K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 64 of 92.
“Protecting the public against terrorist attacks that use vehicles is a challenge that security agencies around the world are dealing with. Over the past year, the Home Team has enhanced our capabilities to prevent and respond to a terror attack. Our response forces are better equipped and organised. We have conducted major counter-terrorism exercises to test our response measures. We have also improved our surveillance and analytics capabilities. We will continue with these efforts. We recognise that it may not be possible to completely prevent a terrorist attack from happening in Singapore. Individuals who are determined to launch a terror attack can do so even without access to controlled items, such as arms and explosives. The Westminster attack in London was executed with a normal saloon car. Thus, we are also expanding our efforts to engage the community through SGSecure. This will ensure our society is alert to and prepared for any attack and able to bounce back quickly after an attack. Specific to the threat of attacks using a vehicle, the public can play an important role by being vigilant near roads in crowded areas. They can save lives by alerting people nearby if they witness vehicles driving unusually, and contacting the Police if they notice suspicious persons or vehicles. We are also amending the law to ensure business owners of events and buildings take steps to protect them against terror attacks, including those which use vehicles. The Public Order Act was amended last month to require organisers of events that attract large crowds, or are of higher risk, to put necessary security measures in place.”
“The number of fire fatalities per 100,000 population is among the lowest in the world.1 This is because we take a multi-pronged approach to fire safety. But every single fatality is simply one too many. Therefore, SCDF strictly enforces, and constantly reviews, the Fire Code to ensure the safety of occupants in buildings, as well as conducts outreach and education efforts so that our citizens are well prepared to respond in the event of a fire. But we cannot afford to be complacent, because everyone has a part to play in ensuring fire safety. From time to time, SCDF uncovers fires that start or spread due to building owners or occupants breaching the Fire Code, such as failing to maintain firefighting equipment or ensuring that exits are not obstructed. SCDF will take firm action in such instances. In some cases, fires were also caused by carelessness, such as unattended cooking in households. In recent years, SCDF has also seen an increase in the number of fires involving the charging of batteries of electric bicycles and personal mobility devices, such as hoverboards. Users of such products should use only approved power adaptors that carry the SAFETY Mark and follow the manufacturer’s instructions on how to charge the devices properly. We have also heard anecdotal stories of building owners and occupants taking fire evacuation drills lightly. SCDF will do its part and take its regulatory and firefighting responsibilities seriously, but so should all of us.”
“As opposed to large non-residential buildings, such as shopping centres and offices, residents would be familiar with the layout of their own homes and buildings. Hence, the carrying out of fire drills is not mandatory for residential buildings. In the event of a fire, residents should close the door of the affected room to contain the fire and evacuate to safety. When SCDF arrives at the scene, SCDF will prioritise evacuation of occupants on the floors affected by fire, as well as those on the above two floors affected. If necessary, SCDF may proceed with subsequent evacuation of occupants on additional floors of the building. Residents in unaffected floors will be advised to stay in their respective units, each of which is a fire compartment. Such an approach will minimise injuries or mishaps resulting from the evacuation process. SCDF actively engages the community to raise their awareness on fire safety procedures through platforms, such as Emergency Preparedness block parties and Emergency Preparedness Days organised across various heartland communities. At such events, residents are taught how to evacuate from a smoke-logged room and extinguish small household fires. We urge everyone to actively participate in such events, to pick up important basic fire safety skills. For businesses, SCDF and the National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness Council (NFEC) have been organising various fire safety workshops and seminars for members of the Company Emergency Response Team (CERT), security officers, employees and trade associations. During these seminars, participants learn about good fire safety practices and also receive practical tips on emergency response skills. Singapore has a high standard of fire safety.”
“SCDF strictly enforces the Fire Code and carries out regular reviews to ensure that the standard of fire safety in buildings keep pace with developments in the building industry and technological advancements in fire protection systems. SCDF also issues circulars to the industry on amendments to the Fire Code pertaining to new fire safety requirements. Claddings were not commonly used till the 1980s. Notwithstanding this, since the introduction of the Fire Code in 1974, all buildings have been required to only use claddings of Class "0" standard. All old buildings built with non-compliant cladding would have to comply with the prevailing Fire Code once they carried out alteration and addition works. All Housing and Development Board (HDB) residential blocks built in the 1970s also do not use such claddings. In addition, the construction and upgrading works of all HDB residential blocks would have to comply with prevailing fire safety requirements. Nonetheless, for old buildings that were constructed before 1974 and have not undergone any upgrading works over the years which would have required them to meet prevailing fire safety requirements, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and SCDF are reviewing legislative amendments to require some of these old buildings to perform fire safety upgrades. In doing so, we will adopt a balanced, risk-based approach. Beyond fire safety regulations, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling also asked about evacuation procedures for residential buildings. SCDF has stipulated robust fire safety measures for residential buildings. Every residential unit is designed as a fire compartment and required by the Fire Code to be equipped with fire-rated entrance doors, walls and floors that help to prevent the spread of fire beyond the unit.”
“Carrying out or allowing unauthorised fire safety works is an offence under the Fire Safety Act and building owners can be fined up to $200,000 or face an imprisonment term of up to two years, or both. SCDF will also take action against the registered professionals if they fail to carry out their duties properly. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about fire safety measures for high-rise buildings. Under the Fire Code, all buildings are required to put in place fire safety provisions, such as fire hose reels, exit staircases and emergency lightings. All high-rise buildings are required to have additional fire safety provisions, such as fire lifts. SCDF defines high-rise buildings as those that are above 24 metres in height, which is about eight to 10 storeys tall. This is similar to the definition used by the United States’ National Fire Protection Association. Super high-rise residential buildings that exceed 40 storeys in height require at least one refuge floor for every 20 storeys. These refuge floors have to be fire resistant for at least two hours and serve as a temporary holding space for evacuees during a fire incident while the firefighters put out the fire. SCDF conducts weekly firefighting and rescue exercises for high-rise non-residential buildings, in addition to other exercises at different locations throughout the year. The simulated scenarios allow SCDF officers to familiarise themselves with the various high-rise premises, as well as to validate response plans and procedures. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about SCDF's plans to ensure occupant safety in older high-rise buildings.”
“I will respond to Ms Sylvia Lim’s questions. But as Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling have also asked related Parliamentary Questions for subsequent Sittings, I will take the chance to address them holistically in our response. Note: Notices of related Parliamentary Questions by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling for later Sittings were subsequently withdrawn. The fire at Grenfell Tower in London highlights the importance of robust fire prevention and protection measures in safeguarding lives and property. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sun Xueling have raised concerns about the safety of building construction materials, including the use of claddings. Claddings are typically used on the external walls of buildings for weather protection or aesthetic purposes. Under the Fire Code, all claddings that are used in buildings have to meet the stringent Class "0" industry standard such that, when ignited, the fire will not spread along the surface. When the London Fire Brigade releases its investigation report on the Grenfell Tower fire, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) will study these findings and assess if there is a need to make changes to fire safety regulations in Singapore. SCDF has in place a regime that seeks to ensure that fire safety works comply with regulations. The registered architect or professional engineer, also known as the Qualified Person, or QP for short, is responsible for ensuring that building materials conform with the prevailing Fire Code. In addition, an independent Registered Inspector will have to inspect the building to ensure that all fire safety requirements have been met. It is only after this is done that SCDF will issue a Fire Safety Certificate allowing the premises to be used or occupied.”
“During the personal sessions with the owners, SLA will check with them on their relocation plans and explain the various options available for those who require rehousing. For those who plan to buy an HDB flat, SLA will liaise with HDB and help with their applications. HDB plans to launch 14 Build-to-Order (BTO) exercises between now and December 2020. In addition, HDB will also launch during this period seven Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises, where the units are completed or near completion. Eligible households have many options and time to book an HDB flat before their leases expire, especially if they apply for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates. For those who face financial difficulties and have no other housing options, SLA will work with HDB to help in their application for a public rental flat. There is sufficient time for the owners to apply for the public rental flat. For the owners who face difficulty transitioning to public housing due to existing rules/policies, they may let their dedicated SLA case officer know. HDB is prepared to exercise flexibility for Singaporean households who require assistance. They will not be left without options.”
“There are 191 private terrace houses at Lorong 3 Geylang. They sit on land parcels that are on 60-year leases. The 60 years will expire on 31 December 2020. On 20 June 2017, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) announced that the land occupied by these 191 private terrace houses will return to the state when the current leases expire. The land is slated for future public housing. As a general policy, leasehold land will return to the state when the lease expires. This allows the land to be rejuvenated to meet the new social and economic needs of Singaporeans. SLA is committed to helping owners, especially those still occupying their units, through the lease expiry process. Each owner has been assigned a dedicated SLA officer, who will help guide them through the process over the next three-and-a-half years. On 20 June 2017, SLA officers went house to house to introduce the dedicated officers and hand out a set of Frequently Asked Questions. SLA has also scheduled a personal session with each household to directly answer their questions and this will take place over the next two months. Owners who need help in the transition can approach their assigned officer. Most of the current owners of the 191 units have moved out and are letting out their units to foreign workers and other occupants who use them for religious activities. Based on agencies’ records, only 33 units are still occupied by their owners. They have various options, if they do not already have alternative housing. They can buy a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat or private property, rent on the open market or live with their family members. For elderly owner-occupants, there are also existing schemes which will help them in their transition, including the short-lease 2-room flexi flats.”
“UML-related harassment cases registered a 10-year low in 2016, falling by 20%, from 4,242 cases in 2015 to 3,375 cases in 2016. Police investigate all UML harassment reports. In 2016, 260 persons were charged and sentenced by the Courts for UML harassment. However, it will be difficult to compare the number of UML cases and the number of persons convicted and seek to draw conclusions. Many UML offenders are responsible for multiple harassment cases. In addition, not all harassment cases will result in persons being charged or convicted in Court. The Police, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers, consider a range of factors before deciding whether to prosecute an offender.”
“Under the Air Navigation Act (ANA), unmanned aircraft are prohibited from flying within five kilometres of any airport, and over security-sensitive locations, without a permit. This covers Changi Airport and Jurong Island. Law enforcement officers can also end the flight or assume control of an unmanned aircraft, if it poses a risk to the public or is flown in a way that contravenes regulations under ANA. Enforcement agencies have been building up their capability to counter safety and security threats posed by unmanned aircraft. This includes the ability to detect and identify the unmanned aircraft, locate its operator, or take down the aircraft safely. The Infocomm Media Development Authority’s existing regulatory framework already allows equipment, such as signal jammers, to be imported and used for counter-drone measures carried out by enforcement agencies.”
“Community-based sentences (CBS) were first introduced as part of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2010, to provide the Courts with greater flexibility in sentencing. During the Second Reading in 2010, I had explained that CBS targets offences and offenders traditionally viewed by the Courts to be suitable for the rehabilitation end of the spectrum. These include regulatory offences, offences involving younger accused persons and persons with specific and minor mental conditions. We have gained experience from the administration of CBS these past few years and are now reviewing the regime to see how it can be enhanced and refined. A core aspect of this review is the eligibility criteria of CBS, and whether it can be made available for more types of offences. Details of the review will be announced in due course. However, we do not intend to extend CBS to offences with mandatory or specified minimum sentences. As CBS is intended primarily for more minor offences, it would not be suitable for offences which Parliament had considered serious enough for mandatory or specified minimum sentences to be imposed.”
“Generally, land will revert to the Government upon expiry of a lease. The land will then be re-allocated in accordance with planning guidelines for other land use needs, for example, for more intensified use. Nevertheless, the Government will consider the renewal of state leases on a case-by-case basis if they are in line with planning intention and help to further specific economic and social objectives. Since 2008, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has granted renewals to seven residential developments and the leases were topped up to 99 years. In all seven cases, the renewal of the leases was necessary to facilitate the redevelopment and intensification of the residential land parcels in question. If the Government decides that a lease renewal can be granted, the property owner will have to pay a lease renewal premium upfront in order to effect the lease renewal. The lease renewal premium is assessed by the Chief Valuer's Office based on the prevailing market value at the point of renewal.”
“The Police Licensing and Regulatory Department (PLRD) only allows persons aged 16 and above to apply for a Security Officer's (SO's) licence. This takes into consideration that under the Employment Act, persons are no longer considered children or young persons, when they are aged 16 and above. Regardless of their age, all SOs must meet the same training standards before they can be deployed. They must be certified competent in two mandatory courses conducted by training organisations accredited by SkillsFuture Singapore. These modules cover security skills and knowledge, such as how to respond to suspicious persons, vehicles or activities, when carrying out their duties. Assessments are conducted as part of their training to ensure that SOs are competent before they can be deployed. There are fewer than 10 active SOs below 18 years of age out of over 40,000 active SOs. To date, PLRD has not received any adverse feedback regarding SOs who are below 18 years of age.”
“We know there is misinformation and even outright hoax content on Facebook, and we take this very seriously. We have made progress fighting hoaxes the way we fight spam, but we have more work to do." Some countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, have said that media companies can do more to combat the fake news problem. The Government will continue to monitor developments in the social media industry both locally and internationally as part of our review. In line with the holistic approach I have outlined, the Government will also consider whether and how Internet service providers can play a part in addressing the fake news problem. We shall announce the findings of our review in due course.”
“At the Sitting on 3 April 2017, I explained in this House how "fake news" results in serious consequences for individuals and for society. There is no shortage of examples both locally and overseas of "fake news" being circulated, especially on social media platforms and private messaging services. The examples which I previously cited from the websites States Times Review and All Singapore Stuff were completely fabricated and passed off as facts. The focus is not on trivial factual inaccuracies, but falsehoods that can cause real harm. Fake news does not benefit Singapore society in any way. Instead, it benefits those who profit commercially from their publication, supports those who undermine our public institutions or facilitates foreign interference in our domestic politics. We consider social media companies to be important in the fight against fake news. Internationally, social media companies have been placed under intense scrutiny in recent months in the context of dissemination of fake news and other illegal content on their platforms. Social media platforms have become the primary distribution network for fake news. Because fake news can be repeatedly shared by users of social media platforms, without any need for verification of their truth or falsity, fake news is circulated at an alarming rate on these platforms. Social media platforms also generate a high volume of traffic for fake news websites. This translates into significant advertising revenue for the owners of these websites, which, in turn, provides a strong economic incentive to create fake news. In a manifesto published in February 2017, Facebook's Chief Executive Officer Mr Mark Zuckerberg said, and I quote, "Accuracy of information is very important.”
“The vast majority of motorists do give way to emergency vehicles. Only a very small number of motorists fail to do so. From 2014 to 2016, a total of 22 drivers were issued composition fines for failing to give way to emergency vehicles. No driver was charged in Court. The Traffic Police (TP) will take action against motorists who fail to give way to emergency vehicles, because such behaviour may have serious consequences for people who critically need help. Offenders will be given four demerit points and a composition fine. We will prosecute offenders in Court if there are aggravating factors. Upon conviction, there can be a fine not exceeding $1,000 or an imprisonment term not exceeding three months for offenders charged for the first time. The maximum fine and imprisonment term could be increased to $2,000 and six months respectively, for subsequent charges which result in Court appearances. My Ministry has no plans to review the penalties, as they are adequate for now. It is also important to raise public awareness of the importance of giving way to emergency vehicles. The Singapore Civil Defence Force has worked with the Land Transport Authority to display "Give way to emergency vehicles" messages on electronic signboards located along expressways and major roads. Similar messages have also been printed on decals given out to motorists at petrol kiosks. We will continue to sustain such public education and outreach efforts.”
“I will. Vigilance, Mr Kok, is not a substitute for other things. We need vigilance, we also need the other aspects that I spoke about. My particular point was on what basis do you conclude that it is the social economic gap that leads some people to go into drugs? If so, what do you think we can do about it or what more do you think we can do about it. But that is a discussion we can have some other time. I note your difference in philosophy on the death penalty. People are entitled to have different viewpoints on that. 9.31 pm”
“Today's Motion and the speeches of the Members, even Mr Kok Heng Leun's speech, give me considerable comfort because I think we are on the same page, that this has to be taken seriously and you reflect the perspectives in the world of the people in many ways. Given that there is a broad variety of viewpoints that have been expressed, almost everyone consistently supporting a strong stand, save for some difference on the part of Mr Kok relating to specific penalties. I think that shows where the weight of public opinion stands on this. [Applause.]”
“Even in there, we have split them into low risk, moderate risk and high risk with different types of treatment for the three categories. We also started the Anti-Drug and Counselling Engagement or ACE, programme which was started last year for young drug abusers who have confessed to drug abuse but, for one reason or another, they have tested negative in the urine test. This is a three-month programme and includes counselling and we equip them with skills to cope with their addictions. We get their parents involved. But two hands need to clap. Often, we find that the parents are not willing to come forward. I have asked my people to consider whether, legislatively, we can do something, that the parents also have a duty. Coming back to some of the points that Members have made, on the international front, we do not want to be isolated. Within ASEAN, yes, members, in their domestic situation, may take different approaches. But they sign up to refusing to accept the legalisation of drugs. They continue to support criminalisation and there is an ASEAN coalition supporting it and there are a few other countries which adopt the same approach. We cooperate together in the international arena. We have to have a sensible dialogue with others of a different persuasion and perhaps agree that they have their viewpoint and we have our own viewpoint. Different countries should be allowed to have different viewpoints. In conclusion, if I may say so, Sir, we face international challenges, we face different types of local challenges, we will step up our efforts, we will review our drug strategy. But we need the community's support and it must be a national priority to keep drugs under control.”
“At one point, he lost his family support. He could not even face himself. Then, he went to Pertapis halfway house. Things changed. He was moved and struck by the unwavering support from the staff of Pertapis. He has now been clean for more than 10 years. He is paying it forward as Chairman of the family support group for Pertapis. He strongly believes in not giving up on abusers even when their families have given up on them. He himself has experienced how community support can change lives. Asst Prof Madhev Mohan said rehabilitation is important. I think I have made the point. It may be that, in Singapore, our message on deterrence and our tough laws have been so strong that the fact that we put a lot of emphasis on rehabilitation probably has not come through. But you can take it that we put a lot of effort on rehabilitation. He also referred to a specific case where he felt the prosecutors made submissions which were perhaps not appropriate or a bit too harsh. The Member knows that I do not control prosecutors' submissions; nor should I, nor would you want me to. But I will certainly pass on what you said to the AGC. For young drug abusers, the emphasis has to be on rehabilitation, so that they can have a drug-free life ahead of them. We have a variety of programmes. If they are below the age of 21, they undergo counselling and casework management for a period of six months, and that is non-residential. If they are of moderate risk, they are then sent to the Community Rehabilitation Centre. We call them CRCs. They started operations in 2014 and that allows them to continue with their education and employment in the day with minimal disruption. Higher risk young people will require more intensive rehabilitation, they will be in the DRC.”
“Mr Kok Heng Leun suggested Arts programmes. Rehabilitation is something the Singapore Prison Service is very passionate about, as can be seen from the Yellow Ribbon programme. We think we should try to pick them up even before they commit an offence based on some profiles and we should try to change behaviour before. If we fail in that and they come in, we should try to change behaviour inside. But when they go out, we should also try to support them. And anything that works, based on science, based on evidence, we will be prepared to consider. People talked about family and community support. I accept it is crucial to help abusers stay strong when they come out. There are structured family programmes in prisons, skills to strengthen the bonds, joint sessions with the family. I am not saying by any means that it is perfect and that it cannot be improved or that we are where we want to be. But we have thought about these things, we have introduced these and they continue to be refined, changed, worked on. Families may also need help. So, the Singapore Prison Service has set up a Family Resource Centre, it has got the Yellow Ribbon community project to encourage families to visit abusers in DRCs. Family relationships are complex, different families, different types of relationships. It requires long-term effort, even after release. We have volunteers who continue to follow up via the Yellow Ribbon Community Project. We have talked to the Association of Muslim Professionals who have said they will come in to provide family casework in their new rehabilitation programme. Let me share a story, this is in the context of what Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin said about halfway houses. Salim started abusing substances in his teens, 20 years, two decades. He abused heroin, ice, alcohol.”
“As Nominated Member of Parliament Kuik Shiao-Yin said, can we consider shortening the incarceration period because of the impact it has on the families? The incarceration periods are looked at regularly, whether it is for DRC, or whether it is for LT1, LT2. There is a set of reasons why we have structured it as DRC and then LT1 and LT2. There is some methodology behind it and we continuously review the methodology. But in the end, it has to, first, serve as a deterrence; second, keep society from being harmed by that individual; and third, what is necessary for that individual to rehabilitate him. The environment that is chosen will depend on what the individual needs, and I will explain that in a while. Every abuser has different risk levels and different motivational factors. Our Prison Service tailors rehabilitation accordingly. Other programmes include family programmes, skills training and religious services. For lower risk inmates, they have a day release programme, they go for work or study during the day, minimises disruption. They are placed on community-based programmes to reconnect to the community, to help them transition to normal life. Some are at halfway houses, some go home and community support is instrumental, we recognise that. Since 1995, 15,000 DRC inmates have gone through the community-based programme with an 85% completion rate. Some Members mentioned rehabilitation for young people, including Asst Prof Mohan. Again, we look at the young people, if they are lower risk, then they go for what we call the youth enhanced supervision scheme which involves counselling and case work. Others go to the Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) which I have just talked about. But we will also look at some of the suggestions that Members have mentioned.”
“But asked specifically what the penalty should be for intentional murder, trafficking in illegal drugs and discharging a firearm, the proportion in favour of the death penalty was even higher, ranging from 86% to 92%. But the NUS survey also presented a nuanced picture of public support for the death penalty. The support dropped when this question was asked, that if it can be shown that the death penalty was no more effective as a deterrent to others like life imprisonment, or a very long prison sentence, that means it is not effective and you can substitute it with something else; if you ask people that question, yes, the support then drops. If it is suggested that innocent people could have been executed, then the support drops. If a certain framework is put into the question and then you get a number and you come to the Government and say, "Therefore, change your policy", we have to look at the questions you asked. But in any event, this is one of those areas where the Government has the duty to assess the facts carefully, the data carefully, and come to the best judgement that it can. As I have said in public, no Government glorifies in having the death penalty or imposing it on anyone. How can anyone be happy about it? If they do it, they do it with a heavy heart. But you do it because of the greater public good. And you do it based on your best judgement and assessment, not on the basis of advice given by people who argue from an ideological point of view. We are not dogmatic about this. We will listen to arguments. We will listen to people. We will listen to anyone with a good point of view, and we will make up our mind. Next, we move to rehabilitation. Abusers, as Mr Christopher de Souza and others have said, must be committed to kicking the habit.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now, if I put together the points that Mr Kok has made: first, it is the fault of the socio-economic gaps; second, we should make our laws less strict; third, we should do away with the death penalty; and, fourth, we should give a lot of empathy to the drug abusers and their families. Pray tell me where that will lead us and how that will solve the drug issues. You think the drug kingpins who want to make millions out of bringing drugs into Singapore will then be deterred? The couriers who want to make money by bringing it into Singapore, they will be deterred because we show them a lot of empathy? And the abusers in Singapore will be transformed as well? You just have to look at the example of other countries. In all of these, in public policymaking, you need a soft heart; you need compassion and that is what defines a civilised human being. But you can never have a soft head. If the heart alone rules policy, you are done for. I will say this: as a parliamentarian, you have a right to make these points. But as Minister for Home Affairs, I do not have the right to give effect to any suggestion which I believe will harm thousands of people and ruin our society. In fact, it is my duty to do the reverse. Support for our penalties amongst our population, as Members know, is very high. When REACH did a poll last year, 80% supported retaining the death penalty, 10% wanted to abolish it, 10% had no position or refuse to answer. Also, 82% agreed that it was an important deterrent to keep Singapore safe from serious crimes. NUS conducted a survey on public opinion in 2016. Again, even in their survey, public support for the death penalty was very high − 70% of the respondents were in favour.”
“I think there is every objection to a blanket legislation allowing free use of cannabis or opium on the basis of some questionable medical suggestion which no medical association worth its salt is prepared to back up.”
“If you look at the evidence, you look at the US, opioid abuse, the prescriptions went up three-fold since 1999, fuelled by people relying on and accepting questionable evidence that these are benign pain remedies. Going into diversions and misuse, thousands get hooked on to it, and then guess what happens? They moved on to heroin. Now, New York Times reported that there were 33,000 deaths per year. For those with bleeding hearts who talk about inmates on death row, I think they should think about these 33,000 deaths. What percentage do you want in Singapore? What about their families, the children? Why not spend some time with them rather than just crying with the people in the death row? This is, as Mr Christopher de Souza pointed out, a trafficker engaging in a crime of cynicism or crime with cynicism for profit. He knows what he is doing, he is coming in for money and there is nothing on the spur about it. The same arguments that were used to try and get opium allowed are now being used for cannabis legislation. The arguments, if you look at them, are evocative but little clinical evidence. There is some suggestion – Mr Pritnam Singh talked about it, others talked about it – about how people are now going into medical marijuana and medical cannabis and so on. I said at the United Nations I do not want human rights groups preaching to me about the medical value of cannabis. If a respectable medical association is prepared to tell me that this ought to be prescribed as medicine, we will look at it. What does the American Medical Association say? That there is no proven record for this. There can be no objection to any substance being prescribed by a doctor based on scientific evidence.”
“We could have kidded ourselves and believed that that was the true situation. But after we set up CNB and after we started Operation Ferret, by February 1978, 26,000 abusers had been arrested. That is the picture before and after. So, for people outside this House and for the hon Nominated Member of Parliament who advocates a softer approach, suggests that our laws are too tough, remember these figures. When you do not enforce, you get one picture; and 26,000 people by 1978. In the 1980s, we still had more than 8,000 in DRC. In 1993, our DRC recidivism rate was 73%. That is where we were and, today, everyone accepts, even The Economist accepts, that we have the drug situation under control, perhaps the only country to be able to say that openly and directly and backed up by the facts. We set up a committee to improve the drug situation in November 1993 with a comprehensive anti-drug strategy − preventive drug education in the schools, tough laws backed up by tough enforcement, rehabilitation, aftercare. It is a whole context of factors. That is the background. We have had a good run for 20 years but now consider the global situation and how that might impact on us. UNODC estimates in 2014 that there are nearly 250 million drug abusers in the world. And 200,000 died from drug-related causes. That probably does not include the type of cases that Mr Christopher de Souza talked about, where people under the influence of drugs caused traffic accidents and killed others. These are people who died as a result of drug abuse − 200,000. Mr Pritam Singh is right that global conversation is about a softer stance on drugs, seductive arguments using pseudo-science and glamorising drugs, and they do create a challenging environment for us to keep Singapore drug-free.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion and the Members for giving their views and supporting generally the very strong stand that we take. This Motion is a timely reminder for us to remain vigilant, continue to be tough on drugs and make this a national priority. As we debate the way forward, what do we do next? Mr Pritam Singh talked about international currents. Others talked about the mood within Singapore, young people. As we assess how we move forward, I think it is useful for Members to understand a little bit about how the history of our fight against drugs evolved and really look at the period between the 1960s and 1980s. In a snapshot, what did we have then? We had high crime rates. We had abusers stealing, committing crimes to feed their addiction. We had traffickers exploiting the abusers' dependence. We had broken families. If I give some numbers, I think Members will be shocked and I will give some numbers in a minute. To tackle this, CNB was set up in 1971. It does not pre-date 1971. We saw it as a menace and we said we had to fight it; which is why in every speech I make, I emphasise it is not a single solution, not just the death penalty. It is a whole suite of factors. CNB was set up, empowered. The legislative framework was put in through the MDA in 1973. And then Operation Ferret was launched to reverse the momentum. You can guess from the name what it meant. So CNB, the Police Force, they coordinated their efforts, flushed out the abusers. If we had not done that, the law and order situation today in Singapore that we take for granted would be very different. In the early 1970s – mark this – we were arresting less than 10 heroin abusers a year.”
“There are about 170 regular Police Officers in the Singapore Police Force per 100,000 population. Including the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), there are about 300 regular Police Officers and APOs per 100,000 population.”
“There are 46 traffic roundabouts on our public roads. The curriculum for learner drivers as well as the driving theory tests cover the navigation of roundabouts.”
“Drivers must follow traffic rules and actively look out for motorcyclists. Motorcyclists must do likewise, exercise care and take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their pillion riders.”
“The Traffic Police (TP) will continue to adopt a three-pronged approach of Enforcement, Education and Engagement to enhance road safety for motorcyclists. On enforcement, TP will continue to detect and deter offences, such as dangerous driving or riding, red-light running and speeding. Over the next two to three years, it will grow its network of traffic cameras, with additional red-light cameras to be installed at accident-prone junctions. Next year, TP will deploy Average Speed Cameras. These cameras are able to compute the average speed of a vehicle as it enters and exits an enforcement zone. They will ensure that motorists drive at safe speeds along entire stretches of roads. However, enforcement is not enough. Motorcyclists must also be alert to the dangers on the roads, ride safely and look out for their own safety. TP will continue to educate and engage them to raise awareness. Learner motorcyclists are taught safe defensive riding techniques at driving schools. This helps them to avoid accidents and injuries. TP has stepped up its efforts to raise awareness of road safety amongst the motorcycling community. Such outreach efforts need to be sustained and will remain a key priority for TP in the years ahead. TP has made use of engagement platforms, such as "Singapore Ride Safe", to encourage motorcyclists to wear personal protective equipment when they ride. In 2016, food delivery companies, such as Food Panda and Domino’s Pizza, purchased riding jackets for their delivery riders. TP has also collaborated with other companies, such as PSA Corporation, to provide safe-riding advisories to their riders. TP will continue its efforts to enhance safety on our roads. All road users have a part to play.”
“These amendments will enable the Police to take even more targeted and calibrated enforcement actions to manage the risk of public disorder in such establishments.”
“Nightclubs, bars and similar nightlife establishments are regulated and licensed by the Police under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA). A key objective of the regulation is to maintain law and order and public safety at public entertainment establishments. Licensing conditions may include the installation of closed-circuit television cameras, prevention of overcrowding in the premises and obligations on operators to run the establishments responsibly. For example, operators are required to take all appropriate steps to prevent acts of violence and other crimes committed on their premises. Police conduct compliance checks to enforce these licensing conditions. Licensees who breach the conditions can be charged under PEMA and face a fine of up to $10,000 for each infringement. In addition, demerit points are awarded for these infringements. Licensees who accumulate a high number of demerit points will have their licences suspended or revoked. To enforce against errant public entertainment establishments, Police Officers are empowered under the Act to enter and inspect establishments, conduct investigations and make arrests. The Ministry of Home Affairs has completed a review of PEMA, and the Public Entertainments and Meetings (Amendment) Bill was introduced earlier today. The amendments will enhance Police’s regulatory levers and powers. We will increase the penalty for providing public entertainment without a licence, strengthen the power to immediately suspend a licence where the licensee has been charged for serious offences committed on the premises, and empower Police Officers to use force to enter establishments where they are prevented from entering.”
“The Singapore Police Force (SPF) closely monitors and controls the gang situation in Singapore through tough laws and strict enforcement. The number of rioting cases with secret society connotations is an indicator of the gang situation in Singapore. In the last three years, these rioting cases have declined from 62 cases in 2014 to 55 cases in 2015 and 52 cases in 2016. The number of gang-related rioting cases involving youths has also declined, from 21 cases in 2014 to 16 cases per year in 2015 and 2016. Beyond enforcement, SPF also works closely with the Singapore Prison Service, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social and Family Development and voluntary welfare organisations to implement a range of preventive intervention and rehabilitative initiatives targeting at-risk youths. One key preventive initiative is the conduct of anti-gang talks, especially targeted at secondary school students, to discourage them from getting involved in street gang activities. Since 2008, SPF has also been conducting training camps for youths to steer them away from crime or gang-related activities through team-based activities, self-reflection and sharing sessions by former gang members. In addition, youths detected to be involved in gang activities may also be diverted to the Streetwise Programme, which includes curfew hours and counselling sessions involving the youths and their parents. We will continue to keep a tight rein on gang activities in Singapore, including closely monitoring gang-related activities online.”
“Foreigners visiting or living in Singapore must abide by our laws. The Government takes a serious view against those who run afoul of our laws and will not hesitate to take them to task. The number of foreigners imprisoned for criminal convictions over the last five years has declined, from about 4,550 in 2012 to 2,750 in 2016. Of the foreigners sentenced to imprisonment in 2016, over a third were convicted of immigration-related offences. Foreigners made up 26.9% of all persons sentenced to imprisonment for criminal convictions in 2016. This proportion is less than the 30% of foreigners in our population. The number of foreigners imprisoned for offences, other than immigration offences, was 1,809. That is 17.7% of the total number of people sentenced to prison terms, compared with the 30% of foreigners in our population. The Immigration Act allows the Controller of Immigration to deem any foreigner who has been sentenced to imprisonment as an undesirable immigrant and cancel his immigration pass. Similarly, the Ministry of Manpower will revoke the work passes of foreigners who commit serious offences and ban them permanently from employment in Singapore. These foreigners will be repatriated after they have served their sentences. The Immigration Act allows the Minister for Home Affairs to prohibit the entry and re-entry of a foreigner in the interests of public security. Foreigners who reoffended or are convicted of serious offences, such as drug trafficking, violent crime, organised or syndicated crime, and immigration offences, and do not have family roots in Singapore will typically be prohibited from re-entry into Singapore.”
“[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Well, what I can hope is that you, with your contacts with the civil society, will explain to them what I have explained to you. I think it is absolutely important to have that trust between citizens and the Government, and also civil society and the Government. Thankfully, Singapore, in the context of the overall plunge in trust in government in the rest of the world, we are in a fairly, in fact, quite healthy position in terms of how much the people trust the Government. We have to make sure that we work very hard to maintain that trust, because trust cannot be demanded. It has to be constantly worked for. And you have got to continue to prove that you are worthy of the trust. This Bill, our own view, looking at it is that when people see clause 4, first of all we did not think there was any issue of trust when it came to the Commissioner of Police directing that an event shall include extra security measures. If we did not do it, people will say, "Why did you not put in those security measures?" The second other major change, as I was speaking with you, is on events, and I read straight from clause 4(2)(h), "directed towards a political end and be organised by or involved a participation of any of the following persons, an entity that is not a Singapore entity or an individual that is not a Singapore Citizen" and then it goes on to talk about what is a political end. It did not strike me at all that this would raise any questions of trust with Singaporeans. Why should it? We are saying this about foreigners. It may affect − now that I have listened to you − the people who misunderstand the scope of the Bill and so I think it is the Government's duty to go out and explain what this Bill covers. To that extent, thank you for helping us. I now understand it better.”
“But that relate usually to matters of morality, taste, what the public might find acceptable or not acceptable in terms of social mores. Those sorts of things I can understand. But this is a matter of governance. Is this a security event? Is this an event that may have security implications? Is this an event where I should allow foreigners to take part? That is why the people elect us − to make those decisions. If we get it wrong, the people will tell us. So, I am not saying no to public advising the Executive, but I think there is a range of areas. There are some where clearly the public panel should advise. I do not think this is one of those.”
“Mr Kok, let us follow this analysis through. I have explained why it does not make sense to have this go to a judge, in terms of what is a political end, in terms of what is the potential impact on society, in terms of whether there can be a public order incident, whether this is a particular case for foreigners to be involved, to be allowed to be involved, to be not allowed to be involved. These are all matters of governance. A weak government without the desire to decide these things will pass it on to a judge. And it will result in the matters constantly being mitigated. Our position is that we will make that decision. If we are wrong, we will take it on the chin. Our people will know whether the decision is being exercised properly or improperly. And if we keep making decisions improperly, any government will face the consequences. So, that is the framework. What I say is subject to some applicable principles on judicial review. You say why should it be the Commissioner of Police? Why not somebody else? Another panel, an independent panel, something that is independent of the Police, I presume, advising the Commissioner. What is that panel going to do that you think the Commissioner is not able to do himself? And really, all of these are suggestions to dilute the exercise of power or the authority of the Commissioner of Police which the Bill seeks to vest. I have said our approach to governance has been to vest to that authority and say that person will be responsible. Sometimes, and there plenty of examples, where you have panels which either outside of the Statutory Board or Executive, which either advise or sometimes, actually make a decision.”
“In our view, LGBT issues are for Singaporeans. There were these, what I would call, issues around the definition of politics. Second, there was concern that when we say no to foreign sponsorship, for example, for Pink Dot, it will impact on the event. But actually, as you see, based on media reports, Singaporeans are stepping up. Again, the Government is neutral on this point. I have made that clear last year. I made that clear this year. But whether it is pro-LGBT or opposing LGBT, it is a matter for Singaporeans to decide. And Singapore companies, Singaporean sponsors are stepping up. So, I would say, tell your friends, the civic society, have some confidence in themselves and have confidence in Singaporeans to step up. This Bill is not aimed at that. Do not think that you can only do well by getting money from foreigners and getting foreign participation. Now, that is quite separate from having a foreign speaker or two in panels, getting their expertise and, by and large, those sorts of activities, it is going to be assessed case by case what is the nature of the event, what is the issue at hand. It will be difficult to stand here and give you a clear black line that it applies to this and it does not apply to that. Apart from anything else, a particular event held in one set of circumstances, domestic and regional and international, may take a completely different complexion when the regional and international circumstances change and domestic situations change, which is why these are matters where you will have to give the power to the Executive and let the Executive decide. Yes, you want another clarification?”
“Well, Mr Kok, it is a bit difficult to answer that question in a vacuum. It depends on what role that foreigner plays. If he is a key person and he is going to be organising everything, and really, it is his influence that impacts on the way the event is organised, the panel is chosen, towards specific political ends, then I think there is foreign interference. But there can be many other situations, and this is not intended to be illustrative. And it will not come as a surprise to you that NGOs are a favourite route of foreign agencies to channel funds and pressure governments. A lot of foreign agencies − when I say agencies, you know what type of agencies I am referring to − if they are going to put up their hand and have a signature, it will be through NGOs. So, we need to be very careful. But you will see I have taken some trouble to take you through the amendments that, and as I have said, I think the Bill that is presented and your speech pass each other by, like ships in the night, because they are not engaging with each other. Because your speech was about Singaporeans, Singaporean civil society, we should not have top-down; we should have bottom-up; we should encourage Singaporeans; we should make sure that our people participate and I said that I agree entirely with you. But that has nothing to do with clause 4. Clause 4 specifically is targeted at foreign participation. In fact, the best example I can give you, as I gave in my wrap-up speech, is again Pink Dot. Last year, when my Ministry said no foreign participation, there was considerable concern. There were these arguments about what amounts to politics because my Ministry issued a statement saying that we have always taken the position that foreigners cannot engage in political activities.”
“People have to make an assessment as to what numbers they expect and they come to the Commissioner within the prescribed period. And then the Commissioner makes an assessment that tells them that these are the measures I want you to put in place. What we do not want is a long bargaining session with the Commissioner where they say "I will put up barricades but I do not want to put Auxiliary Police Officers" and that sort of arguments. A simple, clean, neat, effective way to give power to the Commissioner to decide what security measures he/she thinks is the best way to go. As to whether there is a recourse from the Commissioner's decision to not grant a permit for an assembly or procession, the existing section 11 allows a person who is aggrieved by a Commissioner's decision to appeal to the Minister. So, there is that appeal process and the Minister can allow the appeal either in whole or in part. Mdm Speaker, I think I have covered all the points. And, if I have not, I am sure Members will let me know. 4.34 pm”
“He has to make an assessment based on the provisions as to whether it is directed towards political ends, regardless of how that question is to be answered, as in it may go in favour of this political end or that political end. That is not his question. His is a threshold question: does it involve politics or political ends? Also, Mr Kok Heng Leun was concerned that the amendments somehow restrict civil society's access to foreign expertise and knowledge. Most of the avenues for civil society to tap on the foreign expertise and knowledge are untouched. We are now only dealing with public assemblies and processions. What may amount to public assemblies? So, there continues to be plenty of avenues for civil society to learn from others. We are talking about people marching, public assemblies, advocating specific causes and change. I agree that the way that the definition is, it is broad and it can cover many aspects. So, you can have the Commissioner looking at it and say "is this something that will cause public disorder; is that a threat; what sort of foreign involvement is this and how does it impact on us? Those are assessments that he has got to make. There were also questions on what might be a matter of public controversy. It is not a new definition. It is contained and also considered in the Films Act as to what is a political matter. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan made the specific point as to whether this will stifle free speech by reference to clause 3, which gives the discretion for different numbers and different events. And I have dealt with that. On the Commissioner's discretion under clause 4 and his powers to modify, I have explained how it works.”
“That is why the word is "may", and that word has been there since 2009. And you have to trust the Commissioner of Police. Ninety percent of Singaporeans trust the Police, as I read from another survey to this House a few weeks ago. The alternative is then to run to Court each time somebody is not happy. That is not the way you can run a proper Government. The way we have run the Government, successfully and cleanly with the right outcomes, has been to vest the discretion in many areas in the Executive, with the knowledge that a highly-educated population will hold the Executive to account if there is abuse of that power. In the context here, we are specifically dealing with a Commissioner looking at an event and saying that it is political, political ends, involving foreigners. I do not think Singaporeans will argue with this, of giving the Commissioner the discretion to make that assessment. One that deals with the welfare of dogs and kittens may pass muster. One that deals with the welfare of cows, specifically in terms of slaughter or eating its meat, may not pass muster. It depends, may or may not pass muster. Depends on who is involved, depends on what is the purpose and depends on who is financing it. Which foreigner? Which foreign group? So, the basic question: in the absence of the possibility of being able to define it without becoming ridiculous, then you have to vest that discretion. You vest that discretion, you give that framework, and it works. That is the way we have worked. For the rest for that section, that is the way that section is now re-worked in respect of foreign participation. If the Commissioner declares an event to be a political event, that does not make him political. He is not deciding in favour of one conclusion or another.”
“We have been successful by being very firm about that. Let us not change the rules. The current amendments keep to that philosophy and that rule. Let me give Members a specific example on animals and animal welfare. You would have read in the newspapers. In India, there are states which now ban the slaughter of cows. Hindus, particularly, targeted at Muslim sellers of meat. Supposing under the rubric of animal welfare, Hindus from India want to finance an animal welfare event in Singapore protesting against the selling of beef in Singapore and they want to involve Singapore Hindus, and it is targeted at groups along the lines of people who sell or eat such meat. And they say that this whole thing is animal welfare. Do you think we should allow it? So, you see, this has shades of complexity and any attempt to define upfront political event and a non-political event will run into these shades of complexity. All you will end up doing is creating many alley ways and bye ways in which your definition would be made useless and you would be made a laughing stock. I can understand the desire for clarity. But in this field, to define this with absolute clarity in the way that you want, first, the reasons for wanting them, I assure you, is not quite what the Bill seeks to do. It does not seek to cut back on Singaporean rights in the context of these amendments. But the absolute clarity that you seek, if we try to define it, it is not going to achieve what we want to achieve. So, really, then it becomes a question of philosophy which then touches on a little bit on what Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan talked about as well. What you would have to do is then give that discretion to the Executive, in this case, the Commissioner of Police.”
“As to whether that makes the Commissioner political, I will come back to it in a minute. The kind of events, even with a political dimension, if it does not involve foreigners, then it is not affected by these particular amendments. So, let us be clear about that. Why are we making this amendment? The balance between public space for political expression and social order and stability is really different when it comes to foreigners. Foreigners must not take our public space for granted to advocate a political cause, whether in Singapore, relating to Singapore, or outside of Singapore. The Member mentioned the context of, say, animal welfare. Let me give the Member four examples as to how this might impact. Let us say you have an event. Malaysians finance an event in Singapore and take part in an event in Singapore and encourage Singaporeans to come and take part in an event in Singapore which says that Syariah law should be imposed. Do you think we should agree to Malaysians taking part and financing the event? The answer is obvious, is it not? Let me give Members a second example. Let us say foreign Christian groups, say, financed from America, come here, want to organise an event combined with locals, and they want to call it an anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rally. Do you think we should agree to that? Answer is clear, is it not? Let me give Members a third example, because this cuts across all religions and races. Let us take the Myanmarese Buddhists. They want to organise an event in Singapore and combine with our Buddhists, and they want to protest against the Rohingyas. Do you think we should agree? Our Singaporeans organising protests is one thing. Foreign-financed, foreign-participated protests are a completely different ball game.”
“Again, I take no position, but the point is, this is a matter for Singaporeans, Singapore companies, Singapore entities to discuss without the involvement of foreign culture wars. And that is the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, actually fits in with what the Member said. Which is why I listened with some degree of perplexity as to what the thrust of the speech was. So, all these other points, the Member's question then is, for the ordinary Singaporean, is the amended POA going to deter him or her from good solid political engagement? As you can see from the amendments, none of that is really germane. So, Mr Kok, if you do not mind, I would not deal with all other points that you have made along the same lines about local citizenry and active participation because that is not what this Bill deals with. You might say some of those points may potentially be relevant for the first part where there might be some increased costs, but that, I have explained, is necessary from a hard security perspective. But from the perspective of foreign involvement, I think I stand on very good grounds. Let me give Members some illustrations. I have said it is something that we need to bear in mind that foreign involvement may not just be the relatively innocent types where foreigners come in and take part or organise, but also directed by foreign state agencies. And I do not think you will support that. I do not think any Singaporean will support that. How do you distinguish between the one and the other? I think it is a cleaner rule to say foreigners, "Do not engage". It is not a hard rule. I told Members the Commissioner "may". So, the Commissioner has a discretion.”
“Clause 2, which shows that the Commissioner has the discretion to refuse to grant a permit, may refuse to grant a permit, if the assembly or procession may occasion public disorder or damage to public property and so on − (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) − all of that is not being amended. I think Mr Kok has had no problems with any of those up to now; at least that has been the law. And then (h) is new. So, we need to focus on (h) and not have a broad general political speech. So, if you look at (h), it says "it is directed towards a political end and to be organised by or involve the participation of any of the following persons: an entity that is not a Singapore entity or an individual who is not a citizen of Singapore." And sub-clause 3 then relates back to this − what "directed towards a political end" means. The key condition is that this event is not being organised by a Singapore entity or individuals who are not citizens of Singapore. Essentially, foreign involvement. Now, what has that got to do with bottom-up, top-down trust in citizenry, empowered citizenship? In fact, I would say, have more faith in our citizens. Do not just hope for foreign involvement in organising events. Why do we not have confidence that our people can organise and take part in civic activities? Look at Pink Dot. Last year, my Ministry made it clear that we will not agree to foreign participation. As a Government, we do not take a position for or against Pink Dot. But we do take a position against foreign involvement in events like Pink Dot. That is not new; that has always been the law. We made that clear last year that, this year, we do not want to see foreign participation. If you look at the media, newspaper reports, Singapore companies have stepped up.”
“What we sought to do was to strike a balance between adequate space for political expression and society's need for order and stability. And by and large, that has been achieved and we have worked the Act quite successfully all these years. The thrust of the amendments today relates to foreign participation. It is not about local participation. So, I sat listening to the very passionate speech by Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun but I wonder if we are moving like ships in the dark in the sea. The Bill says one thing and Mr Kok's speech pretty much has nothing to do with the Bill. Let me explain why. Mr Kok said, "we have made positive steps to engage citizens in policymaking. I believe this strategy should be encouraged. Actively engaged citizenry is possible only with political discourse, involvement of the people. And this, in turn, allows us to develop deeper understanding and our citizens' trust and confidence in the political system grow, they will feel invested in the country's development in strategic direction." Mr Kok also said it should not always be top-down and bottom-up; we have to trust our citizenry. All of that, I do not think I disagree with and it would make a very good political speech at some point. But what does that have to do with the amendments? If you look at the amendments, in particular clause 4, and I do not know whether the Member has actually gone through clause 4. Section 7(1) deals with the Commissioner receiving notice of the application and deciding whether to grant the permit or refuse to grant the permit. That is not being changed. That is not being amended.”