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 3 of 11.
“After a while, we spoke and I found out that she was a former assembly line supervisor. The factory was upgrading and she had actually been offered retraining at the going rate of partial pay during the period of retraining, but yet she chose to quit and to be a taxi driver. There is nothing wrong with being a taxi driver. But, obviously, this is a job with both independence and yet insecurity and one which, in her case, forced her to drive even later into the night to earn more money, and this despite the fact that she has young children. Of course, everyone has the right to make his own decisions about his own life. But I had to ask whether this was actually wise, not just for her and her career but for the family and for the society. And I hope this is one example the Ministry will consider about needing to counsel our people when it comes to thinking about rather abstract thoughts such as upgrading. In the Singapore of tomorrow, there must be a place for everyone, but to help the process, we will need ushers to help people find their place. Otherwise, people will tend to bunch up at the back and no one will sit in the front row. There are, in this sense, limits to centrally held funds and Government initiatives, and I would urge the Government to go beyond the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund to allow individuals to take ownership over their own lifelong learning. Government must neither pity nor pander to people. It must empower them. Measures that can help this include tax write offs or even the use of their CPF when individuals invest in their own upgrading, training and education. When the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund cannot reach everyone, they can reach into their own resources and should be encouraged to do so.”
“It is good that the Minister proposes doubling the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, but the questions of how it will be used are still to be answered in full. I think there is a danger that this Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will be overly bureaucratic and will favour those who know how to fill up the forms properly and, in the first place, know what they want. I think there has to be much more leeway in this Fund, so that they can target people who truly need help. There should be education bursaries specially targeted for mature students, those who take the Government's call seriously to go back and improve themselves. More than that, the Government should also consider special counselling for those who wish to upgrade themselves or those who may be working in sectors that may, in future, prove vulnerable. Because, how else will people know that they need to take upgrading and what precisely should they do. Studying, say, the arts may be of interest to some people, but they may not be helpful for them in the particular sector that will emerge. Government should also increase match-making services for employment. I think, in this way, the counselling, the match-making and the special grants for mature and other special students will need cooperation, not just with the economic agencies of Government but those in charge of community. In this sense, I hope we will see the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Community Development work much more closely together. I am reminded of this need for counselling and the need for community development, because of a taxi ride I took recently back from the airport. It was a late night flight and when I got in, I was surprised to see a woman taxi driver.”
“There are special efforts to target assistance to the less well-off. The Minister has proposed lessening the tax burden, especially for smaller businesses and the lower-income and middle income earners. I welcome these but more, of course, can be done. Some have thought of a social safety net. There are, however, dangers in elaborate systems of welfare. They are costly for the State and for the taxpayers. Even for the recipients of the welfare, there is a danger of creating dependency and of damaging self-worth and motivation. The better approach is one that can both save but avoid ensnaring. In this sense, I think we are at a bit of crossroads in thinking about the future of our society. It was my privilege recently to chair two talks at the National University of Singapore where I teach. One was by DPM Tony Tan and the other by the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam, in his talk, emphasised the need for welfarism, to think about how to take care of the poor. DPM Tony Tan emphasised the new and dynamic changes in education - the only way to help give people the skills to meet the challenges of the new economy. Mr Chiam, I think, touched a sympathetic vein among some of the students. But I think DPM Tony Tan challenged them to look at the way forward and how to bring the whole society up, and this is what I mean by the challenges facing us as we go forward. We should not, in that sense, be thinking about a social safety net or an elaborate welfare system. We should instead be seeking to develop a trampoline that would help save people when they fall, but help them bounce quickly back up. How can this be constructed? First, I think we should focus on the individual.”
“Sir, the robust growth of the last year was not even for all sectors of society. With globalisation, some are doing very well, while others are still struggling. We are recovering from the crisis but we are entering a period of increasing globalisation and competition. I think one of the speakers, on the first day of the debate, talked about what shape of recovery in terms of alphabets. Let me continue with this. We fear the U-shape recovery because that will mean that we spend too long at the bottom. What we seem to have, in Singapore's case, is very much a V-shape recovery, last one in and first one out. But increasingly, the present scenario seems to be more of a W, up and down, much depending on what happens in the US market. My own view, however, is that beyond U, V, W, we have to look at the next alphabet, which is the X. The X-shape seems to apply not only for Singapore but for Asia, and this is that some will be going down and are likely to stay down, and this would not just be countries but also companies and sectors of society. In contrast, others would be going up quite rapidly. In Asia X or Singapore X, we will actually need to deal with a whole new way of trying to help those at the bottom improve and hold the society together when we would have quite different levels of results. This Budget has been welcomed as the most generous Budget. There are suggestions that this is an election Budget and that, in that sense, it would not likely be repeated. I join those who welcome the Budget. However, I hope that there would not be a one-off. Some of the features of this Budget should endure and, indeed, be strengthened. The budget policy has the makings of a new and very welcome approach for this new age of globalisation and of this X-feature in our society.”
“May I just ask the Minister of State to clarify that he is assuring us that the MOU with America is in accordance with Singapore's obligations under the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty?”
“Sir, I have a reverse question. Since this is another revenue stream for the bus company, will there be a reduction in cost? Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, fares are regulated by the PTC. The operators are free to put up requests. We have a formula in place and we have ensured that the operators follow the formula. BILL INTRODUCED SINGAPORE LAND AUTHORITY BILL "to establish and incorporate the Singapore Land Authority, to provide for its functions and powers, and for matters connected therewith; and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws," presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Resumption of Debate on Question (23rd February, 2001), "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002.". - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 12.42 pm”
“Sir, my second question is about noise volume, whether they have set some requirements of noise level and whether it is possible to secure some parts of the bus so that people who want quiet when they travel could actually opt for those seats. Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as we understand it, the operator and Media Corp are looking into it. I can forward the suggestions of Mr Simon Tay to the operator. As I understand it, they are looking into how to adjust the volume to meet the needs of various commuters in the bus.”
“I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has answered my question about a crash simulation, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: I will ask the LTA to look into this. At this point in time, I do not have the answers.”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is no effect on the safety. May I know whether any tests have been carried out in case of a crash, because it seems to me that these screens could fall on somebody, or somebody could impact himself against the screen? Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, when the request was made, approval from the LTA was required, as there was a need to ensure safety, in case the monitors may impede the flow of commuters in the bus and they must be securely fastened, and all other relevant technical details to ensure that they do not become a hazard. The technical details were cleared and sorted out with LTA's Vehicle Engineering Department and therefore we gave the approval.”
“The TV monitors would not pose a danger to the passengers, hinder the movement of passengers in the bus and/or affect the concentration of the drivers. The bus operator will also not be exposed to undue financial risk. We understand that in a survey conducted by the operator during a one-month public trial in 1999, commuters' feedback on the TV Mobile scheme was positive. We are aware of the discomfort expressed by some commuters regarding the presence of the TV Mobile monitors in the buses since its launch on 14th February 2001. We have asked the bus company and Media Corp to improve the system and they are currently looking into adjusting the volume and improving on the quality of the images. We will continue to monitor to see that commuters' concerns are duly addressed.”
“I think I was misunderstood on that point. The Minister of State has told us that 800 people have registered to use the Speakers' Corner since its inception. I am asking the Ministry just to keep track of the numbers since knowledge about the investigations that have happened. My concern is that usage will fall to close to zero, because people will be very frightened to speak. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes, we can do that. That is not really tracking. The numbers are there because people register. We can look at the numbers in due course. MOBILE TV IN PUBLIC BUSES 2. Mr Simon Tay asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology how the introduction of Mobile TV in public buses affects the basic services offered to commuters. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has a set of service guidelines to ensure that basic bus services meet the needs of commuters. These guidelines stipulate, among other things, service frequency and coverage, time of operations and display of service information. The PTC conducts regular audits of the services provided by the public transport operators to measure their level of compliance to these guidelines. In addition, the PTC and the LTA encourage bus operators to introduce new and innovative schemes to improve the quality of customer service, provided that these schemes do not have an adverse impact on safety and basic service level offered to commuters. The TV Mobile scheme does not affect basic service level provided by the bus operator.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State that if I were to e-mail to friends saying, "I am turning up on Friday evening. Will you come and support me?", will that be considered organising an illegal assembly? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I said, we have to look at the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules. If you look at rule 2, it defines when an "illegal assembly" has taken place. Rule 2 says: "If five or more persons . [gather together] to (a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person; (b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or (c) to mark or commemorate an event," then an illegal assembly may have taken place. Sir, let us go on the law. In the context of these questions, it is better for the investigations to be completed before we further this discussion in the House. Mr Simon Tay: A final question, if I may, Mr Speaker? This is to ask the Minister of State whether they will, in fact, help us by tracking the continued usage of the Speakers' Corner, subsequent to the public knowledge of these investigations. My concern is that there will be some chilling effect that people will stop using this early experiment in Singapore. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, we do not track the use of the Speakers' Corner. I think that is the starting point. In this case, indeed, but for the website posting in the Think Centre website, the Police may not have known of the event. That is the basis on which we should operate the Speakers' Corner. Mr Simon Tay rose -”
“Sir, without going into the details of this case, I am concerned for future use, in the sense that any speaker goes down and if five or more people were to follow him and start clenching their fists and saying, "Yes, we agree with you" or "No, we don't agree with you with whatever it is you are saying", how would the Minister be satisfied that this too is not worthy of investigation? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think it is quite different if you go there on your own accord, as an individual speaker, you go and speak. And indeed when your speech is a rousing one, people may support you. But you cannot be said to be organising an illegal assembly. It is quite different from the situation in hand.”
“Sir, I take it then that it is not the clenched fist which he mentioned that is the cause. May I go on to the next question, Sir? This is whether five or more people could register to speak on the same topic, either sequentially or at the same time, at the Speakers' Corner? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, investigations are ongoing. So we should not go into details. Basically, we have said that the laws of the land must be observed, and the laws include the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Act read with the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules, which defines what an "illegal assembly" is. That is the basis upon which Police is investigating.”
“Sir, this is pending investigations, therefore, I am sure the Minister of State will not want to go too much into the details of this particular case. But may I ask, more generally, what is the difference between speech and demonstrations? And whether per se if I were to go to the Speakers' Corner and clench my fist in the air, is that a demonstration, Sir? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, at the last sitting, I had an exchange with Mr Jeyaretnam. Many speakers have gone there to speak. Many people have gone there to listen. They have not met with any problems from the Police. But if there is an organised meeting at the Speakers' Corner to demonstrate, in this case, for the abolition of ISA, and five or more people gather there, then it is indicative evidence of an illegal assembly having taken place. So Police has to investigate.”
“Sir, may I remind the Minister of State that he said that the Police has received no complaints from the public. Is he saying that every website is reliable? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The website posting was in the Think Centre website. It was a report and, in fact, there was also a photograph of people with clenched fists raised, and the report said that they chanted "Abolish ISA" several times. The Police assessed that this may be indicative of a demonstration having taken place. So, they saw it as their duty to investigate.”
“Sir, may I ask if it is the principle of the Police to investigate everything it sees on the website? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, if the Police receives information from a reliable source such as media report or website that an offence may have been committed, and there is indicative evidence, then it is Police's professional duty to investigate.”
“To ask the Minister for Finance (a) whether there is any conscious and concerted effort in the public sector to optimise the use of manpower and other resources and eliminate wastage and inefficiency which will lead to accelerated increases in Government spending; and (b) how will he ensure that the large wage rise for the civil service will not lead to successive increases in Government charges, fees and taxes as in the case of the recent increases in Government hospital charges and university fees, and bearing in mind, Second Minister for Finance's assurance in Parliament, on 25th August 2000, that Government will not have to impose tax increases to pay for the wage rise for the civil service.”
“Sir, I think the Minister's revelations of the figures are quite interesting, given the feeling among many that it is not the case. Could I invite the Ministry to also reveal the figures according to sectors - manufacturing, etc - so that we can get a clearer picture? Additionally, would the Minister share his views about the possibility of having competition law in Singapore to ensure a level playing field for all, including GLCs? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will ask the Department of Statistics to consider including the statistics which Mr Simon Tay has asked for, when it releases its detailed report on its study. As for whether we should introduce a competition law in Singapore, such as is found in some of the more advanced countries, we are still reviewing this matter in MTI. In fact, we are under some pressure to do this, in the course of our negotiations on Free Trade Agreements with other countries. But there are complications involved. We propose to do this step-by-step, and the Energy Market Authority that we are setting up, will be a first step towards the establishment of such a regime where, for industries which we identify explicitly, certain rules governing competition will apply. But as to whether we should apply this across-the-board in Singapore for all sectors, it is a step that we are not yet ready to take. USAGE OF MANPOWER IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR (Optimisation) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Tay Beng Chuan - 9.”
“Yes, Sir. There was a particular incident, Sir, where a newspaper made a particular mistake over the tragic accident of the SIA crash and clearly, it deviated from the previous principle of better, slower but accurate, whereas they came up fast, but wrong. And I want to ask the Minister whether this has received a reprimand from the PAC, or the Ministry, or whether any action should be taken in future about this kind of reporting.”
“Does the Minister say he must watch them all the time? I hope he means the newspapers, and not the women. But, seriously, my concern is also about veracity, because to my recollection, one of the newspapers made a very unfortunate headline ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, first, is it very apparent that the PAC is able to cope with the increased number of publications since more newspapers have come on board and they are daily affairs? Second, are the PAC and the Ministry actually quite satisfied with the veracity and guidelines of good judgement and morality shown by the new newspapers, particularly?”
“After all, they may be the ones who are in touch with the immigration offender. With the due diligence requirement of the harbourer or the employer, the agents will be subject to the same standards. So the low numbers are because of this fact, because they are charged for abetment and for abetment you have to prove knowledge. That is more difficult.”
“Mr Speaker, if I heard the numbers correctly, it seems that employers are relatively few, 572, but the number of landlords seems to be quite high. Is it not clear that people will only overstay if they had a job and therefore should we not do more about the employers? Secondly, the number of agents arrested is 10. Is that not stunningly low compared to the number for landlords? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the first point on the relativity of the figures, the figures are in fact quite close. Because for last year, 590 people were arrested for harbouring immigration offenders whereas 572, just slightly down by 18 people, were arrested for employing immigration offenders. I agree with Mr Tay that we have to attack the problem on both fronts. In fact, we have made it very clear that we treat each category of people with the same approach in terms of enforcement action. This has been done. SIR, together with MOM, carries out enforcement raids at places where immigration offenders may be working or places where they are gathering. In terms of the law too, they are of the same parity. So under the Immigration Act, an employer who is prosecuted and charged successfully with employing an immigration offender also faces the minimum mandatory six months' imprisonment. Indeed, if he engages or employs more than five immigration offenders, he also faces mandatory caning. So there are no two ways about it. As I have said, concerted actions on all fronts. As for agents, the current law is such that when agents are charged, they are charged under the abetment provision. We have announced in this House that we are looking at changing the law so that the agents will also have to face the same requirement of due diligence.”
“A slightly different question, Sir. The application seems to be by the Open Singapore Centre, a different entity from Think Centre. The event seems to be separate, given that your Ministry decided to roll it together. Was this thinking of your Ministry shared with the applicant and is it a regular practice to rely on other parties' publicity information in order to reject a different person's application? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The Think Centre website had announced very clearly on 23rd November that this was an event jointly organised by Think Centre and Open Singapore Centre (OSC). So very clearly, they were joint organisers.”
“May I ask the Minister, given that this bilateral activity is in some ways seen to help the WTO process, is there any movement or possibility of movement on a multilateral basis? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last month, there has been a flurry of activities all over the world to begin the process towards launching a new round either this year or next year. The WTO Ministers have already agreed to meet in Qatar in November this year. I am not sure whether we would be able to launch this year. The attitudes of the present Bush Administration are more favourable to the global trade agenda. I am optimistic that a new round would be launched. Can it be launched this year? I am not sure. But if there is a chance, we should go for it, and in these formal and informal discussions to build up momentum for a new round, Singapore is playing a helpful role.”
“Sir, even if we open up the possibility, it will still be an option for the elderly. Is it not possible, therefore, that an elderly couple could be sitting on a fully paid-up flat but they have no money in their pockets, and would that not be a hardship?”
“May I ask the Minister of State whether this is a form of paternalism and it goes against the idea that citizens should take more responsibility for managing their own assets?”
“Sir, the Minister said that the Ministry officials were asking around and expected a good enough bid. Given that this is a market mechanism, there needs to be enough interest. Could the Minister indicate how many people he anticipates or hopes to come forward to bid?”
“Very briefly, Sir. Dr Lily Neo referred to me and my wife's wish to have a part-time maid. I just want to clarify that this is not a foreign domestic worker but a part-time Singaporean worker. The second very brief point which I want to clarify is that I never said that I thought that Government should promote single parenthood, but rather I hope that Government would be flexible enough to accommodate it when it happens.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just briefly make two very small clarifications. I was mentioned in particular.”
“We need, in a sense, to ask the Ministry of Manpower to help promote and professionalise part-time housekeeping services by Singaporeans for Singaporean families and, perhaps, to have a match-making service for this. I think it was Tolstoy or some other Russian writer who said that all happy families are the same while every unhappy family has unique cause and character. In today's world, I beg to disagree. In the face of so many pressures in the workplace in competition between companies to get ahead, I think it is each happy family now that is unique. Our system has to be flexible enough, therefore, to acknowledge and support each and every family in its effort to be unique and to be happy.”
“A few men may want to become house-husbands and the primary care-giver to the children. More men may wish to take on a larger share of the family duties while still keeping the wife in the primary driver-seat. And even if the norm is otherwise, our system must be flexible enough to allow for this. Second, single mothers. Our Government has been reluctant to acknowledge singles and, especially, single parents. I understand that many do not wish this to be the norm. Accordingly, some incentives should go only for couples. However, we should not go too far in this. If one takes the idea of being a single parent seriously and no one takes it lightly, the pressures of money, time and responsibility are very great, and I think all Singaporeans recognise this. If, despite all these, a Singaporean does make that decision, I think we have to have a system that supports and allows that decision. The third suggestion is on dependence on the domestic maid or helper. I think, Sir, there is a time and a need to seriously look at the provision of part-time domestic help, childcare centres and other facilities that will enable the nuclear family, ie, the mother and the father, to do more for themselves and more for their children. There need, in other words, to be alternatives to the full-time foreign maid as the primary care-giver. This is important for privacy and quality family time; this is important to have parents recognise a greater role in the care of their own children. There is not much point in providing more swimming pools or more play centres if all we see there are maids with children, and parents at the workplace or the shopping centres.”
“But while they are important, this debate about families should look beyond women as wives and mothers. If we do not, there is a danger that when we think of the family, we assume and cater only to what some think of as the ideal family, ie, husband and wife, children - two or more, please - with the assumption of a maid and perhaps a helpful and active grandmother. From this perspective, Sir, it is too easy to think of family-friendly practices as being primarily and perhaps only for women as wives and mothers. While this is the ideal that some in our society presently uphold, we have to look beyond this if we are truly to be family-friendly. The idea of a family after all, as sociologists tell us, is changeable over time, culture and space. In Singapore in a past generation, extended families were the norm. There were also families which involved more than one wife, more than one mother. In other countries today, while the nuclear family is the norm, the exact arrangements of who takes care of the children may differ from what we in Singapore think of as normal. We do not have to change our social norms. But we do need to show true flexibility if we are to be truly friendly to the family. In this context, I put forward three suggestions. The first is on fathers. I must confess an interest here. I think we must not be patriarchal. Even if most Singaporeans still believe that the woman must be the one who is the primary care-giver to the family, we must be flexible enough to give men the option. We should not design the workplace so that men work too long and too hard without any choice, while women join, inevitably, a sort of slow track or, as in Japan, have the primary role in the workplace as tea ladies.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had not planned to join this debate, and I may not have done so if this morning my 3-year-old son had not woken me and asked me to play with him. I did so until 9.30 and then got to the office only at 10. I may not have joined this debate also if my wife did not tell me, when we were walking at 7.00 am, that she wished we had a reliable part-time domestic help instead of a full-time foreign worker we do have. This is despite the fact that she runs her own business and is the primary care-giver for our son. And I may not have joined this debate also if I had not heard the Minister for Health yesterday defend the Government's policy not to give any special assistance to single mothers who decide to keep their children. Sir, I think we are all in this House in favour of families and family-friendly practices. What I am concerned about is that our support becomes merely convention - stated but not practised - that we replace, in this sense, motherhood statements with family-hood statements. When I first think of family-friendly practices, I do of course think of the women - the wives and mothers among us. Too many have to make a choice between a job they enjoy and their children whom they also enjoy. And this is a beggar's choice. They should have more options than this. Losing women from the workplace is a loss not only to the economy but also for the women themselves. Many enjoy aspects of work and life outside the house, and this is a part of what they want for themselves in their training, in their view of their own self-esteem. And, of course, they love their children. But this is a great sacrifice that need not always be made and may not always be best.”
“The Minister of State in his clarification earlier has mentioned a review. Can I ask him whether this is just simply an ongoing constant review, as he alluded to earlier, or would he commit to a definite review on certain points such as an advisory panel, with a reply to this House at a definite date? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, a review will be conducted. So it is a specific review looking at whether this should be done by some other agency. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and 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. ADJOURNMENT”
“Because for a Speakers' Corner, as it is, as is well known, even the topic is not known. So in an open setting where it is visible, where you do not use the microphone, the possibility of law and order problem arising is reduced, which experience has borne out. I think it is quite different in an indoor setting with a microphone where there will be more heckling, people are in close proximity, and adherents of different opinions will then jostle for attention and who knows, fisticuffs may take place. So I think the system now is a better approach. Let us leave it at that where if there are indoor talks where the public is invited, tell us what the topic is, and if PELU sees that the application deserves approval, it will be approved.”
“May I seek a point of clarification from the Minister of State. The first point of clarification is about the advisory panels. The Minister of State has said in his reply that they do listen to some other people, but we are not certain, it is not predetermined who will be heard most. What is his reply to the suggestion about a fixed advisory panel on the lines of the Films Act and censorship of films? Why is it any different? The second point of clarification I seek from the Minister of State is his reply on the suggestion for an indoor version of the Speakers' Corner. His reply was that one can apply for a licence anywhere, and therefore is that not better. But surely, Sir, does the Minister of State not realise that the efficacy of a Speakers' Corner (Hong Lim) is the speed of the licensing process? You go down there, you get it within 15 minutes or half an hour, and that is the same idea that would distinguish an indoor Speakers' Corner from the `apply three weeks in advance you can speak in any hotel' idea. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I will take Mr Simon Tay's first point. On his suggestion for a panel involving citizens, the films model, when the review is being done, this can be considered, because if MITA takes over the function, I am sure they will look at what model works. On the other point, let us look at the timeframe. Currently, it is three weeks. But, like I have said, PELU is determined to bring it down. So with the shorter timeframe, the time lag that Mr Simon Tay talks about will be less. The other point, of course, is whether we want to have a setting of a Speakers' Corner in an indoor setting with microphone, with people in close proximity and speaking whatever they want.”
“And in this sense, my suggestions on this Bill are simply to bring it into line with the practices on film and other areas. My third suggestion, Sir, relates to the Speakers' Corner. This experiment has been running for some months now. There have not been, to my knowledge, any breaches in security or public order and I do not believe there have been any other breaches of law, such as defamation. In this regard, the Speakers' Corner should be seen as a success. People have spoken and nothing has caught fire. Yet, there are also concerns that the success of the Speakers' Corner will be limited, in part this is because of the venue and the means of communication. In our tropical city, both weather and traffic noise work against an open air venue where microphones are not allowed. I therefore ask the Ministry to consider designating an indoor venue for a second Speakers' Corner with a speaker system to support the speakers. Members of the civic society group, the Roundtable, of which I am one, first proposed free speech venues with a variety of places and types. When the Government took up this idea, it only licensed Hong Lim Park. This is because it is a historical site and I have got nothing against it. But I do hope the Government will review the scheme to add more supportive venues.”
“We cannot make our decisions as an accumulation and aggregate of all these prejudices. We have to decide for the broad majority and to allow diversity. Because public debate and artistic performances, in particular, will almost always challenge the ideas that some people will hold. It provokes us to think, and that is good. So long as the line is that we provoke thought rather than violence and disorder. In this sense, my first suggestion is that we must include citizens in the decision-making about public entertainment licences. We should have an advisory panel for the Public Entertainments Act. If we want to cover an even wider array of activities, it is critical to have expertise and a broad and diverse range of opinions, not captured by any minority interest. The Government, of course, in the end will have to make the decision after hearing the different views. But it should do so after hearing all sides and weighing the overall interest of the wider society. My second suggestion, Sir, is that the Government should use its powers to impose special conditions for the approval wisely. It does this already. But I want to point out that it may continue to have performances in form or even warn the respective audience beforehand of its contents, and then those who may be offended simply need not attend. These suggestions are not new. They are in line with the practice of censorship of films and publications in Singapore. Under the Ministry of Information and the Arts, a panel of citizens gives advice to the bureaucrats on what to censor and gives them a good sense of the pulse of the people of Singapore. And so we have "RA" classification, advisory statement of the content, etc.”
“The example of the play "Talaq" points to the diversity of opinions among Singaporeans. The play had been performed before. It attracted some controversy and attention. Similarly, in the past, when the licence was permitted for "M Butterfly" with a nude male figure on stage, this also attracted some controversy, perhaps a little curiosity too. But none of these things led to violence or public disorder and disturbance. Instead, we have actually benefited from the discussion of the issues that ensued. Even in the denial of the licence to have a forum on gays and lesbians, there was a spirited debate, both for and against, in the Forum pages of the Straits Times. And I believe such discussion is healthy in a democracy. It therefore has disturbed some people in Singapore to hear how decisions are made - one moment allowed, another moment disallowed. And it is hard to see, it is hard to be assured that the state's view really reflects the majority view or whether it reflects the objections of really a vocal minority. It should therefore be welcomed to have a one-stop centre for licensing, as the Minister of State says the police will now consider. However, one should guard against a one-stop centre becoming a place to stop one. That is to say, we put such an emphasis on a one-stop centre to ensure that this centre is truly reflective of the broad society and decisions therefore need to be more transparent. They cannot be left to a policeman or bureaucrat sitting by himself in the isolation of his office. Nor can a decision be captured by a particular interest. Otherwise, we risk acting on each and every special sensitivity. Every one has its sensitivities - every ethnic group, every religious group, political views, animal rights, gay activists, women's groups, whatever.”
“Second, as clarified in the last sitting of Parliament, elected Opposition MPs from now are allowed to speak at community functions in their own constituencies and, I believe if I have heard the Minister of State correctly, that they can now sing at these meetings too without real problems. And both of these measures increase the freedom of people to speak in public. The third and fourth examples go the other direction. Recently, it was reported that a group of gay and lesbian Singaporeans wanted to organise a public forum in Singapore, but was refused. And fourth, and more recently, the performance of the play "Talaq" by the civic group Agni Kootthu was refused. This is despite an initial approval by the National Arts Council. In these latter two examples, the licensing authority had used the PEA to restrict freedom of speech. These trends may seem contradictory to some. On what basis should we allow or restrict freedom of speech and assembly under this Act? A process should govern the decision making. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the right of Singapore citizens to speak freely and to assemble peaceably in public. These rights are not absolute, of course. The right to assembly can be restricted in the interest of security and public order, which the Minister of State has emphasised. But how do we decide when security and public order are at stake? Who decides? The Government, of course, is the primary actor. It should not, however, in my view, be the only one. To balance our freedom to speak, with due concerns of security and public order, we must have a good reading of public opinion. After all, it is not just what somebody might say, but how it is said and, most importantly, how people react to the speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to start by welcoming some of the changes that the Minister of State has announced and emphasised in reading the Bill. The demerit point system seems to me to be a good one to enhance self-discipline and transparency for the permanent establishments. When the Minister of State was discussing discos, pubs and entertainment centres, I was more concerned about artistic performances and political and public talks which are also covered under the Act. I think the Public Entertainments Act (PEA) may be covering in that sense too many types of different entertainments of very diverse and different character. For while I am sometimes entertained by public political speeches, sometimes in this House too, it is clearly a very different form of enjoyment from a pub or disco. And I wonder whether the system and the personnel who can administer one are really suitable to administer both and all types of entertainments and meetings. The amendments then go on to remove some activities from the list that require licensing. It is however widening the title to reflect their work brings in these political meetings under the Schedule (I believe it is paragraph 2(m) "any play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion"). I think in that sense, we have probably to consider if the time may have come for us to have separate schemes and personnel to distinguish between entertainments, such as discos and meetings, and these public talks and artistic performances. There has been controversy and change in the administration of the Public Entertainments Act of late concerning these areas. Allow me to quickly point out four examples of this controversy and change. First, the Government has seen fit to establish a Speakers' Corner.”
“I rise to support the Bill. I think that it is very tidy to relook at the laws and bring them into consistency with other new initiatives. In that spirit, may I raise another anomaly in the Estate Duty Act for the Ministry to consider. Sir, in making these comments, I appreciate that the general trend in estate duty has been to make it less onerous in order to allow people who have worked hard in their lifetime to pass on property to their loved ones after their death. And this is especially for dwelling houses, an exemption of $9 million. Sir, under the present law, if a person owns a house solely and this person dies, there is no estate duty so long as his house is a dwelling house and it is valued at less than $9 million. The anomaly I would point to, however, is that it differs if he has purchased the house in the joint names of himself and his spouse - his wife or her husband. In other words, Sir, under the standing provision of section 8(1)(b), if a man buys a house with his own purchase money and puts it in the name of himself and his wife and then, if he should unfortunately die within five years, this, I understand, is treated as a gift and would be subject therefore to estate duty tax. This seems to me to be an anomaly, because, as I said, if he had purchased it and kept it solely in his name, there would be no tax accruing. It also seems to me to be a potentially unfair decision on the surviving spouse since there will be more tax payable and, perhaps, at a late stage in life, there may not be that much cash to meet the tax. I hope that the Ministry might consider this anomaly and, if it is found justifiable, to remedy it in a further provision.”
“Sir, if I may pursue the point just a little further. On the pricing of leaded and unleaded type of gasoline when this was available in Singapore, we did the right way by making unleaded gasoline cheaper. Surely this should be the principle, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I think we have to look at how the technology will evolve with time. At this point in time, the development cost of such cars is very high. As and when the technology becomes cheaper and there is a demand for such cars, then we will have to review it. But at this point in time, we feel that this is the right level.”
“In terms of land transport, a car is a car. It should be on par. In terms of efficiency and pollution, the hybrid car and electric car will be more beneficial for our environment. Should it not, if anything, be nominally cheaper? Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, these are new technology cars. We have to look at how the cost for each car will evolve over time, because new models are produced as technology improves. At this point in time, it is also very difficult for us to ascertain between the different models at what point we should equate the rebate to make them equal to conventional cars. This is a support by the Government to encourage the use of eco-friendly vehicles. And in view of our car ownership and land transport policies, it is better, at this point in time, for conventional car and green car not to be any different significantly to potential buyers coming into the market. Should we lower the difference substantially in favour of "green" cars, we may attract non-car buyers into buying such a car just because it is much cheaper than conventional cars. And that might undermine our land transport policies in Singapore.”
“Sir, I am not sure I understood the Parliamentary Secretary correctly. But if I got it right, it is still nominally more expensive to purchase and run either a hybrid car or an electric car. Is that correct? Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: It is slightly higher than a conventional car.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether he has the number of fatal shootings done by the police in the last year or whatever timeframe? And if so, how many prosecutions have resulted? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Over the last 15 years, there have been only 10 cases of fatal shootings, and all the cases went before a coroner's inquiry. Every one of them was justifiable homicide, except for one case which was an open verdict. CERTIFICATE OF ENTITLEMENT (Merging categories of private cars into single category) 22. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will consider merging the Certificate of Entitlement categories for private cars into a single category as early as possible.”
“May I ask whether it is a point of order. If we are discussing a particular case, surely that is a finding of the court in question. Is there not something in the Standing Orders on this point, Sir?”
“Hearing the Government's intent to band and grade their own buildings, would it be possible for this list to be shared with experts and practitioners from the private sector, so that we can have more transparency into how different buildings are performing? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will take that suggestion into consideration. This is only the beginning. So we thought we will try out with the public sector buildings first, because it is easier for us to collect energy data. But certainly it is a step that we want to advance in the future.”