Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, I would like your ruling whether I am entitled to a right of reply as the mover of the original Motion.”
“When would that be? It should be before the vote.”
“Mr Speaker, a point of order. Am I not given the right of reply?”
“Mr Speaker, may we ask for our dissent to be recorded?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for Minister on what he has just said. The first clarification concerns his response to my suggestion on the recording of statements in languages other than English. He mentioned that while he does not think that that can be done, of course, he also said that I think the gold standard was video recording. But I would also like to highlight that, in the UK, actually, they do have provision in their Police and Criminal Evidence Act that when an accused person wants to give a cautioned statement in a language other than English, that the police will record the statement in that language and later on an English translation will be provided. I wanted to highlight that other countries have done it. So, I hope that he will not close his mind to the matter. And if this could be done – that means, recording the text of the statement in a language other than English – I think that would greatly increase reliability. That is the first clarification. The second clarification is what he mentioned in response to my point on the victims. The two cases which I have mentioned, of course, I am not expecting the Government to comment on the merits of the cases. My reason for bringing them up is to highlight that no reasons were given to the victims for the decisions made and, more generally, to advocate for greater recognition in the Singapore system of the role of victims as stakeholders. And based on these two cases – and there are many others as well – it is clear that victims do feel disempowered and I think we can do better to recognise their role as stakeholders in the system.”
“It is about plugging gaps to give everyone the confidence that the system will work for everyone, from CEO to the poor and disadvantaged. Singapore regularly aims for excellence in its endeavours. We should aim for an excellent justice system too, one that works for everyone, regardless of means or social status. In this spirit, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Sir. So, Sir, what is the Workers' Party calling for? Let me reiterate the two-pronged approach we hope will be feasible to tackle the issues with we are raising in this debate. In the areas that are within the Government's sole jurisdiction, the Government should objectively assess whether there is validity in our concerns and suggestions and, if so, take action. From my speech, these low-hanging fruit include composition fines, real reform, various law enforcement practices, such as statement-recording and training and the position of crime victims. There are other areas which are more complex and touch on constitutional matters. From my speech, these more complex methods include whether the equal protection of the law under the Constitution is in practice being afforded to the poor and whether there are institutional cultures or subcultures that inadvertently discriminate between the rich and poor. For such issues, we suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge. The Commission should include members with expertise in criminology or sociology and strong personal experience working with the poor. Other matters to be reviewed by the Government or by the Constitutional Commission will be elaborated on by my other Party colleagues. Sir, let me conclude. Mr Speaker, all of us in this House have come across cases of residents struggling with life. We have seen how legal troubles can derail families who do not have the resources to withstand such trials and tribulations. Today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts. Far from it. It is about a desire to raise the system to the next level.”
“Sir, I have concluded the third key point of my speech. My colleagues will cover other areas relating to the Courts, the Attorney-General's Chambers, access to justice, complaint mechanisms and why enhancements to justice are in the national interest.”
“This would have meant that the driver must have violated some traffic signal. The incident was reported to the Police and she and her family assisted in investigations. Today, she continues to suffer from the incident not just physically but by having flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder. After investigations were concluded, she was shocked to receive a letter from the Police telling her that the driver had been charged with careless driving. The family was also told that he had been fined $2,000 and suspended from driving for a few months. Her husband saw me and asked why the charge was so light and what they could do about it. In a separate case, a lady contacted me to share her experience when she reported an offence of rape. She said that she decided to report it after much pain as she had spent some weeks dealing with the trauma of the incident as well as having an abortion. After Police investigations, she received a curt letter stating that the Police had consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers and decided that no further action would be taken and the case would be closed. She felt shattered that the system had failed her. When she wrote to me recently, she mentioned that no reason had been given to her for closing the case and put this question, "Am I not allowed to ask?" Sir, we accept that the state has to take charge of criminal cases to ensure consistency and fairness to accused persons. However, the system would not be able to function if victims do not come forward to assist in criminal cases. We need to remember that crime victims deserve justice and deserve to be treated with respect. We should review our justice system from the crime victims' perspective and see how it can be improved using the UN's Declaration as a guide.”
“Thirty-five years ago, in 1985, the United Nations General Assembly issued a Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. In the Declaration, governments were urged to ensure that crime victims were informed of their role and the progress of their cases, that their views be considered at appropriate stages of the case, that they overall be treated fairly and that there be appropriate mechanisms for them to obtain compensation in criminal cases. Countries such as the UK, New Zealand and Australia have legislation protecting the rights of victims as they go through the criminal justice system. Japan is an active contributor to the field of victimology. To be fair, there has been some limited progress in Singapore in justice for crime victims. For many years, the Police have presented victim impact statements in Court to enable judges to hear from victims before sentence is passed on offenders. However, I believe this is limited to a small category of offences such as sexual crimes. Our laws have also been amended to require judges to consider making compensation orders at the sentencing stage, recognising that the victims may have suffered loss and expense. However, I believe more needs to be done to give crime victims confidence that they will be fairly treated by the system. When victims report cases to agencies, they need to incur time, expense and emotional stress, but they report, expecting that somehow, justice will come out of it. Unfortunately, some were shocked and disappointed at how their cases ended up. Let me cite two recent examples I came across. In one case, a resident was knocked down by a car while crossing the road at a junction with the green man sign in her favour.”
“The Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC may be consulted from time to time during an investigation, as the Minister described earlier. The AGC is thus an important check on investigation standards. In cases where the prosecution's case collapses or is found wanting, it would not be fair to place blame exclusively on the law enforcement agencies. As far as Ms Parti Liyani's case is concerned, I hope that the police investigator does not become a convenient scape-goat to pin all the case's shortcomings on. That brings me to the end of my second point concerning law enforcement agencies. Now, let me move to my third area – justice for crime victims. This was not an issue in Ms Parti Liyani's case. Nevertheless, the issue of justice for crime victims should be highlighted in any review of the system as crime victims are stakeholders that tend to be sidelined. Let me explain. I have spoken on the issue of justice for crime victims in this House over the years, so let me briefly recap. Though one of the aims of criminal justice is to pursue justice for victims, the reality is that crime victims have no say in how criminal cases are conducted. Criminal prosecutions are decided by the public prosecutor or PP, who is the AG. Thus, for instance, the PP will decide which charge to prefer against the offender and may even decide not to press charges at all. There is nothing the victim can do to stop that. Victims may even suffer damage by the criminal justice process, such as if they are disbelieved by law enforcement or subject to ridicule by lawyers during cross-examination in Court. This additional damage inflicted by the system on victims is called secondary victimisation. Sir, the international community has increasingly recognised that crime victims have rights and needs.”
“When asked why they signed the statements, they said they were unable to check the statements and wanted to complete the stressful process as soon as possible. Lawyers sometimes see statements with contents that contradict each other. Sir, statements from suspects must be 100% accurate since a confession alone is enough to convict a person under our law, even if there is no other evidence. When statements are challenged in Court, public time and expenses are incurred. To save time and expense at the trial, law enforcement agencies should facilitate the recording of statements in the suspect's language of choice. In other words, the text of their statement should be written in the person's first language. I appreciate that this will involve more administrative effort but the statements will be more reliable. At the very least, I suggest that the recording of statements should be facilitated in our other official languages of Malay, Chinese and Tamil. In addition, the use of video recording or audio recording of statements should be expanded to more cases than the current practice of using them for serious sexual crime only and other limited cases. Such recordings would significantly strengthen the process. Third, law enforcement training. It would be useful to know how much attention is paid to training officers in the skills required to be fair and seen to be fair. To be an agency accepted by persons of all cultures and socio-economic classes, law enforcement officers need to understand multi-culturalism and guard against inadvertent discrimination. Are officers sensitised to ensure that they are seen to treat the rich and poor equally? The final point I would make on law enforcement is on the oversight of law enforcement investigations.”
“I wonder, however, whether persons who have actually experienced the law enforcement process have been surveyed. It would be useful to know the satisfaction levels of crime victims, witnesses and suspects. The Minister has shared the findings on the Police investigations into the Parti Liyani case, together with MHA's initial assessment of what needs to be done. I have some further suggestions on what could be done to raise the bar at law enforcement agencies. First, decisions on charges. I hope that law enforcement agencies do not have a culture of preferring the most serious possible charge against accused persons to leave room for plea bargaining. If the accused person is unrepresented, there may well be no bargaining. This will increase the chances that unrepresented accused will receive harsh outcomes. From my past experience, I also observed that some officers believe that showing moderation in the selection of charges might open them up to allegations of corruption. If such defensive behaviour exists today, it will lead to injustice. It must be strongly discouraged. Second, recording of the accused's statements. As Ms Parti Liyani's case illustrates, problems can arise with interpretation of statements recorded in English. In the past few years, I have come across Chinese-educated residents facing police investigations. They told me that they did not have the competence to check the accuracy of statements recorded in English and had to rely on what the interpreter told them while trying to focus under very stressful circumstances. When I read their statements and asked them about the incriminating parts, they claimed that they did not utter those words.”
“For composition fines, the options can be kept simple. For example, a maximum of three instalments with further action if default occurs. Such instalment payments will help poorer families cope and prevent cases from snowballing into bigger Court fines, defaults and warrants of arrest. Next, pre-trial release and bail. I earlier touched on the difficulties of the poor in raising money bail. We need to understand the issue in more depth. I mentioned that the Government had given answers in the Parliament that it does not collate statistics on the proportion of persons offered bail who do get bailed out. There is a need to regularly collate and publish such statistics, and I ask the Government to do so. In addition, there is already provision to release a person on his own bond. Could this provision be used more often? If a personal bond is deemed inadequate, alternatives to money bail should be actively considered. Some of the non-monetary methods could include requiring the accused to maintain employment, abide by restrictions on personal associations, residence or travel, to report regularly to a designated agency, comply with a curfew and so on. To get the Police and the Courts to consider such options, the Government could consider amending the Criminal Procedure Code to explicitly require consideration of such non-monetary conditions. That brings me to the end of my first point on the plight of the poor. Let me move to my second point – concerns relating to law enforcement agencies. In Singapore, whenever questions about criminal justice are raised, public surveys are cited about the high public confidence in law enforcement agencies. These are encouraging.”
“More importantly, what signal is being sent about institutional attitudes? Why did the Police not ask nearby homeowners to voluntarily give blood samples too? Just imagine if that had been done. The disadvantage of the poor has to be juxtaposed with the formidable powers of the state. Law enforcement agencies are given wide powers of investigation. The defence does not have similar powers to seize evidence or to compel statements from witnesses. In recent judgments, the Court of Appeal has recognised the disadvantages faced by the defence. If we are not careful, the system could become oppressive for the poor and disadvantaged. My other colleagues will elaborate further. Sir, please let me now make a few suggestions on redressing some of the pain points faced by the poor. First, on composition fines. For less serious offences, paying a composition fine enables the offender to settle the matter quickly out of Court. If the composition fine is not paid by a deadline, the offender faces a higher penalty in Court. Lately, I have noticed that some agencies have started issuing composition notices with two deadlines – one offering the usual composition amount and a second deadline offering a composition amount that is higher by about $20. This gives a second chance for composition before sending the case to Court. Some agencies now allow the offender to apply online to extend the payment deadline. All these are good moves which we support. Nevertheless, with composition fines going up, it would be ideal if the agencies could consider allowing instalment payments of fines. Such instalments can be automatically tracked. The State Courts already has a successful auto-tracking system for instalment payment of Court fines, with AXS kiosks showing the due dates for instalments.”
“But this is not so for those who have insufficient means to pay and have to attend Court. The entire household can be derailed by such problems. Still on the issue of bail, I filed a Parliamentary Question in 2008 on the Bail Court. A Bail Court had been established in 2007 with the aim of achieving consistency in bail decisions and, where possible, to reduce bail amounts, reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications were dealt with expeditiously. One year on, I asked what outcomes had been achieved. In his reply in 2008, the Minister said that the Bail Court had reduced or varied the terms of bail in 30% of the cases referred to it. Today, it seems that the Bail Court is not heard of. Has it been discontinued and if so, why? It also appears from past Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament, including myself, that statistics on bail are not readily tracked by the Government. If poorer Singaporeans face significant hurdles, work permit holders such as Ms Parti Liyani face even more. Work permits can be cancelled any time at the discretion of employers or MOM. This puts tremendous pressure on work permit holders to cooperate with the authorities and their employers even when unreasonable and legally questionable demands are made. For instance, in 2008, the Police investigated a case of sexual assault on a University student at Clementi Woods Park. In a questionable exercise of power, blood samples were taken from 200 foreign workers at nearby construction sites. When I filed the Parliamentary Question on the legal basis for such action, the Minister stated that it was permitted because, "the workers had voluntarily given their consent." I assumed the workers might have signed consent forms but what is the quality of that consent?”
“Engaging counsel requires resources. There is some legal aid available, provided you satisfy a test of means and qualify for the schemes. Another major concern is, how does one remain free while the case is pending? On this issue of pre-trial liberty, there has been some research done in Singapore. In a 2005 study by an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, she found that in 2004, out of all accused persons offered bail by the Subordinate Courts, only 42.7% were bailed out. In other words, the majority of persons considered suitable for release before trial remained locked up. Ms Parti Liyani was fortunate that the NGO Home helped her find a bailor, but many accused persons cannot find bailors of sufficient means. If one is incarcerated, there is disruption to family income and education, and decreased job prospects. There is stigmatisation. The whole household is affected. It is also much harder to consult with any lawyer or witness to prepare one's defence. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Police and the Courts can release a suspect either on bail or on his personal bond, that is, on his own promise to attend Court. The majority of suspects are offered money bail and need to find a bailor. The law states that the amount of bail should be "fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case as sufficient to secure the attendance of the person arrested or charged". The heavy reliance on money bail has disproportionate effects on the poor. I have come across residents living in HDB rental flats who had bail set at above $10,000 for numerous charges of non-violent, regulatory offences like parking and ERP violations. This may sound surprising, as many of us consider such offence notices as easily settled through prompt payment of composition fines.”
“Because of their lack of legal knowledge, some of them inadvertently irritate judges because they say things which are not legally relevant or come across as disrespectful or even under-dressed. Let me now touch on what I see are structural impediments facing the poor. In 2007, I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ about the demographic profile of the prison inmate population. Although MHA declined to give certain information, it did provide the educational profile of the prison population when compared with the general population. It showed that in 2006, the percentage of the general population having Secondary education or less was 61%, but this was the profile of nearly 90% of the prison population. Conversely, the higher educated with more than Secondary education made up nearly 40% of the general population, but only 10% of the prison population. As those with less education tend to have lower incomes, one can conclude that the proportion of poorer persons in prison is higher than in the general population. It is widely acknowledged that the poor tend to be over-represented in criminal cases globally. So, this phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. But why is it that the poor have more difficulties with the criminal law? First, the poor are more likely to fall foul of the law because of their circumstances. As the French poet Anatole France famously put it in 1894, and I quote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread". I am not saying that the law was purposely enacted to favour the rich but the law does have unintended discriminatory effects on the poor. Second, when someone is faced with an investigation, there are economic hurdles.”
“Our criminal justice system inherited from the British is adversarial. It involves a contest between competing parties with the judge playing a relatively passive role of evaluating whether each side has satisfied its respective burdens of proof. This is unlike certain justice systems in Europe where judges play an active inquisitorial role and direct parties to investigate before judgments are made. Our adversarial system requires battle and resources count. As a law student in the 1980s, I did empirical research on our system. I sat at the public gallery of the busiest Court handling crash criminal cases. The presiding judge handled several hundred cases valiantly with just a minute or two to decide on questions such as whether to grant bail and what amount of bail to set; whether to permit detention of the suspect for investigations and so on. Given the marketplace vibe of the Court, it would be easy to forget that each case involved the rights of persons enshrined in the Constitution. In the cases where the suspect had a lawyer, the Court was given more information to make its decision. Where the accused was unrepresented, the Court only had the Prosecution's arguments to go on, as the suspect often said nothing. Today, we still see unrepresented accused persons in front of judges, facing a prosecutor who is state-funded and with deep resources. It is unclear what proportion of persons go through the criminal justice system unrepresented. These unrepresented persons do not know what to do when prosecutors submit bundles of legal authorities to persuade judges to convict or to fix a sentence.”
“Mr Speaker, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth, but to emphasise that there are many aspects in assessing a justice system. We do not take Singapore's achievements for granted. Singapore is a safe place to raise children and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that. There are also many public-spirited professionals working in law enforcement, prosecutions and the Courts who take their mission seriously. Over recent years, the Government has also taken some progressive steps in the right direction. These include introducing a statutory framework for disclosure of evidence before trial and enabling video recording of suspect statements in certain situations. By filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not saying that the system is broken or ineffective, but we believe we should strive to do even better. There is room for improvement in any system. We believe that more attention should be paid to certain shortcomings in fairness, access and independence which need to be addressed. In this debate, several Workers' Party's MPs will speak. We will cover the plight of the poor and disadvantaged and offer suggestions on how fairness and access to justice could be improved. We will review the role, culture and practices of law enforcement agencies, the Courts and the Attorney-General's Chambers. We will examine whether there are any gaps in seeking recourse when things have gone wrong. We will also argue that enhancing the system in these areas is in the broader national interest. Sir, for my part, I will speak on three main areas. First, the plight of the poor in obtaining justice; second, concerns relating to law enforcement agencies; and, third, justice for crime victims. First, the plight of the poor in getting justice.”
“The Government has often cited Singapore's high international rankings of our justice system and, indeed, we agree that it has significant strengths. In the 2020 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore ranks 12 out of 128 countries. The Minister emphasised Singapore's rankings earlier. While the overall ranking over the eight factors assessed is commendable, we should note that Singapore is not ranked so well in a few factors and sub-factors. For instance, on the important factor of constraints on Government powers, Singapore scores have fallen every year from 2015 to 2020. Singapore is below average as well in two sub-factors here. Singapore was found to be below average in having effective checks by non-government entities such as media and civil society, and below average in having effective checks by Parliament. Under the factor of open government, the Rule of Law Index ranks Singapore 28 out of 37 high-income countries on the question of whether there are effective complaint mechanisms for citizens. Singapore is also below average on civic participation which includes the protection of the freedoms of opinion and expression, assembly and association. On the factor of criminal justice, the Singapore system has done very well in sub-factors such as the effectiveness of criminal investigation and being free of corruption. These are certainly vital. However, on the critical sub-factor of whether the criminal system is free of improper government influence, the Singapore system is ranked poorly among high-income countries at 30th out of 37th and globally at 47th. The picture for Singapore is thus more mixed than the overall ranking suggests.”
“Before I go further, I should declare for the record that I am a lawyer at the firm that has been appointed to represent Ms Parti Liyani in her complaint against the Prosecutors under Legal Profession Act. That said, I am not personally involved in handling the matter. Furthermore, the Workers' Party is mindful that the disciplinary proceedings are pending. We will, therefore, not be touching on the conduct of the DPPs especially with regard to the DVD player. Before I get to the issues with our justice system, let me set the context. Ms Parti Liyani's case has attracted significant public reaction and we need to ask why. Is it because Singaporeans enjoy the spectacle of powerful people being taken down, or are we energised by the triumph of a domestic worker against the odds? Captivating as these themes are, the Workers' Party is more concerned about the issues that the case represents. How far does our system of justice put everyone on equal footing, whether CEO or domestic worker? Have there been domestic helpers, work permit holders and even poorer Singaporeans who believed that they were innocent but have pled guilty to charges because they did not know their rights or could not afford to fight their cases? If we are being honest, we should not ask whether there have been such persons but rather how many there have been. The critical question that Ms Parti Liyani's case has raised is this: how do persons who are disadvantaged navigate the justice system? This is a critical question to ask, as Article 12 of the Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That this House affirms that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system and calls on the Government to recognise and remedy its shortcomings in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of means or social status, including facilitating a review of the justice system." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms He Ting Ru. (proc text)] Sir, the Workers' Party has filed this Motion in order to be assured of Parliament time to contribute to this important debate on justice. Though this Motion was triggered by Ms Parti Liyani's case, our contributions will not be limited to issues from that case, but will include broader issues surrounding the justice system. We urge the Government to recognise that the current system, despite its strengths, does have shortcomings which need attention. We call on the Government to take a two-pronged approach. The first prong would be to tackle the low-hanging fruit. In our opinion, some of the shortcomings can be addressed by the Executive Government directly, if it is willing to do so. The second prong will be to commission an external review of the more complex matters concerning our justice system. These other matters involve other Organs of State and touch on constitutional matters. On these matters, we offer our perspective for consideration and suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission led by a Supreme Court Judge. My speech and those of other Workers' Party's Members of Parliament or MPs will cover issues on both the low-hanging fruit as well as the more complex matters.”
“Speaker, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, Part 1 of his speech went through rather quickly and we were all trying to follow without the Annexes. So, I think it is important for him to clarify, at the risk of repeating himself, what exactly he is saying about the High Court judgment. The sense I am getting is that he is saying that if the High Court had known certain other information at the time, the High Court might have come to different conclusions. Is that what he is saying? The second clarification is regarding the lapses in the Police investigation which he spoke about earlier. He mentioned that the five-week lapse from the time that the case was reported, to the time that the Police actually attended the scene and also the failure to seize the evidence. He said that there was some internal review done and the officer had said that he was very busy at the time and also he had some personal matter to attend to. However, I believe that during the trial, he actually gave a different reason and his reason was that he did not want to re-victimise the Liew family. Speaking as a former Police officer, I find this is quite unusual in a theft case that an officer would consider this issue of re-victimisation. And of course, I accept the fact that LML did not exert pressure on the officers, but I am just wondering whether it crossed the Minister's mind that the officer himself may have felt that he was dealing with somebody who was very prominent and therefore he needed to take extra care. This is something that strikes me.”
“Under the proposed changes to section 19M contained in this Bill, subsection 8 specifically enables the Registrar to reject an application if the application is incomplete or otherwise non-compliant, meaning if it is far later than the prescribed time or somehow does not conform to the manner specified. Currently, the prescribed time for filing an application for assessment is 10 days after the landlord receives a notice of cash grant. Sir, given the newness of the scheme, I hope the Registrar will be accommodating of applications which may be filed out of time or perhaps not contain all the supporting documents the Registrar requires at the first instance. Coming back to the example I gave, the resident had to wait a few days to see me, and in fact had only been recently discharged from a hospital. Her family was also more conversant in Chinese and found going through the requirements novel and onerous. The application needed to be filed via SingPass to the Singapore Land Authority as the managing agency. Such steps are not so straightforward for some small landlords and probably some tenants as well. Sir, the avenue for assessment is a crucial one to redress any injustice between the landlord and tenant caused by the COVID-19 legislative interventions. As such, it is important that the process be user-friendly and that information be easily available in the four major languages. Furthermore, the Registrar should be open to accepting applications for assessments that may be slightly out of time or incomplete, so as not to exclude meritorious applications.”
“Deputy Speaker, in the past few months the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act imposed on landlords the obligation to pass on property tax rebates and waive rentals to benefit tenants who are SMEs. These measures rewrote the tenancy agreements they had entered causing income disruption to landlords. These interventions were meant to support business tenants and help them pull through the circuit breaker which disrupted their businesses. Sir, I had an opportunity recently to interface with the rental relief scheme as a resident who was a small landlord saw me. In August, IRAS had sent her a notification of cash grant and rental waivers informing her of the grant she was to receive and the fact that she was to provide four months of rental waivers to her tenant. This lady was in her 90s and in an extremely poor health, who moved out of a landed house to receive rental income to repay a family debt and to fund her daily expenses and medical costs. As the family found that the rental waivers required were too much for them to bear, they came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session for assistance. I advised them that she should apply for an assessment on account of financial hardship. If successful, she would only need to provide half of what was initially required that is two months rental waiver. To that end, clause 8 of this Bill updates section 19M on applying for an assessment. Section 19M requires the landlord to apply to the Registrar of Assessors within the prescribed time and in the prescribed form in manner. This assessment would determine, among other things, whether a landlord was entitled to a reduction of the additional rental relief.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would be happy to make this the last point. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Janil for sharing his efforts in promoting inter-racial unity. But of course, one of the questions which I have and is part of my suggestion, is that currently, the self-help groups are a Government-sanctioned network that makes monthly deductions from Singaporeans on a race basis. And this is something that I think deserves a second look.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think in my speech I made a suggestion that we might look into whether the self-help groups should be amalgamated into a national body. I did not say that this is the answer, but this is something which I think should be in the discussion. And at the end of whole national exercise, the consensus is, "No, we should not do it", I will respect that but I think we need to have a starting point for discussion.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I have said the spirit of my speech is to call for an open conversation on whether the self-help groups should remain distinct as they are different entities. Even if they collaborate, the question is whether it would be something that society wants to move on about, to have these, all the work done under a national body, in that sense. I can share with the House as well. I think the Minister is a bit older than me, but it does not matter. The fact is that there are many people in my generation, as I had mentioned in my speech, who grew up during Mr Rajaratnam's time. Our distinct memory was quite different from the reality that I sensed today. In fact, many of my contemporaries wrote to me thereafter to say that they are very uncomfortable with the self-help groups as they are. So, I respect that there may be different views on this, as I have said. But I think it is important for us to have a conversation, and as the President said, in a spirit mutual respect and being open to the possibility that things may not be static.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I respect Minister Iswaran's experience and that is his perspective from having worked in SINDA before as the CEO. His question is whether I am positing that society be better off be better off without the self-help groups. First of all, in my speech, I had acknowledged the good work done by the self-help groups, especially for the under-privileged and children in particular. But the question, of course, is whether similar outcomes or even better outcomes can be achieved with an amalgamation. This is something I am calling for an open conversation about. I am not trying to be prescriptive to say that the answer is to amalgamate. But it was put forward as a suggestion from me as something that could be discussed in the national exercise and that was the spirit of my speech.”
“I thank the Minister. Certainly, I would be most keen to take feedback from all groups available. But I certainly hope, in the same vein and more importantly, that the Government will also have a sensing with Singaporeans, and particularly the younger generation, whether this is the model that they want to continue forever.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. First, let me say that I appreciate where Minister Maliki is coming from. In fact, we are of the same age. So, I think we do understand each other to a large extent. To clarify, he earlier mentioned that we should approach society's future with boldness. And certainly, I think all of us celebrate the ethnic diversity. I do not think any of us is pretending that we are ethnically uniform or that there are no racial differences. But I wanted to ask him whether, for the community expertise that he mentioned that is in the self-help groups, is it not possible to bring everybody under one national umbrella so that we do not lose that expertise in that sense? At the same time, with such a national body, there will be the advantage of pooling of national resources from the whole population that will be contributing to this pool. And it will also have the additional uplifting effect for some that they are actually contributing to a race-blind fund. I wanted to ask whether he thinks that this discussion can be opened, and I think will be interesting to find out whether Singaporeans prefer to contribute monthly to a race-blind fund or to contribute monthly to a community-based fund.”
“One final clarification for the Minister. I think if there were to be different competing priorities, may I ask that the Government look at the EIP as it is implemented now. I think there are many cases where families have lost out economically significantly, due to the quotas being reached. As I said, I believe that this policy needs to be adjusted if it is not abolished. Otherwise, I believe the consequences are very serious on many families who, since I have made that speech, have written to me with their own experiences of the policy affecting them and the price differentials in the sale of flats was even higher than what I had encountered before I made this speech.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to make some clarifications and also seek some clarifications from the Minister for MCCY. First, to clarify my own speech, which he referred to. Certainly, I do not take our multiracialism for granted. In fact, in my speech, I did acknowledge that it is a difficult task that the Government has to foster a Singapore identity in a heterogeneous population and I do not take anything away from the Government's concerns. I think I did say that in my speech. But at the same time, I think my point was that we should not keep talking ourselves down or be held back by the past. I think the Minister himself acknowledges this fact when he says that we are a Singapore Tapestry, we are not ossified. There is a fabric of hope, he mentioned. So, would he not agree with me then that to keep this Tapestry alive, really, we have to refresh our conversations from time to time about such matters. We cannot be ossified by the past. About the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), we all know the avowed purposes of it. But I think he will also agree and probably has come across cases where there is economic hardship caused to minority families due to the nature of the limitations placed on them when they try to sell their flats. My concern is that if the unfairness is not addressed, the resentment might fester and in fact it might become quite a dangerous problem. I wonder what the Minister has to say about that. Last of all, perhaps, for now, I hope that the Government is not saying that its mind is closed on these matters because if they want to engage across generations who may have different aspirations, then we all need to keep an open mind and from time to time, we have to be prepared to look at things without being held back.”
“I have spoken about Singapore’s continuing journey towards the destination of a race-blind society. I have also suggested a national exercise to review how this can be taken forward, with specific areas that could be reviewed. When will Singaporeans be ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Many would argue that we already are. Is a race-blind Singapore a fantasy? Singaporeans have already risen above tribal instincts on many occasions. We can go further, with the right policies and signalling at the official level. 1.18 pm”
“To this end, I suggest we take the time to have a wide national conversation about how we can move forward on race issues. Way back in 1967, the then-Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin chaired a constitutional commission on minority rights. The time is ripe for us to have a national exercise to study what progress has been made by society since then towards multiracialism and what further steps may be taken to move towards being a more race-blind society. Sir, I am agnostic about the exact form of the review I am asking for. We should include academics with relevant expertise and also ensure there is fair representation of citizens across different age groups. The scope of the review should involve a wide collective reflection of where society is today on multiracialism, and what steps we can take towards this journey of being race-blind. As for the scope of such a review, I can suggest that the following be considered: one, the relevance of existing ethnic classifications such as CMIO; two, the scope for more public disclosure of race-based data; three, how not to reinforce tribal instincts in public policies and surveys; four, whether the current self-help groups should be amalgamated within a unifying national body to pool national resources on a race-blind basis; five, whether multiracialism in elections should be preserved under the current framework or can less intrusive methods be used; and six, whether HDB’s Ethnic Integration Policy should be retained and if so, how it can be modified for fairness. Sir, by naming these areas, it is not my intention to be prescriptive or exhaustive, but we must start talking about these matters to move our racial discourse forward. Please let me make some concluding observations.”
“When the quotas are reached, residents from minority communities can only buy or sell HDB flats from someone in the same community. For sellers, this can significantly reduce the numbers of offers available. It can also affect the transaction price by as much as $100,000 in one case I came across. Such a price differential could make all the difference to a family in financial need. Being stuck due to the ethnic quota can leave residents in limbo for months. I know HDB has allowed appeals on a case-by-case basis. But the default is that the quotas apply. As the EIP was introduced only in 1989, it is useful to look at HDB estates where families moved in prior to 1989 when there was no EIP. For instance, areas like Bedok have clusters where the Malay population exceeded the EIP quotas. We should note that there did not appear to be extraordinary tensions or disorder there. It does appear to me that some relaxation of the EIP is possible. Fourteen years ago when the Workers' Party suggested removing the EIP, it was met with a robust response from the ruling party. The suggestion was labelled "a time bomb". We are also aware that some Singaporeans did not agree with our suggestion. Today, half a generation later, I hope we can have a more progressive discussion on the issue. While the Government's position is that the EIP was instituted for a noble purpose, its effect in particular cases has been discriminatory and needs to be addressed. Sir, matters of race are no doubt sensitive issues that must be carefully handled. I do not pretend to have the answers that we need. However, what I am convinced of is that our discourse about issues of race has to go forward.”
“To qualify for parliamentary elections, a minority candidate has to file an application to a committee to determine if the candidate is Malay enough or Indian enough. Indeed, the committee may come back to ask for evidence to be satisfied that the candidate meets the "kosher" test. I always wondered how I would fair if one day, I had to pass a test of Chinese-ness. Being brought up in an English-speaking family and attending a mission school, I find myself constantly feeling inadequate about the state of my Mandarin. Before I entered politics, my knowledge of Chinese customs and practices was focused on celebrating Chinese New Year. I am not proud of my limitations. But being classified as part of the majority Chinese population, I am not required to prove who I am to stand in the GE. But it is not so for minorities. Sir, we all value that our Parliament has cultural diversity and that political parties do not campaign along racial lines. Indeed, there are penal laws against sedition and exciting disaffection between different communities. Whether having a multiracial Parliament needs to be maintained through the existing laws on minority candidates or whether there are other ways to ensure candidates of diverse backgrounds are fielded can be an area for review. Next, HDB Ethnic Integration Policy or EIP. The EIP was introduced in 1989, "to ensure a balanced mix of ethnic groups in HDB estates and to prevent the formation of racial enclaves". There is no such requirement for private estate such as landed houses and condominiums. After 30 years of EIP, how well is it working? From the Parliamentary Questions filed by MPs from both sides of the House, it is clear that the EIP has caused economic hardship over the years.”
“No explanation was given. Sir, society at large should have an interest in whether those serving jail sentences are a microcosm of society or whether certain ethnicities are disproportionately being imprisoned. Why people land in jail is often related to the state of their lives such as whether they have stable income and family relationships. Such serious matters deserve wider study by persons outside the Government such as researchers. There should be public awareness of any challenges faced by particular communities and a whole-of-society approach should be encouraged. We should strive to foster a national culture where every Singaporean is a stakeholder in the lives of fellow citizens. Next, elections along ethnic lines. Since 1988, the Government decided to run parliamentary elections with requirements for GRC teams to field candidates from designated minority communities. Constitutional amendments in the last term of Parliament have introduced an ethnic requirement for presidential elections, based on a hiatus-triggered mechanism. As stated by the constitutional commission in 2016, there should ideally be no need for safeguards to ensure that candidates from different ethnic groups are elected into presidential office. This would be ideal for parliamentary elections as well, when we are so race-blind that candidates of different ethnicities are elected naturally. These issues have been debated in the past with arguments for and against ethnic requirements. However, that does not mean that these issues should remain as they are over time and forever. Such requirements tend to focus on minority representation which can put an uncomfortable spotlight on minority candidates.”
“Furthermore, with more and more inter-ethnic marriages, where the bride and groom are themselves are of mixed parentage, I wonder how the CMIO classifications can withstand the test of time. CMIO also informs the self-help groups such as the CDAC, Sinda, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association. Over the years, these self-help groups have made significant contributions to uplift the less privileged, especially children. Notwithstanding the good work they have done, the fact is that they reinforce racial consciousness. I suspect that the different sizes of the ethnic pools contributing to these organisations would affect the resources available, with CDAC probably having the most resources. To this end, CDAC has opened up some of its programmes on a race-blind basis. There is an opportunity here to come together as Singaporeans and contribute to a national pool, helping the less privileged on a race-blind basis. I am aware of an effort to collaborate in this direction in Yishun called the Self-help Groups Centre and hope we can go much further. Sir, data on race is collected on many forms we complete. For all the race data the Government collects, it is selective on what it chooses to release. It probably has its reasons for this. Though my point today is to move towards being race-blind, it is also true that data is needed to understand issues that may affect particular communities, with a view to narrowing the differences. Let me give an example. As a Member of Parliament (MP), I filed a Parliamentary Question 13 years ago to ascertain the composition of the prison inmate population by ethnic groups. This is information that other governments release as a matter of course. The answer given to my question was that the Prisons Department was unable to share the statistics.”
“Nevertheless, I believe it is essential for us to move this conversation along so that we inch ever closer towards the ultimate destination of being a race-blind society. Some may consider that we will never arrive at this destination. But we must ask ourselves how much closer we can be. I also acknowledge at the outset that the Government's management of these matters arises from legitimate concerns. The Government is responsible for law and order, and fostering the building of a Singaporean identity in a population that is heterogeneous. It is a difficult task. However, as society evolves, all of us need to keep an open mind to listen and understand the perspectives of fellow Singaporeans whose aspirations for Singapore may differ from our own. Let me now move on to three areas which I think need to be addressed to move towards being a more race-blind society. These are: first, ethnic classifications and data; second, elections along ethnic lines; and third, the HDB Ethnic Integration Policy. I will call for an open review of these matters to move us along in this journey towards being a race-blind society. First, ethnic classifications and data. The Government continues to classify the population based on the CMIO or Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others, first used in colonial Singapore in 1824, nearly 200 years ago. Fast forward to today. To the Government's credit, it has recognised the increasingly numbers of mixed marriages and in 2011, enabled children of mixed marriages to be registered with double-barrelled ethnicity. The Government has defended the CMIO classification as necessary to ensure that minority rights are safeguarded. The concept of minority rights itself is problematic as it would be better if we could simply talk about citizenship rights.”
“In its report, the commission noted as follows and I quote, "The ultimate destination for our society should be a race-blind community where no safeguards are required to ensure that candidates from different ethnic groups and periodically elected into presidential office. Equally, it seems to be common ground that Singapore as a society cannot affirmatively say that she has already arrived. The question, then, is whether it would be prudent for safeguards to be put in place to ensure minority representation in the office, even as Singapore continues on the journey towards that destination. The commission is of the view that it would be, especially since it is uncertain how long the journey will take." It seems to me that there is no real quarrel that we want to arrive at the destination of being a race-blind state. If this is our desire, it is only logical that we take concrete steps to move in this direction. We have had painful experiences of raicial stife in the past. But as the President acknowledges, society's experiences and aspirations are not static and each successive generation may yearn for, and even demand, a different approach. To that end, I see some encouraging signs from the recent General Election. Several political parties fielded GRC teams consisting of a majority of non-Chinese candidates and polled well. I should particularly mention and thank the voters of Aljunied GRC who re-elected the Workers' Party team with three minority candidates out of five. I believe that Singaporean voters are not fixated with race and there is cause for optimism for the future. In choosing to speak on this topic, I am acutely aware that there are different perspectives on matters of race, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat acknowledged in this House yesterday.”
“Mr Speaker, the President's Opening Address carried a paragraph on how Singapore may finally be at the point where the parameters of discussion about race may be widened. She said and I quote, "Our multiracialism is still work in progress. Each successive generation will bring different life experiences and perspectives. In each generation, some will want to discuss sensitive issues afresh. Younger Singaporeans prefer talking about these issues more candidly and openly, which is a positive development. But the conversation needs to be conducted with restraint and mutual respect, because race, language and religion will always be visceral subjects." Sir, as I embark on my fourth term in this House, I recall my generation's unique experience of multiracialism in Singapore, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. It was the era of Mr S Rajaratnam, who's mantra was that we were all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the self-help groups such as MENDAKI and CDAC were set up along ethnic lines, it was reported that Mr Rajaratnam disagreed as he saw these as running counter to the vision of having a Singaporean identity, where race, religion and language did not matter. Speaking personally, my own experience is that of a distinct shift between my childhood where talk of race was discouraged, to today's reality of heightened race consciousness. Four years ago, in 2016, a constitutional commission chaired by the Chief Justice was set up to make recommendations on how to ensure multiracial representation in the office of the Elected President.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have clarification for Minister Ng Chee Meng. Earlier in his response to my query, he basically said that it made sense for NTUC to be involved in SIRS because it has some understanding of the issues faced by self-employed persons. Could he clarify in this SIRS appeal process, were the appeal criteria – what factors are relevant to grant or partially grant appeals – decided by NTUC? That means NTUC came up with appeals criteria?”
“Will seniors have low-cost options that are basic in nature? Finally, I believe we all know of some seniors who simply do not wish to transact digitally for one reason or another. Can we not simply respect their choice in their old age and always have an option for counter service? Sir, let me conclude. Currently, we are preoccupied, almost bogged down, by the health and economic fall-out of the virus. Nevertheless, it is necessary to look to building for the future, and to that end, we need to learn from the blind spots that the virus has uncovered, with humility and grace. Let us not waste this opportunity to amplify the voices of those most affected by the pandemic, in our search for a sustainable recovery. May we emerge stronger. 2.00 pm”
“To illustrate, I visited a CPF branch office some weeks ago. I observed the typical scenario of an elderly person with his daughter. She told him in Mandarin, "爸爸，我们现在去楼上拿SingPass", meaning they had to go to another section to arrange for SingPass. The elderly man looked totally helpless as he quietly obeyed his daughter's instructions. In this case, the man is fortunate to have a caring daughter to help him navigate an unfamiliar frontier. But what about those who do not have anyone to rely on? Or worse, those who place their trust in the wrong people and become victims of crime? Has technology, instead of empowering them, disempowered them instead? Sir, a resident wrote to me recently about SingPass difficulties for the elderly. He described the struggles of those who were illiterate or did not have a mobile phone or computer. For persons with no income, maintaining a mobile phone subscription is a financial outlay. Furthermore, even if family members were willing to assist, each SingPass could only be tied to one phone number. This is understandable for security reasons but it also means that children could not use their phone lines to transact for their elderly parents, thus requiring more purchases of items simply to transact with the Government. To avoid being misunderstood, let me say that the Seniors Go Digital movement is well-intentioned and I support it. However, I hope it will not be approached from the perspective that seniors are somehow "falling behind" and need to "catch up", which would stress them even further. How will the Government initiatives adapt or customise digital solutions, to design them to be friendly to those who cannot see or hear well, or whose command of English is not strong?”
“Speaker, SIRS involves public funds – to be exact, SIRS involves the use of past reserves. Who should be in charge of the scheme? The Government has stated that MOM oversees the scheme but NTUC helps administer appeals for those who do not automatically qualify. From the cases we have seen, it is NTUC that is fronting all communications in appeals while the role of MOM is not visible. From a governance perspective, why was there a need to outsource the administration of SIRS appeals to NTUC in the first place? Was this done due to a lack of manpower or other reasons? Will this set a precedent for the Government to outsource its schemes to external parties to manage? What does this mean for Government accountability? Finally, Sir, I move on to the Seniors Go Digital movement. It was announced in the Fortitude Budget that the Infocomm Media Authority (IMDA) would launch a Seniors Go Digital movement to support seniors to adopt digital channels and hone digital skills. It was highlighted that the inability to connect digitally during the circuit breaker would lead to isolation, which could affect health. For some years now, well before COVID-19 emerged, the push for a Smart Nation had seen huge efficiencies but also costs. Everyone was channeled towards more and more digital modes of transacting with the Government, whether it be the CPF Board, LTA, or the Traffic Police. As systems got more sophisticated, citizens were required not only to log in but also to receive one-time passwords or use tokens for added security. The now default mode of needing SingPass to transact has alienated those who either cannot afford the necessary devices, who do not have the required language skills or who simply cannot wrap their heads around IT environments.”
“While it was an auto-inclusion scheme, it was announced that NTUC would be helping the Government administer appeals from those who were not auto-included. Since then, as SIRS has been rolled out, we were told that more than 60,000 appeals had been received. Questions from the ground have now emerged about the purpose and fairness of the scheme. As pointed out by my colleague Dennis Tan during the Resilience Budget debate, one issue is what the annual value of the property one lives in has got to do with whether the person has suffered serious income disruption. It is all the more so for those who do not own the properties they live in. To illustrate, I have several residents who are disqualified from SIRS due to this criterion because they are living in their parents' homes. Others are renting. Some of their incomes have dropped to zero as they are service providers for weddings and other events, and will likely not be able to resume their work for months. Others include freelance music teachers who are unable to conduct physical classes even on a one-to-one basis. On the other hand, SIRS is an auto-inclusion scheme that does not require the self-employed person to show income loss. The design of SIRS has thus also resulted in full SIRS payments being made to self-employed persons whose incomes are unaffected by COVID-19. For those who appealed for SIRS, NTUC has partially allowed some appeals. In some cases, appeals resulted in payment of a reduced amount, at $800 per month instead of $1,000 per month. Others have been rejected outright. Suffice to say, these disparate outcomes have caused frustration and feelings of arbitrariness and unfairness. Questions asked include: how does NTUC decide? What are the criteria for allowing or rejecting appeals?”
“However, the membership of the Task Force has a gender imbalance with only two women out of 17 – a dismal 11%. This may be a missed opportunity, especially when it has been noted that management of the COVID-19 crisis has been particularly successful so far in Taiwan and New Zealand, with women at the helm. In my view, the task force could benefit from having more women, especially women who understand gender issues. Also, there seems to be a weak representation of multiracial voices as there is no Malay member on the task force. It also does not seem that there is any representation for SMEs as well. With inadequate balance, will the final report and recommendations risk having blind spots that will prevent us from truly emerging stronger as a nation? Finally, on this point, I hope that the task force will not be shackled by models from the past. The ways of the past may be inadequate or inappropriate today. For instance, is it time to include more stabilisers in the system? If there had been schemes such as redundancy or unemployment insurance, the Government may not need to spend as much as it is doing today to support workers. If, for instance, CPF members have some access to their excess CPF funds even before they reach 55, some would not be facing the cliff-edge today. These are just two examples of what I mean by the task force not being shackled by the models of the past. Sir, next, I move on to two particular Government schemes which residents have asked me to speak on – the Self-Employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) and the Seniors Go Digital movement. First, SIRS. SIRS was announced in the Resilience Budget, promising nine months of income support to eligible self-employed persons at $1,000 per month.”
“The global health workforce is estimated to comprise 67% women, with many women in roles most exposed to the virus. Unpaid work by women has also increased during this period. Women are disproportionately affected in other ways too. For instance, there is growing evidence that female academics are publishing less than male academics during the COVID-19 lockdowns as they are bearing the brunt of family care responsibilities. This would clearly impact their careers where publications are a key performance indicator. Anecdotally, if one looks at Singapore's home-based learning for students, mothers on the whole appear to be spending much more time with their children than fathers, who may also be at home during this period. With everyone at home all day, foreign domestic workers face overwork and having inadequate rest. While men appear more prone to succumb to the virus, it is women and girls who pay the social and economic toll. The UN urges governments to ensure that their response to the COVID-19 crisis does not intensify the gender inequality crisis. To that end, one of the UN's key recommendations is to ensure women's equal representation in all COVID-19 response planning and decision-making. In order to build future resilience for the next crisis, there is a need to study gender-aggregated data in all fields from public health to economics to communications. Besides gender, any agency looking at long-term recovery should include diverse voices. It is especially necessary to include those familiar with segments that bore a disproportionate brunt of the virus. To that end, the Government has put together an Emerging Stronger Task Force consisting of 17 eminent persons.”