Murali Pillai
Singapore
“Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member Ms Poh's third question on jet fuel. We are working with the aviation stakeholders to monitor the fuel supply for aviation hubs carefully to ensure that it remains stable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Dennis Tan's question on maritime hub, I just want to say that for the now, for the current, port operations have been stable. There are no significant fuel supply shortages, and we have adequate fuel and bunker supply.”
“Sir, I would like to answer the hon Member Shawn Loh's question on the status of the aviation hub. There have been some flight disruptions. Apart from the disruptions, most of Changi Airport's flights have been operating normally. The disruptions have been limited to some Singapore-Middle East passenger and cargo services.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Chia for his kind words about the efforts we have made thus far to attract young talent. On the specific issue about the GRIT programme, that involves traineeship, the good thing about the maritime sector is that we have jobs available.”
“It was John Harrison's invention of the chronometer, highly accurate even at sea, that allowed longitudes to be plotted and journeys to be precise enough to chase a nimble whale. Likewise, Singapore must remain alive to the transformational power of new technologies, to master new tasks and chart new journeys through untested waters.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,219 lines we hold for Murali Pillai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 25.
“The answer lies partly in political principle and partly in a difference of political judgement. On political principle, we part ways on many counts, but just on the point of political courage, the WP sees it as courageous for the PAP to accept good ideas from the WP. The PAP does not. We see it as good sense. The PAP has pledged to do our best for Singaporeans and being in a small country, we must not care about the pedigree of ideas, merely about their quality. The Hansard is replete with illustrations where suggestions made across the aisle were accepted by the Government. One vivid example is WP's call to level the playing field for accused persons in 2020, which led to the passing of the Public Defenders Act this year. On the other hand, what we see as true political courage in the context of a GST hike, the WP dismisses as being unnecessary or bad timing. We are not so naive as to think that the GST will gain us political favour. We know that it will be a tough pill. But yet, we still ask this of the Singaporean people. We ask this because there are hard, immovable economic and fiscal realities in public life that can be either sugarcoated beyond recognition or presented in their true form. The PAP's choice, from 1993 till 2022, has always been the latter. We do so as a matter of principle and also because of our deep and abiding faith in the Singaporean people to understand the need for these hard choices and why we have to make them. This is not mere theoretical conviction, but a judgement call born of years of experience in running the government and understanding the global marketplace.”
“I remember this question came up in the last session of Parliament and I ventured to suggest – think of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Nobody expected it to happen, but it happened, and we had to deal with it. There could be a collapse of an Antartica ice shelf and we will have to deal with the ramifications of it. We may have to accelerate the poder construction. All these cost money. The point is – no one knows – and if somebody says he knows, he is probably a snake oil salesman. The 50-50 NIRC ratio is equitable because it balances current needs with future needs, putting it on an equal platform. Tilting it in favour of current needs is, I think, selling our children too short. In building the Singapore of today, our founding fathers carried us on their shoulders. Through sheer grit and determination, they persevered even though at times, their knees were buckling and they could have easily given up. We should do the same thing for our children. This is not to say current needs are unimportant. The Government is on record to say that no one will be left behind. For cost-of-living issues alone, $3.5 billion has been allocated for Singaporeans. This twin approach must carry on at the same time – fiscal responsibility with inclusivity. To argue that Government should sequence its actions is to ignore the reality that our Government has to just develop the tentacles to deal with all the multiple existential issues happening at the same time to steer our country out of stormy waters. We have no choice. For this reason, I support the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked how is it that the PAP and the WP, which are aligned on many points relating to the need for tax revenues, can be so far apart in assessment of whether or not a GST hike is the proper thing to do for our people.”
“Political courage means not opposing for the sake of opposing." I have no trouble with the statements, but, surely, this applies both ways. History reveals that the WP has always been taking a conscientious objection to GST, regardless of the effects it has brought about. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim quoted about the Japanese experience of over 25 years to justify his proposition that GST will lead to runaway inflation. I thought it was noteworthy that he did not analyse the Singapore experience instead. Rhetoric, for effect, seldom helps. Political courage commands a price, but mere talk of political courage is cheap. I now come the crux of my decision. Objectively, what has happened in history favoured the PAP. What we are doing now, as a matter of approach, is no different. It is not just theory; it is almost 30 years of practice. It is clear to me that we will continue to have fiscal pressures. We will have to deal with it, failing which, we will pay a serious price. We also need to get the balance right, so as not to affect our attraction as a hub for talent and investments. We just increased our personal income tax, property tax and vehicle tax. To be fair, this was something that the Workers' Party has broadly advocated for. To further increase these tax bases will upset this balance. I therefore support the increase in GST with the features and schemes addressed to help the less well-off. I also support the judgement call at this point not to deplete income from reserves through land sales and increasing the NIRC ceiling. It is asked how much is enough when it comes to our reserves. No one knows. And I join Mr Sitoh Yih Pin in expressing his view on the same matter.”
“We focused on creating a more inclusive Singapore with heavy investments in our people, especially the vulnerable, with programmes, such as KidStart, WIS, Silver Support Schemes and so on. We recovered from the recession quickly. In 2012, the GST Voucher scheme was made permanent. This hardwired the GST to a larger redistributive regime and it is fair and progressive. Today, our economic landscape has been transformed through ITMs. We achieved a remarkable rise in GDP per capita with a larger private sector and a high-value workforce. But more importantly, quoting Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in his speech delivered on 14 August 2015 to the Economic Society of Singapore, he said, and I quote: "We achieved broad-based social upliftment, jobs for all, rising incomes for all, homes for all, quality schools and public healthcare for all, and neighbourhoods and parks shared by all". It is not my intention to create a rosy picture of the past. The Government is not perfect. But by and large, the doomsday predictions of the poor becoming poorer owing to GST hikes simply did not happen. Returning to 2022, actually, set against the historical context, there is nothing significantly new in what the WP has suggested for this House's consideration. This leads me to a paragraph in the Hammer article co-written by the hon Members Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leon Perera entitled "Why the GST Hike is Not Necessary" that was published on 1 July 2022. They said, and I quote: "Political courage means recognising that the facts and assumptions that supported an earlier decision have changed... Political courage means being able to recognise that contrary arguments have merit, even though those arguments come from one's political opponents.”
“At that point, there, too, were questions about the need to reduce direct taxes, the landscape was even more competitive. Everyone was waiting to grab our lunch. Taxes, then, had to be reduced. He announced the decision to tweak the NII, which was something Mr Low Thia Khiang advocated, to what it is today. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim argued against the GST hike and suggested instead that the Government use even more NII, get revenue from land sales, corporate tax, stamp duties and so on, much like what is being sought today. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam demurred. He pointed out that it was dangerous to rely on sentiment-driven transactions for Budget purposes and he said, and I quote: "We have no idea whether these improvements would be sustainable and it would be very poor fiscal policy to commit to future expenditure in the hope that short-term spikes in revenue would be sustained" – exactly as what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said this year. When Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that GST should only be considered after we have run out of revenue streams, Senior Minister Tharman stated, and I quote: "This is not the way a responsible Government conducts its fiscal policies". As hon Member Ms Jessica Tan just said, it is dangerous for the Government to start scrambling to plug revenue gaps when there is an urgent need to do so. So, what has happened since 2007? We had a recession in 2008 due to the Global Financial Crisis. Core inflation, at its highest, was at 6.5%. But we powered through with the GST hike and helped Singaporeans affected by inflation.”
“If we continually run a deficit, the Singapore dollar would go down, inflation up and everything in Singapore, including our CPF savings, would be worthless. Therefore, we decided to do the difficult thing and proceed. Again, the WP was against it. Mr Low Thia Khiang argued for the increase of the Net Investment Income (NII) ceiling, not unlike what the WP is asking for now. He also suggested an increase in property tax and sin taxes, too. He was, again, concerned about the impact of GST on inflation. Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as he then was, explained why we were unable to avoid a GST hike, much like how Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong explained during the Budget debate this year. What happened after that? In 2002, we dreamt big. The Budget, which included raising of the GST, also contained the new thinking of the Economic Review Committee (ERC), which brought about fundamental changes to our economic policies. It aimed to develop a vibrant sector driven by entrepreneurial energies, fuelled by regional and global competition, all seeking the best return on their ideas. It aimed to attract more global talent, even as we improved and nurtured our own people. It wanted to make our economy more resilient and dynamic through investing in human capital. But one thing remained the same as in 1993 – the Government saw its role as creating a pro-business, stable environment for the market to operate. Part of this requires the implementation of sound fiscal and monetary policies. As a result of the GST hike, we kept fiscal discipline, turned in positive economic growth and improved the livelihoods of Singaporeans. I now come to 2007. That year, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as he then was, announced the GST hike to 7%.”
“In other words, whatever the hon Ministers then, Dr Richard Hu and Mr S Dhanabalan, said on behalf of the Government on that occasion in 1993 would happen, happened. Our tax rates went down, our tax revenues did not. Our social spending went up – benefiting the poorest amongst us the most. The doomsday prediction that the poor and the lower-income people would be left behind did not materialise. On the issue of timing, it should be borne in mind that, in 1993, there were strong economic growth and budgetary surpluses. It could have been argued that there was no pressing need to pass the GST Act. But when you cast your eyes into the long-term, your perspective changes. In 1993, when our economy was strong and our people were young, it was already felt that GST was needed for the long term. Today, when we are older and the economy is struggling, it turns out that our 1993 decision was correct. I then fast forward to 2003. Those were tough times, more like 2022. Then, we were recovering from the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and the recession in 2001. We also had SARS. Our fiscal situation was very tight, the Singapore economy was struggling, revenue needed to be increased to fund expenses. The Government decided to stagger the GST increase much like this time; 1% in 2003 and 1% in 2004. Then, like now, some voices had suggested to defer, but that will heighten the risk of leaving the Government with insufficient funds for healthcare, education and defence. Singapore would then be in a structural deficit. In a small open economy, this would have had serious consequences for our exchange rate, for the stability of the Singapore dollar.”
“Let me try and answer this by offering a historical perspective. In 1993, the GST Bill was introduced in this House. Then, as now, it was an unpopular move. Then, as now, there were good reasons to do so – we needed to strengthen our tax base to ensure that our tax structure was resilient and promote enterprise and growth. In 1993, direct taxes made up about 60% of our tax revenue, of which 73% was income and corporate tax. Introducing a consumption tax would keep Singapore competitive and also allow us a stable and diversified stream of tax revenues and allow us to invest more heavily in growth. The WP raised strenuous objections to its passing. The hon Member then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, in his speech, felt that there was no basis to suggest that high income and corporate taxes had the effect of driving talent and entrepreneurism away. He was concerned about the regressive nature of the tax, especially on low-income people. The PAP's response was to recognise the possible shortcomings and work in policy fixes, such as GST offsets for low-income households. GST was introduced on 1 April 1994 and what happened thereafter? Historically, the rate of corporate and personal income taxes was at 40% before 1985; this came down to 33% after the recession in 1985. After GST was enacted, it came down further, to 28%, now it is up to 24% for personal income tax and 17% for corporate tax. In fact, the majority of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. In the meantime, our Government grew our economy by leaps and bounds. We attracted investments and talent, we had Government transfers to our people, median salaries increased.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Second Reading of this Bill, we are in a unique situation. This is because the principal issue that arises for consideration in this Bill, that is, the GST hike, has already been discussed not just during this year's annual Budget debate, but in the speeches made since 2018, after the Government's decision to increase GST was announced. This long foreshadowing has already led to the Workers' Party (WP) deciding to vote against the GST increase. Voting, however, is a blunt knife. It does not cut well because there are, in fact, points of consensus between hon Members of the PAP and WP on several important things. As stated by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, broadly, both parties agreed to higher levels of social spending for the future and acknowledged the need to raise revenue to meet the expenditure; especially against the spectre of an economy that is likely to grow more slowly. Where we come apart, clearly, is whether GST should, and can be, a source of revenue. Globally, such value added taxes have been used at higher rates than Singapore – Sweden at 25%, UK at 20% and Japan at 10%. Mr Speaker, Sir, no political party in this House has a monopoly on care and concern for the welfare of Singaporeans, especially the low- and middle-income groups, the sandwich class, the elderly who need heavily subsidised healthcare, as well as the young Singaporeans who need to see a future and opportunities in Singapore. But how to get there? That is the nub. And, in this, we appearing to be arguing from exact opposite sides of each other. So, how is it that two parties, which are aligned on all the main objectives, can be so far apart in the assessment of whether or not a GST hike is the proper thing to do for our people?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the hon Minister in relation to the PPHS supply. The Minister mentioned that the supply is still quite tight. The Government's decision to double the PPHS units is most welcomed. My question is in relation to the number of applicants who satisfy the current criterion of salary ceiling of $7,000 or below. How many people who satisfy the salary ceiling still cannot get the PPHS units and what options are there for them? In this regard, I had, in my Question No 38 set down in the Order Paper for today, made two suggestions. One is in relation to support for applicants who cannot rely on their families to get rental flats from the public rental market. The other one is in relation to some form of grant to enable them to get the rental flat on their own.”
“Thank you, Sir. May I ask the hon Minister whether he can look into having better pathways for GCE “A” Level students who have passed the exams, but cannot get into universities. Perhaps there could be foundation courses run by local universities, so they can later on apply to universities. Or for example, there could be transferred credits, so they can go to Polytechnics. The second supplementary question is in relation to GCE "A" Level students who fail their exams. Can MOE consider offering exams in June, so they do not have to wait the entire year, and hopefully they can then move on and consider the next step without loss of too much time?”
“I thank the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. My supplementary question is as follows: whether MinLaw would be intending to make the information on beneficial ownership of shell companies which owns properties, accessible by public as well as financial institutions and professionals who act as gatekeepers, so they can do their customer due diligence better.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister of State. First, I join the hon Member Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim in asking whether there has been any study to correlate the suicide cases with any stressors, for example, because of exposure to traumatic incidents, whether the reaction arises from post-traumatic kinds of stresses. Sorry, I am getting ahead of myself. Really, at the end of the day, if we were to identify the psychosocial factors that contribute to such suicides, I think we will be in a better position to prevent suicides in the first place. That is the thrust of my question. The second question is in relation to harnessing geo-positioning or geo-fencing technology with respect to APOs. I understand that they are being recruited from a wider background and many of them have static duties. So, I wonder whether technology can be harnessed such that if they leave their post and they are bearing arms, there could be some proactivity in managing such situations and, hopefully, prevent any untoward incidents as well.”
“Second and finally, I seek clarification on what will be the remit of the debt collection companies under the licensing regime. Will they be limited to collecting unsecured debts against principal debtors or guarantors or is it intended they may also be involved in the recovery of secured debts? Can they, for example, exercise the creditors' rights of repossession of assets that are charged in favour of creditors or subject to hire purchase agreements? If so, what safeguards will be introduced to ensure that such activities are done strictly within the bounds of the law and having regard to debtors' rights?”
“Yes, because a number of questions that I originally intended to pose have already been asked, so, I only have two questions to pose to the hon Minister of State. First, what would be the approach when staff of debt collection agencies deal with persons who dispute their debts? The assumption for a debt collection agency when it is engaged by its client is that there is a genuine debt to be collected. In most instances, it would be a relatively straightforward matter through an acknowledgement by the debtor or as a result of a judgment issued by the Court. There are, however, occasions where the debts are disputed. I have come across cases involving people who dispute the debts. For example, they may claim they are victims of impersonation or that the goods and services received are not within the quality expected under the respective contracts. Alternatively, they may not dispute the debts in principle but raise issue with the quantum instead. In such situations and in the absence of a Court judgment, can the alleged debtors require the staff of debt collection companies to stop engaging them and refer the case back to the creditors? In practice, the debt collection companies usually ignore the protestations of the debtors and continue to insist that the debts should be paid purely on the strength of the instructions of their principals, in this case, their creditors. This may be unfair. In my respectful view, there should be clear rules of engagement where there is a potential for debts to be disputed. We may have to weave in requirements, such as the debt collection companies being personally satisfied that the debt collection assignments are genuine, before proceeding with the engagement. What guidance will the Ministry provide to deal with such circumstances?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Members who spoke before me in expressing support for the Bill. I have trimmed my original speech – you may be happy to know, Sir.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I seek clarification from the hon Minister of State on two areas. The first area is in respect of her reply to my query in my speech about whether or not a person would be warned of the consequences of not giving a blood sample to extract DNA information. The hon Minister of State mentioned that the current practice would be followed. May I just point out to her that this Bill actually creates a new offence, the new offence being the offence of failing to give a blood specimen to extract DNA information. So, my question to her is whether the current practice is be updated to specifically mention about this new offence. Secondly, in relation to my question as to why the databases for DNA information extracted under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act are not merged or consolidated with the database under the Registration of Criminals Act. The hon Minister of State mentioned that there are already provisions in these acts, meaning the MDA and the CLTPA, and therefore there is no need for consolidation. My question is a different one. My question is – what are the legislative safeguards for collection under the MDA and the CLTPA? In principle, I do not see a difference between a convicted criminal and a ISA detainee, which is covered by the current Bill, and a drug addict of a Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act detainee. For all of them, their DNA information should be safeguards. I seek the clarification from the learned Minister of State. At the very least, can she perhaps assure the House that this will be looked at at some point in the future.”
“May I please ask why it is not proposed that similar provisions dealing with the collection of body samples of detainees under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) and drug addicts under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) be also ported over to the Act? As it stands, the provisions dealing with the collection of samples continue to be dealt with by the same provisions. Under section 27C of the CLTPA, it is provided that the Commissioner of Police shall cause to be maintained both a register and DNA database for persons arrested or detained under CLTPA. Similarly, under section 40D of the MDA, the Commissioner of Police must again maintain both a register and DNA database for drug addicts who are subject to supervision or are in drug rehabilitation centres. On the face of it, it does not appear that the added safeguards are being proposed to be enacted in the CLTPA and MDA. I am also unclear why there should be separate registers and DNA databases in other pieces of legislation. I would have thought it would be more synergistic to consolidate all the registers and databases under one piece of legislation. I would be grateful for the hon Minister of State's response.”
“The accused must be served with a written notice that he has to state his defence in his statement, failing which the Court may draw an adverse inference against him for not doing so. May I ask if it is contemplated that a written notice will also be issued to the accused? In this regard, I again wish to highlight that in 2002, the hon Minister for Home Affairs then, Mr Wong Kan Seng stated as follows, "But if the suspect refuses to give that consent, he can be brought to Court and the Court may order him to provide the blood sample, and if he still refuses, of course, appropriate warning will be given and inference will be drawn by the Court for his refusal to provide that blood sample." In this Bill, it is proposed that the referral to the Magistrate is to be taken away. In that sense, warning becomes a lot more important under the current paradigm as opposed to what was proposed in 2002. Finally, Sir, I note from the Bill that there are additional safeguards being proposed, such as: (a) The introduction of a tribunal to provide independent reassessment of the person's application to expunge his data after the Police has rejected his application; and (b) the safe and secure handling of DNA and fingerprint data. This is welcome. I also note that the provisions in the Internal Security Act dealing with the taking of body samples is proposed to be ported over to the Registration of Criminals Act. This makes eminent sense too. In this way, the enhanced safeguards will apply to body samples collected from ISA detainees.”
“Currently, the Act requires the Registrar of Criminals to destroy the photograph and finger impression of a person acquitted or discharged within three months from the date of acquittal or discharge. Similarly, clause 5 requires the Registrar to remove the DNA information of a person from the DNA database within three months of his acquittal or discharge. As the DNA information is stored in electronic form in the DNA database, removal of the information from the database is equivalent to the destruction of a physical record like a photograph." My question to the hon Minister of State is as follows: the current Bill changes the default from automatic deletion to automatic retention. Why is there a shift in policy? Is it necessitated by a change in the law and order situation? Why is not preferable for the current mechanism of automatic removal be maintained? The current system is fair to all. The proposed system appears to benefit those with the resources, the time and the know-how to request such a deletion. I would be grateful for the hon Minister of State's clarification. I now turn to clauses 24 and 28 of the Bill. These clauses combined provide that where an accused refuses to provide his consent for the taking of a sample to determine whether or not he has committed an eligible or registrable crime, the Court may draw an inference from the refusal that the Court thinks proper. The accused will also be liable for an offence of failing to given a sample without reasonable excuse under clause 27. The approach taken in this Bill brings to my memory the salutary approach adopted in section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 23 deals with the recording of a cautioned statement from a witness.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of the amendment Bill for the reasons articulated by the hon Minister of State. I would add that the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza, who is away on State duty today and therefore unable to speak on this Bill, has expressed to me his strong support for the Bill too. He is of the view that this Bill enhances the ability of enforcement agencies to act swiftly to identify suspects of a broader array of crime accurately and apprehend them. I agree with him. Once this Bill is passed, it is my hope that the percentage of unmatched DNA samples from scenes of crime, currently running at 60%, would be reduced. I seek clarification on three areas from the hon Minister of State. First, it is proposed that the current section 13G of the Act, which deals with removal of identifying information or DNA information from the register upon acquittal or discharge be repealed and be substituted with the proposed section 37(3) and 37(4) of the Bill. Currently, the identifying and DNA information of an accused person will automatically be deleted within three months from the accused's acquittal or discharge. It is proposed that instead of an automatic deletion, the accused has to apply for the removal. Under the proposed section 39(1) in the Bill, the Registrar must remove the same unless he is of the view that the information is relevant to an ongoing prosecution or investigation or it is in the interest of national security. I note from the Hansard that the hon Minister for Home Affairs then, Mr Wong Kan Seng, in moving the amendment Bill in 2002 to set up the DNA database and elaborating on the kind of information that will be retained, stated as follows, "What happens to body samples of persons acquitted or discharged?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Minister of State, in relation to the approach of involving a number of agencies to tackle hoarding, how would it be expressed in practice? Would the resident know which is the lead agency that would be coordinating the efforts? And how would the resident know, in relation to steps that has been taken and also, in relation to the historical matters? Because some of these cases stretch back not just months, sometimes even years. How would the residents be assured that the historical facts are all recorded and being followed through?”
“Yes, Sir. [(proc text) Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 3 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment* because my purpose is served. * In page 4, line 17: after "Singapore", to insert "constituted under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 or State Courts Act 1970". Just to state that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the word "Court" as appears in the Bill is meant to refer to the State Courts, the Supreme Court, the Youth Courts, as well as the Family Courts. The trouble I had was that there was no such definition in the Bill itself. And the phrase "criminal proceedings" was also not defined. As a result, there was a controversy as to whether or not "criminal proceedings" would extend to proceedings in the military courts. And I am glad to hear the clarifications from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that it would not. But I would commend to her in this House that terms of art should be actually defined in statutes so that there be no controversy when a reader or the Courts would look at these terms of art and try to interpret these in accordance with parliamentary intention. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“If I am right, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary to outline the prescribed circumstances she has in mind for the purposes of cancellation of the Grant of Aid bearing in mind the aims of this Bill. Once this Bill is passed, the Government will both prosecute and defend its citizens – there will be no contradiction if we see both acts as necessary for the pursuit of justice and protection of the public good. Of the two functions, we need to see that the prosecution of persons who do harm as mainly driven by the pursuit of public goods such as safety, peace and security. The public prosecutors are not vengeful vigilantes but impartial officers of the state. So too are Public Defenders. They are not activists or lobbyists for specific causes, but advocates presenting the best defence possible for their clients. They are driven by the fairness of due process, which includes the exercise of mercy and compassion – a point that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary made admirably in her speech. Together, these officers – prosecutors and defenders – make for a true commitment to the rule of law in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“May I please confirm with the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that Government's intention is to restrict the provision of Criminal Legal Aid to accused persons facing criminal proceedings in the State Courts and the Supreme Court? Second, may I ask how will the PD deal with an accused with mental illness? As can be imagined, the PD can face formidable challenges when he is instructed to act for an accused with mental illness. He needs to ensure that he is authorised to act for the accused. He needs to take instructions on the conduct of the case as well as provide advice. The question is who should be the proxy for the accused in these circumstances? In other jurisdictions, there are specific provisions that will enable a PD to be empowered to act for and take instructions on behalf of a mentally ill accused through a Court appointed guardian or intermediary. From my perusal of the Bill, although there are provisions dealing with applications for the grant of criminal defence aid to a minor, there are no similar provisions dealing with persons with mental issues. This is, with respect, a little bit incongruous, because there is no legal difference in the situation between a minor and a mentally incapacitated person in that both of them cannot act on their own. I seek a clarification from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary as to how she proposes that the PDs deal with accused with mental illnesses in the absence of the empowering provisions in the Bill. Finally, I note that under clause 16(1) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Chief Public Defender may cancel a grant of aid in prescribed circumstances. I take it that it is proposed that the prescribed circumstances are to be provided in subsidiary legislation.”
“Usually, the Prosecution may have already dealt with these issues even before an indigent person is charged in Court. However, the indigent accused person may only be entitled to criminal defence aid from the PDO after being charged in Court. In other words, there may not be an opportunity to make a joint appointment in the circumstances I outlined. It seems to me that having the PDO involved earlier in certain cases may allow for better cost management. I seek the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on this. Finally, I turn to the provisions in the Bill. I wish to make three points. First on the definition of "Court" appearing in clause 2 of the Bill, I note that it is widely defined to include any Court of competent jurisdiction before which any "proceedings" are heard. "Proceedings" is defined as proceedings mentioned in clause 8(1) or 12(8) of the Bill which deals with circumstances in which a grant of aid may be issued. In clause 8(1), it is provided, amongst others, that a grant of aid may be issued in respect of any "criminal proceedings" instituted in respect of an offence. So, what constitutes "criminal proceedings" is not specifically defined. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the aims of this Bill. Potentially, this may also include proceedings involving military offences in the Subordinate Military Courts and the Military Court of Appeal set up under parts 5 and 7 of the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972. It may also potentially include proceedings under part 7 of the Industrial Relations Act 1960 for contempt in the Industrial Arbitration Court set up under the same Act.”
“At the 35th percentile, these households would basically have little excess income that can be used for payment of legal fees. What we need to ensure is that PDO is adequately staffed to ensure that it can handle the expected volume of cases that will be generated. May I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary what are her plans to ensure this? There is also another aspect of providing other defence resources which I wish to touch on. Regularly, in criminal cases, there is a need to procure public documents which are ordinarily subject to payment under the Fees Act. Examples include the First Information Report, Traffic Accident Reports and cautioned statements of the accused. There is also a need to procure expert evidence such as medical opinion, handwriting expert opinion and so on. May I ask what is the plan to procure such support for the PDO such that costs can be managed? In particular, one issue I am concerned about is where the Government has provided resources to the Prosecution, say in form of a psychiatrist, from IMH or the College of Psychiatrists, to opine on the state of mind of the accused. Would the Government be willing to share similar resources with the PDO? It seems to me that waiver of fees and sharing of resources will have the salutary effect of bringing down the costs of defending the accused. I therefore, would like to encourage the Government to explore this idea. One practical point which I wish to offer is whether the Prosecution and PDO can explore, in appropriate cases, the joint appointment of experts that will bind both sides. This trend is already being promoted in the Civil Courts. One concern I have though involves the issue of timing.”
“As responsible Members of Parliament, therefore, we will have to bear this commitment in mind when we make a case for our Government to commit further public funds in other areas. Let me now turn to the proposed workings of the PDO. For us to ensure that indigent accused persons are provided with good quality representation in criminal proceedings, we need two things: first, adequate resources; and second, competent Public Defenders. Dealing with the second issue first, may I ask what steps are or will be taken to ensure that the Public Defenders consistently provide a good quality representation to indigent persons? I would also like to offer several suggestions on this matter. First, in my research, I have come across models in other countries where committees consisting of independent and eminent legal experts are set up with a view to regularly audit the work of the Public Defenders. I wonder if the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary is minded to follow suit. Second, in some countries, the PDO publishes annual reports providing information on its key performance indicators. In fact, this is mandated in some pieces of legislation that provided for the set-up of the equivalent of the PDO. I recommend that this practice be followed too. Turning to adequate resources, the hon Minister for Law in his April 2022 speech cautioned against following the examples in several countries where escalating costs eventually had the effect of undermining the very objective of setting up the PDO in the first place. I fully agree. We need to strive to strike an appropriate balance. In this regard, I support the Ministry's intent to cover accused persons in households with a PCHI of $1,500 or lower.”
“Can I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for some data relating to accused persons who have legal representation and those without as a percentage of the cases prosecuted by the state, how many have legal representation and how many do not? Where the accused persons claim trial, what is the percentage of success in terms of acquittal for those who have legal representation and those who do not? I am aware that this is a crude piece of data. The difference in the acquittal rates is a function of many factors, of course, but one wonders to what extent this is due to the lack of a professional defence presented for some of these cases. In any case, we should have this data as a point of comparison and to revisit this after the PDO has had time to run once this Bill is passed. The Government will then be able to gauge what other considerations that it may have to monitor compliance with the policy objectives of the Bill. In addition to the duty to ensure access, the Government also has a corresponding duty, to maintain fiscal prudence. The basic point Prof Jayakumar made about the need to ensure fiscal sustainability when committing public resources is something we must continue to bear in mind in structuring this new office of the PDO. It does cost serious money to fund the defence of accused persons and we heard the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mention about the Hong Kong experience just now. We all agreed that the set-up of the PDO and the provision of criminal aid to indigent accused persons is a commitment we have to make to enhance the rule of law in Singapore. This is a cost that we are collectively prepared to incur in priority to other needs.”
“They are prosecuted in the public interest and the state expends these monies in the public interest and in order to protect the law-abiding majority... It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the state has decided ought to be charged in Court and use public funds at the same time to get him off. The exception is where life is involved and for capital cases, counsel is assigned." The Government's position changed in November 2013 when it announced its decision to fund the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, a volunteer scheme run by the Law Society since 1985 to help indigent accused persons. At the launch of this funding programme in 2015, the hon Minister for Law stated that, "This represents a significant shift in the Government's philosophy." But there remained the issue of the model. Which model serves us best? In 2006, the hon Minister Indranee Rajah, then a backbencher, put it pithily. She said in this House, "It just seems a little odd that for something as serious as a criminal charge, these persons would actually have to defend on a volunteer scheme." She then called on the Government to extend legal aid to cover criminal matters as well. Sixteen years later in April 2022, the hon Minister for Law finally announced the Government's decision to set up a Public Defender's Office for indigent accused persons in certain criminal proceedings that will be co-funded by the Government. This was described as yet another significant shift. This Bill was then introduced in July 2022, after extensive consultations. I applaud this move. We agree that on the point of fairness, access to justice cannot be denied to those who cannot afford it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon Members will recall the marathon debate on the criminal justice system Motion moved by my honourable friends across the aisle, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, on 4 November 2020. In my speech during the debate, I said that our society has and continues to be strongly anchored in the rule of law. I observed that since Independence, great strides have been taken to improve the administration of justice in Singapore. I acknowledged, however, that further work needs to be done in our quest to ensure that such administration is accessible to all. This arena will always be a work in progress. For new proposals to be implemented, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of the crime victims, accused persons, members of public and effective marshalling of public resources. The introduction of this Bill represents an important development in this quest. It formalises the arrangement for provision of legal representation by the Government to accused persons of limited means in criminal proceedings. This is to enhance access to justice for these vulnerable persons. I believe this is a development that hon Members from both sides of the House would welcome. It is also noteworthy that the Government's position on the issue of providing legal aid to accused persons in criminal proceedings has evolved over the years. Let me trace this evolution. Twenty-seven years ago in this House, the hon Minister for Law then, Prof S Jayakumar, stated in unambiguous terms the Government's original position that it was incongruous for the state to fund the legal defence of accused persons. He said that accused persons are only brought to book after a thorough and careful process. He went on to state, "Why are they prosecuted?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the hon Minister's statement on the conditions of prisons, and, as I hear him, it appears that there is a balance being struck between the austere conditions of prison and, at the end of the day, getting prisoners to be rehabilitated and we have heard about the commendable efforts put in by SPS to reduce recidivism. I have two questions. The first is in relation to the Minister's decision to allow cameras into the prisons. Issues of prison conditions have been raised from time to time. May I just please ask what was the rationale in allowing cameras into prisons for members of the public to see what the prison conditions are? Secondly, it is in relation to safety. The hon Minister mentioned that one reason for the austere condition is for the safety of prisoners. The hon Minister spoke about the suicide rates are compared to other countries. How about assault rates, compared to other countries? How does the austere condition allow SPS to reduce opportunities for assaults?”
“We need to exhaust all other ways to reduce costs before making the decision to increase S&CC. We also will have an opportunity to convince property officers to stay in their jobs, because their employer is a big organisation that will invest heavily in the upgrading of their skills, and provide promotion and transfer opportunities. Issues of turnaround time for a centralised body to deal with complaints, which was a problem in the 1980s, can be managed more effectively now through advances in technology. Of course, we also have the Municipal Services Office. On the second point of local community and identity, the Town Councils can retain the responsibility to take up project work, such as NRP, CIPC, ROS and so on, which, usually, involve deep consultations with residents. Such works will enable the Town Council to develop its precinct's own unique character. Alternatively, if it is felt that the responsibility should still be sited with the Town Council, I think there is merit to relook at the funding models, in particular, the criteria for S&CC grants, and ensuring that S&CC by residents are not used for renewal of infrastructure and dealing with design issues in BTO developments. This allows us to retain the political accountability for Members of Parliament in reflecting the residents' concerns and preferences relating to their homes and public spaces. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a simple reimagining of the model of management of one of our key public resources. I have argued for a new model, which retains all the three main features of the 1989 Town Councils Act, while closing some of its current operational gaps. I look forward to hearing the hon Minister's response to my speech. 7.37 pm”
“Doubtless, it is a much bigger organisation which would have allowed for these officers to attend skills upgrading, provide regular career progression and even lateral transfers to other areas of operations. If we are serious about wanting to ensure a reasonable standard of maintenance in our public housing estates, the human resource management issue must be tackled decisively. There must be an Industry Transformation Map for this sector. We need to build a deeper pool of expertise in management of townships. Sir, the intent of my speech is to make a case for the hon Minister to urgently review the current model of estate management. I am not suggesting that this is a broken system now. But if we do not do anything, I fear it will be. So, what areas should the hon Minister be looking at? I suggest two. We recall that the three main motivations for the Town Council are – local political accountability, community and identity, and efficiency through decentralisation. First, on the latter point, I think that there is merit in relooking at centralisation of resources again with HDB to conduct maintenance services. This will reduce opportunities for the misalignment of incentives I spoke about. It will eliminate turf wars that happen from time to time between HDB and Town Councils on issues, such as source of water leaks, whether from external walls or from within the units. It will also allow for the provision of maintenance services at a much higher economy of scale and a deeper level of expertise. This will, in turn, taper the increase in maintenance costs. Already, with Progressive Wage Models implemented for cleaning jobs, maintenance costs have increased at a faster pace than revenue.”
“Third and related to the boundaries issue, the same argument arises for the blurring of boundaries between maintaining old infrastructure and building new ones. Given this, a question that begs to be asked is this: is the "town" the right boundary, or the right unit of measurement, for such works? Hence, are Town Councils the right vehicles? Aside from the three points above which relate to mainly infrastructure, I now come to the issue of human resource management at Town Councils. Anecdotally, I have noted that there is a relatively high turnover amongst all Town Councils at the level of resident-facing property officers. These officers form the backbone of all Town Councils. They are the ones who, on a day-to-day basis, ensure that rubbish is duly collected every day from each block, common areas are swept and cleaned, the lifts are working and the various issues that pop up without notice from time to time are attended to. Having spoken to several of them and their managers, the common grouses are tough work conditions and the lack of career prospects from within the organisation. The latter point requires some explanation. For property officers employed directly by Town Councils, the sense amongst them is that the organisations are too small to accommodate their personal growth. For the property officers who are employed by the management agents of Town Councils, the scale issue may be addressed by the management agents' ability to deploy property officers across properties that they maintain. Still, however, the management agents lose property officers to bigger organisations, such as HDB, which values their skills and experience. In the pre-1989 situation, HDB would have been the employer of these property officers.”
“Again, recently, I filed a Parliamentary Question to understand the Ministry's position on whose responsibility it is to repair scupper drains around mature estates, which have been misaligned owing to soil movements. The hon Minister's position is that the responsibility lies with the Town Council. Respectfully, I suggest that Town Councils should not be undertaking these infrastructure-related works, which, by the way, are not cheap, unless they are fully funded by the Government. I accept that one possible solution is incorporating these works through the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which is 100% funded by the Government. But this is not an elegant solution, because NRP cycles do not coincide with infrastructure life cycles or timed to occur when repairs are needed because infrastructure tolerances are exceeded. Also, the NRP budget is finite and residents may not necessarily be happy that the budget is utilised to repair drains or other parts of the infrastructure when it can be used to renew amenities, such as playgrounds, BBQ pits and so on. I pause here to summarise the three main points I have made so far, so that hon Members can see the solution that may already be emanating. First, having Town Councils separate from HDB creates two sets of incentives – one for the developer and one for the maintenance contractor. These incentives can be perverse in some cases. From a purely economic point of view, Town Councils can achieve less economies of scale. Second, the issue of parity between old flats and new ones becomes important, and the drawing of lines becomes less that of a town, than that of old estates versus new. In this case, the boundaries of a town become less relevant than the type of flats.”
“The hon Minister suggested that such feedback can be channelled by the Town Council to HDB and HDB will decide how best to deal with these matters. I did just that. The response by HDB was that the Town Council should undertake the recommended works using Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). The problem, however, is that 10% of the CIPC funding comes from Town Council revenues, the bulk of it is S&CC from residents. This exacerbates the cross-funding issue that I highlighted earlier. Also, CIPC is a finite "pot". All things being equal, CIPC should be utilised to build facilities at the mature estates. Many of them were originally built without drop-off points and sheltered walkways and did not address design limitations of built features at these new BTO units. I now turn to the Town Council's responsibility in maintaining infrastructures at common properties in mature estates. Infrastructures are built not to last forever. There is a lifecycle involved beyond which they must be renewed. For each infrastructure, there is also a built-in tolerance limit beyond which the infrastructure may have to be strengthened or repaired. For works to upgrade infrastructure to last beyond its lifecycle or repairs to infrastructure damaged because tolerance limits are exceeded, it is my respectful view that Town Councils should not be undertaking such projects if they are to be funded by S&CC. Residents' S&CC should be used for maintenance per se and not be used to replace or extend the life of such infrastructural works. This should be the case even if the Government funds 90% of the costs through CIPC, leaving 10% to be funded by S&CC.”
“One thing that needs to be appreciated is that townships managed by Town Councils are not homogenous. Where a Town Council entirely manages a non-mature BTO estate, there may be no issue. But, where a single Town Council manages an estate comprising both mature HDB estates and BTO developments, the situation can be markedly different and, therefore, must be addressed. The question of parity and fairness needs to be asked. The second problem is the potential for cross-subsidisation by flat owners from older HDB housing estates for residents in BTO flats. I had earlier explained the structure of S&CC grants from the Government. It does not take into account the higher maintenance costs of BTO flats with these unique features that are not found in mature estates. On the other hand, S&CC by residents are all put in a common pool and fixed, based on flat type. There is no uplift in S&CC for BTO units in the by-laws passed by all 17 Town Councils. Owners of DBSS units are charged higher S&CC, but that is not directly relevant here. This raises an issue of equity which must be addressed immediately. As it stands, costs for maintaining Town Council estates have been escalating whilst revenue is, generally, flat. If this carries on, Town Councils will be looking to raise S&CC. The equity issue must be dealt with first. The potential issue of cross-subsidisation also rears its head when dealing with problems associated with BTO design features in common properties. I recently filed a Parliamentary Question highlighting the problem of slippery and wet drop-off points, walkways and so on at HDB BTO developments arising from design issues.”
“Sir, I am holding a paver which was used to pave the driveways in a HDB BTO development within my constituency. This paver was made in the UK – truly "enhanced" and unique! These pavers were used to pave the driveways in a BTO housing estate. Without a doubt, they look beautiful on completion. Inevitably, however, pavers buckle. And, indeed, many have already damaged car tyres. To replace them and ensure the same look and feel, the Town Council would have to purchase them from the UK. With respect to the hon Minister, there is no economy of scale that Town Councils can leverage for these costs. I am not making an argument to trade off aesthetics for costs. All I am asking for is a deeper reflection on the implication of each decision at the construction and design stage. This cannot happen unless our policy sets the right regulatory incentives. Our current model may have some tension, as I shall explain. Prior to 1989, since HDB would have been in charge of both developing and maintaining the housing estate, it would be able to get a better sense of the maintenance costs for developments and factor that in, directly, because, ultimately, HDB has to balance its books. Thirty years later, it seems to me that there are warning signs that this ability may have hollowed out or that it is not foremost in the minds of the officers, given that there is no incentive to look at maintenance, only development. What I have described has the hallmarks of, or, if not an outright moral hazard, at least a misalignment of incentives developing between HDB and the Town Councils. While not contradictory, we can appreciate that what motivates a developer is not what motivates a maintenance contractor.”
“The reality is maintenance costs for these skyscrapers are significantly higher than maintenance costs for the older housing estates. Let me provide three "concrete" examples. All the "verdant green gardens", "green spines" and so on described in the brochures would have to be maintained, not by general landscaping contractors, which is the usual case in mature HDB estates, but specialist contractors. This alone drives up costs. For high-rise BTO skyscrapers, HDB has installed pressure reducing valves at various floors of each block. Town Councils are to regularly check the valves and run diagnostics when residents encounter problems, such as "water hammering". There is no such issue arising in mature estates. On a final example, Sir, may I have your permission to show an object?”
“I have reviewed several brochures issued by HDB for BTO developments in mature estates highlighting these features. Let me read an example from a 2011 brochure of a BTO development involving five blocks, ranging from 23 to 38 storeys in height offering 1,232 units: the idea of "housing within a garden is realised by shaping the development as an extension of the park connector. Be sheltered from the hustle and bustle of urban life with the central green spine that runs through the development, connecting the surrounding park connectors to form a green network. Residents can stroll along the green spine or relax in the resting shelters along the way." No doubt, these enhancements were, and are still, being driven by rising expectations of Singaporeans. I have no quarrel with that. An issue arises when we realise that maintenance costs for these extra features in the BTO developments are also "enhanced". These features are not found in mature HDB estates. I recently filed a Parliamentary Question with MND asking about maintenance costs for these BTO estates and what steps are taken to ensure that they are within the average maintenance costs undertaken by Town Councils. The hon Minister made several points, of which I will highlight two in my speech. First, he said that Town Councils are consulted prior to tender. Respectfully, based on my personal checks, it seems HDB did not undertake this as de rigour. I am personally aware of instances where such consultation did not happen. The hon Minister also said that HDB's estimates may differ from Town Councils' estimates as Town Councils may enjoy economies of scale. Respectfully, where there are BTO flats in mature estates, the situation is usually the opposite.”
“This is allocated based on the number of HDB flat units and flat types. Smaller flat types get higher grants. Currently, the grant stands at $33.70 per month for 1-roomers; $26.20 per month for 2-roomers; $17 per month for 3-roomers and, finally, $9 per month for 4-roomers. We also have Good and Services Tax (GST) subvention grants. There are also separate grants which may only be used in relation to lifts. They are the Lift Enhancement Programme, Matching Grant for Lift Replacement Fund and Lift Maintenance Grant. The current model of estate management through Town Councils has been in force for 32 years without much change. The model has worked reasonably well. The question is whether it can work even better today and whether it will remain high functioning tomorrow, especially in light of certain developments which I will now proceed to highlight. First, HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in mature estates. Since 2001, HDB has undertaken many BTO development projects to address the housing needs of Singaporeans. A good number of these projects may be found in mature estates. They are, usually, much taller skyscrapers of between 35 and 40 storeys high, so as to optimise the usage of the land. They are also popular and often oversubscribed. One driver for this is that it allows young couples starting families an opportunity to purchase BTO units near their parents, who may be living in the older part of the township. Upon completion, the Town Council will have to manage the new BTO developments in addition to the mature estate. In accordance with HDB's mission "to deliver affordable homes of quality and value", our BTO developments give private condominium developers a run for their money. There are so many beautiful features packed into our BTO developments.”
“Sir, about 80% of Singapore's resident population lives in public housing. How the common areas in the public housing estates are managed, therefore, is a point of tremendous public interest. In the beginning, HDB and its predecessor, SIT, not only built flats but also managed the common property within the housing estates. Since 1989, with the enactment of the Town Councils Act, the responsibility to manage, maintain and improve common property was vested in the respective Town Councils. There are various reasons for this, I will mention three of them. First, it holds the elected Members of Parliament to account for, and also gives their residents a greater say in, the management of the common property within the public housing estates, that is, local political accountability. Second, it allows for each town to develop its own distinctive character and instil in the residents an enhanced sense of belonging and pride in their immediate surroundings, that is, community and identity. Third, by replacing a top-down central management approach with a divested organisation structure, it will allow for a faster turnaround to address residents' complaints, that is, efficiency through decentralisation. Over the years, Town Council operations have evolved. Apart from the routine repairs, servicing and maintenance and so on, Town Councils also undertake improvement and upgrading works funded, either fully or substantially, by the Government. Town Councils derive their revenue from two sources. First, service and conservancy charges (S&CC) collected from residents and tenants of commercial units within the township. This forms the bulk of the funding for estate management. Second, Government grants. They come in several forms. We have the S&CC Operating Grant.”
“While this may be a simple enough task for this House to consider these issues, to implement a policy solution would require bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. Without bipartisan support, there will be a serious potential for misinterpretation of the purpose behind the imposition of high standards for Singaporean politicians. What should be avoided at all costs is a perception that the Bill is an attempt on the part of one political party trying to constrain the public's right to vote for a candidate of their choice. Also, both sides of the House will need to come to a consensus on how we should deal with politicians who may be convicted for acts of civil obedience or conscience, which are markedly different from criminal behaviour. Once we have struck a consensus on how to treat criminal convictions of sitting MPs in this House, then, I would imagine that the disqualification criteria for candidates and members of other high constitutional offices may have to be reviewed again. Mr Speaker, to agree on this Bill is an easy matter. To my mind, it is a simple updating exercise. This Bill does not propose to deal directly with two other important matters: the disqualification criteria of sitting MPs and the parity of standards between sitting MPs and professionals, civil servants and uniformed officers. This "second key", in my respectful view, appears to be weaker for MPs. These are important matters but we can debate on these in good time, given that any Constitution amendment here should require strong bipartisan support. I support the Bill.”
“In another case, a Singaporean male was convicted after pleading guilty to five counts of forgery for the purposes of cheating involving $9.7 million. He was sentenced to nine months' jail. If an MP were to have committed any one of these offences, he would not be automatically disqualified. Of course, his tenure ceases automatically if he resigns from his party or if he "loses his whip", which is the Parliamentary parlance for being expelled from his political party. This latter ground does not affect independent MPs though. There is a connected aspect to this issue which I seek to highlight. For professionals, such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, they would not be allowed to practise, so long as they are convicted of offences that involve moral turpitude, irrespective of the actual sentences. Civil servants and uniformed officers convicted of crimes may be dismissed, reduced in rank or otherwise punished, too. It may be helpful for us, as a heuristic, to think of this as "two keys": the first, a qualification to enter into the profession; and, the second, a qualification to remain. The question that arises for consideration is: what should be the corresponding standard of conduct dealing with criminal convictions imposed on Singaporean politicians? That is, what should be the strength of the second key for MP? To me, this is a no-brainer. Whenever we, as MPs enter Parliament, we receive salutes from the uniformed officers on duty. This is meant to be a mark of respect for us as elected representatives of our country. Is it not anomalous that the saluting officer is held to a higher standard, as compared to us? This does not make sense. Therefore, we might want to consider if we want to impose similar requirements on sitting MPs.”
“Hence, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I feel it is necessary to signpost, for future consideration, the ability of an MP to continue in his or her office upon being convicted of a criminal offence whilst in office. Just last month, The Guardian reported a case of a UK MP in the House of Commons who was convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old. He apparently did not resign immediately, although it has now been reported that he has since resigned. We can ask ourselves – what would be the case if this happened in Singapore? I dare say that a good number of Singaporeans outside this House would assume that the MP would automatically be disqualified from holding office as his conduct would have brought disrepute to the House and, quite frankly, our country, too. That is not necessarily the case, however, if we look at the current provisions. As I mentioned earlier, the disqualification criteria for a candidate are the same as the disqualification criteria for an MP. This is provided for under Article 46 of the Constitution. Hence, whether or not a sitting MP convicted of a crime will automatically be disqualified would depend on not just his conviction but his sentence. If the sentence of imprisonment is less than one year, then he is not automatically disqualified. I did an informal survey of sentences imposed by the Courts in cases reported by the Straits Times between March and April this year. I noted the following cases. A Singaporean male was convicted and sentenced to one week's jail for possession of obscene videos, including child sexual abuse material. Another Singaporean male who molested a female teenager by touching her soles and toes was sentenced to two weeks and five days' jail.”
“" Emeritus Prof Joseph Jaconelli, in his 2020 article entitled "Constitutional Disqualification", stated that whilst John Stuart Mill was addressing the question of the extent of the right to vote, the same point applies to the right to stand for office. He went on to state that: "It applies with greater force, since to provide otherwise would be to limit the range of choices available to the electorate." In other words, our approach is to leave decisions on the electability of a candidate to an informed electorate unless the candidate has committed a serious offence which attracts a sentence of more than one year or, as proposed in this Bill, a fine of more than $10,000. Even then, the automatic disqualification ceases after a five-year period, as provided for under Article 45(2) of the Constitution. The approach in the United Kingdom (UK) and other countries is similar. Under the UK's Representation of the People Act, a person will be ineligible to stand for elections if he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more. For these reasons, I support the Bill. It is fair that the electorate is presented with the widest possible slate of candidates compatible with a minimum level of checks for the integrity of the person. It is also fair that a candidate's previous disqualification be reset after a certain period. This Bill, however, relates not only to disqualification to enter into an election, but it also has an impact on the qualification to remain as an MP. Currently, by default, both issues are tagged, in that the same criteria appy to a sitting MP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to bear in mind that the aim of this Bill is relatively narrow and coheres with the current policy underpinning the relevant articles in the Constitution. In the main, it serves to update the disqualification criteria concerning criminal convictions for membership of Parliament as set out in Article 45 of the Constitution. In this regard, what is proposed, as mentioned by the hon Minister, is to revise the fine quantum from "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000". As a consequence, it is proposed that the disqualification criteria for a member of CPA and PCMR, as well as a candidate standing for election as the President be similarly updated. As stated by the Elections Department in its press release, the proposed revision is to "account for inflation over the years" – the hon Minister said since the year of Independence, it is about $8,000 now – and ensure that the quantum "is commensurate with fines meted out for offences that are relevant to the integrity of the person". In light of this background, unless an hon Member wishes to advocate a change in the current policy, which has been in place since Independence, the proposed "light touch" amendment to the Constitution should not raise controversy. It may be useful to appreciate the underpinning of this policy. It is connected to the concept of universal suffrage – the right to vote for a candidate of his or her choice. John Stuart Mill, a well-known English philosopher, stated as follows in his 1861 essay, "Representative Government": "There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civilised nation; no persons disqualified, except through their own default.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister of State for his reply. I am glad to note that the Police are starting the anti-UML campaign now. Given the higher inflationary pressures that we now face, I wonder if the Police would proactively monitor ads through SMS text messages, WhatsApp messages and Telegram and other similar platforms to see whether these ads are from unlicensed moneylenders and, if so, proactively stop the circulation of these ads.”