S Iswaran
Singapore
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has incorporated the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation in its Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) Regulations 2022. The Regulations are applicable to Singapore-registered ships and all other ships while they are in Singapore waters.”
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) plans to progressively roll out the charging infrastructure for electric harbour craft operations in the Port of Singapore from 2025.”
“Since 2018, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has imposed minimum bicycle parking provisions covering different types of developments. The requirements are determined by multiple factors, including the developments’ use, location and gross floor area (GFA).”
“I had addressed similar Parliamentary Questions by Mr Gerald Giam on 29 November 2022 and 10 January 2023, as well as in my Ministerial Statement on 8 May 2023. The Member can refer to these past answers and statement as there has been no material change in the allocation of Certificates of Entitlement.”
“To encourage the uptake of electric cars, the Government has rolled out the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive and enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme. When taken together, it provides up to $45,000 off the Additional Registration Fee of an electric car upon registration.”
“The Land Transport Authority studies all potential changes to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system carefully, including conducting sensitivity analysis where appropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,300 lines we hold for S Iswaran, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 46.
“The experience of Police forces in countries like the UK and Canada indicates that such cameras and their recordings have been useful in deterring crime, calming rowdy members of the public and providing valuable investigative leads. Police will commence a pilot on the use of body-worn cameras for frontline policing in the middle of this year. Madam, we also remain steadfast in our efforts to strengthen community partnerships. As the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned, more residents are stepping forward to partner the Police, as evident from the 36% increase in Citizens-on-Patrol membership – from 7,094 members in December 2012 to 9,623 in December 2013. Police have also extended their partnership to other community stakeholders. For example, Jurong Police Division collaborated with dormitory operators, employers and MOM to launch a Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) to promote crime prevention and safety and security awareness among foreign workers. Madam, let me now turn to some specific issues that have been raised by Members. Mr Christopher de Souza asked for an update on the unlicensed moneylending situation. As we have heard, the number of reported unlicensed moneylending and related harassment cases fell to around 8,300 in 2013. This is a decrease of over 2,500 cases, or 23%, from 2012. Since 2009, there has been a cumulative decline of over 55% in such cases. There has also been a shift in the harassment tactics of loanshark syndicates; for instance, harassment cases with damage to property fell by almost a third, or 2,461 cases, over the past year.”
“For example, officers from Clementi NPC relied on their experience, knowledge of the neighbourhood, and detailed crime pattern analysis to solve within three days a case of serial theft of television sets in November last year. We will continue to allocate more resources to the Community Policing System. In the second half of 2014, COPS will be implemented at eight more NPCs in Ang Mo Kio North, Bedok South, Bukit Batok, Bukit Merah West, Bukit Panjang, Kampong Java, Queenstown and Yishun North. We expect COPS to be introduced in all NPCs by 2015. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Pritam Singh asked for an update on the programme to deploy Police Cameras in HDB estates. To date, Police Cameras have been installed in over 2,000 HDB blocks and multi-storey carparks (MSCPs), across all 16 Town Councils, and the 87 wards that they cover. Police Cameras will be rolled out to 1,000 more blocks and MSCPs by the end of this year. We expect all 10,000 HDB blocks and MSCPs to be covered by 2016. Harnessing such technology is another important element in our efforts to enhance Police's ability to fight crime. Over a period of 21 months, footages from Police Cameras have been used to solve 48 crime cases and generate Page: 80 investigative leads for a further 195 cases. On Mr Singh's specific query, the Police is willing to share footages from its cameras with Town Councils where it is relevant for investigations into offences under the Town Councils' purview. The Home Team continues to seek new ways to leverage on technology as a force multiplier. One new initiative that the Police is working on is the use of body-worn cameras by frontline officers.”
“Deputy Prime Minister Teo has laid out MHA's strategy to keep Singapore safe and secure. Let me now elaborate on our efforts to ensure the safety of our neighbourhoods and roads, and also address some specific queries from Members. Madam, as we have heard, the overall crime rate declined to 549 crimes per 100,000 population, which is a 6% decrease from 2012, and it continues a favourable trend since 2005. To sustain this, we will continue to invest in our frontline policing capabilities, harness technology, while building on our partnership with the community. Page: 79 2.45 pm Community policing is a key aspect of our efforts to keep neighbourhoods safe. Many Members have spoken on this. Mr Hri Kumar has commented on the efficacy and merits in the context of other jurisdictions. Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Arthur Fong asked about the progress of the Community Policing System (COPS). To strengthen our frontline policing capabilities, we have been implementing COPS in phases since 2012. To date, 20 of our 35 Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) have adopted the COPS model. Under this approach, a Community Policing Unit (CPU) and a Crime Strike Force (CSF) is established at each NPC to reach out to the community, and to tackle local crime concerns. Our Community Policing Unit officers regularly engage residents to forge closer ties, to raise crime prevention awareness, and to assist and support victims of crimes. Their outreach efforts have generally been well-received by members of the public. The familiarity with the local operating terrain has enabled our Crime Strike Force officers to be more effective in detecting and deterring crime.”
“Madam, if by "consequences" the Member means whether investigations would somehow be ceased or compromised, the answer is no. The Police will conduct the usual slew of investigations and, as I have said, this is really in order for them to be able to use a different technique, if, in fact, all other leads have not yielded results and there is a need to do so in order to establish the facts in a comprehensive way. As for international practice, in fact, the opinion is varied on this. The practice of polygraph examinations in some countries is even admissible in Court. In Singapore, that is not the practice. But as an investigation technique, it is not uncommon internationally for it to be used to aid investigation officers in their work. Page: 14”
“Mdm Speaker, polygraph examination is one of the tools used by Police to support investigation of different types of cases, including sex-related offences. Police will evaluate on a case-by-case basis the value of administering polygraph examinations to persons involved in an investigation, to assess the veracity of the persons' statements and to establish new leads. So, it is not a Page: 13 standard procedure. Generally, this is used when there are conflicting accounts provided by the persons involved, and all other investigative leads have been exhausted. Polygraph examination is voluntary and written consent is required from the subject. During the investigation, Police may request persons involved in the case, such as accused persons, victims or witnesses, to undergo a polygraph examination. Police will explain the nature and process of polygraph examination to the subject prior to it being administered. Since its introduction in 1991, Police have used polygraph examinations in a relatively small number of cases. Between 2011 and 2013, Police administered an average of 700 polygraph examinations per year, in about 1%-2% of all crime cases that were reported.”
“Madam, in general, the overstayer pattern in Singapore is not different from our immigration flows. Most of the overstayers come from Asian countries. Page: 9”
“Madam, I thank the Member for his questions. In general, I think a lot depends on the nature of the offence, how egregious the overstaying offence was, and any other factors that would be relevant in determining whether a person should be re-admitted or be allowed to re-enter Singapore, and if so, after what duration.”
“Therefore, we should not consider committing it to a Select Committee. Madam, I think I have substantively covered the points that have been made. I want to stress again that the riot on 8 December 2013 was a very serious one, and it is important that all of us, Members of this House and Singaporeans, recognise that we cannot afford to take our safety and security for granted. We must be ready to prevent the occurrence of a similar incident. This means taking proactive steps where they are necessary, and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies possess sufficient and effective means to deal with and defuse situations that can threaten public order. This Bill that is before the House today is a very important part of this effort. We have sought to balance the powers that are needed against the impact on the community. This Bill provides for a limited set of powers, far less than that presently available, to be applied to a limited location, for a limited duration. Until the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations and the longer-term measures are ready, this Bill will serve to maintain peace and public order in Little India for the safety and security of all. Madam, I urge Members to support the Bill. [(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. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)] Page: 124 [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“In this regard, I want to state that we are very heartened that stakeholders in Little India, including business entities, have come forward to support the measures taken despite the fact that some of them have been affected adversely by some of the restrictions imposed. Many have, in fact, welcomed the measures and saw them as an improvement over the pre-riot conditions. Nevertheless, we are mindful of the potential impact on residents and businesses, and will seek to minimise them wherever possible. For instance, many of the measures imposed in the immediate aftermath, such as the restrictions on alcohol and bus services, have subsequently been relaxed. The Bill also provides for discretion to vary or tweak the measures over this period. Much will depend on the ground situation, which the Police will carefully monitor and assess. And we will continue to engage our stakeholders and take into account their feedback as we look at the longer-term solutions. Page: 123 Madam, Ms Lina Chiam has suggested that we commit this Bill to a Select Committee. I would argue against that. First, there is no need to put this Bill through a Select Committee because, as I have repeatedly stressed, the powers in the Bill are, in fact, far less than what is available in the POPA and there are no new powers. The POPA is far too powerful for our needs in Little India. There is also, secondly, an immediate need for the law to allow our ground agencies to continue to implement the measures effectively. I believe all the substantive issues raised by Members have been well-debated. There is a range of views, and I think we have addressed them substantively. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances that one can point to, we should not delay the implementation of this Bill.”
“Page: 122 I also want to add that in the aftermath of the riot, Mr Shanmugam, myself, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr Vikram Nair and several of us went to the dormitories and other areas. There is work afoot to enhance some of the facilities and services for the workers who reside in these dormitories, or visit the recreation centres. These include remittance services and other recreational facilities. Ms Ellen Lee's point on making employers more responsible for educating their workers on our laws is an important one. I assure Ms Lee that the relevant Government agencies will continue to work on this effort. There were some concerns about the impact of the measures on foreign worker congregation and on Little India. Since the implementation of the measures, our agencies have not noted any significant displacement effect on foreign workers to other areas. Police will continue to monitor the situation and adjust their resources as necessary. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has argued that the Bill casts a chilling effect on Little India. I would offer a different perspective – if another incident were to occur in Little India, the effect would not be chilling; it would be disastrous. Little India is, and continues to be, a place of interest and enjoyment for residents, business operators, foreign workers and tourists alike. Drinking continues to be permitted in licensed premises during weekends, and most activities can continue unencumbered. By providing a safer law and order environment, the measures we have taken, in fact, serve to preserve and enhance the colour and vibrancy of Little India, not detract from it.”
“Our aim is to develop a long-term solution, informed by the COI's findings and the Government consultation process on measures to restrict the consumption of alcohol in public. Twelve months should be sufficient for this purpose. This Bill will allow the Police to maintain law and order in Little India in the interim period. The law can be extended only by passage of another Bill in Parliament. Some have asked if the Bill is or should be a precursor to an eventual island-wide regime. This is not the case. The objectives of the Bill are distinct from the wider review of the liquor licensing regime. That review will take into consideration the views of stakeholders, as well as any findings and recommendations of the COI. We will also draw on the experience with the measures taken in Little India in considering what is sustainable in the long term. I urge Members to let the process run its course. The full set of liquor control measures will be announced when they are ready, and where new legislation is deemed necessary, it will be brought to this House for debate. Dr Lam Pin Min and Ms Denise Phua have asked about the broader management of foreign workers. There is an inter-agency effort under MOM's leadership. It has been at work even before this incident. They have addressed a range of issues, not just about social disamenities, or concerns about foreign workers and their welfare, but also on security matters, and on what else can be done to educate the workers, and implementing appropriate measures in their neighbourhoods. The committee will certainly consider the feedback that is being provided after the riot, and put forth and execute appropriate measures as needed.”
“In fact, as several Members have pointed out, these were some concerns that had been there even before, and were part of the impetus behind the wider review of liquor licences and alcohol consumption that commenced before the riot. Given the volatile situation following the riot, the Government and other agencies adopted a proactive and prudent stance to do what was needed and sensible to restore order quickly and prevent a recurrence of civil disorder. Collectively, these measures have been accepted as useful and necessary by many stakeholders, and it has helped to restore confidence and calm. I am sure that many Singaporeans, and Members of this House, will agree that it would have been remiss of the Government, if we had reverted to business as usual Page: 121 and waited several months for the COI to complete its work and establish the approximate causes before taking action. Madam, taking proactive and prudent measures does not amount to pre-judging the issue. This is the duty of the Government and our agencies. Let me emphasise that these measures do not in any way intend to be definitive on the actual causes of the riot or its etymology. That is for the COI to study and ascertain. The COI is a fully independent process and has been given full latitude to gather the facts in order to ascertain the causes of the riot, and, among other terms of reference, it also is assessing the agencies' response to the situation. In the interim, to protect the peace that was restored, this Bill provides for the continued implementation of the measures. Mr Hri Kumar and Dr Lam Pin Min have queried the 12-month duration of the proposed Bill.”
“And, secondly, the specific powers in this Bill will be accorded to them, only after the Commissioner of Police has done so, specifically. Ms Foo Mee Har sought clarification on the immunity provision in clause 19(3), and several other Members mentioned this as well. This provision allows officers to exercise their powers to deal with various public order threats and concerns without fear that their actions will expose themselves or the Government to consequent liability to compensate for any loss incurred. This is a common provision found in many of our laws, and it is necessary where coercive or intrusive powers are provided. The immunity is only available, however, where the act is done in good faith, with reasonable care, and in the furtherance of duty. It does not exempt actions outside of these parameters. The Government and its officers remain liable for negligent acts or for acts in excess of legal powers. Let me now touch on the some other points that the Members have raised. Several have asked whether the Government has pre-judged the causes of the riot and influenced the Committee of Inquiry process, especially with the moving of this Bill. Mdm Speaker, the stability that was restored to Little India did not come about by chance. It was the result of deliberate measures taken by the Government. In the aftermath of the riot, we identified several risk factors, based on operational assessments and other inputs, that could further aggravate the public order situation in Little India. These included, as I have mentioned before, large congregations and, of course, the access to alcohol.”
“Firstly, only selected APOs who are authorised by the Commissioner of Police in writing can exercise the powers under the Bill. The Commissioner will only do so if he is fully satisfied that the APO being authorised is well trained and competent enough to do the job. This is the most important safeguard. Next, APOs can only exercise certain powers under the Bill, as I have explained. They do not have powers of arrest, except to remove a person, nor do they have powers of search and seizure, which are only available to Police officers of or above the rank of Sergeant. There is also clear accountability and oversight by the Police on APO matters. As part of the established protocol, APOs can refer and seek advice from the Police where required. And, importantly, in difficult situations, Police will also step in to take control. We have had significant experience; there has been questions raised about the training and the preparation of APOs. In the interest of time, I will keep this short. In this House, we enacted the Police Force Act expressly allowing the formation of auxiliary police forces to assist the Singapore Police Force. This was done in 2004. The APOs have been involved with the Police in a range of activities on a routine basis, including conducting spot checks during special events and policing anti-social behaviour in known congregation areas. All APOs are required to undergo training for these purposes before they can be deployed, to ensure they have the requisite competencies. So, there is Page: 120 no reason to suggest ex ante that APOs are incompetent or incapable of performing roles under the Bill. You may have individual cases, but the system and processes are in place to ensure that they are well trained and prepared for the job.”
“Similarly, clause 11 prescribes that a Police officer or an approved auxiliary police officer may only ask a person to leave the special zone if he has reasonable grounds to suspect – from the person's demeanour or conduct – that the person is likely to breach or has breached the prohibitions, or if the person's presence or actions are likely to threaten or prejudice the maintenance of public order. In short, this power cannot be used to exclude persons without a good basis. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and some others have asked if police action is warranted on the basis of reasonable suspicion or likelihood, as opposed to a Page: 119 higher evidentiary threshold. The intent of these provisions is to identify and defuse potential public order threats, before they escalate. That purpose will be defeated if we are to allow these threats to substantially materialise or crystallise before intervening. Nevertheless, there still has to be, I repeat, a good basis for the actions. Ultimately, Police officers have doctrine and training to ensure that they carry out these tasks responsibly and exercise sound professional judgement to take action, as appropriate, to deal with the situation before them. There is also recourse to judicial review. All actions taken under this Bill are subject to judicial review and the Court will have to assess whether decisions taken by the officers/authorities are reasonable, in accordance with principles of natural justice and whether due process has been observed. Several Members have touched on the empowerment of Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) under this Bill and measures to ensure they are properly equipped to exercise the powers and what are the safeguards.”
“Due process mechanisms are also in place to provide adequate avenues for aggrieved parties to seek redress, including an avenue of appeal to the relevant Minister in charge of the licences. Madam, several Members have spoken on the need for safeguards against arbitrary exercise of powers. I touched on this earlier, but perhaps the most significant safeguard in this regard is the fact that this Bill seeks to curtail the powers available to the Police, compared to the present situation. If Members can accept, and Ms Sylvia Lim in fact said so, that the extensive powers under POPA will be exercised with due restraint and safeguard by the Police and the Ministry – and many others are implying that by advocating the continued use of POPA – then, surely, you should be assured that the exercise of the limited powers under this Bill would be similarly restrained. Let me also assure Members that significant safeguards are in place for each power. First, the provisions themselves prescribe specific thresholds or considerations to guide the officer in his assessment. As an example, to conduct searches under clause 12, the Police must, first, have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under the law has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the effect and act of searching a particular person, vehicle or item would aid in detecting or stopping the offence. As an added precaution, the search power under clause 12 can only be exercised by a Police officer of or above the rank of Sergeant. No such power has been conferred on an Auxiliary Police Officer.”
“Much obliged, Madam. Some Members have also highlighted this particular aspect of the more intrusive search provisions and I think the term used was "strip searches". I want to clarify and put this in context. The Bill allows for full searches to be conducted, as is the case for all events under the Public Order Act. The Police do not take this lightly and they have well-established protocols to assess when such searches are necessary and how they are to be administered, based on operational experience with various special events, including the National Day Parade each year. As with all such events, Police will calibrate the level of searches, depending on ground assessment of risks posed to the law-and-order situation at that time. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about the considerations in deciding whether to cancel or suspend the licence of a business operator. The objective of this provision is to deter businesses from committing egregious or recalcitrant violations of the alcohol restrictions. In extremis, we want to prevent them from continuing their operations while investigations and prosecution are ongoing. In particular, there will now be a measure of parity and proportionality in the Page: 118 treatment of errant business operators, whether or not they hold liquor licences. Nevertheless, I recognise that the ability to order these powers is a strong one and the Police will carry out, in answer to Mr Baey Yam Keng's question, thorough investigations to ensure there is sufficient basis that an offence had been committed and is of sufficient severity before any action is taken with respect to the licences.”
“This Bill provides for calibrated powers, far less than in POPA, to continue with the measures to maintain law and order in Little India. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has asked whether it could have been possible to amend the existing laws. Madam, we did consider this option. However, the intent and provisions in the existing laws are worded generally to deal with broad law-and-order situations. In the end, we felt it was preferable to propose a dedicated temporary piece of legislation to meet the specific policing needs of Little India, and adapting provisions in other legislation where relevant. Some Members have asked about the timing of this Bill. Why can we not wait for the COI? Some have characterised it as a knee-jerk, hurried response. This is hardly the case. This is not a case of mindless efficiency. This is a case of a targeted and necessary response to a clear and present need on the ground.”
“Indeed, Madam, the logic offered by several Members is quite elusive – that we welcome the measures that have been taken; we are concerned that you exercise powers and have powers with proportionality; we want to make sure that there are adequate safeguards; but why do we not just continue using POPA, which has extensive powers and will not invite this level of scrutiny? If you are prepared to accord the authorities the powers under POPA, then why are you reluctant to accord the powers which are significantly reduced, compared to POPA as reflected in the Bill? If you are concerned about the exercise of power that is enumerated in this Bill, then why are you not even more exercised by that concern in the context of the powers under POPA? And if you are concerned that somehow this Bill will tarnish the image of Little India, then what do you think the proclamation of a state of danger in Little India every week would do? Other Members have suggested, why not defer the Bill till after the COI? The suggestion here is that the COI will finish its work in a few months, and we can just get on with whatever we need to do then. As Ms Denise Phua and others have noted, the COI will take some time to finish its work. It has been given six months and, thereafter, whatever the recommendations, they have to Page: 114 be deliberated upon and, then, appropriate measures put in place. So, there is considerable time still ahead, and who would be answerable to Singaporeans and to the residents in Little India if another incident were to occur? It is incumbent on the Government and our agencies to take reasonable steps and measures to ensure that such an incident does not recur.”
“So, we need a specific and limited set of powers under this Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill to maintain public order and calm effectively in Little India. Page: 113 Several Members – too many for me to list, I hope and I think you know who they are – have asked why can we not just continue with the present arrangement? In other words, just continue relying on the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA). Madam, many Members have advocated that we adopt a proportionate and appropriate response to the situation in Little India. We agree fully and, indeed, that has been the key reason for this Bill. So, it is ironic that some Members have taken issue with the powers in this Bill which are limited and significantly reduced, compared to those already available today under POPA. The powers under POPA are extensive, some would say even draconian, as it is a law conceived to deal with a far graver set of circumstances, such as a State of Emergency. It has the powers, as I said earlier, to impose curfews and even use lethal force. This is not a case of moving the Bill because we have insufficient powers, as Mr Chen Show Mao has suggested. It is a case where the powers are grossly disproportionate to the current situation in Little India, especially as the situation has stabilised and the focus is now on maintaining public order. Therefore, the status quo of relying on the powers under POPA is neither necessary nor desirable.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Madam, it has been a long session and I thank you for your forbearance. I want to thank all 16 Members who have spoken on this Bill and canvassed a wide range of opinions with great emotion. I hope to address their points, putting them in context and also hoping to inject a dose of reality into the discussion. Madam, let me start first with the need for the powers in this Bill, which many have queried. Madam, the riot in Little India was the most serious public order incident in Singapore in over four decades. And, lest we forget, it occurred just over nine weeks ago. There was one fatality, several injuries, and extensive damage to property. It might seem distant, even remote, from the calm of this Chamber, but it remains a stark reality for the residents and stakeholders in Little India, our officers who were involved in the incident and who continue with their duties there, and, indeed, for many Singaporeans and foreign workers, and Ms Denise Phua has portrayed this vividly. In the immediate aftermath of this incident, the Government and our enforcement agencies took several steps to address various factors that could have contributed, or aggravated, the incident. Indeed, many in this House have welcomed those initial responses. We needed specific powers under the Public Order (Preservation) Act (or POPA) and other legislation to implement those measures. And that need remains valid today. There is a heightened security environment in Little India; we continue to have large gatherings in the area on weekends and public holidays; residents and stakeholders remain concerned that an untoward incident may recur.”
“I urge all Members of this House to support the Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill. [(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. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Even though the scheme has ceased since 2007, close to 50 taxi drivers continued to be licensed as tourist guides today under the National Tourist Guide Training and Licensing Framework, administered by WDA and STB respectively. And STB will continue to support these and other guiding models that are emerging. So, a taxi driver today, if he wishes to be a taxi tour guide in the sense that Mr Yee has described, he has to go for the tour guide course and take the test that is administered by STB, and then he will be licensed as such. The point on eight or more tourists and otherwise you are not a tour guide, that is the point for the issue of presumption which can lead to enforcement. It is not to preclude those who have smaller tour groups from conducting tour guide activities. So, I hope that clarifies. Madam, STB will continue to work with the tour guide industry and relevant stakeholders to capitalise on quality growth opportunities, and our tour guides, in turn, must play their part by upgrading their capabilities and constantly updating their offerings in line with industry trends so that they can fully benefit from these job opportunities. I think STGS and NTUC can also add value to their members by proactively marketing their members' services, and STB is ready to assist in such ground-up marketing efforts where needed. Madam, the enhancement of the tourist guide industry is a joint effort. The industry and the Government today are embarking on one key aspect, which is, to strengthen regulation. STB and industry stakeholders can collaborate in more areas so that our tourist guides continue to contribute meaningfully to Page: 57 and benefit from Singapore's growth as a vibrant tourist destination.”
“The taskforce is also looking at how training can be made more modular, and reviewing the training delivery modes to give trainees greater flexibility in acquiring the training they need. Finally, STB will engage the industry associations, STGS and NTUC regularly to help them better appreciate industry trends and to support capability development initiatives of their members. One such trend that Mr Ang has mentioned is the rise of the free and independent traveller. These travellers are looking for bespoke and modular offerings which they can experience at their own pace and they are prepared to pay a premium for this. This is the space in which tour guides with the right skills and expertise, the niche offerings, can thrive. Page: 56 This is one reason why STB is supporting STGS' effort to collaborate with the World Federation of Tourist Guide Associations to bring the latter's internationally accredited training programme to Singapore. The programme will comprise training and enhance hands-on guiding, including advanced storytelling techniques, as well as train-the-trainer elements for more seasoned guides who wish to take on trainer roles in the future. This is the first for the tourist guide industry here. STB, STGS and WFTGA will share more details when available. In addition, NTUC and STGS have embarked on study visits facilitated by STB and this is really meant to foster greater understanding and to learn from best practices within tourism destinations overseas. Mr Yee mentioned the Taxi Tourist Guide Scheme that STB and the Singapore Taxi Academy put in place in 2004 to enhance taxi drivers' employability and to better serve the needs of free and independent tourists.”
“Mdm Speaker, indeed, regulation alone can only do so much to raise the tourist guides' capability and improve their career prospects. The proposed legislative amendments are but one aspect of a broader effort to enhance the tourist guide industry for quality growth. Let me share with Members some other specific initiatives that STB has undertaken with the industry to help Singaporeans enhance their guiding skills so that they can take on higher value work and improve their career prospects. First, STB, WDA and e2i have formed a task force to review the competency road map for tourist guides at various stages of their careers. This includes reviewing the training curriculum for entry level and seasoned guides, like the competency road maps will complement the tiered licensing framework which STB is reviewing, to create the conditions for tourist guides to differentiate themselves and progress in their careers. Mr Ang would agree with me that such a structured progression would make a career in tourist guiding more attractive for Singaporeans and help us to attract more talent to the industry. The point about waiver of fees per se, I think the most compelling incentive here is really to have a clear career path, opportunities to upgrade and to be able to then command the remuneration that is commensurate with experience and capabilities. STB will ensure that those are the steps to undertake. Second, the taskforce is working with the industry to make tourist guide training more accessible to those who are interested in the profession. We are studying various ways to do this, including increasing in the number of training providers.”
“They can avail themselves of the mediation that exists under that Act, and, if it fails, they can then go on to the Courts. I understand Mr Ang's concern is more for the freelance tour guides who have recourse to the Small Claims Tribunal, but this, in and of itself, may not always yield an outcome that the tour guides or the freelance tour guides are happy with. I understand and thank Mr Ang for his suggestion to set up a specific mediation centre. I have asked STB to consult NTUC and STGS to see whether this is a feasible proposal that can be implemented in discussion with other stakeholders. On the enforcement part, Mr Ang's request was that STB ensure that it has adequate resources to do so, to give effect to the intent of this Bill. I assure him that is the case. STB has already been enhancing its enforcement efforts and, if this Bill is approved, then they will take additional measures, both in terms of in-house resources and also external support, in order to give effect to its provisions. Mr Yee's point on how the enforcement is carried out is invalid. It has to be done in a manner that does not create an unsavoury experience for visitors, whilst ensuring that the intent of the law is carried out. And this is really the reason why we have other measures in the Bill, including composition, so that immediate composition can be offered, and it is only in extremis where we have an extremely uncooperative individual who is suspected of such an activity, then additional or more serious measures need to kick in. But STB is fully cognisant of the points that Mr Yee has made, and the enforcement measures will be sensitive to that. Page: 55 Mr Ang has asked about the capability developments for the tourist guide industry.”
“Moreover, it is important that we guard against over-reaching in regulation, even as this Bill proposes to strengthen STB's investigative and enforcement powers against unlicensed guiding. We must also recognise that new guiding models are emerging; also, technology is being more widely adopted as part of the industry. If the boundaries within which these powers are exercised are broadened too much, we may end up regulating even school groups and community groups on excursions to places of interest like the Zoo, and require them to hire licensed tourist guides. I do not think that is the intent of this exercise. I do want to add, however, that though we are not mandating that locals use licensed guides, it does not preclude licensed tour guides from offering their services and for locals to avail themselves of their services where relevant. And this is really something for which the market has to find its level. If the licensed tour guide is offering a valuable service, I am sure the demand will continue to be there, as Mr Ang has described. Page: 54 Mr Ang has raised an important point on the welfare of tourist guides. I personally met representatives of STGS and NTUC in the past year and I understand their concerns and that of the industry's. Travel agents should offer fair contractual terms and clear payment schedules to tourist guides as this affects their livelihood. These arrangements are important and underpin the relationship between tourist guides and travel agencies. We need to enhance the working arrangements between travel agents and tourist guides so that both can continue to thrive in our evolving tourism scene. On the issue of mediation, tourist guides employed by travel agents are already covered by MOM's Employment Act.”
“Madam, I want to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Yee Jenn Jong for speaking in support of the Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill. It is noted the proposed amendments are an important part of a larger effort between the Government and the Ministry to review and enhance the tourist Page: 53 guide industry's capability and development. Mr Ang and Mr Yee have observed that strengthening the regulatory framework will help our tourism industry to enhance standards, retain its competitiveness and continue offering differentiated experiences to visitors. Let me now address the specific points that Mr Ang and Mr Yee have raised. Mr Ang asked whether the definition of "tourist" could be broadened to encompass guiding activities for locals. Mr Ang is concerned that such a definition might adversely affect the livelihood of licensed tourist guides, as those excluded from the proposed definition of "tourist" would not be required to engage guiding services by law. If I may make one clarification, those here on a social visit pass, up to 90 days, are covered by the definition of tourists. It is really those who are here for a longer period than that. Madam, there are good reasons for the Singapore Tourism Board to adopt this definition, which, in fact, is already the practice today in Singapore. It is consistent with international practice. For example, guiding regulations in Queensland, Australia and Taiwan, one can see, are similarly focused on tourist-based facilities and activities. This is understandable as tourists, given their limited local knowledge and time, are probably the most susceptible to being exposed to unlicensed guiding.”
“Madam, first, there are clear protocols for investigation procedures and these will be adapted and customised to certain types of situations and crime, and that includes cases of sexual assault or alleged sexual assault cases. Second, one cannot expect our officers to be trained to be empathetic if they are given to – I think the Member used the term "common myths" – and, certainly, that is not the case. Our officers are trained to be empathetic and sensitive. But, also, to do their work, they need to establish the facts, so that has to be done. Sometimes, that may come across, for some individuals, as being a bit too forthright, but that is part of the investigation process. That is also why I enumerated in some detail the range of measures that are put in place at different levels in different ways to ensure that those who are allegedly victims are treated with empathy and sensitivity.”
“Madam, as I have said, indeed, that is the practice today. When an application is received, the Police will consult and obtain feedback and assessment from the relevant Government agencies, some of which the Member has mentioned. However, at the end of the day, the Police will also have to make a total assessment of the situation in a particular area before deciding whether a licence is to be granted and, if so, at what level.”
“Madam, in considering and approving public entertainment licences, the Police works with other relevant Government agencies and they take into account and consideration a variety of factors, such as the background of the applicants, the law and order situation and the potential disamenities to the neighbourhood. There is currently no stipulated cap per se on the total Page: 21 number of licences in any particular area as the density and mix of developments and activities can vary significantly. Police, however, does review the situation at various localities regularly to see if additional controls should be put in place. For the renewal of existing licences, Police also takes into account the track record and infringement history of the licence holder. Outlets that have a good record and do not attract adverse feedback from the local community will, generally, be allowed to continue their operations. The Member had asked specifically about Broadcast HQ. The Broadcast HQ is located along Rowell Road in Little India. It has been granted a Category Two public entertainment licence which allows the transmission of recorded music. Since 2012, given the incidence of vice and other considerations, Police has stopped issuing new Category One public entertainment licences, and this category of licences would permit live music and dancing in establishments located in that area. We will continue to calibrate our regulation to strike a balance between the need to maintain law and order, minimise disamenities to the local community and facilitate business and the growth of the arts industry.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for his clarification on the term "legislative ritual". I took it at face value. Secondly, in terms of the trust in Government that has underpinned this entire Bill, I fully agree with him. We are keenly aware of the trust that Parliament and the people of Singapore bestow on the Government in context of this Bill but many other matters as well. So, that is why we take this very seriously and it is an ethos that percolates and permeates the entire system that is involved in the administration of the provisions of this Act. I assure Members that that would continue to be the case. [(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. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Madam, again I have to state that I am unable to go into details because the matter is in progress. But I will say that the fact we have invoked provisions under the CLTPA should itself offer the Member some understanding of the circumstances. Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Madam, first I would like to clarify that I think the Minister has read too much into my use of "legislative ritual". Second, I welcome the Minister's announcement that more information would be made available through the Prisons Service's Annual Report on CLTPA. In debating this Bill, Members of this House rely a lot on trust of the Government. And I say this because, here we are passing an extension to a law that provides for detention without trial and the explanatory statement of the Bill is less than 50 words. The information that the Minister provides is on the sitting day itself. That is where I am coming from. In my speech earlier, I said that the legislative ritual should not blind us to the need to be sensitive to the concerns that people outside the House would have with regard to this law. Page: 93”
“Madam, first on the level of international cooperation between match-fixing cases: it will be fair to say that all enforcement agencies in the relevant jurisdictions are alive to the challenge and they are working together. We have, for example, in Singapore, the CID and the CPIB which have formed a special investigation unit that is working closely with their counterparts in Interpol and so on, in order to ensure that the collaboration is as deep and extensive as possible. Page: 92 As the Member would appreciate, there are legal constraints to how much you can do cross borders. Extradition treaties are one aspect of it. I think this is something that will continue to have to be worked on, but I think the problem is well recognised. Its transnational nature necessitates this kind of close collaboration across enforcement agencies. I want to re-state the assurance I gave that we fully cooperate with all international bodies on these sorts of crimes, and where there is a request for extradition or any other form of cooperation, we will do so as provided for under the laws that we have. I am not sure if Mr Vikram Nair can clarify but I heard him saying, in terms of Judges, we are not contemplating asking sitting Judges. We are talking about Judges who may have retired but who have that body of knowledge and the experience and the judgment to be involved in the rigorous process of review.”
“In practice, the Act is applied judiciously to a targeted group of persons associated to the activities of a criminal nature and where it is in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Court prosecution is and will continue to be the norm. Powers under the Act will be used as a last resort. This is why there has to be an elaborate system of strong safeguards and multiple checks and balances to ensure that the Act is used judiciously and the powers not abused in application. I have elaborated at length on this because it is important that Members of this House appreciate that we do not take these powers lightly. Madam, ultimately, the essence of today's debate is really about ensuring safety and security of Singapore for present and future generations. The CLTPA is an integral part of our efforts to do so. I hope that you will not take it for Page: 91 granted.”
“Third, these provisions on strikes and lock-outs in the CLTPA are specific to essential services. They prohibit strikes and lock-outs in three sectors: gas, water and electricity. As for the other essential services such as public transport and air transport, broadcasting and banking, which are listed in the First Schedule of the CLTPA, workmen or employers who wish to take part in a strike or initiate a lock-out must give a 14-day notice period. This notice period is required to ensure minimal or no disruption to services which are necessary for the proper functioning of critical operations in Singapore. These are not provided for in other legislation, such as the Trade Unions Act and the Trade Disputes Act. And I believe that these provisions are still relevant and appropriately placed within this Act at this juncture. Legislation will constantly be reviewed and, if there is an opportunity that is suitable, we will consider the Member's point. Madam, I want to conclude by thanking Members who have spoken for voicing their support for the extension of the CLTPA. I know that this is a difficult decision. Since its inception, the CLTPA has been essential in allowing our law enforcement agencies to act decisively against evolving criminal threats and they are constantly evolving their modes of operation and manifest themselves in different forms. What remains common across all of these threats, whether it is secret society activities, drug trafficking or other types of criminal syndicates and criminal rogues, the consequential impact on public safety, peace and good order is beyond question. The experiences of other countries underscore the need for the CLTPA. It provides us with appropriate powers which can be used in specific circumstances.”
“The members of the Prevention of Crime Board are appointed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong for a term not exceeding two years. The Yang Di Pertuan Agong acts in this instance on the advice of the Cabinet. If you contrast this with the Singapore system, Parliament explicitly vests the authority for detention under the CLTPA with the Executive who is then clearly accountable to Parliament for the use of the Act. She has compared this with what is the accountability for a committee appointed for two years in terms of the exercise of powers accorded to it under the Prevention of Crime Act. At the end of the day, it is the system that needs robust safeguards, checks and balances and people of integrity who are involved in ensuring that we are doing the right thing in the right way. Assoc Prof Tan proposed removing the provisions on essential services in Part III of the CLPTA and incorporating them under other legislations such as those dealing with employment or trade unions. Some clarifications are in order and I agree with the Member that this may not be the most elegant legislative solution. But to clarify, the detention powers under the CLTPA apply judiciously and only in situation, which is quite clear, like the threat to public order. In practice, these powers have not been used for strikes and lock-outs. Second, the provisions on illegal strikes and lock-outs in essential services, unlike those on detention, those who commit an offence under this section, are dealt with through Court prosecution, as was the case with the SMRT strike recently. The Page: 90 penalties are also clearly spelt out, which are a fine – maximum of $2,000 – and imprisonment of up to 12 months. The provisions on illegal strikes and lock-outs sit independently from those on detention.”
“In making its recommendation, the Criminal Law Review Committee considers a number of factors, including the nature and gravity of the offences committed, the detainees' criminal antecedents, conduct and response to prison's rehabilitation programmes and the likelihood of reoffending and continuing to pose a threat to safety and security. The assessment is holistic, specific to the Page: 89 circumstances of each case and each individual, and the various factors need not carry equal weight; not just any single factor outweighs the others. Yet another independent Advisory Committee is the Criminal Law Review Board which reviews all cases of detention beyond 10 years. The Board comprises members who are different from the Review Committee and the Hearing Committee, and this process ensures that cases where persons have been detained beyond 10 years are scrutinised by a separate committee and that they have not been detained longer than necessary. Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that judicial review cover the merits of detention as well. That has not been the intent of this legislation from its very outset. Parliament has conferred on the Executive the power to issue such Detention Orders and the Judiciary's role is limited to the review of the procedural integrity and rationality of the processes. That is also why we come back to Parliament every five years because of the temporary nature to account to Parliament, for Parliament to vest the authority. Renew the authority that is assigned, to be exact. She also drew comparisons with the Malaysian system of detention. The detention provisions within the Prevention of Crime Act in Malaysia have to be renewed by Parliament every five years.”
“On this point, we also note Mr Tong's suggestion for assigned counsel for persons dealt with under the CLTPA. I understand that the Ministry of Law has been generally looking at enhancing criminal legal aid and I think it will be able to announce its position on this soon. Having scrutinised the evidence and the facts of the case, the Committee will submit its recommendations on whether to cancel, vary or confirm the orders. Members have asked for the number of instances when the final recommendation was in variance with the original Detention Order. This question poses an interesting dilemma. If there were many instances, the conclusion would be that the system is not working. If there were no instances, a similar conclusion would also be drawn. So, the answer really is one that cannot really satisfy the level of curiosity that some Members have expressed. But I would say this. There have been a number of instances where the initial Detention Orders were cancelled and Police Supervision Orders subsequently issued in their place in view of the Committee's recommendations. Each Detention Order is only valid for up to 12 months, and each case is then reviewed annually by a Criminal Law Review Committee. Members of this review committee are different from those of the initial hearing committee. Review committee will similarly submit its recommendations to the President on whether to extend or vary the Detention Order. The President then acts on the advice of the Cabinet. Each extension of the Detention Order is for a period of up to 12 months. Mr Ang asked how the length of detention is determined.”
“Second, the assessment of each case is deliberate, with comprehensive checks and balances with several independent parties and communities involved at each stage. Each case is reviewed thoroughly before an order is issued. The order is for a duration of up to one year in the first instance. Mr Edwin Tong asked how the Minister can be reasonably satisfied that criminal prosecution is not possible. First, the law enforcement agencies themselves know that they need to abide by the safeguards and they investigate each case thoroughly, no different from any other case that they investigate. Specifically, each proposal from the enforcement agencies, together with the evidence that has been gathered, is first scrutinised by senior officials in MHA. The Attorney-General's consent, in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor, is also required for the issuance of orders by the Minister for Home Affairs. There have also been instances where Ministry officials or the Attorney-General has Page: 88 disagreed with the recommendations for detention by the law enforcement agency. Third, the orders are reviewed by Criminal Law Hearing Committees which comprise distinguished members from the community and the legal profession, including former High Court and District Court Judges. Mr Nair's proposal to have at least one former Judge chair each committee is a good one, and we would take this into consideration when looking at how we can improve the system. The review process is thorough and rigorous. Committee members may examine detainees, investigating officers and witnesses. They have untrammelled access. Detainees are informed of the case against them and have an opportunity to present their case to the Committee or through their legal counsel.”
“In general, the recidivism rate of detainees is lower than that of the broader prison population. It could in part due to the PSO regime that we have. However, the key point is that there is a range of provisions and, moving forward, we also intend to release relevant statistics on the detentions under the CLTPA on a more regular basis as part of the Singapore Prison Service Annual Statistics Release. Mr Ang has also asked if it was possible for MHA to inform the public on the frequency with which the Advisory Committees had summoned and examined witnesses. Madam, the need for Advisory Committees to do so is dependent on the circumstances specific to each case. Hence, such aggregate or average information would not be very helpful. Advisory Committees comprise individuals with legal training. They work independently of MHA, as Mr Edwin Tong has stated. They understand the general rules and the need for adequate evidence. And I assure Members that we give the Committees our full support so that they can do their work. Finally, Members have also mentioned the need for strong safeguards under the CLTPA. I fully agree with all who have said so. The powers under the Act are wide-ranging and, therefore, we need strong safeguards. I have elaborated on these safeguards earlier, but I think it bears repeating. First, it is an important fundamental safeguard that the Government must seek Parliament's endorsement to extend the CLTPA every five years. It provides for periodic parliamentary scrutiny and ensures that the CLTPA continues to be relevant in the present operating environment. It is also an opportunity for us to remind ourselves that we do not operate in a benign environment, and we must remain vigilant.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim has asked about the extent of collaboration with other jurisdictions in tackling the problem of match-fixing. This is an important point. Our agencies work together with their international counterparts with exchange of information and intelligence. If we receive a request for extradition, and this is allowed for in the law, we will extend our fullest cooperation to other countries in accordance with the law. But it does not change the fact that our agencies need to act decisively to cripple the illegal activities of such syndicates. I want to caution against taking the view that match-fixing is simply a case of cheating or corruption with no threat to life, limb and security. On that basis, unlicensed moneylending is also simply a financial transaction between two parties. However, we are all well aware of the deeply harmful spillover effects of the scourge of loansharking and associated activities, and the threat that they pose to public safety, peace and good order. Mr Kumar, Mr Ang and Assoc Prof Tan have also asked whether we can give a more detailed update or even an annual report on the use of the CLTPA. Let me just reiterate some of the facts that I shared in my Second Reading speech. The majority of inmates have been detained for less than four years. Long detentions of over 10 years are only used in exceptional circumstances. There is currently one detainee who has been detained for close to 11 years for being involved in drug trafficking activities. From 2009 to 31 October 2013, close to 300 Police Supervision Orders (PSOs) were issued under the CLTPA. This includes persons who have been released from detention in prison. Page: 87 Assoc Prof Tan has also asked about the recidivism rate of detainees.”
“The fundamental tenet remains that Court prosecution is the first and preferred course of action, and the Act is used in a calibrated and targeted manner only as a last resort. These were the same considerations in the decision to use the CLTPA to deal with the members of a match-fixing syndicate in October 2013. While I am unable to go into the specifics of this case – as some Members have observed, because it is still in process – I will address some points that have been raised by Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh in general terms. Fundamentally, match-fixing syndicates operate no differently from those involved in drug trafficking or unlicensed moneylending. They share some of the most egregious characteristics that render them a threat to public order. Yes, some Members have said they have complex and layered structures, use technology and other means to avoid detection, and are motivated by financial gain. And the implied question is, "But, so what?" Page: 86 They also have links to other transnational criminal syndicates. They are also known to resort to violence and other means to settle scores against those who stand in their way. At the same time, the transnational nature of the activities does aggravate the difficulties we have in securing witnesses willing to cooperate and testify against the syndicates in our Courts. This is a fact. We cannot afford to consider match-fixing or transnational crime another country's problem. Organised crime syndicates often collaborate and have links with syndicates in other countries and are involved in a whole plethora of businesses. If allowed to take root, this kind of criminal activity will cause a profound decay in public order in Singapore.”
“Several Members have also raised the questions pertaining to the scope and application of the CLTPA. Mr Christopher de Souza has described the CLTPA as a tool that enables our law enforcement agencies to proactively deal with criminal activity that threaten the safety and security of Singaporeans. This is critical in the face of the kind of criminal activities that continue to pose a challenge to our society. Page: 85 Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim have expressed their concerns for the rights of individuals who may be detained without an open trial. And I think this is a concern and a cautionary note that all Members of this House share and would sound. But the equally valid countervailing consideration is the impact such criminal act can have on victims and the broadest society if they are committed with impunity and the perpetrators not taken to task. We must find a balance between the rights of individuals and the need to preserve public order. I want to assure Mr Edwin Tong, and indeed all Members, that the powers under the Act are used judiciously against serious criminal activities and where it is necessary to do so as stated in the Act, in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. This is a point that MHA has made several times in the past and it is a matter of parliamentary record. Neither should we, as Ms Sylvia Lim suggested, interpret public safety, peace and good order as merely referring to danger to life and limb. That is one important consideration. But, indeed, there are many other elements that contribute to an assessment of what constitutes a threat to public safety, peace and good order. The Act has not been used and not meant for non-criminal matters as Assoc Prof Tan has suggested.”
“Mr Hri Kumar has asked about the relevance of the CLTPA in the future, given that the Ministry of Home Affairs is developing legislation to deal with organised crime, criminal syndicates. An Organised Crime Act is being considered with the view to enhance powers to deal with criminal syndicates and strengthen our ability to disrupt their activities. But I must emphasise that any organised crime legislation will serve to complement the CLTPA and it is not intended to replace the CLTPA, much like we have the Misuse of Drugs Act in the context of drug trafficking. The CLTPA will continue to be necessary and relevant in addressing serious criminal activities, especially where it is not possible to prosecute persons in Court because witnesses are fearful or unwilling to testify. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has asked for an articulation of the circumstances and conditions under which the CLTPA may be abolished. I think it is neither possible to do so nor, in my opinion, is it something we should attempt to do. Criminal groups re-organise and re-work themselves constantly. This is the experience of all our law enforcement agencies. And new forms of serious criminal activities evolve in a borderless world, assisted by advances in technology. Thus far, the CLTPA is and has remained an effective measure in our context to deal with serious criminal elements. So, the circumstances warrant it; they are dynamic. And I think it would be unwise for us to set specific conditions without knowing how the situation would evolve in the future. But I will assure the Member and all Members of this House that the Government will always make a rigorous case based on a thorough assessment of all circumstances and the criminal landscape each time we seek Parliament's approval to extend the CLTPA.”
“As mentioned by Members like Mr Ang Wei Neng, the threats posed by international criminal syndicates involved in illicit activities, such as drug trafficking, have by no means been eradicated. Instead, they are evolving their modus operandi and becoming more sophisticated to evade capture and prosecution. Every time an arrest is made, the syndicates quickly adapt and adjust their operations in response. The recent experiences of other countries reinforce the dynamic and pernicious nature of this threat. Several Members, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Vikram Nair, in particular, have cited the example of Malaysia where the Emergency Ordinance was repealed in 2011. However, in just two years, they have found it necessary to restore detention provisions in their laws to bring the worsening situation of violent crime under control. Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned the situation in Australia where biker gangs have been responsible for violent crimes such as brazen public shootings and clashes with rival gangs. Tough anti-biker gang laws were recently passed in Queensland to address the lawlessness caused by these established criminal groups. In Singapore, we cannot afford to merely react to the situation after the impact of a pernicious criminal threat has become fully apparent. We have an imperative to act swiftly and decisively, especially given our circumstances as Page: 84 a small city-state. I do not think this is just an argument about Singapore's exceptionalism. It is, I think, an honest assessment of the realities that we face. That is why we need the CLTPA and the powers it affords our law enforcement agencies to deal with such syndicated criminal groups.”
“Madam, I thank the two Opposition Members for their clarification that they support the Bill, notwithstanding the heavy heart, because I think this is an important Bill. Many Members have raised a range of issues and it broadly falls within three themes. First, on the need for the CLTPA in today's context; the second on the manner in which the CLTPA has been used, in the release of information pertaining to the use of the CLTPA; and, finally, on the safeguards that govern the use of the CLTPA. I will address these in turn. Page: 83 Madam, this debate, the extension of the CLTPA for a further five years serves a very important purpose. It allows the Minister to account to Parliament of the nature and extent of use of the Act, and to provide a detailed explanation as to why the Act remains necessary in the prevailing environment. Its temporary nature is not simply a matter of nomenclature. Rather, it compels a periodic reminder and discussion within Parliament and without on the powers under the CLTPA and the need to review its continued relevance. I, therefore, disagree with Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's characterisation of this process in this debate as a legislative ritual. Far from it, it is a robust debate as, in fact, evident from today's proceedings, that needs to take place every five years, so that Members of Parliament and, indeed, all Singaporeans, fully appreciate the nature of the criminal threats we face and the powers that are needed to maintain public safety, peace and good order that we deeply value as a society. Let me reiterate the reasons we continue to need this Act. I am glad that Members, in general, acknowledge that we must remain vigilant even as the crime situation improves.”
“Mdm Speaker, I want to thank all the Members who have spoken. There were eight speakers, five Government Members of Parliament who have all expressed their support with some clarifications sought, and a Nominated Member of Parliament has done so as well. I would like to seek a clarification before I proceed, from the two Opposition Members. Ms Sylvia Lim said, if I remember correctly, she is unable to oppose the Bill under the current circumstances. I would like to clarify does that mean that she supports the extension of the Bill? And Mr Pritam Singh sought a range of clarifications but did not state his position on the Bill. And I would appreciate it if both Members could clarify, because as Mr Edwin Tong has said, this is an important issue, it is not an easy Bill. And I think all Members of Parliament who speak should stand up and be counted.”
“Besides the growth in BERD, the Government tracks many other outcomes of our public R&D efforts, such as the research excellence of public-sector research performers, growth in public-private research collaborations, technology commercialisation and research manpower development.”
“Under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2015 (RIE2015) masterplan, the Government has committed to invest $16.1 billion between 2011 and 2015 to support research and development (R&D) in Singapore. This public expenditure on R&D (PUBERD), representing 1% of Singapore's GDP, is aimed at raising the overall gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) by catalysing private-sector R&D. Our base of research and development capabilities has made Singapore an attractive location for MNCs to locate their R&D facilities. Over the last three years, companies, such as Applied Materials, Chugai Pharmaceuticals and Proctor & Gamble (P&G), have set up major R&D facilities in Singapore, and are collaborating with public-sector research performers, such as the A*STAR research institutes and our Universities. The tapering of the business expenditure on R&D (BERD) to PUBERD ratio in the last three years, compared to the previous three years, is not necessarily a cause for concern. It is common for a country's BERD to experience short-term fluctuations, because BERD is dependent on macro-economic conditions, as well as individual companies' investment decisions. The effect of the latter is particularly pronounced in Singapore due to our small but growing R&D ecosystem. Over the past decade, while the ratio of BERD to PUBERD in Page: 165 Singapore has fluctuated between 1.5 and 2.5, absolute BERD has more than doubled, from $2.1 billion in 2002 to $4.6 billion in 2011. Over the last three years, BERD has grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.5%, from $3.7 billion in 2009 to $4.6 billion in 2011. Public R&D agencies are generally on track in the implementation of RIE2015 plans.”