Simon S C Tay
Singapore
“Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions.”
“Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match?”
“What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.”
“And if they can establish free trade zones in various parts of the archipelago and create conditions which assure businessmen of stability, I think they can take off. And I was cheered that the US, the EU, Japan, the IMF, have all come up with strong statements in support of President Megawati. We would do our part, but we are small.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Minister of State doing his back-of-envelope work. 10%-20%, if it excludes the very large projects like reclamation, seems a little low, if I may say. Is there any inclination to push it up higher? Is the private sector up to the job? Historically, the Government has had reasons to doubt the private sector.”
The complete record
Every one of 525 lines we hold for Simon S C Tay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“Would the Minister consider that for those in the polytechnics and universities a further degree or professional degree would be a scheme worth considering? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: If it is a postgraduate effort which is sponsored by a university, then, as I said earlier, scholarships are available. But if it is something for self-improvement, it is very difficult to distinguish between, say, a toastmaster course to improve your public presentation or a course to improve your second language skills or a course to improve your professional standing. Inherent in the subject that Mr Simon Tay has raised is the great difficulty in defining what constitutes a worthwhile programme, and we do not really want this to be a tax loophole.”
“Yesterday, we heard that the hotels will be given higher tax rebates or tax concessions for refurbishing. In similar light, would the Minister consider that fresh graduates from polytechnics and universities might usefully use this slowdown to upgrade their own skills and would the Minister consider increasing loans or tax concessions to assist them? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: As the Nominated MP has put it, the scheme will be quite complicated because what constitutes a worthwhile programme will be hard to define. But if the Nominated MP has got a scheme which is well-defined, we will certainly consider it.”
“Given that the Minister's advice is for some graduates not to be too fussy and that there will be shortfalls in others, I understand that there is a mismatch at least in the short term. If that is the case, will the Government relook at the intake into universities and polytechnics to cure the mismatch problem?”
“May I ask the Minister, besides the skills qualification, does the Government expect any mismatch in terms of the graduates from polytechnics and universities?”
“I understand from the Minister that the bulk of companies he wishes to support are export-oriented. But does he not know that many more companies, small and medium enterprises, are not export companies? Should the Minister not then be thinking of ways to stimulate local consumption? Particularly I recall that our tax rates, because of the smaller reliefs this year, are actually higher than last year. And should there not be an increased relief for this year?”
“Sir, if I may clarify. I agree with the Minister that it is a good step. But the point is that it took four years. Would it not have been better if the two countries, as part of a broader framework of cooperation, as Prime Minister Goh has asked for, seek a more systematic way of proceeding with mediation and, if mediation is not sufficient, then to have third party settlement on a broader range of issues? For example, some countries ---”
“May I ask the Minister, given that it took almost four years on the Pedra Branca issue between the agreement in principle between the Prime Ministers and this final agreement by the officials, whether he is satisfied that bilateral negotiations are proceeding at a sufficient pace and, if not, whether as part of the framework of cooperation, both countries might consider an agreement for mediation and peaceful settlement in a more orderly and systematic manner?”
“Such a provision would deem that the holder of an employment permit is, for the purposes of the Penal Code, an employer for the purposes of enhanced penalties, and the maid is deemed to live in the household, no matter what the situation in actual life is. This would then make two sets of people potentially liable, those who are in actual control of the maid and those who hold the work permit. Sir, I support this Bill, as I have said from the start, but I encourage that this be the first step. Let it be the first step and let other measures, by Government directly or Government enabling and civil society following, come after this Bill.”
“For consistency and to send the right signal, I would suggest to the Minister that all these penalties should be enhanced. It should then be left to the courts whether to enhance penalties in individual cases as befit the circumstances before them. The third point on drafting is how this Bill defines "domestic maids". A "domestic maid" is defined as "any female house servant employed in, . the domestic services of her employer's private dwelling-house and who resides in her employer's private dwelling-house;". The last part on residence concerns me. It occurs to me that there are circumstances in which the employer, the person holding the employment pass, may house the maid elsewhere with another person, such as the parent or relative. This, of course, is against the conditions of the work permit. However, though it is against the conditions of the work permit, it is not clear if the maid would still be protected by this Bill, since she does not live in the employer's house. This means that the employer is punished under the work permit laws, but not the new enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. For this reason, if there is ill treatment, it is not clear if the employer or relative would be subject to enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. If this is true, then people would benefit by doing one wrong, acting contrary to the work permit, and avoid punishment for another wrong, enhanced penalties under this Act. To clear these doubts and to give full effect to these amendments, I suggest the section should have a deeming provision.”
“In other cases, if a particular relationship is beyond repair, then counselling and this change of manpower policy can help both sides recognise that it is best for the maid to transfer to a new employer to seek other employment, rather than to continue in that household. Prevention is a better approach than punishment after the crime. These measures will also help Singaporeans to be more educated and move us towards a more gracious society, cognizant of the human dignity of all of us and all among us. Lastly, Sir, some comments about the drafting of the Bill. First, I think it must be clear to all of us that while the amendments enhance the maximum penalty, sentences will not necessarily be heavier. The courts retain discretion in individual cases to mete out punishment within the normal limits, rather than going to the enhanced levels. This Bill, in this sense, does not prescribe mandatory penalties. Many may question this. I think this is rightly so, that these cases involve household relationships, that there are many variables and, therefore, there may be many mitigating factors involved which should be left to the courts on individual cases. Second, the Bill singles out some crimes for enhanced penalties but not others, as the Minister has explained. But I find that this is so even if the other crimes are of a very similar nature. For example, wrongful confinement is enhanced under sections 343 and 344 of the Penal Code. However, wrongful confinement under section 342 is not. To me, the only difference between these crimes is the period of confinement. Section 343 is for three days or more. Section 344 is for 10 days or more. Section 342, presumably, is for periods less than three days. Sir, these are differences of quantity and not of quality.”
“I would urge that on granting and renewing work permits, the Ministry of Manpower sends employers (a) information on agencies and NGOs to provide frontline counselling and mediation; (b) information about the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, assuming we pass it; and (c) a code of conduct on treatment of domestic maids, if not, a standard contract. Only some embassies and some employment agencies, as the Minister well knows, have adopted such a standard contract. The Government could help in this case to ensure that other agencies are encouraged to follow suit. The primary aim of what I propose the Ministry or the Government as a whole do would not be to scare employers because I think scare tactics would not help us when impulse and irrationality take over. Rather, it is to share with them the norms that this community and this Government expect of its citizens. Another point on which we could help domestic workers, the maids, is to reconsider our repatriation policy as regards those who make complaints. At this point, I need some clarification from the Minister or perhaps his colleague, the Minister for Manpower. My limited understanding of the issue is that the maids who make complaints are treated just as any other foreign worker who has his work permit terminated. In other words, when I complain, I lose my job, I go home. And as I have said earlier, in this short plea, that this in a way is a chilling factor. People will not complain because their economic concerns and their livelihood are tied up with this issue. They will stomach much too much. Such measures, Sir, can help prevent ill-treatment. Some employer-maid relationships can be kept cordial through counselling and mediation.”
“In this approach, penal sanctions, such as those today, will play a part. They can be a symbol that we take ill-treatment seriously. Other measures are important. So the symbol stands for something real and is not a mere symbol. The other measures I have in mind relate to the other stages I have mentioned for prevention, in terms of education, counselling and mediation. Sir, we have been learning to use these tools more in recent years. We have sought to apply them in matters concerning the family and concerning the community. Beyond family members and neighbours, let us also include another member of many Singaporean households, the domestic maid or helper. Government agencies cannot and should not do this alone. They should work with civil society groups. There are already a number of civil society groups and non-government organisations, such as the Family Life Society, to just mention one, which already offer some help and counselling to foreign maids. More can be done. For example, courses for employers and household members can be held. But these groups often find themselves short of staff and funds to cope with the needs. Government can and should assist and support their work by closer coordination with MCD and relevant agencies, and the provision of funding. Some useful work that could be done includes establishing a hotline, or helpline, especially for maids. For the employers, I urge information and education. The Ministry of Manpower has taken steps in this direction. More can be done.”
“There are at least four we can think of: (1) Education and self-control or restraint; (2) Counselling, mediation, often by the community; (3) Preventive intervention by Police or other Government agencies; (4) Punishment by the courts. Of these four possibilities of stages and institutions, the Bill before this House clearly targets the fourth and last punishment by the courts. This is not a prescription for self-control or prevention. These laws, if passed, increase the maximum possible penalties. The harm in that case has already been done. The amendment does not help that particular employer or that particular maid. It does not prevent a particular instance of abuse. At most, we can say we are sending a signal to other employers that they should not cause harm to other maids. Is that signal enough? Often, crimes in a household are not rational and thought out in advance. They are often acted out on impulse, anger or a moment of weakness. In such cases, I think, frankly, this amendment will not help. Acting on impulse or anger, few are going to pause, as NMP Claire Chiang has imagined they might, to say, "Wait, I will get 1� times the penalty. Therefore, I will stop." Anger and impulse drive human nature much more strongly than this. For this reason, while I agree that the ill-treatment of domestic maids is an important problem, I believe this amendment alone is insufficient. I would like to ask the Government to consider other approaches to supplement the present amendment. We should recognise that irrationality is often the cause of these abuses and address the underlying household relationship between employer and domestic maid. And I hope this Government will take a multi-pronged approach to the problem.”
“Rather, it is a recognition of the particular vulnerability of this class. So to me, when we talk about this unequality of laws, the question must come: do domestic maids fit into this category of particular vulnerability? I believe they do. They are far from home in a strange land with laws, cultures and sometimes even a language which they do not fully understand or are conversant with. They live in the homes of their employers, subject to instructions 24 hours a day, sometimes, unreasonable; sometimes, reasonable. And if they face ill-treatment, some do not have friends to tell and often, do not feel comfortable enough about our police system to make a complaint. More to the point, many may be reluctant to complain, lest they may find themselves sacked, sent home straightaway for this will cause them great financial loss in addition to the physical and other abuses they have already suffered. And on this point, I am reminded that our Minister for Manpower has earlier pointed out our continuing policy to give foreign workers a two-week period, at the most, once their work permits are revoked. This is a threat, in a way, that hangs over the heads of maids who want to complain. So for these reasons, the foreign domestic maids are more vulnerable than the average person in our society. And for these reasons, I stand apart from those who would say we must raise the other penalties first. We should lead with this amendment and if these laws are unequal, I think this can be justified. Let me then turn to my second question: whether this amendment, on its own, is sufficient for the problem that it tries to solve. Sir, in making laws and public policy, there are clearly different ways and stages for preventing criminal or other unwanted behaviour.”
“It only takes a few severe cases to strain our relationships with the society from which these foreign workers come from. I do not mean just government and government with our neighbouring countries. I mean between society and society, people to people. So I join the Government and the Minister in seeking ways of improving our behaviour and stopping this ill-treatment of domestic maids. But even so, in considering this particular Bill, we should have two concerns. The first is whether this amendment is fair and just. The second is whether this amendment is sufficient for the task. On the question of fairness and justice, some other MPs and NMPs have spoken on this, and indeed some may question whether these particular amendments are fair to Singaporean employers. This is because we are basically proposing a system of unequal laws. That is, as NMP Claire Chiang has pointed out, you have potentially a lesser penalty if you strike your wife or your child as opposed to your domestic maid. That is true too if you strike a foreign worker who is not a domestic maid or a part-time domestic maid; you also do not get the enhanced penalties. There are some employers and other people who would argue, no, this should not be done. In fact, there are cases in which maids themselves have been guilty of something illegal. I think these are real concerns. But I want to point out why, to my mind, these unequal laws are nevertheless justified. I wish to point out that there are other cases in which we do give special attention and special protection to classes of people. For example, we guard minors, the young in our society, our children, to a far greater degree than fellow adults. This is not merely because of their age or youth per se.”
“Sir, this is an important issue. Singaporeans have been shocked by the cases spotlighted by the media and I believe no Singaporean condones the behaviour we have seen. Yet, there seems to be no sign of the problem abating. If we take the figures of complaints made to the Philippine Embassy alone, we can see that there has been little improvement from 1992 to 1996. The number of complaints of ill treatment had been held fairly constant. For cases of molest, it had been fluctuating from year to year, most notably, although with some fluctuation, complaints about assault had gone up sharply. The Minister's figures on the Police reports, which are different from the Embassy's complaints, show similar trends for assault. Briefly, Sir, in 1992, complaints received by the Philippine Embassy for assault were a mere 20; 1993, 70; 1994, 39; 1995, 79; 1996, 115. I do not have the 1997 figure, Sir. This kind of stark cruelty, Sir, flies in the face of our ambition of becoming a gracious society. For if we are to become truly a gracious society, then we must accord human dignity to all of us, all among us, regardless of race, religion, nationality, status or even economic standing. There are some basics, Sir, that must be respected. And if these basics are not observed, then there must be equal right to redress against the wrongdoer, no matter who he or she is. Domestic workers and foreign maids must have equal protection under our laws and equal access to justice and institutions of law. That is the true promise of a gracious society, an equal society; that is the promise of human dignity and human rights. It only takes a few severe cases to bring that promise into question.”
“The Minister is right that people know it in the Straits Times or the media. But there is another thing, would the Minister not agree, to receive a letter from the Ministry pointing out the directive? And surely on the question of which companies are doing it, is the Minister saying it is beyond the powers of the Government to find out which ones are doing it?”
“Regarding the preventive actions in Sumatra and the Riau Islands, given that Singapore companies have substantial investments and timber companies are often based in Singapore, will the Minister consider sending a directive to Singapore-based companies to observe Indonesian laws?”
“By rebates, I mean basically actual cash outputtings rather than simple depreciation which in times of present economic downturn may not mean very much to companies which may be making little or no profits. So that is the basic idea of rebates. But more generally, will the Government consider setting efficiency targets in the areas of both energy and conservation, just as we set economic targets of growth?”
“Sir, the incentives relate largely to consultancy fees and incentives such as tax depreciation. Will the Government consider rebates for those with infrastructure needs for greater efficiency?”
“May I ask the Minister what is the reasoning behind this: why do we want to catch people who are already leaving the country?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister if it is true that there have been recent cases in which we have caught illegal immigrants actually leaving the country?”
“Sir, I have spoken in the previous cut on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Singapore needs to do more to assist the United Nations Environment Programme. I still say so but I will not repeat my point in detail. Sir, if and when international cooperation for the haze comes, Singapore should be among the first countries to fulfil our obligation under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. If our technical and financial and other forms of assistance can go well beyond the rather modest sums we have given and help we have given in terms of computerisation and satellite imaging, this should continue and we should add to them. This is not just for good neighbourliness. It is in our self-interest to do so. And in that sense, Sir, I wish that the Minister will provide some assurance that it is the policy of the Ministry to join in any pending international effort and that there will be both the political will and the budgetary reserves to do so.”
“But our countries have different responsibilities, Sir, as regards our ability to deal with this problem to come out with a solution or to prevent the problem in the first place. Sir, focusing on the haze pollution, a recent study has suggested that the region as a whole has suffered some $1.4 billion worth of damage. Singapore, in the study, was estimated to have suffered some $90 million in damages. Sir, this is a preliminary study. I think these figures are undervalued. The global cost of the haze pollution in terms of bio-diversity and the release of CO2 climate change gases has not been factored in, for example. I think the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, Sir, would be very helpful for the Ministry in moving us beyond finger-pointing, either our neighbours pointing fingers at us for whatever harm we may cause them or us, as the Government, as the people, pointing fingers at our neighbours. I think this finger-pointing and blame allegation is not helpful . Sir, what we need to do, and I was very heartened by the Minister's statement in reply to a question I filed at an earlier sitting, is to internationalise the concern and attention that the haze pollution problem needs. Much as the regional economic crisis has had to have an international response, I believe, Sir, that it is timely that our Government has welcomed the move by the United Nations Environment Programme to call for international attention. Sir, in this new push towards international attention to the trans-boundary haze pollution that faces Singapore, Singapore must do more. Beyond what we can do as a small nation for ourselves and beyond what we have put into our work at the regional level, we must do our bit to support this international attention and effort.”
“Sir, I think that in talking about this cut on trans-boundary pollution, some backgrounding is necessary. The first is that, clearly, as Mr Heng has pointed out, we are a very small country. It behoves us therefore to recognise that the region we are in is one ecological system, that we are interdependent with our neighbours, in the Straits of Malacca and the Straits of Johor, in airborne pollution which we see now in the haze and the fires in Indonesia, and that there are also economic links together with the environment. Singapore as a vast port of the region has a great hand in trade, including that of potentially hazardous materials. Sir, I think that Singapore has been a good citizen in accepting its responsibility to do our best not to cause harm to our neighbours or to allow other companies, ships that pass through, things that we can control, from passing on this harm to our neighbours. In this past year, our country has acceded to the Basel Convention, the limitation of course being that our ability to control the transhipment of hazardous materials is encumbered by our wish to have a very busy port and it is impossible for us to play policeman for all our neighbours. So we have a system where we are part of the larger web. The harm caused and harm suffered to us are interwoven. In seeing this therefore, Sir, I think that the policy of the Ministry and of this Government as regards environmental trans-boundary pollution must take on a new chapter. This is to increasingly recognise an international principle. This principle is called common but differentiated responsibility. This principle suggests that we have a common aim to have a cleaner environment, whether in the sea or in the haze pollution.”
“For every one large Beauty World there are many more experimental productions which attract an audience but do not make the kind of commercial reward. I call for this, not in the name of blind nationalism or parochialism, rather, it is the essential difference between a foreign artist and a Singaporean artist. To me, Sir, the foreign artist, no matter how acclaimed, no matter how entertaining, no matter how universal, will fail to speak as a Singaporean artist can of Singapore. The Singaporean artist can portray us and articulate Singaporean life, who we are, and from this particularity, also touch the universal. With that, Sir, I ask the Minister to continue support for art and artists as a whole, but especially a choice must be made for Singaporean artists. 1.15 pm”
“Sir, let me first start by declaring my interest as a member of the resource panel for the National Arts Council and a past recipient of the National Arts Award. Sir, today we have heard quite a lot about MITA in its function as censor and controller. I turn more to MITA's role as promoter and sponsor. The comments I have heard from my fellow MPs have also focused on the arts as an industry, the arts as education and perhaps, underlying some of the ideas, a luxury in expenditure. I think that this is an important background perception of the arts that we need to focus on during these economic hard times. The downturn has led to a budget with less operating expenditure for the arts and grants. I make this cut in order to call for consistent support and attempts to continue the promotion and support of the arts that is necessary to improve the quality of life in Singapore. In making this call, Sir, I see that the arts promotion has two prongs. The first is of Singapore being a hub for arts and here the focus is on foreign talent, such as some of the large scale musicals we have seen. The second, beyond the hub concept, is that of promoting the indigenous talent of Singaporeans. In this sense, our arts policy, like so many other policies in Singapore, demonstrates tension between attracting foreign talent and giving sufficient support to Singaporeans. Sir, in these hard times, we may have to make hard choices. If funding does go down, we may have to well decide between priorities, between foreign talent and our own artists, between hub and indigenous growth. Sir, we owe it to our artists and our arts groups to put them first. Some of these have gone full time.”
“Sir, first of all, I am very heartened to hear from the Minister of State that there is an on-going attempt to speed up the process of the Registry of Societies. I want to know whether there is a set goal. Assuming that the group, of course, responds duly, how quickly would the ROS take to complete the whole process? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: To some extent, it will depend on the objectives and purposes of the society. I think if there is any delay, it would be caused more in terms of the ROS examining the objectives of the society. We, like I have said, have asked the ROS to have its own parameters, its timeframe. We monitor these goals very carefully. There are set timeframes.”
“The Minister and the Ministry would help us move towards civil society in the 21st century Singapore by allowing the registration of societies to be amended in the way I have suggested.”
“For example, it has been observed in some reports by international NGOs that there are no human rights societies in Singapore. And this is clearly an ill perception because Singapore, in recent years, has acceded to human rights treaties and has in its Constitution, fundamental liberties. So my cut proposes to suggest to the Minister that it is timely to change the laws and change the functions of the Registry, ie, to keep the discretionary powers of the Registrar to the minimum, to set a time limit for the Registrar to respond yes or no. A, and it is my hope that registration of societies, clubs, this people sector, would become automatic for Singapore citizens with a minimum of discretion, such as you are not a bankrupt or suffer from some other basic disqualifications. This analogy for automatic registration is not without precedent. It can already be done for the registration of private companies, for businesses. Should not the people sector be as free as businesses? Sir, in making the suggestion, I am still mindful that a society once registered would still be subject to other laws on security, public order, etc. This is not a situation of free licence. It is merely to give a licence to register. Perhaps, the role of the Registry of Societies should be changed to one that is more supportive and nurturing rather than policing, one that is like the National Council of Social Services, supporting charities. The Registry of Societies should, in my view, allow, promote and facilitate civil society groups. Sir, there are already many obstacles to self-organisation by citizens - time, work and other exigencies.”
“Sir, my cut concerns the Registry of Societies which comes under the Ministry. My cut starts from the call by the Prime Minister in this House last year for a civil society, that the Government's wish and vision for Singapore in 21st century is to have a strong people sector with self-responsibility by citizens, self organisation by citizens, andkeeping self-help from many helping hands. I think this is pertinent this year when we look at the coming bad times. Sir, people need to organise for a common cause. Societies, clubs and associations need an institutional framework. Article 14 of our Constitution gives them the fundamental right to assemble and associate and the laws provide that without registration as a lawful society, they may be guilty of illegal assembly or other offences. Sir, the present laws do allow citizens to register as societies with the Registrar of Societies. But the present laws also give a very wide discretion to the Registrar of Societies whether to register them. Clause 4 creates exceptions for issues, such as security and national interest. I do not urge that these principles are wrong. These principles are right. But the law, as it stands, does not allow for delay in registration almost indefinitely, and it gives a very wide discretion to the Registrar and the Ministry based on the possibility that something might go wrong, not a reality. As an example, if I may draw from my own experience with the Roundtable of which I am a member, it took this society two years to be registered. Sir, the actual number of such delays in registrations may be small but I believe there is a perception among citizens that there could be many obstacles into registering societies.”
“UNEP is also providing assistance to have an international conference in Singapore that will focus on model cities of which I and others believe Singapore is a good example. UNEP has already provided assistance for the regional seas' programme, which Singapore benefits from, being a major port in this area. Very recently, the new Executive Director of UNEP has called for this institution to play a central role in organising international attention and action on the regional haze pollution, a problem that affects us. With that, Sir, I urge the Minister to consider that Singapore should increase voluntary financial contributions to the United Nations as a whole, and United Nations agencies, especially UNEP.”
“Ten years on, we gave US$390,000 to three organisations, again the bulk of US$300,000 to the United Nations Development Programme. Sir, these figures are not adjusted for inflation and I think they show consistent, but if I may say, stagnant contribution, which is no longer commensurate with our increase in international standing, our scope, the way we play, and our ambitions over the last 10 years. I do not believe that this financial year will see an increase. Hence, my cut. My proposal is that the sum should be increased to agencies whose work is relevant to us, or that we support in principle. This is not a legal obligation but, if I may say, a moral expectation of what countries should do as they rise in international standing and economic progress. Developed countries, as the Minister knows, set a target of official assistance at 0.7%. I am not saying that figure should apply to us. But I do urge the Minister to consider setting a base and then perhaps to increase it yearly according to our own growth. Also, my cut relates to the idea that specific agencies should be better supported, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme. Nothing is given in terms of voluntary contributions to this programme. This programme is much less funded than the United Nations Development Programme, which we largely gave to. Yet, UNEP is of growing relevance to the international community and Singapore. Sir, last year, Singapore joined in the four-country initiative for the environment under the leadership of Chancellor Kohl of Germany. With these other three countries, Singapore has joined in calling for UNEP to play a larger role.”
“Sir, I am obliged to you for your permission to join in the discussion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' budget. My cut relates to the United Nations. Specifically, it is a suggestion to increase Singapore's financial contributions to United Nations and UN agencies. Sir, Singapore has risen in international profile. It has demonstrated increasing political leadership internationally, commensurate with our economic development in the last decades. The respect and success for our small nation has arisen because of our pertinence, or relevance, and our competence. It is also, largely due to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in representing us abroad. The United Nations has been emphasized by this Government as having a central role in giving a voice to smaller states like ours. And Singapore, from my observations, has paid a constructive, helpful and supportive role at United Nations and other international fora. There is every good reason for Singapore to aim for a non-permanent Security Council seat in the UN. Support, of course, Sir, has many aspects, including financial, which I am emphasising today. I respect that our first contribution must be in work and ideas. I come to my question: should we contribute more on finance? Clearly, Singapore has had a good record in paying up on our asscessed contributions. I turn then to our record in voluntary contributions. In reply to a question I submitted at a previous sitting, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has kindly given us a 10-year series of how much Singapore has given to United Nations organisations. Sir, to sum up the table, which is in the records of Parliament, baseding on the last 10 years, in 1988 we gave the figure of US$305,230 only to one institution, United Nations Development Programme.”
“Sir, I think the examples the Deputy Prime Minister brought up, DBS Bank and Singapore Technologies, both related to scholars who were presently under bond to the Government agencies. Perhaps I was not clear the first time. My question relates more to those who actually break their bonds in ways the Government agencies do not accept or illegitimate bond breakers. Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there may be good reasons for people to break bonds. Would these people find an impasse in seeking re-employment with Government or Government agencies? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not go for fine talmudic distinctions. Singapore Inc is a broad family of many organisations, and we work very closely together, and I hope we share notes together. If somebody has broken a bond there and he is coming here and looking for a job from me here, I will take some trouble to find out from the other HR what happened and whether it is wise for me to accept such a person.”
“It had not been discussed but it was possible, or he could have gone to ISS, a separate research institute which is not in NCB, or he could have gone to university, for which there are also precedents. So the fact that ITI has been moved out of NCB and merged with ISS in no way constrains the universe of possibilities which were open to Mr Hector Yee when he returns to Singapore. If you go on a scholarship to learn to become a doctor and serve the Ministry of Health, and you find that when you come home, it has turned into the Ministry of Community Development, that is another matter. When it comes, we will have another debate. As for what we do with scholars who have broken their bonds, the answer is: in general, we will not re-employ them within the bond period, unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Because the non-fulfilment of obligatory service suggests a lack of responsibility, but we will study each case carefully on its own merits. As for scholars from statutory boards and other organisations, including those from the private sector, the civil service will not recruit candidates under a bond without the agreement of the organisation to transfer the bond to the civil service. For example, there was one case where Singapore Technologies agreed to transfer the bond to the Administrative Service. In another case, DBS Bank refused to allow the transfer for one of its scholars.”
“May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for clarification on more general points. I think this has wider implications. The first clarification relates to the third line, third paragraph of Hector Yee's e-mail. If I may, Mr Speaker, read out the line: `With the departure of ITI and the restructuring of NCB from "builder" to "architect", I realized that my goal of doing research can no longer be properly fulfilled.' I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify whether this is true that the organisational mission of the NCB has changed from the time of scholarship to the time of the bond breaking and, if so, the more general point is that the Government agency's mission has changed. Does he see this as a legitimate ground for the scholar to change his mind? I ask this particularly because the Deputy Prime Minister earlier on had said there were legitimate and not legitimate reasons to break a bond, which is why not all scholars are named. The second general point I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify is how far this condemnation of morality and integrity runs. Naming the bond-breakers is one thing. May I ask the Government to clarify if, beyond naming, there is in fact a black list that people who are viewed in this way should forget the prospects of joining Government agencies in future or seek Government jobs? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, on the ITI and the mission change. I am not a lawyer, but it is a principle of law that you never answer hypothetical questions. In this case, it does not apply because NCB has always had its role as the "architect" with ITI as a separate arm under NCB, responsible for "building". ITI was just one of the places where Mr Hector Yee could have been deployed.”
“And my short reply to that would be that as far as possible, more money should be left with the individual to decide how he or she wishes to spend it, rather than mopping it up. With that, Sir, I support the budget.”
“I would suggest perhaps a slightly different way of considering the problem. The Government provides various services and charges for such services. The private sector complains that the charges are too high. The Government, on the other hand, says that the charges are at market rates and such charges are also sometimes imposed to try and achieve certain socio-economic goals. Having heard a Member of the GPC who heard representations from the industry, all I would say to the Minister is that there is a substantial gulf in the perception between the Government and private sector as to whether the charges are at market rates and whether they are fairly reflective of the market rates. This year, in view of the economic situation, the Government should review its charges and the cost of its socio-economic policies, bearing in mind that often it is a monopoly provider of such services. And it should carefully review and, where possible, the charges should be in line with the prevailing economic conditions. In this context, one other point is that the Minister must know that the retail sector has been suffering for years, but consistent with what I said earlier, I am not herer to plead the case for the retail sector or any other sector. But this year, that sector faces even more challenges, and this is a year when the individual Singaporean is likely to have less liquidity. Mortgage rates are higher. Incomes are going to be squeezed. One should consider whether this is the year when tax rebates should in fact be reduced from 10% to 5%. It appears a peculiar move. It will mop up what liquidity there might otherwise have been in the market. The Minister may reply by saying that the rebate is a bonus anyway and that it is at the discretion of the Government.”
“It is a word I borrowed from a journal which uses the yardstick of crunchiness to test government policy, crunchy as opposed to being soft. It is a crunchy budget which recognises that there will be pain, and rightly recognises that generally Government cannot ameliorate that pain. The Government has succeeded until now by being crunchy and not by being soft. It should continue on that course. The second point of reference that I would use is to consider the extent to which the Government is prepared to consider or create a macro economic environment which will provide the framework for sectors of the economy to thrive. Again, the Minister has to be commended for recognising the need for creating the right environment for the banking and financial sectors to grow. People complain that this is a Shenton Way budget. That criticism appears to overlook two points: first, that the manufacturing sector already has several tax breaks and incentives and that perhaps this budget simply tries to equalize that position vis-a-vis the banking sector. Secondly, the criticism really fails to recognise the great potential there is for Singapore if the financial sector's full potential is recognised and realised. The third point of reference that I would refer to I will call the cost of business issue. It is not the Government's business to do micro economic tinkering or molly coddle specific sectors. The Government should broadly aim to provide macro economic stability, keep taxes low and provide its services at market rates. What should the Government do about the services that it provides? The Minister has heard over the years the same complaint - the costs of doing business are too high - and his reply has also been the same.”
“For charities, especially, it should not be the case, that in hard times, the recipients of charity who can least help themselves would be those hardest hit. Sir, in conclusion, the Budget is not just a question of dollars and bottom lines. It represents our priorities as a nation. In bad times as much as in good, or even more so, we must prioritise not just big businesses and heartware but also people and heartware. I urge the Minister to consider the needs I have pointed to. Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang): Sir, the Minister has a particularly difficult task this year. The groups which seek his assistance are many. If the Minister accedes to all the requests, we will be well and truly on our way to financial ruin. On the other hand, he cannot completely acknowledge all requests. The difficulty is always in identifying and, more importantly, defending his choices as being legitimate. This year, in particular, there has been a chorus of complaints about the budget due partly at least to the unreasonably high expectations of handouts aired publicly before the budget. How should we assess the budget and to what extent are the complaints legitimate? I would, as a point of reference, consider three factors. The first is the macro economic picture. Does the budget serve to retain investor confidence in Singapore and show the world that we are rational people who set a steady course and do not steer away from it? By that test, the budget scores extremely well. It tells the world that we are in a strong position, that there is no reason to panic and that there are no U-turns. By going for budget surplus even this year and by refusing to accede to most of the requests for help, the Minister has produced what I would call a "crunchy" budget.”
“What I do ask is for Government to keep its contribution to charities and the arts constant, as far as possible. If there are cuts by this Government, this would be read by the private sector that the Government accepts that these matters are not priorities. Then they too will cut back. The other helping hands will take their signal from Government. In this way, our `many helping hands' policy means that a cut of a single dollar by Government must be multiplied by the corresponding cut of other helping hands. I also ask Government to recognise that even if their contribution to charities and the arts remains constant, the cut-back by the private sector will be felt. That is to say, in the `many helping hands' approach, the pulling back of any one hand would destabilise the charity or the arts in question. I therefore ask Government to consider if there are ways to encourage the private sector hand to remain constant even in these coming hard times. One measure, it seems to me, is to use the tool of double deductions. Sir, we currently allow contributions to approved charities and the arts to be deducted from taxable income on a one-to-one ratio. My suggestion is that this ratio be doubled. I understand a double deduction is already available for some contributions under the National Heritage Board, mainly for donations made to museums. I would encourage its wider application during the current downturn. I reiterate that this is not for Government to give more money or to give up the `many helping hands' approach, rather my suggestion is to find incentives for private sector hands not to waver in hard times. This would help maintain the consistent support that is needed for both the charities and the arts.”
“There is a real danger, Sir, that some will think that the relevance of heartware is sidelined by economic exigencies. I hope that many more will be persuaded that, to the contrary, the question of heartware becomes even more important this year. It is precisely during these testing times that the heartware becomes vital and people have an opportunity to unite. How does heartware and the priority of rallying the people find expression in this present Budget? I am encouraged by the farsighted and generous provision for education. There is every need for a long-term and sustained commitment to the education of our youth. Additionally, Sir, I believe more can and should be done for heartware in terms of charities and the arts. These two subjects are of course very different. But they connect to heartware, how we take care of the less fortunate in our society and how we give expression to ourselves as Singaporeans. Both charities and the arts also need long-term and sustained commitment and they both share the prospect of diminished financial support during the coming hard year. The economic uncertainties of 1998 will likely cause businesses and individuals to cut back on their contributions to charities and the arts. Some arts groups I have spoken to have already seen or anticipate a drop of about a quarter of their support. The Government's emphasis has been on the `many helping hands' approach. The Government is not to be the sole provider but businesses, individuals and the people sector - societies, clubs and others - must also help. I do not ask Government to change the `many helping hands' policy. I do not ask them to step in with more money where private sector has pulled back, although of course there seems to be more than ample surplus for this.”
“What yardsticks will Government use to measure when it will be timely to bring in its reserved off-Budget assistance into play? In asking this, I note that the business sector has perceptions that things are already bad. Among some individuals I also know there have been already reports of distressed sales of property and even some suicides apparently triggered by economic woes. We have a reactive Budget. The important question is that it should be clearer when the threshold for reaction will come. Sir, in bad times of uncertain growth, many will look to the Government for assistance. It is not of course that all who ask must get what they ask for, not even Singapore's reserves are large enough for everyone's wish-list. But in deciding who to help, when and how much, there has to be a legitimate and fair basis for decisions and just as important, transparency. Sir, I have suggested that this Budget focuses on the third priority to plan for the future so that Singapore would emerge from the crisis stronger than before. While I agree largely with this policy, I think it is also important that this Budget gives equal expression to the first priority, to rally the people. In good times, many would be proud of Singapore, of being Singaporean. The more severe test of this pride is during bad times. Will the people rally? Does Singapore have sufficient heartware to pass the test of bad times? This is a question that follows from the Prime Minister's speech in this House in June last year about Singapore of the 21st century. The Singapore 21 Committee, of which I am a Member, and I declare my interest, Sir, will undertake its work on Singapore's heartware during the course of this budget year.”
“What we need, at this juncture, is a promise of close monitoring and that the Government would remain open to calls for assistance. In the present Budget, while the emphasis seems to be on incentives rather than bailouts, as I have said, one exception stands out. This is the measure to forgo property tax on land under development. This measure will cost the Government some $200 million in revenues forgone. This is a considerable amount to assist one particular sector, property developers. The last time this measure was taken was in the mid-1980 recession. In contrast, Sir, measures to help other sectors, such as hotels and retailers, are scant, if not, non-existent. Measures to help the individual taxpayer with a 5% rebate, while useful, are not as ample as they were last year where a 10% rebate was given. The present rebate seems even smaller when we compare it to the 25% given during the recession year of 1985. When we compare the assistance given to property developers with the 5% rebate, we must note that the relatively small number of developers will receive some $200 million, as I have said, while all taxpayers will in total receive the lesser sum of about $130 million from the rebate. Two questions arise from these comparisons. First, is it the Minister's view that the property developers are in a situation akin to that which was witnessed in the mid-1980s and, by comparison to the help given to them, is it the Government's view that other sectors like hotels and retailers and individuals are not so badly hit at present? The second question is how much must other sectors and individuals be affected before Government will assist in a larger way?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget comes at a time of economic uncertainty. It is clear that Singapore will be affected by the regional downturn. It is also clear that the present downturn is unlike any other we have faced, quite different and potentially deeper than what we have seen in the mid-1980s. What is less clear is the extent and duration of the downturn and the particular sectors that will be hardest hit. But also has to be decided which sectors Government will intervene to help and which it will leave to their own means, for better or worse. For those sectors where Government intervenes, the method and extent of intervention have also to be seen. Against this background, the Government has set three priorities: (1) to rally the people; (2) to help resolve the regional crisis; and (3) to plan for the future, so that Singapore will emerge from the crisis stronger than before. Sir, this Budget seems to focus on (3) to plan for the future. It gives a wide range of incentives for newer, emerging industries that Government wishes to foster. For other sectors, the Budget gives less relief than many had hoped for. The Minister for Finance has emphasised that the Government believes there is no immediate need for bailouts and that off-Budget items would be held in reserve if things turn for the worse. This seems a confident and prudent approach. It is an approach that, however, postpones potentially harder economic questions that this present economic crisis may yet require us to answer. When the Government holds other measures of help in reserve, it remains to be seen how well and how timely the Government will read the needs on the ground and shape its response.”
“No one knows whether they are in the wrong, or even if they are, if they will be prosecuted. Giving the authorities excessive discretion does not help the situation. It can lead to perception that our laws are not equal or transparently applied to all. As compared to these over-wide definitions that I have mentioned, I think that the Bill omits mention of the most obvious and acceptable limits to party political films or indeed any free political speech in Singapore, that is, the limits of common good I have mentioned, such as incitement against political order and racial harmony. These should be put into the Bill for clarity and completeness. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, my view is that our democracy thrives on free and fair elections, that all political parties need a chance to reach out to the citizens. Citizens on their part need to hear political parties to decide for themselves. Different means of communication are available, of which I agree film is just one. But though it is just one, I urge the House to consider that with proper licensing and limits, this avenue need not and should not be closed. Public discussion and debate, the ability of politicians to convince and the ability of citizens to discern are things we must all believe in. It is something I have always thought this Government has believed in, and has been very successful at doing. I urge the Minister and this House to apply this approach to party political films. Don't ban them. Convince the citizens.”
“Second, the list of examples provided in the Bill, particularly the proposed section 2(2)(b), I believe these examples are over-wide. Section 2(2)(b) bans films that question current Government policy. This potentially handicaps valid criticisms, and valid criticism is the way society improves. For example, a Talking Point programme that covers present review of the financial sector and features interviewees who support or propose more changes could be caught by this Bill. There is an exception, as other speakers have noted, of reporting of current events in section 2(3). But, arguably, the show I have imagined goes beyond this protection. It does more than report because it provides opinion as well. I hope the Minister will consider excluding the subclause and permitting films that discuss current policies, or to allow films directed primarily at reform of existing laws or policies by legal means. The third detail which concerns me is in the proposed section 2(2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the use of the word "partly". These sub-sections mean that the Bill captures films that are not only wholly but also partly within the definitions. I would urge that the Bill be narrowed to films that are "substantially", rather than "partly". If it is not, a film that is almost wholly innocuous may run foul because of a very short, minor section. Some may argue that these over-wide definitions can be left to the discretion of the authorities to take care of. And therefore the examples that I have given are moot, TCS film makers will be saved. But I caution against this approach. One function of the law must be to guide people's actions and expectations of future action. Over-wide definitions fail to do this. Instead, they create uncertainty.”
“This Government has been the one that has asked us to be a thinking nation. Critical thought should apply to all fields, including the political choice that a citizen makes. This is the third reason I am against the Bill. For these three reasons, rather than passing the Bill as it stands, what I believe we should do is to, first, require party political films to observe basic limits, such as the avoidance of falsehoods, incitement against public order and racial harmony, and defamatory remarks. Secondly, we should control the broad parameters of what party political films can do by fixing expenses, length, the time they can be distributed and exhibited and the numbers perhaps that each party can reproduce, exhibit and distribute. And thirdly, we should take up the citizen panels which are used for other films and establish a citizens' board which will license the political films. This is what is done for other films, including those which are potentially considered obscene. Political films should be treated in the same way. Those are my three points and principles why I am against this Bill, Sir. Let me move now to the particulars, and these relate generally to the over-wide definitions that trouble me. First, in the proposed section 2(2)(b), the use of the word "partisan". The word "partisan" is defined by the Oxford Concise Dictionary as being, "an adherent of party, cause, etc, especially unreasoning one." I think if there is an "unreasoning one", an unreasonable point of view, that is something we can agree on. But the meaning of "partisan" in the earlier part is broad enough to encompass sincere and reasonable beliefs, and I think these should be allowed rather than caught in this over-wide definition.”
“But the recording of the broadcast on film, video or other material record could be an offence since each party in turn calls for people to vote for them and it therefore is partisan within the meaning of the proposed section 2(2)(a). Some have suggested, or may say, that this Bill is fair because it applies to all parties in Singapore, including the party in power. This is an equal law on the face of it - that is true. However, it has an unequal impact. The PAP is, to put it mildly, well-known, for what it has done in the past and the work of the current Government. The Workers' Party and the Singapore People's Party too have their representatives in Parliament. But other political parties are not represented here and are less well-known. They cannot showcase their abilities or, in some cases, their disabilities. There is also the consistent public perception that the media in Singapore is pro-Government. Several surveys have shown that the public thinks this is so. In this context, this equal law will have unequal impact. That is the second reason I stand against this Bill. But more than its impact on different political parties, Sir, I oppose this Bill for the effect it can have on the citizens of Singapore. I think that as Singapore enters the 21st century, we should strive towards a greater political maturity. Part of that maturity is to increasingly allow people to discern things for themselves. To do that, we need a system that allows ideas to be communicated as well as their rebuttals and their counter-rebuttals. By banning this avenue for political free speech, this Bill moves in the wrong direction. It shields citizens like children, rather than prepares them to be mature and discerning.”