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 4 of 6.
“Perhaps if Singapore-owned capital is benefiting from the economic growth, then we could make the case that economic growth has benefited Singaporean entrepreneurs and investors. Unfortunately, the picture may be even bleaker for capital. According to the Singapore Corporate Sector Report, in 1995, 30% of the paid-up shares in Singapore companies were foreign-owned. By 2005, this percentage has jumped to 45%. In other words, the proportion of foreign ownership in the Singapore corporate sector increased by 50% in the 10 years between 1995 and 2005. If I had to guess, I would say that this proportion has increased further in the three years since. Sir, even I would say that the statistics I have cited are not conclusive. There is a fair amount of inference and guesswork. But I think it all shows that there are some very legitimate questions that can be asked, that need to be asked, about the true extent to which Singaporeans are benefiting from all this economic growth. I do not think it is enough to merely say that our economic growth has created jobs for Singaporeans, that the low resident unemployment rate serves as a proxy indicator of the benefits from growth. That is a purely quantitative measure. Quite apart from the point that the statistics available group both Singaporeans and permanent residents together, those figures do not shed any light, whatsoever, on the quality of jobs going to residents, on the extent to which residents have benefited. Sir, I do not mean to be xenophobic, or to argue against having foreigners here. I work in an US MNC, mostly with foreigners, and I certainly appreciate the many important contributions they make to our economy. But surely, Singapore's economic growth should benefit Singaporeans more than others.”
“How much have Singaporeans benefited from it? Sir, I will try to shed some light on these questions. Let me start with wages. Wages, as a proportion of Gross National Income, has stayed relatively stable, averaging 43% in the period between 1993 and 2007. It was 41% in 2007. We do not have official statistics on the breakdown of wages between residents and non-residents. But we do know that the majority of jobs created in the past three years went to foreigners. As at December 2007, there were 900,800 non-resident foreigners employed here, or one-third of our workforce of 2.73 million. This compares with 671,200 non-resident foreigners employed here as at December 2005, or 28.9% of the 2.32 million workforce then. The proportion of non-resident foreigners in the workforce has increased by 15% over the past three years. Unless most of the jobs that went to non-resident foreigners during the past three years were low-income jobs, which I certainly hope was not the case given how heavily our growth strategies rely on the attraction of high-quality foreign talent here, the increase in the proportion of non-resident foreigners in the workforce means that the share of wages going to foreigners has probably also increased in the past three years. And this is based on non-resident foreigners. Once permanent residents are factored in, the proportion of wages going to non-citizens would be even higher. In other words, in proportionate terms, non-citizens seem to be benefiting from our GDP growth more than Singaporeans are, at least, in terms of wages. As our population moves towards 6.5 million in Year X, fuelled mainly by more foreigners coming to Singapore, this trend will only accelerate. What about capital?”
“More importantly, improved accuracy in forecasting will ensure that we do not raise taxes like GST, or Government fees and charges, unnecessarily, to make up for revenue shortfalls that do not materialise. Such increases impose a burden on the people and, as we have seen, have a strong inflationary effect. Sir, the Minister has attributed this massive surplus to an active property market and better-than-expected economic growth. But despite last year's impressive real GDP growth of 7.7%, many Singaporeans still do not feel better off. Instead, in the face of the worst inflation experienced in 25 years, there is an extremely strong sense of being worse off amongst many Singaporeans. Why is that so? No less than Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has criticised the use of GDP growth as an indicator of progress. He noted that GDP growth does not measure environmental degradation or depreciation of natural resources. It can mask declines in quality of life, where GDP may go up but people's income could be going down. He also pointed out that such a practice rewards governments only for increasing materialistic production. Well, Mr Stiglitz has been asked by the French President to head a panel, tasked with devising a new method of economic calculation that includes quality-of-life measures. Indeed, there is a view amongst some Singaporeans, that our stunning headline growth numbers do not tell the full picture. We are told that Singapore has done well, is doing well, and will continue to do well. Our blistering GDP growth in recent years supports this view. Even with the imminent slowdown, we are still expected to grow by between 4% and 6% this year - healthy by any standards. And yet, some questions persist. Who exactly has benefited from all this growth?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot has been said about this year's Budget - much praise, many keen observations, and certainly, plenty of smart suggestions. I hope that this House will bear with me, as I add a few more comments. We had a surplus of $6.45 billion last year. This year's Budget is projected to incur a deficit of $0.8 billion. There will remain a huge amount of funds from last year's surplus that remains untouched. Singaporeans see last year's unexpected surplus as a windfall, generated in large part by the increased GST rate, their overall increased consumption, and their property purchases. It is only then natural for Singaporeans to want to partake of this perceived windfall. The Government has argued in favour of prudence, of keeping something in reserve to meet unexpected contingencies. The other side of the coin then is that the Government must not hesitate to use this massive war chest to provide assistance if and when needed. I think if either the economy or inflation gets much worse over the course of the year, Singaporeans will rightly expect appropriate off-Budget measures from the Government. Perhaps, more accurate forecasting and projections in future would go a long way towards avoiding the repetition of such surprises. After all, surprises on such a scale are not desirable. Thanks to this Government's ability to consistently perform better fiscally than initially projected, many people have learnt to discount its forecasts. Even before we start the new fiscal year, economists have begun contradicting the official forecast of a deficit for this year. This state of affairs cannot be healthy.”
“Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. Given that four years had passed between the time of payment and the claim for repayment, was it reasonable for HDB to demand that Mdm Lee returned the $18,000 in 21 day's time? Could HDB have contacted her again before sending the letter of demand, despite not having heard from her for the preceding three months?”
“Sir, I have four supplementary questions: (1) Last September, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs said, when responding to a Question that I had filed, "It is not as though that foreigners cannot make their comments or views known on Singapore's policies and laws." But he drew a distinction where it constituted interference in our domestic political scene. Does the Ministry have a different position from Home Affairs and, if not, in what way does MICA consider foreign members of the Complaints Choir Project to be interfering in our domestic political scene? (2) Secondly, we ourselves frequently comment on matters in other countries. For example, this House debated the situation in Myanmar. Foreigners also write in the Forum pages, and we invite foreigners like Mr Peter Schwartz to speak publicly about the future of Singapore. How does that all reconcile with this case where foreigners were completely banned from singing in public about generic local affairs, with lyrics that have been approved by MDA no less? (3) Third, I would like to ask the Minister whether in this age of Internet and YouTube, enforcing the policy in this manner still serves any purpose. After all, probably many more people saw the video online, than otherwise the case; and (4) My last question relates to the timing of the approval that was given by MDA. I am told that initially the organisers were aware of the prohibition of foreigners participating in the Project only in relation to a planned performance at the Speakers' Corner. This obviously turned out to be different from the final situation where they were told that foreigners could not participate at all locations. So, I would just like to ask the Minister to clarify what exactly happened there.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is to ask the Minister whether the GDP growth rate, even the real GDP growth rate, is the most appropriate metric because the bonus really should be tied to the benefits to Singaporeans arising from economic growth, whereas GDP growth, as a measure, includes the wages paid to foreigners. So my question is, would the Government consider a metric that strips out components of GDP growth that do not benefit Singaporeans directly so as to more accurately measure the benefits to Singaporeans from the economic growth? Sir, my second question is this. The Public Service Division recently disclosed that the pay for the Ministers at the MR4 Grade, which is 77% of the benchmark, and I quote, "includes all bonuses such as the 13th month bonus, the average performance bonus and the GDP bonus". The reference to an "average performance bonus" suggests that some would be paid an above average performance bonus. Does it then mean that the better performing Ministers will be paid more than 77% of the benchmark?”
“Sir, given all these outreach attempts, it seems that there are still a number of workers who are not signing up for Workfare. What is the Ministry's assessment as to the reasons why they are not signing up?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is: what is the Ministry's preliminary assessment of Workfare to date? My second question is: what are the ongoing efforts to encourage more persons, especially casual workers, to sign up for Workfare? Because when I went back to the 2007 Budget Statement, it seems that the estimate was that there were 438,000 persons who could potentially benefit, and only 287,000 workers had received Workfare.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. It seems that over 97% of Singaporeans living in one- to three-room HDB flats received GST credits or Senior Citizens' Bonus. I would like to ask the Minister what were the reasons for 2% to 3% of these Singaporeans not receiving these credits and what more could have been done to help them to sign up for them. My second question, Sir, is what will happen to the budgeted GST credits that were not paid out? Will they be applied towards other purposes to mitigate the impact of the GST increase?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why the average Medifund payout per patient has actually decreased from $174 in 2001 to $132 in 2006.”
“Sir, the Minister has mentioned that the process on drafting the terms of reference for the ASEAN human rights body will proceed. I would just like to ask the Minister how will this process incorporate the views of Singaporeans and Singapore civil society, given that the ASEAN Charter aims to create a people-centred ASEAN.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify when he mentioned that the Ministry is assured that GIC and Temasek have appropriately evaluated the risks. As I understand it from the papers, the GIC's investment in Citigroup was done in eight days. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify exactly what due diligence measures were taken by GIC within that very short period of time.”
“On the Third Reading, Sir, I wish my dissent to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.”
“On the Third Reading, Sir, I wish my dissent to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to have my dissent recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report. Mr Deputy Speaker: Let it be so recorded. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.–[Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Sir, with that, and for all the reasons I have stated in my speech, namely, the increase of so many maximum sentences without adequate justification, the retention of the marital immunity, albeit in a limited form, and the failure to repeal 377A, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. 6.33 pm”
“Yes, Sir. Instead of reading their comments, I will just talk about what I feel that this House should do. I ask this House to "signpost" the values of fairness, justice, non-discrimination, openness and inclusiveness, which are values fundamental to a secular democracy. I ask this House to endorse the view that our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different, that ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore, and that we should build a nation where every citizen has a place, where all can live in dignity and harmony. And if those words sound familiar, that is because those were the very words of the Prime Minister in his swearing-in speech in August 2004. These are the right things to do. Some have said that Singapore is not ready, that this is not the right time. I disagree. I say that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or easy thing, but to do the right thing. Now is the time, to turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred. Now is the time, for this House, which represents all Singaporeans, to lead by example. Now is the time, to uphold the noble ideals of our founding fathers, ideals upon which our country was founded and which hold our society together. The ideals of a democratic society, based on justice and equality. The ideal of all persons being equal before the law, and all persons having the equal protection of the law. Now is the time, to do the right thing and repeal 377A.”
“It does not matter how many lives I save, it does not matter how much suffering I relieve, it does not matter how much good I do, it does not change one shameful fact. I am a criminal doctor." Sir, please bear with me as I quote one last person. Mr Choo questioned the consequences of repealing 377A. He questioned whether, if 377A was abolished, those who supported its retention would suffer. He asked if they would be, and I quote, "... "living in constant hardship, hysteria, agony and pain, distress and shame, fear of marriage breakdown, upset with public safety and order", simply due to the knowledge that someone else is legally behaving in what they regard as "gross indecency" in some other bedroom?"”
“But the majority would say that because they are not the subjects of discrimination, because they are not the minority who have to live under the threat of 377A, which is a sword of Damocles that could fall with a change of policy by the Government of the day. Sir, let me share with this House the pain voiced by some signatories of the online open letter. Madam Mak is a 69-year-old mother of a gay 40-something son. He and his partner have lived with her for over 13 years. She called them "the best things" that had happened to her in her 69 years in Singapore. She wrote: "Please tell me, Mr PM, why are you teaching me to be ashamed of them? If this country doesn't want them, where can they go? Please tell me." Madam K, a civil servant, wrote: "My son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset and I blamed myself for why my son is gay... I blamed myself all the time. But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day I gave birth to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he is gay, our family is not what it is. We are a family. What people do in their private lives should not be an issue to anyone as long as it does not harm anyone else. He does not know I am doing this but I support this repeal. He is my son and he is not a criminal. If I can accept him, his mother who gave birth to him, who are these people who so quickly judge him and condemn him?" A doctor, who signed off only as "criminal doctor", wrote: "I am a doctor. People tell me that is a noble profession. My parents are proud of me. My teachers are proud of me. But I am ashamed of myself. Why so? Because I am gay.”
“Sir, the Government has stated that it will not proactively enforce 377A. This may be meant as a compromise, but it is unsatisfactory and problematic. The Law Society has pointed out that this position is an admission that 377A is out of step with the modern world, adding that it risked "bringing the law into disrepute". I also quote Professor Michael Hor: "The moral force of the criminal law is blunted if there are crimes which are, the Government assures the public, never to be enforced, and its 'perpetrators' never brought to court and punished. The criminal laws are the ground rules of our society and if it is to be accorded the respect it deserves, it must be reserved for conduct which the Government considers to be clearly harmful to society." Sir, the Senior Minister of State has noted that there have been convictions under 377A for cases involving abuse of young persons and acts performed in public. And I completely agree that such instances and such acts should remain criminalised. But 377A, as it now stands, is not limited to those situations and it covers private consensual acts between adults as well. If the Government intends to criminalise only the abuse of young persons and public acts, then 377A should be amended to do this. But it is not being amended. Furthermore, not proactively enforcing 377A does not mean that its retention is without cost. The Government says that it seeks to reflect the moral values of the majority, but what about the human cost to gay persons and their families? What about the cost to Singapore from those who leave Singapore because of this law? What price, this reflection and endorsement of public morality? The majority of Singaporeans seem to speak as if the non-enforcement of 377A means that everything is fine.”
“The signatories were a broad and diverse group, showing that the issues cut across all lines and resonated universally with people. Straight and gay, male and female, young, middle-aged and old, civil servants, professionals and students, religious and non-religious, they all signed the Petition. They all understood the guiding light of treating others as you want them to treat you. They were united by the common belief that 377A is unfair, unjust and wrong, and hence should be repealed. And such lengths they went to, to convey the strength of their belief. So many, including straight men, went out to collect signatures on their own accord, without being asked, completely voluntarily. An 18-year-old student collected 70 signatures. Two others collected 150 signatures each. Madam Tan, a 63-year-old mother of two heterosexual sons, collected signatures from her peers. She took it upon herself to do so. She believed that she needed to do it, "for a healthy attitude towards life". She collected five signatures. Apart from the Petition, there was also an online open letter to the Prime Minister calling for a repeal of 377A. This open letter, which collected 8,120 signatures, was handed to the Prime Minister's Office earlier today. A Mr Goh signed it, and he articulated the universality of the issue when he wrote: "I must admit that I am somewhat 'homophobic', but I believe that nobody should be discriminated against for his belief or, in this case, sexual inclination. If they make me uncomfortable, I just don't mix in their social circle." I do not know anything about Mr Goh, but I am humbled by his principled stand against discrimination. It is the right and noble path, standing fast to our principles even in the face of personal dislike. Surely, we can all learn from him.”
“It suggests that any majority group can now regulate the private activities of a minority group because it is uncomfortable with it or feels threatened by it. Imagine what this means for the many majority-vs-minority faultlines within the Singapore society - Chinese vs others, citizens vs non-citizens, heartlanders vs cosmopolitans, a majority religious group vs a minority one. Breeding the majority group's self-righteousness to demand deference from the minorities will weaken the social cohesion of our society based on mutual respect and tolerance. The repeal of section 377A will make a clear statement on how, in Singapore, we will always have to find ways to live harmoniously with people who are not like us." Sir, many people have described the repeal of 377A as a "slippery slope". I think Mr Cheng has identified the true slippery slope that we face today. For all of these reasons, I believe the continued retention of 377A to be unconstitutional. I think the arguments in the Petition are valid and correct in law, and so I presented it to Parliament. I humbly ask my fellow Members to consider these arguments and to acknowledge their cogency in this debate. Sir, that was the Petition. I will now speak on why I support the repeal of 377A, quite apart from its unconstitutionality. Contrary to how many have sought to frame the issue, the repeal of 377A is not a gay issue. It is not about gay rights. It is not just for gays, friends or relatives of gays. No. It is about fairness, justice and non-discrimination. It is about tolerance, understanding and inclusiveness. It is about upholding the fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution, the basic pillars underpinning our country. These are issues for all Singaporeans. The response to the Petition bore this out.”
“Indeed, the Amendment Bill even repeals section 498, which makes it an offence for a man to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intent of having illicit intercourse with her. The reason given is that it is an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today's context. But public morality in today's society remains firmly opposed to extramarital sex. So why do we selectively reflect public morality with respect to private, consensual acts between adult men, but not public morality on adultery? Why are we not "singposting" society's disapproval of adultery by retaining section 498, without proactively enforcing it? The Senior Minister of State has argued that repealing section 498 is not an endorsement of adultery or pre-marital sex. In the same way, repealing 377A is also not an endorsement of homosexuality. The inconsistency is discriminatory. And taking the signposting argument to its logical conclusion, if we repeal section 498, are we then telling the world that seducing a married woman, hence leading to adultery, is acceptable? By lifting marital immunity in limited circumstances, are we endorsing marital rape in the other circumstances? Signposting is all or nothing. We cannot signpost selectively, with some provisions reflecting public morality and others not. It does not work that way. It is a fundamentally flawed argument that does not stand up to logic or reason or the principles of a democratic society, and so we should shy away from it. Sir, Mr Cheng, a Singapore graduate student in the US, emailed this to me: "Retaining section 377A on the basis that the 'conservative' majority is uncomfortable with homosexuality sets a dangerous precedence for our society.”
“Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between adult men? What is the differentiating factor that leads to harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the criminal law. It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between adult men, but the moral disgust that the majority says it feels. But there is a very good reason why the criminal law should not reflect public morality. And that is because doing so can lead to the discriminatory oppression of minorities. In times past and in other countries, public morality and disgust have been used to justify slavery; discrimination against racial and religious minorities; and discrimination against women, including not permitting them to work or to vote. All of these are now universally recognised as being wrong and immoral. Let us not perpetuate or repeat the mistakes of others in the past. Sir, the "signposting" argument is fundamentally flawed. It is couched in the language of "the majority". But let us not forget another phrase involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority. That is precisely why the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal protection are entrenched as a fundamental liberty in Article 12(1). Even if we accept the "signposting" argument, the Amendment Bill seems to reflect public morality in a selective and discriminatory manner. It is surely undisputed that society views extramarital sex as immoral. And, surely, most Singaporeans disapprove of prostitution and all types of discrimination, such as age, racial and gender discrimination. But we have not criminalised any of these.”
“Thus, regardless of one's personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence." Private consensual sexual acts between adult males do not impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others, but the Government seems to think that the activities governed by 377A do not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not and it cannot. And the Government has effectively admitted this. It does not seek to justify the retention of 377A on grounds of societal safety and security or of harm to others from the conduct contemplated by 377A. Instead, its reasons for retaining 377A are that the majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality and so 377A should be retained to reflect or "signpost" this majority view of Singaporeans. But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a stated aim of the Penal Code nor is it an accepted objective of the criminal law. Clearly, then, 377A has no rational connection with any legitimate aim of the Penal Code. Its retention, which leads to different treatment of men engaging in oral and anal sex, and of heterosexual adults doing the same, without any legally acceptable justification, must therefore be unconstitutional. I would even argue that there can be no legitimate aim of the Penal Code with which 377A can be rationally connected so as to justify its retention. The amendment of 377 permits heterosexual adults to engage in private, consensual oral and anal sex. By definition then, we are saying that there is no harm arising from such private and consensual acts between heterosexual adults.”
“Furthermore, criminal lawyers generally accept that the criminal law should be concerned with two elements, and two elements only - harm and culpability - of which, only harm is relevant here. Professor Michael Hor teaches criminal law at the NUS' Faculty of Law. In a recent article, he explained that criminal activity must entail harm to others that is recognisable and tangible. In other words, if an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime. This is taught to first-year law students in their first few weeks and, indeed, I recall being taught this over 10 years ago. Professor Hor went on: "The Government has been strangely silent about the harm that section 377A is intended to prevent. Indeed, consistent statements over a number of years from the highest officials of the land lead any reasonable observer to think that the Government no longer believes, if indeed it did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by section 377A is harmful at all. If corroboration were required, it lies in the repeated assurances of the Government that section 377A will not be enforced - apparently because there is no harm to be prevented, no offender to be rehabilitated, no potential offender to be deterred, and no victim to be satisfied. One might, of course, disagree with the Government's position on the harmfulness of section 377A activity, but once that position is taken, how can it be right for section 377A activity to remain a crime?" The Law Society, in its submission to MHA on the draft Amendment Bill, similarly noted: "... the criminal law's proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recognisable by the criminal law.”
“Sir, I now turn to the Petition I presented to this House earlier which argues that section 377A would be unconstitutional upon the repeal of section 377. For ease of convenience, I would refer to section 377A as 377A and section 377 as 377. The Amendment Bill amends 377 to legalise private, consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults. But 377A which criminalises the same acts between men is retained. This discriminates against homosexual and bisexual men. The amendment of 377 without also repealing 377A is therefore unconstitutional under Article 12(1) of the Constitution which provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. That is because it does not satisfy the legal requirements for derogating from Article 12(1). A valid derogation from Article 12(1) must satisfy the rational nexus test, ie, it must be rationally connected to a legitimate purpose of the statute in question. So we must first consider the purposes of the Penal Code. The preambles of both the Penal Code and the Amendment Bill are silent on this. So let us turn to what MHA has said. Its public consultation paper on the draft Amendment Bill dated 8th November 2006 stated that: "The review is intended to make the Penal Code more effective in maintaining a safe and secure society in today's context." So, according to the Government, the objective of the Penal Code is to maintain a safe and secure society. But 377A criminalises consensual sexual acts between men even if it takes place in the privacy of their own homes. How does the private sexual conduct of consenting adults make Singapore unsafe or less secure?”
“So why are we still retaining this defence, even in a limited form? I cannot fathom that. MHA also cites "the expression of intimacy in a marriage". Sir, if sex without consent is seen as a permissible expression of intimacy in a marriage, then I fear for marriages and married people in Singapore. What sort of conception of marriage do we have, if the law recognises sex without consent as being legitimate? That cannot be right. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association of Women for Action and Research to last year's public consultation paper: "Rape is not sex, it is violence. No wife who has been raped considers the act to be merely sex. It is a form of violence, aimed at violating the victim in one of the most humiliating manners. To equate sex with rape is to equate a caress with a beating. Throughout the eighties and beyond, girls were continually warned in schools to be alert for sexual predators, and given the message that rape was the worst possible violation against a woman. It is truly ironic that these same girls, now adult women, are told that they have to subject themselves to this most humiliating of assaults by none other than their husbands." The Amendment Bill effectively penalises the most vulnerable of wives: those who have no choice but to continue in a marriage, for whatever reason. It says that if a woman has the wherewithal to leave, then we will protect her from rape, but not if she is completely dependent on her husband. That again cannot be right. For all of these reasons, I disagree with the proposed change to section 375 of the Penal Code. Instead, I urge the Government to repeal marital immunity in its entirety. That is what a modern society needs, that is what fairness requires, and that is what justice demands.”
“Marital immunity will now not apply where divorce or separation proceedings have been commenced or completed, or where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection order against the husband. MHA's stand is that total abolition of marital immunity would be "too radical" and would change "the whole complexion of marriage in our society", citing "a need to strike a balance between the needs of women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage." Sir, I was flabbergasted when I read that. Perhaps, it is because I am young and unmarried and hold the romantic view of marriage untarnished by its reality. But surely, that is the conception that we should still uphold. The proposed change still sends the message that, in most circumstances, a husband cannot be considered to have raped his wife even if he knew that she did not consent. Under this change, the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent, but whether the wife has taken certain legal steps. MHA talks about "conjugal rights", suggesting that a husband has some sort of right to sex from his wife. This is derived from the archaic view that the wife, by marrying the husband, has irrevocably consented to sex with her husband. This is linked with a view that a wife is the property of a husband. Sir, such a view has no place in a modern society, not even in a limited form. A man does not have the right to demand sex from his wife at any time. Sex without consent is rape, whether it takes place within or outside a marriage. To me, it is simple: no means no, and rape is rape. Rape within a marriage is the same as rape outside marriage. In a modern society, marriage is a partnership of equals. We are a modern society.”
“The intrinsic value of a person's liberty does not diminish over time. If anything, with a higher standard of living and greater economic opportunities today, the opportunity cost of a day in jail is arguably a lot higher now than in the past. In addition, an excessive maximum sentence could well be oppressive towards accused persons in the manner described by Ms Sylvia Lim. This insidious effect is undesirable, unfair and detrimental to the balance of the criminal justice system. MHA should therefore provide adequate justification for each increase in maximum sentence. In its public consultation paper last year, MHA has stated that it has "avoided increasing imprisonment terms unnecessarily". It should disclose the different factors considered for each maximum sentence increased, and why it had concluded that the existing maximum sentence was inadequate. It has not done so. To my mind, it is dangerous to increase the maximum sentences of so many offences, without proper justification. It seems to pay insufficient respect to the fundamental importance of a person's liberty. In the absence of such justifications, I have no choice but to disagree with this aspect of the amendment Bill. Marital immunity I now turn to the issue of marital rape. The Penal Code has historically provided an absolute defence of marital immunity. A husband is legally incapable of raping his wife. In other words, regardless of whether or not she consents to sex, regardless of whether or not he forces himself upon her, it is simply impossible in law for a husband to rape his wife. The Amendment Bill proposes to take a "calibrated approach" in limiting this defence.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, and on the petition I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will first speak on two aspects of the Amendment Bill not related to section 377A and then on section 377A and the Petition. The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This Bill represents the first review of the Penal Code in 22 years. It seeks to do a lot and yet it leaves so much undone. The Bill introduces some positive changes. For instance, there is a new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the experience in the UK, this could well become an important weapon in the arsenal against sexual predators, especially those on the Internet. Another important change is the criminalisation of child-sex tourism, extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding potential issues of enforcement, this will help greatly in closing the door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices. But, Sir, some aspects of the amendment Bill are not so positive. I will focus on three in my speech. General increase in maximum imprisonment sentences Firstly, clause 105 of the Amendment Bill increases the maximum sentences for a number of offences. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim's comments on this increase and would add to them. Sir, depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious matter. We should not be hasty in increasing the maximum sentences for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly justifiable, even necessary, given that they were last reviewed in 1952. But while money loses its value due to inflation, there is no equivalent concept when it comes to imprisonment.”
“But in the circumstances, because the Police wanted to find out their intentions, if they had interviewed them on the spot, that may be worse because that may attract attention and cause emotions to run, they asked, "Can you follow me back to the station?" One of them followed them back, and the other one went later on to the police station.”
“Sir, I have three supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: (1) How many persons were wearing the T-shirts in question? (2) What was the power under which the Police had exercised their right to ask the persons wearing the T-shirts to return to the police station for an interview? (3) Has the Police ever encountered a situation where the wearing of T-shirts as a form of protest had resulted in law-and-order issues and, if so, what sort of issues were they? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me take the third question first. Sir, the context is important. Like I have explained, the situation was tense on that weekend. It was a Saturday, and the situation was boiling over in Myanmar and also in terms of the Myanmese community in Singapore. We knew that they were gathering at different points. Ordinarily, Police would not ask people to take off their T-shirts. But in that context, in that situation, the Police officers involved thought that was the right thing to do. But having said this, let me say that it was only this team of officers who did it. It was a judgment that they made. Like I have said, they probably over-reacted, because there were also other officers who met other Myanmese nationals who were wearing T-shirts who did not ask them to take off their T-shirts. The other question is what powers they had to ask them to go back to the station. Well, that was a request. In fact, if the Myanmese nationals had said they did not want to go back, then the Police would not have taken them back.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, President George Bush of the US has categorically stated that business as usual is unacceptable. Does the Minister agree and, if so, what is the Government doing that goes beyond "business as usual"? Has the Government considered measures, short of general sanctions, that target the Generals specifically? My second question is this. The Minister has stated that ASEAN's economic leverage over Myanmar is limited. But, as I understand it, Thailand and Singapore are the second and third largest investors in Myanmar. I would like to ask the Minister why he considers ASEAN's economic leverage to be limited.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I present to Parliament a Petition under Standing Order No. 18. The Clerk has endorsed this Petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order No. 18(5). This Petition is presented on behalf on Mr George Bonaventure Hwang Chor Chee, Dr Stuart Koe Chi Yeow, Ms Tan Joo Hymn, and others of like opinion. Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of 2,341 valid signatures. Sir, the material allegations contained in the Petition concern the unconstitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code. If and when the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill is passed, private consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults will be permitted, but the same private and consensual acts between men will remain criminalised, due to the retention of section 377A. The petitioners argue that this is an unconstitutional derogation from the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal protection of the law as set out in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners ask this House to repeal section 377A in light of this. The petitioners pray, and I quote: "By this Petition, the Undersigned pray that Section 377A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) be repealed." I will now hand the Petition* to the Clerk. Petition handed to the Clerk of Parliament. *Cols. 2307-2312. Column No : 2121 Column No : 2122 SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS”
“But I think we are past that, and that is not what we are debating today. Indeed, the figures released by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this week suggest that the collective sale process has been meeting its objective of urban rejuvenation. The average age of all developments which applied for collective sale from January 2005 to end-August 2007 was 25.9 years. Having said that, this figure should be monitored on an ongoing basis, as any dip in this figure may indicate that the collective sale process is being used, not for urban renewal, but for the maximisation of economic value of estates, regardless of their condition. Any such indication would merit further discussion on whether it is a healthy development and whether it is desirable for the en bloc process to be used for such purposes. Given that collective sales are here to stay in Singapore, it is incumbent on Parliament to ensure that we properly balance and protect the interests of competing groups of property owners. This Bill is long overdue in how it implements a long-overdue regime to govern the procedural aspects of the process. Having said that, the Bill fails to address a central issue of apportionment of sale proceeds, as well as a few areas that I have discussed. Whether collective sales will continue to be dogged by the anger and unhappiness that have clouded so many in recent months bears monitoring. If they do, then it is clear that this Bill has been insufficient, in which case I trust that the Ministry will revisit the statute and reconsider the need to address the issues I have discussed, in particular, that of apportionment. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Finally, the Strata Titles Board is a tribunal constituted under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA). Under the BMSMA, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the High Court only on questions of law. In other words, questions of fact cannot be appealed to the High Court. The Bill introduces a new rule permitting the Strata Titles Board to ignore procedural defects and errors in an application for a collective sales order where such defects and errors do not prejudice the interest of any person. The question of whether the interest of any person has been prejudiced is a question of fact. Under the proposed new rule, the Board's decision on that question of fact will not be subject to appeal. Considering that this decision of the Board could well be critical in determining whether a collective sale order is granted, I would suggest that it may be appropriate to reconsider the provisions of the BMSMA excluding appeals to the High Court on questions of fact. Sir, the collective sale mechanism has been highly controversial in recent months. It was introduced for the objective of ensuring urban rejuvenation by the private sector. It obviates the need for compulsory acquisition by the Government of decaying estates. I think the jury is still out on whether collective sale is good for Singapore on the whole, given that it is essentially a balancing exercise between the need for urban rejuvenation, the economic use of land, and our interest as a society in preserving our physical and architectural heritage, our memories and our sense of rootedness. Here, I would echo the comments of my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me about the importance of maintaining memories and a sense of community.”
“It seems from anecdotal evidence that some solicitors behave as if they are only acting for the CSC while other subsidiary proprietors believe that the solicitors are acting to protect their own best interests. This is not a desirable state of affairs. Sir, these issues are not addressed in the amendment Bill. Perhaps they are governed by other areas of law, in which case, I would be grateful if the Deputy Prime Minister would clarify the position. Thirdly, the Amendment Bill specifies that a motion at a general meeting of a management corporation for the purposes of a collective sale shall be decided by the value of votes cast for and against that motion. It goes on to explain that the value of a vote is equal to the share value. That is in paragraph 10 of the proposed new Second Schedule. This may create a back-door through which owners of commercial units in mixed developments could oppress owners of residential units. The Bill introduces an additional approval requirement, ie, 80% or 90% for developments younger than 10 years, of owners by floor areas. This additional approval requirement is meant to address the common situation in mixed developments where commercial units have very high share values in comparison to residential units. But requiring motions at general meetings to be decided by votes based solely on share value may result in commercial owners controlling the CSC, to the exclusion of residential owners. While residential owners are still entitled to withhold their approval from the sale, this seems very similar to the current situation where majority owners control the CSC and minority owners are not represented, which would lead to the very situations of animosity and unhappiness that this Bill seeks to avoid.”
“Collective sales typically involve payouts to owners in millions. 0.25% of $1 million is only $2,500. Any increase in the amount payable to objectors that is ordered by the Board will not be meaningful. Given that the consent of the CSC is required, there seems no reason why the aggregate cap should be so low, since the CSC can always withhold its consent if it feels that the amount being ordered is too high. Secondly, the Amendment Bill goes a very long way towards resolving the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding the selection of the CSC. But some issues remain. For instance, the CSC is now a committee elected by the subsidiary proprietors at a general meeting of the management corporation. But the amendment Bill does not set out the extent of control that general meetings can have over the CSC, such as the power to issue directions to the CSC. The Bill also does not provide for the situation where all CSC members resign, as has happened with Horizon Towers. In addition, the Amendment Bill leaves the nature and duties of the CSC hazy. Do CSC members have a duty to act in the best interests of all subsidiary proprietors, or only those who have signed the CSA? Does a CSC member even have any duty to act in the best interest of anyone other than himself or herself? And for whom do the solicitors and the marketing agents act? To whom do they owe their contractual and fiduciary duties? The CSC? The management corporation? All subsidiary proprietors? Or only those owners who have signed the CSA? This latter point is especially important with respect to solicitors, because it would then guide them in their discharge of their duties.”
“I hope that she can provide the appropriate feedback to the Institute for their consideration and action. If the SISV does issue well-thought-out guidelines, then a valuer would have to justify any deviation from or inconsistency with those guidelines. This would then help the Strata Titles Board to better evaluate whether the transaction is in good faith in relation to the method of distribution of the sale proceeds. This is the responsible approach and would do wonders for fairness and transparency in the collective sales process. Sir, I will now briefly touch on some other areas that I believe can be further refined. Firstly, the Amendment Bill introduces a new provision that permits the Strata Titles Board to grant a collective sale order, subject to a condition that the sale proceeds must be paid from the proceeds of sale of all subsidiary proprietors, seems to me inequitable in that it penalises minority owners who do not file an objection. It essentially compels all minority owners to file an objection. If the minority owner does not sign the CSA but also does not file an objection, then he suffers a double whammy. Firstly, the Board is not empowered to increase his sale proceeds. Secondly, his share of the sale proceeds will be reduced, since he will also have to contribute to the amounts paid to objectors. This seems unfair. After all, the majority owners are the ones who are keen and enthusiastic to complete the sale. So it only seems fair that they bear the cost of any additional payment to objectors. This is especially when they have the choice of whether to agree to making such payment, through the requirement for the CSC's consent. Furthermore, the aggregate cap on the sum that the Board may order seems overly low.”
“Bearing in mind the critical role played by marketing agents in this entire process, including suggesting and recommending valuers for such reports, everyone has a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Indeed, I have been told by a minority owner who was in the pro-tem CSC for his estate that the marketing agent in his case actually told him that the agents will always ensure that their regular surveyors are engaged and that their regular surveyors will always agree with their proposed method. Sir, all this simply means that when it comes to the single most important issue in an en bloc sale, minority owners are left with little protection from the law. The law creates a mechanism that permits and facilitates the collective sale of estates which, in itself, represents a significant derogation from property rights in the first place. And then the law fails to go on to ensure substantive fairness. I personally believe that to be a major failing in the system. Be that as it may, it seems to me that the Ministry has consciously decided to adopt an approach based primarily on procedural fairness. That being the case, I would ask that the Deputy Prime Minister consider an amendment to the legislation to require that all valuation reports submitted to the Strata Titles Board include a declaration by the valuer as to its relationships, if any, with any of the majority owners or the marketing agent handling that transaction and, in particular, the amount of business that it has done with that marketing agent in the preceding 12 months. I also understand that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, is the Chairperson of the Council of the SISV.”
“But this seems to be more an exercise of going through the motions than of truly independent and critical evaluation and consideration. Let me just cite the example of a valuation report that I have seen. In this case, the report basically set out and described the different methods of apportionment, without any critical analysis of the applicability or suitability of each method to the development in question. The valuer then proceeded to state its recommendation, which just happened to be the method that the sale committee had already chosen. The valuer opined, and I quote: "In view of the above methods and having regard to all relevant information, we are of the opinion that the 50% share value and 50% strata area method is a fair and equitable method of apportionment. We also understand that this method of distribution has also obtained the endorsement of more than 80% of the owners in the Collective Sale Agreement." There was no analysis, no explanation, no justification. Just a bald assertion that the method in question is a fair and equitable method, with a telling reference to the endorsement of the majority owners. No reference to the other methods of apportionment recommended by the SISV. No comparison of the relative merits of each method. No statement as to whether this method is more fairer and more equitable than the others, or whether any other method would be more fairer and more equitable. Sir, if that is not simply going through the motion, I do not know what is. It does not help that Singapore is small and the industry is small. Everybody knows everybody else. A valuer who provides a report that does not meet a marketing agent's requirements will probably not receive any more work from that agent and probably any other agent.”
“Sir, I understand that all collective sales in Singapore adopt one of four methods of apportionment recommended by the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. These four recommended methods are by: (1) Share value; (2) Strata area; (3) Average of share value and strata area; and (4) Valuation and share value excess. The SISV also recommends "any other method" which sounds like an oxymoron to me. But I understand that "any other method" is commonly understood to mean any combination of the above four methods that is fair and equitable. Unfortunately, the SISV does not also provide recommendations and guidelines on when each of the methods should be used. That has somewhat inevitably led to CSCs selecting the method which is most likely to achieve the requisite majority to approve a sale. There may be a perfunctory attempt at justifying the method being adopted but this is seldom satisfactory. Since the pot of sale proceeds is finite, the chosen method usually advantages the majority, to the detriment of the minority who are normally the owners of the bigger units. It seems to me a little irresponsible of the SISV to recommend methods of apportionment without also providing detailed guidelines on how to apply them in a fair and equitable manner. It is tantamount to giving a loaded gun to a soldier without also providing the necessary training and guidance in its usage. Is it then any wonder that the recommendations are frequently abused in such a manner as to effectively oppress minority owners? It is true that when the majority owners apply to the Strata Titles Board for a collective sale order, they have to include a valuation report on the matter of apportionment use.”
“Indeed, I understand that many developments have been rushing to obtain the requisite 80% approval threshold for their collective sale agreements before this Amendment Bill comes into effect. That is so that those sales will come under the current legislation, and avoid the new rules. That is, to my mind, testament to several things: the extent to which the current rules are perceived to be "pro-sale", the extent to which the new rules are seen to correct that imbalance, and the blatant disregard of many collective sale committees (CSCs) for notions of fairness and the interests of minority owners. Sir, there are many positives in the Amendment Bill. It creates a statutory footing for the sale committee as a committee elected by the management corporation in a general meeting. It injects a tremendous amount of sorely needed transparency into the collective sale process, a process that has come under severe criticism, criticism which, in my view, is wholly justified. That being said, there remains a significant omission from the Bill. The Bill seeks to do a lot of things but they are primarily aimed at ensuring procedural fairness. The Bill does not appear to do much in terms of substantive fairness which, in this case, would centre around the method of apportionment of the sale proceeds. It is as if we are saying that it is enough for the form to be proper and never the substance. In particular, the Bill fails to address the matter of apportionment of sale proceeds. That is possibly the single most contentious issue in an en bloc sale. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister had, in a written answer to my question provided on Monday, disclosed that this was one of the most common grounds of objections raised by minority owners to the Strata Titles Board.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. But first, I should declare my interest such as it is, in this matter. My girlfriend's mother's estate is currently undergoing a collective sale process. Sir, there has been a great deal of attention on collective sales in recent months. The ongoing Horizon Towers case has shown up some of the inadequacies in the existing legislation. It is also a cautionary tale on the potential repercussions when things go seriously wrong. At the same time, there is a lot of unhappiness with the status quo. From anecdotal evidence, a lot of owners are unhappy with the ongoing en bloc efforts in their respective estates. Some do not want to sell. Some feel that the proposed sale is unfair to them. Some believe that they will be unable to obtain an equivalent replacement unit in the current market. And the unhappiness is not limited to locals. Expatsingapore.com is an online forum that is very popular with foreigners, and many of them have posted negative comments on the forum about their unhappy experiences, either as minority owners or as tenants forced to leave their "en bloc-ed" homes at very short notice. All the shenanigans surrounding en bloc efforts have adversely coloured many foreigners' perceptions of Singapore as a safe, secure place, where the system works in a fair and transparent manner. It is not uncommon to see comments from foreigners about wanting to leave Singapore and never coming back, because of how they are being treated either as tenants or as minority owners. That is the context within which this Amendment Bill is being debated. And this Bill is long overdue, given the long simmering complaints about the current legislation.”
“Any other system would be difficult to sustain. But, at the same time, I think we need to do better, and we can. We are able to extract higher returns from CPF balances, thanks to the GIC expertise. So why are we not passing these higher returns to CPF members? Until we do so, why are we considering implementing a compulsory annuity which will fundamentally change the nature and dynamics of CPF members' relationship with their CPF balances? Why are we so ready to encroach on their ownership rights over their CPF funds? We explicitly acknowledge that problems will remain despite the proposed changes. So why were there no policies announced on how to address the residual problems? This is a significant omission. We all agree that the ageing population is an important and pressing issue facing Singapore. I only differ from the Minister on what can be done. The Government is already doing a lot - the re-employment legislation to kick in by 2012, the higher workfare payment for those aged 55 and above, the proposal for the HDB to buy back the tail-end of certain HDB leases. These are all excellent initiatives. I hope, for the sake of the future of all Singaporeans, that the Government will do more. Because it can, and it must. 5.19 pm”
“What if they do not or cannot? Does that mean that they do not deserve to be supported in their old age? I hope not. But the proposed changes do nothing to help them. So from this perspective, the proposed changes are inadequate. Indeed, focusing our approach to an ageing population so heavily, arguably even exclusively, on the CPF system, will inevitably result in such a gap. The proposed changes are inadequate from another perspective. The proposed compulsory annuity, as described, will result in a payout of $250-$300 per month to those aged 85 as of 2042. Assuming an inflation rate of 1.5% every year, that amount, in 2042, will be worth only $149-$178 in today's dollars. The compulsory annuity is supposed to provide a subsistence payout in case people live longer than they thought they would. But is $149 or even $178 enough even for subsistence existence in Singapore? Let us remember the fundamental premise for the compulsory annuity. It is that people are myopic and unable to save enough to support themselves, so they need a lifeline if they happen to live past 85. So that must also necessarily be the assumption that those relying on the annuity will have no other sources of income. What would they do then? Madam, the Minister did acknowledge these gaps in his Statement. It is therefore a little bit of a pity that the Minister did not also announce help measures that will be made available to those who need assistance. Unless and until that is done, the proposed changes do not, in my view, provide a comprehensive or adequate response to the issue of an ageing population. Madam, I do agree with the Minister on the need for a strong and fully-funded CPF system based on defined contributions and not defined benefits. That has to be the foundation. That is a given.”
“CPF is a fully-funded defined-contribution scheme. It is premised on members getting what they pay in. But what about those who do not pay much or anything into CPF? In 2005, two World Bank economists published a paper setting out the World Bank's thinking on how countries should structure their pension systems. They recommended a five-pillar approach to retirement funding. One of their key recommendations was for the State to provide a mandatory basic pillar of minimal pension payments to provide for the poor. We do not have such a basic pillar in Singapore, but we do have the lifetime poor - those who are born poor, who will die poor and in between, make too little to contribute much, if anything, to CPF. We have the informal workers who, by definition, do not contribute to CPF. We have full-time home-makers and other groups, all of whom pay little or nothing in, and so will have little or nothing to take out. The proposed measures will do little for all of these groups. They fail to address the fundamental issue of Singaporeans without any meaningful level of CPF balances in the first place. Some may argue that we have Public Assistance (PA), which is available to those aged 60 years and above who have no means of support. But few people are on PA. Earlier this year, this House was told that less than 3,000 households are on PA. And that figure includes all recipients of PA, not just those who are too old to work. I am sure that we have a lot more than 3,000 elderly persons with little or no CPF or other retirement savings. Yet, they are not on PA for whatever reason. Obviously, Public Assistance does not fulfil the function of the basic pillar recommended by the World Bank. What do we do about them? We encourage them to work, and to work longer.”
“Schemes like MediShield, ElderShield, the Dependants' Protection Scheme and the Home Protection Scheme are all optional although some are opt-out. The compulsory annuity, even if it is limited to some but not all members, would be a very different animal. Members will be compelled to purchase an annuity from which they may get nothing. In insurance terms, this is risk-pooling. But viewed in a different way, it is equivalent to the Government expropriating CPF balances to fund an annuity for the group of Singaporeans living beyond 85. From yet another perspective, it is tantamount to a tax for the same purpose. All this represents a sea change in the nature of CPF members' rights over their CPF balances. It means that CPF members do not really own their CPF funds because the Government is able and willing to impose policies to compel members to use their funds in a certain way, even against their strongly expressed wishes. This week, it is a compulsory annuity. But if we take that first step, will it prove to be a slippery slope of encroachment onto CPF members' rights? What will it be next month, next year, next decade? An increase in the annuity amount? Or some other compulsory scheme? We really do need to have a thorough debate on what it means to be a CPF member. Do CPF funds belong to CPF members individually and what rights do they have in determining how it is spent? I hope that the Government, the committee to be set up and my fellow Members will think about and debate this fundamental question. The potential consequences are much more far-reaching than simply insuring against longevity risk. Madam, the final part of my speech touches on the adequacy of the proposed changes in facing the challenges posed by an ageing population.”