Sin Boon Ann
Singapore
“Madam, with growing affluence, rising obesity has also become a national problem. Other than the health risk for the individuals, there are other related problems such as healthcare expenses, loss in productivity and so on.”
“Madam, mental health problems still hold some stigma in the society and will prevent patients from seeking help and professional advice early and impede their re-integration into the workforce and community after treatment.”
“Sir, the silver tsunami is almost upon us and we must be prepared for the transformation of our social landscape. One in every five residents will be above the age of 65 by 2030. Many Singaporeans can expect to live another 20 years more but the quality of life can vary greatly.”
“If they are eligible for HDB concessionary loans, they will not be affected. However, quite a number of HDB upgraders or downgraders do not qualify for such loans. They may be upgrading due to additional children in the family or taking in elderly parents.”
“Sir, rigorous and thorough training for our servicemen is necessary to prepare them adequately for their role as defenders of our country. However, training safety is just as important.”
“But I feel more needs to be done to consolidate the understanding even further. What are MINDEF's action plans with this aspiration in mind? What are the upcoming educational publicity and other programmes MINDEF has planned to enhance the awareness and understanding of our public.”
The complete record
Every one of 965 lines we hold for Sin Boon Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 20.
“The MCYS GPC, at the moment, Sir, is looking at age and ability discrimination legislation in other countries and see whether the same may be adapted and applied here. Until then, I would have thought that the Government could have provided some tax incentive to encourage employers to hire such people. This Budget has, I must say, missed the opportunity to send a strong signal to prospective employers to level the playing field in employment for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled. While this is not the most ideal way to move prospective employers to hire these, what I should call, "disadvantaged workers", it would, nonetheless, serve as a strong incentive for them to consider such a possibility. Hopefully, in the course of employing these disadvantaged workers, employers would gain a better appreciation of their abilities and dispel any misgiving or prejudice that may have existed before. Such tax incentives may be seen as an indirect form of subsidy, Sir. If it is seen as a subsidy, then it is a necessary evil, until the playing field is levelled without any form of Government intervention. Greater devolution of decision making to the grassroots Sir, the greater impact of democracy lies in the devolution of decision making to the grassroots. We began this process by devolving the work of estate maintenance to a council of local leaders appointed through the grassroots organisations. We subsequently carried this process forward by passing on matters relating to the community to the Community Development Councils. This devolution has, in the main, been reasonably successful.”
“Our society upholds the principle of equality as a basis of governance. Yet, as a matter of practice, we know that discrimination, intended or otherwise, exists for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled when it comes to employment. In the recent debate on the President's Address, I highlighted the plight of the middle-aged workers who are not able to find employment on account of age. The same could also be said of the elderly and the disabled. Increasingly, at a time when the elderly are still active and healthy past retirement age, and the disabled, through training and therapy, are able to adapt to the work environment, there are no good reasons why they should not be able to find employment other than principally on account of some form of unwarranted discrimination. This is sad really, Sir. As a nation, we want to recognise the principle that although not all are born equal or are equal in circumstance, we want to have a culture where all Singaporeans would be treated equally without regard to the age group or physical ability. Yet, more often than not, as MPs, we bemoan that fact that we often come across many Singaporeans, the middle-aged, the elderly and the disabled, who are truly having a hard time finding employment to be financially independent. I know that the Government has tried to persuade the private sector to hire not only the young, but I honestly doubt whether the Government has been successful in this regard. Singaporeans are still discriminating on the basis of age and physical ability and I am not sure if we have gone very far in this regard. Sir, if persuasion does not change mindset, perhaps legislation may.”
“However, I feel that our Government could, and should, do more in strengthening the capabilities of these organisations. Here we are talking of families from the middle income group who appreciate the need to get help on such matters. What about those from the lower income group, who seriously need help with family related issues? Could the Government honestly say that it has done enough in this regard? I find this Budget lacking in providing incentives to commercially run organisations that are dedicated towards providing a service for parents. For instance, I do not see anything in this year's Budget that gives tax incentives for child and infant care services to encourage more of such centres to be set up so that it would be easier for mothers to go back to the workforce. What about child minding services for couples who do not have the wider family support network to take the load of looking after their children from time to time so that they could spend time together to strengthen their relationship with each other? Or tax incentives to encourage more businesses to be set up that are dedicated towards organising activities, whether indoor or outdoor, specifically for the purpose of building strong family ties? Sir, we should take a more balanced perspective towards child bearing and raising families in Singapore. What is important for the country in the longer term is not only about having more babies to populate this country, but also ensuring that strong family ties form the basis of a strong and united society which is essential for the long term viability of our nation. Employment for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled Much has been talked about this subject but I would, nonetheless, cover this because I think it is important.”
“However, while I laud the initiatives taken by the Government, I would also caution that we do not take a myopic perspective of the issue. The issue for most Singaporeans is not just about having more babies. The issue for most families in Singapore is also about raising children in an appropriate environment to ensure that they get the best of what our society has to offer to them. At the moment, I believe that while our Government professes commitment to the principle that having strong families is essential to nation building, I do not see as much focus and commitment in this regard as we have towards encouraging more Singaporeans to have babies. Often, most parents have been left with their own devices to finding out ways to help bring up their children through their own social network or through the voluntary welfare groups. I have yet to detect any serious efforts on the part of the Government towards coordinating and publicising the availability of such resources. How many of us as parents could effectively say that we know where to get help for proper guidance and counselling on raising children if we needed help? Unfortunately, at the moment, parents are left very much to their own devices and, perhaps own resources, to get on with the families. Would parents know where they could turn to on how to increase the level of communication with the children so that the level of interaction and hence the bonding within the family could be strengthened? Would parents perhaps know how to handle sibling rivalry? How could we properly counsel our children from families who break up? I know that there are voluntary organisations out there that do much work in this regard.”
“The money that the Government talks about here is really no small beer. The question that one would ask is whether such assistance, evenly applied to all Singaporeans, is an effective way of helping our society. The value of money is always relative. What to me is a princely sum may well be a drop in the ocean for others. Can we stretch the charity dollar further here? I believe we can. Rather than giving money to all Singaporeans, why can't we put in place the principle of each man according to his needs or, at least, what society is able to determine to be his basic needs? While I recognise that our Government has to be fair to all Singaporeans in topping up their CPF accounts, it would, I believe, perfectly in order if the top-up would also carry an assignment provision that allows more fortunate Singaporeans the opportunity to assign such payments to charity of choice or to the Community Chest. Giving Singaporeans the opportunity to give up their entitlement to a public handout in favour of the needy would signal the taking of yet another step towards making Singapore a more caring and cohesive society. Building strong families Sir, much attention and resources have been given to the basic issue of declining birth rate in Singapore as a maturing society. The Baby Bonus Scheme that was started last year has now been tweaked to allow for the extension of the period allowed for co-savings as well as the expansion of the use of co-savings for health screening and early intervention for children with special needs. I welcome such refinements to the scheme and hope that more Singaporeans will be persuaded by the position taken by the Government to have more children.”
“Dr Tan even suggested declaring a debt amnesty for them, by wiping clean all their outstanding debts to the authorities and allowing them to start afresh. What Dr Tan expressed was just a reflection of the genuine desire to want to help the general underclass in Singapore. The question is: how can we best help them? I believe the general consensus among many is the application of the principle of teaching them to fish rather than to give them a fish. While there may be a general acceptance of this principle, the perception often has been that it is more difficult to fish for many of those amongst us and it may be easier to continue to give them the fish. This is relatively evident in the way we give handouts, subsidies and rebates to help the relatively worse off to mitigate the effects of rising cost of living. Can we do better? I believe we can. In this regard, I would like to raise four issues that we can perhaps give more thought to. Rights versus needs First, under the various top-up schemes that the Government has announced, much money would be given to all Singaporeans. One would presuppose that the principle of parity applies here. For instance, we note that the Government would give Medisave top-ups of between $50 and $350 into each Medisave account, depending on the age group. This exercise alone will cost the Government $320 million. To give another example, the Government has also decided to top up the CPF accounts of older Singaporeans. This exercise is carried out in recognition of the fact that many older Singaporeans earn less now as they have lower skills levels and are disadvantaged because of lower CPF contribution for their age group. To help Singaporeans in this age group, our Government will have to dish out $80 million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget Statement, entitled "Creating Opportunity, Building Community", has brought much cheer and comfort to many Singaporeans. The Government has signalled very strongly to the people that the change in leadership has not resulted in any letting up of its unrelenting effort to ensure that no Singaporean will be left behind. Indeed, the words of our Prime Minister in a recent speech have been very assuring. He said, and I quote, "A sense of community is what ultimately makes us a nation - forged by shared experiences, inspired by a common vision, and bound by a collective resolve to help one another. Restructuring brings adjustment pains to many segments of our population. We must help them so that they too will share in the fruits of economic opportunity." This is not just a bald statement, but one which has been backed by the rather generous handouts in this year's Budget, ranging from the ComCare Fund to the CPF top-ups and the rebates on utilities. For many grateful Singaporeans, these handouts by the Government could not have come at a more appropriate time to cope with the overall cost increases, now expected to hit them with some measure of regularity. As Singaporeans, it must be right that we do not forget those amongst us who are frail and in need. Sitting in this House and listening to the speeches made, I am glad to note that the spirit of caring for the less fortunate has not waned. On the contrary, I note that, increasingly, many colleagues are now speaking up and, at times, rather passionately about doing more for the poor. Just the other day, in this House, my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the MP for Ayer Rajah, spoke of the financial burden of the underclass and the critical need to put them on their feet.”
“Surely, years down the road, this generation would like to be remembered as the one who sets a new milestone in making this small country a great nation. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“And I believe that if not for our strong social foundation, Singapore would not have weathered through the recent Jemaah Islamiyah challenge in the way we have done. We must therefore not let up on our efforts to continue to strengthen our multi-racial and multi-religious ties. The challenge is to ensure that our ties will remain strong even when the economic tide is down. We will continue to strengthen our resilience and cohesiveness as a society. Sir, we need to remain a resilient and cohesive society if Singapore is to be a land where opportunity exists for all. Certainly, the Prime Minister's speech yesterday gave us much comfort and assurance that we will get there; and that Singapore will not just be a place where people merely transact to make a living. Singapore will be a place where we call home; a place where, to use the words of our Prime Minister, everyone has a role to play, and everyone belongs, and where every Singaporean, no matter whether you are old or young, whether you are lame or able, will be able to live with dignity, and a place where we are proud to call home. Will the ride be smooth for us? I do not think it would be. There are many challenges that lie ahead of us. Our economy has to be relevant and competitive; our workforce must be nimble and productive; and we have to ensure that those who are not able to keep up are not left behind. Nonetheless, we will get there. As the Prime Minister said, there is a great Singapore spirit burning that will help us achieve big things. We overcame the odds in the past. We will overcome the odds in the future. This is the challenge of the present generation.”
“Think of Ireland, New Zealand and the North European countries, to name a few. The question which people are increasingly asking is, if we can have a world class economy, why can we not have a world class sporting community? The Government has chosen to use the public-private partnership model to build a sporting culture and to promote international sporting events here. The use of the public-private model may be relevant. However, I think we should bear in mind that the issue of a sporting culture is not just confined to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports alone, but extends to the other Ministries as well. In this regard, I would like to see how the various Government departments and Ministries can work more closely together towards the common objective of raising the standard and quality of sports in Singapore. Finally, Sir, the recent unrest in southern Thailand reminds us once again that as a multi-racial and multi-religious country, we have to learn to respect the rights of different groups and individuals to practise their customs and their faiths. Without that high level of tolerance, trust and respect, Singapore will be on a perpetual boil. Indeed, one reason why we have been able to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore is because of a relatively strong and performing economy. Take away economic stability and I suspect the picture of race and religious harmony may well result in a very different outcome. Our racial and religious harmony did not come as naturally as a Tembusu tree that grows here. It is the result of years of hard work put in by our predecessors. No doubt, the bank of goodwill and trust that was built up will see us through very challenging times.”
“Moving from the comfort zones of correct statements on family and procreation, we should perhaps be prepared to face hard issues that are fast emerging in recent years. For instance, is our society prepared to extend the definition of family to become more inclusive of singles who adopt babies, or those who choose to conceive through artificial insemination without necessarily having a spouse to support, or of couples of the same gender choosing to marry and settling down to begin life together? I know that in matters like these, we as a conservative Asian society should choose to follow rather than to lead. However, this does not mean that we will not be confronted with such issues. As a mature society, should we then be prepared to openly discuss these issues and take a position for ourselves? My heart was greatly cheered when we won the Tiger Cup last Sunday. The last time we won this was in 1998 in Vietnam. This time round, we brought back the Kallang Roar. For those of us who still remember Singapore soccer of the 70s and the 80s, the Kallang Roar was the roar of the nation. The collective interest in soccer brought back the passion which drew the country together. And the same can be brought out in table tennis, badminton, bowling and other sports. What matters is a winning sport and not excuses. Everyone loves a winner. In this regard, we have often been told that as a country, we have to be realistic about our sporting performance since we are restricted by the size of our population. Increasingly, this argument does not seem to hold much water as we see how the other smaller countries with a small population are able to rise above their limitation and succeed in international competition.”
“In this regard, we must ensure that the frail Singaporeans are well looked after. I notice that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of maids being hired to look after the elderly and also more institutions and retirement homes have been set up to provide senior citizens care. In a society where both spouses are expected to keep a full-time job and where increasingly, it is not expected of those who are home-makers, who typically would be the housewives, to look after the frail elderly. I am not surprised that this situation, which I just described, has come about, particularly when we have an ageing population on hand. However, while we want to ensure that those who need care are not forgotten, we must take care to avoid falling into the trap of providing more opportunities for young Singaporeans to abandon the elderly. And I would include leaving the elderly in the hands of institutions or maids as abandonment. Indeed, the temptation to go this way becomes real when the elderly place increasing demands on their time, resources and attention, especially when they are hit by major illnesses. Besides looking after the elderly, a strong and resilient society relies on strong families as its cornerstone. I note from the Address that the Government intends to target the problem of falling birth rates and singlehood while promoting quality family relationships. These are good objectives to achieve and I support it entirely. However, while we will not disagree with this remit on the part of the Ministry, of concern will be dealing with the changing values as society progresses and how these values impact on our traditional understanding of family values and social mores.”
“Surely, it should not fall upon them the necessity to beg their children and their loved ones to provide financial and, at times, emotional support. In this regard, I applaud the Government for its initiative in starting the "silver industry". Presumably, the "silver industry" aims at finding sustainable employment or commercial undertakings for the retired and the retiring. To many, it seems an obvious waste of resources if we do not tap the huge reservoir of experience that lies in the hands of these retired administrators, doctors, bankers and even those who were engaged in non-managerial or non-professional positions. While the younger employees may be younger and more energetic, there is certainly no substitute or short-cut for understanding and wisdom which the elderly brings. In this regard, I would like to see the Government play a more active role. The Government should perhaps seed an agency with funds to provide opportunities for the elderly who are inclined to provide consultancy and guidance to younger Singaporeans in business and commercial undertakings. If the elderly are only too happy to be helping out and are not too serious about making serious money, then I am sure we could have a win-win situation for all. What the Government should therefore do is to provide a framework to facilitate the process. Such a framework would include tax incentives and grants to assist in the setting up of consulting agencies and the like. This was touched upon by several of my colleagues in this debate. If we can do this well, I am sure it will provide opportunity for the elderly to have a second wind in their life. We want to give the retired Singaporeans the opportunity to stay active and healthy. Unfortunately, not all elderly Singaporeans are active and healthy.”
“My noble friend, Alex Chan, an NMP in this House, shared with me this recent incident. When a handicapped person, I believe Teresa Goh, returned home recently after having won a medal at an international swimming competition, the representative from the media who met her at the airport on her return did not come from the sports section of the local daily but rather the community beat. The absence of someone from the sports section clearly shows a lack of interest in the achievement of our fellow disabled Singaporeans who have won international fame and honour for our country in sports, something that is constantly eluding us. If we want to have a mindset change, that change must come from the way we look at success, the people who make up our society and redefining what is important in our lives. In the case of the handicapped sports person, that unfortunate episode would not have happened if we have the same regard and respect for these indomitable sons and daughters of Singapore as we have for the able-bodied athletes. Like our disabled friends, the elderly in Singapore should not be marginalised or forgotten. Many MPs in this House, including Dr Tan Sze Wee, have echoed this sentiment. Particularly, we must not forget the contributions of the elderly Singaporeans on whose back they carried the burden of ensuring our economic survival. Indeed, but for the labour of the elderly in the early years, we would not have enjoyed success to the same extent as we know it. We therefore rightfully recognise the debt of gratitude that we owe to the older generation of Singaporeans. Sir, the challenge for the Government is to build a society where the old and elderly can live out their final days in a dignified manner.”
“If we do not address this well, I have no doubt that there will be many more middle aged and elderly Singaporeans who will be displaced and the younger Singaporeans will no doubt be observing these developments and forming their own conclusions about what the future will hold for them in this country. Sir, the fabric of our nation comprises not only of those who are able but those with disability as well. We want to provide opportunities for the disabled in our society not only to improve themselves, but to help them integrate into the mainstream of our society at the same time. This is indeed our duty and our responsibility as Singaporeans to care and provide for all Singaporeans who are lame or mentally slow and to carry them, if necessary, all through their lives. Many Singaporeans, I suppose, will not quarrel with that principle. The more pressing question one would suppose have to ask is whether we are satisfied that we have done enough to help these fellow Singaporeans. Can we say we have done enough? To my mind, nothing is ever enough when we consider the amount of help that the disabled would require to get them to fully mitigate the negative effects of disability and to help them to fully integrate into societal mainstream. For many of these schools that deal with children with learning disability, for instance, it is a fact that enrolment at these centres is always full and there is a long waiting period to get them in. We must therefore do more, and we can do more, for them. We need to effectively help the disabled to further integrate them into our society. The broader society, including civil servants, must embark with the same determination to change mindsets. Let me just give an illustration of how mindsets would have to be changed.”
“I would nevertheless caution against being unrealistic in our approach. We know that in recent years, against the backdrop of a restructuring economy, there are Singaporeans who are out of work and will remain out of work because their jobs have gone elsewhere. Yes, we often cite the standard mantra for our workers, to go for training and retraining in order to stay employable and employed. Many Singaporeans have, in fact, dutifully done that. Unfortunately, the issue for many is not about training and retraining, but about employability at middle age. The issue of social mobility, if I may add, is not only about mobility upwards, but also of preventing mobility downwards through loss of employment and, in the longer term, the lack of available funds in their CPF to see them through old age. We have schemes to help the poor and needy. In the Addendum to the President's Address, the Minister has highlighted the Government's intention to give needy families up to $100,000 for housing, children's education as well as grants. The generosity of our Government certainly brings great cheer to the heart. But I do hope that this new development will bring a refreshing change to the present perceived approach to social assistance standard, that is, using the CDCs to provide intermediate short-term relief rather than long-term intervention to properly address the root of the problem of needy families. Low income and social mobility are relevant, if not crucial issues that we have to tackle. I am glad to note from the Prime Minister's speech yesterday that the Government will start a new endowment fund called the ComCare fund to help the poor and needy. The need to help the poor and needy is certainly important.”
“However, care must be taken to ensure that our engagement of the young must be deep and broad ranging. While it is important that the Government leaders be seen to be hip and trendy by identifying with youthful activities, we should also be seen to be actively listening to them, hear out their concerns, problems and aspirations, and to help them realise their dreams. We may have a world-class education system, but has the Government sought to actively listen to our school children in their struggles with the pressures in schools? Are we prepared to consider the possibility that meritocracy and excellence, and a lack of self-esteem, are somehow linked, and it may well perhaps be the explanation why some youths are delinquent? Can we honestly say that our society has a place not only for those who are academically excellent, but also for others who are not academically inclined but are brilliant and achievers in their own ways? While I do appreciate the various initiatives that the Government intends to take in the coming days, I do hope that these initiatives will not centre around the same usual suspects and groups but ones that will be deeper in its engagement and, in particular, to reach out to the silent majority of youths who struggle through the demands of schools and family dynamics while seeking to reach for their dreams. Rootedness and commitment to Singapore by our future generation depend also on how much Singapore is seen to be, as we have seen, a land of opportunity for all. Our social assistance programmes are increasingly becoming more focused on improving their outcomes, especially in linking social and job assistance. This objective is laudable and one which must be actively pursued.”
“Sir, my speech this afternoon will focus on the work of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. Sometime ago, I had the occasion to be engaged in a forum organised for young Singaporeans. I went in my capacity as a panelist. Those who participated at the forum were JC and polytechnic students, undergraduates and young working adults. It was an occasion for me to have an insight into the thinking and increase my understanding of them, as they are what we would call those who come from the post-65 generation of Singaporeans. Our discussion was wide ranging. One topic surfaced during our discussion was concerning the necessity for doing national service. One member of the audience remarked that he saw no reason why he should do national service. After all, he said, when he completed his 'A' levels, he would be pursuing his studies overseas and may well be looking for career opportunities there. I had the impression that, to him, national service was an unnecessary distraction to be avoided if he could help it. I was, of course, totally incensed at such self-centred and totally self-serving attitude of this young man. I had begun to ask myself whether the sentiment of this particular Singaporean reflects the general thinking of the people of this generation. If it does, I would be certainly very worried for our future. It will show that we have failed to bring about a new generation of Singaporeans who, while they have become more mobile, are prepared to sink deep roots here and take ownership of this land. Our Government has correctly identified the need to engage young Singaporeans in policy-making and discussion in order to give them a greater sense of belonging and identity.”
“There is no reason why we cannot enthuse our students to take a more active interest in the language and equip them with enough foundation to enable them to pick up the language in their later years, whether for the sake of rediscovery of their roots, or to help them operate more effectively in China. Whatever it is, the new initiative, as I have said, as suggested by the Government, in the present motion, is a step in the right direction. I would, for the reasons mentioned earlier, support the initiative by the Government. 3.22 pm”
“A strong economy in China, coupled with the attraction of lucrative employment or investment, there would be sufficient incentive for many Singaporeans to learn the language. Market forces, I believe, will compel Singaporeans to attain a level of competence in the language sufficient for them to operate comfortably in the Chinese environment. In the final analysis, where will this debate on the teaching of the Chinese Language bring us? Without detracting from the points that have been canvassed so far, I believe that at one level, the debate of teaching Chinese is about the choice of Singaporean identity. I would advocate that we should move away from any pretensions of wanting to be like the Chinese in China in our approach towards our language policy. Chinese should be taught as a practical language that, like mathematics and science, should be used to equip our children to survive in the future world which, in our present calculation, must necessarily include an advanced and modern China, and to remind us of our past heritage. It should not and must not be treated as the last bastion against the erosion of our identity with the Chinese in Mainland China. Chinese Language should not be promoted on the basis that we are Chinese and, therefore, it is our bounden duty to have a thorough familiarity with our heritage and culture as the principal reason. To do that, Sir, I believe would further alienate a further generation of students from learning the Chinese Language. Chinese is a living language.”
“In fact, I personally found that many English-speaking Singaporeans display even stronger examples of filial piety than do many of those who came from Chinese medium schools. Sir, that does not mean that I personally eschew the learning of Mandarin. The reasons that I am interested and I want to learn Mandarin are both personal and pragmatic. While I may be a fourth-generation Chinese, it does not mean that I am not proud of my own heritage and tradition as a Chinese. Living in Singapore, and being so far removed from the land of my forebears, I would be interested to learn more about where my ancestors came from, their customs and practices and even the basis of their religious belief. Does that mean that I see myself, because I observe similar customs, as being similar to the Chinese in Mainland China? Surely not. In the course of my work, I travel to China quite frequently. It did not take me long to know that as a Singaporean, I cannot see myself as one of them. We are essentially operating in different worlds, with different thought processes, values and practices. And I make no pretensions of wanting to be like them. I am, after all, a Singaporean of Chinese origin. The other reason for my interest is, of course, a pragmatic one. An ascendant Chinese economy dictates that I should master my ability in the Chinese Language if I want to do business in China. It is mainly for this reason that there will be continued interest in the Chinese Language, or Chinese-based courses. At least, at this moment in time, we should not be unduly concerned that there would be a lack of interest among Singaporeans in learning Mandarin.”
“In this environment, the standard of Mandarin would have dropped, and quite naturally. To my mind, this would have a knock-on effect on the perceived difficulty of learning the language if the schools tried to teach it at a level that is higher than the context in which it is used daily. This partly explains, to my mind, why we have had to consistently moderate downwards, the standard of teaching and learning the language that is expected of our students. Also, it did not help that Mandarin, as taught in the schools, did not change with the times. For most subjects, I believe the pedagogy has moved on from rote learning and regurgitation to the process of thinking and application of principles, which explains the official tag line of the Ministry, "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation". However, with Chinese, there is still much emphasis placed on memory work as a basis of learning. I remember how my two children had to commit numerous characters to memory in preparation for the PSLE. Sure they did well in the examination, but did they learn? The unfortunate outcome of such a process though, is that after the examinations, unless there is requirement for the use of Chinese, much of it would have been forgotten. Often, it is said that we need to use languages to transmit our values to our children. Sir, I question that assumption. I do not accept the argument that one cannot teach our children the universal virtues of filial piety, humility, regard for others and service to the country, diligence and industry in languages other than our mother tongue. Yet, these are values which have been customarily associated with those from a Chinese-speaking background.”
“However, I do not believe that such efforts are carried out on a scale as we have seen in our schools. Certainly, I do not believe that their education is as focused as we are on designing the curriculum and the pedagogy for the teaching of the second language. Their focus, to my mind, is education with a mastery of the English Language, even if it was US English. Beyond the second and the third generation of immigrants, it would be difficult if you close one eye to differentiate whether the speaker was a Chinese American, an African American or an Indian American. Such is the strength of the American society and identity that the polyglot of races that migrated to the US were never officially left to feel out of place in that society simply on account of their creed or colour of their skin. Sir, when we made the choice to use English as the language of administration, commerce and trade, we essentially set the tenure under which language is to be used in Singapore. It did not take pragmatic Singaporeans long to recognise the basic fact that sending their children to English medium schools increases the child's chances of success in life as there would be wider career options. This was mentioned and referred to by Minister Mentor yesterday. We know that part of the education reform, some years back, had to do with declining enrolment of students in the Chinese schools, which is the main reason why such schools had to convert to using English as the medium of instruction. And because we use English as the language of administration, the use of the Chinese Language is now confined to the social context and, in recent years, as the language of choice in entertainment for many Singaporeans.”
“It would be rare indeed to find Singaporeans who would be comfortable enough to engage the audience by speaking off the cuff, either in English or Mandarin. This is, no doubt, due to the lack of facility in the language and I believe this has translated in the level of confidence that Singaporeans display when it comes to public speaking. Sir, the debate on the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education raises deeper issues about the question of the identity we want to develop as a nation. Despite coming from different backgrounds and traditions to journey together towards a common destiny, do we want to deny the evolution of a Singapore identity that draws its heritage from the rich and well developed cultures of India, China and Southeast Asia? Or do we insist on maintaining our own and separate identity using language as a bulwark against erosion of ethnic identity? This debate on the teaching of Chinese Language is not just a debate about pedagogy. Fundamentally, it is a debate about our choices, your choices, about who we are as a people and who we want to be. I have, in a previous sitting of this House, looked at the US as a prime example where the many people from different lands who make up their citizenship, would proudly refer to themselves as Americans first before making mention of their ethnic origins. It would, therefore, be common to say that I am an American of Chinese origin, or that I am an American of Indian origin. Within their respective communities, I believe there is limited or little push to get every child to learn their own languages as a second language. Sure, there will be parents who will be pushing their children to learn their mother tongue as a way of preserving their heritage.”
“It would not be wrong to say that the generation of Singaporeans who grew up from the sixties onwards, for many of them, they are never completely at ease with Mandarin, neither are they completely competent in Standard English, both in written and spoken form. Indeed, for many Singaporeans, writing in the English Language without any significant form of grammatical error is indeed a challenge. I have a friend, a partner in an accounting firm, who was just complaining to me the other day about how appalled he was to find some accountants - trained university graduates - still struggling to write grammatically-sound reports and letters. Never mind the eloquence. For many, just standard expressions in standard English are a problem. No doubt, the average Singapore may be better in English than other non-native English speakers, but we are still some way away from the typical educated American and the British people in the handling of the language. Sir, we are talking here about Singaporeans whose first language is English, supposedly. What about Chinese? I do not have the figures, Sir, but I believe that after 10 years of both primary and secondary education, many Singaporeans will not have the ability or the confidence to write a letter or a report in Chinese. This is despite the fact that for many students, they would have had at least 10 years of second language education or would have scored at least a C6 in 'O' level examinations. I have observed over the years, that in any international forum or gathering where you have representatives from East Asia, the US and Europe, and if the occasion calls for impromptu speeches to be given, the average Singaporean would be rather tongue-tied.”
“In other words, the students at the age of six had to grapple with three languages instead of two, if one includes the vernacular language as well. When a child goes to school, he engages his teachers in English and Mandarin and, when he gets home, he talks to his parents and siblings in the vernacular language, be it Hokkien, Cantonese or Teochew. Sir, if we accept the proposition that the capacity of an average person to learn languages is limited, then for the poor kid going to school in those early days, learning a language was indeed a challenge. The child ended up learning languages, none of which he typically has any significant mastery of. Sure, he could end up with a basic level of competence to communicate with his parents and grandparents, and pass written examinations in both languages. I would, however, hesitate to say whether a child in that kind of an environment would have the ability to understand, appreciate and apply the idioms associated with the language or to play with the different nuances to bring out the full flavour of the language. The Chinese Language, in particular, is one such language where, if you were not able to use idioms and phonetics, you would be quite handicapped to put across your points as effectively and eloquently as the native speakers of the language. This inability to use the finer points of expression would also mean that for the majority of the population, there is a limitation in the ability to imbibe the full extent of the values and traditions that the language is supposed to convey. Unfortunately, Sir, for a whole generation of Singaporean children, the opportunity to have a better mastery of one language has passed.”
“And so it is that, at the threshold of our independence, we decided that we do not want to end up like the Calypso Caribbean society with its polyglot of people speaking a bastardised form of English, which is difficult to understand by those who are not native speakers. We also decided that, as a nation, Singapore would not be a melting pot of races and languages, but a multi-racial and multi-religious one. What it means, as we are aware, is that we decided that the various ethnic groups continue to maintain their cultural and religious boundaries while interacting with the others in the wider society. Such diversity of cultures, customs and religions allows Singapore to occupy its place as a cosmopolitan country that celebrates the rich differences of its peoples within the context of one nation. Out of this ambition, we decided that our children would have to learn two languages: English, being the language of administration, commerce and trade, and a mother tongue, being the language by which the cultural DNAs of the ethnic group may be passed on from one generation to the next. This approach has since been the cornerstone of our education policy since independence. Sir, we have heard how it is that with the language policy, the typical child and, in particular, the Chinese child, does not speak Mandarin as his mother tongue. Typically, the child going to school would use the vernacular language as his mother tongue. Many of my friends who went to school with me at that time could only speak Hokkien, Cantonese or Teochew when they first started. They were only beginning to learn Mandarin, and not to mention, English, for the first time when they walked through the portals of the school.”
“Sir, like the others before me, I support the motion. This is a development in our Chinese Language policy that has been a long time in coming, and I am glad that it is finally here. I speak as a Singaporean, born and bred in Singapore. While I recognise my Chinese heritage and my roots, I have no illusions about whether I want to be like the Chinese in China. What do I mean, Sir? I am a fourth-generation Chinese living in Singapore. Like many of my Singaporean friends, my forebears came to this part of the world in search of a better life for themselves and those at home. My great-grandfather came with no more than a shirt on his back. He made good and became a successful contractor at the tin mines. However, life was tough in those days. The driving force of the early pioneers were the memories of their families and the village they left behind in China, and the strong desire to want to be reunited with them. For them, it was clear that home was China, and they made sure that their children never forgot that. For this reason, the Chinese were constantly reminded of their heritage and their customs. Even to this day, the point of reference among some Chinese, especially among those from the same dialect group, is often the province and the village that their forebears came from. To keep memories of their ancestral home strong, it is imperative, therefore, that the language which is the vessel by which the values, customs and traditions, together with all its nuances, are carried be preserved as much as possible and be imbibed through the process of formal education.”
“While I accept that there areother schemes available to help the poor and needy in Singapore,but, as stated earlier, the objective of this is essentiallyto help small families that arein need, and the question that is posed to the Minister is whether or not the Government is prepared to exercise flexibility in administering this scheme. I know in a situation like this it is very difficult. There will be some who will be left out of the net and others who are cast in the net. But if the Government can provide the assurance that it is prepared to consider the marginal cases, I think it will go a long way in helping the smaller families in need.”
“Retrospective application of laws should be avoided where possible as it gives rise to much uncertainty within the legal landscape. Certainly, this Bill is no joy to the businesses and people who are affected as the Government has now placed a cloud of uncertainty on many of the common place agreements, not least of which are the joint venture agreements, pooling of resources agreements and mergers that essentially were meant to help local businesses take on regional competition. No doubt, lawyers like myself now will be having a field day busy reviewing many of these agreements. I am sure that for many, they will find an excuse to review contractual positions which are unfavourable at this moment in time. My concerns are that in applying this Act retrospectively, the Government may have unwittingly opened the Pandora's box and let the genies out for which they may have a hard time trying to put them back in. I would therefore urge the Government to tread carefully on its decision to apply this Act retrospectively. Subject to the above comments, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“It is conceivable that the Coca-Colas and the Nikes of the world may engage in restrictive trade practices or to be seen abusing their dominant market position to the detriment of consumers here in Singapore. Does it mean therefore that the Government will ban the promotion and sale of Coca-Cola and Nike products in response? Furthermore, the extra-territorial reach of the Bill does not effectively deal with trade wars at the international level. We all know that in a globalised economy, there is an increasing tension within respective countries from affected interest groups who clamour for more protection. Outsourcing of services is one clear example of how trade issues on a global scale are increasingly coming to a head in some countries. Can a pact by a group of IT companies in response to labour union pressures to stop outsourcing IT services to Singapore be seen as a matter which comes within the ambit of our competition law? Would the restriction of sale of certain goods overseas to meet local demand by a company in one country be seen as a breach of our laws if as a result of which such goods in Singapore cost much more? No doubt, these are issues which the Commission will have to decide, and even if the Commission were to decide, would have to determine how best to enforce. Fourthly, I note that the Bill also contemplates retrospective application. While it is fair that the Bill should apply retrospectively to any of the proscribed activities, it may perhaps be seen to be unduly harsh or unfair to the parties concerned, as such arrangements were perfectly legal and legitimate at the time when they were concluded, and this was a concern raised earlier by my colleague in this House.”
“They are neither economists nor financial experts who would readily comprehend the intricacies of the market place operations. Questions on the meaning of a word within the Bill on competition would require a thorough analysis on not only the plain import of the word, but also the impact that the decision would have against the wider economy and society. Are judges, therefore, technically trained to undertake such technical analysis and review? Of course, it may be said that to overcome this limitation, judges may have the services of an amicus curiae or Friend of the Court in coming to a decision. This does not, however, leave one with the ideal position of having the best qualified person for the job. To take an extreme example, this would be akin to having a lawyer undertake a surgical operation while being guided by a surgeon at the same time. Thirdly, the Competition Bill is rather unusual in having extra-territorial reach. Clause 33 provides inter alia that the Act shall apply even if any of the proscribed activity takes place outside of Singapore. Sir, I can understand that for the policy to be effective, the law must extend to activities beyond our borders. However, as the Minister would appreciate, such intent raises more issues than answers. For instance, how does one begin to take enforcement actions against parties who may not have a business presence in Singapore? Typically, in the nature of commerce, one does not have to have a business domiciled in Singapore to do business. Coca-Cola and Nike, which are international brand names, do not need to be present to set up shop here as they deal through their distributors.”
“More importantly, Sir, it could and should be parked in the judicial arm of Government, thus avoiding any suspicion of conflict of interest which the present approach seems to be saddled with. I do accept that a legislation of this nature should allow the Government some discretion to intervene in the name of national interest. However, while the necessity of such intervention is not denied, it does not mean that for the benefit of certainty in our laws, the Minister's discretion on such matters should not be fettered. Presently, there is some restraint in the Third Schedule in limiting such carve-outs to exceptional and compelling reasons. However, one would argue that such references are too vague and broad and do not give the full assurance that it may not be abused. It may be better to stick to more elaborate descriptions as to the grounds on which the Minister may exercise his power to carve out exceptions to clauses 34 and 47. Secondly, as a corollary of the point above, I note that the Bill allows a person to appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal on questions of law in respect of a decision of the Commission. The issue of questions of law will lie in the interpretation of provisions of the Bill. This would include phrases like "prevention, restriction or distortion of competition", or "abuse of a dominant position in any market". Indeed, as is the experience in the other countries, much guidance on competition law will have to be given by case law. This raises a fundamental question as to whether the courts are indeed best qualified to undertake such determinations. Judges are essentially lawyers who are trained in the analysis and application of the law.”
“Indeed, the framework of the present legislation on competition does not do much to allay any misgiving that one may have from an initial review of the Bill. Clauses 35 and 48 provide that the prohibitions in relation to anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position do not apply to matters specified in the Third Schedule. Generally, the Schedule allows the Minister the ability to exclude any agreement from the application of clause 34 which relates to anti-competitive agreements and also to exclude, in what I find is rather bizarre, some corporate behaviour from the application of clause 47 which relates to the abuse of dominant position. If Members were to refer to clause 47, examples of such abuse include predatory behaviour towards competitors; limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; and applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with the other trading partners, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage. I find it strange that this legislation on creating a more competitive environment should now deem it fit for the Minister to sanction what the rule has described as unacceptable and unfair behaviour. The Bill, if it is to inspire greater confidence in the competitive environment, Sir, could be strengthened further by removing or greatly minimising the ability of the Government to interfere in its decision making process. Rather than reconstituting a department of the Ministry to undertake the work, it could have perhaps set up a Tribunal of Experts as opposed to a commission to undertake the review process. A tribunal would presumably have a greater leeway in settling the procedures by which it is to decide.”
“For this reason, I support the timely introduction of the Competition Bill. Although the new legislation is a welcome instrument, there are, however, a number of concerns that I wish to raise before this House. First, I note that the Competition Commission of Singapore would be constituted as a statutory board, just like any other statutory body in Singapore. The Commission would be constituted in part by the Market Analysis Division, which is presently housed in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. It is an extension of a department of Government. This should not typically be a problem, except that there are inherent issues of perceived conflict of interest that should be dealt with. In the eyes of the public, the Government in forming the Commission plays the part of a gamekeeper. Yet, at the same time, the Government is also in business. It may on occasions be seen to be a poacher. This is evident in the extensive and deep engagements that our GLCs have within the Singapore economy. I am fairly certain that in the nature of things, the Commission would be asked to determine questions involving some agreements or business practices of our GLCs. When it happens, the Commission would no doubt be hard put to ensure that justice is not only done, but must be seen to be done. The Government may at times require a consolidation of strategic services and manufacturing operations to better position Singapore competitively in the world market. If such consolidations are challenged, the Commission would find itself in a rather invidious position of having to decide between the interest of the other businesses and the interest, even if indirect, of the Government.”
“Sir, I did not know that the Non-Constituency Member has taken politics to be a business. I thought the essence of politics is to allow people the right of choice. In the nature of democracy in any election, people do have a choice. And, if people so decide that this party continues to dominate the political scene, it is a demonstration of the free will and choice of the people. And that is the reason why we are in this House, term after term, election after election. Why do you question the people's choice? Perhaps it is with the same obstinacy of failing to understand that he raises these arguments. Sir, the contest of ideas between those who advocate free markets and those who argue for command economies was symbolically settled at the close of the last century with the collapse of the Berlin Wall - once the symbol and the bastion of communism - and with it, its attendant association with central planning and allocation of resources. Without a doubt, the free market has prevailed and, save for one country, in this world today, no country can openly deny that they have no aspirations in promoting an open and openly competitive economy; even if they still outwardly exist in form as communist regimes. Indeed, the free market as an ideology has prevailed. It, however, does not mean that there are no excesses associated with it. It would be folly to assume that competitive forces, the drivers of efficiency and productivity do not require regulatory oversight to prevent abuse and unfair practices. Predatory pricing, cartelling and outright muscling out of smaller competitors exemplify the sort of practices that are borne out of the excesses of the market place and for which regulations setting the rules must be introduced.”
“Sir, will the Minister please enlighten this House as to how the selection of prominent members to the board itself give the public the assurance that the Government will ensure maximum return on its investments when it is managing the public funds?”
“Coming back to the earlier response, is the Minister saying that the auntie who puts money into ostrich eggs is less deserving of protection in a regulated environment than a savvy stock market investor?”
“Sir, would the Minister not agree with me that the Government's regulatory principle has not been consistently applied in all manner of investments? For securities and funds, it is a highly regulated environment. There are prescribed rules that have to be observed, whereas if I were to sell ostrich eggs in Singapore, this is an area of investment which is quite unregulated and, therefore, investors who put money in ostrich eggs are more exposed than those who put money in funds. Or, for that matter, in property investments overseas which are promoted by agents. Would the Minister just highlight to us as to whether or not the Government intends to take a consistent approach in regulating this manner of investments?”
“Neither does the Police have statistics of Singaporeans caught abroad, if any. Substantiated cases of forced prostitution are very rare. In 2002 and 2003, there were 11 andseven reported cases of forced prostitution respectively but none was substantiated. Up till July this year,eight cases of forced prostitution were reported but onlytwo were substantiated. The agents, fromThailand and Sri Lanka, have been charged and convicted in Court. Our laws against trafficking in women are very strict. For example, if the woman was below 14 years old or was forced against her will, the client who had sex with her could be convicted of rape. The agent who brought her in for this purpose could also be convicted of abetting the rape, and liable to imprisonment for a term of between8and 20 years and caning of at least 12 strokes if convicted. The Penal Code criminalises the selling and buying of aperson below 21 years old for the purpose of prostitution. The penalty is an imprisonment term of up to 10 years, and a fine. The Penal Code also makes it an offence to assist in bringing intoSingaporeany women with the intent to sell her for prostitution. This is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine. The Women’s Charter also contains similar provisions on trafficking of women for prostitution and other related offences. In summary, trafficking of women for the purpose of prostitution is not rampant in Singapore. There is no need to enhance the already punitive punishments.”
“This is the message I want to reinforce today. TRAFFICKING OF WOMEN FOR THE SEX INDUSTRY 13. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the policy on handling sex workers who are trafficked in by sex agents, in that are they seen as offenders or victims; (b) how many Singaporeans, in the last two years, have been caught as agents trafficking in women for the sex industry both here and abroad; and (c) whether it is time to up the punitive measures against traffickers caught in Singapore. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs):There aretwo categories of sex workers. The first category which forms the preponderantmajority of the cases that come to Police’s attention, comprises those who voluntarily work as sex workers. They are neither victims nor offenders as prostitution per se is not an offence in Singapore. They will be prosecuted only if they contravene our laws or if there is sufficient evidence that they have solicited for sexual services in public. The other category comprises those who are forced or tricked into coming toSingapore to work as sex workers. The numbers in this category are very small. Since they are victims, they will not be prosecuted, unless they have committed some other offence. They will serve as prosecution witnesses against the agent who had brought them in. In the meantime, they are offered temporary shelter, psychological and emotional counselling as well as other forms of assistance. Since 2002, there have been onlysix substantiated cases of women forced or tricked into prostitution. Sir, as to the number of Singaporeans, in the last two years, who have been caught as agents trafficking in women for the sex industry both here and abroad, the answer is no Singaporean has been caught.”
“Sir, I do not understand the logic. If , in the course of funding these programmes, it will help to reduce the crime rate, wouldthat not be helping the work of the Police as well? We are asking the Government for support here. We are not asking for a total subsidy, but just to help the grassroots along. I understand that technology has advanced somewhat to a point where the cost of acquiring these CCTVs is not very expensive. Would the Government reconsider this? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in the spirit of collaboration, all partners and parties should be involved. So each party should be involved in a way that it is best able to contribute, for example, getting the town council, the CDC or the HDB, for example, in HDB car parks to try to chip in. I think it is a wonderful way to do it. As for the Police, as I have said, in fact, we have done a lot already, where they can contribute inparticular areas, such asexhibitions, talks andhaving joint patrols. So let us all work together. Otherwise, it will not be a case of Mr Sin Boon Ann rallying the other parties to come forward with a solution. It is because we said no in this House, so he said, "All right.You said no, I will do it together with the other parties." He has come up with this solution. And since Mr Sin has done it and it is working for him,I think it is wonderful. He is able to find the funds forit.$2,000-$3,000 per camera is not much.For Miss Low and other MPs who may be having this problem, it is an opportunity for us, as MPs on the ground, to rally and find the best solution that works. But, as I have said, while CCTVs can be one solution, I think in all these offences, the person who suffers the crime and other people who are in the area must play their primary role.”
“Sir, in my division, we have found the use of surveillance cameras to bea very effective deterrent against petty crimes. Very often, for our residents, raising funds to cover the cost and expense of installing such cameras can be quite onerous and I have, in the past, in this House, asked the Government for some sort of subsidy, together with the fund-raising efforts of the residents, to install more of such cameras, particularly in the crime-prone areas like car parks. And I am sure, with an approach like this, it will help to reduce and deterpotential criminals from vandalising cars parked at public car parks, andalso instead of widening the category of seizable offences, whichwas suggested in the earlier round ofquestions. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, certainly, having CCTVs installed will be one of the solutions but it cannot be the prime solution,otherwise we will have CCTVs in many places in Singapore. I am glad that Mr Sin Boon Ann has taken the initiative to install the CCTVs in his ward. I think he has managed to raise the funds by roundingup his residents, the town council chipped in andthe CDC also chipped in. It is an excellent example of a self-help approach which indeed we are encouraging on the ground. Police of course does its part, for example, by injecting funds to help residents carry out the CSSP activitieswhere the residents are involved. I think we should keep it at that. We should not use Police funds or Government funds to fund the hardware (CCTVs). Otherwise, everybody will be coming round to the Police and that may mean a dilution of available funds for what is the core of the matter, that is,community policing, which is working with the grassrootsin some of these activities.”
“Sir, while we welcome the setting up of the new coordinating agency, I think most Singaporeans will be keen to know what assurance can the DPM give to Singaporeans that the failings of the security agencies in the West, particularly in the United States, will not be repeated by this new coordinated agency.”
“So be it. In such situations, you will provide for flexibility. But until you are faced with such situations, in the normal run of things, I cannot see why you cannot specify the rank higher than a major to be the convening authority.”
“That being so, and since the convening authority is just a single person, why does the amendment Bill not just make it simple by specifying that the convening authority shall be the Chief of Defence Force rather than leaving it to just being a person of minimum rank of a major?”
“The Minister, in his earlier reply, said that to require the appointment of a convening authority to be a rank higher than a major would be too restrictive. I would like the Minister perhaps to explain what exactly he meant by his remark that this is too restrictive on the SAF to require higher appointment as the minimum qualification for deployment of a convening authority.”
“In its present form, a convening authority, who does not need to have a rank higher than a major, has complete powers under the Act to decide who gets to be judge, stay as a judge, or be removed as a judge of a court martial panel. What it does mean is that there is little in the present Bill that would serve as an institutional check against abuse by the convening authority. What is there, if the convening authority is so minded, that prevents the appointment to the panel, to be motivated by crony interest? How can the people be sure, other than out of pure faith and belief in the honesty and integrity of those involved, that a kangaroo court will not be set up or that those who serve the panel do so without fear or favour will be willy-nilly removed by those powerful officers higher up in the chain of command who are intent on covering up their misdeeds? Unfortunately, Sir, this Bill does not give us much assurance on this. This Bill therefore would depend very much on the integrity of those who administer it. I would support it only because it helps to make our system more efficient. And I would support because I do not believe that this Government would, or that it would allow those who work for it, abuse the powers that it enjoys under the Act. Sir, that does not mean that future generations of those entrusted with such powers will not abuse it. I would urge the Government to consider strengthening the process to reinforce the public's confidence in the process.”
“Sir, one may well ask: what is this fuss all about? The issue here is one of susceptibility to influence. There is little or no guideline within the Act or the Bill as to how a convening authority is to discharge his duty in appointing members to the court martial panel. Should he be allowed to appoint his friends? Should anyone, especially those in the senior military command, be allowed to have a say or even influence the choice of panel members? Sir, the truth of the matter, unfortunately, is that the lower you are in rank, the greater is the likelihood of you coming under such pressure not to exercise independent judgment, whether consciously or otherwise. While I am not suggesting that the convening authority, if he was a major, would allow his independent judgment to be influenced by his seniors, I would suggest that the confidence of the public would be a lot stronger if the minimum rank for appointing the convening authority was raised much higher instead. Secondly, while the Bill proposes to establish a permanent panel of members from which members of a court martial may be chosen, there is nothing unlike a civilian appointment which suggests security of tenure arising from the appointment. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out a new section 80A which provides the power of appointment to the convening authority to appoint any number of panel members as he shall determine. The term of appointment of the panel member shall be for such period of time as he shall determine. Also, the convening authority may at any time revoke the appointment of any panel member. Sir, on the face of it, it is clear that the court martial panel member does not enjoy any security of tenure in his appointment. This is clearly in sharp contrast to the civilian appointment of Judges.”
“It is only when a perception exists that the whole process is seen to be fair, that we find a greater willingness on the part of the accused to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court. After all, this is the process by which any demorcracy would set itself apart from any banana republic. And so it is that when we look at this Bill, we ask ourselves these same questions, as these are just as relevant in our assessment. First, the Bill, unlike the present Act, reposes the power to appoint and constitute members of a court martial in a single person who becomes the convening authority of the general court martial. For the purposes of the Act, the convening authority does not have to be a person whose rank is higher than a major. The minimum rank required to qualify for the appointment of convening authority is a legacy from the present Act. When the Act was first drafted in the sixties, a major was of a relatively senior rank as there were not that many to begin with. Today, it is often said that almost every other officer in the SAF is a major. Unlike before, the SAF today has grown in size and, as a consequence, and with my utmost respect to the officers involved, a major in the SAF would not be considered to be a senior appointment. Given the relatively junior rank required to qualify as a convening authority, it would not appear to be appropriate that such a legacy should remain. Even in the civilian context, the power and authority to appoint a High Court judge lies with the President of the Republic. What we have here is a situation where the law now allows the power of judicial appointment to be in the hands of someone whose rank is perhaps no more than a senior officer in the civil service. Is this satisfactory?”