Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 54.
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my question as to what is the Ministry's projection of the residential unemployment rate in the next five years.”
“Have I caught your eye, Sir? Sir, is the Minister projecting that the residential unemployment rate in the next five years is going to remain the same, 4.5%or 5%? Or is he saying that there will be a reduction in the unemployment rate? What would bea stable unemployment rate that he would be satisfied with?”
“Sir, what is the projection of the Ministry in terms of stable long-term unemployment rate? How many jobs need to be created in the long term in order to maintain the rate?”
“Clarification, Sir. How did the drafting error occur in the first place? The Minister has explained how it happened. But, I suppose, officers in the AG's Chambers are all legally trained. Is the amendment very complicated? Is there any other additional step taken now to prevent such things from happening again, ie, an additional process of checking before presenting it to Parliament?”
“Sir, I understand that one of the amendments needed in the Companies Act is actually because of a drafting error in the earlier Bill passed by Parliament. I think it was reported in the Business Times. We should all feel embarrassed of passing a Bill with such an error. I would like to know how did the error occur in the first place. How was the drafting process supervised? Was it adequately supervised? What steps are taken now to make sure that such mistakes will not happen again? I would like the Minister to clarify these points.”
“In this regard, the local connections of beefing up the psychological defence of our people are important, ie, how well connected are we with utilising to the maximum our extensive network of grassroots bodies and the CDCs in helping, firstly, to root out the possible causes for disquiet, unrest and the beginnings of recruitment for terrorist activities by foreign parties. But, more importantly, we need to have the resilience in tackling any crisis, and if any crisis were to occur, we have an orderly and systematic way of dealing with it, rather than, as we have heard earlier in the House, being not that prepared in such incidents.”
“Sir, the DPM has rightly pointed out that the fundamental responsibility of the Government is to protect the lives and property of Singaporeans. Sir, I support the new integrated framework of national security structures. It is right to place it at the highest command of the nation, ie, the Prime Minister's Office. However, Sir, I think the most difficult part of policy formulation, in response to security threats, is to formulate the appropriate response. How much should be tightened to ensure that there is no loophole for terrorists to penetrate? But, Sir, on the other hand, are we sure that we are not over-reacting to some perceived threats which could result in an over-draw on our resources and also curtailing unnecessarily the freedom of our people? Sir, I think with the coordinating agency having both the benefit of intelligence information and also in the process of formulating policies, I believe that the measures to ensure a safe Singapore would be better calibrated. I would like to know how and what benefits will be derived from this new set- up in which we would have an appropriate response to security threats which is balanced and necessary, but does not curtail unnecessarily the freedom and movements of Singaporeans. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is very reassuring to hear from DPM that actually we are very serious in beefing up our national security and we are concerned with foreign terrorism as well as the dangers and risks posed, if incidents were to occur in Singapore. The recent blackout incident - it is not terrorism-related, thank goodness for that - in terms of the public response, it seems that we are not that prepared, whether it is due to accident or other deliberate attempts.”
“How does the Ministry of Manpower monitor the non-payment of salaries by employers? How fast can the Ministry detect non-payment of salaries after the tightening of framework, as mentioned by the Minister?”
“The Minister of State forgot to answer my question on why the Government did not see the need to bring ConocoPhillips into the licensing ambit earlier.”
“Sir, the Minister of State, in his reply, says that Singapore's international reputation is seriously affected. I would like to know how serious it is. Does this mean that it will affect foreign direct investments in Singapore? And what is the Government's plan to mitigate the situation? Sir, the second question is on ConocoPhillips. I would like to know on what consideration has the Government given the contract to ConocoPhillips to control the supply of gas to Singapore, why has the Government not considered it necessary to bring the company under the licensing requirement earlier, and what is the relationship of the company with our GLCs. Is it a GLC by itself? My third question is a follow-up from the answer from the Minister of State. He says that there is a back-up plan, but the back-up plan has not worked or failed. My question is: has the back-up plan been tried before? Or was it just a back-up plan and it has never been tried to see whether it works? If it had been tried before, why has it failed this time?”
“Sir, I wonder whether by allowing the locums to work for several law firms at the same time could be a conflict of interest. For instance, law firm A might act for the plaintiff of the case and law firm B may act for the defendant of the same case. And these locums who are working for these two firms will come across information or files which are related to the case. So will a situation where a locum has information on both sides compromise on professional practice?”
“May I seek a clarification from the Minister?”
“Is the Minister saying that as long as the Government has mobilised them, it is considered that they are being employed by the Government? For instance, CISCO officers employed by CISCO are employed by CISCO as a company. So the moment the Government mobilises them, it is considered that they are employed by the Government. Am I right to say that?”
“Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister. He said that the Government will be responsible. From what I read from clause 105, it says that the Government shall not be liable for any act done or omitted to be done by any auxiliary police officer who is not employed by the Government.”
“And if other APF employers are affected by the Commissioner's decision to exempt the dominant player, do they have any recourse or is the Commissioner's exemption final?”
“In such a situation where the APF officers are acting on the instruction of Government, should not the Government be liable for the acts of the auxiliary police officers? Secondly, Sir, on the punishment for disciplinary offence by the police officers, clause 95(1) of the Bill provides that when an auxiliary police officer has committed a disciplinary offence, instead of dealing with the case internally, he could be prosecuted in court. If he is prosecuted, then the sentence will be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both. By comparison, for a State police officer, clause 41(2) provides that if there is no specific sentence for the offence, the general punishment for a State police officer prosecuted for disciplinary offence is a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both. Could the Minister clarify why the sentences for both SPF officers and APF officers are not the same? Is there a reason why APF officers are exposed to more severe punishment and sentence than the State police officers for similar offences? Sir, my final point concerns clause 91 which aims to ensure fair market competition in the armed security industry in Singapore. Clause 91(1) states that any agreement, practice or conduct which distorts market competition, or which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position by any APF is not allowed. Under clause 91(3), such practice or conduct is void. But, nevertheless, clause 91(7) allows the Commissioner of Police to exempt any APF employer from anti-competitive practice, such that the Commissioner can allow an APF employer to abuse his dominant position in the market. Could the Minister clarify what kind of situation will justify the Commissioner to allow such a behaviour?”
“Sir, although I have not had such a bad experience with the police as Mr Chiam had described, I do share his concern. I also feel that, during elections, the police does not seem to be fair to the Opposition in terms of controlling election activities. It is important that the confidence of the public in the police must not be eroded. Otherwise, the question would arise as to whom the police should serve, as they are being paid by the people through taxpayers' money. It is an important question. I hope the Minister will clarify to assure the public that the police is serving Singaporeans and not only the PAP, and that it is not under the order of the PAP as a party. Sir, I have three points of concern on this Bill. The first point of concern is the liability of the Government for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105(1) provides that any act done by an auxiliary police officer shall be deemed to be an act done in the course of his employment with the company or statutory board who employs him. Clause 105(2) further provides that the Government will not be responsible for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105 is not new in that it re-enacts the existing section 71 of the Act. However, one crucial difference is that the role of the auxiliary police force (APF) is now expanded. Under the existing section 71, the role of the APF is to safeguard life and property within designated areas. That was in the old Auxiliary Police Force Act. But now under the new Bill, clause 86(1)(c) and (d) provides that an APF may now be called upon to assist the Singapore Police Force and any Government departments. And clause 97 of the Bill even provides that the Commissioner of Police can mobilise members of the APF for police duty.”
“Clarification, Sir. Does the Minister of State agree that there is always a difference between the courts martial and the open court? I would like to know whether or not he is going to have a judge in the same way as a case is being tried in the Subordinate Court. The fact is that in an open court, any accused person could object if he raises objection to the judge in trying him - I think it is public opinion - whereas in a court martial, it may not be so. So how sure are we that the Act, which does not provide for a change of the judge or the convening authority, will actually be fair to the accused if, in his opinion, the judge so appointed to try him may be biased?”
“Such a person would thus have actual experience with dispensing justice fairly and impartially in the course of his practice as a Judge in the civil courts. Such a member would bring his valuable experience with him to the general courts martial, further ensuring that the rule of law is as stringently observed in the military justice system as it is in the civilian justice system. Hence, whether or not the accused serviceman is repre sented by counsel, the panel courts martial would be adequate to hear the case. Members may also like to know that all military officers would have been trained in military law as part of their officer cadet training. Thus, the lay members of the court martial would have relevant training and would be competent for their roles. With the guidance of a legally qualified president or member or judge advocate in the course of a trial, together with their knowledge of policy and operational perspectives, and their training in military law, the lay members of the panel courts martial would play an important part in ensuring that justice is achieved in accordance with the policy of the SAF, the welfare of its servicemen and the expectations of the public as a whole. Finally, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang raised the question about judge courts martial. And since he is a single judge presiding over the case, how would objections to his fitness to being the judge be dealt with if it is raised by an accused? I would like to point out that this is no different from the civil courts where a single Judge presides over civil offences. And I would like to assure him that, at least for the beginning, the SAF would only put forward civil cases to such a single judge court - until we gain more experience.”
“Our practice is in fact similar to that employed by many other militaries, such as those in Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, where the ranks of the persons convening the general courts martial are also not tied down in their respective laws. Depending on the particular military, the general courts martial can be convened by an officer, commander or designated person specifically appointed to perform this task. Finally, Sir, let me take the questions raised by Mdm Ho Geok Choo, who has raised various issues, and I would address them in turn. The issues stem from the concern that the introduction of panel courts martial may undermine the quality of courts martial hearings since the panel courts martial may be deprived of the benefits of having either a qualified person presiding or having the assistance of a judge advocate being present. I wish to assure Members and Mdm Ho that the panel courts martial will be guided by legal expertise. In the new section 81(8) of the Bill, it is provided that if a panel court martial does not have at least one member who is legally qualified, then a legally qualified judge advocate designated by the convening authority shall officiate in any trial before that court. The effect of this provision is that every panel court martial will have either a legally qualified president or member or legally qualified judge advocate present. Members of this House may also like to know that, as a further legal safeguard, we have a policy that the appointed legally qualified president or member of the court martial would in fact be a former or current judicial officer from the civil courts.”
“As for the panel members who are regular servicemen, being a member of the panel is also not a primary or career appointment since such servicemen will continue to retain their regular appointments, whether they remain a member of the panel or not. Further, neither members who are National Servicemen nor regular servicemen who serve on such panels will receive any additional pay or benefit for being a member of the panel. Instead, their pay or service remuneration will remain the same, whether they serve on the panel or not. There is, therefore, no need to put in place security of tenure for the panel members since many safeguards are already in place. Mr Sin Boon Ann also questioned why the SAF Bill does not specify who the convening authority will be. He said that the Bill specifies that it should be an officer of or above the rank of a major, and he felt that a major may not be senior enough. The minimum rank set out in the SAF Act is only a guide and the convening authority need not necessarily be a major. The Bill does not seek to tie down the specific appointment or the rank of the convening authority as this is unnecessary and may be overly restrictive. The SAF Act instead requires the Armed Forces Council to make a specific appointment of the convening authority from officers from or above that minimum rank. Thus, the Armed Forces Council itself would have to specifically consider who is capable of assuming that appointment. In practice, the AFC is likely to appoint the Chief of Defence Force to be the convening authority.”
“In summary, there is a comprehensive and multi-faceted system of legal protection put in place to safeguard the interests of our servicemen. This extends from the actual conduct of the trials by the courts martial to the various post-trial appeal, review or petition processes. This system will continue to remain robust and, in fact, will be further enhanced by the provisions in the Bill. Mr Sin Boon Ann also asked about security of tenure and whether this can be applied to the general courts martial panel. Sir, the general courts martial panel can be made up of regular or National Servicemen. In view of the new provisions in the Bill, the panel will also have to include a significant number of legally qualified persons who will almost invariably be NSmen. As such, it is expected that the membership of the general courts martial panel will have to change from time to time, depending on the potential candidates available, because NSmen do move into MINDEF reserves. Thus, the Bill does not seek to tie down the exact term of the general court martial panel or the exact period of office of its members. This is not unlike the practice in the Subordinate Courts where the magistrates or district judges are also not necessarily appointed for a fixed or definite period. Separately, there is no necessity to require security of tenure for the panel members just so as to ensure that they will not be subject to improper command influence. Let me elaborate. For the panel members who are National Servicemen, panel membership will not influence their career advancement in their civilian lives. Hence, there is no reason for them to be improperly influenced just so as to remain on the panel.”
“Fifthly, all military prosecutions come under the direct supervision of the Director, Legal Services who is a legally qualified person and who, being a member of the Singapore Legal Service, is independent of the military command structure. Furthermore, there are robust and independent appellate and review processes to right any possible wrong or unfair decisions of the courts martial. The appellate process involves allowing appeals against any finding of a court martial to the military court of appeal (or MCA). The MCA is a superior court of record. It is presided by a person qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge who has to be specifically nominated by the Chief Justice of Singapore for this purpose. Two other members of the MCA would also have to be legally qualified persons. As for the review process, this is undertaken by the Armed Forces Council and the reviewing authority can quash the finding or sentence of the court martial. The reviewing process can be initiated by the aggrieved serviceman himself or by the Armed Forces Council acting on its own. In coming to its decision, the AFC can also seek the independent advice of the Judge Advocate-General, who has to be an experienced judicial or legal officer or a lawyer of not less than five years' standing. The Judge Advocate-General is also outside the military command structure and is currently the Solicitor-General of Singapore. Finally, beyond the appeal and review processes in the SAF, and similar to the practice in our civilian justice system, a convicted serviceman can also petition to the President of the Republic of Singapore for a pardon or for a remission of his sentence.”
“And we believe that an external commercial auditor would be able to do the job more efficiently in this respect. The selection of an external commercial auditor will be done in a careful manner and it is likely to be one of the big four auditing firms. Sir, I move on to address the questions raised by the honourable Member, Mr Sin Boon Ann. He asked about the measures to ensure the independence of the general courts martial panel since the members are appointed by SAF and MINDEF. Yes, the appointment or removal of the members of the general courts panel by a body independent of MINDEF is another safeguard. But we feel that it is not necessary as the rights of the servicemen are ensured by many other safeguards during the trial as well as the post-trial process. Let me cover some of these. This Bill has indeed strengthened these safeguards as it expressly provides for the setting up of the judge courts martial, each presided by a single legally qualified judge, and the employment of a legally qualified president or member or judge advocate in a panel court martial. Existing safeguards in the courts martial system will also be preserved, and there are a few of them. Firstly, the independence of the court is enshrined in the SAF Act, and anyone who influences or attempts to influence the court would be committing an offence. Secondly, the proceedings of the courts martial are open to the public and, thus, any alleged unfair conduct of the trial would quickly be discovered and publicly exposed. Thirdly, an accused serviceman may object to any member of the courts martial. Fourthly, primary jurisdiction over all civil offences rests with the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General may transfer such cases from the military courts to the civil courts.”
“Moreover, the majority of the charges that are tried by the general courts martial are likely to continue to involve strictly military offences. As such, MINDEF feels that rather than establishing the default position as one where cases will automatically be tried by a single judge, it may be more prudent, as Dr Ong pointed out, for cases to be tried by a panel court martial, unless the Director of Legal Services decides otherwise. And as I said earlier, the cases that will be heard by the single judge court martial will essentially be civil cases. In making his decision, the Director of Legal Services will not be acting on his own accord but according to the operational guidelines set by the Armed Forces Council. Over time, after the new system has been successfully implemented, the Armed Forces Council could possibly allow more types of cases to be tried by the judge court martial, if this should suit the needs and policies of the SAF at that time. Sir, Dr Ong also asked about a situation where the Auditor-General disagrees with the appointment of an external commercial auditor. I would like to report that the AGO's advice has been sought on the proposed amendments to the SAVER-Premium Fund and it has not stated any objection to the proposal. Dr Ong also proposed that the Auditor-General conduct both the cash as well as the accrual accounting audits rather than having a commercial auditor to do both of these. Sir, the SAF SAVER-Premium Fund invests in a wide variety of equities and bonds, and they are traded worldwide by fund managers who have operating presence around the world. Therefore, the advantage of engaging a commercial auditor with a global reach, as opposed to the Auditor-General's Office which does not have a global reach, is a compelling one.”
“Sir, our general courts martial deal with SAF servicemen who commit both military offences such as absence without official leave (AWOL) and malingering, as well as civil offences such as theft, cheating, and drug consumption. While the majority of the cases involved military offences, a significant number (some 20%) of all the cases dealt with by the courts martial in the last three years involved civil offences. As I explained in my speech earlier, such civil offences usually call for a pure judicial analysis of the facts and legal issues, and an application of established judicial sentencing principles and guidelines by the judge. Such cases will be more efficiently and effectively dealt with by a single legally qualified judge than a panel of three members. As such, the Bill sets up the judge courts martial to exist alongside the present system of general courts martial, that is, panel courts martial. It does not replace the panel courts martial. However, this judge court martial will deal essentially with civil offences. The judge courts martial will really be no different from the civilian criminal courts in the civilian justice system where the accused person is also tried by a single judge. Sir, Dr Ong also asked about the role of the Director of Legal Services in determining whether a judge court martial or a panel court martial will be used in hearing cases. As I said in my speech, the default position will be that charges are automatically tried by a panel court martial unless the Director of Legal Services directs that they be tried by a judge court martial. While the system of having a single judge to try an accused person is the norm in the civilian justice system, it will still be a new practice in our military justice system.”
“Sir, I share the concern of Dr Ong Chit Chung. I would like to add one point to the concern on the single-judge court martial. Under the new section 88 as drafted, it covers the objection by the accused to the president of the judge court martial. Since the judge court martial is conducted by the president alone, subclause (4) provides that any objection by the accused will be considered by the president himself, and it is provided that the president shall give his reason for dismissing the accused's objection to the convening authority. But it appears that this is just for the record, as it is not stated in the Bill that the convening authority will do anything about it. My question, Sir, is: how neutral will the president be in considering an objection about his own fitness to hear the case, and what recourse does the accused have if he has such a strong opinion that the president of the judge court martial appointed could be biased in the trial? Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for speaking on the Bill and for their interest in strengthening the military justice system in the SAF. I want to assure all Members that the Bill is indeed proposed to strengthen the justice system in the SAF, and the SAF has a similar interest to ensure that this is enhanced. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked why we are introducing a system of judge courts martial where a single judge presides. Would a single judge, he asked, especially one who is not a regular officer, be able to deal with military offences committed by regular servicemen and National Servicemen?”
“Clarification, Sir. I am aware, and I am sure that many Members are aware, of these safeguards. But the question is: why is there a need to include sensitive information on taxation of individuals in the Bill? Is the Minister of State saying that in the past because these were not included, and thereby, our statistical data were not coherent and not up to international standards? I know he is talking about balance but why is there a compelling need to include individual taxpayers' data to be made accessible for statistical purpose? What is the reason?”
“Clarification, Sir. Is the Minister of State aware that when the same Act came to Parliament for amendment in 1990, the information on taxation was purposely left out for reasons of concern with privacy, and the then Minister of State, who was moving that amendment in the House in 1990, said: "Information obtained under legislation relating to taxation or legislation administered by the MAS are specifically excluded. This is to preserve privacy of sensitive information." So, I would like to know what has changed and why the change of mind of the Government in the position in terms of the issue of privacy. In 1990, it was a concern and thereby it was excluded. But, now, taxation information, such as individual taxation information, is to be made accessible to the Department of Statistics, whatever safeguards notwithstanding. But the fact is that it is now to be accessible. So, why the change of mind?”
“I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government considers privacy as an issue in this amendment.”
“May I know which are the 10 societies mentioned by the Senior Minister of State which were rejected by the Registrar, and what are the reasons for their rejection? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there were 10 rejections over the last five-year period. Some of these were religious groups and some had foreign connections. There were a few which were communal-type groups, again with possible foreign connections. There was one group that was rejected because of possible secret society links, and one was espousing a cause which would have promoted alternative lifestyles which would have been contrary to the national interests. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. STATISTICS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. .22 pm”
“Sir, what are the currencies included in the basket, as mentioned by the Second Minister for Finance, and what is the weightage of these currencies in the basket?”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development what is the Government's policy with regard to budget hotels, which seem to have mushroomed all over the island for the purpose of promoting tourism but which could also breed prostitution and other undesirable activities.”
“So just as we have the powers to say yes for a clause to be included, we only allowed the clause because ostensibly they said this protects members' interest and facilitates labour-management relations. But when the clause has not been shown to serve its orginal purpose and, indeed, worsens relations, I think it would be remiss of the Government not to intervene. Why do we not just allow them to, as Mr Low says, for the Ex-Co to go back to the membership for the reasons that I have illustrated? But removing this clause does not deprive the members from having the final say on their leadership. The point is that many other unions - in fact, this is the only union which has this ratification clause - have been able to function and achieve collective agreements, and protect their members' interest without the need for this ratification. If Mr Low wants to know how it is done, I suggest he consult my NTUC counterparts in this House. Some of the examples that have been cited are that they practise a pre-mandate. In other words, they ask the members beforehand what positions are agreeable. That is a fruitful and productive way of doing. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM BUDGET HOTELS 5.”
“I wonder why is there a need for the Government to come in to legislate in order to outlaw similar provisions passed by union members. The union members may decide whether or not they want to give full power to their leaders for negotiation or they may want to decide that, all right, after negotiation, their leaders come back to consult the members. Of course, I think there is nothing to prevent the union leaders, after negotiating the collective agreement, to consult the members. But the onus is on the union leaders. If there is a resolution passed by the unions, it will be mandatory for the leaders, after negotiating the agreement before signing it, to come back to consult the members. So the members' interest is in a way protected. At least, the members know what is the final agreement which they are going to conclude. Does he agree with that? Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I mentioned in my preamble that because we have industrial peace for so long, some may mistakenly believe that this is a natural order of things - that the industrial relation that we have is a natural order of things. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked why is it necessary for the Government to intervene. I have said that the three social partners interact constantly. This is not a static picture of harmonious relationship because it is so. It is because we have constantly tended to the ground. And why we have intervened is because this ratification clause, as I have amply shown, precipitates or worsens labour-management relations. In fact, for them to get the clause into their constitution, they had to ask the Registrar of Trade Unions' permission, and we allowed it. But through these years, they have shown, and we have observed, that it does not help them.”
“Sir, the Minister asked what has this amendment deprived the workers. I would like to ask him: does this amendment not deprive the right of workers to decide how much authority they want to give to their leaders to negotiate collective agreements? And the Minister also quoted Mr Nithiah Nandan's speech that a leader without mandate is a body without a head, floating around. But having a wrong mandate, which is not accountable, you may find a situation where you have the head floating around without the body.”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister?”
“The answer, I believe, lies in legislation like this. This is the Singapore story untold. Sir, I oppose this amendment.”
“If the union's rules provide that the negotiating officers cannot conclude terms of agreement or collective agreements unless the members confirm the terms, then why should the Government impose this blanket condition on all the unions by way of legislation? Having said that, this amendment does not surprise me. It reflects the typical mindset and the response of the PAP Government. This is the response to the robust democratic process of the Alpa-S union, which needed the attention of the Senior Minister to finish his unfinished business. In Singapore, rarely do we see such incidents of organised labour movement openly pressurising their management to secure the best deal for their members and replacing their leadership to demand accountability. I suppose with this amendment, the unfinished business is done. I am quite sure similar episodes will not have a chance to take place again. This is the typical response of the PAP Government. If they cannot control you or is unable to persuade you to act according to their wishes, they will outlaw you or cripple you by legislation. A legitimate act could become a criminal act overnight. A robust organisation could become subdued and submissive. Welcome to Singapore! The PAP Government is able to do this because Parliament, which makes laws, is the territory of the PAP. Some people say that the only law in Singapore is PAP law. Others say that under the PAP Government, there is no rule of law, only ruled by law! Why is it that after nearly 40 years of nation-building, there is political apathy among Singaporeans? Why is it that our pledge "to build a democratic society", sounds hollow, with our people being passive in upholding the principle and the spirit of democracy and fearful, even ignorant of their democratic rights?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment inserts a new section 30A to say that the officers of a union will be allowed to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking ratification from the members. Any provision to the contrary in the union's rules will be void. This is, in effect, giving elected union membership a blanket authority during the term of their office to act on behalf of members without the need to face the consequences of their action until the end of their term of office. The rationale behind some unions requiring their officers to come back to them for confirmation of collective terms is to avoid situations where the officers get carried away and agree to terms not acceptable by the majority of the union members. It also serves as an effective deterrent against union leaders acting on their own interpretation of what is in the best interest of their members without consultation and confirmation from members as to what they think is their best interest. To me, obtaining members' ratification of terms of collective agreements is a superior process and a better safeguard for union members. It is also in line with the spirit of democracy of which accountability of leaders is the hallmark. Accountability does not merely lie at the end of one's term of office nor at elections. True accountability means acting in accordance with the mandate given by the members and being answerable to members for actions taken. If we believe and trust the wisdom of the people, it should be up to each union to decide what kind of rules they want. The officers are chosen by the union members and it is up to the members to decide how much power to give them.”
“Sir, a further clarification. It seems that PCF has put up some proposals for consideration for donation. My question is whether or not any application has been supported by Singapore Pools or the Singapore Totalisator Board.”
“May I seek clarification from the Minister? Sir, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what is the general principle which the Tote Board will apply to prioritise applications for donation. The second clarification is whether the Tote Board or the Singapore Pools in the past had ever made any donation to the PAP or PCF.”
“They have not contributed anything to our economic development. Claiming to have been born in Singapore, they now want to come back, be recognised as citizens with all the rights and privileges and to enjoy the fruits of the labour of those Singaporeans who remain in Singapore. Quite clearly, those who have no skills or no family roots would have problems adjusting to our society and our way of life." Is it not a concern then, even more applicable, where neither the person nor even his parents were born in Singapore after the amendment has taken place? By mooting the present amendment, is the Government not contradicting itself on those principles?”
“Sir, I support the amendment to Article 122 of the Constitution to allow children born overseas to Singaporean mothers to acquire citizenship by descent. Sir, this is a long overdue amendment. It accords the same value of citizenship to both father and mother. This is fair and it is a good move. My concern is about children born overseas whose parents are themselves Singapore citizens by descent. Under the proposed amendments, such parents will now qualify to have their children acquire Singapore citizenship provided that the parents have resided in Singapore either for a total of five years before the child is born or for at least two of the five years preceding the child's birth. Such parents were not born in Singapore. They may have just come back after reaching 21 to take the Oath of Allegiance and stay away for most of their lives. They may not know much about Singapore nor have they made contribution to the nation, except male citizens who have to perform National Service and reservist duty. With these amendments, such persons can also pass on Singapore citizenship to their children who are born to parents who hardly have connection with Singapore. Is this a desirable situation? In 1985, the Government saw it fit to amend Article 135 of the Constitution to give itself powers to deprive Singaporeans of their citizenship if they live in another country for 10 years without returning. This applies even to citizens who are Singaporeans by birth. The rationale given in Parliament then by the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law was, and I quote him, that there were persons who "for all practical purposes, had migrated with no intention of ever returning to Singapore. They have grown up in an alien environment.”
“This Bill is timely to ensure that the commercial part of an upmarket development stays vibrant and is able to cope with fast-changing retail market circumstances. I think it will also help to preserve the value of commercial properties in a mixed development. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“One can make by-laws, but the other can amend them in relation to the limited common property. So, what is the intended objective of this clause? Under the First Schedule, paragraph 3, on quorum of general meeting, it was stated that a quorum shall consist of either 100 subsidiary proprietors or 30% of the aggregate share values of all lots, whichever is lower. I wonder why specify the number of "100 subsidiary proprietors" instead of saying that the 30% requirement is applicable to all. In a large development, 100 subsidiary proprietors could be just 10% of the aggregate share values of all lots. Does the Minister deem this sufficient to form a quorum? Sir, what this Bill seeks to resolve is the conflict in estate management between residential and commercial lots in a mixed development. We must also bear in mind that, in practice, there are many things that may not be divided so clearly between the management corporation and the subsidiary management corporation. Driveway access may be common to both. Other services, such as water supply pipes and electrical main switchboards may not be so easily divisible. In an economic sense, there are things which, when divided, will cost more to maintain. For example, external facade cleaning may be more expensive if done separately, and accessibility will involve more cooperation and coordination, since there are now two separate bodies, ie, the management corporation and subsidiary management corporation. What would be the implications when one portion of the development is well maintained while the other part is mediocre? Singapore will probably see more mixed developments, as the URA sells more white sites, such as the development of the new Downtown and with the "Work, Live and Play" planning objective.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this Bill will result in more effective management of buildings and will improve the quality of management in strata title properties. The Bill also attempts to resolve the conflict between owners of residential units and owners of commercial properties in a mixed development. Sir, I have some specific issues which I hope the Minister will clarify. Clause 75. By virtue of this clause, it seems that the subsidiary management corporation and limited common property will only apply to new developments. But the Minister may publish in the Gazette to extend the application of this division to other developments. The Minister had earlier explained the reason, and I think it is wise to apply to only new developments for the time being. But I would like to know under what circumstances the Minister will decide whether or not to extend this division to existing developments, and whether there is a timeframe in which this division will be extended to all existing developments. Clause 79(4) requires "At least one member of the executive committee of a subsidiary management corporation to be a member of the council of the management corporation." I want to know what is the role of this sole member of the council who sits on the executive committee of the subsidiary management corporation. This person's role, duties and powers are not spelt out in the Bill. Would there be legal complications, since the subsidiary management corporation by itself has its own legal status? Clause 81(1) states that "A management corporation's by-laws shall apply to the limited common property", but the subsidiary management corporation can make amendments. This seems more like adding to the conflict of interests than resolving them.”
“This resilience and adaptability of our workforce, coupled with sound policy measures and continuous restructuring by companies, will allow us to respond quickly to fast-changing economic conditions, and to generate new jobs and to create new sources of growth.”
“Promoting entrepreneurship will also lead to the creation of many good jobs. Between 1990 and 2000, local SMEs accounted for 52% of net employment creation in Singapore. We must continue to foster a conducive environment for entrepreneurship. As more people venture into business, start-ups will become an increasingly important source of employment. Similarly, the development of new industries, such as the biomedical industry, as well as the expansion of services sectors like education and healthcare will create new jobs. We are also seeking to revitalise older industries, such as textiles, food and furniture. We will help companies in these sectors to upgrade and to gain a competitive foothold. While many jobs will be created, not all will be jobs that Singaporeans are accustomed to. Therefore, workers must have the right skills and attitude to take on new jobs. The Workforce Development Agency (WDA) has been spearheading efforts to re-skill our workforce. For example, in recent months, WDA has placed and trained some 200 Singaporeans for the electronics sector. WDA is doing likewise to train Singaporeans for the aerospace industry. A National Skills Framework is being developed to identify the industry-specific skills needed for our workforce. Apart from skills, to create and maintain jobs, we must also ensure that wages are competitive, and adjust flexibly to changing business conditions. A survey commissioned by the Ministry of Manpower in 2003 found that workers are now more aware of the challenges of global competition and are prepared to accept variable wages based on performance.”
“EDB estimates that these investments, in total, would create about 111,000 jobs in Singapore when fully realised. While some jobs have been lost due to relocation, the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Market Survey indicates that overseas relocation has not been the main cause of retrenchments. Of the companies that retrenched workers last year, only 7% did so because part of their operations were relocated abroad. According to the survey, the number of workers retrenched due to overseas relocation has been coming down in the past five years, from 4,455 in 1999 to 2,360 in 2003. However, what is important is that, in international rankings, Singapore continued to be ranked as highly competitive. The 2003 World Competitiveness Yearbook ranked Singapore the second most competitive small economy worldwide. In new growth areas, such as outsourcing, we did well too. A.T. Kearney has ranked Singapore the fifth most attractive global location for outsourcing in its 2004 Offshore Location Attractiveness Index. Singapore ranked ahead of low cost Philippines and Brazil, as well as developed countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Top Indian IT software companies have set up in Singapore, with many having their regional HQs here. As their operations expand, they would create many well-paying jobs in Singapore. Dr Amy Khor asked what could be done to stem job losses. Attracting high value investments to Singapore must remain a key priority. Such investments can generate a variety of jobs for Singaporeans. For example, the expansion of Hewlett Packard's manufacturing activities in Singapore over the next five years is expected to add significantly to its current staff of engineers, IT professionals, as well as assembly line workers.”