Steve Chia Kiah Hong
Singapore
“A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election.”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the m…”
“Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?”
“The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?”
“Active political recruitment has been going on inside and outside the RC and PA s organisation and premises. Although grassroots leaders are under no compulsion to join the PAP and can opt out if they want to, Straits Times' Forum writer, Ms Yee, had correctly pointed out that "joining a grassroots organisation seems to be a sure way for…”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Steve Chia Kiah Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 46, to leave out lines 13, 14 and 15 and insert - "47. The principal Act is amended - (a) by deleting the words "or 43S" in the following provisions and substituting in each case the words ", 43S, 43T or 43U":". (2) In page 46, after line 18, to insert - "(b) immediately after the full-stop of sections 74(1), 93(2) and 93A(1), the following words: "Notwithstanding sections 10(17), 13A(8), 13B(8), 13E(10), 13H(16), 14B(10), 14M(23), 16(10), 37E(8) and 37F(9), the period shall be within 3 years after the expiration thereof with respect to income from trade, business, profession or vocation if gross receipts from such trade, business, profession or vocation in the calendar year preceding the year of assessment did not exceed $100,000 and with respect to all other sources of income if such income in the calendar year preceding the year of assessment did not exceed $100,000.".". Sir, the reasons for the amendments are as outlined in my earlier speech on clause 47. Amendments negatived. Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Amendment of section 67 Section 67(1) of the principal Act is amended - (a) by deleting the number "7" in paragraph (a) and substituting the number "6"; and (b) by inserting, immediately after the words "authorised in that behalf by the Comptroller" in paragraph (a), the words ", except that the period shall be 3 years from the year of assessment if the gross receipts from such trade, business, profession or vocation in the preceding calendar year did not exceed $100,000".". - [Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang]. Brought up, and read the First time. Question accordingly negatived. New Clause accordingly disagreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 24, line 23 and in page 28, line 30, to leave out "7", and insert "6". Sir, the reasons for the amendment are as outlined in my earlier speech on clause 26. Amendment negatived. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 27 to 46 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 -”
“The amendment to clause 26 aligns the provisions of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill with the existing subsections: 10(17), 13A(8), 13B(8), 13E(10), 13H(16, 14B(10), 14M(23), 16(10), 74(1), 93(2), and 93A(1), all of which set a limit of six years, and not seven years - for any additional requirement by the IRAS. This amendment is to make the new amendments consistent with the existing legislation (Cap. 163). The proposed amendments to clause 47 and the addition of the new clause 'Amendment of Section 67' seek to reduce record-keeping to three years for small businesses - defined as those having gross receipts not exceeding S$100,000 - and for taxpayers with non-business income not exceeding S$100,000. This S$100,000 limit has been set by IRAS as qualification for the simplified two-line statement of business income. This amendment will also limit the record-keeping requirement for all other taxpayers to six years, as per the Limitation Act (Cap. 163). The proposed amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment) Act are being raised now as Parliament seeks to deliberate on the various other amendments to the Income Tax Act. This proposed relief may also give us a leg up on New Zealand, in terms of business friendliness. So we hope the Minister, and fellow Parliamentarians, will seek to support the proposed amendments.”
“It is now time to pass some of these accrued benefits back to taxpayers by lightening up their load and also cost in record keeping. Surely, by now, IRAS need not force taxpayers to dig back eight years into their archives to retrieve those archaic records. Anyway, Sir, we have also fallen behind other developed countries. Australia now requires record to be kept for five years after submission. The UK requirement is six years for limited companies, and five years for other companies. The US requirement ranges from three to seven years, depending on the nature of the records. This record keeping requirement of the Income Tax Act also exceeds requirement under our Limitation Act, which specifies a six-year limit for actions in contract and tort. With various laws specifying different requirements, the hapless taxpayer ends up abiding by the most burdensome requirement. Thus, the proposed amendments in clause 1, clause 26 and clause 47 and the new clause, seek to reduce the burden of record-keeping for all taxpayers, and especially to individuals and small businesses. They will also support the Government's initiative to simplify policies, procedures and practices for citizens. It will also serve to increase our attractiveness to entrepreneurship with our less cumbersome rules. Finally, it will also serve to bring our business record-keeping requirements closer to those of other advanced countries, as mentioned earlier. The amendment to clause 1 makes a consequential amendment arising from the proposed amendments as detailed in the Order Paper Supplement.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 31, to leave out "and 48", and insert ", 42, 48(b) and 49. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise the amendment on behalf of NMP, Prof. Ivan Png, who is currently on Parliamentary assignment to Geneva to attend the IPU conference. Thank you, Sir, also for allowing me to take all the three amendments in one speech. I am not an expert in the details, but I generally agree with the principle brought up by Prof. Ivan Png as outlined in his brief to me. So I gladly take on this assignment on his request to raise this amendment on his behalf. Sir, a recent World Bank study rated Singapore as the second most business-friendly country in the world, behind New Zealand. We should now do our best to maintain, and even improve on our attractiveness to these businesses. One obvious and important way existing now - as we debate on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill - is that we seek to cut down the weight of record-keeping for income taxpayers to a lesser burden by reducing the required number of years. The current Act requires us taxpayers to keep 'sufficient records for a period of seven years from the year of assessment'. As the year of assessment is the year following the actual year of income and expenses, the Act in actual fact requires that all records be kept for up to at least eight years straight. It is quite a burden to keep a lot of records for so many years and, therefore, it is onerous on the taxpayer. It is time to shorten this burden, especially considering that IRAS now receives information on salaries, dividends, profits, tax returns and many others electronically and online. This extensive computerisation of tax submission, processing and analysis have actually substantially speeded up IRAS work and helped reduce its workforce.”
“Last question. Has the school reached its enrolment capacity or is it still under utilised at this point of time?”
“Some supplementary questions, Sir. Out of the six students, three have recovered, the other three are still in the intensive care. So far, has any student dropped out of the Sports School because of injury? That is my first question. The second question is: as the school is performing well, why is there a drop in its enrolment this year? The third question is: what is the school's enrolment target for 2006 and is it able to reach that target? The fourth question is: why did the school open up enrolment for non-citizens? The fifth question is: has the school reached ---”
“Sir, I would like to clarify with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is it during the election period per se that foreigners are not allowed to talk about local politics?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I clarify with the Minister about his statement that we, the Opposition, would politicise it? Is he implying that he does not trust the people's elected choice but rather choose to trust in his party's cadre member who is supposedly appointed as the grassroots advisor to manage the fund, rather than the Member elected by the people?”
“I really hope that the Government will clearly reassure all of us that all elected MPs will be authorised to issue out of this ComCare Fund. Otherwise, I find it difficult to fully give our hearts to support this Bill. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 6.12 pm Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. COMMUNITY CARE ENDOWMENT FUND BILL Debate resumed.”
“This is important so that Singaporeans will feel more valued by the Government and cherish their citizenship even more. As it is, citizen workers are already feeling that their wages have been squeezed out by the huge supply of foreigners - talented or not - working in Singapore. There is already this negative feeling that Singaporean workers are considered third class citizens. So, let us not make it worse by ranking Singaporeans with the same help and privilege as a Permanent Resident. There must be a distinction of help and privilege given between the two. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if the level of financial help to be offered for PRs and their families will be at a markedly lower level than a true blue Singapore citizen. This distinction will also help encourage more PRs to give serious consideration to the Singapore citizenship. Next, Sir, I want to talk about my major concern. Sir, who are the people who will be authorised to give out money to help the weak and the needy citizens from this Fund? Do all elected MPs qualify? Will all MPs be authorised to make use of this Fund for their residents? Or will this ComCare Fund be politicised by the PAP Government such that only PAP cadre members, who are the grassroots advisers, will be allowed to dip into this Fund? Apparently, PAP candidates in Opposition constituencies, acting as their grassroots advisers, are given unfair political mileage when they have access to this Fund that the elected MPs do not have access to. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my serious complaint is that this great caring initiative will again be politicised such that the Opposition MPs (and their constituents) are excluded from participating.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this Bill. Sir, I wanted very much to support this Bill. It is very good of the Government to set up an endowment fund to help care for the weak and needy - the poor, the sickly and the unemployed - in our society. This is an important initiative of the Government, and another opportunity for the rich and successful people in our society to reach out and help the less well-off in our midst. If we - as a society - do not stretch our hand to help the weak and the poor, who can they then rely on to help? If the Government does not make an effort to take care of the down and out in our society, then it speaks very badly of our Government and our society. But now that we are a developed first world society on our third stage of economic progress, it is high time we put in more resources to care and help the weak and the less fortunate in our midst, whether in the form of welfare, workfare or ComCare. So, in this respect, I want to speak in support of this ComCare Fund. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have one question and another major concern that I hope the Minister will help address. Please reassure us so that we can give our hearts to fully support this caring initiative. First, the question. Sir, this ComCare Fund was set up for the purpose of providing assistance to citizens and the Permanent Residents of Singapore and their family members living in Singapore. I am surprised that this ComCare Fund is extended to Permanent Residents and their families too. I have spoken out in previous parliamentary sittings that citizenship must have its privileges. There must be a distinction in terms of privilege and help to be given to our citizens and the Permanent Residents.”
“Sir, as the Minister correctly pointed out, prices go up but, apparently, it does not seem to be coming down. Is there some kind of a cartel operation amongst the oil companies that are working in Singapore in this direction?”
“Sir, what is the Government planning to do to help alleviate this rising cost of petrol, especially for transport companies, taxi operators and the commuters who are really affected by it? The other question is: since crude prices have actually dropped a bit after the Katrina storm, why is it that the petrol pump prices have not dropped?”
“Sir, can I just clarify with the Minister of State, once the assistance for centre-based childcare has been more or less organised, the Government will look into how it can actually subsidise home-based childcare?”
“Sir, I am asking whether the Government will consider extending the subsidy to home-based infant care.”
“Will the assistance and grant given under this centre-based financial scheme for childcare actually be extended to home-based infant and childcare provided by grandparents or even private care nannies?”
“Lastly, Sir, I believe there is one big insight that we and all Singaporeans can learn from this saga, ie, that every one of us needs to constantly demand greater transparency and accountability from the private and public institutions, be it the NKF, NCSS, ComChest, the Tsunami Fund, the Town Councils, GLCs, even Temasek Holdings and the Government Investment Corporation. The management should also learn to be more forthcoming with greater transparency, public disclosures and accountability, if they want continued public support.”
“Why was the public not informed of this privatisation process? As a private limited company, are they allowed to ask for charity donation dollars from the public and are there any more other charities registering themselves as private limited companies here? Second, will the charity fund-raising law be tightened to ensure that, for those institutions that raise much money from the public, especially with the help of the mass media and their artistes, will more be demanded of them, ie, will a greater level of transparency and accountability for the funds raised be asked of them, including the salaries of their top management? Third, what is the Minister's philosophy on charity fund-raising? Should charity institutions be allowed to keep raising funds and as much as they like, despite having more than enough money to cover their operating expenses for "x" number of years, say, five, seven or maybe 10 years? Will there be a limit? Should the law be amended to place a cap on how much a charitable institution can continue to raise funds if its existing funds can last their operations for, say, five years? I believe this practice is already well practised in the US since their biggest charity fraud case in 1992. Fourth, I hope the Minister can also clarify if it is the Government's thinking that a CEO's salary should be pegged to the amount of money a public institution has in its reserves, ie, the more they have in their reserves, the more the CEO and/or the management team should be paid. Is this the Government's thinking? This is in relation to the issue of paying peanuts for top management.”
“Sir, I do not know, but is there a possibility of fraud or violations of our laws with regard to the NKF? I hope the investigative agencies will do a very thorough investigation and a full report presented to Parliament as soon as possible. Sir, I am not proposing fraud or corruption here. I am pressing hard for a full inquiry on the NKF and their past dealings and practices now because, like many Singaporeans out there, we believe that the truth is somewhere out there. The public needs to know the truth, nothing but the whole truth, whatever the truth is, whether there is fraud or there is no fraud. If there is no fraud, we have to give a certain clarification back to Mr T T Durai. We need to know all these, so that there is proper closure and every one, ie, the donors, helpers, volunteers, including the new management of NKF under the leadership of Mr Gerard Ee, can move on with the good work of caring for the sick. Sir, I am not trying to destroy NKF with the speech here. I do not believe in destroying any established charitable institution that is doing good work for the sick and needy. What I press for, and as what the Minister had also earlier agreed, is greater transparency and accountability. This is to provide closure and to regain the public's trust in the NKF. No one, no matter how good, hardworking or how much he or she had contributed to our society or to the needy, is above the law. If there are legal violations, they should be dealt with by due process of law. But let us, citizens, not take the law into our own hands with vandalism and such. Finally, Sir, I have four nagging questions which I hope the Minister and the Government can help to answer and address. First, why is NKF allowed to be registered as a private limited company here?”
“However, if you include the public relations, education, administration and salary expenses, we realise that the non-clinical-related expenses are actually $37.5 million. This is 55% of the donations received and that means, for every $1 that the NKF raised or received, 24.3 cents go to the fund-raising exercise, 30.6 cents go to the public relations, education, administration and salaries, 34.6 cents go to the NKF reserves and, I repeat, only 10.5 cents go directly to subsidise the patients. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only 10.5% of each dollar raised goes to help these needy patients. More than 50% of the money goes to non-clinical expenses that do not help the patients. Like what Dr Wang said earlier, the NKF model is highly inefficient and, to some extent, I would say, unethical. They are highly successful in their marketing campaign, but clearly unethical in the way they market for charity donations. As we all now know, they lied about patient figures. The amount of subsidy money used and the extent the funds will last the existing operations of NKF, their pre-occupied concerns seem to be fund-raising, fund-raising and more fund-raising - raise as much funds for the NKF as the public stays ignorant. Telling the truth to the donating public is not important and totally irrelevant, it seems. Transparency and public accountability seem to be out of the vocabulary of the past CEO. I do not know, but he seems to have learnt it somewhere in Singapore. Everything can be hidden in the name of personal privacy and the bigger national agenda, and entitlements can be constantly extended and maximised with a compliant and supportive board, as the fund-raisings go up. It seems that greed had taken root in the NKF leadership.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I also thank the Minister for Health for allowing us to speak in this debate today. Like all Singaporeans, I am troubled to read of what the former NKF's CEO had been forced to admit in court. Sir, what troubles me and many other Singaporeans is not that Mr T T Durai is earning $600,000 salary a year. It is that he is earning this very high salary and 10 months' bonuses from the charity donation money without informing the public donors about it. If NKF and its CEO had been transparent about the CEO's pay and the other expenses, then the donating public would know who and how the money is being used, and there will be no anger as we had seen in the last week. Sir, it is this betrayal of trust of the public. The public had trusted the NKF management to be honourable in their dealings. They had implicit trust that the money they had donated was being put to good use, by subsidising and helping the kidney patients. Singaporeans, young and old, healthy and sick, are constantly encouraged, urged and, to some extent, pestered to donate their limited hard-earned money to the NKF to help the needy kidney patients, and they have done so, not knowing how the donated money is to be spent. Some members of the public had worked out the NKF figures and emailed me. In the 2003 NKF Report, NKF had spent $31.6 million on dialysis and transplantations but collected back $24.4 million from its patients, thus spending only $7.2 million on subsidising the patients. Yet, it collected $68.2 million in donations with a fund-raising expense of $16.6 million. Sir, this worked out to a cost of 24.3 cents per $1 raised, which is within the charity fund-raising law.”
“Sir, the announced measures are generally agreed by all Members in the House to be positive for the market and, as what Dr Magad said, it is a no-brainer. Sir, we also know that the stock market has actually gone up a lot over the last few months and, in particular, this morning before the announcement. My question is whether there is a leak in the policy planning team resulting in insider trading. Will the relevant Ministry or MAS do an investigation on the equity trades done before this announcement?”
“Sir, if I may ask the Deputy Prime Minister, with our tight border control and security checks at the border, how do we expect that the smugglers or terrorists can actually manage to smuggle the bombs into Singapore when security is so tight?”
“Sir, is it the policy or intention of the Government to permit more foreign workers to come to work in Singapore so as to help fill these manpower needs? And if that is so, will our Singaporean workers be disadvantaged in this policy process?”
“Sir, I believe the key issues are basically jobs, jobs and good jobs. So, basically, I would like to ask the Government and the Ministry what they are doing to increase the number of good paying jobs available to Singaporeans.”
“Sir, I just want to clarify with the Minister. The 30% increase in the fuel oil price in the last quarter has caused this 14% increase in the electricity tariff. Does it mean that as the price of fuel oil goes up and is expected to go up further that we could expect another tariff hike in the October-December period? If so, what is the Government doing to mitigate this expected increase in the tariff in future?”
“Sir, a point of clarification concerning clause 7. If the only concern of the Government is fraud, then I believe we have sufficient checks in our laws to deal with cases of fraud and for that particular candidate to be dealt with according to the law. Why does the Government need to make it so difficult or troublesome for the candidates to get the proposer, seconder and assentors to be physically present, that they have to take leave and waste earning their income for that whole process? Could we not have other checks in place to deal with it, if the only concern is fraud, which I do not think it is?”
“Sir, I just want to have a point of clarification in my speech. I mentioned wrongly that the election deposit is $12,000. I just want to correct it as $13,000.”
“If it is out of ignorance, I do hope that this amendment will be immediately amended to make it non-mandatory. But if it is out of genuine intention to create fear among concerned citizens wanting to support their constituencies for a genuine electoral contest, then I will say it bluntly that this action is most despicable of the governing party. I really hope that they will reflect on this and remove this amended clause. Allow the proposer, seconder and assentors the option to sign the nomination paper in the privacy of their homes and no need to take urgent leave from work on the nomination day to be physically present at the nomination centre, if they so choose. Leave the proposer, seconder and the assentors this important option. Sir, to conclude, as Minister Wong Kan Seng said previously in this House and I quote, "It is not the duty of the Government to grow the Opposition," I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate and remind the Government that it is also not the duty of the Government nor in its interest to wipe out the non-governing parties too. For Singapore to come out stronger in the next lap of our journey, the governing and non-governing parties must all work together for the interest of Singapore in a fair and democratic manner. Go beyond party politics and focus on the concerns of a fair and democratic society. Sir, overall, the proposed amendments in all the other sections are good, and I support them. But I have to reject the amendments to this Bill because of the proposed clause 7 affecting section 29(2). It is my and every Singaporean's hope that every Minister and MP will not just walk into Parliament without a political contest and retire from political service as a virgin Minister too, without any experience of a political contest.”
“Like Mr Chiam before me, I read with concern that the Bill is amended such that the candidate must submit his nomination papers "accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors" in person at the nomination centre. Sir, this amendment will greatly inconvenience the non-incumbent candidate's proposer, seconder and his four assentors. Already, it is tough for non-governing parties to find candidates to contest in an election. For those people who are interested to contest as an Opposition candidate, it is even tougher still for them as somebody new to politics to find residents living in that constituency willing to put their names down as proposer, seconder and assentors for the Opposition candidates that are challenging the PAP incumbent. Sir, there is great fear in putting one's name down for anything not PAP - talk about putting one's name to support a challenger to the PAP! Now, the Government wants to make it even tougher for the non-PAP candidates by requiring that the proposer, seconder and assentors must be physically present on nomindation day at the nomination centre between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon. It is akin to asking these concerned citizens to be physically identified by the PAP and its grassroots activities in that constituency for target practice. There are only a few garang and brave souls willing to do that. And chances are that a non-incumbent new candidate asked by the Opposition will not know who they are or where they are from. Sir, why is the PAP Government doing this? Either it is out of ignorance, which I do not think so, or they know full well the power of creating fear in their opponents or those who wish to have opponents.”
“By crowding itself in super-sized GRCs, the Government is giving the public an impression that its Ministers and MPs are afraid of a genuine contest. They hide behind the size in numbers, knowing full well that their position and strength are secured by the weakness of the Opposition to contest in any kind of large GRC. Again, if the Prime Minister's word of a more "open and inclusive" society is to be believed, then he will do well to heed the public's aspiration - to give them more chances to cast their votes in a General Election. By making 50% of the 84 parliamentary seats back to single constituencies, the Government will effectively and immediately give 50% of the population the chance to express their wishes in an election. Sir, please do not allow the Government or its Ministers to blame the Opposition, to blame us for our failure to field candidates to fight the elections. Until the Opposition in Singapore is given a genuine opportunity to establish itself as a viable, credible alternative political institution, all this blame-laying is just an excuse for the governing party to retain its power and control - at the expense of a genuine democracy. Fourth, again, to be a genuine open democracy with free and fair competition, the Government needs to put this Parliamentary Elections Act under the jurisdiction of an Independent Elections Commission. I have talked much about it previously. I do not want to belabour it. But I just want the Government to seriously consider it again for the greater benefit of our society. Lastly, Sir, I refer to clause 7 of the amendment to section 29.”
“Since then, it has escalated to our current $12,000. Sir, this $12,000 deposit is peanuts for an elected incumbent MP - which is just one month of his MP's allowance, but it is a big hefty sum for any non-incumbent candidate to fork out for his interest to stand as an election candidate. After forking out this large amount of $12,000 as a deposit, there is not much cash left for the candidate to run an effective electoral campaign for the purpose of the election. Unless it is the governing party's hidden agenda to limit the number and ability of its competitors to run an effective campaign, I hope the Government will amend this Bill to reduce the size of the election deposit to half or less than half a month of an MP's allowance, instead of a full month as is the current practice. This act will immediately help to inspire more citizens who want to serve the country (through a non-governing party, ie, a non-PAP party) to consider taking up the duty of being a competitor to an incumbent PAP MP, so as to better serve the interest of the people in that constituency. Third, I like to talk about giving more citizens the chance to exercise their voting rights as a citizen in an election. Sir, it is a fact that the Opposition in Singapore is very weak, and almost to the point of non-existent. I know, Sir, because I am from the Opposition. Unless it is the governing party's desire to wipe out its able competitors, and only allowing for a semblance to exist - for its public showcase - I think the Government can do a lot by introducing back more single-member constituencies and smaller-sized GRCs. In the 1997 and 2001 General Elections, nine out of nine single-member constituencies were contested, making it a 100% contest. But this is not the case for the GRCs.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, every time the Parliamentary Elections Bill comes up for reading, the media and everyone politically interested will start speculating that the General Election is round the corner. I will then receive lots of calls from the journalists or the public asking when is the likely date for the upcoming General Election. It is as if the media and the public assume that I have privileged information as to the date of the election. Alas, this is not the case. I can only speculate, like everyone else, as to what is the likely date, month or year that our Prime Minister sets forth or sees as the most favourable date to his party's advantage. Sir, if the date of the Presidential elections can be fixed as a full five-year term - so as to give clarity and certainty for its citizens - why then is our Government so reluctant to fix the date of any GE, at least way in advance? Is it because the incumbent Government wants to "bao jia", ie, to have its cake and eat it too? I hope this message helps to remind our Government that if they genuinely want to have a more genuine "open and inclusive" society, then it should learn to play fairly with its worthy opponents. Respect is earned, not demanded. To be respected as a fair and equitable Government, having the people's trust and mandate, the governing party needs to earn it in a fair fight with its contenders and competitors. So, I hope the Government will make it mandatory in the Parliamentary Elections Bill to have at least four months' notice before a General Election is being called. Next, I like to talk about the election deposit. Election deposit of $500 was fixed for each candidate for 24 years from 1948 till 1972.”
“Sir, can the Minister also clarify if the prevalence of the 1900 chatlines is also causing more harm to our children and youths in our society, especially considering that there are many sexual predators prowling these chatlines too soliciting for sex with the youths and minors? Should this service also not actually be closed down or at least come under closer police supervision too?”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts how can the Infocomm Development Authority police Internet chat rooms to pick out those who use it as a platform to abuse young children.”
“My question is, as I explained earlier, why is there this hesitation of the Government to institute this law? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We enforce tough laws. Many of the domestic laws are tough laws, but they are enforced. I think we should not mix the two. Here, we are talking about laws that have extra-territorial jurisdiction and the difficulties in enforcing these laws because they require the cooperation of other agencies, for example, to gather evidence, and, in the first place, you have to detect what is happening. When you go and gather evidence, there will be problems working with the agencies there and you may have problem in securing a conviction back home because of the rules of evidence that require standards of proof and other considerations. I think Mr Chia should not mix up the two. This is a very narrow situation of whether we should have more laws with extra-territorial jurisdiction. As the Government, we have been very careful in enacting such laws. SEX PREDATORS ABUSING THE INTERNET TO VICTIMISE THE YOUNG 10. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts how can the Government protect young children from falling prey to offers for sex as was reported in the Straits Times article "Teen sex for sale" on 25th April 2005, of girls below 16 years of age offering their services. 11. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if Internet laws can be strengthened to impose stiffer penalties on those who openly solicit for sex on the Internet from under-aged youths. 12.”
“Sir, the Government has never been afraid of instituting tough laws, or laws that are very difficult to be implemented in the past. So I felt a certain hestitation of the Government in instituting a law that has extra-territorial jurisdiction. It seems that it is not very keen in putting up this law to send a statement out to the international community that sex with minors is not okay in Singapore. It seems that the Government does not care if he is out of the country. It is projecting that kind of image.”
“Sir, as what our Backbencher Mr Sin has said, how long does the Government want to monitor and monitor? Until it actually puts a public statement saying that it does not condone such practices of its citizens, do we not want to have a public statement saying that we do not condone such action by instituting a law against it? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So far as the Government is concerned, the statement is very clear that, having sex with minors, including statutory rape, the laws in Singapore - the Penal Code, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Women's Charter - are very, very strict. That is very clear. Here, it is not a question of whether the Government makes a stand. Our stand on sex with minors in Singapore is very clear. The question is whether we should have such a law which would be difficult to enforce and whether discouraging such an act should be put just before the Government, or should other agencies do more. Here, it is a perfect case for other agencies to also send a signal because the perpetrators are possibly amongst us. I think this is an evolving picture because the countries in the region are also putting more attention to it. For example, the plight of these young victims overseas will be highlighted and, hopefully, this will also help create the psychological barrier or disincentive for Singaporeans to carry on doing this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a point of clarification from the Prime Minister or from the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports. Is the $100 levy charged per entry into the casino or per 24 hours? Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: It will be $100 per day.”
“Clarification, Sir. Does that mean that, for me, or any person who is an addicted gambler who has run into big financial problem because of gambling, he cannot go for treatment in this case because he cannot afford to pay the money for the treatment, or that the family members will have to pay the money for him to get treated?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of clarification. The Minister did not answer my question regarding the counselling services provided by FSCs and medical treatment provided by IMH for problem addicted gamblers. Would it be free?”
“Yes, provided my two questions are addressed.”
“Sir, very briefly. The Member asked for my answer whether or not I support the casino. If the hon. Member Arthur Fong can answer my two questions: (1) Will the Government promise to cut taxes and/or increase social expenditure? (2) Are we putting this whole debate to a vote? If he answers these two questions, I will tell him what is my position on the casino. Regarding the distribution of rice, I just want to say that it is not that it is not enough ---”
“I have four points of clarification that were addressed to me.”
“Whether we personally agree or not to the idea, it is time to move forward. The Government can really do a lot more to alleviate the fears and anxieties of the socially concerned by putting more money and resources to address these social concerns. We must always be prepared and willing to explore other helpful ideas and initiatives that seek to preserve the work ethos of our society. More importantly, Sir, there is no room for complacency and sitting on our laurels, like the Government had done in the thriving 90s. Profits can go up, revenues must go up, but cost and asset enhancement schemes must never be allowed to escalate out of hand in our new economic environment. Do not overplay the political agenda at the expense of our economic prosperity.”
“Will there be no other bigger and better integrated casino resorts sprouting up around Asia in the not-too-distant future? I do not think so. As Minister Mentor had said yesterday, whatever Singapore does, many other countries will follow. If we do not, they may not. But, if we do, they will do. Our intention to get into this vice trade will serve to persuade our neighbours to do likewise. Otherwise, how can they catch up? So, if the competition gets too intense and our casino project becomes less viable, and the Singapore society becomes more acceptable to the ills of gambling, will future Government then relax its social restrictions on Singaporeans to go there for a punt? If China - our main tourist target group - gets into problem or imposes travel restrictions for its citizens to get into the casino here, then what is the Government going to do about it? Allow Singaporeans easier access too? When the two casinos are operating, what will happen to NTUC, SAFRA and all the country clubs' gaming machines and their jackpot rooms? They will not have enough profits to sustain their operation. Will they also ask and demand for the roulette and baccarat tables too? Lastly, are there any more creative wholesome ideas being considered for the future growth of Singapore, after the casino? How about having a world-class F1 racing circuit to bring in the tourists too? Or a Jurassic Park? In short, Sir, start thinking and exploring the next big exciting project for Singapore now before we get complacent again and get caught in the next big economic downturn with our pants down - like now. Tourism market share drops from 23% to 13% from 1993 to 2002. Whose fault is that? To conclude, Sir, the controversial decision has been made. Plans are now under way to call for tenders.”
“It must increase its social expenditure and greatly subsidise the essential services - like healthcare and transport, just to name a few - from the rise in the GDP and revenue collections expected. As I said in the Committee of Supply debate, the Government must also look into relaxing the tax burden on the people and business further. The additional economic push and revenue collected from the casino resort and tourist receipts must not be reasons for the Government to increase its budget on the other Ministries and salaries. For that matter, Ministers and senior civil servants should be penalised for becoming complacent in the booming years of the early 90s, and failing to introduce key initiatives that will help promote tourism competitiveness to Singapore. We have grown complacent and ignored the importance of the tourist industry until high unemployment sets in, and the carpet is pulled from under our feet. Where is the helicopter vision that is so often touted of our Ministers? Now that it is going ahead with the casino IR project, the Government should allow and encourage an investment fund to be set up by interested Singaporeans to co-invest a substantial stake in this casino project. We should not let the big foreign players have 100% ownership of this casino project. As the Chinese saying goes: "fei shui bo liu wai ren tian". It is important that part of the profits of the venture be earned by Singaporeans. As we all know, Singapore is the ATM of the East. So, why should it all go to the foreign investors when raising cash for viable investments is never a problem in our affluent Singapore? Lastly, now that there is an additional vice coming to Singapore, what is next? Where do we go from here?”
“This means that we should expect more people jumping off buildings or onto on-coming MRT trains to commit suicides. Yet, the Government still refuses to put up glass barriers at open platform MRT tracks to prevent all these possible suicides, citing cost. The Government seems prepared to sacrifice some citizens in pursuit of its economic objectives, but not bear the cost of installing these physical and costly safeguards. I hereby demand that a lot more resources be channelled to social service providers - those that provide counselling and suicide prevention services. Social workers are the worst paid lot among the professionals. This is most regrettable. The Government must increase its compensation structure to attract and retain good qualified social workers, just like how it increased the allowance of MPs to attract more people to come into politics. These social work professionals provide an important essential counselling service to help our society, especially so after the casino is being set up, because there is going to be increased demand for its service. So, we need to pay good price to attract these professionals to come in to provide these essential services. Also, I propose a compensation fund to be set up to compensate and care for the dependent family members of gambling victims. The dependants of gambling victims, especially if it is a gambling suicide case, cannot be left to fend for themselves after their primary care providers fall into addiction and/or crime. Next, the Government must also compensate Singaporeans and Singapore society from the accrued economic benefits gained from the casino resort - for the expected rise in crime and social ills.”
“But, Sir, I also know that the Government has no legal and moral rights to introduce temptation for other innocent people to fall into these addictions - be it gambling or drugs. Flee from temptation. Nobody can fight temptation. Teach a cat not to be tempted by a fish, or a drug addict not to be tempted by the substance in front of him? It is not possible. You are addicted, you would want to. But since the Government has decided to officially sanction gambling in the IR proposal, I want to ask the Government: how will public education, counselling and support services, medical treatment, research and the setting up of a National Council on Gambling ever help to prevent weak-willed people from getting addicted to gambling in the first place? These are helps given to people after they have become addicted, not before. It will not help to prevent people from falling into addiction, or suffering financial loss due to a game of chance. And if addicted persons go for gambling treatment and counselling - and they are always financially strapped severely - will it be totally and completely free? The Government and its service providers have no legal or moral right to charge even one cent for the rehabilitative services provided by the IMH or the counselling service providers. This is because the problems of addiction are a direct consequence of the temptation endorsed by the Government. Also, will the future Government be sued in the distant future for bringing in the temptation in the first place? As for suicides, it greatly troubled me that the Government knows full well that the suicide figures will shoot up after the casino is set up and it will level off after a few years.”