Siew Kum Hong
Singapore
“Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Sir, Thailand, as the ASEAN chair, issued a statement criticising Myanmar for its trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar's response was that Thailand was meddling in Myanmar's internal affairs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is to ask the Minister what is the expected date of announcement of the final decision by MAS in its investigations given that now the preliminary findings have been made and there is a due process going on.”
“My belief is that it will also be the case with these present amendments, in which case, why bother? The Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the prohibition on party political films has an offline aspect as well, and that is true.”
“Sir, I have a similar supplementary question with regard to work permit holders. I would like to ask the Acting Minister how many new work permits have been issued in the past few months, given that there are so many stories of foreign workers already here on work permit not having work or not having enough work.”
“Secondly, there should be increased transparency in how the Act has been used. Instead of waiting until the Act is up for extension to give figures on the use of the Act, it would be better if the Ministry could proactively disclose figures on the Act’s operation on an annual basis.”
“A poll by the Sunday Times last July found that 81% of 230 respondents thought that maids should get a mandatory day-off. That being the case, I hope that the Acting Minister would reconsider the existing position and introduce a mandatory day-off, at least once a month, which I feel should not be contentious for foreign domestic workers.…”
The complete record
Every one of 286 lines we hold for Siew Kum Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Sir, Thailand, as the ASEAN chair, issued a statement criticising Myanmar for its trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar's response was that Thailand was meddling in Myanmar's internal affairs. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what is the Government's position on Myanmar's statement, on whether it supports perceptions that the ASEAN Charter's principle of non-interference allows for precisely this sort of behaviour by Myanmar.”
“At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so - but we can still only point to the same few examples, like Singapore Airlines, most, or all, of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President. Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging even implicitly that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.””
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address. It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism. While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless, things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something that we all need to give some thanks for. Now that there is some greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister, in his Budget speech in January, had already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise and demonstrated much foresight. Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses, if any.”
“May I make two points? My first point, Sir, is with the Minister's explanation on the powers under section 38(2)(a). He mentioned that is to address a difficult decision the officer has to make on the ground. Will the Minister not agree then that in every scenario, a smart officer – and I hope all our officers are smart – will then demand that a picture be deleted, instead of seizing it and then submitting it for the Commissioner to decide what to do? Because if he orders for the film to be deleted on the spot, then he does not have to run the risk of being second-guessed subsequently or being found out to have made a wrongful order. That is my first question for the Minister. My second point, Sir, is with reference to the Minister's response to my first clarification where he says I take an extreme view. I think if the Minister reviews my speech, he will find that I do not think I took an extreme view, in fact, it is a nuanced view. If I may just reiterate, it is not an absolute right to demonstrate anywhere at any time, as Singaporeans please. I advocate a position where Singaporeans have the right to demonstrate but they have to notify the Police and there are certain prohibited classes of processions/assemblies which should not be permitted. If there are any public safety or law and order concerns, then the Police can ask for changes to be made. That is a position which I do not think is extreme at all.”
“So I would just like the Minister to clarify that point when he says that there is a loophole in the enforcement powers, when I think it is really a loophole in the substantive offences. Sir, my third clarification. In my speech, I did propose that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee given that it has only been three weeks since it was first published and first made available to the public until the Second Reading today. So I hope the Minister can respond to that. My last point, Sir, is that the Minister has stated that films that are seized can be destroyed only by order of the Commissioner. I think he said that twice in his response. From my reading of section 38, that position is correct only insofar as the films were seized in the first place under section 38(3). However, Sir, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to section 38(2)(a), and if I may just read it out, Sir, an officer may "direct the person reasonably believed to be making, exhibiting or communicating a film or picture, or about to do so, to immediately cease making, exhibiting or communicating the film, and either to immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy the film or picture, or to surrender the film or picture to the officer". In short, Sir, what section 38(2)(a) says is that an officer has the power at the immediate point to compel a person to destroy the film. And in that scenario, how would we know what the film was, and on what basis can aggrieved person make a complaint?”
“Sir, I have four clarifications for the Minister. My first clarification, Sir, is that he mentioned my point about the right to freedom of assembly having been emasculated. I just want to clarify that, in my view, it has been emasculated even under the current system. So I take his point that there is no difference between the MOA regime and the new POA regime, and that is why it continues to be emasculated. Sir, my second point. The Minister has referred to a group of persons who insist in engaging what the Minister has described as farcical activities, and he has taken that as a reason to explain why move-on powers are required. Sir, my question is: how will move-on powers actually change their behaviour. Let us just think through the scenarios. If this group of persons are engaged deliberately in civil disobedience – by definition, "civil disobedience" means deliberate flouting and contravention of laws, committing an offence that they disagree with – then they are already breaking the law and are committing an offence. And it is perfectly open for the Police to issue a warning to them to cease and desist, failing which they will be arrested and charged for the offence. If they are not committing an offence, then what is the harm in allowing them to continue to do what they do? The introduction of the move-on powers instead creates an offence. If they are doing something which does not constitute an offence right now and yet they are issued with a move-on order, and then they do not move on, then they would have committed an offence. So, Sir, the loophole is not in the enforcement powers of the Police, the loophole is in the substantive offences that are out there.”
“It, therefore, seems to me that section 38, as currently worded, overreaches and goes far beyond what is needed to prevent media coverage from compromising ongoing law enforcement activities and the safety of officers. Sir, I have taken great pains to point out the flaws in this Bill as I see them. I do think that they are major flaws, with the potential to greatly affect Singaporeans' lives and their constitutional rights for the worse. That being the case, I would propose that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration. When this House amended the Penal Code in late 2007, there had been extensive public consultations, even though Members would remember that I had strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill and eventually voted against it. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had recently undergone a public consultation. In contrast, there was no public consultation at all on this Bill, even though it directly affects Singaporeans' fundamental liberties under the Constitution and also has the potential to greatly impact our day-to-day lives, especially in relation to the new move-on powers. The fact that 12 Members of this House have decided to speak on the Bill shows that it is of immense public interest. Yet, it has only been three weeks or so, since the Bill was first made available to the public after its First Reading in Parliament. Because of all this, it would make great sense for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to comment on the Bill. Sir, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in my speech, I have no choice but to oppose the Public Order Bill in its present form. 4.44 pm”
“Imagine a situation such as that of Mr Tomlinson in London. In the midst of a riot, an abuse takes place against an innocent bystander. The duty officer demands that a bystander who films the incident surrender his camera, claiming that the film shows his identity and therefore threatens his safety. What, then, is this innocent bystander to do? The offence in section 38(4) does not contain a defence of reasonable excuse for not complying with an order, unlike in section 37 in relation to non-compliance with move-on orders. In such a situation, the person who made the film of the abuse by law enforcement would have no choice but to surrender the film, otherwise he runs a very likely risk of being charged and prosecuted. Indeed, section 38(2)(a) empowers law enforcement to require a person to delete the film that is made – but if that is the case, then how is that person, or the police itself, able to subsequently evaluate or verify whether the deletion had been lawfully ordered, without knowing for sure what the content was? It should be adequate that the film be seized, to prevent it from being disseminated. Furthermore, the new section 38(3) very clearly goes beyond what is legitimately necessary for the objective of protecting law enforcement activities. Section 38(3) permits law enforcement to forfeit any film equipment that has been seized, and to destroy it or dispose of it in such manner as the Commissioner of Police may decide. While seizure of equipment may further the objective of avoiding a compromise of ongoing security operations, the forfeiture and destruction of equipment after the fact do not. Instead, it is simply punitive and, hence, is not reasonable at all.”
“This provision has been justified on the basis of the media coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks last November, where the terrorists themselves were able to watch law enforcement operations unfold on Indian TV stations. That is obviously an undesirable state of affairs, and I would support a law to prevent that situation from taking place in Singapore. Preventing what happened in Mumbai means preventing footage, or indeed any news, about ongoing security operations from being disseminated, where such footage or news could jeopardise the success of the operation or otherwise compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. This objective cannot be objectionable to anyone. But even as we try to protect law enforcement, we have to ensure that citizens are not prevented from legitimate filming, and especially filming of law enforcement officers engaging in abusive or unlawful behaviour. Ms Sylvia Lim has referred to the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson. So I will not speak further on that. If there are abuses by law enforcement officers, then surely citizens have the right to know, and to film and record these acts as evidence. The case from London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson shows the importance of this, to prevent cover-ups from taking place. If the other passer-by had been prevented from filming the pushing incident, who knows whether or when the truth would have come to light? I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that the filming of law enforcement abuses is not prohibited by this provision. Yet, there are no explicit controls or checks on how law enforcement officers may exercise that power under section 38, and as with the move-on powers, no formal avenue of recourse for citizens aggrieved by an order made against him.”
“But I did make another suggestion, for all Move-On Orders to be recorded in a public register, as is the case in Australian territories, like in Queensland, which the Minister has stated was used as a model. This suggestion has not been taken in. But a register is useful to ensure transparency and accountability in how Police Officers use their move-on powers. We have said that we are following the Australian example in introducing such powers, yet studies in Australia have shown a history of abuse of these powers by Police Officers. An official register recording the use of such powers, that is open to the public, could provide a powerful tool for ensuring accountability and for allowing Singaporeans to satisfy themselves that these powers are not being abused, by subjecting the exercise of these powers to public scrutiny. Thirdly, I had proposed an appeal mechanism, where any person aggrieved by a Move-On Order can challenge it. But the Bill does not provide for any such mechanism. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of a complaint to the Commanding Officer. But that would presumably trigger an internal investigation at most, which is not transparent and may not be perceived as being fair and independent. In the Straits Times' interview that I referred to earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the need to ensure that aggrieved persons are able to seek redress from the Minister or the Attorney-General's Chambers. Unfortunately, that need has not been met in the present Bill, in respect of the move-on powers. I come to the final part of my speech, on the new section 38, which deals with the filming of law enforcement activities.”
“They generally cause no harm to anyone. But an overzealous Police Officer may seek to clamp down on what is, in truth, simply boisterous teenage behaviour. Given the ease and expediency with which move-on orders may be given, this is an undesirable outcome that is sadly almost inevitable. Be that as it may, these move-on powers will become law. In the Committee of Supply debate, I made some suggestions which have unfortunately not been taken up. At the time, the Minister had said that it was premature to deal with those issues, as the Bill was not before the House. That being the case, I hope that the Minister will now explain why these suggestions have not been accepted. I will briefly recap those suggestions. Firstly, I had stated that the legislation in question should target the objectionable conduct of a person, and not the mere fact that he was in a certain location. And I note from the Minister's speech that he has stated the same position. But if that is the case, if a person behaved offensively in a certain location, and a police officer directs him to move on, and the citizen then ceases the offensive conduct, then the Move-On order should cease to have effect. While the new section 35 makes it clear that the subject of a Move-On Order has to be behaving objectionably before the order can be issued, there is no corresponding provision to state that the Move-On Order ceases to have effect if the objectionable behaviour ends. Instead, the subject of an order has to leave the vicinity; otherwise he commits an offence. This is regardless of how he continues to behave. Secondly, I note that the new section 36(1) requires Move-On Orders to be in writing, which is what I had suggested in the Committee of Supply debate. That is positive.”
“In an interview published in the Straits Times in January this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had sought to justify these move-on powers on the basis that the police needed new powers to deal with political activists engaged in civil disobedience. But let us look closely at the acts of civil disobedience that we have seen in Singapore to date. They have taken a form of either an assembly or a procession which would be regulated under Part II of this Bill. In this regard, I note that the offences under Part II of this Bill are seizable offences. So there is no lacuna in the police's powers. These move-on powers will be necessary only if there are some loopholes or gaps in the provisions on public assemblies and processions that need to be plugged. But I see no such loopholes. The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there was a gap in police powers between post and incident investigations and arrest while the incident is on-going. But, practically speaking, it is always open to Police Officers to give a verbal warning to cease and desist before arresting a person. And I presume that that is what they will usually do in practice. The only thing that these powers do with respect to civil disobedience activists is to add a further offence to the list of offences committed, but ensuring a multiplicity of offences and hence penalties is not a legitimate reason for introducing yet another offence. In any case, the move-on powers extend far beyond what is needed to deal with civil disobedience. Section 36, as currently worded, with its reference to disorderly behaviour, could extend to situations like teenagers loitering around a void deck, or even the skateboarders and inline-skaters who hang out at the underground plaza at the Esplanade on weekends.”
“But sub-section (6) then goes on to state that failure to comply with sub-section (5) does not invalidate the declaration itself. It is easy to fathom the rationale for sub-section (5), but difficult to understand the reason for sub-section (6). Where an event is declared to be a special event, various restrictions on Singaporeans' fundamental liberties come into force. So Singaporeans naturally have a strong interest in knowing that such a declaration has been made. This makes absolute sense. But why then have sub-section (6), which renders sub-section (5) nugatory? Because, then, the Minister could simply ignore sub-section (5), without having to justify his actions and without any consequences. The Minister is given plenty of time, seven days, in fact, to publish the notice in the newspapers. So I hope that the Minister can explain the reasoning behind section 21(6). I now turn to the new move-on powers, which I had spoken about in the Committee of Supply this year. Given that such powers limit citizens' right to freedom of movement, they have to be limited to the bare minimum extent necessary to preserve public order. We also have to bear in mind that an abuse or a wrongful use of these powers will result in irreparable loss and damage to citizens. For instance, if a person is unlawfully ordered by a police officer to move on, then that person has lost the opportunity to be present at a certain place at a certain time, and it is impossible to remedy that loss. In the first place, it does not seem to me that there is a convincing justification for the introduction of these new powers.”
“Just looking at last year, the ASEAN Regional Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel, the National Day Parade, the National Day Rally and the Formula One race were all declared as protected areas under that Act, and all of them were events that went off without any security problems. Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the scope of the powers to declare an event to be a special event is too broad. I am concerned with the new section 21(3)(b)(iv) in particular, which allows the Minister to declare an event to be a special event where "there is a reasonable likelihood that the event because of its nature might be at risk of an act of terrorism". That is a very broad definition, and any large gathering of persons in Singapore could potentially be seen as being at risk of an act of terrorism. The Explanatory Statement on section 21 does expand on the relevant factors for determining whether an event should be declared as a special event. But I hope that the Minister could specifically clarify whether the intent is to allow a large gathering of persons to be declared as a special event, simply because there are many people present. My last point on Part III, Sir, relates to the new sections 21(5) and 21(6). The declaration of a special event must be gazetted, and sub-section (5) requires the Minister to publish a notice of the making of the declaration "in such manner as will secure adequate publicity for the declaration". The Minister has to do this, within seven days of the making of the declaration and before the date the declaration comes into force. The Explanatory Statement helpfully explains that this includes the publication of the notice in newspapers.”
“Sir, Part III of the Bill relates to the security of special events, which are events that the Minister declares to be such having regard to their nature, the number and kind of expected attendees, Singapore's obligations for holding the event, and other relevant matters. The upcoming APEC summit in November this year would be an example of such a special event. Members would have seen the shocking footage from Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend. No doubt, the political divisions in Thailand contributed the problems there. In particular, the reluctance of Thai security forces to enforce the law had aggravated the severity of the situation. But it does provide a timely reminder that if special events go wrong, they could irreparably damage a country's image and reputation. So I would support the principle that special events could justify extraordinary measures and temporary restrictions on Singaporeans' rights of free movement and peaceful assembly provided they are limited to the minimum extent, period and area necessary to prevent disruption of the event and to protect individuals involved in the event. And in this regard, we have done well in the past. It is a testament to this country's, and, yes, this Government's organisational and security capabilities that we have in recent years held major international events here with minimal or no disruption. So I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why it is necessary to introduce this new Part III of the Bill when the existing system based on the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act has worked.”
“So the organisers of an assembly or procession should provide advance notice to the Police with appropriate details, not for approval, but to allow the Police to assess the public order and safety implications of the march and its proposed route of the assembly, and to require the organisers to find an alternative venue, or to take an alternative route where reasonably necessary to preserve public order. The only permissible exceptions should be with respect to special events – and we will come to that shortly – or where an assembly or procession promotes an unlawful cause or is unjustifiably provocative, or is reasonably likely to lead to violence. Anything further would simply render Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution an empty shell. The Minister has referred to events in other countries, such as the unfortunate events in Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend to justify this Bill, which has resulted in a country where such events simply do not take place. I do understand the attraction in such an argument. But there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, and I do believe that by requiring all public assemblies and public processions to be subject to prior police approvals, we have gone too far in the past and we continue to go too far in undermining our constitutional rights. Be that as it may, the Bill before us today preserves this system of prior approvals, for better or for worse. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why the exemption for indoor meetings and talks, in other words, indoor public assemblies, that have only speakers who are Singaporeans, is not explicitly set out in the Bill itself.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim has already mentioned an example that was debated in this House last September. Let me just elaborate a little. I had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rules governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties. Ms Sylvia Lim filed a related PQ. The Senior Minister of State, responding to my and Ms Lim's PQs, reiterated that the police will not grant permits for outdoor political events, on the basis of the risk of public disorder inherent in such events. The Senior Minister of State then explained that an outdoor event organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) was not viewed by the Police as an outdoor political event, and hence was permissible, even though the PCF is an arm of the PAP and the guest-of-honour was the Prime Minister, and other PAP politicians were also present. With all due respect to the Senior Minister of State, I – and I believe many, if not most Singaporeans – do not find that distinction convincing in the least. It may comply with the technical letter of the law but certainly is difficult to accept as being true to the spirit of freedom of movement and assembly. If we want to have a proper balance where Singaporeans' right of peaceful assembly is respected and preserved, while remaining mindful of the need for public order and security, then the starting point should be that all assemblies and processions are by default permissible, unless they fall into some prohibited categories, unlike the current system which is the opposite.”
“When we debate legislation that purports to limit Singaporeans' constitutional rights in the name of security and public order, we have to consider whether the law in question strikes the correct balance between these competing interests. To my mind, due and proper respect for our fundamental liberties in the Constitution requires Parliament to ensure that the law curtails Singaporeans' rights to the minimal extent necessary to ensure security and public order, and no more. Anything further, any overly broad wording that could permit actions not required by legitimate security or public order concerns, is not justifiable and goes too far. With these principles in mind, I will now touch on the provisions pertaining to the objectives of the Bill. Sir, Part II of the Bill seeks to regulate public assemblies, which include public talks and lectures, and public processions. In principle, I do not agree with the premise that all public assemblies and processions should require prior approval from the authorities. This emasculates our constitutional right of peaceful assembly – how can it be a right when it is subject to the approval by a bureaucrat? A right to do something necessarily means that the person entitled to the right can do the thing, without having to ask for prior approval. Otherwise, it is not a right. A system based on prior approvals and permits does not strike the correct balance in terms of respecting Singaporeans' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly. Furthermore, this system of permits and prior approvals opens the door to perceptions and allegations of abuse for political purposes. Singaporeans have strong reservations about how this system has operated in the past, and I must confess that I share at least some of these reservations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the name suggests, this Bill deals with public order. In particular, it seeks to regulate public assemblies and public processions; to deal with the control and protection of special events in Singapore; to introduce the move-on powers that I spoke about in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year; and to criminalise the filming of law enforcement activities in certain circumstances. I will first touch on the proper framework for considering laws such as this Bill, that curtail Singaporeans' civil liberties in the name of ensuring security and public order, before considering the provisions of this Bill in greater detail. Sir, this Bill will have the effect of introducing new limitations on the constitutional rights of Singaporeans. So the starting point in considering the Bill must be the Constitution. I start with Article 13(2), which provides that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout Singapore, subject to any law relating to security, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders. This Bill clearly purports to be such a law. Article 14(1)(b) provides for another right, the right of Singaporeans to assemble peaceably. This right is subject to such restrictions as Parliament considers to be necessary or expedient, in the interest of security or public order. So even as the Constitution provides for Singaporeans' rights to freedom of movement and freedom of peaceful assembly, it nevertheless recognises that those rights are not absolute and that there can be a legitimate need to limit those rights in the interest of security or public order. A balancing exercise is therefore necessary and I am glad to note that the Minister acknowledges the need for a calibrated, balancing approach.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I request for my "No" vote to be recorded as such.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I request for my "No" vote to be recorded as such.”
“My belief is that it will also be the case with these present amendments, in which case, why bother? The Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the prohibition on party political films has an offline aspect as well, and that is true. But implicit in that is the acceptance that the amended prohibition on party political films will continue to be ignored online, and an admission that enforcement will continue to be absent in the online environment. But this is then an unjustifiable and unfair discriminatory practice against the offline population, in a sense that the prohibition is applied against them but not to the online citizens. Because of this, I cannot support this Bill. It is bad law, it would not fix the problems that need to be fixed, and I cannot in good conscience support such a piece of legislation. Sir, with that, I oppose this Bill.”
“The status quo gives the Minister broad powers to ban films, while not making him accountable for any decision banning a film. This is wholly imbalanced and does not pay sufficient respect to Singaporeans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech. While we all accept that limitations on constitutional rights do exist, we should also accept that such limitations must be calibrated and limited, and also transparent and accountable. Most of all, they must be constitutional, and limiting the grounds upon which films can be banned under section 35 as proposed by AIMS would go a long way towards ensuring the constitutionality of this provision and its use by the Minister. True, in the only known instance of a ban under section 35, the Minister did give his reasons for doing so. But giving reasons is at the discretion of the Minister. My view is that since this is a limitation on a constitutional right, the proper position is to require the Minister to justify any ban under section 35, with an exception where the very disclosure of the justification could prejudice national security, in which case the Minister has to explicitly state that and give reasons where practicable. Sir, I would normally welcome any liberalisation on matters of free speech. But these amendments to the Films Act do not seem to represent a material or true liberalisation of the current position, and they are also potentially problematic in their phrasing. The objective in constituting AIMS was to review existing legislation in the face of advances in digital technology and to suggest necessary updates to the law. As I have said, it is not healthy to have laws on the books that are consistently and openly broken by Singaporeans. This is the reality with the existing regime under the Films Act.”
“Yet, the term "documentary film" is not defined, and its use suggests that this exception requires the film to be something more than a mere video recording, since the term "documentary film" must necessarily be something more limited in scope than a "film", which is the term used in the other exceptions. This exception is also problematic – documentary-makers will invariably have to edit their raw footage, but such editing could potentially remove them from the scope of this exception. The new exceptions are also difficult from a lawyer’s perspective. Prof. Thio has very ably and cogently pointed out the difficulties with section 33 from a constitutional perspective. On a more technical level, these amendments introduce terms that are not defined, in a way that makes their application of uncertain scope. I have already mentioned the term "documentary film" in the new section 2(3)(e). Other new terms of ambiguous scope include "depiction in a dramatic way" as used in the new sub-sections (3)(c) and (3)(e)(ii), and "dramatic elements" as used in the new sub-sections (3)(f) and (3)(g). It would have been preferable to define what they mean, so that courts seeking to interpret these terms will have some guidance. The final point I would make on this Bill, is that it does not amend section 35, as recommended by AIMS. Section 35 allows the Minister to ban any film that he considers to be "against the public interest", without giving any reason. AIMS had recommended that the permissible reasons for banning films under section 35 be spelt out clearly, that an independent advisory panel be formed to advise the Minister before a film is banned under Section 35, and that the Minister be obliged to give reasons for the ban. All three proposals have been rejected.”
“0 world, and seems designed to inhibit the work of new media and citizen journalists and bloggers. More importantly, these four specific exceptions do not seem to represent a true liberalisation of the position on party political films, and in fact could narrow the scope of what is permissible. In particular, the prohibitions on recordings of unlawful events and occasions seems odd. This was not an issue that was canvassed at any point during AIMS’ deliberations. The holding of an unlawful event is prohibited under other existing laws, and it is not clear why the creation of a video recording of such an unlawful event should be illegal. It is also likely to create what can be called a nation of innocent criminals, eg, bystanders watching an assembly or procession may whip out their mobile phones to record videos of the event. They may not know whether the event was being held in accordance with the law. If it was not, then they would be creating an illegal party political film. If they upload it to a website like YouTube, they would be distributing an illegal party political film. This is the precise problem that AIMS was constituted to address: laws that are out-of-sync with the times and that will invariably be ignored and flouted. So, why are we going out of our way to institute new legislation that we know will be disregarded and broken? It is arguable that the exception regarding documentary films that accurately depict actual persons and events, including unlawful events, could apply to the situation that I have just described.”
“Finally, Singaporeans are today far more sophisticated and media-savvy than before, and should be trusted to judge the merits and demerits of films for themselves. Be that as it may, the Government has made it clear that section 33 will not be repealed. Instead, this Bill seeks to make what seems like an incremental liberalisation, with an expanded list of films that are deemed not to be party political films. However, even as the list seems to be expanded and longer, an important exception has been removed. The existing section 2(3)(a), which will be repealed, provides that films made by anyone solely for the purpose of reporting current affairs are not deemed to be party political films. This has been replaced by four specific, limited exceptions, namely, films made solely for the reporting of news by a licensed broadcasting service; films recording "live" the whole or a material proportion of a lawful performance, assembly or procession that does not depict any event, person or situation in a dramatic way; films designed to provide a record of a lawful event or occasion, for its participants or persons connected with its participants; and documentary films without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate, non-dramatic account depicting actual events, persons or situations, which does not include unscripted or reality-type programmes. To my mind, these four specific exceptions are narrower in scope than the existing section 2(3)(a). For instance, what is the justification for limiting the exception for the reporting of news, to licensed broadcasters only? This seems completely incongruent with the Senior Minister of State's recognition of the realities in today’s Web 2.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, this Bill is being introduced in the wake of the report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). AIMS made a total of 26 recommendations to the Government, including recommendations relating to sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act. In particular, AIMS recommended that section 33 be repealed in phases. These recommendations pertaining to the Act were rejected by the Government. Instead, the Government announced some limited changes to the scope of section 33, while declining to amend Section 35 at all. This Bill introduces those limited changes to the scope of section 33. Sir, my own view is that AIMS was fundamentally correct in recommending that section 33 be repealed. I am not sure if I agree with AIMS that the repeal should be conducted in phases, but that is now moot. Section 33 prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films. Section 2 adopts a broad definition of "party political film" that is overly-inclusive, that seeks to censor films based on their format and not on their substantive content, and this results in a potential chilling effect on film-makers. I remain unconvinced by the reasons for singling out film, when the printed word is equally capable of distortion and deception, when a well-written commentary can be even more powerful than a poorly-made film. This prohibition on party political films is also easily and widely flouted in today’s Web 2.0 world, and maintaining such an unenforceable prohibition simply promotes disrespect for the rule of law, which is an unhealthy state of affairs with insidious, far-reaching repercussions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is to ask the Minister what is the expected date of announcement of the final decision by MAS in its investigations given that now the preliminary findings have been made and there is a due process going on. My second question, Sir, is with regard to the recently-announced consultation paper by MAS on changes in regulation. My question is whether the proposed changes as set out in the consultation paper implied that MAS was lax in any way in regulating these products. If MAS was not lax and financial institutions (FIs) did, in fact, breach the then prevailing regulations, and these proposed changes are merely to tighten them further, then what will MAS do to ensure that FIs do not, in any legal proceedings, make the unmeritorious argument that the fact that MAS is proposing new regulatory changes, means that MAS was lax and that what they had done was not prevented by then-existing regulations?”
“Sir, I have a similar supplementary question with regard to work permit holders. I would like to ask the Acting Minister how many new work permits have been issued in the past few months, given that there are so many stories of foreign workers already here on work permit not having work or not having enough work. Why are new work permits still being issued?”
“Secondly, there should be increased transparency in how the Act has been used. Instead of waiting until the Act is up for extension to give figures on the use of the Act, it would be better if the Ministry could proactively disclose figures on the Act’s operation on an annual basis. There should also be aggregated details, on the reasons for the use of the Act, and average detention periods. This would help to assure the public that there has been no abuse. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right. For instance, it is embodied in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act detracts from this fundamental principle. It allows the Government to detain persons without a criminal prosecution or trial. It was first introduced in 1955, and has been extended 11 times, most recently in 2004. On principle, and as a trained lawyer, I am minded to oppose the renewal of this Act, because it represents such a significant encroachment into this fundamental right and also because of the inherent possibility of abuse of such powers. But I read the Hansard on the debate in this House when this Act was last extended in 2004, and I have just heard the Senior Minister of State's  ;speech and I am comforted that there exist robust safeguards against abuse of the Act. Rights are not absolute, and can be limited and qualified in appropriate cases. I am not entirely convinced that the Act is still necessary or justifiable in today’s day and age, but I am convinced that it is not being abused. I will therefore defer to the Ministry’s judgment that the Act remains necessary, and support the extension of the Act. I would, however, like to make just two points. Firstly, I agree with the Government’s approach in maintaining this Act as a temporary one that has to be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years. It ensures accountability, by giving Parliament the opportunity to question the Ministry on how the Act has been used in the preceding five years. So I hope that the Ministry will not, and will never, ask for this Act to be made permanent.”
“Sir, if I may clarify again? I think the point here is that the agencies who technically employ these contract workers will benefit from the Jobs Credit. But it is the agencies' customers who are paying for the services and the Jobs Credit may not flow through to the customers.”
“Sir, if I may clarify. I am referring more to the PMET kind of contract workers who are on contract with an agency and then sent to companies to work there. It would be the company who would be bearing the cost of engaging their services but, technically, they are employed by the agencies. So this is a growing phenomenon, especially in the IT industry.”
“A poll by the Sunday Times last July found that 81% of 230 respondents thought that maids should get a mandatory day-off. That being the case, I hope that the Acting Minister would reconsider the existing position and introduce a mandatory day-off, at least once a month, which I feel should not be contentious for foreign domestic workers. Workplace Safety and Health”
“But it is not just a question of rights. A day-off has other benefits as well. It improves the morale and productivity of the maid, as well as the relationship with the employer. The maid also gets a chance to learn other skills, and some NGOs have been making laudable efforts here. Finally, a day-off makes it more unlikely that maid abuse can continue for extended periods without being discovered, which has happened from time to time. In 2006, a standard contract was introduced. But – and this has been pointed out repeatedly – this standard contract does not mandate a rest-day. Instead, while different forms do provide for a day-off a week or a month, this right can be waived in return for monetary compensation to the maid, which I understand is usually the sum of $15 to $20 each month. I am not sure we can find any working Singaporeans who would willingly give up all of their Sundays for an extra $15 to $20 per month. Given the dynamics of the employer-maid relationship, it is quite inconceivable that the maids willingly trade their day-off for this amount, as opposed to feeling compelled to do so for fear of being rejected or sent back by their employer otherwise. In comparison, maids in Hong Kong are entitled, by law, to one day-off every week and also to public holidays. Are maids in Hong Kong somehow different from maids in Singapore? Are employers in Hong Kong somehow different from employers in Singapore? I seriously doubt it. Sir, I think the lack of progress in this area is really due to a lack of political will to make the difficult decision. It is a difficult decision because it will invariably make some employers unhappy. But it does seem that popular opinion amongst Singaporeans may be in favour of a mandatory day-off for maids.”
“Sir, this is an issue that has been raised repeatedly, but I would still like to renew the call for foreign domestic workers to be given a mandatory day-off. We have, in the past, heard numerous reasons from employers against giving maids a day-off. Many of them centred around the $5,000 security bond, which many employers fear losing if the maid runs off, contracts a sexually transmitted disease, or even gets pregnant. These are the result of two factors: firstly, the terms of the security bond are onerous, making the employer responsible for almost everything that happens to or is done by his maid; and secondly, many employers are not aware that MOM's practice is to forfeit the security bond only if the maid is not sent home after her work permit is cancelled. So even if the maid does get up to mischief, that does not automatically mean a forfeiture. Other reasons reflect plain selfishness, such as those who say that they work all week and do not want to have to do housework on the weekends, or those with children or ailing parents who want their maids to continue looking after them on weekends. These employers seem incapable of putting themselves in their maids' shoes; just as they want to rest, the maid also needs rest as well. Maids are not robots or machines – and even machines need downtime for maintenance and repair, let alone human beings. Having a rest-day is a basic human right. The Employment Act prescribes minimum rest days for workers, but maids are deemed to be somehow different. They do not even get one day off a month. They are excluded from these rights under the Employment Act, and their rights under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act are kept generic and are not clearly defined, as opposed to the Employment Act which is quite specific.”
“We should therefore ensure that schools will always have sufficient discretionary funds, and we should provide grants, where necessary, regardless of the prevailing economic conditions. Education, as the means to social mobility, is the cornerstone of Singapore's social compact. We promise equality of opportunity to all our children. We tell them to work hard and do well in school, so that they will be well-placed to succeed in life, regardless of their background. But for low socio-economic status children, the correlation between their effort and their results is less straightforward, due to the many challenges that they face. Of course, some exceptional students have overcome their circumstances, but they are rare. These are the exceptions. The vast majority face daily barriers and hurdles to success arising from their circumstances. Perhaps most of these problems stem from wider societal and community issues and problems, that cannot be resolved by the Government alone. Some are even due to parents not having the right priorities. But we can, and we must, solve those problems that we can solve, so as to maximise our children's chances of success and to help them to achieve their maximum potential. To that end, I hope the Minister would provide annual grants to schools' discretionary assistance funds of a smaller size, if need be. Cost of Textbooks”
“My other two points relate to the one-off grants to schools for discretionary assistance, which is intended to mitigate fund-raising difficulties in this recession. All schools will receive the funds, regardless of the size of their reserves, if any. But some schools, in particular, the richer brand-name schools with strong alumni networks, probably would not need this top-up. Others may not have much in the way of existing funds at all. I therefore urge the Minister to give proportionately more money to schools with little or no existing funds for discretionary assistance, with greater weightage for those schools with disproportionately many low socio-economic status students, whether or not they are on FAS. My final point is to ask the Minister to make this grant a recurrent one, and not a one-off. Neighbourhood schools would tend to have a greater need for discretionary assistance, but they also face greater challenges in fund-raising. More importantly, I believe that schools and teachers should be focused on teaching and helping students, and not so much on fund-raising, except to the extent that fund-raising is for student development purposes. Sir, needy students pre-date the recession. Their problems were here before the downturn, and their problems will continue to be here after the recovery. The discretionary assistance disbursed by schools plays an important role. Just as the CCC ComCare Fund is administered by grassroots organisations, it makes sense for schools to administer assistance funds directly, since they would be best-placed to identify their students' day-to-day needs.”
“Sir, this is not the speech I expected to make for my cut. I was planning to stand here yesterday and speak about the plight of students from low socio-economic status families and ask the Minister to expand the scope of MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and to fund discretionary assistance to be administered by each school. So, I was very pleasantly surprised to hear the Minister's announcements yesterday about the expansion of FAS and the one-off grants to schools for discretionary assistance. I commend and applaud the Ministry for taking these steps, which will provide critical comfort and assurance in these difficult times. I do have four points to make. Firstly, I ask the Ministry to reconsider the eligibility criteria for FAS. It should ideally adopt a criteria based on per capita household income. The current criteria do not differentiate between a family with three children, and a family with six children and two elderly retired parents. The criteria should be more closely tied to the number of dependants. While we may question the wisdom of low-income families having large families, we should not penalise the children for the errors of their parents. Secondly, I hope the Minister can clarify whether the expansion of FAS to cover school attire includes socks and shoes. I have heard of a boy with worn-out shoes, whose insoles wore out after six months, and then he had to step on the metal wire-frames inside the soles for the rest of the year. Similarly, many children wear worn-out socks, which sounds trivial, but their joy when they get new socks speaks volumes of how much it means to them. I also hope that FAS can be expanded to cover supplementary books, which are not official textbooks but are required by teachers for lessons.”
“So, in that regard, Sir, I would like to ask the Second Minister to confirm whether the Police is empowered to make decisions on whether to investigate or to interfere based on what is clearly evident and not whether a complaint was made, which I think is a little mechanistic. Sir, my final point for the Second Minister. The Second Minister makes a very good point about trust between the Police and the community. I certainly have no argument with that, I agree. And I thank the Second Minister for clarifying that the Police will not be used for petty politics and that the incident was not politically motivated. And that is precisely my point, Sir. Greater clarity, greater transparency on the spot in explaining to me and my fellow volunteer what had happened, why they had taken action, and why they were letting us go and asking us to continue, that would have taken care of this entire matter. I will not have had to make this issue in Parliament today. So I think that is my point - there was no transparency in the way in which the Police had exercised their powers in this instance. This is why I felt aggrieved. So I would like to ask the Second Minister whether he agrees that the Police also has a role to play in maintaining this trust between the Police and the community by being transparent and clear in how they exercise their powers.”
“Mr Chairman, I have a few clarifications for the Second Minister. My first fact clarification, Sir, is to highlight that no where in my speech did I ask for the complainant to be identified and I did not refer to that as a flaw in the process. I had initially considered making that point but I was undecided, and I decided otherwise after a conversation with the Second Minister himself yesterday where he convinced me of the merits of not asking for that. So I think the Second Minister is mistaken when he noted that I asked for that. Sir, my second clarification for the Second Minister is that he suggested that I somehow feel important and deserving of special treatment. I assure the Second Minister that I am far from an important person anyway. I certainly did not feel special. And I think nowhere in my speech did I ask for or suggest that I expected any form of special treatment. Nobody is above the law and I certainly did not in my speech suggest that anyone, least of myself, should be. So I think the Second Minister was again mistaken there. Sir, I am getting to my question here. My concern was not that I did not get special treatment. My concern was over how the Police had handled this case. When the Second Minister simplified the matter, and I think he over-simplified it, there was no explanation as to why the Police had taken about two hours from the first time they saw us to actually approaching us and asking us to stop. So if indeed we had been a public nuisance, I think that the Police allowed us to continue being nuisances for two hours.”
“For instance, the police should be required to record all “move on” orders issued in a register, to issue warnings to cease the offensive conduct before actually issuing a “move on” order, and to issue “move on” orders in writing, where practicable, perhaps on a simple pre-printed form with tick boxes. Secondly, there should also be an appeal mechanism, for instance, to an independent panel or an ombudsman, who should be required to publish all findings subject to confidentiality requirements. Where the panel or ombudsman finds that the order was not properly issued, the police should be required to issue a formal public apology, so as to give the person proper redress. Home Team Resources”
“But these powers are problematic, both in terms of the legislative framework and in terms of their actual exercise. In terms of the legislation, the “move on” powers need to be framed narrowly, given the fact that these powers create the potential for a deep encroachment into Singaporeans’ fundamental liberties. So, for instance, the situations in which the powers may be exercised must be clearly and narrowly defined. Overly-broad situations could represent an unjustifiable curtailment of Singaporeans’ civil liberties. Indeed, the Australian experience is instructive here. In a case last year involving “move on” powers for the New South Wales police, the Federal Court of Australia found that the regulations in question were unconstitutional for having overly curtailed Australians’ freedom of speech. Similarly, the legislation that we introduce should be clear that it targets the conduct in question, and not so much the fact that a person is in a certain spot. Accordingly, if a citizen engages in a certain offensive conduct in a certain location, he is asked to “move on” and he ceases the offensive conduct, then the “move on” order should cease to have effect. As for the exercise of these powers, they will invariably be highly discretionary. The Australian experience has been that the powers can be and frequently are exercised in a capricious, arbitrary and unaccountable manner. I have a couple of quick suggestions to address these shortcomings. Firstly, there should be clear and transparent checks-and-balances.”
“And why take 45 minutes to decide, when they had already been watching us for hours and knew exactly what was going on? I could not and still cannot shake off the belief that the entire incident was related to the fact that the survey questions relating to whether a by-election should have been called in Jurong GRC could be seen as being politically sensitive. But that should be irrelevant to the police. The only relevant consideration should be whether we were in fact causing a public nuisance, and that is self evident. We were clearly not causing a public nuisance. The police officers knew that were not causing a nuisance. So, why stop us? Why put citizens, engaging in the legitimate exercise of their constitutional right to move freely throughout Singapore, through such an ordeal? To my mind, there are legitimate questions about the possibility of abuse in the police’s purported exercise of their powers in connection with the Miscellaneous Offences Act. By "abuse", I mean the use of official powers to disrupt lawful activities by citizens, especially activities with political overtones, without legitimate reason. The lack of transparency, clarity and accountability in how we were treated concerns me. In the light of my experience with the Miscellaneous Offences Act, I was naturally concerned when the Deputy Prime Minister disclosed that the Government was considering the introduction of “move on” powers in a recent press interview. I do understand that this is still in the works, and that the legislation will be introduced later this year. Nevertheless, I will take this opportunity to speak a little on this. This plan seems to have been inspired by the Australian example. Many states in Australia have given their police such powers.”
“The officers said that they had received a complaint of two persons causing a public nuisance in that area by taking a survey. We answered their questions, and showed them our survey questions at their request. They told us to stop doing the survey, while they checked with their superiors for further instructions. We complied, and waited for a decision to come through. Eventually, just before 6.00 pm, one of the officers came up to us and said that we could continue with the survey if we wanted. By then, both of us were tired from the waiting and the tension. We called it a day, and left the area. Sir, that was one of the more stressful days in my life to date. It is no joke to have the police come up to you, tell you that they have received a complaint that you are breaking the law while declining to disclose any details on this complaint, and then keep you waiting for nearly an hour without any update or information on what was going on. Having been on the receiving end, I believe that the existing system lacks transparency and accountability, and is open to abuse. To this day, I feel aggrieved when I think of that day. Where is the transparency and accountability in the process? If we were indeed being a nuisance, or if there was a legitimate concern about us being public nuisances, then why had not the police officers acted earlier, when they first saw us? Why act almost two hours after they first observed us? We were doing the exact same thing, and the only difference was that someone had called in to complain. The police would have seen with their own eyes whether or not we were causing a public nuisance. So why ask us to stop? Why did the police not tell us why they stopped us, why they had not stopped us earlier, and why they decided that nothing was wrong?”
“Sir, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act provides for certain offences under the umbrella of so-called “public nuisances”. I will share my experience on how the police enforces this law. Last October, when speaking in this House on a Member's motion on by-elections, I referred to a survey of Jurong GRC residents conducted by The Online Citizen website on 23rd October 2008, which I helped to conduct. For the survey, I was paired with another volunteer, and we were in Jurong asking passers-by whether they thought that there should be a by-election. We were pretty much in the same spot from around 3.00 pm onwards. While surveying passers-by, I noticed two uniformed police officers patrolling the area. They stood some distance away observing us. They did nothing to stop us. I assumed that all was fine. But after about two hours or so, at about 5.00 pm, these same two officers went up to my fellow volunteer and started questioning him, asking for his name and what we were doing. All this while, they had been observing us from time to time, and had allowed us to continue doing the survey for two hours or more without question or interruption. All this while, we were not noisy and we were respectful and polite to all persons approached, whether or not they were willing to take part in the survey. All this while, nobody complained to us about what we were doing, and nobody took offence or asked us to stop, although a grassroots leader did engage my fellow volunteer in discussion for about 15 minutes or so. I saw the officers speaking to my fellow volunteer, but we continued taking survey responses. After a while, I went to them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification for Ms Irene Ng who has mentioned me in her speech. Ms Ng says that I do not appreciate the good work that goes on on the ground. I agree with her for not being involved in the grassroots. But just let me clarify the point that I made in my speech which she referred to. My point, and I think this is a difference in fundamental philosophy and approach, is that an ad hoc approach, such as we have today, is inherently uncertain and does not bring certainty to those who need help, those who need assistance, and that is not helpful to them. So, I advocate for a more formalised structure, and I think that is the difference. And that is the clarification I would ask Ms Ng to appreciate.”
“Sir, on the first point whether the Scheme will have the effect of saving jobs because it reduces cost, my argument remains that if there is a drop in demand which far exceeds the savings and the reduction in business expenses, then jobs will be lost. A rational business will have no choice but to cut jobs, because it cannot keep on making losses, month after month. My argument is that the Jobs Credit Scheme will provide very temporary relief in that sense. It will have the effect that Mr Heng refers to, but it will be temporary. It will not last for long and then the job cuts will resume. That is my argument. I may be wrong. I wish I am wrong, but I do hold that opinion. On the second point whether I have any alternative suggestion as how to save jobs, I wish I did. And if I did, I certainly would have expounded upon it in my speech instead of criticising the Scheme. The reality is I do not. When we are faced with collapsing demand, when we are in an open economy where we cannot prime the economy and stimulate our own demand, the reality is that job losses will be inevitable. In which case, the question should be, what do we do to help people whose jobs are lost? Can we not apply the $4.5 billion and better use it to help Singaporeans? That is the question I pose. Obviously, I do believe that we can.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy to clarify details of my speech but it seems that Members want to engage me in an argument. Be that as it may, Sir, in my speech, I have laid out an argument based on logic. I do not have the statistics on the extent that demand has collapsed, but I will point Mr Zagy to the EDB's report released last week. We are, basically, across the board in the manufacturing sector. Businesses believe that demand will drop in the first half of the year, in the coming two quarters. There was a lack of detail in that report on the extent that demand will drop. But I think it will be significant given the uniformity of opinion. That being the case, if demand drops substantially, and revenue drops substantially, there will be 3%-5% reduction in the cost structure, because the Jobs Credit Scheme will not help.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have explained in some detail in my speech. I will be happy to send a copy of my speech to Ms Rajah if she so wishes. But let me just repeat myself a little and I will be brief. My argument is that in a situation of falling demand when the revenue of the business is falling through the floor, the wage subsidy will not save jobs. Businesses will cut jobs anyway, simply because it is not sustainable. And my argument is that the Jobs Credit Scheme makes too little of a difference in the face of such an overwhelming collapse in demand. And I have said this in my speech that I believe that there will be a temporary but small effect. It will be temporary, and the retrenchments will continue after that.”