with the Home Team? But, the SAF, of course, has its own specific areas of responsibility. That is the first clarification. The second is that: the Minister mentioned the regional conference between the Defence Ministers. I would like to ask the Minister what was the main achievement at the end of that conference and what does he look forward to being achieved in the upcoming conference? The third clarification I wish to seek is in the context of training in India. Given that the terrain there is quite different from the terrain in Singapore and the immediate Southeast Asian region, what kind of training do we do there and what is the benefit that we get out of training in India?”
“Sir, may I also ask the Minister on the SAF training and safety records, in particular, for the past three years? I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what are the most common types of accidents during training, whether the SAF takes note of the causes of the accidents and whether, as a result of that, steps are taken to ensure that such accidents do not happen again. Here, when I ask about the training and safety record, I am also very conscious of the need to balance between having realistic training in order to prepare our SAF personnel and, at the same time, to ensure that there is safe training. We certainly do not want our SAF officers to under-train or for the training environment to be so protected that it is unrealistic. Obviously, if we are going to send them into battle at some time or into whatever sort of operation, they need to be prepared and adequately trained. But at the same time, there is also a question of ensuring that these men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are also taken care of because we expect much from them. Because we expect much from them, it is also important that we do our part to ensure that their training is safe.”
“So I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate a little more on what we are doing in terms of manpower and human resource development in the SAF as well as update us on the hardware.”
“Mr Chairman, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline or explain to us exactly what the 3G SAF is. We have heard a lot about the 3G SAF but it is a little bit like the four men trying to describe an elephant. If you are looking from the front, you think it is long, like a tube. If you are looking from the back, it is a short little tail. If you are looking from the side, it is a big solid wall. I think we have heard a lot about it. We know that the SAF is being transformed in all the tri services but it would be useful if we could understand exactly what it means. How does this translate into implementation? What is the practical consequences for the SAF? And also I understand from speaking to people, both in the SAF as well as NSmen, that the pace of change is tremendous. So the question is, what about those NSmen who are not regulars? How do they keep up with the change? Because if the day comes when we have to push the button and everybody needs to be mobilised, they have to be able to react just as quickly as the regulars. They have to work together as a team. So how are they being kept updated in terms of training, in terms of knowing what is going on in the transformation of the SAF? Also, what attracts a lot of attention in the press and the media is the hardware - these nice, new, shiny weapons (the big planes and big tanks). But I think everybody knows that at the end of the day, it is the people behind the machines that matter. It is the quality of the officers, the personnel, and the quality of their thinking that make a big difference between the kind of Armed Forces that we have and the armed forces anywhere else in the world.”
“It is estimated that half of the world's oil supply and a third of global trade passes through the Straits each year. Security of the Straits is therefore of paramount importance to the region and to Singapore in particular, given our role as an international commercial hub and being one of the busiest ports in the world. Piracy continues to be a problem in regional waters and this can have a very detrimental impact if it is not addressed. There is also of course the ever constant threat of terrorism. Any act of terrorism in the Straits or regional waters would have a devastating effect on our commerce. At one time, I recall Lloyd's has classified the Straits of Malacca as a war-risk zone even though no terrorist incident had taken place and this of course had an immediate adverse effect on commercial shipping, most notably on the insurance cost. Subsequently, I understand that after enforcement and surveillance, Lloyd's has in fact changed this and has delisted the Straits of Malacca as a war-risk zone but the potential for the threat in terms of terrorism or piracy remains and consequently the threat to our economy remains as well. It will be appreciated therefore if the Minister could update us and give a comment on the security situation as far as the Straits is concerned and what the SAF is doing to make the Straits a more secure place. Security and Defence Relations”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100. If I may touch on the topic of Regional and Maritime Security. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence for an update on our regional and maritime security. The reason for the existence of the SAF is the safety, security and protection of Singapore. However, the external threats are not constant. In the 60s and 70s, there was communism. This changed over the decades to various other visual instabilities. Most currently, the key threat to Singapore and our security is that of terrorism. Nobody can say that we do not live in an exciting neighbourhood. What this means though is that the regional security scenario is not static. It is changing every day, every month. The SAF exists to meet these external threats and because the external threats change from time to time, a clear analysis of regional security is necessary to ensure that we are well positioned to meet any of the security challenges that face Singapore. Sir, I would be grateful if the Minister could share with us MINDEF's assessment of the regional security situation so that Singaporeans can understand better what it is that we are looking at and in what way we should be prepared. In this connection, I would just also like to ask the Minister if he could comment on an assertion that was made by an Indonesian official that the RSAF is flying over the Riau Islands without clearance from Jakarta. It would be appreciated if MINDEF could give us their perspective on this comment. I would also like to touch briefly on maritime security. The Straits of Malacca and Singapore are amongst the busiest Straits in the world.”
“Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and, on behalf of the GPC, we would like to wish him another three "Ps" - patience and perseverance which will hopefully result in progress. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $316,405,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $83,610,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 2744 Head J - Ministry of Defence Regional and Maritime Security”
“Sir, I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate a little more on the ASEAN Charter. What, for example, would be the value or the importance of having the Charter as opposed to the current situation? Is it intended to be something more than just a statement of broad principles? Does it have any teeth to it? And what would happen in the event there were disputes or differences of opinion on how it is to work? Would there be a dispute resolution mechanism? Or, basically, how would one implement that Charter?”
“But bearing in mind that we live in a neighbourhood which is sometimes calm and sometimes exciting, it would be helpful if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could give us an indication of whether we are sailing in smooth waters or whether we must experience a little turbulence here and there.”
“The first "P" is that Indonesia took a stand on banning the export of sand on the matter of principle. They said that it was the environment. So that sounds quite noble and high minded. They wanted to protect the environment. It is a matter of principle. A few days later though, they emanated another statement which said that the ban was because of pressure. They wanted to pressure us. That sounds rather less noble. That is the second "P". Then, on Sunday, I noticed that Indonesia's Maritime Affairs Minister, Mr Freddy Numberi, had said, and I quote, "The ban on sand exports will not be lifted till the Republic settles their border dispute. And even if Indonesia were to eventually allow sales to resume, it wants to renegotiate the price of the sand and determine which areas could be mined to avoid environmental degradation." And he said also, "Politically, we banned the export of sand because we wanted it to have a larger economic value, and we also wanted to settle our border disputes with Singapore." This comment about banning sand because they wanted to have a larger economic value is rather telling. Because what that suggests is its price, the third "P". So the first "P" - principle can perhaps be compromised, if the third "P" comes in, which is price. So the principle can be purchased. Of course, all this results in the fourth "P" for Singapore because we are puzzled. And if I could just wrap the whole thing up by saying that the entire Indonesian stand can be described as the fifth "P", which is that it is peculiar. If the Minister could comment on these developments as well as the other bilateral relations that we have with our neighbours, which seem to be rather more smooth sailing with the occasional ups and downs.”
“With respect to Singapore's foreign relations, I would like to ask the Minister whether there had been any significant developments in our foreign relations as a whole. In particular, I would like to know where our relationships with the US and Europe stand and also our international standing. We are a small country but it has been said that we punch above our weight. It would be good if the Minister could update us on where Singapore stands in the international community and whether what we say in respect of international conventions, treaties and international affairs generally is taken note of by other countries. ASEAN I would also be grateful if the Minister could comment or give us an update on ASEAN. ASEAN is still a cornerstone of our foreign policy, so I would appreciate it if the Minister could let us know what is our current policy on ASEAN and, in particular, what are our plans for the ASEAN Chairmanship since Singapore would be taking the chairmanship of ASEAN. And also what it the progress on the ASEAN charter? There has been much talk from time to time about ASEAN integration. It would also be appreciated if the Minister could comment on the feasibility of ASEAN integration, or what sort of progress is being made in that decision. I would also ask the Minister to comment on our bilateral relations with Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam and Indonesia. 2.45 pm If I may just spend a few minutes on Indonesia because I had, in my Budget Statement, spoken about that. I had noticed that in the Sunday Times, there has been a further development or yet another episode emanating from our Indonesian neighbours. I must say, Sir, that it really is rather like a bad soap opera. The latest salvo that has come from Indonesia can perhaps be described as the five Ps.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Mr Chairman, may I take my two cuts together on Singapore foreign relations and ASEAN? That will be five minutes then, Sir?”
“Singapore, when founded by Sir Stamford Raffles, was founded as a free port, a crossroad of the trade routes between Europe, India and China. Singapore was a place where people all over the then civilised world could come to trade, to do business and, in some cases, to stay. Our strength is in our openness and diversity. For new citizens and PRs, it is important to remember that once you become one of us, citizen or PR, you embark on the great enterprise of being a Singaporean. When you become a new citizen, our vision becomes your vision, our hopes become your hopes, and our dreams become your dreams. You will also contribute to that vision, those hopes and dreams by contributing your ideas, talent and energy. We have a journey to make, a destination to reach, and we have to do it together. And to do this, the need for integration is extremely important. I would, therefore, like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps and initiatives can be taken to facilitate greater integration between Singaporeans, new citizens and PRs. Citizenship and National Pride”