R Ravindran
Singapore
“Sir, on behalf of all Members who raised various cuts under this amendment, I would like to thank the Minister for Defence, the Second Minister for Defence and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their detailed explanations. I would like to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“All this training only comes when the critical time for us to play the game and stay there on the field after the critical 30 minutes. I think it is critical that the SAF provides safe training but, at the same time, realistic training. I would like to ask the Minister how the SAF intends to provide for more safety.”
“Sir, ASEAN, as an organisation, looks like it is back on track. The last ASEAN Leaders Summit showed that the leadership shares a common vision and is committed to meeting the goals set henceforth.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Yeo, and the Minister of State, Mr Zainul Abidin, for their very comprehensive answers to the queries raised by Members and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $257,379,160 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“If such rivalries continue, there is every risk that the community-building exercise would be fatally compromised. At best, the EAS may just emerge as another talk-shop like APEC or ARF, where leaders meet, declarations are made, but little community-building is achieved.”
“Sir, the big plus over the recent debate on the Melvyn Tan's case was the tremendous understanding of the role of National Service by all Singaporeans and the spirited defence of it by many.”
The complete record
Every one of 385 lines we hold for R Ravindran, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“This will certainly enhance the reputation of Singapore not only as an international financial hub but also as an international legal hub just like London and New York. Sir, the amendment also comes at a time when some of our law firms are also expanding in the region. Just as our law firms wish that they will be allowed to practise local law in these countries where they are now expanding, foreign law firms are also wishing that they can be allowed to practise local law through these vehicles as they would also like to offer one-stop legal services to their clients for their home countries. Hence, this amendment comes at a timely moment. Sir, however, there are concerns raised whether the law firms will be aggressive and take away substantial business from the bigger law firms who will face the greatest competition from these joint law ventures and formal law alliances. How do we ensure that these foreign law firms indeed pass on the specialised knowledge which is purportedly lacking in Singapore law firms? How do we also ensure that these foreign law firms do not become a means to monopolise international legal work here with little or no benefit to the local firms. I would urge the Attorney-General who is given great powers under the Bill to carefully monitor the implementation of the scheme, and to impress upon the law firms, particularly the foreign law firms, the intent behind the whole exercise. Sir, the other concern expressed is the shareholding or associated structure that will be allowed. It is unclear what is the formula that these foreign law firms will be allowed to adopt with regard to joint law ventures and formal law alliances. Will these foreign firms be allowed to hold 99% of these law corporations or joint law ventures?”
“They could invest in better IT equipment, recruit better lawyers and expand their business. So, allowing for a different form of shareholding besides ordinary shareholding will allow law firms to tap into other forms of investment. Sir, let me now move on to the other amendment that is before this House, which is the creation of joint law ventures and formal law alliances under Part IXA of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill. The provision for joint law ventures and formal law alliances is in line with the move to make Singapore a premier financial centre. The legal profession here has been recognised as being among the best in Asia, as was highlighted by the Minister of State from an article in the Business Times of 13th January. However, there has been criticism that there is only a very limited pool of local practitioners experienced in top-notch international and corporate practices such as securitisation, project finance and structured finance. Sir, some have attributed this to the ban on foreign law firms not being able to practise local law and restricting themselves to offshore work only. Not doing anything will lead to the big businesses who do cross-border transactions having to engage local and foreign law firms to advise them or document cross-border transactions elsewhere. This certainly increases the cost of the work and also takes more time to complete the work. The provision of joint law ventures and formal law alliances will allow for local firms to tie up with foreign firms and offer one-stop service centres. This will certainly allow for world-class legal service for businesses operating in Singapore and in the region.”
“Sir, the third issue that I would like to raise is why do we limit the shareholding of these law corporations to lawyers only. New section 81H of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill will only allow solicitors to become shareholders. Subsection (2) says, "may be held by such other persons or class of persons as may be prescribed." Sir, it is unclear now who is this class of persons who can hold shares in future. I would urge that the shareholding structure of these law corporations be liberalised for several reasons. For one, some lawyers have expressed the view that allowing non-lawyers to become shareholders in these law corporations will have a great impact on them, particularly in relation to the ethical standards, and that as compared to other corporations, law corporations are distinct because, as officers of the court, they owe a duty to the court. But I believe that these can be addressed with adequate provisions, as these standards and duties are personal to the lawyer as a legal practitioner. Sir, one possible way to ensure that lawyers remain in control is perhaps by restricting the non-lawyer shareholding to not more than 49% at any time. I am quite sure that such an approach will allow for the flow of investments to law firms from other professionals. And such an approach will allow for cross shareholding among the different professions and pave the way for multi-disciplinary practices in future. Sir, another creature that could also be considered to allay the fear that shareholders will interfere in the practice of law is perhaps a class of shares, like preference shareholding, be created. Because some law firms could be limited in size, and finance also. If they are able to obtain external finance, it could be a form of investment.”
“I was happy to hear the Minister of State say that he will be looking carefully into the area of insurance, and I would urge that serious attention be paid into the area of insurance coverage for these law corporations. Many a time, law firms choose a form of insurance which is low cost, because if they take a policy which is very extensive and covers every field of possible claim, then it will lead to the cost of services being rendered much higher. So I would urge the Minister of State to look carefully into the form of insurance that needs to be taken up by these law corporations, so that clients of law firms who engage these law corporations are not short changed, as many laymen may not be able to distinguish the difference between a sole proprietorship, a partnership and a law corporation. The second issue that I would like to raise in respect of law corporations is the question of why is there no minimum paid-up capital for these law corporations. Here, I am concerned because looking at the way the amendments are drafted, there is no clear minimum paid-up capital that is needed for these law corporations. Even an employment agency that is being set up under the Ministry of Manpower, I think they require a minimum paid-up capital of $100,000. Similarly, there are many other corporations which are regulated by various bodies where a minimum paid-up capital is required. I would recommend that, depending on the size of the law corporation and depending on the number of lawyers who are involved, perhaps a minimum paid-up capital needs to be laid down, so that members of the public can feel comforted by the amount of paid-up capital that a law firm has.”
“Sir, first of all, I would like to declare my interest as a practising lawyer, and also to state that I have no interest in the amendment involving formal law alliances and joint law ventures. Sir, as far as the amendments go, I think they are timely. They come in the wake of the recommendations of the Legal Services Review Committee, chaired by the Attorney-General, and the Law Reform Committee, chaired by the Justice of Appeal, L.P. Thean, on Corporatisation of Law Partnerships. Our judicial system and the legal service have won world accolades for being progressive, and being ready to embrace change. It is timely that our legal profession also positions itself for change - change to become better and to become world-class law firms. Sir, the amendments before this House seek to address two critical issues for the legal profession. The first is the corporatisation of legal practice for the setting up of law corporations. I am happy that corporate limited liability will be extended to legal practitioners. It is not uncommon in the past for all partners of a law firm being exposed to claims and, in some cases, to substantial claims. Whilst insurance helps, in cases of fraud and other instances, insurance does not cover these areas. With limited liability, the directors and shareholders of these law corporations can enjoy protection on their personal assets, save for the partner who is in default. Sir, my only concern is: how do we ensure that the client is adequately protected in instances where there is a misfeasance by a partner or a practising lawyer of the law corporation? Whilst the Law Society arranges for professional indemnity as a group, my concern is that not all law firms take insurance to provide for non-negligent areas, particularly like fraud.”
“You may be challenged vigorously and not too subtly, but change, particularly radical change, does not come easily and we may have to work together to reach our destination together. One must never forget the key message in the President's Address that the Government wishes to engage all its citizens in a constructive manner in various aspects of decision making and to get Singaporeans to play a greater constructive role in national life. Sir, we have defined politics as a serious business in Singapore. If some Singaporeans see civil society as a cloak to make good populist speeches and not take responsibility for it, then my advice is, go join the Toastmasters' Club where good speeches get commended. But if there are serious people who want to champion political issues or political causes, then join political organisations and champion the cause or seek to become an NMP. Let us all welcome this new dynamic phase of national development, ie, building the heartware. Let us all collectively survey the terrain, mark out the safe and unsafe areas and work together in making Singapore our home the best home. Sir, I support the motion. 3.48 pm”
“Sir, I was even more amused that in today's Straits Times, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has called (i) on the Government to help finance organisations and lend administrative support; and (ii) for civil servants and GLC employees to become involved in civic groups. This is in itself unacceptable to the purists of the civil society proponents who do not want to see the hand of the Government in civil society. Even if one were to accept Mr Zulkifli's call for help, would not the civil society then be accused of being a "guided civil society"? Sir, if the full extent of the plea of Mr Zulkifli is analysed, one would realise that we will be back to where we are now. We already have a "dense network of civil organisations" which is considered necessary for a civil society, and which is a key requirement for civil society. Perhaps the purists do not realise that in the real world, there can be no civil society in a vacuum and that you need support, whether from government, political parties or other interest groups to survive, thrive and stay relevant. Sir, it is my wish that we create our own model civil society which meets our requirements, our aspirations and common purpose. In the process, Sir, it is equally important that we do not exclude the existing key components of our society. We should include the grassroots organisations, our unions and many other organisations which are present in Singapore in any civil society that we intend to create because civil society must mean participation by everybody in that society. It is something for thought for everyone. My call to all Singaporeans is that the Government is ready for active citizenry. The ball is in the people's court. They decide what is the appropriate model. You may be rebuked unexpectedly.”
“But as I listened to the speech of Mr Simon Tay earlier, I noted that they will be addressing three issues: (1) registration of societies; (2) the limit of speeches; and (3) the role of government, private society and civil society. What I would urge them to do is try, in the first place, to establish what exactly is the type of civil society that we want in Singapore, because if they do not clarify right at the outset what is the type of civil society that we wish to create in Singapore, looking at the two models that are available, I think there is potential for conflict ahead. Sir, I feel that it is no help to ask the Government to define the scope of participation for civil society as, by its nature, civil society must be spontaneous and autonomous of state. Even if the Government were to define such parameters as called by Mr Davinder Singh, would it not then be accused of setting OB markers and be accused of stifling a greater civil society? Similarly, the very call for tolerance of constructive disagreement is a sine qua non for trouble, as the issue arises who defines constructive, or its corollary destructive, disagreement. Naturally, everyone with the present mindset will look to the Government to define the same. But then, would we not all come back to square one where all is state defined. In fact, just as much as Mr Simon Tay earlier called in his speech for a civil society, I noted that he called upon the Feedback Unit to come back with measures on how to get more feedback, and also how the various Government departments had failed in certain aspects. Civil society naturally must also be involved and that there must be a spontaneous reaction from people to see how they can improve the society and the nation.”
“And I would call it the civil society model 2. Sir, as you can see, at the definition stage, there is a degree of great difference between civil society model 1 and model 2, for while the former postulates the positive effects of association for governance, the latter emphasises the importance of civil association as a counterweight to the state. There is no reason, in principle, why this counterweight of civil society will not become a burden to a democracy or an authoritarian state. In fact, the two scholars, Michael W. Foley and Bob Edwards, in the same article "The Paradox of Civil Society" described that the "concept of civil society seems to take on the property of a gas, expanding or contracting to fit the analytic space afforded it by each historical or socio-political setting." That is how elusive the concept of civil society is. Sir, what is clear is that the civil society model 1 does not entail participants entering the sphere of politics and challenging the state (or government) as a counterweight. Those who insist on pushing a political agenda or on challenging the government of the day should then move on to the arena of political organisations. The civil society model 2, as it stands, cannot be acceptable in Singapore as a counterweight to the Government, because we have a Government that is democratically elected in elections every five years, and only they have the right of representing the people and of making key decisions for the people. However, it is unclear which is the model that the civil society of Singapore will become. I welcome the statement by the hon. NMPs, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin and Mr Simon Tay, that they will look into the challenges facing civil society in Singapore.”
“There are varying definitions of civil society among different theorists. In fact, two scholars, Michael W. Foley and Bob Edwards, wrote an article in the Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7.3, entitled "The Paradox of Civil Society". In their article, they state (if I may summarise the gist) that some see civil society as a state where non-government organisations spontaneously appear to allow for participation and involvement by citizens in non-political areas such as social clubs and volunteer organisations. They call it civil society model 1, and this is their first definition. Robert D. Putman who is an advocate of this model states that such associations must not be polarised and politicised. What these organisations attempt to do is that they attempt to bridge social and political divisions and thus, presumably, are autonomous from political forces. The issue then arises: how can such associations shape political participation and "civic engagement" without engaging in specifically political issues and without representing compelling social interests? Can these organisations under the civil society model 1 really meet the clamour from Singaporeans for greater participation? Then there is another group of theorists who advocate that the civil society becomes a check on undemocratic or tyrannical governments. This version is articulated by Jacek Kuron, Adam Michnik and others. Clearly, they see their role as harbingers of democratic change and see their involvement in politics as natural. These theorists lay special emphasis on civil society as a sphere of action that is independent of the state and that is capable of energising resistance to a tyrannical regime. This is the model seen in the past in many Latin American and Eastern European states.”
“One has to recognise that there are some things in life that one cannot put down in detail. Even a good road map sometimes does not point the hidden danger zones and potholes. One has to travel the road to discover the road and the pitfalls there. We may meet speed cameras, bumps, potholes, traffic policemen and other impediments. Different drivers also react and drive differently according to temperament and experience. We become wiser and experienced. We must also know that if one takes great risk and drives dangerously, we can endanger ourselves, our passengers and other road users. It all boils down to a call of judgment. I hope my analogy highlights the real life situation. In real life, everyone, including the Government, has to make a judgment call. When, how and why it will be made cannot be predicted as there are many factors that will be at play. One must also acknowledge that all this call for active citizenship will come to a dead end if the political leadership is keen but the bureaucracy resists the same and fears encroachment and criticism. Similarly, it would fail in its infancy if the political leadership takes to task any unconstructive disagreement. Sir, to the credit of the Government and the civil service, they have accepted the need for active citizens and have come out with several steps to engage them in policy making. I can vouch for it because I have seen it in action in innumerable instances. The bigger question is whether the people really understand what is meant by active citizenship. Sir, there is a pool of intellectuals in Singapore who are naturally excited and are looking forward to the blossoming of a civil society. Here, I must caution the advocates of the civil society itself.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am excited by the programme of the Government which focuses on people development. The concrete plans to re-engineer the education system, upgrade worker skills, caring for the aged and the disadvantaged, and preparing the population for the IT age are indeed commendable. It is something we can achieve, and achieve well. I must also commend the Government for being bold in recognising the challenges that lie ahead for the nation and what it intends to do to meet it head on. Sir, I am even more impressed by what it intends to do in the sphere of active citizenship. The move to engage the citizens in every sphere of Singapore life is laudable and is progressing gradually and well. Active citizenship is a concept that has to be understood well by all players. Mr Davinder Singh, in his opening address, has highlighted well that the people look to the Government for a road map with clear pointers. Similarly, the private sector is also looking to the Government for these clear pointers. Naturally, there is an assumption that the Government has charted the terrain and has marked it with clear pointers, but that such a map is not available for public use. Sir, I reckon the truth is that the Government is also moving into uncharted terrain. I think my parliamentary colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, put it aptly when he said that even at the top "we are still grappling for some form of consensus about the desirable pace of change." So the reality may be that there is no road map, more so a road map with clear pointers. Can there be a road map with clear pointers in real life when the terrain itself is not surveyed and planted with markers? We have to work together as pioneers to chart the terrain collectively premised on a common purpose.”
“In the light of the fact that traffic is light during off peak hours between 10 pm and 6 am, would the Ministry also consider increasing the speed limit on the expressways during the off peak hours to, say, 100 kmh? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the fact that traffic is light and you are all alone on the road or you are with few cars may in fact lull you into a sense of complacency. Indeed, cars that go at excessive speeds at these times have resulted in very serious accidents. We should leave it as that. We will monitor the situation. By bringing up to 90 kmh, it is still within the safe limit. That is important. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Review of planning methodology) 7. Mr R Ravindran asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will review existing Housing and Development Board (HDB) planning methodology and consider new measures to better co-ordinate the timely provision of various facilities and services in new HDB estates.”
“Let us work together to make the 21st century a place where we can dream and realise our vision of a home, a home we can all be proud of. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Perhaps, we can relook at some of these laws to make sure that they are not very narrowly defined and people need not fear when they speak up their minds or when they want to go out and do things which are in the interest of Singapore. Sir, perhaps, here, the OB markers could be made clear so that people do not harbour any suspicion or fear of being picked up. When an OB marker is arbitrarily defined, it frightens the public and many may withdraw from public participation. Public discussion should be encouraged not only in Government organisations like the Feedback Unit, People's Association or think-tanks like IPS. Ministers, MPs and civil servants should make time to participate in as many relevant forums as possible to increase the consultative process. Just like justice, consultation must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Sir, the other thing that the Report calls for is for active citizens to take action and assume responsibility, rolling up their sleeves to help implement what they envision or suggest. This is something very laudable. The public must recognise that not all their views and opinions are workable. When a decision is finally reached, they must equally close rank and support it wholeheartedly for democracy is all about accepting the views and opinions of the majority. Sir, I see the S21 Report as a guidance to what a parent will give to his young children who have just turned 21 years of age. It is up to the young person to decide what he wants to do with the guidance which his parents has given, just as the S21 Committee has given this Report to the Singapore society. Singapore is coming of age as we enter the new millennium.”
“Equally, it is important that the public respond with vigour, sincerity and responsibility. The discussions must be on a platform of doing and achieving the best for Singaporeans and Singapore. We must be tolerant to different views. The participation by the public should not be merely armchair criticisms and offering of views. They must also follow through, where possible, with action, what the report referred to as "walk the talk". The Government must also facilitate this. Groups of individuals who share similar interests and want to advocate certain views should be allowed to flourish without unease. Rules and regulations should be changed to help create and flourish the development of such interest groups. At the same time, we must also recognise that not all Singaporeans want to participate in such consultation. They are happy that there are avenues for them to give feedback and discuss matters they feel strongly about. The other complaint among Singaporeans is that, although they hold differing views, they are afraid to speak up for fear of being black marked or picked up by the Internal Security Department. We know that there is no such black mark namelist and this is an unjustified perception. The Government must work harder to help clear this perception. Similarly, some of our laws, which were prepared in the 1950s or 1960s to deal with a different era, must be relooked at so that they would give comfort to Singaporeans. Many of these laws are so widely defined that they can be picked up, arrested or charged for any of these widely defined offences.”
“In considering policy options, the civil servant may harbour a feeling that the suggestion from a member of the public which is accepted and implemented may imply a failure on their part to have identified and implemented it. Such a thinking must be discarded and the mindset must be changed. The PS21 guidelines and programmes that have been implemented have gone to a large extent to change the mindset of the public service, but more can definitely be done. Sir, there is also definitely more scope for pre-policy consultation. I applaud the call by the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong, in March this year at the Administrative Service Dinner, that the Administrative Service should change its mindset and to involve the people sector in its policy making. I am convinced that our Ministers recognise the sea change in public eagerness to participate. But it has to sink deep in the mentality of the civil servants. Perhaps, they need to be advised that not all the information is official secret and to share information and gain policy input from the public is a win-win formula not only for the public service but for Singapore as a whole. Sir, to encourage a culture of consultation and involvement with the public, the civil service must also recognise and reward officers who take this process seriously and engage the public for better policy making. Sir, there is also a call to make more use of technology to improve the consultative process. I would urge all Government departments to make greater use of technology like the Internet to get speedy feedback and suggestions from as large a pool of Singaporeans as possible so that everybody will feel that he has contributed towards policy making in Singapore. What can the people do then? It takes two to tango.”
“What I would like to highlight is that, while they complain, a lot of measures have been undertaken by the Government for more consultation. However, the public not only wants more consultation, but they would also like to be consulted at the pre-policy stage rather than at the post-policy stage. Sir, a classic example, particularly during the Feedback Unit sessions, is the feedback session held over the Budget session. Many of these feedback panel participants usually feel that the feedback and discussion on the Budget should be done before the Budget is presented and not after it is presented. So there was a call for the consultation and feedback sessions to be held before a policy is made rather than after the policy is made. I hope this is something that the Government can look into. Sir, what can the Government do? The Government, for a start, could encourage the relevant non-sensitive information to be disseminated timely so that members of the public can give considered feedback or suggestions. At times, the public suggestions may not be helpful, not because they are not thought through but because they are premised on inadequate or wrong information. This leads to a win-win situation as we have a far larger pool of people looking at the problem and giving suggestions. It may be difficult for some civil servants, particularly the Administrative Service officers who are the best and brightest, to accept that the public can come out with better policy options. This may be due to the mindset and expectations of the Administrative Service to be the best and have considered everything.”
“If we can develop a volunteer programme whereby all schools and all employers are involved in doing community work, just by setting aside one hour a week to undertake community work, I think we would have reached a large number of Singaporeans getting involved in volunteer work. And by imbibing in the young, particularly in the schools, a sense of doing community service, a sense of doing common volunteer work, I think this is something that they carry on throughout their life and it will show commitment to serving the community. Sir, what I do hope to see is greater volunteerism among the public sector and private sector employees so that not one sector but all sectors of the society are involved in building a better Singapore. I also hope that the proposed National Volunteer Centre can reach out to both employers and schools in a big way in future. Sir, another recurrent thing that has appeared in the column of Active Citizens in the S21 Report is that the recurrent theme among a number of Singaporeans is that they are not being consulted and there is a climate of fear in speaking out against Government policies which they feel are ineffective or wrong. The Government has made big, bold moves from not having enough consultation with the public to where there is substantial consultation. But the public view is that there is still not enough consultation. Here, I recollect an incident. About four years ago, when I participated in a public dialogue session, a young person, whom I believed was from the university, got up and criticised that there was not enough freedom in Singapore and she went on to criticise the Government. Then I turned around and asked her, "The fact that you stand up and criticise, don't you feel that you have the freedom?". And she kept quiet.”
“Let me now move on to the topic which I came to speak about, Sir, which is active citizenship. Sir, let me now share with the Members of this House on what are some of my thoughts to encourage Singaporeans to become active citizens and what can be done to ensure that this report and its recommendations do become milestones in Singapore. First, is the question of whether we should develop national or international citizens. The report states that an active citizen is one who takes an active part as a citizen in making the country a better place to live. I wish that the term "our citizens" would have been even more broadly defined as people who make both the country and the world a better place to live. There are many Singaporeans who have distinguished themselves internationally in making the world a better place to live. I hope, Sir, many more Singaporeans would be involved in international volunteer work besides local volunteer work, so that Singaporeans are known not only as active citizens locally but also internationally. Sir, here I see great potential for Singapore International Foundation to garner the many volunteers, particularly the increasing number of senior citizens to do international volunteer work. I welcome the setting up of the National Volunteer Centre by MCD and hope that it would help mobilise volunteers for both local and international volunteer work. Sir, another area where I see a great role is for employers and schools to be involved in greater volunteer work. The reach of the schools and all employers practically reaches every household.”
“And perhaps one of the concerns that the Prime Minister has raised in regard to these differences that may arise is something that could have arisen in the course of different policies that have been implemented by the Government. Sir, things like community development organisations, we have to re-look whether they go towards building Singapore into a cohesive, united society, or do they in the end, end up making our society a divisive society. I would like to share an example. I met the CEO of Sinda earlier this week and he had informed me that when they placed an advertisement asking for individuals to sign up for their skills retraining programme, 90% of those who called Sinda called and complained. 90% of those who called were Chinese. When they were told that Chinese could not sign up for this programme, because this is a programme organised by Sinda, they had complained, "Why are you discriminating because I am a Chinese?" This gives a very peculiar picture in Singapore, because it makes us look back and wonder whether some of these measures that we have introduced over these years have led to a more cohesive society, or we are in a way inadvertently leading to a society which may become divisive. Sir, I endorse the call of the S21 Committee that we make Singaporeans feel passionately about Singapore. My generation is a generation that grew up and did national service. And if I asked many of my friends who had undergone national service, push comes to shaft, "Will you stand up for your country?" And I will tell you that, do or die, they will stand up and die for this country, because this is the only nation that they all know. I endorse the call of the Committee to develop stronger ties and a stronger commitment to Singapore.”
“So for the young, I am quite sure, just like me, many Singaporeans who read the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, they would have been equally surprised because to most of us, Singapore is our nation. But I understand the context in which the Prime Minister made his speech - that Singapore is a young nation and that there are pitfalls to be worried about. Sir, I endorse the speech of the Prime Minister in respect of being on guard against fault lines in society. But we must continue to ensure that Singapore as a nation continues to become stronger and that the Government continues to develop this trust and in being a fair Government to everybody in society. Singapore is a complex society comprising people of different races, religions, languages and backgrounds. One thing that has stood out, and I speak to everybody who comes from different racial backgrounds, language or religious background, is that what we have is a fair Government and it is a Government that we trust. And I think this is something that is peculiar and something that all Singaporeans would like to cherish. I would like to encourage all Singaporeans to work towards ensuring that we continue to have a Government that is not only fair but there is something also which is trustful. Sir, as I elaborated earlier, I grew up in the post-independence generation. To me, the definition of Singapore right up to the 1990s was that I did not see the difference in being Chinese, Indian or Malay. But somewhere in the 1980s, I felt that there was a difference in Government policy and that we had started focusing on issues regarding the different racial groups in Singapore, and that there we took a divergent line.”
“I am confident that the composition of the S21 Committee and the many participants who took part in it had Singapore and Singaporeans at heart when they deliberated the report and its recommendations. They reflect the future Singapore Singaporeans want. I am confident that the Government and the people can make the quantum leap to achieve the vision and the many goals defined in the S21 report. Sir, I originally intended to speak on the topic of active citizens, but when the Hon. Prime Minister spoke yesterday, I was taken aback, to be candid, because he stated that we are not a nation yet. But earlier on, when I heard Hon. Minister Mr Lim Boon Heng speak, he had mentioned that he was surprised by the article written by a journalist in yesterday's Straits Times where she stated that she was surprised at what the Prime Minister had said, and that perhaps she said that there was a difference in viewpoint between those in the 30s and 50s. And that brings me, Sir, to the fourth issue that is raised in the report, that is, feeling passionately for Singapore. I must confess that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that we are not a nation yet, I was surprised because I grew up in the post-independence generation, and for me, all I know is Singapore is my home. Perhaps there is this difference in understanding what is Singapore all about and what is Singapore as a nation, and whether it means different things to different people. Sir, I belong to the post-independence generation. I underwent a school system where day in and day out we were told that: This is our home, this is our nation. This was carried through secondary school, pre-university, in my National Service, and the university. That is how we all were brought up, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me congratulate the S21 Committee and all the participants involved in preparing the report and the recommendations contained therein. Sir, it is no easy task to identify the heartware Singaporeans want and to put these intangibles in writing. The five key issues identified encapsulate well the main dilemmas faced by Singapore as we move closer to becoming a developed state. As I read the report, what went through my mind was: what difference will this report make to the lives of Singaporeans immediately and later? Twenty years later, when I look at this report, will I see it as a landmark report that really made a difference to the lives and soul of Singaporeans? Will this report be seen as a defining moment in the history of Singapore where Singaporeans really felt a difference? Will we see a golden era of active citizens who care and share with others in the wider community? Will there be a difference thereafter in the political process and participation? Is politics and public policy debate going to be only for politicians or for everyone who has a stake in Singapore? Will this new trinity of people, public and private sector consultation and cooperation be the new political theory to be expounded and practised? Sir, is Singapore ready to undertake an adventure into uncharted waters to define the parameters of greater public involvement in policy-making, yet without upsetting some norms and conventions built over the years? Many, Sir, both locally and internationally, will be watching, whether these are mere propaganda statements for public consumption or a genuine programme to bring about real change.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the Boon Lay bus terminal and the MRT station are overcrowded at peak hours and it is due to the large increase in the population in the vicinity. As such, would his Ministry also consider improving the facilities in those two areas?”
“This would reduce the number of appeals but would allow litigants to whom a five figure claim is significant to enjoy an automatic right of appeal and access to the High Court. Sir, the proposed limits can be retained, but the system can be modified. There should be an automatic right to file Notice of Appeal on current limits or on an increased limit to about $15,000. Leave is required to file the Petition of Appeal if the subject matter is below the proposed limit which, as I have suggested, is perhaps below $15,000. Sir, another amendment that I would like to highlight is the amendment to clause 21(3). This clause allows for the President to increase the cut-off amount, after consulting the Chief Justice, and by publishing the same in the Government Gazette. Sir, justice is a matter of grave importance to the public. I disagree that a matter that determines the access to a right of appeal should be decided by the Chief Justice and the President alone. I think such an important matter must be debated and decided by this House. It is important that in the name of administration of justice, we do not introduce deficiency in justice. On that note, Sir, I would like to support the proposed amendments.”
“A litigant's right to have another higher tribunal review his cause should not be curtailed. If the problem is the increased workload for the High Court judges, let us then appoint more High Court judges or Judicial Commissioners to handle the problem. Sir, the provision of fair adjudication to which all have access is the sine qua non in the administration of justice. The raising of the limit for appeals to the High Court from $5,000 to $50,000 is a ten-fold increase and will result in a large number of individual or small business litigants being subject to a single tier of dispute resolution. The saving grace of applying for leave to appeal may be illusory and create problems of its own. Application for leave would require examination of the merits. Affidavits would have to be filed. The grounds of appeal would have to be identified. If leave is given, the appeal itself will again be determined on merits. So what happens here is that there is an additional step being created with the consequential increase in cost and usage of court time. The Notice of Appeal also cannot be filed unless leave itself is obtained. Hence the grounds of decision will not be available for the purposes of the leave application. This would mean again that the judge hearing the application for leave would have to second guess the trial judge. Counsel, in advising the litigant wishing to appeal, would also have to second guess the trial judge, in formulating the intended grounds of appeal. Sir, there are two possible ways to address the above issues. The limit can be increased from $5,000 but not to $50,000. It can perhaps be increased to $15,000.”
“(b) He has to pay the cost of his own solicitors or lawyers. (c) He has also got to pay the cost of the winning party if he loses his appeal. So there are inherent cost deterrents which are already in place. Sir, the proposed amendments would run against the grain for the following considerations: The current limit of $5,000 is a relatively small figure for most Singaporeans. Cases with subject matter of, say, $20,000 to $50,000 are not small to many litigants and indeed the outcome may be a matter of serious economic consequence for a fair number. Sir, from the labour statistics available as at end of 1997, more than 770,000 Singaporeans still earn less than $1,500 per month. The number increases to 1,288,000 earning less than $2,500 per month. Sir, for a large number of Singaporeans, the $50,000 cut-off amount is too large an amount. Perhaps the amount could be increased to $10,000 or $15,000. When this amendment came in 1994, even if one looks at the inflation figure, I think it does not justify such a large jump in the cut-off amount. Sir, we must avoid confirming the feeling of the people that justice is only for the rich. The single tier cases, in addition, would be matters handled by a Magistrate or District Judge. They are all members of the Subordinate Judiciary. The Subordinate Courts are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, which is the repository of judicial authority in the Constitution and safeguarded with security of tenure. Based on experience and wisdom, a Magistrate or younger District Judge is less likely to be infallible. Sir, appeal and the right of appeal is intrinsic in the judicial process and ensures that justice is seen to be done.”
“Cases within the jurisdiction of the District Courts are not appealable as of right, if the subject matter is between $30,000 and $50,000. Cases with subject matter between $50,000 and $250,000 are appealable as of right to the High Court. The removal of the automatic right of appeal for cases below $50,000 is again unsatisfactory. Again, appeals to the Court of Appeal are also no longer as a matter of right. Cases within the jurisdiction of the High Court are appealable as of right only if the claim could not have been brought in the District Court. While the right of appeal is curtailed somehow, the position under the proposed amendment is still satisfactory. Sir, the main concern under the Bill is that there is only a single tier for cases with subject matter below $50,000. Sir, one of the cardinal principles for appeal is outlined by a famous Judge, as he then was - Megarry Judge in the Erinford Properties v Chesire CC. Sir, judges must decide cases even if they are hesitant in their conclusions. At the other extreme, a judge may be very clear in his conclusion and yet on appeal be held to be wrong. No human being is infallible, and for none are there more public and authoritative explanations of their errors than for judges. Sir, the setting of limits to automatic rights of appeal would streamline the administration of justice in that the number of cases heard in the High Court would be reduced, in particular what the Minister referred to as the non-serious cases. The time taken for the final disposition of a case would also be reduced if there is a single tier. However, it should be noted that there are already deterrents in the present system, and these are the disincentives: (a) The appellant has to pay security for cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill increases the lower limits for appeal without leave, ie, appeal as of right. The limits are changed under the Bill as follows: (a) For appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court, the subject matter must now exceed $50,000 (which increases it from $5,000 to $50,000). (b) For appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, the subject matter must now exceed $250,000. (This is an increase from $30,000 to $250,000). Sir, the effect of the present limits is that cases within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court are appealable as of right to the High Court, but are not appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. This is a two-tier system. This position is satisfactory, as there is no real need for a three tier-system for Magistrate Court suits. Sir, cases within the jurisdiction of the District Courts are appealable as of right to the High Court and are also appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. This position is unsatisfactory as there is a three-tier system and it is not something that is really needed. Indeed, the proposed amendments may have been intended to do away with this anomaly. Cases within the jurisdiction of the High Court are appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. Here again, there is a two tier system. This position is satisfactory and was consciously adopted with the cessation of appeals to the Privy Council. Sir, the effect of the proposed amendments would be that cases within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court are not appealable as of right to the High Court. There will be a single tier system. This is unsatisfactory. I will go on to elaborate later, Sir.”
“It has also gone into computerised tracking of maintenance payments. I think the Syariah Court can rise to the challenge and meet the needs of its customers and not fear a big shift of cases to the Civil Courts. The prospect of this happening should become lesser, as I have reiterated earlier, Sir, as many Muslim parties have resorted to the Civil Courts in the past because of the lack of appropriate remedy in the Syariah Court. But this should change with the new amendments. In any event, proceedings in the Syariah Court are attractive also as they cost much less than those in the Civil Courts. With new case management, time schedule, backlogs of cases and delays should be a thing of the past. Sir, I am quite sure that the Muslim community in Singapore would be eager to give its input before the new Bill is passed as law. It is a Bill that will affect the Muslim community. I am quite sure that there will be some areas where the Bill can be improved. For that reason, I applaud the decision of the Hon. Minister to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that all viewpoints of the Muslim community could be heard and a considered decision taken. In doing so, I would particularly like to urge the Minister to obtain representation from the members of the legal profession who specialise in Syariah Court matters and also Muslim women groups, because I believe Muslim women form a large majority of those who have resorted to Civil Courts in the past. So I think their feedback will be useful. Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, the new section 53A is also something that should be welcomed. Here, it gives the President of the Syariah Court the power to execute documents where a party who is ordered to do so is absent, neglects or refuses to do so. This will ensure that the situation that arose in Salijah's case does not arise again. Looking at the amendments, one would notice that it is possible for a party to go through three courts in the process. For the issue of divorce, iddah and mutaah, they may have to go to the Syariah Court. On the issue of custody and matrimonial assets, they may go to the Family Court. On the enforcement of certain orders, they may have to go to the District Court. At the moment, if one looks at the location of these three courts, one is in MCD Building in Thomsom Road, the Family Court is located at Patterson Road and the High Court is located just within walking distance of this House, what this means to a layman is that to obtain different remedies he has to go to three different venues. I would urge the Minister that in the long term process of locating the Syariah Court, to explore the possibility of locating the Syariah Court within the Family Court complex so that it is very convenient for lay persons who access the courts to go to one location where they can have all their remedies in one place. In conclusion, let me just say that there has been concern expressed that the new amendments may mean a big shift in the number of ancillary matters pertaining to Muslims being heard by the Civil Court. I do not think so. The Syariah Court has become dynamic and efficient. It has become proactive and has adopted some new strategies to resolving matrimonial disputes such as mediation, counselling and other new technologies.”
“This section seeks to incorporate the principles that are found in section 112 of the Women's Charter. Section 112 of the Women's Charter lays down the factors that the Civil Courts will take into account in looking into the disposition of matrimonial property. But there is a proviso that the Syariah Court in applying section 112 will ensure that it is consistent with Muslim law. The aim appears to be to give clear guidelines to the Court and to the parties as to their rights over their matrimonial property. I am informed by many of my colleagues who practise in the Syariah Court that many of the principles that are found in section 112 of the Women's Charter have already been applied by the Appeal Board in many of its decisions in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Muslim law, although the Board did not refer specifically to section 112 in its decision. This is the section that I would like to highlight. There are many provisions in the Women's Charter or in other areas where, I believe, the principles that are taken by the court into account, whether it is the Syariah Court or the Civil Court, may actually overlap, and at the end of the day, the object of the exercise is to ensure that parties in their post-divorce matters are treated fairly and that justice is accessible to both of them. I have also learnt from some Muslim practitioners that the proviso that the law be not inconsistent with Muslim law is important as there are differences between Muslim law and the Women's Charter in this respect. For instance, the non-payment of iddah and mutaah has been held to affect the share in the matrimonial flat (there is an Appeal Board Case No. 14/95) whereas these are matters which are irrelevant under the Women's Charter.”
“I believe that the three grounds that are stated in the section are very restrictive and perhaps a wider term could have been chosen to provide for greater exercise of discretion by the Syariah Court. The same comment would apply to the new section 52(7). Sir, in respect of the new section 51(5), I feel that providing for a prison sentence in the case where one party is in contempt of court is a little drastic. Perhaps the option of a fine or a prison sentence may be appropriate to suit varying degrees of contempt of court. I would also like to move on to the new section 52(3). Here again, this is also a welcome provision. There have been cases in the past where parties got their divorces effected by a Kadi under section 102. In many of these cases, Sir, ancillary issues such as custody and disposition of property were not addressed and recorded as part of the divorce terms. When parties could not settle these issues, they could not go back to the Kadi as after the divorce he becomes functus officio. Neither could the parties refer these matters to the Syariah Court because the present section 52 suggests that the powers of the Syariah Court are restricted to making orders in respect of proceedings in the Syariah Court and do not include divorces by a Kadi. This was confirmed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in a recent case. The proposed amendment specifically gives the Syariah Court the powers to make orders in respect of divorces by a Kadi under section 102, whether such divorces are registered before or after the commencement of these amendments. It will definitely be a relief to many who have been caught without a venue to sort out their ancillary matters. Sir, the new section 52(6) is something that I would say is a marvellous provision.”
“They have now introduced a computerised system of tracking maintenance payments. As such, the ability of the Syariah Court to move in the area of collection of maintenance arrears will be improved. I think the number of Muslim couples who will go to the Civil Courts to claim maintenance may see a decline in the long run. The new section 35B confirms the present scheme of arrangement within the Civil Court and the Syariah Court and makes it clear that once civil proceedings in respect of maintenance proceedings are commenced, the Syariah Court shall stay the proceedings before it involving the same matter. Here again, there are once again arguments for and against the exercise of this concurrent jurisdiction by two different Court systems. The Malay Muslim community in Singapore has been happy with this arrangement in the past because they know that it benefits the community. The two proposals that have now come about in section 35 which involve custody and the disposition of property. Once they see the full implementation of the two provisions, they will realise that it actually benefits the community because it leads to the expeditious disposal of cases, whether by the Syariah Court, or in the event of consent by both parties, by the Civil Court. Another area that I would like to highlight is the new section 51(4). This is a new power which was missing in AMLA. This is definitely a welcome proposal as all courts must have powers to vary or rescind their orders, particularly in matrimonial matters when circumstances change along the way. However, the grounds for varying or rescinding the orders appear in the amendments to be limited to only three grounds.”
“Having acted for parties in the past in Syariah Court matters, I must say that Muslim Singaporeans are fortunate that they have two legal forums to seek remedies instead of one which many Singaporeans are at present entitled to. Sir, in addition, at the end of the day, what matters is: are the parties who are going to the court happy with the decision? Are they happy that they have received justice? Has any one of these parties who have gone before the court complained to the Civil Court that because they were Muslims they have been unfairly treated, that they have been unjustly treated, that the law has been applied unjustly? Here, I must say that I have not heard any Muslim party who has gone to the Civil Courts complaining that the law has been unjustly applied to them. I would highlight an instance later on where I feel that many of the principles which are found in the Civil Courts and under Muslim law are similar. In the area of maintenance, the present section 35(2) provides that the Syariah Court has jurisdiction to hear matters relating to maintenance. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Women's Charter also entitles Muslim parties to bring maintenance matters to the Civil Courts. Civil Courts have been accepting applications for maintenance by Muslim women for their or their children's maintenance. Some resort to the Civil Courts because of expediency and also the enforcement powers available to the Civil Courts. Here again, Sir, in the past, many resorted to the Civil Courts because there was delay in the way maintenance proceedings were going in the Syariah Court. But I must once again reiterate that what came out during my visit last month was that measures are being taken by the Syariah Court to speed up the collection of maintenance.”
“In any event, if one party is unhappy that the other party has resorted to the Civil Court, they can always go back to the Syariah Court and inform the Syariah Court that the certificate should not be issued and that the matter should be heard by the Syariah Court. At the end of the day, the Syariah Court determines whether the matter should go before the Civil Court or not in the absence of consent from both parties. Sir, in the other area where section 35 makes a major change is that while the Syariah Court has jurisdiction under section 35(2) of AMLA to order the disposition or division of property, problems have surfaced in the past in post-divorce applications which have forced parties to seek remedies from the High Court. It was, I repeat, the absence of appropriate remedy in AMLA which has forced parties to resort to the Civil Court. However, the courts, like the Court of Appeal in the case of Salijah bte Abdul Latif v Irwan bin Abdulah Teo, have ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the issue of disposition or division of property where it involves Muslim parties. The proposed amendment once again seeks to create a new door to the Civil Court in the area of disposition or division of property provided the conditions laid down are complied with. There is another area which I note from the discussion in this House which has raised concern among some Members, and this is in the area of concurrent jurisdiction. Effectively, the new section 35A creates concurrent jurisdiction in giving powers both to the Syariah Court and the civil courts in the two areas I have highlighted, ie, disposition of property and custody of child. Naturally, there are arguments for and against the creation of such concurrent jurisdiction.”
“Here, the proposed introduction of the new section 17A to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act requires the High Court in future to exercise jurisdiction only with the relevant certificate from the Syariah Court or with the consent of both parties before it. The Civil Court cannot, I repeat, automatically assume jurisdiction over such matters. I believe there is some misunderstanding among some members in the Malay community who assume that the Civil Court will automatically assume jurisdiction once the matter goes before the Civil Court. I think this is something that perhaps the Minister could clarify in the course of the Select Committee hearings or when subsequently the matter comes up. Here, it is the Syariah Court that determines how many cases go to the Civil Court. If the Syariah Court decides to be strict and tells the parties that appear before it that it has now got the full powers to make the decision that a Civil Court can make, then I think the number of cases that will end up going to the Civil Court will be limited. I think there are not many cases that both parties consent to go to the civil courts. So the fear of some members in the community that the Syariah Court will be very liberal in issuing the certificate so that they can go to the Civil Court, I think at this juncture, is something which is premature. The other key, which is being held by the two parties to the action, is that only when both of them consent can the matter go before the Civil Court. So the Civil Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the absence of consent from both parties.”
“The proposed scheme means that (i) once proceedings are commenced in the Syariah Court, parties may not commence civil proceedings in any court relating to the above issues unless there is leave of the Syariah Court. And (ii) where such civil proceedings have been commenced prior to proceedings in the Syariah Court, then such proceedings may not continue unless there is leave of the Syariah Court or by consent of the parties. Sir, let me now move on to the area of custody of child. It has become clear that the High Court has no jurisdiction over custody matters under section 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act where parties are Muslims or married under Muslim law. The powers of the Syariah Court to order custody are found in section 52 of AMLA. The above section, which is a new section, Sir, seeks to confirm the decision in the case of Lathibaby Bevi v Abdul Mustapha. In that case, Sir, the High Court ruled that where there have been proceedings in the Syariah Court, then only the Syariah Court has jurisdiction over the same. That decision implied that civil proceedings may be instituted so long as there are no proceedings in the Syariah Court. Once proceedings are commenced in the Syariah Court, then the Syariah Court assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other Courts. The amendment seeks to tidy this principle by the mechanism of issuing commencement and discontinuance certificates before the Court can assume jurisdiction. This is definitely a welcome procedure as: (1) It is the Syariah Court that holds the key to the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the civil courts; and (2) The second key is held by the parties themselves. It is the parties who must consent to the commencement or continuance of the action in the Civil Court.”
“Here, I must say that some 10 years ago, I noticed that there were delays and a long backlog of cases in the Syariah Court. But I was pleasantly surprised that last month when I visited the Syariah Court, as part of the Service Improvement Unit, drastic changes had taken place in the Syariah Court. I was impressed with the major administrative changes that had taken place. They have introduced many of the administrative measures that have been undertaken in the Subordinate Courts and in the High Court. Instances like case management, time schedules, fixed dates for clearing of backlog cases, all these are very impressive changes and I am glad that administrative changes have been introduced. I think it is a step forward in improving the administrative efficiency of the Syariah Court. Sir, having said so, I must impress upon this House that many of the plaintiffs who resorted to the Civil Court to get the right remedy resorted to it, not because they felt that the civil law afforded a better remedy, but, unfortunately, the Syariah Court did not possess these powers in the first place, and because some of these powers were lacking, they resorted to the Civil Courts. But with the introduction of these powers in the Syariah Court, I think it will go towards strengthening the Syariah Court and hence prevent an exodus, which is the fear of some in the community towards the Syariah Court. Sir, I would like to take the House through some of the major changes in the Bill. Let me, first, take new section 35A. This section covers two subjects: (i) the disposition of property on divorce; and (ii) custody of child.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments in the Bill. Sir, the proposed amendments seek to rectify some existing inadequacies in some areas of Syariah Court powers and procedures. I commend the Minister for being very forward looking in bringing forward these amendments expeditiously. Sir, first of all, I would like to declare my interest that I have represented some clients in Syariah Court matters in the past. I have also taken the trouble to consult some of the legal practitioners who practise in the Syariah Court and I would like to inform the Minister that the feedback has been positive in looking at these amendments. Sir, the Syariah Court is a new institution in Singapore when it was introduced in 1968. In fact, it is one that should be considered as a young institution because of its number of years in existence. In comparison to the Civil Courts in Singapore which have been in existence since the second charter of justice in 1826, they have a vast and long history. But even with such a long history, anomalies and loopholes do exist in the law and even in procedures. And it is because of that that many amendments have been made to laws and procedures in this House. As such, the amendments, as they come before the courts, equally show that loopholes and lacunas can appear in all forms of law, and the AMLA law is no exception. Sir, in that sense, I am glad many of the inadequacies and weaknesses have come up and that this Bill has come to this House for timely reform. Sir, with the recent increase in the number of divorces, both Muslim and non-Muslim, many divorce couples are looking forward to quicker remedies and faster procedures. Some Muslims consider that some of the procedures in the Civil Courts are faster.”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary would appreciate that over-26 hectares of land are grossly underutilised and that very few people use it other than on special occasions. So I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the deficit, he will consider requesting for a grant from the National Parks Board and open these two Gardens to members of the public for free use.”
“I would also urge the Ministry to ensure that the environmental problem in the region is put on the top priority list for discussion. Sir, the recent depreciation of the Asian currencies has also meant cheaper exports from these ASEAN countries. I hope the Ministry will urge the Europeans to keep their markets open to cheaper products from the affected Asian economies, and not impose barriers. It is equally important that Europe be urged to increase its investment in Asia to speed up the recovery process. Sir, I hope the Ministry will work hard to ensure that ASEM II comes out with concrete ideas and programmes to help Asia out of its economic problems.”
“Sir, the Asia-Europe Meeting was an initiative of our Prime Minister. The first meeting in Bangkok was a success, and the next meeting will be held in the United Kingdom next month. Sir, Europe and Asia are important to each other. Europe has huge financial and economic interests in Asia. In 1996, the EU exported US$123 billion worth of goods and services to East Asia, more than the United States. The involvement of European banks in Asia amounted to more than US$350 billion, even greater than that of the US and Japanese banks added together. Similarly, Asia's exports to Europe have increased over the years. Many Asian countries have also invested large sums in Europe. However, the recent economic turmoil in Asia has made many people in Europe sanguine. The economic problems have affected the Europeans to some extent. It clearly shows that in the new interconnected global economy, every one will be affected by regional economic problems. Sir, my concern is whether Europe will continue to take a greater interest in Asia, in particular, in Southeast Asian nations. We need to assure that the Asian ship is still buoyant and steady. We must ensure that Europe places great importance in Asia and continues to increase its links. To their credit, some of the European countries have extended help to Asia through the IMF and on a bilateral basis. I think they could do more both on a multi-lateral and bilateral basis. I hope more countries in Europe can be persuaded to participate in the trade financing scheme proposed by our Prime Minister for Indonesia. I urge the Ministry to ensure that the Asian economic crisis is put on top of the upcoming ASEM II meeting in London.”
“However, the business community which is involved in the day-to-day running of business will tell you that matters are deteriorating too fast and that urgent action needs to be initiated before many go down. I would like to urge the Minister to initiate dialogue and feedback sessions with various interest groups prior to the preparation of future Budgets. This will certainly enable more timely feedback to be obtained and enable the Minister to formulate a Budget that takes into account all views and opinions. It will certainly create a sense of participation by all Singaporeans in their national Budget. Sir, in conclusion, let me say that this year's Budget will certainly benefit our country and enhance our long-term competitiveness. I am confident that Singaporeans will rally behind the Government in these uncertain times. Many business sectors and individuals will be affected by the ongoing regional economic crisis. I urge the Minister to act early and generously to help the affected groups and individuals as part of his off-Budget measures before it becomes too late. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Government leaders have already agreed to a wage freeze. It is quite clear that the private sector will take the signal and follow suit. It is important that Government Ministries, statutory boards, autonomous agencies and other Government agencies freeze any increase for the next 12 months until the economic outlook changes for the better. If Government and related agencies increase fees and charges, it would naturally mean a drop in real income for Singaporeans. It will also send the wrong signal to the private sector that it is okay to increase their rates and charges. Sir, here, I hope the Government can set an example and lead. On this note, I must say that the recent increase by Singapore Power in the tariff for electricity did not go down with businesses and Singaporeans at large. I hope the Minister can implement a policy to freeze all increases for one year and not restrict them to JTC and HDB rentals. Feedback from business and ordinary Singaporeans Sir, the seventh issue which has been covered by the Deputy Chairman of the Feedback Unit, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, is basically that feedback from the business and ordinary Singaporeans is not obtained before the Budget is finalised. Even if the views of businesses and ordinary Singaporeans are not acceded to, they are by and large generally happy to at least feel that they had their fair share in giving their opinions and views. I must agree that timely feedback from the interested quarters may make a difference. For example, the Minister and his officials, while preparing the Budget some time back, may be of the opinion that matters have not deteriorated to warrant further measures in this Budget.”
“The general feeling among Singaporeans is that local banks are quick to raise interest rates on loans but are very slow in reducing them. It may perhaps be some time before interest rates on property loans come down. It would go a long way if some form of mortgage interest relief scheme could be extended to residential property owners, if not as a permanent relief, at least as a temporary relief, on a year-to-year basis. Such a scheme could for a start be extended to owner-occupied residential property and be limited to one property. I hope the Minister could consider such a scheme to help residential property owners. Help for manufacturing sector Fifthly, Sir, in respect of help for manufacturing sector, many in the manufacturing sector have criticised the Budget for focusing too much on the finance sector. Their criticisms may not be totally unjustified. The Minister may perhaps have chosen to wait for the report of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness before introducing more measures to help the manufacturing sector. I would urge the Minister and the Government to hasten the Committee's Report, as the manufacturing community is becoming more worried each day with economic conditions turning for the worse. So when the Report does come out, I hope the Minister will move equally fast to implement the recommendations to help the manufacturing sector. Freeze on increases in Government fees and charges Sir, the sixth issue is the call for a freeze on increases in Government fees and charges, which was also highlighted by two other MPs in their earlier speeches. In the light of the continuing deterioration of economic conditions, it is quite clear that the incomes of Singaporeans would remain unchanged or even drop.”
“Such timely feedback would be essential as companies' financial needs and problems must be attended to promptly before they go under. Sir, let me move on to another topic. No increased taxes on alcohol Sir, the Government has traditionally sent a strong message to discourage cigarette smoking by increasing the duties on cigarettes. However, I was disappointed that the Government does not view the serious consequences of alcohol consumption. It is becoming increasingly clear that more and more Singaporeans are consuming alcohol. Even the young are starting to consume alcohol at a younger age. By keeping the duty on alcohol at existing rates, the Government is sending the wrong message to the population, particularly to the young. I must express my disappointment that the Government has not made alcohol more expensive and help prevent many Singaporeans from getting into this habit which is seductive in the short run, but addictive in the long run. Sir, I hope the Government takes further measures to highlight the health hazards of alcohol and the problems of alcoholism. Mortgage interest relief scheme Sir, let me now move on to the fourth issue, ie, the mortgage interest relief scheme, which was introduced in the Hong Kong budget. One of the consequences of the property bubble until May 1996 has been the increased number of Singaporeans who have committed to property. Many middle income families, particularly those with fixed income, are affected by the sudden increase in the mortgage repayment amounts. Some are tiding over with savings. Some have surrendered and let the banks repossess their properties. With the continuing economic uncertainties, more may not be in a position to repay their property loans.”
“However, some businessmen have expressed concern that the impact on smaller companies would be negligible for the following reasons: Firstly, there will be an increase in the number of companies which will qualify for these loans as the eligibility threshold has been increased. Secondly, there may be a tendency to devote more of these new loans to the bigger and better capitalised companies. Thirdly, banks have already become very stringent in their lending and smaller businesses would find it even more difficult to obtain these loans from banks which administer the scheme. Sir, I would urge the Minister for Finance to ensure that the following requests be looked into: First, that small and big companies are equally assisted under the expanded LEFS scheme to avoid complaints of any bias towards the bigger companies. The Minister may perhaps consider imposing a quota on the total amount that can be disbursed to the bigger companies to ensure that smaller companies are not left out. Secondly, that banks are not too conservative in setting the criteria or standard in considering these loan applications, in view of the present business conditions. In view of the Government sharing a greater part of the risk in the LEFS scheme under the Budget, I think the Government should play a bigger role and have a greater say in the credit analysis and disbursement of these loans. Thirdly, I would request that a Government-nominated officer sit in the credit committee of the banks considering loans under the LEFS scheme, so that Government can gather faster feedback on the criteria and standards set by the banks. This would enable the Government both to monitor the loan disbursing process and make changes in the criteria and standard, if necessary, to assist local companies.”
“I certainly expected more preventive medicine to prevent the economy from getting sick. Sir, I commend the Government on continuing with its long-term objective of developing a good educated workforce, an excellent economic infrastructure and a strong defence force. These are basics which are vital for our survival and in maintaining our economic competitiveness. Sir, let me now move on to some of the budgetary issues that are of concern to Singaporeans. Income tax rebate for individuals The first issue, Sir, is the income tax rebate for individuals. There was general disappointment in the smaller amount of income tax rebate that was given to individuals. Many have expected a 10-15% income tax rebate. Many feel that the tax payable will become an increased burden in the present environment, as many Singaporeans use their current income to pay last year's income tax. Many find it hard to understand why the Government is less generous this year when the economy is slowing down and many are expected to earn less, or even be jobless. The Government could have been more generous as the budget surplus is usually underestimated in the Budget. Local Enterprise Financing Scheme Let me now move on to the second issue, which is, the Local Enterprise Financing Scheme. Our businessmen appreciate the recognition by Government of the difficulty in getting capital and the increased cost of capital to support their business activities. The increase in provision from $760 million to $1.1 billion looks substantial on first sight.”