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 67 of 92.
“Is this a clarification on what I just said or is it a clarification on what I said yesterday?”
“— and explained why. Then, we also have the CPA. And there is a good reason why they are not elected. But he likened the process, that it will give you an effect like an Upper House but without the attendant difficulties and inherent problems. And if you want to know what the inherent problems are, go read the White Paper.”
“Do not just look at the Hansard. You can also look at the previous White Papers and they tell you and show you that the Government considered the question of a Senate, an Upper House, very carefully. Having considered it, they dismissed it. But the Government's approach to a Senate was very different from the approach that you are proposing, which, fundamentally, is unworkable. And I have explained various reasons why your proposal is fundamentally unworkable, and my shock and astonishment arise from the nature of the proposal as fleshed out yesterday, clarification after clarification. The Government has explained that an elected Upper House is inherently unworkable and has explained it many times why. So, look at then-Deputy Prime Minister's statements in context. He pointed out that in the end, we settled on one person to be elected and explained —”
“First of all, I think the Member probably has not read the Constitutional Commission's report carefully. Go back and read it carefully. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer this a little bit more in detail. Now, three points. Is there an inherent tension? There is an inherent tension in performing both roles. Can it be overcome? It can be overcome. Do we need an Elected Presidency despite this inherent tension? The answer is yes. The Prime Minister has explained it and, over 25 years, we have explained it. Singaporeans have accepted it. Do you have a better solution if you want to do away with it? We have seen the quality of your solution. If there is no better solution, and we need this institution, then we proceed while acknowledging that there is risk. The Constitutional Commission made its recommendations on the Elected Presidency, most of which are being implemented now. They made a further observation subsequently about another process that the Government could consider. But the Prime Minister has explained why we need elections and why we need a custodian.”
“It leads to the conclusion that he also exercised his powers responsibly as an Elected President. And it contradicts her suggestion that this whole thing is a fix-up.”
“Well, I characterise it as a plea. It is quite astonishing. So, essentially, in essence, it is a recognition that the proposal cannot withstand any scrutiny. Otherwise, you would have come back and defended it. I think you are now giving up the defence of the proposal and pivoting, as they would say, to try and move on to a whole lot of other issues. So, let me deal with that. The last point about reservation for Malay candidates. The Prime Minister explained it quite fully. Why? I think he went into some considerable detail and all the answers are there. As to the current expectation on the inherent tensions, yes, there are inherent tensions between having a President performing both roles, but you do not deal with that by suggesting that you neuter the Presidency, do away with the institution and put forward another institution which is fundamentally flawed, both in substance and in process, and then say, "Here, we have a proposal". And, in fact, the proposal, as the Member can see, does not withstand any scrutiny. The Member calls that a proposal worth talking about? It is sad that we have to talk about it simply to expose how absurd it is. And then the Member talks about why can she not suggest that Presidents can act dishonourably; the point I was making is that she should not suggest that the proposal is dishonourable and also look at how the Elected Presidents have behaved. Look at how they have discharged their duties. One does not say therefore that it can never happen. But until there is a better solution, this is the solution we have. And we have not seen a better solution. Third, on Mr SR Nathan, the point I was making is the Member acknowledged his service to Singapore. She acknowledged he was a good person.”
“This is quite interesting. A position paper is put out. A proposal is made. "This is our proposal. We have seriously thought about it. We want a Senate, eight people to be elected. We want a referendum. We are a First World Parliament." And then, Ms Lim is essentially pleading, "Why are you looking at our proposal? Yes, it is bad but why are you looking at it?"”
“Assoc Prof Goh, let the answers stand on the record. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Yes.”
“The Member just said he was talking about the Upper House because it is complex. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I am disagreeing to the article in proposing complex layers which is enshrined in the Upper House as being proposed.”
“Right. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I am not talking about the Upper House in principle. There is no discussion about the Upper House.”
“So, the Member's post, one reading his post, one can understand from that that he agrees to an Upper House, as long as it is not complex? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: No, that does not come from the post.”
“And the Member's post makes it clear that he would agree to a non-complex Upper House?”
“So, the Member would agree with that? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Yes.”
“Pardon? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: A Senate of eight Senators, elected Senators.”
“So, the Member would agree to an Upper House which does not have complex layers? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: A Senate of eight Senators.”
“I quote, "keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. Instead, they want more complicated layers…" That refers, surely, to an Upper House, Assoc Prof Goh? It cannot refer to the Elected Presidency which already existed. "…that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people, not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking, leading to gridlock down the road." Now, it is clear what you have written but if you disagree, let us not continue with this exchange. This is how I read it. I think people can read and decide for themselves. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: The objection to the layers is to the layers that are described in the complex Upper House that is being proposed by an ex-PAP Member.”
“Assoc Prof Goh made two points. First, I am perfectly able to answer his question on CPA, but I will leave it to Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his wrap-up speech so that we do not take more time than necessary. But on the Member's earlier point, let us not move so fast. Is it not quite clear from his post that he opposed an Upper House? And is it not quite clear now that his proposal is for an Upper House? Those are the simple facts, and I think the answer is "yes" and the answer, therefore, is that his Facebook post is contradictory to the proposal now. He may have changed his position. If so, he can say that. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I disagree, Minister. I was responding to the specific article, and I did not say that I opposed an Upper House in principle. I said that we should not dilute popular sovereignty, we should revert to the ceremonial Presidency, and we should improve Parliament.”
“Oh, is it a speech, Madam? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: The clarification is coming.”
“I am not sure where she got the information from. But let me assure Ms Lim, Ministers do not get sleepless nights except when we are worried about Singapore and its future. The people who should be losing sleep are those who are accused of criminal impropriety. They are the ones who should have sleepless nights. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause]”
“So, why does the WP really oppose the Elected Presidency? Let me end with a quote from our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Low Thia Khiang approves of this quote because he quoted a part of it during last year's GE. Mr Low quoted this part, and I quote, "While honest men are still in charge, it is prudent for us to institute a system of checks and balances in our political system, instead of banking on good fortune to throw up good government for the next 30 years." And he suggested that Prime Minister Lee had forgotten what Prime Minister Goh had said before. I can assure him, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has forgotten it. Just that Mr Low quoted the statement out of context. If he had gone on, the context would have been clear. The second part which he did not quote was this: "Dishonest men who aspire for power will, I believe, never propose this Bill." Prime Minister Goh was talking about the Elected Presidency. That was not convenient for Mr Low to quote. "They will never propose any amendment to the Constitution to safeguard our financial assets and Reserves and the integrity of the Public Services. They will not want any check and balance to the present parliamentary system of government". I assume Mr Low agrees with what then Prime Minister Goh said, in particular the last line. Finally, yesterday, I was taken aback when the WP mentioned that their track record includes running Town councils. If I were the WP, I would not be talking about track records in running Town Councils. If I were the WP, I would run away from talking about track records in Town Councils. Ms Sylvia Lim also claimed that the Government, or that Ministers, had sleepless nights in 2011, thinking about which candidate would be elected as President.”
“Then, Mr Tan changed his position and said – same criteria as for the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA). But that is also absurd. Look at the requirements for CPA. Then, Mr Tan, guided by Mr Perera, said – same criteria as in the Bill – one assumes, for the EP, in context. Mr Perera then confirmed that the criteria for the Senators would be the same as for the EP. And I have read out our exchange yesterday. So, this is also again, clearly, policy made on the fly, in Parliament, when clarifications are sought. And given how basic this is – criteria to qualify as Senators – it is astounding. And timeline. When did this idea come about? The WP took one position before the Constitutional Commission. Parliamentary super majority if Government wants to touch the Reserves. Now, the suggestion is of an Upper House – Senate. The two are quite different. Everyone who is reasonable will know that it is quite different. Everyone will accept that it is quite different. Everyone, except Ms Lim. She insisted that both were the same when I asked her to clarify. But one has come to expect this of Ms Lim: never admit the obvious; always look for a tactical answer, even if it flies in the face of what is obvious, and even if it is absurd. It was then left to Mr Perera to be more honest. He said these ideas came about after they looked at the Constitutional Commission's report. So, there are new ideas thought about in the last three months. Why not be just upfront and admit it? This proposal is like a home built with sand. One touch and it crumbles. After the forensic examination yesterday, nothing of it has survived. It is so flawed I cannot believe it was a serious proposal. It does not withstand the most cursory of examinations.”
“Second, on the selection process, an extraordinary suggestion on selection – that there will be a Senatorial Election Committee (SEC) which will select 16, even if you have 17 or 20 candidates of equal quality. That is fair? You will seriously present such a proposal to the people of Singapore? Third, the workings of the Senate. How will it work if there is a split of four to four? Mr Singh was asked. He clearly had not thought about it, so he made up the answers as he went along. He said that it could be a casting vote. If so, who will have that casting vote? He also said that we could have nine Senators – so, nine rather than eight. Quite extraordinary. I could not believe what I was hearing. I am sure the same goes for many Members. It would have been comical had we not been discussing a very serious matter. Mr Low, being the seasoned politician that he is, then stepped in, realising the quagmire all of this was getting them into, and tried to put an end to this sorry spectacle by saying these are details. Basically, a plea: can you please spare us, do not ask any more questions. But Parliament is a place for asking questions; get your proposals thoroughly examined. As champions of Parliamentary democracy, surely the WP believes in that? You do not come to Parliament with half-baked, absurd proposals, and then ask to be spared from searching questions. Does the phrase "First World Parliament" ring a bell? Next, we move to criteria. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan said the criteria for the Senators are the same as for the Elected President, but only after a long detour. Mr Tan first said – same criteria as the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC). But that is absurd because there are no generally prescribed qualifications for PEC.”
“Will that not considerably increase the risk of politicisation and gridlock? And a possible constitutional crisis? How do you propose to make it work? It is basically unworkable. It will be a disaster if we did it the way you suggest, and magnify all the problems – some real, some contrived – that you have listed. The process for the suggestion is also deeply flawed. Mr Low dismisses the flaws in the process. He says yes, it is "by no means perfect". And "not fully worked out" the details. Let us "focus on fundamentals". And "do not be bogged down by details". The big picture, Mr Low, is not pretty. You are bogged down with the big picture because the proposal, as presented, makes no sense. The proposal fails by reference to every one of the points your team has made. You cannot dismiss the process simply because you cannot answer the questions on it. The process is like an engine in a car. Without an engine, the car will not move, even if you have a co-driver who likes slapping the driver. Look at the ways in which the process is flawed. First, how would the candidates campaign? In slates? This question was raised yesterday. No answer has been given. If they run in slates, would it be two slates of eight? Will they identify themselves as two teams? They are supposed to be independent. How do you form workable teams to compete against each other? Without that being sorted out, the process fails in limine. Even worse, if the proposal is for them to run as independents, how can they then work in a team after that? They will all have to work on their own re-election. Will they not jockey and position themselves?”
“Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted how Mr Nathan made efforts to reach out to her when she became a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). Mr Pritam Singh recounted how Mr Nathan encouraged him to always "look after… Singaporeans and Singapore", without raising "any doubts or concerns about serving Singapore in a different colour, cause or capacity". I assume these were real sentiments. If so, why then do you make points which you know are untrue? The third major objection is politicisation, that the Elected Presidency will be politicised. You say that the Government has not explained how the EP can be depoliticised. The President can play a unifying role despite the electoral process. There are inherent tensions, but it can be done. And again, look at our past Presidents. That is your answer. It depends on the electorate choosing the right person. And, if because of the inherent tensions, you want to suggest an alternative, then, the alternative has to be better and not make the position worse. Your position paper says the competitive election process pits individuals against one another and the outcomes of a popular election, I quote, "tempts… the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers." So, how do eight Presidents in a Senate help? Would it not be much more politicised? It does not deal with your objection on politicisation. At least, the Elected President can, after the election, play the role of a unifier. And our Elected Presidents have successfully played that role. Whereas eight Senators, you build in politicisation throughout their term. They have to constantly compete with one another. They have to profile themselves. They have to outdo one another. They want to be re-elected.”
“Let me read out what Assoc Prof Goh has said. This is Assoc Prof Goh's response in December of last year to the proposal to have two Houses of Parliament. We have marked it "Exhibit A". He said, "Keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. No, instead they want more complicated layers that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people. Not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking leading to gridlock down the road. How about including Parliament as it is and restoring the ceremonial presidency? Keep democracy simple, deep and real." In context, Assoc Prof Goh was arguing against a Senate – an Upper House – a separate House to act as a check and balance on Parliament. That was December last year and I think there was a follow-on article about his views. So, what is the real position? Is there one view on this? The second major objection that the WP has made is that the candidates will be drawn from a small pool, likely to be establishment and the whole purpose of this exercise and the whole purpose of the exercise over the last 25 years, is to fix a non-PAP Government. It is an astoundingly cynical view. But if that was the fear, does not the Senate proposal make the position eight times worse? How does the Senate proposal help? We have heard nothing about that. And on the point that the Elected President will be dishonourable, I think the suggestion itself is unworthy. Dishonourable? Dr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Mr SR Nathan, Dr Tony Tan. Look at what you said about President Nathan. You said that he served Singapore with "great distinction".”
“So, it is transferring the custodial from an Elected President to a Senate." So, a clear question and a clear answer. And I listened to the transcript of what Mr Dennis Tan said. He went further to say that the criteria are the same as set out in the Bill that is before Parliament, meaning, I suppose, in context, Senators should meet the criteria proposed for Elected Presidents. So, instead of one Elected President, we would have eight Elected Presidents. How does this deal with the objection of elitism? Of a narrow field? Of a super elite field? Did anyone think about this? Does it not make the position eight times worse? Or perhaps 16 times worse? Mr Chen, your views, which you expressed yesterday quite eloquently, completely contradicts the position of your colleagues. It is like your speech was drafted without reference to their views and the divide cannot be bridged. I am referring to the policy viewpoints. Mr Chen and Assoc Prof Goh, your express positions on elitism directly contradict your Party's decision. And Assoc Prof Goh, look at your Facebook post. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I have these exhibits circulated?”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I will focus my speech on the proposal that has been put forward for an elected Senate. I would make two points. This proposal is fundamentally flawed – flawed in substance and flawed in terms of the process. In substance, the Workers' Party (WP) had many objections to the proposal on the proposed amendments. Their proposal for an elected Senate does not deal with any of the objections they have raised for the Elected Presidency. In fact, their proposals make it worse. Second, the process is so flawed that it is unworkable. Let me deal with the substance. The first point that the WP raises is the point on elitism. It is a major objection to the Elected Presidency with the qualifying criteria. Yesterday, Mr Chen Show Mao made this point. I think Assoc Prof Daniel Goh referred to it. Others have expressed it. In their position paper, the WP talks about the objection in terms of this being restricted to "a super elite" and it narrows the field of candidates. But then, if you look at the Senate proposal, it is to have eight such people where the same qualifications as an Elected President should have. It is in the transcript, and I will read out the transcript later. Or perhaps, I will read it out now. In the exchange with Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera, I said to Mr Perera, and I quote, "So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for a Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?" A clear question and the response is: "Essentially yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation.”
“On 21 October 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced changes to the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2016 to reinforce the principle that the Speakers' Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans. These changes came into effect on 1 November 2016. The changes include allowing Singapore entities to organise or assist to organise events at the Speakers' Corner without the need for a permit, subject to the conditions in the Order. This is an extension of the existing exemption for Singapore Citizens to organise events without the need for a permit. Non-Singapore entities were not previously exempted and continue not to be exempted. As such, a permit will be required if a non-Singapore entity organises or assists to organise an event at the Speakers' Corner. This includes sponsoring, publicly promoting the event, or organising its members or employees to participate in the event. Police will assess such applications on a case-by-case basis. Some factors that the Police will consider include (a) whether the event poses law and order concerns; and (b) whether the event addresses issues pertaining to race and religion. In addition to the above considerations, a permit will not be granted to foreigners, including non-Singapore entities, if the event relates to political or controversial social issues.”
“I assume the answers will not change overnight. Thank you.”
“And what happens if less than eight people qualify or stand?”
“There is a difference because the PEC, as I said, does not limit. It simply satisfies itself that you qualify the criteria. If 30 people qualify, 30 can stand. But the Members are proposing to limit. I just want to understand: they can make their decision, they choose 16 people, Page: 95 and that is not justiciable?”
“That clarification is very useful. So, we will have 16 people who are qualified to be Elected Presidents, who will have to contest. Second point, if I may seek a clarification. Today, as you know, the PEC does not limit the number of people who can take part in a Presidential Election. Under your proposal, the SEC will choose the top 16, and this is not justiciable, Mr Singh told us. So, it is entirely in their discretion to choose 16 people who will submit their names. Will that be right?”
“Thank you, but that is similar to the deliberative track today that we have, because that is also not a hard and fast rule. So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for the Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?”
“I have heard this word "similar" several times. To what extent will they be different?”
“I am not taking about the qualities. I am talking about the criteria − criteria lead to qualities. Can you answer that point? Today, you know that there is a set of objective criteria. Would you require the same criteria for the Senators? So that they can exercise, and we presume to have similar qualities?”
“But there must be some basic criteria. And can I take it that the basic criteria must be similar to the current Elected President's qualification criteria?”
“Will they, the candidates, need to, for example, have run companies of the size as set out currently in the requirements?”
“What criteria does the current CPA have? And to what extent would it be similar to the current CPA?”
“This question is being posed to Mr Dennis Tan on his speech.”
“Mr Tan, let me explain my question. The SEC − let us call it the Senate Elections Committee, the SEC – has got to shortlist 16 candidates. We are now focusing on the Page: 93 criteria for those candidates. My understanding is that, based on Mr Singh's answers and your earlier answers, the criteria for those individuals will be similar to those who qualify for the Elected Presidency. But "similar" is not exact. So, I am asking – in what way will there be differences?”
“Criteria for the candidates will be similar to those for the Elected Presidents. To what extent? "Similar" means?”
“I have had Mr Pritam Singh explain and Mr Dennis Tan explain. I have asked a simple question − fundamental to all of this is the criteria. So, I have you on record, Mr Low, as saying that you have thought of some, and some other criteria and details will have to be worked out further. Second, I have you on record as saying that whatever you have worked out, has been set out. I would like to ask Mr Dennis Tan, if there is any other detail on the selection criteria, please let us know. I would also like a clarification. You said that it is similar − the criteria for the Senators would be similar to the criteria for the Presidents. Can you tell me to what extent will they be different?”
“So, what you have talked about is what you have explained so far?”
“Can you tell us, to the extent that you have worked out, what has been explained in this Parliament today?”
“Can I take it that the details have not been worked out?”
“Similar? Is there a difference? Can you tell me what are the differences?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I heard the Member say that he supports the proposal for a Senate. As I understood earlier from Mr Pritam Singh, there will be 16 candidates − the criteria would be like, I suppose, a Senate election committee which will act like the PEC and operate like the PEC. So, does that mean that the criteria would be the same as for the current Page: 92 Elected Presidents?”
“It is a simple question. Please answer it if you can – a clarification, really. Is it not different from what you said in March? Supermajority in Parliament to use Reserves, as opposed to having an elected Senate with 16 people contesting and eight people being elected. It looks to me different. If you say it is the same, so be it.”
“I seek a clarification on what Ms Sylvia Lim said. I think in the manifesto last year, the WP said, "Power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered". In March this year, to the Constitutional Commission, the WP said, "Parliamentary safeguards requiring its supermajority vote in Parliament before past Reserves can be used by the Government." Today, it is an elected Senate which will overrule Parliament. Is that not a change? Can Ms Lim please clarify?”
“Sexual crime investigations are generally led by specialist units in the Singapore Police Force. The Serious Sexual Crimes Branch (SSCB) in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) leads investigations into serious sexual crimes, such as rape and aggravated cases of sexual assault by penetration (SAP). Specialist teams in the Police Land Divisions lead investigations in other sexual crimes, such as outrage of modesty cases, sexual penetration of minors and SAP cases that do not involve aggravating factors. The investigation officers in SSCB and the Police Divisions are supported by other Police resources, including in the fields of intelligence and forensics. Depending on the volume of cases, the Police also scale up SSCB's resources where necessary, by leveraging other investigation teams. As the Member will note, the Police resources used for investigations will vary according to the needs of a case, and because investigations may cover a broad area, not everything needs to be done by SSCB. The investigation will be led by SSCB and the total investigative resources could come from a larger pool of officers. In the last three years, SSCB investigated, on average, about 170 cases of rape and sexual assault by penetration each year. Nearly all these cases were solved.”