Lina Chiam
Singapore
“But we must take into consideration the effects of real-time information. These days, both passengers and drivers have access to applications that can work out the balance between demand and supply. The most efficient way to match demand and supply in the short term is by allowing prices to surge.”
“The lapses in the management of tenancy contracts, procurement and engagement of external operators by PA form one such example. Moving forward, conducting regular training is something that the Ministry ought to be looking into to ensure procurement officers in public agencies understand procurement best practices.”
“An example would be the case that happened in May 2013. An employer, Lee Yew Nam, had caused public outrage last May after he was shown allegedly slapping his worker in an online video in his office. It was only after another colleague uploaded this video that MOM took notice.”
“One suggestion is to require companies or researchers to post all raw data and results to the Government website, even if the treatment being tested is never approved or if they cannot make it for scientific publishing. This promotes more vigorous scrutiny from MOH should there be any wilful suppression.”
“To what extent will national funds be committed in this multilateral development bank and will Parliament have the powers to check on this creature later on? Mdm Speaker, AIIB may boost our country's stand as a capital banking hub in Asia and, of course, our GDP growth.”
“For the safety of drivers and passengers, I would suggest the recommendation to legislate technology companies operating taxi booking apps to compulsorily provide taxis with a strong, adjustable holder and handphone solely dedicated for use on the apps system only.”
The complete record
Every one of 275 lines we hold for Lina Chiam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Madam, the world's economic agenda is not to preserve existing jobs. The preservation of jobs is in direct conflict with labour productivity. Manpower-saving technology is being created more rapidly these days. The case is even stronger now as we face smarter machines. MOM cannot focus only on pseudo-productivity growth within a sector or within a division. We need to integrate cross-industry trends. For example, 3D printing has productivity innovation potential for the biomedical and chemicals sector. What we need is a quicker pace of transformation. Industries that do not pick up pace should be engaged. Their workers should be offered social support, such as unemployment insurance and special lump-sum subsidies. It may be even more costly to keep a low value-added job than to create a stronger social net. MOM should begin to study the economics behind this. We cannot resist change. But we can mitigate the impact. Singapore seems to be making small change and is afraid of increasing social expenditure. Getting workers to retrain and upgrade themselves may be a luxury that the Government can no longer afford. Upgrading was still feasible in the 1980s when technology was improving progressively. Now that change has come exponentially faster, adjustments would become more painful. Singaporeans will be brave enough to face it if the Government is also brave enough to face the change. Unless we embrace revolutionary changes by restructuring our Page: 28 industries, we will become obsolete and irrelevant to the needs of the world. Raising Labour Force Participation Rate”
“We will also need to work with institutions to have a broader understanding of cross-industry opportunities. How do we enable digital healthcare services to support the optimisation of resources? The principle is how these issues can be transformed into opportunities for our people. We must avoid being the Asian version of a Geneva or a Luxembourg. We cannot only be a financial gateway for Asia because we will never be able to compete if the Chinese renminbi takes over as the international currency one day. China will not prioritise Singapore over Shanghai or Hong Kong.”
“Toward a Research-based Growth Model Singaporeans have always been top performers in math and science competitions, but have yet to produce top scientists to challenge the frontiers of basic research. The integration between basic research and application-based engineering know-how is required. We have been pursuing R&D by way of foreign direct investments. We facilitate investments globally for the best technology, but all this remains in the hands of our investors. Our SMEs continue to struggle with low productivity. Technology will become even more ubiquitous. For example, are we using technology to manage healthcare costs the right way? That is not only a Page: 104 healthcare problem. This is economics at play. Some time ago, we proposed a central database of medical records for Singapore for this reason. How do we enable our SMEs to solve some of these questions? Our biomedical industry growth looks exactly the same as those in other industries – greater production, more sales, more acquisitions. This cannot be the way to succeed. We need to actively participate in scientific breakthroughs. If we can be at the centre of medical breakthroughs, we will attract investments from MNCs and we will naturally be the centre for medical services. Otherwise, we have to compete only on cost. We think, already, our healthcare workers are frustrated with low wages. This calls for a new economic growth model, geared towards basic research and frontiers of science; one that focuses on new technology development, not just the acquisition of it. We do not want just to facilitate research – we want to be leaders in that field. From a practical point of view, we need big operational changes. A*STAR should step up its role as a developmental agency. Its KPIs should be prioritised.”
“Madam, Singapore concluded negotiations with the European Union on an FTA in December 2012. At the same time, ASEAN is in the process of building up the ASEAN Economic Page: 103 Community. Around 80% of tariff reductions have been achieved to date ahead of the 2015 deadline. As we know, the EU and ASEAN were negotiating an FTA between them back in 2007, but talks were suspended. Economic differences between the two regions and within ASEAN were too great. Both parties have indicated that they will resume negotiations when the time is right. Indeed, as ASEAN becomes more integrated as a result of the ASEAN Economic Community, the time may soon be ripe again for FTA negotiations as a bloc. 4.15 pm But Singapore's current situation with its FTAs invokes the situation which economists call the "spaghetti bowl effect", where an intertwined mass of FTAs creates a complicated web of rules that could lead to discriminatory trade policy in the Asian region. Singapore is also a negotiating partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All these may complicate the prospects for negotiating future FTAs involving ASEAN as a bloc. The Singapore People's Party believes that Singapore should prioritise ASEAN as a bloc, and work towards negotiating FTAs as a bloc. This is because in the larger scheme of things, the Singapore market is too small for the major economies to be interested in doing business with us forever. The US, for instance, is arguably more interested in their current FTA negotiations with the EU and with Japan. Could I ask what the Government's current stance is, with regard to potential bloc-to-bloc FTAs like the EU-ASEAN FTA?”
“Madam, there is a trend of banks refocusing their traditional deposit business as insurance businesses. Two of our local banks own huge insurance businesses, which they cross-sell at times. In some cases, the business model involves turning cash deposits into insurance-related plans. This means more fees and commissions for the financial institution. A traditional fund or account pays interest. An alternative policy can pay cash-back. The difference is significant. Are advisers equipped to share the differences? A plan can be exposed to investment risks. A savings account is mainly exposed to the bank's credit risk. A second trend we observed is that bank counter staff who might not be qualified financial advisers are in charge of sales KPIs. We urge MAS to study these trends and increase regulatory oversight to combat future weaknesses in financial advisory standards. 3.30 pm Page: 83 Helping Individuals Manage Debt”
“To address the problem of capacity, we urge the Government to reprioritise the needs of Singaporeans, over and above that of medical tourism. In conclusion, the SPP believes that innovation is the key for Singapore to survive. Innovation can start within the public sector. We look forward to a more creative Budget on further opportunities and vision in the next year as Singapore celebrates 50 years of Independence.”
“In this way, Singapore will continue to fulfil international obligations and, at the same time, provide support for locals. We need policy innovation badly. Transport: our MRT lines failed badly over the last five years. We cannot simply focus on building new lines. That is important. Existing lines need to be transformed. We need to include last-mile connectivity of suburban areas, such as Loyang, Bukit Panjang, Joo Koon and other under-served areas. Page: 78 Our party is not against further fare hikes. But the existing service needs to be reasonable before the operator introduces further hikes. Healthcare: family caregivers are the unsung heroes who serve as an inspiration to those whose lives they touch. On top of the $1,200 cash received annually, they should also enjoy a MediSave top-up of between $100 and $200 annually, like any other worker aged above 55, as an enhanced benefit. Most caregivers are either housewives, who are either lowly-educated or holding part-time jobs. According to a study entitled "Mental health systems in countries: where are we now?", Singapore has the lowest number of psychiatrists per 100,000 people among the high-income countries, at 2.3, and the lowest number of psychiatrist nurses per 100,000 people as well, at 10.4. The World Health Organization had also said in the "Mental health, resilience and inequalities" report that individuals who have poor mental well-being have "significantly psycho-social impairment and poorer physical health, and lower productivity". I know that the Government is rightly concerned about the capacity of our polyclinics, and this affects how cases of mental health are treated.”
“In terms of awarding productivity incentives, Government should carefully select which firms to help. Productivity incentives should not be positioned as subsidies. The firms with low productivity should not be kept alive on drip. Only firms with concrete productivity plans should be awarded support. This may be a harsh policy, but I prefer to allow MOM and community support, such as MPS, to address the loss of income. More of our SMEs need to expose themselves to international competition. There are natural limits to growth in an economy with a small domestic sector. It is, ultimately, only by expanding into overseas markets that our SMEs will be able to shift their production frontiers. CPF hike: some SMEs have raised concerns that they will be affected by the hike in CPF contributions for older workers. One way to increase help for smaller companies could be for the reliefs to be tax-exempt for such small and medium-sized firms. That way, they would not have to pay tax on the employment credits when they get them. Information and communications technology (ICT): in the adoption plan for ICT, could the Government be mistaken about the technology roadmap? Getting onto the high speed bandwagon requires more than subsidising fibre broadband. Firstly, fibre broadband is not expensive. Secondly, we should introduce more competition in the telco sector to bring prices down. Subsidising an already cheap service does not seem logical. Perhaps, we should consider subsidising the employment of local workers. We would also propose that the Government introduce mandatory licence and certification locally. This is a form of non-tariff barrier for local Singaporeans. Regulatory boards can prioritise the licensing for locals.”
“Our education system has to be robust and dynamic to meet the challenges ahead. Productivity & Innovation Credit (PIC): since 2011, more than $1 billion in Productivity & Innovation Credit benefits have been disbursed. However, our productivity growth continues to be weak, especially in the construction and marine sector. These are the most critical sectors to improve on. They create the highest social costs for Singaporeans; low-skilled foreign workers living in HDB flats, low technology manufacturing leading to more than necessary workers in Singapore. We raised the PIC for SMEs, but I am not sure how exactly this will help productivity growth unless we mandate adoption of leaner processes. This is unclear. Do we continue to throw money without mandating improvements? There are many cases where SMEs use the PIC for laptops. I consider this a form of dead-weight loss. International competitiveness and productivity drive for SMEs: the focus on productivity and innovation for firms to become more competitive is valid. But subsidies do not adequately help to achieve this outcome. Competition is a more effective driver for productivity. In a sector with more competition, firms are driven to outperform one another, optimising their supply chain and bottom line. Therefore, by focusing on what subsidies to dish out during the Budget, we may be weakening the competitiveness of firms. The bottom performing firms should be allowed to be restructured or closed down. To induce competition, we need to bring in highly productive firms in low productivity sectors, such as construction and retail services. These firms will Page: 77 help restore the required productivity levels over time. Consolidation among weaker firms must take place to justify productivity investments.”
“Many countries with an even more innovative and competitive retail sector have already developed such business ideas at least five to seven years ago. What we would like to stress is that Singapore needs more substantial and substantive innovation breakthroughs to eventually match the capabilities in other advanced economies. We may even have to take the hard decision to change our mindsets and restructure our economy to become more robust and dynamic to compete in today's world. This brings us to the idea of how we need to urgently address the concerns and worries of Singaporeans today. Our vision: look further ahead to meet Singaporeans' needs today. Solving the issues Singaporeans are now grappling with – finding jobs, dealing with the high cost of living, overcrowding – boils down to one thing, economic transformation. Budget 2014 does not address this elephant in the room: how does Singapore transform itself economically and socially in order to survive the next 50 years? The Finance Minister assumes that some economic sectors can Page: 76 transform themselves effectively, away from an over-reliance on cheap labour. But this does not seem to be the case. Our suggestion would be for Singapore to encourage more productive, innovative and cutting edge foreign companies to come in to collaborate and encourage local companies to build up our productivity through competition. There will then be limited growth for companies that are overly reliant on low-wage foreign labour. We have a few of these companies in the marine industry, for instance. To dream of a Singapore that will last beyond the next 50 years, we need to build on what we have always had – our human capital. We need to continue to invest in our people and educate them for the future.”
“While this is a good initiative, the SPP feels that at this point in the evolution of the socio-economic needs of Singaporeans, the Government must take a step to go beyond subsidies and small-scale Page: 75 redistribution of money. Instead, the SPP feels that the Government's accountability to its people must be based on the following indicators: firstly, the percentage of Singaporeans employed in newly created jobs; secondly, the median pay of Singaporeans versus our foreign counterparts; and thirdly, what incentives are in place to motivate companies to help meet the indicators above. Going beyond acronyms. Every year, the Government introduces many new initiatives that are accompanied by a slew of acronyms. This year, there are "iSPRINT", "IPG" and many more interesting names. Besides them being easy to remember, these names need to go beyond that. We need to look closely and examine the follow-through of these initiatives. We need to know if they have been successful or not in terms of what they set out to achieve. We cannot coin new acronyms annually only to be forgotten in the end. For example, a few months ago, it was announced that more than $400 million was to be set aside for the Future of Manufacturing initiative. The SPP would like to know what is the outcome of such exciting initiatives rather than to see new initiatives being introduced. Singapore versus the world: how advanced are we actually? The Finance Minister raised the example of the success of the online tailoring company, Marcella. We applaud Marcella's successful business model. But, in reality, online tailoring businesses, and other interesting retail ideas, are not new and unique to Singapore.”
“How are we going to engage and bring awareness to this group of people who are unclear about aid schemes and benefits to utilise this Pioneer Generation Package? I would suggest that the Government make use of the media through advertisement in newspapers, trains, taxis, buses, television, radio talks, websites, Facebooks and others, in order to reach them. Those that qualify for the Pioneer Generation Package are not all of the same age. They would also have different needs. Most importantly, utilisation of the package should be driven by sound decision and advice, focused on the quality of life for the recipient at his or her particular stage of life. In time, I think we should allow the use of MediSave for home care. This will also result in cost savings for the Government. During the rehabilitation period, currently, patients stay in hospital beds or move to rehab centres. But if we can move a portion of them to their homes and cover some services required at home – such as nurses/doctors' visits and rental of equipment – we can lighten the load and not require so many new beds in our hospitals. The system should make use of primary and community care first and the hospital is used only when illness is beyond the expertise of primary care to prevent a bed crunch. Some people are concerned that MediShield would lead to increased risk and the young will pay more premiums. The safeguard against that is for the utilisation to be driven by sound medical judgement based on transparency of data, good ethics and professionalism to prevent unnecessary treatments and fair pricing for the patient's best interest. I would like to turn to the other aspects of Budget 2014. Going beyond GST vouchers. There is nothing new with the GST vouchers – we have them almost every year.”
“Mdm Speaker, Budget 2014 remains much like last year's, with more generous topping up of perks for all sectors in Singapore. Nevertheless, the Singapore People's Party is encouraged to hear about the Pioneer Generation Package, honouring the contributions of the pioneers of Singapore. But we also must not forget the pioneers that had passed on. The hard work of the older generations in building up a modern and flourishing nation is finally recognised. This recognition is long overdue. With that, the SPP supports the Pioneer Generation Package. Much as we would like the concept of the Pioneer Generation Package, we need to be clear that not everyone in that age bracket will enjoy its benefits. I note that those not on CHAS will now qualify – this includes many Singaporeans. However, there are enhanced benefits for those under CHAS. This means that there are in effect two tiers of support for Singaporeans within that age bracket. We hope the Minister for Health will provide more details of the CHAS benefits at the COS. We have questions about the Package – what happens when a person is unable to pay his or her medical bill even after the subsidies are counted? Does Page: 74 he have to apply under MediFund? What is the rationale to top up MediSave, which can be wiped out by just one visit to the hospital? Why not top up directly to pay the person's MediShield Life premiums? We should involve the elderly by setting the goals they desire for the phase of their lives to see what is appropriate, especially if they are illiterate. We should also make sure the elderly in particular are made aware of the schemes of the Pioneer Generation Package, which may be too complex to them.”
“I am calling for a Motion to commit this Bill to a Select Committee for further scrutiny and until the findings and recommendations of the COI have been established. I believe this Bill has been ill thought-out and has not been adequately examined by experts. I urge the Minister to at least consider amending clause 9 on the wide-ranging powers given for strip searches, and the extraordinary powers in this Bill that will be granted to auxiliary officers. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I believe our citizens are as serious as the Government in the desire to enforce public order, to safeguard our country from further incidents of this nature. But we hope that this will not be done in a way that destroys the soul of Little India – which is not merely a tourist attraction, but a neighbourhood that holds special historical and cultural significance in the hearts of many Singaporeans. 5.49 pm”
“I think this opens the way for potential abuse. From the point of view of the people affected, I can imagine that what then happens on the ground will not be very much different from extortion. I would also like to highlight the fact that aggressive and intrusive policing by auxiliary officers towards migrant workers in Little India has been documented by the NGO, Transient Workers Count Too. Not only was it observed that auxiliary officers were rather hostile and belligerent in their interaction with migrant workers, it also appears that migrant workers have been disproportionately targeted with fines for offences such as littering and smoking. As a result, it may have the unintentional impact of causing a migrant Page: 94 worker to feel disproportionately discriminated against. To allow such feelings of alienation to fester within the migrant worker community would only aggravate the tensions between migrant workers and Singaporeans, possibly sparking off a worse riot. It is certainly not in Singapore's interest to do so. Why is it then that this Bill deals with a special zone that encompasses the whole of Little India, where the riot actually took place along Race Course Road? What is the rationale behind turning such a vast gazetted area which includes many other roads and streets into a risk-prone zone? I note that clause 1(2) of the Bill indicates that the provisions here will be in force for one year from the date of commencement. May I ask the Minister what will the Government intend to do thereafter? And what will the Government do if a similar incident were to happen again within this year, and it is found not to be the result of alcohol consumption?”
“This effectively means that the officers will have absolute discretion over when a person can be strip-searched. To allow enforcement officers such wide powers goes too far. These problems extend to each and every person who attempts to enter or are within a special zone, whether they are Singaporeans or foreigners. Any person entering the zone stands the chance of being harassed by the auxiliary officers, on the most whimsical of grounds. This includes residents, employees and business owners whose daily life and daily activities require them to be put at risk of being subject to these procedures every single time they enter the zone. My point is not that the powers should be targeted at any specific community, but that the blunderbuss approach that has been taken could and probably would result in untold anxiety and distress to the majority of innocent people who enter the zone. It would be important that appropriate measures must be taken to ensure migrant workers understand the offences proscribed in this Bill. If laypersons have trouble understanding and interpreting legislations, what about migrant workers with a low command of the English Language? I am also concerned about the manner in which police and auxiliary officers would approach migrant workers whom they suspect may have committed a crime within the special zone. It is foreseeable that a situation could arise where a language barrier between the officer and the worker impedes effective communication and thereby leads to misunderstanding between both parties. This could lead the officer to view the worker as suspect and to then charge the worker under the respective provisions under the Bill. In this regard, it is highly worrying too that any offences under this Act can be compounded on the spot.”
“I note an interview on the Public Service website, Challenge, with Mr Roy Quek, Deputy Secretary (Operations & Development) of MHA. On this Bill, Mr Quek says, and I quote: "Let me clarify: when we say for a policeman to be able to search your articles of clothing, it means, for example, you're wearing a jacket, I say, 'Can I have a look at your jacket?' and you give me your jacket, as opposed to my patting you down and frisking you." The wording of section 9(b) in this Bill clearly gives enforcement officers the power to order the removal of garments worn by persons for inspection of any container of alcohol or prohibited items. Allowing for this is, in principle, no different from allowing the police to frisk a person, since by ordering for the removal of a person's clothing, frisking would of course be unnecessary. I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the powers of the Bill provides enforcement officers with, especially in this clause. Could the Minister therefore clarify the Deputy Secretary's comments? This is highly troubling since auxiliary officers are privately hired by companies whose main concern is not the law enforcement but with profits earned from providing a service. Auxiliary officers are not properly trained or equipped with the right policing techniques for them to be entrusted with such exceptional powers. However, what is most disturbing is that this provision is pre-emptive and not reactive. This means an officer does not need to suspect anyone of committing a crime before the powers can be exercised. The Bill does state that the power can only be used if it is considered to be "reasonably necessary". Page: 93 What constitutes "reasonable necessity", however, is not defined at all.”
“In this regard, may I point out that the number of liquor licences granted within the special zone is at its lowest in five years, according to a report presented to Parliament on 20 January regarding the events leading to the riot. Why is it only now that a riot has taken place? There was a clear element of a traffic accident that night in Little India which preceded the riot. Why then is there no provision in this Bill on transport safety? While it may be necessary for steps to be taken in the interim, it must be borne in mind that we do not have a full picture of what had taken place that night, and should be circumspect in giving any additional policing powers to law enforcement agencies. There has not been any indication of a potential for such an event to repeat itself since it happened in December and until this has been shown, the exceptional powers such as those granted by section 9 cannot Page: 92 be justified. Strip searches. The hardest hitting provision of this Bill is clause 9, which provides for the Police officers and auxiliary police to order any person who is about to enter or who happens to be within the special zone to remove pieces of their clothing. The clause does not specify a limit to which the enforcement officers can go and based on its plain wording, the clause allows for officers to order the removal of all of a person's clothing. Such searches are humiliating, especially to innocent people. The Bill does not provide any safeguards to the dignity of the person, allowing officers to make these orders in public. Nor does the particular provision provide any protection for women who may be subjected to the search. Furthermore, the section also empowers auxiliary officers to make these orders.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill provides for wide-ranging policing powers, which can be used against any Page: 91 person who is within or about to enter the special zone in Little India, in the wake of the riot on 8 December last year. The first thing that one would notice is that there is no provision for there to be any indication of the boundaries of the special zone to members of the public who are on the ground. Since people who are entering into the special zone will be subject to additional laws, it is only right that the Bill provides for the clear demarcation of the zone for people through highly visible public signs and warnings. While it is commendable that the Government is taking the effort to ensure the peace and safety of the residents following the riot, the Bill cannot be seen as a reasoned and considered response as these exceptional policing powers are being granted based on preliminary conclusions made in the immediate aftermath of the event. The Committee of Inquiry has barely commenced its proceedings and has yet to report on the causes of the 8 December riot. Since the Government has deemed it necessary to hold a public inquiry into the incident, and rightly so, we should wait until the COI has made its findings before we even contemplate such exceptional measures in this Bill. The status and standing of the COI, whose role is to objectively identify the cause of the riot, will be compromised. This Bill appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, rather than one based on hard facts, which can result in measures that may aggravate the original problem. For instance, many of the provisions in this Bill seem to zero in on the sale and consumption of alcohol as the cause of the riot.”
“I think it is also fair for MOT and LTA to call for external audits on SMRT's operations. It is not intuitive why SMRT is allowed to call for its own audits, as recommended in the latest COI framework. Lastly, we believe the responsibility for public transport in Singapore should not just rest with the CEO of SMRT. I think it is fair to have a senior officer in MOT at the level of Deputy Secretary or Permanent Secretary to be made personally responsible for the rail transport system in Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill's provisions to enhance LTA's regulatory framework through increasing the amount of financial penalty and conferring additional powers on LTA. These are in line with the general direction to strengthen LTA's regulatory framework. However, we believe these are not sufficient. A more outcome-based approach allowing LTA to remove the CEO of SMRT will be required. By this, I mean that LTA must set key performance indicators (KPIs), such as: less than 0.5% of train rides over the last six months should be delayed; less than 0.1% of train rides over the last six months should come to a complete fault for more than 10 minutes. When these KPIs are not met, the Page: 106 Government must have the consideration and the mandate to remove the CEO of SMRT. I understand that this may seem like a narrow corporate KPI compared to the other priorities, such as profitability and cashflow, but SMRT delays and breakdowns affect national productivity. We do not believe that financial penalty works. SMRT is an asset- and cash-rich firm. They also have the ability to recover penalties through increase in fares and rentals of their assets. So, I think the company would not be penalised as much as we think they would. Other measures like clauses in future contracts to cease their services and the option to remove their CEO will help to better align the transport KPIs. LTA cannot remain as a policy-maker. I urge the LTA to introduce prescriptive and technical requirements on SMRT. I also urge that these standards be imported from the most competitive transport systems around the world. We expect productivity increases from all our sectors. I think it is fair to expect the same from a state-owned enterprise.”
“Within this stipulated term, the Board should also be given the discretion to change or remove the conditions should it be satisfied of the person's progress. Lastly, in view of the possible surge in the number of ex-offenders going into the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme, could the Minister explain how are the capabilities and infrastructure, such as hiring of more counsellors in the field of ex-inmate rehabilitation and integration and halfway houses, to be achieved to cope with this new proposed change? 3.14 pm”
“Section 50P(1) of the Bill allows the Minister to direct the Commissioner to make a remission order after the prisoner has served 20 years of his/her sentence. Section 50P(2) requires the Minister to review the decision every 12 months or less should he/she decline to make the direction to the Commissioner. My criticism of the position in relation to long-term prisoners applies equally in this instance. The discretion to allow for remission should be given to an independent board that also has the power to impose and remove conditions upon the inmate's release. Mdm Speaker, in the case of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment, section 50(R) states that the remission order shall have effect until the end of the person's natural life. This means that the mandatory aftercare conditions will be applicable for such persons for the rest of their lives, even if the offender has been successfully rehabilitated within that period. Based on the provisions of the Bill, it is entirely possible for a person to be electronically tagged and be required to report to the Commissioner for the rest of his/her life. This, I am afraid, may not be the best method of rehabilitating an ex-offender. All that this measure does is to make it extremely difficult for a person to reintegrate back into society because of the person's loss of privacy, as well as having to carry Page: 46 the stressful burden of meeting the mandatory aftercare conditions for an extraordinarily long period of time. These may also have an adverse impact on the person's ability to find stable employment, an important aspect of social reintegration. Again, there is a strong case to be made for a determinate term to be imposed, after which the conditions should expire, unless it is necessary to do otherwise.”
“This decision-making body, driven by a collective wisdom, seems to me to be in a much better position to evaluate whether inmates are suitable for early release, instead of the Minister or the Commissioner, both of whom already bear the burden of other heavy duties and responsibilities. Page: 45 Secondly, can the Minister also tell the House whether the Government has sought expert opinion on the average time it would take for long-term inmates to be fully rehabilitated into society, and whether these experts were of the opinion that the average period of time needed for rehabilitation is one-third of the inmate's sentence. Mdm Speaker, we must not forget that in cases where inmates are sentenced to 20 years or more receive remission, their remission order will be at least six years long, perhaps even longer if they are released at the Minister's discretion before they are entitled to remission. The aftercare conditions may, therefore, be imposed for the full duration of the remission order regardless of the rehabilitative progress of the person. While it is understandable that measures are needed to support the reintegration of these long-term inmates back into society, there is the possibility that a person would have been fully rehabilitated well before the expiration of the remission order but is nevertheless unnecessarily subjected to the mandatory aftercare conditions. Will it not be better if the duration of the aftercare conditions for long-term inmates is set for a determinate term for all long-term offenders with the option given to an independent board to extend or reduce the period where it is necessary? Before turning to the external placement scheme, allow me to turn my attention to the position on those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.”
“Mdm Speaker, I now turn my attention to inmates who have been sentenced to a prison term of more than 20 years. Section 50J(1) of the Bill allows the Minister to direct the Commissioner to make a remission order where an inmate has served 20 years of his/her sentence. Section 50J(2) makes it obligatory for the Minister to review the decision every 12 months or less, should he decline to make a remission order under subsection 1. While I welcome the Government's recognition that long-term prison sentences may be reduced where the offender has shown signs of rehabilitation, I am of the view that an independent review board, rather than the Minister himself, should make such decisions. The board should comprise eminent persons who possess certain expertise in relevant fields that will enable them to make better and more informed decisions on the rehabilitative progress of inmates. This is the position adopted in Hong Kong, where there is a "Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board" made up of at least two judges or former judges, one medical practitioner who is or was a specialist in psychiatry, as well as one member who has the expertise and experience in social work. The board determines whether long-term prisoners should be released early, as well the conditions which the inmates have to adhere to after their release. Furthermore, it also reviews the progress of the inmate after release to determine if new conditions should be imposed or old ones removed. The merits of having a similar panel of experts in Singapore is undeniable and should immediately be studied with a view towards implementing such a system as soon as possible.”
“These aftercare conditions will apply for the duration of the person's remission order. I am not convinced, as it stands, that sections 50X and Y can be administered in a fair manner. Both provisions set out the consequences of a minor and major breach of the mandatory aftercare conditions respectively. The provisions do not, however, define when persons are deemed to have committed these breaches. This means that persons on remission are left in the dark as to how they should behave in order to prevent themselves from being in breach of the conditions, major or minor. Furthermore, this also means that the prosecutorial authority will have full discretion over the type of breach that an inmate has committed. Given that a major breach is listed as a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment under section 50Y, Parliament should provide a clear statutory definition of what would constitute minor or major Page: 44 breaches of the conditions, so that both persons on remission, as well as enforcement and judicial authorities, can be clear on what the law requires of them. Furthermore, in section 50X(1), it is stated that the Commissioner may, after due inquiry, administer a variety of punishments on a minor breach of a mandatory aftercare condition. There is, however, no indication of what steps the Commissioner must take before he can satisfy himself that a person has committed a minor breach. As a matter of fairness, the person being accused of a minor breach should be afforded the right to hear the charge and evidence against him/her, and to make his/her defence before the Commissioner makes a decision on the matter and this should be made clear in the statute.”
“Will the Government also encourage and facilitate the conduct of such studies by independent bodies and academic institutions with a view to Page: 43 enhancing the quality of public discourse on criminal justice in Singapore? For the purposes of the debate on this Bill, I would also like to ask the Minister to provide this House with the following statistics. First, can the Minister tell the House what is the recidivism rate of offenders who have been convicted of offences listed in the First Schedule during and after the terms of remission? Secondly, can the Minister provide this House with the percentage of people who have been convicted of offences listed in the First Schedule per annum? Mdm Speaker, MHA had, in the Budget debate last year, informed the House that the recidivism rate of our prison population has fallen by about half over the past 10 years. This is despite the fact that the current system of remissions imposes no conditions on inmates for the period of their release. While we should not relent on our effort to curb crime and re-offending, perhaps these figures might also be an indication that we do not need a radical alteration of the current system. Rather than restrictive measures, the focus should, instead, be on encouraging them to lead a meaningful and crime-free life by helping them acquire skills that will allow them to find employment. Mdm Speaker, let me deal with certain concerns about the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme for inmates who have received a prison sentence of 20 years or less. Section 50U(1) seeks to impose aftercare conditions for persons who have committed offences which are listed under the First Schedule, and who are not liable to being deported after serving their sentences.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill is recognition that the mere focus on retribution or deterrence is not enough to achieve the goals or crime-reduction in Singapore and that there also needs to be a greater focus on rehabilitating ex-offenders. While this is something that I welcome, I have several clarifications that I would like to make and certain concerns that I would wish to highlight. Before going into the contents of the Bill, however, I would like to point out that in a debate on a policy such as this, it would be necessary for us to have access to independently-conducted criminological studies to ensure that we are dealing with the problem in a scientifically rigorous manner. It is only right that laws and policies that will have a severe impact on people's lives should not be made based merely on anecdotal evidence. Such studies will also allow us to be sufficiently certain that our laws are truly targeting the causes of crime, for the study of criminology has constantly proven to us that conventional ideas of crime can easily contain misconceptions that are not immediately obvious to the unfamiliar observer. It is unfortunate, therefore, that there is a significant lack of criminological data and analysis conducted locally. Where debates are being conducted on criminal justice bills, such as the one before us without the benefit of such studies, it calls into question whether the decision is made on grounds which can survive the robust, but necessary, scientific scrutiny. Will the Government, therefore, make available all the criminological studies that it has conducted for the purposes of this Bill and for all other criminal justice matters?”
“I thank the Minister for answering the question. I would like to ask the Minister how do we ensure maximum usage of taxis by GPS. Is it possible?”
“Many SMEs cite overly high rental costs as the biggest contribution to increased business costs today. I now refer to clause 24, on the Productivity and Innovation Credit bonus. According to the Ministry of Finance website, the intention is to defray business operating costs, especially for SMEs, and encourage them to invest in productivity improvements and innovation. I would like to ask the Minister if dead-weight loss was considered. That is to say, what if an SME is not run efficiently on a good business model? What determines improvements and innovation? Can they be objectively measured? Lastly, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether this arrangement is compliant with World Trade Organization rules and with the Free Trade Agreements that Singapore has signed. Would this open us to possible trade disputes with foreign firms who may allege that our SMEs and our products are unfairly subsidised against foreign competitors? 4.29 pm Page: 68”
“Mdm Speaker, I refer to clause 3B of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, which amends section 6 of the original Bill. Why should the Government allow the Comptroller of Income Tax to share information with a foreign country, pursuant to our agreement with the United States to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)? Are there other ways that local financial institutions can comply with FATCA, without amending the Income Tax Act? Was FATCA approved by this Parliament? Even if we have to pass a Bill, I suppose we can debate the full Page: 67 scope of FATCA. I understand, of course, that the Ministry of Finance aims to place Singapore in line with evolving global standards on the Exchange of Information regime. Our main competitors are the major global financial centres, Switzerland and possibly Hong Kong, too, are signing up to FATCA. But there are still tax havens, such as Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands, that do not fall under the current scope of FATCA. Does our Government believe that FATCA will ultimately be effective and fair to all countries? I also refer to clause 35, in which the Income Tax Act is amended by providing for the remission of tax of companies for the Years of Assessment of 2013, 2014 and 2015. I would like to ask if the Ministry had considered the potential amount of tax loss incurred arising from this provision. Can the Minister inform us of this amount of potential tax loss? If the intention is to manage the increase in business costs, can the Government design a more practical scheme? For example, if the bulk of business cost increases is due to rentals, is it not better for HDB and JTC to provide more affordable commercial and industrial facilities?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to just ask one question. Are all these General Managers or senior management officers affiliated to the party?”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for being so patient to answer the questions. My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What is the role of the auditors? I believe the role of the auditors involves the purchase order, delivery order and the invoice – I believe there should be an auditors' report every year. How come there is no auditors' report? And may I know the names of the auditors?”
“Madam, I have a supplementary question to ask. Will the Minister consider developing part of Pulau Ubin into a retirees village with medical facilities like hospital and shops and land made available for farming and growing flowers so that retirees can be gainfully retired and employed? Retirees can then lead a simple and healthy Page: 57 life in their golden years. If Pulau Tekong can become an army camp, why not Pulau Ubin become a retirees' village?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to ask what future policy or plans will his Ministry take in regard to foreign politicians conducting electioneering campaigns in Singapore.”
“I do not agree with the Member's claim that the Government has simply disregarded the findings from AIMS, which, for Members' information, is called the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society. AIMS submitted its recommendations and the Government accepted 17 of the 26 recommendations after careful consideration. For instance, we have improved e-engagement, extended the positive list for Internet election advertising, refined the party political films restrictions and dedicated resources to cyber wellness public education programmes. Where our views differ from those of the AIMS' members, we provided our reasons. The policy to license online news sites is not a departure from the Government's position, expressed in our response to AIMS' report in January 2009. The Government had decided then to retain the registration requirement for political websites. This is to maintain a higher level of responsibility and accountability of those behind such websites, which some members of the public have also Page: 94 advocated. The same principles apply when introducing individual licences for online news sites. In fact, we would argue that an even higher level of responsibility and accountability should be expected of sites that provide news. Madam, forgive me for looking back. There was another point that Mrs Chiam raised.”
“And I look Page: 93 forward to hearing the views from the industry and members of the public on the policy changes that will be proposed. Madam, the Member has raised two other points which I would like to comment on. First, on the points raised by AIC, in my view, concerns that an individual licensing framework on online sites will hamper or stifle the development of the Internet community and business ecosystem are overly-stated. Firstly, I have already said that the content standards are no more stringent than what the Internet Content Providers have to abide by the Class Licence and the Code of Practice. These standards are reasonable ones and they have not deterred the development of the industry thus far. So, the standards have not changed since 1996. The industry has developed. The framework is in place. The standards remain the same. How would the industry be affected? Secondly, and, again, the point I have made before, the performance bond is not an indirect way of forcing sites to shut down, or the Sword of Damocles that Mrs Chiam mentioned. If a licensee has genuine difficulties putting up the bond, MDA is willing to consider the specific circumstances of that licensee and adjust the performance bond. The bottom line is that we do not expect the individual licence will result in changes to how online new sites operate, of the type of news content that you have produced under the Class Licence scheme. It is just that we want to hold these 10 sites to a higher degree of responsibility. Mrs Chiam also raised a point that was raised by "Free My Internet" and also about AIMS.”
“There is no change in the content standards, and the operations of the sites are not affected by the change in their licensing status. They can continue to operate. Furthermore, the licensing framework only applies to 10 sites, and the overwhelming majority of Internet Content Providers, including the bloggers that Mrs Chiam mentioned, will continue to remain under the Class Licence. They are still regulated. They are still subjected to the content standards. For the 10 sites, MDA had informed their operators about the licensing framework before it was publicly introduced. MDA's engagement with the operators on the exact terms of the licence is still ongoing, and so we have catered sufficient time for them to give their feedback on the detailed licence conditions. For the rest of the Internet community, this continues. We will monitor in terms of your content and reach and, as and when you meet two criteria in terms of reach and in terms of content – which are one article per week over a continuous period of two months – we will call you in and say that you have to be individually licensed. So, the bloggers can continue. As I mentioned earlier, they can continue with their comments, critical or otherwise of the Government, but as they morph to an online news site, as defined by the framework, they would have to be licensed. And, therefore, they should know how to operate. Madam, the Government has already committed to public consultation on the amendments to the Broadcasting Act, which are likely to include significant policy changes. Given the evolutions in the media landscape, it is timely to review the provisions in the Act, particularly in light of the Media Convergence Review Panel's recommendations, which were submitted last year.”
“It cannot be 100% consistency – it is not possible. I think it is better to set the tone before something happens, than to scramble only after a major incident had happened. We can ill-afford to wait until an explosive public order incident happens before we put a framework in place. That would not be the responsible thing to do on the part of the Government. Now, let me turn to a key issue that has come up in discussions about the licensing framework, also raised by the Member – the question of why the public was not consulted before the framework was implemented. I would like to first clarify some of the underlying principles behind the Government's Page: 92 approach towards public engagement and consultation. The Government is committed to reaching out to all segments of Singapore's society to better understand the people's perspectives and concerns, to share ideas and put our heads together to think of better ways to take Singapore forward. Although the public expects the Government to be consultative, it also expects the Government to discharge its responsibilities properly and not to be held hostage to special interest or lobby groups. Where there is a major policy shift, the Government will consult affected parties and, if need be, the matter will be brought before this House as a debate. But turning back to the issue at hand, the introduction of a licensing framework for online news sites is not a major shift compared to our existing approach to Internet regulation, despite what the critics or the Member may say. There is no fundamental change in our regulatory approach, which remains light-touch, and it is, in substance, only a refinement of the existing Class Licence Scheme.”
“As I have stated earlier, the online news sites licensing framework is not a departure from the light-touch regulatory approach that the Government has adopted for the Internet. The content standards applied to online news sites are no different from existing standards under the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice. There is thus no cause for concern that the individual licensing of news sites will stifle Internet freedom. Neither is there cause to worry that this will hamper the development of the Internet ecosystem in Singapore, or create uncertainty for related businesses. After all, as I mentioned in my reply, the growth of the industry here has taken place while the Class Licence Scheme was in place since 1996. There are only two additional requirements we have put in place for online news sites. These requirements are, again, not onerous, and they are commensurate with the important role that news providers play in our society. When irresponsible or inaccurate news reports that threaten public order or national harmony are carried on online news sites with a significant reach, their impact is much greater. The expeditious removal of content that is in breach of content standards is thus important. The performance bond, or even the overall law, is not meant to force sites to close down by causing them financial difficulties. MDA has already indicated and replied earlier that we are prepared to exercise flexibility where warranted, should a site have genuine difficulties putting up the bond. Let me state upfront that we do not have any issues with the 10 websites that have been identified for licensing. The licensing framework has been put in place to set the right tone and bring greater regulatory parity across media platforms.”
“Just as we have laws and regulations in the physical world to govern public order, deter violence and punish wrongdoing, we also need regulations for the online space for the same reasons. Despite what critics of the licensing scheme have said, I think most, if not all, of us would agree that it is not tenable to leave the Internet completely unregulated, where harm and hurt can be caused without constraints, and without the prospect of perpetrators being brought to justice. Rules have, therefore, been put in place to ensure certain standards of responsibility and behaviour on the Internet. And we do not believe that these rules will curtail or stifle the freedom of expression. These rules are not new – in fact, Internet content providers have come under the light-touch Class Licence Scheme since 1996. And since we have announced the law on 28 May, nothing has stopped the bloggers from commenting. The Class Licence Scheme and Internet Code of Practice ensure that content providers adhere to a set of content standards. As I have already explained, none of these content standards prevent netizens from commenting on or even criticising Government policies which many of them did. Instead, the content standards are meant to safeguard racial and religious harmony, public order, as well as to uphold our community's standards of good taste and decency. This is borne out in the types of content Page: 91 that MDA had – on 24 occasions since 1996 – deemed to be in breach of these content standards, and consequently directed Internet content providers to take them down. MDA has never once directed sites to take down content that is critical of the Government or Government policies, or for holding different viewpoints. And this will remain the case going forward.”
“At the moment, without the exemption orders I just mentioned, it would appear that the regulations can be applied in future on any of the most-visited blogs and websites in Singapore. Singaporeans will be all the more impoverished if the free flow of information is curtailed with these MDA regulations, and by the trajectory set by them. One does not even need to believe in the constitutional right to free speech to realise how worrying the new MDA rules are, from the point of view of legal order, transparency in governance, and good business sense. With the freedom of expression suppressed, Singapore is not living up to its potential as a First World country. Page: 90 5.20 pm Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I believe most of the Member's concerns have already been addressed in my earlier responses to Members' questions but I think they are worth repeating. Madam, the main message I would like to reiterate is that the individual licensing of online news sites is meant to ensure a certain standard of responsibility among news providers. Members have asked about what the Government is doing to address rumours and misinformation circulating online. These concerns are premised on the need for accurate and timely information – something all of us expect not only of the Government, but also of news providers, both online and offline. This is why we have placed traditional news providers in broadcast and print on individual licences, and why we have now introduced individual licences for major online news sites. And for the Member's information, anybody applying for a licence for newspaper or magazine, he will be licensed irrespective of the frequency of circulation. So, it does not really matter whether they sell one magazine or 20,000 magazines.”
“In that case, we call on the Minister to immediately issue exemption orders for community news blogs, like The Online Citizen and TR Emeritus, with his powers under section 60B of the Broadcasting Act. I single out these two websites only because I believe they have a readership of over 50,000, at least The Online Citizen has stated this publicly – but I also make this reference to any other news blog that may fall under the criteria of the MDA regulations. The Minister signalled that Government news or commentary will not be targeted under the new licensing regime for Singapore news sites, as long as they are factual and not misleading, and said that such claims are "far-fetched". These assurances are vague and do not constitute a legal guarantee. Bloggers speak of the MDA regulations as a proverbial Sword of Damocles. It is the fear I strike in you if I hang an axe over your neck, even though I promise you I will never kill you. So, to remove any lingering doubt amongst the public and the business community, we challenge the Minister to issue these exemption orders to clarify things. Section 60B of the Broadcasting Act says that the Minister is given the power to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of this Act or any subsidiary legislation made, such as the MDA regulations. In conclusion, we are reminded of what George Washington, the first President of the United States, said, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter". With unclear regulations like the MDA's, the Government ought to clarify each and every point made above.”
“The regulations also seem to have disregarded the key 2008 report of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or AIMS, which was set up by the then Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang. Among the report's many recommendations on liberalising the regulations of the Internet, it is said that "a relationship built on trust among all parties is more likely to last compared to one built on the list of do's and don'ts". Is the Minister planning to dismiss the findings of the AIMS' report? Why was this not brought before Parliament, such as through a Ministerial Statement? Just because the MDA Act empowers MDA to regulate through subsidiary legislation does not mean that it should dispense with the usual consultative process with stakeholders. What is the rush here? The MDA regulations were dropped like a bomb on 28 May. I decided to file an Adjournment Motion on 31 May but Parliament was to be in recess until July. Then, on 19 June, the hon Member for Chua Chu Kang filed the first Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the matter. Was the Government intending to address this matter only through PQs? The MDA regulations are premature. They fail the test of legal rigour, not only because of its ambiguous wordings – the whole regulatory regime has too wide a scope for arbitrary execution. This relates to the overarching Broadcasting Act which is outdated, but has not been amended yet. As such, the Singapore People's Party calls on the Government to withdraw the MDA regulations of 28 May. In the event that the Government refuses to withdraw the MDA regulations, what sort of legal guarantee can the Minister offer to all bloggers that they Page: 89 would not be targeted?”
“Would the MDA refer to the location of the server, the computer, the operations of the company, or the type of news? In this connection, we also ask – why were the websites of CNN, BBC, Reuters and Bloomberg left out of the list? Certainly, we can argue that they qualify. They are surely computer online services and we can be quite sure that they are in the business of news. Some of these firms have offices in Singapore and have been providing news services from Singapore. Otherwise, the regulations seem to be so arbitrarily drawn up. Its implementation would appear to be subjected to the whims and fancy of the MDA, without any provisions for legal oversight or redress. The computer may not need to be physically based in Singapore. When we checked with an IT expert, a cloud computer powered by energy from Singapore would also be covered. Will MDA define for us the jurisdiction for cloud computing services? Allow me to give a simple example. How does MDA consider the case of a popular news site, operated by a Singaporean blogger, using a blogging platform powered through cloud computer systems? In this globalised and digitalised world, we are not sure if it makes sense to speak of a Page: 88 "locally-based website" any longer. Given that there are so many unanswered questions, some technical, others conceptual, should we not revamp and update the entire Broadcasting Act first? We believe that the Act has to be first updated to be relevant with the new Internet industry and new technology before we can start to discuss these new regulations. I understand the Minister has said that the Government may tackle amendments to the Broadcasting Act some time next year. So, why rush through these MDA regulations meanwhile? Would the legislation not then be untidy?”
“Under the Class Licence Scheme, Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers are deemed automatically licensed, and have to observe and comply with the Class Licence Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice, which is issued by MDA. So, if regulatory oversight for news sites like Yahoo already exists, why did MDA have to introduce new regulations? MDA had also gone on record to say that there will be no change in content standards, and the intention is not to clamp down on Internet freedom. Page: 87 Yes, we know that there are two new requirements in the new regulations – the 24-hour take-down rule, and the $50,000 performance bond. Why is there the need for these sanctions? Is it because Yahoo! has not been complying with content standards? As mentioned earlier, statements indicated that the new rules aim to place online news websites on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms. The public interprets this to mean that the Government wants to control the Internet in the same way that it has been controlling newspapers in Singapore since 1974 under the NPPA, in which is one of the most sophisticatedly controlled media environments in the world. So, what is the purpose behind MDA regulations? Is it really just to regulate the Yahoo! news site, along with sites of the mainstream media outlets, and to leave personal blogs and community blogs alone, even if they meet the criteria of having a viewership of 50,000 per month? There are still many unanswered questions. The Minister clarified that the new regulations aim to cover only locally-based websites. But we wonder how he intends to define – hopefully with acceptance from the industry – a locally-based service?”
“Why not set a higher threshold that is more consistent with the volume of output typically expected from newspapers? I would imagine this number to be at least a few hundred articles per month. Otherwise, it looks like the regulations are pegging personal blogs, targeting personal blogs. Questions abound. Once a website is licensed, would it stay licensed for its entire life, whether or not the number of visitors is reduced later? That is why I submit to the Minister that these new regulations have the potential, legally, to extend control to all media rather than just placing online news sites on par with regulations on print newspapers, which was the stated intent. Secondly, questions have also been raised about the curious line-up of 10 websites that fall under the new regulations. Nine of them are online outfits of Singapore's newspapers or media outlets that already fall into the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act or are under the ownership of Singapore Press Holdings or Mediacorp. Just one website is not – Yahoo! News Singapore. Yahoo! has been licensed under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification of 2001 since its inception. It is an automatic licensing framework. This particular regulatory framework for the Internet contains requirements for both Internet Service Providers and Internet Content Providers – only those Internet Content Providers which have connection with political parties and those dealing with the propagation, promotion and discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore, will require registration.”
“This is the case when MDA presents a definition of a "Singapore news programme" as "any programme containing any news, intelligence, report or occurrence, or any matter of public interest about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspects of Singapore in any language but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government." We find it hard to accept such a definition. This, basically, encompasses everything under the sun which one can blog about. What then is not considered news? The Singapore Government's subsequent attempts to clarify the definitions here do not satisfy either, even if they refer instead to "computer online said services" and to "commercial news websites". One would find out that computer online services will literally refer to the provision of a service and, indeed, anything could be construed as a service provided online through a computer. It can even cover Internet search engine results. The net is cast so widely. What is a commercial news website? Yahoo! News Singapore does not Page: 86 charge for access to its news articles, just like a community blog news. So, why is the MDA referring to Yahoo! as a "commercial news website"? Moreover, one of the criteria from inclusion in the new regulations does not seem to meet MDA's stated intent of merely placing online news sites on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platform. Are there print newspapers that only publish one news article a week? So, why is it a stated requirement that online news sites, which report an average of at least one article per week, over a period of two months, on Singapore news, need to be individually licensed?”
“The Page: 85 Minister for Manpower also said that the regulations "do not encompass blogs" but may, if "blogs evolve into news sites". The definition of news sites under the regulations, as they stand, are so arbitrary and can encompass any website posting at least one news-related article in a week. That is why Singaporeans continue to believe that the regulations have been crafted to censor blogs, especially those that discuss politics. Once the $50,000 performance bond is imposed on a community-run blog, they are effectively forced to shut down as such community-run blogs are unlikely to be able to afford to put down that amount of money, and for it to be subjected to the prerogative of MDA on points, such as the "24-hour take-down" rule. This is not just about the better communication of the new MDA rules, as the Minister for Communications and Information put it. There are legal issues that have not been addressed. Most of all, this issue has not been even put before this House for scrutiny and debate until today – a full 38 days after the regulations had already taken effect. I raise two points at this juncture. Firstly, press regulation is distinct from media regulation. Regulating the media at large will address fraudulent advertising, for instance. Media regulation is not routine. Regulating the press is quite different. For example, Singapore has a Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA). With the MDA regulations, the definition of a "news site" was suddenly widened on 28 May. Contrary to MDA's press statement, the new regulations do not merely have the effect of placing online news sites "on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms". Rather, MDA regulations, as worded, can effectively encompass all online media.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I first thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to raise the matter of the Media Development Authority (MDA's) Licensing Framework for News Websites in Singapore on the Motion for the Adjournment although most of the issues had been dealt with through many Parliamentary Questions (PQs) from Members. On 28 May, MDA announced a new licensing regime for Singapore's news websites. These regulations require what are defined by MDA as online news sites of which are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months, to put up a performance bond of $50,000, and to comply within 24 hours to remove content if found to be in breach of content standards. These regulations were to take effect just four days later on 1 June. That provoked an uproar among bloggers and, indeed, many Singaporeans. A protest against MDA's regulations was staged at Hong Lim Park on 8 June by a coalition of bloggers called "Free My Internet". For Singaporeans who run on small blogs or who post comments on sites, they were concerned how the regulations will affect them. More recently, five members of the Asia Internet Coalition – Facebook, Google, Ebay, Yahoo! and Salesforce – have called the new MDA rules "unwarranted and excessive". These are the world's major companies providing Internet-related services. This issue has now affected Singapore's business-friendly image and reputation as a media hub. The Government is trying to assure Singaporeans that they are not out to clamp down on Internet freedom. The Acting Minister for Manpower, in speaking about these media regulations, said on television that Singaporeans can continue to air their views online. But what does that really mean?”