Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 25.
“That may have been the case in the past, perhaps. It may not continue to be the case in the future as Presidential Elections get more and more polarised. So, our solution is actually so elegant and has such a powerful advantage of preserving the President as a symbol of unity, the unity of the country above politics. It is so advantageous in that sense that none less than the Constitutional Commission actually proposed it in its report. I do not think you have fully addressed that merit of our proposal. In the same vein that you invited us to vote for the Bill, I urge you to consider voting against this Bill just on that ground alone. It is a hugely important point. The third point I will make is that you mentioned the potential for politicisation of the Senate election. I think this is a red herring. The custodial power, what we are proposing, is moved to a Senate; that is true. So, the risk of politicisation of that Senatorial Election is there, just as the risk of politicisation of the Presidential Election is there. But the benefit is that the Presidency in our proposal, which is appointed, no more suffers from the risk of politicisation. It can become more of a unifying figure.”
“Firstly, on the point of a GE as a substitute for a referendum, I would point out to the hon Member that this issue has never been straightforwardly put as a referendum. There is no simple equation between a GE and a referendum on the issue of the Elected Presidency. There are many other factors that come into consideration in a GE. Voting a particular party in a GE does not equate with consenting to the Elected Presidency. That has never been put to the electorate, that specific issue on whether the Presidency should be appointed or elected. The hon Member said that we are not pressed on this issue. If we are not pressed on this issue, why are we passing this Bill now? You talked about GEs. This proposal of making these changes to the Elected Presidency was not put to the Singapore electorate in GE2015. They cannot be said to have consented in GE2015 to these proposals. Because you are suggesting that a GE kind of equates to a referendum but the people did not know about these proposals in GE2015. And you said that it is not pressing, why not wait? If it is Page: 121 not pressing, why not go through a process that has a referendum at the end of it? That will be my first point. The second point, the more important point, I think, is that I do not believe you have fundamentally addressed the issue of the risk to the Presidency of a polarising direct election. I think many figures in the Government have talked about the risk in the context of the Elected Presidency in 2011, which did become in some ways a proxy GE. It became politicised. Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation. You mentioned that the previous Elected Presidents were able to unify the country but that does not necessarily prove the case.”
“The second question is why you oppose having a referendum.”
“Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship?”
“The Member made a rather extraordinary statement that a President appointed by Parliament is an autocrat and that amounts to an autocracy. Does he believe President Yusof Ishak was an autocrat?”
“I would like to thank the hon Member Dr Puthucheary for what was genuinely a very eloquent and very interesting speech. I would like to engage with some of his ideas. Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy GE, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed. We have suggested returning to an appointed President that can rise above politics and to take the custodial power currently vested in the Elected President and to place it into an elected Senate. That would be the advantage of having a President like President Yusof Ishak who is seen as above politics. So, my first clarification to the Minister is what would be his strategy for ensuring that the Elected President, if we continue to elect presidents, is seen to be above politics? That is the first clarification. The second one is that Dr Puthucheary pointed out that we are rushing to a new conclusion about the elected Senate. I would like to clarify that we were actually not arguing that Parliament should vote for an elected Senate during this debate. We are arguing that the country should go through a referendum on this issue. Why does he disagree that the country should go through a referendum on this issue? Mr Edwin Tong said that it is because it is time-consuming, it is resource-intensive, it is energy-sapping. Does he agree with that point of view? That is my second Page: 119 question. My third question is a very simple one.”
“I think the current Presidential Election system that you have proposed would also face a similar objection. What if nobody comes forward to run for the Elected Presidency under your system? We are confident that there will be sufficient candidates to come forward for this system. I think that the conundrum that the Minister posed would be equally faced by many and, in fact, possibly by all types of electoral systems.”
“In respect of that, they choose 16 people and they limit it to 16 people, whereas the proposal of the Government could, in theory, as the Minister rightly pointed out, be far more than 16, it could be 100 if 100 people meet those criteria, yes, that is correct.”
“In this regard, the mechanics of the selection criteria will be similar to the PEC currently. They would exercise their discretion. There would be some requirement that whether ─”
“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. So, it is transferring the custodial role from an Elected President to a Senate.”
“They would be different in the sense that we would not have a hard and fast threshold of cut-off to say that regardless of the applicants who apply for this role ─”
“The criteria would be similar but what would not be similar ─”
“The basic qualities would be similar because what we are talking about is the custodial role being transferred.”
“It would be part of the criteria to be considered, and that would be an advantage in the selection process. So, the more relevant experience that you have, the more Page: 94 eligible you will be.”
“Okay. Yes, I would like to make a clarification with regard to that particular question on eligibility criteria. I intend to touch on that in my speech which is scheduled either later today or tomorrow. But, in essence, I think what was meant earlier by saying it is "similar" is that the eligibility criteria would revolve around similar qualities – that is, the ability ‒ because essentially, it is the custodial role that we are proposing be transferred from an Elected President to an Elected Senate. So, the kinds of qualities that would be needed to fulfil that role would be inherently similar in nature, meaning to say, exposure to managing finances, exposure to exercising managerial discretion over human resource, decision-making, and so on and so forth. I think similar, but not exactly the same. How that works is that in our proposal, the Senate Elections Committee would operate in a similar manner to the PEC but with different mechanics. It would consider applicants who would like to run for the office of Senator. It would review those applications with those eligibility criteria in mind, that is, financial management capability, human resources and so on, criteria that one needs to play a custodial role and it would rank the 16 most suitable and most eligible candidates to go on to the ballot and, from that, the senatorial election would then elect eight candidates from a ballot of 16. I was intending to clarify that later on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I make some clarification?”
“Just to clarify that point with Mr Seah. Would not the same apply to an elected MP?”
“Just a brief point of clarification to the Prime Minister. The hon Prime Minister alluded to the fact that the UK Parliament could, in theory, if it so decides, abolish elections altogether. So, my question to the Prime Minister would be, what within our system would prevent a future government – I do not think the current Government would do that and previous Governments clearly did not – but what in our system will prevent a future government from either abolishing or radically curtailing a GE at some point in the future? What would be the stabiliser for that?”
“A supplementary question for the Minister: notwithstanding that in general, a particular individual may not be a civil servant and he may not be the ambassador to that country, and he may be speaking in his private capacity or another different capacity, would the Minister not recognise that there could be an impact on Singapore's diplomatic relations with a foreign country if someone who holds the title of an ambassador, makes a statement that interferes in the politics of another country? There could be that impact and it would appear that there was some degree of impact in the particular case I cited. What is the Ministry's strategy for dealing with such a case, should it happen?”
“I was referring to Ambassador-at-Large Mr Bilahari Kausikan and his comments on Malaysian politics, which I believe were made in October last year.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have a few supplementary questions. I would like to clarify that in the case of Non-Resident Ambassadors who are technically not civil servants, in the event that they make statements about the internal politics of other countries that may or may not be prejudicial to Singapore's national interests, would that be viewed as permissible by the Ministry or would that be discouraged and action taken in such cases? Specifically ‒ I think the Minister is well aware ‒ there was an instance last year when one particular Ambassador-at-Large did actually make a statement about the internal politics of another country. My aim is not to highlight the case of that individual, but more of a general point. Would that sort of intervention ‒ even if it is made in a different capacity, not in the person's ambassadorial capacity ‒ be considered permissible and, if so, how then would the Ministry manage the reaction or the impact to Singapore's diplomacy which might result, because I think in that particular case, politicians in another country did actually respond in a hostile fashion to that particular Ambassador-at-Large's intervention?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his clarifications and detailed replies. I just have one point of clarification. Will the Ministry consider requiring more operators to display signages, posters or such like to remind consumers of their rights and the things that they need to look out for and the recourse that they can have, in case they have been cheated? As the debate today shows, consumers need to be educated and there can be no better way to educate them than at the point of purchase within the shopping environment. I fear that this is something that individual mall operators, left to their devices, may not be inclined to do because it may create an unfavourable impression on the shopper. But that is something the Government could require them to do, and it is something I have seen in other countries as well.”
“Seventh, will there be an escalating scale of severity of action taken in the case of repeat offenders, who may be companies or, as the Minister of State observed, individuals, to set up successive companies to cover their tracks? This may be necessary to create a stronger deterrent against those who are egregious offenders and who feel that they can prey on certain vulnerable and captive groups of customers. Finally, Sir, will SPRING's new enforcement powers apply to products sold via legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes or, for that matter, via illegitimate pyramid schemes where there may be no retailers with shop fronts? MLM, Sir, is a substantial industry. Including MLM under this framework will help the legitimate MLM industry to protect its reputation, to grow and to contribute to the economy.”
“Fourth, beyond just obtaining injunctions against errant conduct, will SPRING or another organisation under MTI look into requiring merchants to implement broad-based pan-industry measures that are fairer to consumers? For example, in Australia, the Consumer and Competition Commission requires grocery stores to display unit prices clearly for the produce that they sell. That Commission also defines certain types of contract clauses as oppressive and, hence, illegal. Will this kind of proactive preventive groundwork also be done in Singapore? I suggest that an agency, which could be SPRING, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) or another agency, be tasked to proactively require the whole industry to adopt fair consumer practices on an industry level in this way. Fifth, SPRING is primarily an investigative agency at the present moment. How would the officers of the new department be trained in law enforcement techniques? Will SPRING draw learnings from any other consumer protection agencies in developed countries which have a long track record of operation? Sixth, how would SPRING approach the issue of offshore online retailers who may not have a legal entity in Singapore and where legal action in the Courts may thus be problematic? Such retailers can be expected to take up a larger share of e-tailing revenues in the future as new platforms emerge to connect not only large vendors but also mid-sized vendors in countries like Japan, Korea, the US and Australia with Singapore consumers? I wonder if there is a role here for an international consumer protection and enforcement network (ICPEN).”
“This is a huge concern because many consumers refrain from taking legal action even in the SCT due to their lack of experience with the legal system and concerns about time and cost. Will CASE be sufficiently resourced to assist in all cases where consumers may need assistance to pursue their complaints? The kind of assistance that can and will be provided and the sequence of steps that can be expected when one files or requests for assistance in pursuing a complaint should be made very clear to all consumers. This is seen on the websites of some of the Australian state consumer protection agencies, like the New South Wales Fair Trading, for example. Second, Sir, an enhanced enforcement regime presupposes that there are clear guidelines to retailers about what is and is not considered unethical or errant conduct, and that measures are taken to educate retailers about their obligations. Unfair practices are defined in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA. However, many retailers will not be aware of these provisions or how they are operationalised and practised. So, my question here is: how will retailers be educated about their responsibilities under the CPFTA, and which agency is tasked with this responsibility? Third, and in a parallel fashion, consumer protection also depends on consumers being aware of their rights and taking action when they experience errant conduct. Which agency will be responsible for educating consumers and how? In this context, I suggest that SPRING or another agency consider requiring more operators to display consumer protection posters or signs to remind consumers about their rights in the shopping environment.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) (CPFTA) Bill seeks to empower SPRING to become an enforcement agency to investigate, obtain and enforce Court injunctions against errant retailers. The amendments aim to deter errant retail practices and to publicise the occurrence of such practices so that consumers are aware of which retailers have received injunctions. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] Sir, consumer protection is important for many reasons. Not only is it the right thing to do for the sake of fairness, it also yields economic benefits. It enhances the Singapore brand for tourism. Moreover, consumer protection, by reducing information asymmetry and imbalances and power between consumers and retailers, also enhances the efficient operation of markets. Being pro-market does not mean being simply pro-business but striking the right balance between being pro-business and pro-consumer. Sir, this is clearly a step in the right direction. In our General Election 2015 manifesto, the Workers' Party (WP) called for the Government to be more proactive in seeking Court injunction orders against errant retailers and also provide more resources to the Government bodies tasked with this role. However, I do have a number of clarifying questions and suggestions. First, under this amendment and according to the frequently asked questions released by MTI in May this year, SPRING will not be responsible specifically for providing redress or compensation to consumers who are victims of errant retailers. Rather, those consumers will need to find redress through legal action that they undertake and finance themselves or with the help of CASE.”
“Madam, just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I thank him for his reply. Is the Ministry monitoring the experience of other countries in the world that are making this mandatory, at least for some categories of buildings? I believe this is either being considered or has already been implemented in some cities in America, India and France. So, will the Ministry be monitoring their experience and try to draw some lessons when reviewing this at some future point in time?”
“Mdm Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, can I confirm in terms of the survey questions and the survey language, when we talk about retrenchment benefits, are these over and above the payment for notice, that is the salary that is paid for serving notice or the salary that is paid in lieu of serving notice? Is the retrenchment benefit, as defined in the survey, over and above that? Secondly, the Minister alluded to industry norms for paying retrenchment benefits. Can I just query whether those industry norms are set by the Tripartite Alliance and are they published and publicly available?”
“This would facilitate cybersecurity becoming better embedded in public sector ICT systems, processes and cultures. If the answer to that question is that CSA is tasked with national level cybersecurity going beyond just the public sector, should it not then be located under the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) which would allow better integration with other modalities of Total Defence?”
“The new GovTech will have access to a great deal of personal and corporate data. As a best practice, will GovTech conduct and encourage other public sector agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments? I would urge GovTech to give serious thought to this because not only would it result in greater privacy protection, such regular private investment assessments (PIAs) would also help strengthen public confidence in sharing information with Government agencies. PIAs are conducted by first world government agencies such as the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security in the United States and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the United Kingdom (UK), for example. Thirdly, the Civil Service, including all Statutory Boards and agencies, is a vast organisation. Across the ranks of all state employees, there could exist a digital divide, with some employees being much more IT-literate in their skills and habits than others, particularly including some of those who are older. I suggest that GovTech take the lead in identifying IT literacy gaps within the broader Civil Service and use its considerable procurement power to develop and push out ICT literacy training on a whole-of-Government basis. This would enable those state employees who are lagging in comfort level in ICT skills to level up and thus gain access to productivity-enhancing opportunities which would improve their career prospects. Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask why the Cyber Security Agency (CSA), formed in April 2015, is located within the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). With the creation of GovTech, would not GovTech offer the best location for the lead agency for public sector cyber security? Are there plans for the CSA to thus eventually be subsumed under GovTech?”
“This is compounded by the fact that many public sector agencies may tend to prefer established global brands in procuring ICT systems and services. I would like to suggest GovTech find ways to work with local enterprises and SMEs to enable them to benefit from its work. These local champions should be our economy's strong third pillar of job creation and value creation, a pillar that will hopefully be more resilient and rooted to Singapore whichever way global economic winds blow, as compared to multinational corporations. Page: 138 No doubt Singapore needs to observe its obligations under the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), which requires non-discrimination against foreign firms. However, there could be ways to work with local firms while remaining consistent with the GPA. For example, GovTech could work with certain local firms with niche technologies on R&D partnerships which are not procurement tenders per se. Such local firms could also receive targeted SME incentives from economic promotion agencies like SPRING Singapore or the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). Another possibility is to issue certain procurement tenders that provide preferential consideration for SMEs, both local and foreign. This may, in certain context, be GPA-compliant, if the same preference is given to both local and foreign SMEs. But practically speaking, of course, there will not be as much foreign SME competition as there would be foreign MNC competition. Some global government agencies, I am given to understand, do implement SME preferences in their tender evaluation criteria to some degree in this way. I hope that the Ministry of Communications and Information and GovTech will consider such approaches. Secondly on privacy protection.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the creation of GovTech marks the turning of a page in the evolution of Singapore's IT infrastructure. The new GovTech will and I quote, from the Bill, "undertake the procurement of ICT and related engineering goods for the public sector…" It will have powers and I quote, "to issue directives, codes, standards and guidelines for the public sector in relation to the architecture or use of ICT or related engineering systems or services in the public sector." The new agency recalls one of the core functions of the National Computer Board, formed in 1981, which was to implement the computerisation of the Civil Service. However, GovTech will do so in a very different context, one where ICT has become pervasive and is, in many cases, mission-critical in the Civil Service. GovTech looks set to take the lead in enabling the public sector to optimally use big data analytics, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and other disruptive technologies. It will probably take the lead in the procurement of IT systems for the public sector. It is also likely to play a leading role in setting and enforcing best practice standards as well as levelling up the standards of public sector agencies in terms of their use of ICT to fulfil their missions. As such, the role of GovTech is potentially very impactful. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make several points and pose several suggestions for the goals, functioning and processes of GovTech. Firstly, in relation to the development of local SMEs in the ICT space. In other developed countries, SMEs have the advantage of good access to their domestic market, an advantage that some of our SMEs and local enterprises lack due to the small size of our domestic market.”
“I would just like to thank the Minister for the explanations. He engaged very deeply on all the points that were made, so I thank him for that. Just a very brief clarification. My point on pushing education to prisoners was actually referring to prisoners who are currently serving their sentence. My question is: will SSG give some thought to working with the Ministry of Home Affairs to see how we can push out training to prisoners actually serving their sentence. In other countries, you hear stories of people earning their degree when they are in prison. So, that is Page: 77 my point.”
“Lastly, I would like to highlight one particular group of stakeholders that would benefit from SSG, which is Singaporeans who are serving their prison terms within our penal system. Mdm Speaker, SSG would be in a position to be proactive in delivering training content to Singaporeans serving prison terms through e-learning platforms or other modalities, other means of reaching out to this particular group of people. And if such Singaporeans could benefit from such training while they are serving their terms, that would make it better for their prospects, rehabilitation and help them to integrate better into the economy as productive contributors to the economy, perhaps even as entrepreneurs upon their release. I would urge SSG to consider this particular group and to take that on as one particular goal that it addresses.”
“In relation to the new SSG, will the Ministry implement some process to measure the impact of SkillsFuture initiatives on the actual employment outcomes of individuals who benefit from SkillsFuture programmes? Would the Ministry regularly publish such indicators for public and Parliamentary scrutiny? And would such measurements go beyond measuring correlation to measuring causation, that is to say, would such measurement disentangle other causative factors and focus on the impact of just the SkillsFuture programmes normalised for other causative factors? In this way, Mdm Speaker, we can really enhance the effectiveness and national return on investment of SkillsFuture year by year, as opposed to merely highlighting good outcomes that may or may not be directly tied to the actual programmes. Next, aside from assessing the quality of training in adult education, will SSG go beyond this to stimulate the development of new training and education content in Singapore and how would it do so? I do have a suggestion in this regard. There is a golden opportunity here. There is a large base of local education and training providers and this represents an economic opportunity as well. With the support of SSG, we could create training content that not only enhances employment outcomes for Singaporeans, but will also become exportable services that help drive economic Page: 54 growth and good job creation at home. There is also an industry that undertakes high-quality translation of such content in the Asian languages like Chinese and Malay. The new SSG could work with economic agencies to grow this translation industry in Singapore to generate foreign source income streams.”
“Mdm Speaker, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill aims to bring about a far-reaching change in our adult education and training landscape by establishing an agency that is solely focused on adult education in ways that are intimately linked to economic goals, such as employability, productivity and innovation. Clearly, in the 21st Century, these are all critical arenas for us to succeed in as a people and as an economy. We do need to take adult education and training far more seriously to enhance economic goals and also individual career progression. It makes sense from the standpoint of our economy, as well as from the standpoint of individual self-actualisation. Mdm Speaker, I would like to raise a few suggestions in relation to the goals associated with establishing SSG, according to this Bill. Firstly, the quantum of SkillsFuture funding that individuals can now draw down in the form of the SkillsFuture Credit is too limited to effectively nudge individuals to take up more extended and expensive training courses that would cultivate deep hard skills, in particular, in future-ready industries. I believe others have commented on this point frequently. Would the Ministry consider, as part of the goal-setting process for SSG, to require that the agency develop a wider variety of co-funding models whereby more extensive Government funding will be provided, perhaps on the condition of the availability of matching funding from employers, industry associations or other stakeholders to enable individuals to take up such courses that are more expensive and more extensive? Secondly, part and parcel of setting good key performance indicators (KPIs) is setting up good measurement systems.”
“Just one supplementary question to the Minister. I think when these defects occurred, would the Minister acknowledge that the main contractor, which is Kawasaki-Sifang, bears some responsibility for the quality control of the metallurgical process of the supplier because there was some impurity in the alloy, there were metallurgical issues from the supplier of the bolster. So, would not some responsibility have to be borne by the main contractor, that is, Kawasaki-Sifang, and, if so, what then is the Land Transport Authority (LTA) doing to make sure that they had done the necessary corrections to their quality control process for all suppliers?”
“My second point of clarification is with regard to the penalties. Would the Minister not acknowledge that one difference between the law yesterday and what the law will be tomorrow is that tomorrow, on the statute books, there will be a maximum penalty of $100,000 and three years, a penalty that is very far away from past sentencing precedents for contempt of Court cases? Does the Minister not acknowledge that that could well have a chilling effect on Singaporeans of limited means exercising the right to free speech getting involved in debates and discussions on matters of public interest if there is even a slightest remotest risk of prosecution under this law?”
“Mdm Speaker, just two points for clarification to the Minister. One is actually a clarification about the clarification the Minister gave to Ms Sylvia Lim regarding section 3(4). So, if I understand the Minister correctly, what the Minister said is that the Courts will ultimately decide, which means to say that the Courts will decide whether something the Government has done because it thinks it is in the national interest is really in the national interest. The Courts are the final arbiter. So, my question is this. If that is the case, if the Minister is of the view that the Court should ultimately decide why was the language chosen, why was it worded such that it says that what the Government thinks is in the national interest rather than what objectively is in the national interest. I believe this also goes to the amendment made by the Nominated Members.”
“The result for our democracy from the passage of this Bill and the attendant publicity could well be that no one who does not have $100,000 in cash to spare will dare speak up about any issue where there is even the slightest risk or perceived risk of prosecution under this law. What does that mean for our democratic society, for the voices and contribution to public debate and consensus formation by Singaporeans with limited means? In a climate of high income inequality, do we really want to deepen the view that free speech is only something that the rich can afford? In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, in the absence of any clear and compelling reason why this law is necessary, why now and why the rush to legislate when the Bill, as it stands, poses such grave dangers to our climate of free speech and debate on matters of public concern, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that this Bill will contribute to suffocating dissent, debate in democratic politics in Singapore, to the detriment of balanced accountable politics, civil society and freedom of speech. Mdm Speaker, I join my WP colleagues in opposing this Bill.”
“An unscrupulous government could use the provisions of this law to suppress public discussion of its failings or wrongdoings in every platform, forum and institution in Singapore other than Parliament itself. It could be argued that under current common law the Government could do this anyway, so the Bill does not change anything. But this Bill does change things. Firstly, with its setting out of maximum penalties, which, I will go on to argue, is intimidating. Secondly, by strengthening the executive Government at the expense of the Courts in contempt proceedings and enabling the use of the Police to investigate contempt, which is not the case now. Next, I would like to speak about the penalties which the Bill prescribes. In setting out penalties, I fear that the maximum penalties stipulated in section 12 of a $100,000 fine or up to three years in prison may come to be seen as the minimum penalty in the public mind. In particular, I fear that the $100,000 figure will attract undue attention and become fixed in the public's mind as the liability one must be prepared to pay if a citizen wants to express his or her opinion on a matter of public interest that could potentially be subject to the contempt of Court law. Moreover, as my colleagues have argued, this maximum cap is not aligned with past precedents. The sentence in the Alan Shadrake case was six weeks' imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. In Alex Au's case, which involves scandalising contempt of the Chief Justice, a fine of $8,000 was meted out. Other fines have ranged from $500 to $10,000. Mdm Speaker, this is a far cry from three years' imprisonment and $100,000 in fines.”
“The expansiveness of it has been elaborated by my colleagues: it comes about as a result of replacing the "real risk" test with merely a "risk" test as well as other points they have touched upon. I note that the Minister for Law, in his speech, did not talk about any other country that seems to be moving in the direction that the Government plans to move here. This underlines the need for the Government to explain why it is opting to move aggressively in this direction. What facts actually support the view that there is a real risk to the functioning and standing of the Courts so as to justify why we are not acting in accordance with what we see in other jurisdictions? Given the high trust our population reposes in our Judiciary, as the Law Minister has pointed out, should we not be more confident that the administration of justice in Singapore is made of sterner stuff and is less prone to the risk of being undermined? Next, the Government's exception clause set out in section 3(4) also creates a real risk of Government abuse, as my colleagues have argued. The one-sidedness of this clause lies in the fact that only the Government enjoys a public interest exception to sub judice and not anyone else involved in the case. Madam, an unscrupulous government, in theory, could exploit this provision to initiate investigations against people so as to shut down public discussion of any politically inconvenient or embarrassing issue until such a time as the issue is rendered moot or public concern has dissipated. Or, in theory once again, consecutive investigations on trivial charges or technical infractions could be launched to keep the matter permanently off-limits to public discussion.”
“If the concern is with witnesses and experts being influenced by published misinformation, is not the Court process designed so as to elicit the finding of fact, disentangled from the undue influence of misinformation? For instance, under cross-examination, the subjective can and should be distinguished and differentiated from the objective in any eye-witness testimony. More specifically, have there been concrete cases of witnesses and experts being unduly influenced by published misinformation to such an extent as to generate a real risk to which this Bill is a response? In recent years, Mdm Speaker, we have seen many sensational cases which have drawn heated public debate and discussion online and offline, such as the trial of the former head of the Central Narcotics Bureau, Mr Ng Boon Gay, the trial of former law professor Tey Tsun Hang, the trial of the members of City Harvest Church, Little India Riot Commission of Inquiry. Have there been any specific examples or complaints of witnesses not stepping forward or tailoring their testimony as a result of public pressure? If not, why the impetus for this Bill? If there are such cases, I urge the Minister to share such concrete cases under the protection here of parliamentary privilege so that the Singapore public can better understand what circumstances have provoked the tabling of this Bill. Next, Mdm Speaker, on the issue of scandalising the Judiciary, the Minister for Law has discussed in some detail the cases of the UK and New Zealand, but it does not appear that any other country in the world is currently doing what the Government seeks to do now, which is to prescribe harsh maximum penalties for contempt of Court offences and to codify in statute, in expansive fashion, the definition of contempt of Court.”
“Yet, in this case, the Government has decided to rush to legislate, with no formal consultative process on the text of the Bill prior to its First Reading. Mdm Speaker, there is no evidence of any substantive risk to the functioning of the Courts and the judicial process to justify such a measure. I do not argue that such a risk cannot exist by definition, but the Government needs to make the case that the risk justifies such an extreme measure. If, indeed, such a law were necessary, surely, it is not time-sensitive. Therefore, I would like to ask why there was not more widespread consultation, both within the legal fraternity and among the wider public, before this Bill was tabled for First Reading. As my colleagues have argued, why was a Green Paper not tabled in Parliament, given the very grave issues at stake? In other jurisdictions, before significant changes to important legislation are tabled, law commissions are convened to seek public feedback and advise government and parliament on the best approach to take. Surely, a Bill that substantially affects the constitutional right to free speech under Article 14 deserves much more public consideration and debate than has been thus far accorded to this Bill. Next, on the offence of sub judice, what are the urgency and necessity for this Bill in this regard? Our cases are decided by professional judges rather than juries. Is our confidence in our judges so weak as to suppose they cannot disentangle fact from misinformation and, hence, need to be protected from public statements about their ongoing cases? Surely, our judges are well-trained in the rules of what constitutes relevant evidence to be admitted and considered by the Courts.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Government has said that the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill aims to consolidate common law in contempt of Court. However, in so doing, it poses an unsatisfactory and problematic solution to a non-existent problem and it generates grave dangers to the freedom of speech that is part and parcel of our Singaporean way of life and is enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution. How? By creating the potential for abuse of the excessive powers that this Bill confers on the Government, allowing the government of the day to initiate investigations as a means to chill, stifle and, ultimately, strangle debate on matters of public concern while reserving for itself the right to comment on such cases. First of all, I would like to address the fundamental necessity of this Bill. All legislation exists to fill a gap to address the real issue in such a way as to generate improved outcomes. In this case, MinLaw has stated that the Bill primarily seeks to consolidate common law on the subject of contempt of Court. My colleagues and I argue that this Bill actually goes beyond mere consolidation or codification and makes real expansive changes to the current common law landscape on contempt. Madam, presently, there is no need for this Bill. There has not been a rash of cases that make administration of the common law position on contempt of Court difficult. What is the necessity for this Bill, why legislate and why now? To cite some unrelated but illustrative examples, the Government has refrained from legislating a quantum on retrenchment benefits into the Employment Act. It has refrained from legislating penalties for discriminatory hiring and human resource practices by employers.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, on the issue of facade designs. One of the statements that was made in connection with this issue was that the facade design for the bin centre presented some issues in terms of complexity and synchronising with the aesthetics of the surrounding areas. Could the Minister help us to understand what extraordinary measures were taken in respect of the facade design? Were historians engaged, for example? Were consultants, who have the knowledge of the history and the aesthetics of the surrounding area, engaged to justify an extraordinary expense on facade design? Secondly, in relation to the AGO's finding on the procurement process, would the Minister say that the rule that was used by AGO, which is to highlight the percentage of consultancy out of total construction cost, is actually an inappropriate rule to use to comment on the validity of the cost of those expenses?”
“Mdm Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, on the outcome of the Brexit Referendum, how does the Government envisage that it would affect the timeframe for the ratification of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement? Secondly, does the Government anticipate entering into a process of bilateral negotiation eventually with the UK for a bilateral FTA and, if so, what would be the approximate timeframe for that?”
“Mdm Speaker, just a clarifying question to the Minister of State. I have received feedback from residents that there are some GPs who have adopted the following practice where, for a follow-up visit to the GP, the GP now says that consultation fees must be levied if the CHAS subsidy is to be claimed, whereas previously, if the CHAS subsidy was not being claimed, then that consultation fee for a follow-up visit or for replenishment of medication would be waived. I just want to confirm that this practice is not permissible if it is seen and is a ground for complaints.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, the Minister of State referred to a survey of companies in relation to non-discriminatory and fair employment practices. Does the Ministry intend to conduct a survey of employees and job applicants because, surely, that would be a more accurate way of determining if there are really discriminatory practices that are prevalent, rather than asking the employers, but to also regularly survey the employees? That is the first question. The second question is on the enforcement powers. Does the Government feel that there are sufficient enforcement powers because, if an employer is recalcitrant in the face of a warning, the Minister of State mentioned that the Ministry can curtail the Work Pass or threaten to curtail the Work Pass. But what about companies that do not depend on Work Passes, which have an entirely domestic workforce? That threat may not be useful to get them to comply. Is the Ministry satisfied that the current enforcement powers are sufficient to deal with such cases? Even if such cases have not occurred now, they may occur in the future.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his detailed and comprehensive answer. I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, has MOM had cases referred by TAFEP or from any other source where employers were allegedly engaged in discrimination for personal attributes, other than age or gender, for example, physical appearance or any other kind of personal attributes? In such cases, what were the tools of enforcement used? Secondly, have there been any cases of employers who have not been amenable to persuasion or pressure from MOM in such cases and are recalcitrant and refuse to actually amend their discriminatory practices in any way?”