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 7 of 54.
“Madam, at the Budget debate last year, the Minister for Education seemed to suggest that tuition is quite normal as it happens everywhere all over the world and that this is a sign of parents having high aspirations for their children's success in education. While this may be true, is the Minister not concerned when private tuition appears to have gradually become a parallel system to our publicly-funded education system? The Household Expenditure Survey 2007 suggested that families spent more on private education than on university tuition fees. Private tuition fees have become a financial burden to many families, especially those from the middle income group. A stressful education system and the cost of educating children today contribute to the challenges in encouraging Singaporeans to start families. I have come across parents who send their children to private tuition not because they want their children to top the class or to get into branded schools but Page: 86 because their children's test or examination results were not good and they are worried that their children may fail the subject or be unable to cope with the school curriculum. If our schools could provide the additional support for weaker students to boost their academic results to assure parents that their children are able to cope with school work, it would ease the anxiety of parents from sending their children for tuition and thus, incurring additional household expenditure. Schools should also be mindful not to feed the anxiety of parents and put unnecessary pressure on students by purposely setting difficult questions in routine assessment tests to fail students in order to spur them to work harder, a point also brought up by Mr Lim Biow Chuan.”
“My understanding is that currently there is still long waiting time at the polyclinics, long waiting time for patients, especially subsidised patients, to be referred to the specialist clinics in the hospitals, as well as those who are on the waiting list for surgery. What is the strategy of the Ministry to mitigate the situation, both in the long term and in the short term?”
“Clarification for the Minister. Madam, I am happy to note that MOH has shifted its focus and changed its mindset from how to avoid healthcare expenditure escalating, to how Singaporeans can have peace of mind in healthcare needs, especially for those who have little MediSave in their account. Madam, Minister earlier in his speech mentioned that there will be a new salary scheme for specialist doctors in 2014. Could he elaborate further on what Page: 135 would be the changes? The second clarification is on the National Electronic Health Records. I would like to know if there is any roadmap for the health records to be implemented or to roll out. Where are the stages and the milestones set? I think we have started on this long ago and I think the progress seems to be quite slow. Madam, on the referral system, the Minister's answer was that GPs under CHAS do refer the patient to the restructured hospitals and the patient will be treated as a subsidised patient. Does it mean that any patient who walks into a GP clinic under CHAS and when the GP refers him to the hospital, he will be considered as a subsidised patient? Or only a patient who is registered under CHAS as a subsidised patient, will be considered as subsidised patient when he is referred to a restructured hospital? I understand that the recruitment of GPs under CHAS has been quite slow. What is the objection if MOH opens up the system of referral to allow any GP – instead of just GPs under CHAS – to refer patients to the hospitals to be treated as subsidised patients? Lastly, we have been talking about long waiting time for a long time.”
“Regional Health System Madam, during last year's Budget Debate, the Minister for Health spoke about strategies to improve the quality of healthcare delivery. The twin pillars of achieving this goal are the Regional Health System and the National Electronic Health Records. With regards to the Regional Health System, I would like an update on the progress of the formation of this system. One such example is the Eastern Health Alliance that was established in late 2011. What are the main lessons learnt from the initial planning to the final implementation of the Eastern Health Alliance? How have patients benefited either directly or indirectly from this Regional Health System? How does the Regional Health System address the overall health issues of the community that it serves? And what are the plans for the other regions of Singapore? 1.15 pm With regards to the National Electronic Health Records, to what extent has this programme been developed? Is it a single system applicable to all institutions across different health clusters or multiple systems stitched together? To what extent have we achieved the goal of shared electronic medical records between Government restructured hospitals, community hospitals, nursing homes, private practitioners and other users, such as the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC)? What information is shared through the National Electronic Health Records? Examples include laboratory results, radiology results, histopathology results and clinical notes. Page: 58 Lastly, has the National Electronic Health Records been able to reduce the need to print out hard copies of patients' records thus reducing the carbon footprint of our healthcare system? Re-imagining Healthcare Service Delivery”
“Madam, the increasing and ageing population has further stressed our current healthcare delivery system. The mechanism for referral to subsidised specialist healthcare in the Government-restructured hospitals can be improved. I understand that currently, the provision of primary healthcare is shared between the Government-run polyclinics and the private general practitioners (GP). Polyclinics provide only 20% of the primary healthcare while GPs provide about 80%. There is, thus, a much higher chance that a patient will consult a GP rather than a polyclinic doctor. However, if a patient sees his GP and is deemed to need a specialist consultation at the Government-restructured hospital, he will not be considered as a subsidised patient by the specialist clinics of the hospital on the basis of his GP's referral. To qualify for subsidised outpatient specialist care, he has to make a trip to the polyclinic, wait many hours to see the polyclinic doctor and pay for this additional consultation in order to get a referral letter that allows him to be seen as a subsidised outpatient at the hospital. Page: 57 Such a cumbersome referral system increases both direct and indirect healthcare costs, that is, double consultation with two primary healthcare doctors in addition to time lost from work for the patient and possibly for the accompanying family member. With the increasing and ageing population, the limitations in the current system will be aggravated. I believe that it is timely for MOH to review the referral system and allow patients the same default subsidised status for outpatient specialist clinic care regardless of their referring primary healthcare doctor.”
“In view of the current TCM status, if the purpose of the Board is to improve the TCM standard, expertise and skills, then I suggest establishing a TCM Specialist Registration regime, which is more stringent than the current TCM registration system. We can then incorporate the continuing education Page: 56 requirement into the new registration regime. Referrals and Subsidies”
“Traditional Chinese Medicine Education Programme (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year, the TCM Practitioners' Board decided to implement a two-year voluntary TCM Continuing Education Scheme. According to the guideline, participating in continuing education courses is voluntary. According to the understanding of TCM practitioners, however, the first two years is the trial stage and from the third year (2015) on, it will become compulsory. No licence will be issued to those whose scores are not up to the requirement. I would like to ask the Minister what is the purpose of this TCM Continuing Education Scheme? Will this be misinterpreted as a tactic to reduce the number of registered TCM practitioners? Does MOH believe that if the Chinese physicians do not undergo continuing education, they will necessarily be eliminated? Within the TCM industry, besides professional TCM practitioners, there are also many voluntary TCM doctors who practice a few hours a week at their spare time. They are concerned that with the compulsory credit accumulation system for licence renewal, it will be a challenge for them to find time in their busy schedule to practise on a voluntary basis. In addition, they have to pay out of their own pocket for the continuing education. Even if their license can be renewed for one year, next year they will face the same concern all over again. Under this circumstance, how long can they last? If the number of the voluntary practitioners drops, what impact would it have on the VWOs providing TCM services?”
“There is also a policy for selected specialists from SGH to see private patients at Gleneagles and Mount Elizabeth hospitals. The Minister for Health explained that this frees up physical resources for subsidised patients. However, if the specialists are outside of SGH to treat those "off-loaded" private patients, then one may assume that junior doctors have been delegated to treat the subsidised patients in SGH. The waiting time for surgery is also long, especially for subsidised patients. This is because the current remuneration scheme favours shorter waiting times for private patients. In addition, subsidised patients may also be encouraged to upgrade to private status. I am of the view that the current remuneration scheme incentivises specialists to treat private patients over subsidised patients. As a result, there is unequal distribution of workload among specialists. Morale drops and specialists leave. Over the years, pay increases alone have not been able to stem this tide of resignation. Other remuneration schemes should be considered to incentivise doctors to treat both subsidised and private patients equally. Perhaps, remuneration should be based on the number of patients seen and the complexity of patients managed. Page: 55 A variant of this scheme already exists in some restructured hospitals where specialists accumulate "points" for care or service rendered. Each "point" has a monetary value. However, such a scheme has been overshadowed by the more favourable incentives to treat private/foreign patients over subsidised patients. I think it is time for restructured hospitals to remove the incentives for the treatment of private or foreign patients and to move to a "point-based" remuneration scheme. Madam, my next cut in Mandarin.”
“Madam, the MOH website states that: "Restructured hospitals are different from the other private hospitals" and "they are to be managed like not-for-profit organisations". At present, restructured hospitals appear to be managed like profit-driven companies. International Medical Services that solicits business from foreign patients is present in most of the restructured hospitals. The common argument is that money earned from private and foreign patients is used to support treatment for local, subsidised patients. If so, then what proportion of the overall patient load should private and foreign patients constitute – 20%, 30% Page: 54 or more? Who provides and oversees the implementation of the guidelines? If they are such guidelines, are they department-specific or hospital-specific? I understand that while the hospital as a whole may see more subsidised patients than private or foreign patients, how about individual departments? Moreover, given the current patient load of restructured hospitals, is it justifiable to allocate resources to serve foreign patients? Next, I would like to discuss remuneration schemes for specialist doctors. Many specialists in restructured hospitals are under a remuneration scheme that rewards them for treating private patients, that is, non-subsidised patients. I believe that the remuneration scheme is one of the factors hindering the hospitals to improve the situation of long waiting time, especially for subsidised patients. Despite the long waiting times to consult a specialist in the hospital, there is little incentive for the hospital to re-appropriate the ratio of subsidised to private out-patient specialist clinics.”
“Sir, I understand that HDB has launched the Greenprint initiative last year and that works under the scope will be carried out in 2013 and 2014 under the pilot project at Jurong East. I would like to request MND to consider rolling out the following initiatives as soon as possible to all eligible HDB towns in view of the national push towards productivity and escalating costs of town maintenance. Page: 157 I think many precincts could benefit from the following Greenprint initiatives: (a) Pneumatic refuse collection system. The old design of individual bin-chute system in older HDB estates with daily manual collection is a low-productivity design and is not cost-effective. Residents also often have to live with foul smell during the collection. A modified centralised refuse collection system would increase productivity in town maintenance and reduce the cost of manpower in conservancy work. (b) Energy and water-saving solutions for common areas. Water and electricity cost is one of the big expenditure items in Town Council management. The initiative on water-saving devices and exploring new sources of energy for common areas can not only achieve the green effect, but also save cost. I would like to ask MND for its future plans for the Greenprint initiative. Will there be more pilot projects to be conducted and, if so, what are the criteria for the selection of precincts for such pilot projects as it could save the Town Councils some costs? What is the timeframe to roll out the initiative? Community Spaces”
“One target that was mentioned by Dr Chia about households is the 100% target for the low-income families. I just checked, we are now 97%. I think we are on target to reach the 100% target for low-income households to have both a PC and broadband access. So, we will do our best, because we know that Internet access and the computer are now a necessity; they are no more a luxury. We want to make sure that everybody in Singapore has access to them.”
“The most important thing is we must recognise that Singapore is a very built-up environment and there are many factors affecting upload and download speeds, like the equipment that you use, the kind of handphone that you have, the location. But, having said all that, we agree with the Member that we want to try and make sure that the experience of using ICT is as comfortable and convenient as possible for all Singaporeans. So, we will endeavour to try and improve on that. On the work centres, I did not mention in my reply, we now have six pilots that we are working on. On the smart work centres, we have just called for proposals. So, let us be patient. We have to work with industry partners because we cannot go to anybody's place and just set up. As I mentioned in my reply, we are working with the NLB. The public service is also working on this particular project, together with the Treasury, the new MOM and MND buildings. So, as more partners come on board, we can provide a lot more accessibility to Page: 116 people who are prepared to work off-site. On his point about the innovation roadmap, I hope he was referring to the iN2015. There was a same question asked by Dr Chia Shi-Lu. I did not have time to reply. Based on our assessment of the last masterplan that we have, we are on target to achieve everything that we have mentioned in the plan in 2015. As I mentioned in my reply, we are now looking at a new masterplan. We want to look at what we have done so far, how far we have gone and how we can improve further. But the new masterplan will be a joint masterplan between MDA and IDA because of the convergence. For the ICT rollout that we have done so far for businesses and homes, we are reaching the target.”
“Madam, I would like to know from the Minister what the roadmap is for the initiative under the Next Generation Service Innovation Programme. In his reply, the Minister said that IDA is talking to the industry to set up smart centres. So, how long do you need to "talk"? Has any centre been set up so far and is there any target set for the future as to setting up of such centres, which I think is important for the productivity drive? Madam, the next clarification is on the test regime that the Minister mentioned. He mentioned about 99% of coverage. But the coverage is a test on signal strength. How about signal quality? I understand that signal quality is important in terms of the speed of reception and all that. The other issue is about test on mobile phone dropped calls. It seems that there is a disconnect between the test results of the IDA and the actual experience of mobile phone and mobile device users outside. Could the Minister explain why? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, on the last point, there are many factors that influence how signals get transmitted from the base station. The most important thing is that if Mr Low is prepared to give me some information about the places where the dropped calls have occurred, I will ask IDA to go and check, because we are concerned. If there is certain feedback that he would like to share with us, we will ask IDA to check that. On his second point about the test regime, basically, what we do is we go out and test the speeds, which includes uploading and downloading. We are doing this on our own because we do not have quality standards for mobile broadband at the moment in time. But I had mentioned in my last reply in this House that we were looking into that.”
“Madam, MOM announced at last year's Budget Committee of Supply that the Tripartite Committee on Work-life Strategy have formed a workgroup on homeshoring. The workgroup comprises representatives from MOM, IDA, NTUC and SNEF. Page: 67 The workgroup would identify jobs that leverage on Singapore's increased infocomm technology capacity and recommend measures to encourage companies to "homeshore" these jobs. IDA is to drive the initiative under the Next Generation Services Innovation Programme (NGSIP), which was developed in consultation with the partners. In April 2012, IDA launched a Call-for-Collaboration (CFC) to conduct pilots with industry partners in home-based work and the setting up of Smart Work Centres, to encourage employers to adopt flexible working arrangements through the use of infocomm technology. The key to the initiative is for Next Gen Nationwide Broadband Network to connect 95% of Singapore by mid-2012 to further support and encourage home-based work initiatives. I would like to ask the Minister what milestone has been achieved and what progress has been made since? Apart from connecting homes to Next Gen broadband network, other factors, such as Internet speed, are also critical to support home-based work initiatives. Is there a reason why speed is not included as one of the compliance KPI for IDA's quality standard? Although IDA stated that it is monitoring the issue of speed, could IDA provide its own data on multiple and single TCP speed, instead of relying on information providing by third party such as Ookla and Akamai. I would also like to know if there is a roadmap on the initiative, given that MOM had published "An Employer's Guide in Implementing ICT-Enabled Home-Based Work"? Sustaining Singaporean Creative Musicians”
“Madam, I wish to call for a Division on the Motion.”
“Thank you, Madam. I think the Member's comment and criticism of the Workers' Party's plan is nothing new. Many of the speakers before him spoke about it. He also mentioned what I said in Parliament, some of which Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has addressed. I have explained that these are Page: 130 things that are quoted within the context of dependency ratio, re-allocation of foreign manpower within the industry and within the Singapore context. There is no contradiction. But he did mention that I said we can approve up to 30,000 Permanent Residents (PRs). Yes, I did mention that. That is in the context of approving PR from holders of work passes. The "30,000" number does not actually increase the population size. We are not talking about direct approval of PR from the new applications. As for the 10,000 figure he mentioned, we were referring to 10,000 citizens. Citizens usually come from the PR pool, which are already a part of the population. So, it does not increase the total population size. There is no contradiction in what I said in Parliament and what we are now proposing in Parliament on the population policy. He also mentioned about the Population Paper and about how the voters will vote in the future. He gives me the impression that he takes Singaporean voters as idiots, as though they cannot distinguish and simply listen to what we have to say at the rallies. I would advise him that perhaps he should not think that Singaporean voters are idiots. Singaporean voters are very sophisticated. They know how to discern what is right and what is wrong, and they will make their informed and independent decision. They will not be swayed by the PAP's —”
“Thank you, Madam. First of all, I am afraid the Acting Minister has quoted my speech out of context. It was in the context of, at that point in time, the effect of foreign workers allocation and a different method of allocating foreign manpower. It is different from the issue overall of foreign workforce. I have said many times in this House that we need to control the foreign worker inflow. I have even questioned the foreign worker's levy. I have also said that the foreign worker has depressed Singaporean wages and also taken away Singaporean jobs. I do not see any contradiction. Fairness is an important quality of being a Minister and I expect him to look at, in totality, what I have said in Parliament, and not just quote part of it and out of context, and try to paint a picture of me as though I am self-contradictory. It is not a contradiction. Madam, the Minister also referred to the Workers' Party's proposal and also in particular about growing the residential population. After a long speech, I thought the message from the Minister was that nothing can be done. And if something needs to be done, can the Workers' Party do something about it? He mentioned about a programme he has: asking seniors to go back to workforce Page: 123 and all that; and whether or not we have any other programmes. I would advise that, perhaps, the Minister wants to go back and look at his programmes. If he thinks that it is not effective, set a hard target, the numbers and the KPIs. And if he thinks that his Ministry cannot do very much, and wants the Workers' Party to do more, perhaps he can consider putting his Ministry's resources under the Workers' Party?”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Now, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Sim Ann for her concern. My blood pressure is very normal. Neither do I have high cholesterol. However, men are emotional beings so when I see people not being concerned with the future of Singapore, I feel so sorry; hence when I spoke just now, I was a bit emotional. But this is quite normal; we are all human beings. Ms Sim talked about manpower at length and how we are going to solve the problem. All right then, let us have 6.9 million people in 2030 and 10 million in 2050. I do not know how to count afterwards any more. Let the future of Singapore do the counting. Just now, she said that the Workers' Party proposed to make use of the reserves. We have never talked about that. What Mr Pritam Singh said was that if the expenses on increasing our fertility rate were too high, we could consider tapping on the reserves. It was not meant for subsiding productivity.”
“Yes, Madam, the last clarification. The Minister talked about perseverance in productivity. I do agree. But I also urge the Government to persevere in investing in our own population. Increase our TFR. Otherwise, one day, there will be a Singapore without Singaporeans.”
“Yes, Madam. Now, I refer to another statement that the Minister made. He said that the companies will be asking, if we are going down the road, "Why Singapore?" and "Not Singapore." But I want to caution the Government that, yes, the company may ask you, "Why Singapore?", because this is your labour policy and "Why should we invest here? Why should we come here?" But how about Singaporeans? Will you not worry that, one day, Singaporeans may ask you the same question: "Why should I stay here? Why should I continue to be in Singapore?"”
“" And I know, and I can understand the Government is facing tremendous pressure from big business MNCs and also the concern whether we will miss the boat. But I recall reading somewhere that during the early days of Independence, there was a company that came to Singapore to invest and wanted to put their tank, diesel tank or whatever tank, on Singapore soil and threatened that if they could not, they would withdraw. Then Dr Goh Keng Swee said, "Stand firm on that." I think we need the PAP leaders to stand firm to the MNCs and say, "Look, this is our way and we think we should do that for the betterment of Singapore." Because if you do not do that, then what is the consequence? What is the trade-off? We will reach 6.9 million, and then come 2030, what? You still need more foreign labour in order to continue to grow the economy to provide good quality of life for Singaporeans. Same argument. Then the roadmap? Ten million in Page: 73 2050?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to clarify what the Minister said when he referred to the Workers' Party's proposal. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for reminding this House of my concern which I had expressed in a past debate here. I would like to assure this House and Singaporeans that the Workers' Party's proposal has taken in all the concerns that I expressed in this House and I was very careful that we do not want to rock the economy. The proposal is a very careful, considered, calibrated approach. We are looking at a GDP growth of 2.5% to 3.5%. It is not an extreme model, as what the Minister has suggested. And remember we still have the current workforce – foreign workers and all that. We are not saying, "Let's get rid of all the foreign workers." We are not saying that. If we are saying that, then it is fair that the Minister said we are being extreme. With the current workforce that we have, to grow our resident workforce, we probably could still view the workforce we need for expansion. And if the foreign workers' work permits or their contracts have expired and they go back, we can still get back the same number, but we keep the total size of the population and the workforce. The Minister was concerned. I understand the businesses are complaining. I also receive the same complaint saying, "We cannot get work permit approval." And this is not a new problem. It has been a problem that businesses have a big appetite for cheap foreign labour. And the consequence of that is that Singaporean workers' wages are not going up because of the foreign labour. Do we want to continue with that? Do we want to say, "Look, yes, we need more foreign labour because the businesses are asking for it.”
“But 20 years later, if we realise that our population is too large and ageing at a faster rate than now, we could not simply kill these people. That is why I said this is a road of no return. The Workers' Party does not think the Government should take this risk. We would oppose till the end. Let me repeat: the Workers' Party opposes this White Paper and we would also not support the amended Motion. 2.00 pm”
“When our total foreign population size becomes so large that we are not able to effectively integrate them, the overall characteristics and quality of the Singapore population will also change. I think all know that a quantitative change will result in a qualitative change. PAP Ministers and most of our Members of Parliament are supportive of using the strategy to make up for the shortfall in our population. They felt that Singapore was made up of foreign immigrants as our ancestors were all foreign immigrants, therefore, now we should be able to take in new immigrants like what we did in the past, and form a "strong Singapore Core". But I think this logic or theory has a sort of memory lapse. Let us not forget, even though most of our ancestors came mainly from China, India and other neighbouring countries, it took decades of nation building before this generation of Singaporeans could be considered bona fide Singaporeans with Page: 40 a sense of common identity. So, even if we are overseas, and we do not know one another, we could somehow identify whether they are Singaporeans. So, if the logic is, since we were foreign immigrants then, we should be able to accept foreign immigrants now. Similarly, since we were part of Malaysia in the past, should we not be able to merge with Malaysia as and when we want? In the early days of nation building, we were worried that the population would grow too fast and the economy and infrastructure would not be able to catch up, so we had a very aggressive family planning policy. But now, we need large numbers of foreigners to make up the shortfall as our population could not sustain the economic growth. The policy of curbing birth rates by the somewhat mandatory sterilisation might have worked then.”
“I am not making a deliberate attempt to differentiate a thorough-bred Singaporean and a new immigrant. We should treat the new citizens equally. Page: 39 Well, at least they are prepared to give up their original citizenship to become Singapore citizens. But we all know that they are human, their values, their outlook on life, their world view and their habits would differ depending on where they come from, and the environment they are in. And they need time to be integrated into our society and our environment. Singapore's stressful lifestyle and new housing estates where neighbours generally mind their own businesses and do not know one another is not a conducive environment for the new immigrants to be integrated. Looking at the timeline, the White Paper estimates that our population will grow by one million every 10 years. I think our population ratio will not be able to digest such a large volume of foreign immigrants. Our ancestors were all foreign immigrants and the Government has spent decades of hard work to develop a sense of belonging among us and to mould us into a cohesive society we are today with a sense of national identity. People also now understand the rule of law. We should cherish and protect what we have achieved during our process of nation building. This is more important than our economic growth and our material achievements. I am worried that this strategy of depending on large foreign immigrants to make up for a shortfall of our citizens would result in a road of no return for our nation. Please do not forget, we not only need to integrate new immigrants who became citizens, we also need to deal with foreigners who are not citizens.”
“9 million population for 2030 has become only a "worst-case scenario". If that is the case, then what would be the population size in a "not-so-worse-case scenario"? And what would be the size of population in 2030 in a "best-case scenario"? Even if this 6.9 million is just a planning parameter, but if by 2030, the population size happens to coincide with the Workers' Party's projection of 5.8 million, then would we not have over-projected the population by one million, and would this not be a waste of our precious resources? This runs contrary to our established principle of efficient usage of our limited resources as a tiny nation with a small population. A netizen wrote in Zaobao online, "What kind of a joke is this? We all know that the Government holds the key to open the door to immigrants and bringing in foreign workers. And it could control how much or how little, how fast or how slow the influx, just like a tap that controls the water flowing into a pool. These are all in the Government's planning. And the Government cannot even decide, cannot ascertain whether we want 5 million or 6 million, then this glamorous Population White Paper is as good as a heap of waste paper." The main suggestion in the White Paper was to allow foreign immigrants to become Singapore Citizens to make up for the shortfall of our local population, and allow this group of new citizens to be part of the "strong Singapore Core". Therefore, there is already an issue on how many of those in the "strong Singapore Core" are thorough-bred Singaporeans. To make the matter worse, by 2030, this so-called "strong Singapore Core" would only make up 55% of the 6.9 million. What then would be the percentage of thorough-bred Singaporeans in our total population?”
“It has a roadmap, but a roadmap is useless without a destination. The Government's roadmap is saying, "just continue to drive straight ahead at the same speed". But the Workers' Party wants to arrive in a sustainable Singapore with a dynamic Singaporean majority. Madam, I will now speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, people are the core of a nation. Without people, there is no nation. People are the foundation of a nation and the core factor affecting the prosperity of a nation. Therefore, population is a very important issue, but it is also a very complicated issue where there is wide-ranging ramification of its effect with just a small tweak. More importantly, population issue should not be treated like any other policy issues and simply handled based on macro-analysis of the statistics. People are not commodities and could not be treated as mere numbers. The White Paper issued by the Government projected that our population would be 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030. And the relevant authorities had also published various plans to develop our infrastructure to cater for this population growth and assured Singaporeans that they could enjoy quality of Page: 38 life. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said at the White Paper press conference that this is the first time the Government has drawn up a comprehensive roadmap for our population development. Subsequently, some Ministers said the 6.9 million was only "a worst-case scenario". Then, during the Parliamentary debates, a PAP Member moved an amendment Motion to delete the words "population policy" and said this 6.9 million should only be a planning parameter for the development of our infrastructure. So, this projection of a 6.”
“Focus on TFR recovery now. While we move towards TFR recovery, the Workers' Party proposes that we increase labour-force participation rates to grow the resident workforce without adding to the population. This is a much more sustainable solution than an ever-growing population on a small island. And let us not forget Singapore is a nation, not a city in a big Page: 37 nation. A sustainable Singapore is one that keeps its national identity strong and this requires the population to be made up of majority Singaporeans. Continued dependence on foreign workforce growth will just kick the can of economic restructuring down the road. Economic restructuring is necessarily painful. Immigration prevents us from moving away from labour-intensive industries to develop an innovative and entrepreneurial economy with capital-intensive medium enterprises. The Government can help ease the pain by providing more support to local SMEs as we go through this economic transition. The Government has tried to downplay the 6.9 million population number for 2030. It is now a projection, a planning parameter, a worst-case scenario. Can the Government clarify once and for all whether it has control over immigration or is immigration an impending tsunami we have to plan for? I do not understand how 6.9 million can be a worst-case scenario. Do we not have to pass through the best-case scenario of 5.8 million to get to 6.9 million? The Government seems to be saying that it does not have the control of the bus it is driving Singaporeans to town, and is not able to stop at the good part of the town and we all may end up in the bad part of the town. This is unacceptable. But even before we can talk about getting to town, does the Government have a destination to bring us to?”
“By focusing on immigration, the Government is using the cause of the problems today as the solution for tomorrow. What the Government is doing is kicking the can down the road. The Government has been using immigration to grow the workforce in the past 30 years. It is proposing to continue to do so for the next 20 years. The Government said that it "hopes" for an increase in the TFR to 1.4 or 1.5. Madam, this is a matter of national survival, and the Government is only weakly hoping with an ambiguous target with no specified timetable. Without a TFR recovery plan with clear targets, our birth rates are not going to go up. So, when 2030 arrives, what solution are we going to turn to? Immigration again? Another White Paper to project a population size of 10 million in 2050 as a roadmap? Anyway, let me tell this House, if we travel down this roadmap, Singaporeans will become a minority in their own country. In 2001, the United Nations published a study to consider whether Replacement Migration is a viable option and a solution to a declining and ageing population. The study warned that "The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past." The study argued that comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes in a long-term perspective are needed to address the challenges. 20/20 foresight requires the Government to think long term, and long term, must be 50 years down the road, not a mere 17 years. Birth rate recovery takes a long time. We need to start now. Stop kicking the can down the road. As long as immigration continues to be an easy option, there is nothing to stop the Government from taking the easy path.”
“Is the Government admitting that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control that our senior citizens will need to be subsidised heavily? The fifth problem is a slowing economy. The key plank in the Workers' Party's proposal is to increase the resident workforce through promotion of labour force participation of women and seniors. Like the Government, we aim for the same stretch rate of productivity growth. But the Government's solution is contradictory. It tells businesses that they are addicted to cheap foreign workers and need to improve their productivity instead. Yet, the Government is proposing to use foreign workforce growth to boost the slowing economy. Would foreign workforce growth not suppress productivity growth? This is like trying to go forward and backward at the same time. The sixth problem is infrastructural strain. The Prime Minister recently admitted that the Government lacked 20/20 foresight and failed to prepare the urban infrastructure to accommodate sudden immigration inflow. Instead of rethinking the immigration policy, it now promises to build ahead to accommodate more immigrants. The Land Use Plan promises to build a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. But the plan is drawn up to support the future population, which will be majority immigrants. Page: 36 The trouble with the Government is not that it lacks 20/20 foresight in infrastructural development, but that it fails to recognise that the problem is its immigration policy in the first place. The problems of low birth rates and ageing population lie in a social and physical environment that is not conducive for family life. Therefore, the solutions must be sought by focusing on promoting the quality of life of Singaporean families.”
“The first problem is that Singapore has seen declining birth rates for nearly 40 years. Yet, all the Government is doing in the latest enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood Package is to increase incentives to get young couples to have more babies. Why is the Government continuing to use a method that has not worked? Why does it not see there are serious roadblocks, such as high housing costs, lack of family and social support, lack of quality childcare options, and bad work-life balance that are preventing young couples from marrying earlier and having more babies? The second problem is that low birth rates are leading to a shrinking citizen core. Instead of focusing on removing the roadblocks to set birth rates on the Page: 35 path to recovery, the Government wants to use immigration to top up shortfalls. At the highest rate of handling out new citizenships at current birth rates, there will be 25,000 new citizens to 30,000 citizen births a year. This is almost one is to one. The third problem is immigrant integration. Given the friction between Singaporeans and immigrants in recent years, my confidence in the Government to solve this problem is not very strong. The best way to integrate immigrants is organically through the family and the school; not the highly politicised People's Association (PA). The fourth problem is the ageing population. Here, the Government needs to have a serious mindset change. The Government sees our senior citizens as fiscal and healthcare burdens. The Government's solution is again immigration, as though by increasing the support ratio, our senior citizens will be magically supported. Is the Government admitting that the CPF scheme is causing insufficient savings that our senior citizens will become a burden?”
“Mdm Speaker, I listened to the debate with wonder in the last few days. At first, the PAP seemed content on debating the Workers' Party's proposal more than the White Paper. Then, some PAP Members began to echo Workers' Party positions. I appreciate the honour that is bestowed on the Workers' Party by this kind of attention. Madam, I must remind the House that what is called a roadmap on a White Paper requesting this House to endorse will change Singapore drastically in less than 20 years' time. The Workers' Party thinks that this roadmap is wrong. The PAP Government is driving with an upside-down roadmap. We are not trying to be funny when we change the title around to "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore". As a rational and responsible co-driver, it is our duty to tell the driver that he is reading the roadmap upside down. Mdm Speaker, allow me to distribute a table to show the differences between the Government's proposal and the Workers' Party's proposal.”
“Madam, a supplementary question. Would the Minister of State also look at the profile of those who own light-goods vehicles under Category C of the COE? I wonder how hawkers and small-time contractors can afford to renew COE or buy a replacement vehicle in order to continue their businesses.”
“Sir, I welcome the Ministerial Statement on the Report of the COI. This is a sign that SAF is being more transparent. Sir, I have one clarification to make. In the case of PTE Lee, at that grenade-throwing training session, was there the presence of a safety officer? If it is so, when the platoon commander breached TSR, was he advised accordingly? Page: 1256”
“Sir, I assume the PAP also committed the same breach. Sir, my question is this: whether there had been any public disorder due to the breach of the rules. For instance, not enough lighting or a breach of time limit. Are we assuming that a breach of the regulations or rules necessarily resulted in public disorder?”
“To overcome this problem, the ship owner has to reapply for the visa multiple times during the ship's crew's stay on board, especially if this vessel is on short haul calling on Singapore on very close frequencies. For centuries, seafarers have considered it their duty to assist people in peril on the high seas. Today, 100 years after the sinking of the Titanic, this tradition has become more than just a moral obligation and is now enshrined in international law. Given Singapore's role as an International Maritime Centre and having a major quality Ship Registry, I strongly urge that due consideration be given to the impact of these amendments might have on the duties and responsibilities of seafarers. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Fortunately, in this case, the Chinese fishermen had valid papers. Page: 489 The point is raised on humanitarian ground when ships need to rescue survivors at sea but face immigration problems when entering Singapore. In this regard, the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, in particular, section 24 "Examination of Persons Arriving by Sea" of the Immigration Act could place excess burdens on merchant ships that have fulfilled their humanitarian and legal obligations and rescued those found in grave peril on the high seas, whoever they are and whatever their origin for being there. Not only might a merchant ship be detained or, worse, forced to leave Singapore with the rescuees still aboard but the Master, owner, agent or charterer of a vessel with rescuees aboard might find himself being charged as a criminal. The amendments, if passed, will therefore strongly deter the ship master from rescuing these persons in distress in future. Provisions therefore have to be made in the Act for such exceptional cases. The second concern is on visa requirement for ships schooled from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria. Despite having been given in-principle approval for foreign seamen to sign on, ICA needs foreign crew members from these three countries to have a valid visa. However, most of the time ICA only approves double-entry visa that is valid for about two months. On a very rare occasion, does ICA approve multiple-entry visa for one year. Going to this double-entry visa for two months, the crew member can only go on shore once in two months. Most of the time, they will be held back on board with a landing permit.”
“The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says that every State must require the master of a ship flying its flag to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost or to proceed to the rescue of persons in distress. The International Maritime Organization (IMO)'s Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) states that the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound by duty to proceed with all speed to their assistance. Singapore is a signatory of both the UNCLOS and SOLAS, and given her strategic location and the size of her ship registry, there is every possibility that any ships, including Singapore-flag ships, will be in a position to help rescue persons in distress at sea. While abandoning ship, however, seafarers may not have sufficient time or opportunity to retrieve their identification documents left on board. There will be occasions when the persons in distress that have been picked up by a passing ship might be undocumented migrants or refugees. Merchant ships do pick up survivors at sea who may or may not have their identification papers with them. There were some cases recently when ICA did not allow the survivors to land in Singapore although the Singapore MPA's Singapore Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre (MRCC) advised the ships to rescue them. In fact, in one very rare case, a foreign flagship managed by a Singapore company picked up fishermen of PRC origins whose vessel had sunk. When this ship arrived in Singapore, the survivors were not allowed to disembark. In the end, the ship owner had to pay for the air tickets to fly them back to China.”
“46 pm Page: 488 Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the Immigration Act. Section 22A is a new inclusion in the Immigration (Amendment) Act. It now specifies that the master, owner, agent or charterer of every vessel due to arrive at an authorised landing place for persons arriving in Singapore by sea shall provide passenger and crew information beforehand to the Controller, and within such time as may be prescribed. This means specifically that, instead of furnishing information on crew and passengers to the immigration officer on arrival, the Controller will now have the authority to demand for crew and passenger information even before the vessel arrives in Singapore. Such amendments do fortify the security measures that Singapore needs. Nevertheless, I have some concerns which I would like to highlight here in my capacity as the Immediate Past President of the Singapore Shipping Association and MD of Pacific International Lines. The shipping industry fully supports the intent of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 2012's goal of keeping out undesirable persons, goods and conveyances among other factors. Singapore's strategic location, security and stability have made it an extremely attractive destination for shipping-related companies. Singapore has also been the busiest port in the world for the past 10 years. Last year, I believe the total gross tonnage of vessels calling in Singapore exceeded 2.3 billion tons. However, the industry would like to highlight two major concerns. The first is survival at sea.”
“Sir, I believe that most, if not all, Singapore citizens and PRs and their foreign spouses in such marriages hope that, notwithstanding the arranged nature of their marriages, a genuine marital relationship would follow. But there is no guarantee that the arranged marriages would result in a genuine marital relationship. What happens if the marriage started with the intent of developing a genuine marital relationship but, subsequently, that intent does not subsist? What about a situation where the foreign spouse may not be interested in a genuine marital relationship but the Singaporean spouse is and would want to keep that marital union alive? Sir, I am all for the criminalisation of sham marriages to ensure that Singapore residents are not used as a "backdoor entry" into Singapore. Putting aside the obvious cases of sham marriages, my larger concern is whether the evidential difficulties of proving a marriage of convenience would render the utility of the proposed section 57C illusory, or its effectiveness more apparent than real. Would not existing provisions in the Penal Code and other legislation be sufficient to deal with those who enter into a sham marriage to gain an immigration advantage? In addition, I hope that the enactment of section 57C will not result in our society having an even stronger negative perception of arranged international marriages. Where immigration laws may operate as quasi-family law, I fear that it is a very blunt tool that could only worsen the odds that such marriages already encounter. Despite that note of reservation, Sir, I support the policy intention of strengthening our immigration controls that forms the foundation of this Bill. 3.”
“Page: 487 Sir, the proposed new section 57C(1), defines a "marriage of convenience", while subsection 5 defines what could constitute gratification. My concern relating to this provision is whether it will pose major difficulties to the enforcement agencies to invoke it. The proposed amendment in section 57C(4) recognises that some of these marriages may not be bound by love but instead possess a "quid pro quo" element. Such marriages may well be construed instrumentally by spouses as a means to an end. Put bluntly, spouses recognise that there are "transactional costs" for such an arranged international marriage. Sir, in marriages which are arranged between a Singaporean and a foreigner without the usual courtship ritual, while the criminal intent is presumably absent in many of these marriages, the reality is that the foreigner spouse is very likely to obtain an "immigration advantage" which the foreign spouse may not secure but for the marriage to a Singaporean citizen or permanent resident. Immigration advantage is defined in the proposed section 57C(6) as "the grant or extension of the validity of any visa, pass, permit or re-entry permit". Mr Speaker, even if one purpose of the marriage was to assist a party obtain an immigration advantage, section 57C(4) of the Bill states that it is a defence if the accused person believed "on reasonable grounds that the marriage would result in a genuine marital relationship". The Bill's Explanatory Statement states that it is a question of fact for the court to determine whether a marriage in question constitutes a genuine marital relationship, and that the court will have regard to "all the circumstances of the case in determining this question of fact".”
“The actual number of international marriages involving Singaporeans is probably higher as not all international marriages contracted outside of Singapore are subsequently registered in Singapore under our Women's Charter or the Administration of Muslim Law Act. Thus, the Singaporean family is increasingly likely to consist of mixed and multiple nationalities. Further, like the long-standing Marriage Restriction Policy that applies to Work Permit holders, immigration regulations and laws do effectively operate as de facto family law. Sir, my concern with this proposed amendment centres on the challenges over proof that a marriage was one of convenience. Like other Asian societies, Singaporean men tend to marry "down"", what we call "hypogamy", while Singaporean women tend to marry "up", otherwise known as "hypergamy". This results in proportionately more lowly-educated men and more better-educated women remaining unmarried. For some Singaporean men, the search for love and a life partner extends overseas, usually other Southeast Asian countries. Anecdotally, such overseas brides are becoming popular for Singaporean men who would otherwise probably remain single. There are newspaper reports of matchmaking agencies which specialise in facilitating marital unions between Singaporean men and women from overseas. In Singapore's context, some of these brides have been pejoratively described as "mail order brides". In many of these marriages, the Singaporean men are in search of love and companionship for life. Their foreign spouses are more often than not in search of a better life in Singapore, and marriage to a Singaporean spouse offers that prospect.”
“Page: 486 With Singaporeans overseas and Singapore's own urgent need for non-native human capital to drive its economy and grow its population, Singapore has to increasingly adopt international practices and norms if our immigration regime is to be competitive and be governed by the rule of law. Sir, I now move on to my other area of concern, which specifically relates to the proposed amendment to criminalise marriages of convenience. Clause 29 of the Bill seeks to criminalise marriages of convenience by any person in order to obtain an "immigration facility". This proposed new provision, rightfully, will also cover criminal syndicates and middlemen who facilitate or stand to gain from such illicit practices. While a marriage is a private matter between two persons, there are consequences beyond them, especially if the marriage is a sham one. Much as the Immigration Act generally applies to non-citizens, the reality of a significant number of international marriages involving Singapore citizens means that our immigration laws now impact upon Singapore citizens to a larger degree than before. Put simply, an international marriage is one where the spouses have different nationalities. In 1998, 33% of marriages registered in Singapore were international marriages. That number increased to four in 10 in 2008, and the figure was as high as 41% in 2005, and it has, in the last five years, stabilised at around four in 10 marriages registered here being international marriages. This means that international marriages are more popular than inter-ethnic marriages in Singapore.”
“Such laws, including the Bill we are now examining, are very focused on immigration control. Given the challenges and immense sensitivity that immigration poses in Singapore today, the proposed amendments do take on added poignancy when set against the backdrop of a global competition for talent. Sir, our immigration regime needs to be sensitive at two levels, both of which may have competing, if not contradictory, objectives. At one level, our immigration regime needs to be responsive to local constituencies in the nation-building quest. At another level, our immigration regime needs to be responsive to the competitive and aggressive immigration regimes in other developed countries that compete to attract the same talent pool as Singapore does. As Singapore is plugged into the international economic grid, it has to be open to the movement of people, ideas, goods and services. Indeed, Singapore has positioned itself as a "global city", making the quality of openness not just a virtue but a necessity. Sir, I hope we are moving away from the days when "aliens", especially those who were here legally, were treated as though they had little or no legal rights. With intense competition for talented immigrants, any perception that our immigration regime is capricious, unfair or unprincipled will undermine our efforts to attract immigrants, whether transient or permanent. This applies even to low-skilled foreigners whose presence in Singapore is transient. How we treat them in the immigration process reflects on us as a society. Thus, even as the Bill seeks to widen the scope of the Controller's powers, we should bear in mind that our immigration regime is always subjected to intense scrutiny.”
“Both provisions provide for the holders of re-entry permits and entry permits the opportunity to be heard as to why the condition of their re-entry or entry permits should not be varied, or revoked, or the additional condition not be imposed. Sir, I welcome this requirement for the right to be heard. I hope the ICA and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in dealing with immigration matters, will ensure that the right to be heard is taken seriously, whenever that is provided for, and to consider extending that right where appropriate. The right to be heard is not merely a right of procedural importance but it is also one of substantive importance – not just for the person concerned but for the standing of our immigration regime. In this regard, I am also aware that the Controller's decisions on some immigration cases could turn on intelligence gathered. Wherever possible, I hope that the Controller will disclose as much information as possible, rather than seeking the cover of non-disclosure due to security grounds. It is important that our immigration decisions are not only fair but also seen to be fair. I also welcome the introduction of the good conduct condition for permanent residents. By enabling the ICA to cancel the re-entry permit (REP) issued to a Singapore Permanent Resident if he contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace or is prejudicial to public order, we can help ensure that only persons of good standing are allowed to continue to be permanent residents. We expect that of new citizens, and we should similarly require that of permanent residents who want to be associated with Singapore. Sir, at this juncture, please let me now backtrack a little to reflect on the purpose of immigration laws.”
“My remarks this afternoon focus on two areas. They are: One, the power of the ICA to impose, vary, or set conditions for the validity of the re-entry permits as well as the entry permits. Two, the criminalisation of marriages of convenience. I do not have issues with the mechanics of the proposed amendments as I believe they are needed to ensure that the ICA is empowered with the requisite powers to do its job well. Instead, my remarks focus more on how the impact of the proposed legislation on the relevant stakeholders and how our immigration regime, which comprises our laws, policies and their execution, ought to have a robust reputation internationally. The Bill seeks to provide the ICA with enhanced powers to regulate the entry into, and departure from, Singapore. For example, clause 8 of the Bill provides for the Controller of Immigration to vary, or revoke re-entry permit conditions and to impose additional conditions. Similarly, clause 7 of the Bill provides for the Controller with the power to vary, impose any condition, or revoke an entry permit. I support this move to provide explicitly for the Controller, inter alia, with the power to revoke any condition on an entry permit, and to vary, or revoke any condition, or impose further conditions after the issuance of a re-entry permit. Sir, not only is this an expression of our sovereign rights but it also helps the immigration authorities to better manage the legitimate expectations of those already admitted into Singapore as well as those seeking to enter Singapore. Page: 485 At the same time, the discretionary powers of the Controller are tempered. They are regulated through the proposed section 11(5) and section 10(4).”
“So, it is no surprise that there are foreigners who, otherwise are unable to secure legal entry into Singapore, will attempt to enter illegally. Alternatively, those who may originally secure legal admission may attempt to stay beyond their visas or seek to secure a more permanent status through inappropriate means. Immigration laws affect many different groups of people. They range from tourists, to Work Permit holders, S Pass holders, Employment Pass holders as well as those on dependant visas, student visas, and Long-Term Visit Passes. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents in Singapore almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.35 million in June 2010. Similarly, the number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period. In contrast, the number of citizens grew modestly from 2,985,000 in 2000 to 3,230,000 in June 2010. The Immigration Act went through its last major amendments in November 2004. Although that was almost eight years ago, the immigration landscape has changed significantly. Compared to 2004, immigration is a lot more politically contentious today as we continue to seek a new consensus on how much immigration and what type of immigration is appropriate for Singapore. Our demographic inadequacies and our economic needs suggest that immigration is here to stay. In turn, this requires us to enhance our immigration controls as well, even as our immigration laws seek continually to facilitate the legal entry of bona fide non-citizens into Singapore. As such, our immigration policies and laws have to be kept updated, if not ahead, of the changes. Sir, the Immigration Act increasingly affects, albeit indirectly, Singaporeans as well. This is a point I will touch on later.”
“Another instance could be where one party is deceived into thinking there is a genuine relationship, without being induced by any gratification. In such situations, the marriage could still be a marriage of convenience even though no gratification changes hands. Should these perpetrators not be prosecuted as well? From what I understand, this requirement of gratification or consideration is not required to constitute a marriage of convenience in some other countries, for example, under the US' Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments. By the Bill requiring a gratification to change hands, is the provision too narrow? Finally, Sir, the proposed section 57C(4) provides that even if a party were to enter a marriage where he knows the purpose of it is to give the other party an immigration advantage, and has received a gratification to do so, he will have a defence in court if he can show reasonable grounds to believe that the marriage would result in a genuine marital relationship. It is thus open to a person who has received an inducement or reward to enter a marriage to still say that he believed he was entering a genuine marital relationship. The Explanatory Note to the Bill suggests that such payments could be consistent with a genuine marriage, for example, a dowry payment. As this is a potential loophole to disguise corrupt payments, it is important for the totality of the circumstances to be considered in deciding whether a marriage is indeed a marriage of convenience. Page: 484 3.32 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member) : Sir, I rise in support of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill which seeks to strengthen our border security. Singapore strives to be an attractive place to live, play and work.”
“We are not alone in tackling this issue as other countries also prohibit sham marriages as part of their immigration laws, for example, Canada and the United States. The common concerns are several. Firstly, persons who exploit immigration laws in this way make it harder for genuine immigrants to enter. Secondly, marriages of convenience may also cause financial and emotional strain to spouses or families who are deceived. Thirdly, once the foreigner enters the country on such pretences, the person will consume social services and be a drain on taxpayers' funds. The new section 57C will criminalise marriages which are contracted for the purpose of gaining an immigration advantage, and where one party receives, or is offered, a gratification, does so. Would the Government provide more details as to any trends or evidence indicating that such a phenomenon is a problem here? For instance, is there evidence of people filing for divorces shortly after gaining residency, and/or then trying to bring in a spouse from their home country? One notable feature of the proposed section 57C is that it requires a gratification to be offered or received by a party to the marriage. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister mentioned that gratification or otherwise would be taken into account, but from my reading of the clause, it seems that gratification is a necessary ingredient of the offence. However, it is possible that there could be a sham marriage without any gratification changing hands. For instance, a Singaporean or Permanent Resident may want to help an acquaintance get out of poverty in a home country, with no intention of having marital relations.”
“In this context, would the Minister elaborate on which person or class of persons the Government has in mind for such exclusive clearance? I am also concerned about the justification for such and the implications of this new exclusive clearance on the workload at our existing checkpoints, particularly the land checkpoints. Does the Government have any projections of a caseload expected under this exclusive clearance scheme? Will more manpower be recruited? Or will existing ICA officers be drawn away from the ordinary checkpoints to man these special posts? Second, facilities at authorised checkpoints. Under clause 4, the new section 5B provides that where a new checkpoint is designated, the Government can require the owner or occupier of the premises to make facilities and alterations to it according to the Government's requirements at the cost of the owner or occupier. These may include providing facilities to immigration officers stationed there. If the owner or occupier does not comply, he is guilty of a criminal offence. Would the Minister clarify what the rationale is for requiring the owner or occupier to pay for the facilities required by the Government and to criminalise his non-compliance? If the Government requires those facilities, should the Government not be paying for them or at least co-sharing the costs? Page: 483 Third, marriages of conveniences. Clause 29 introduces a new offence of entering into a marriage of convenience in exchange for gratification. The mischief targeted appears to be sham marriages to exploit immigration concessions to spouses to enter or remain in Singapore and the middlemen who profit from making such arrangements. Such marriages are a threat to the integrity of the immigration system.”