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 17 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, just a further clarification, I did file a Parliamentary Question to MOF to ask for the cut-off period for the definition of "land sales" under the Budget and the answer given to me was 10 years is the cut-off. So, again, I would like the Member to confirm that it is not accurate for him to say that once the land is sold, it is gone.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to clarify with the Member Lim Biow Chuan. He made a statement to say that once the land is sold by the Government, it is gone. But does he not agree that actually the Government's definition of land sales includes leases. In fact, the cut-off period when you include a lease as a sale is actually a 10-year lease. So, it is not quite accurate to say that once the land is sold, it is gone.”
“Yes, Mr Chairman, I call for a Division to be taken.”
“Yes, Speaker, I call for a Division to be taken.”
“If the concern of CLTPA remains the same, in other words, the primary rationale is to protect peace, safety and good order within Singapore, there is no need to make all these changes. The law already provides for the Minister to safeguard peace, safety and good order within Singapore under the current provisions. Despite my own reservations about the timing of the renewal being premature, the Workers' Party would have been prepared to support a renewal of the Act if not for these two changes in clause 3 and clause 8. So, it would be good if the Minister would clarify whether he is prepared to actually just go back to the status quo, ask for a renewal of the Act for five years, and then we can all support it because we all want Singapore to be a safe place.”
“Mr Speaker, three clarifications I wish to make. In relation to clause 3, which introduces explicitly a finality clause into the Bill, the Minister keeps insisting over and over again that there is no change to the law, there is no intention to, he said, "oust" judicial view and so on and so forth. But if the Government's intention is really to preserve matters as they are and, by that, I mean the extent of judicial review will remain the same as what it was in Dan Tan's case, why bother to legislate at all? Why not leave things just as they are so that everyone is clear that there is no curtailment or even a slight limitation or a change in the scope of judicial review? That would be the simplest solution I think the Government should adopt. The second clarification, and this in relation to the Schedule, again, the Minister is saying that everything still relates back to section 30. In other words, we have a Schedule there but no matter which activity is being picked, the Minister will still have to be satisfied that section 30 is complied with. In other words, the activity affects the peace, good order and so on in Singapore. But the fact is that the Fourth Schedule, by importing the OCA now, explicitly has an external focus, meaning that if you look at the OCA, section 48, it defines organised criminal activity to include activities that are primarily conducted overseas. So, this is where my "global policeman" phrase comes in. In other words, the Minister can now look at activities done overseas and he would simply have to make a statement to say that he is concerned it will take root in Singapore and that would justify a DO under CLTPA now. Once again, the same question will come up.”
“As I mentioned earlier, I have my reservations about the timing of this Bill, as I believe that to renew the Act now to take effect in October next year is premature. More importantly, the Workers' Party does not see any justification to introduce a finality clause as proposed in clause 3. In addition, I find the insertion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 to be dangerous, as it clearly expands the Minister’s powers rather than restricts them as claimed by MHA. The Bill will expand the scope of the CLTPA beyond its original intention of safeguarding peace and good order in Singapore. These clauses will repose in the Minister of Home Affairs too much discretion and power, not only at home, but well beyond our shores. We find this proposal untenable. For these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.”
“Earlier in his speech, I believe the Minister clearly understands these principles. So, what is the justification for the Government to introduce clause 3? The Minister keeps saying and saying that it is not intended to change the legal position, it is meant to preserve judicial review. But it is a tenet of interpretation that Parliament does not legislate in vain. Earlier, if I heard Mr Christopher de Souza correctly, he attempted to suggest that clause 3 was merely meant to clarify the current position. But if one looks at the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, it does not say as such. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says that this Bill seeks to amend the CLTPA for the following purposes and the first purpose is to provide that the Minister’s decision would be final on these points. This is very troubling. If what the Minister is saying is correct, that is, clause 3 is not meant to change anything, then why introduce it at all? Why not leave it as the status quo, instead of causing confusion and possible problems down the road about what this clause is meant to cover? Sir, it is quite clear that the Government is not infallible and does make mistakes. Dan Tan's detention illustrates this. Instead of welcoming the Court's clarification, the Government comes to Parliament with this finality clause. As MPs, it is important for us to pause and ask: what is the public interest here? Why is clause 3 necessary? Does the public interest not demand that we defend rigorously the Courts' Constitutional duty to ensure that the Government acts lawfully? Sir, the CLTPA has been in force since 1955. And for more than 60 years, no Minister has come forward to ask for a finality clause on his DOs. We find this very troubling. Sir, let me summarise.”
“Do such types of cases typically come up for DOs under CLTPA? I do not think so. Sir, the OCA already has its own ways of dealing with organised crime, which MHA recommended and Parliament only recently adopted in 2015. By now linking the OCA to CLTPA, enabling criminal law detention for OCA cases, is the new Schedule not expanding the Minister’s powers under CLTPA? The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan’s case has pronounced that the CLTPA is only meant to protect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Contrary to what MHA has said, the inclusion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 clearly expands the Minister’s powers to police criminal activities overseas and expands the kinds of activities that are subject to the Act. In effect, the Bill makes the Minister a global policeman, with no equal in the world. This is a position too arrogant for this House to support. Sir, next, I move on to clause 3, which purports to make the Minister's GD "final". Sir, the attempt to make the Minister all-powerful under clause 8 is even more toxic when one looks at clause 3, which states that "every decision" of the Minister to exercise detention powers under section 30(1) "is final". Other Members have raised their concerns about the clause. I will only add a few points to the chorus of concern. Sir, the Courts' powers in judicial review are already very limited. As my Workers' Party colleagues and other Members have said, the principles of judicial review are well-established. When a Court is asked to review a Government decision, it will overturn the Government's decision only if it finds that the decision was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. Our judges are well aware that they are not Ministers and should not be the ones exercising executive discretion.”
“Concerns have already been raised publicly by several lawyers and academics that the Bill potentially allows persons to be detained for alleged activities of a more minor nature, now that there is a list of defined activities in the Fourth Schedule. Another striking feature of the activities listed in the new Schedule is item 9, participation in, or facilitating, any organised crime activity as defined in the OCA 2015. What will this mean if the Bill is passed? This will mean that the scope of the CLTPA will be expanded to cover activities that are done overseas or that may not pose a threat to the public order within Singapore. Earlier in the Minister's Second Reading speech, I noted that he was very careful to say the Schedule consisted of crimes or activities that have been previously mentioned in the House and it also brings in the OCA, which I take to mean he recognises that the inclusion of the OCA is something new, not discussed or contemplated by the previous discussions on the CLTPA. Sir, under section 48 of our OCA, actions done abroad are considered to be “organised crime activities”, so long as they are done by an organised group with local links. These activities could take place completely in countries far away. In addition, by referring to OCA in the CLPTA Schedule, the Government is importing into the CLTPA the concept of “serious crime” under OCA. But the OCA considers to be “serious crime” a wide variety of offences, including many crimes that are fundamentally economic or financial in nature. The list of such crimes includes Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud, dealing in goods for which customs duty is not paid, illegal betting, computer misuse and infringements of copyright and trademarks.”
“Earlier, in the Minister's speech and interventions, he appeared to be somewhat watering down the effect of the Dan Tan judgment. But if I may be permitted to make my own assessment of the significance of the judgment, the Courts made it very clear that it had a duty to objectively assess whether the Minister's Statement of Facts is coherent and within the legal scope of the Act giving him those powers. The Court stated very clearly that its role was not limited to applying a subjective test as to whether the Minister believes that he is making the correct DO, but it was much more than that. The Court had to look at the legal framework provided by the Act, what the Act is set out to achieve, the mischief it seeks to cure and whether the case made out by the Government on its face furthers that purpose. And because the Court was not satisfied that the first DO against Dan Tan furthered the purpose of CLTPA, the Court found that the Act could not apply to such a case and declared the first detention illegal, ordering him to be released. Sir, bearing in mind what the Court has said, will this Bill now restrict the Minister’s powers, as MHA says, or, in fact, expand them? Let us examine the effect of the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. The Schedule will likely short-circuit the assessment process of cases suitable for detention. In other words, the inclusion of the Schedule may enable the Minister to bypass answering questions as to whether a case is “serious enough” to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court.”
“In MHA's press release of 9 January, it is stated that the purpose of the new Fourth Schedule is to “restrict the powers of the Minister by clarifying the scope of criminal activities under the Act”. But as I read the Bill, this is not true. The Bill, in fact, increases the Minister’s powers. Why do I say that the Bill increases the Minister’s powers? Yes, the current Act does not list which kinds of criminal activities would make a person liable to be detained. But that does not mean that the Minister currently has carte blanche to detain anyone he pleases. In the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney General [2016] 1 SLR 779 referred to earlier, the apex Court made it very clear that the Minister’s powers under the current Act are quite limited. In Dan Tan's case, the Court of Appeal did a thorough examination of the origins and purposes of the Act and also scrutinised Parliamentary debates on past renewals of the Act. The Court then came to some important conclusions. First, the judges concluded that the CLTPA did not cover all offences but only criminal activities where trials in Court could not proceed due to threats of harm against witnesses or their families. Secondly, the detainee must have been involved in a criminal activity of a sufficiently serious nature to justify detention without trial. Thirdly, the criminal activity must pose harm to the public order within Singapore. In Dan Tan’s case, the Court found that the GD alleged that he was the mastermind of a global soccer match-fixing syndicate, but the effect of his plans was felt in other countries and did not affect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore.”
“The hon Member Mr Murali Pillai produced a table. For my part, I did the counting from the Second Reading of the Bill, not the First Reading, which is in Mr Murali Pillai's chart. And from my counting, the last debate for renewal was in November 2013, less than a year before its expiry date in October 2014. The previous two renewals, in 2009 and 2004, were debated even closer to the expiry date – between one month and eight months of the Act's expiry. Why is the timing of the renewal important? It is important because, at each renewal, Members are asked to consider the prevailing crime and order situation then, and to decide whether an extension of the Act is justified for another five years. The Government itself has refrained from making the Act permanent, which means that, at each renewal, Members must satisfy themselves that the Act is needed for the next five years. Today, Parliament is asked to assess that the circumstances justify the renewal of the Act, from October 2019 to October 2024. Notwithstanding that the Minister earlier shared with the House on the crime situation both here and regionally, how do we know what the situation will be like towards the end of next year? Things can always change. How will Parliament make a reasonable assessment of prevailing circumstances so far ahead of time? Does this not make a mockery of the careful consideration Parliament is to exercise when assessing whether prevailing circumstances justify a renewal of this draconian law? In my view, it is premature of MHA to come to Parliament now to ask for a renewal of the Act. Next, I move on to the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 introduces a new Fourth Schedule to include a list of offences which the Minister can detain a person for.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer working in a firm that practises criminal law. Sir, as my Workers' Party colleagues have said before me, we are unable to support the Bill this time. Sir, at each renewal of the Act, Members of Parliament are asked to consider whether the prevailing circumstances are such that we still need this law. On the one hand, we know that Singaporeans want Singapore to be a safe place to live in for ourselves and our families. At the same time, we are very mindful of the tradeoffs of giving the Government too much power to detain people without a fair trial as power can always be abused. This is all the more so when we are dealing with powers that deprive people of their liberty for years. During the past renewals of this Act, the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the Constitutional right to freedom. We did not delight in taking this position but did so with a heavy heart. This time, however, our view is that the Government has gone too far. How so? My colleagues Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan have already set out grave concerns about the Bill's apparent curtailment of judicial oversight. For my part, I will focus on three points: first, the timing of this renewal; secondly, the dangers of adding the Fourth Schedule to the Act; and thirdly, add my voice to the disapproval of clause 3 making the Minister's decision to detain final. First, the timing of this renewal. I agree totally with the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai and am surprised that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act now, in February 2018, when the current Act only expires in October 2019, 20 months from now, towards the end of next year. Past debates for renewals of this Act did not have such a long timeline.”
“Thank you, Sir. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier, he mentioned that my assumption in the question was not correct. But from the report, it is stated that Belgium, Singapore and Switzerland were the only three high-performing countries with below-average levels of equity in education outcome. So, what do they mean by that? The only three high-performing countries with below-average levels of equity. I think there was a table that compared the performance of socio-economically disadvantaged students at 15 years old across different countries. It was stated that the likelihood of such disadvantaged students to under-perform is 2.8 times for the OECD average, but Singapore is 4.37 times. So, is that not an indication that we have a bigger issue to worry about in terms of equity? The second question I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is, what indicators does MOE track of social mobility in education? In a previous Parliamentary Question (PQ) that I filed almost 10 years ago, we know from the then Minister that MOE does track, for example, students going to our public universities based on housing type. We had an indication of social mobility there but are there any other indicators that the Ministry tracks internally?”
“This may be done by the vendors themselves, for instance. In some of these countries, the regulator actually takes on the role of accrediting whether that information is accurate, to ensure that the consumers are not duped or given inaccurate information. An example is, I think, in the United Kingdom, where the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) does this sort of accreditation of information. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether the EMA, for example, is considering such an accreditation role, so that the consumers will have accurate information.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have five supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is we do understand that the pilot is in Jurong and the areas demarcated by postal districts are, I understand, for the postal codes starting from 60 to 64. So, I would like to ask for the rest of the island, whether the plan is to also have staggered commencement based on postal districts or is everybody going to go live at the same time for the rest of the people outside Jurong? That is the first question. The second question is: I understand that there are about 26 licensed retailers of electricity. EMA had previously said that not all the retailers may be involved in the soft launch. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any clarity now on whether certain specific retailers will be involved and whether this was their own choice or some vetting process by the EMA. The third question is that we understand that EMA has committed to making switching over easy for consumers. I would like to have some elaboration on that. For example, I assume that consumers will have to change their meter boxes, so who is going to pay for that? The fourth question is the Minister earlier said that we are having a pilot so that we can also study how it pans out. And if there are any feedback from the pilot, we can fine-tune for the rest of the island. So, I would like to ask whether the Government anticipate certain specific challenges from the pilot and whether there is a possibility that such challenges and fine-tuning may set the timeline back to beyond 2018 for the rest of the island? Finally, the last question, we have noted that in other countries where there is a choice of electricity retailers, there may be information given to consumers about price comparisons.”
“For instance, buried in our Statute Books is a piece of legislation called "The People Association's conduct and discipline rules". These rules expressly state that, I quote, "Every employee shall refrain from engaging in party political activity and shall maintain complete reserve in all matters of party political controversy." Besides this, I believe there are similar pronouncements elsewhere. But are these quotes being observed on a daily basis? Are the Ministers themselves all mindful of letting public servants do their jobs professionally and not putting them under political pressure? Sir, let me conclude. This Bill is an attempt to entrench the relationships of accountability and demarcate out-of-bounds markers for Ministers vis-à-vis the public sector agencies. That is certainly a good thing. The Workers' Party welcomes this development, after nearly 60 years under the same ruling Party. Nevertheless, as I have said, I have some doubts and concerns about how the Bill will be operationalised and what appear to be gaps that may allow the Bill's intentions to be circumvented.”
“Clause 11 says that Ministers cannot issue the offending directions to public sector agencies, which are defined in clause 2 to mean Statutory Boards listed in Groups 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule, a Ministry or department of Government, an Organ of State, or a public officer or person as gazetted by the Minister. Public bodies are also mentioned in clause 11 which means it protects all Statutory Boards, even those not listed in the Schedule. To be absolutely clear, does clause 11 apply to the Public Service? We just defined to include the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Police. Are these considered departments of the Government and, therefore, public sector agencies for the purposes of this Bill? This is important because if clause 11 applies to the services, a Minister would not be able to direct them to take particular actions, for example, to direct the Police to arrest a particular person. Third, Sir, while these restrictions on Ministerial directions are impressive on paper, they appear to me easy to circumvent. For instance, what is there to stop a Minister from speaking to a public officer on the side to get such things done, thus bypassing the prohibitions in clause 11? Finally, Sir, according to the Explanatory Note, clause 11 is there, and I quote, "to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, does not become politicised." This sounds well and good on paper and there also seems to be an assumption that the Public Service is not politicised. But with the public sector that has known only one ruling Party for nearly 60 years, how do we entrench a culture of political neutrality of the Civil Service in substance? How do we achieve depoliticisation in reality?”
“Clause 11 provides that the Minister's directions must not be contrary to written law. A Ministerial direction is also not binding if it would impede or affect the performance of a statutorily independent function of a public sector agency or a quasi-judicial function of a public sector agency in a particular matter. To enable greater public understanding of this point, can the Minister give some examples of such functions? Earlier, I believe he mentioned the Courts, which are an obvious example. But it would be helpful if he could mention other examples. Furthermore, should there be a doubt as to whether a direction from a Minister is contrary to law or tantamount to an undermining of that body's independence or quasi-judicial function, how will such an issue be resolved? Who should the public sector agencies complain to? Next, clause 11(3) goes further to say that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. I have a few queries about this. First, the clause is very widely worded as there is no definition of what sorts of acts are contemplated. Read literally, does this mean, for example, that henceforth, a Minister cannot direct a Statutory Board to scrutinise the accounts of a particular company? Does this mean that Ministers cannot instruct Ministries or Statutory Boards to issue specific media releases affecting particular persons? Next, which agencies are protected under this clause from Ministerial abuse?”
“Overall, I welcome the thought process behind clause 4 and the implied reminder to Ministers that directions should not be issued for extraneous purposes. Next, I move to directions to Group 1 Statutory Boards. The second type of directions are to be issued under clause 5 to specific Statutory Boards on the performance of their specific functions. The Statutory Boards in question are listed in the Schedule to the Bill under Group 1A and Group 1B of the First Schedule. These bodies total 50 in number and include major public functions that affect the lives of Singaporeans across the board, for example, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority and Public Utilities Board. I also understand from the Minister that he would be moving an amendment in Committee to include the Group 1C public body, namely, PA, under clause 5 as well. Clause 5 states that such agencies' specific directions are to be issued by the Ministers responsible for those agencies. Implied here is a drawing of a line that other Ministers have no authority to give instructions to agencies not under their charge concerning the agencies' functions. In this regard, it would be important to understand the spirit behind this provision. According to the Explanatory Note, there are currently inconsistencies and this clause will help to avoid duplication of laws. Could the Minister give an illustration of this problem so that one can better understand how clause 5 will help? Next, I move on to limits on Ministerial directions. This is contained in clause 11, an all-important clause which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies.”
“Part 2 of the Bill talks about Ministers issuing directions to agencies. However, the word "directions" is not defined. I note that under clause 9, it is provided that the directions may take the form of a circular, instruction or order. But clause 9 says that the directions may take such a format, not that they must take such a format. Is it safe to assume then that directions have to be in writing and signed or authenticated by the Minister? Can the Permanent Secretary, for example, sign off? Is there anything prohibiting directions in the form of emails or going further, can directions even be oral? Part 2 envisages two types of directions from Ministers – directions for whole-of-Government approach and directions to certain Statutory Boards regarding functional responsibilities. First, directions on whole-of-Government approach. Under clause 4, directions for the whole-of-Government approach will relate only to a pertinent subject matter. These pertinent subject matters are restricted to five areas as set out in sub-clause (3). First, employment, management and discipline of employees; second, management of official documents; third, financial and resource management and accountability; fourth, use or development of IT; and fifth, data governance and sharing. Such whole-of-Government directions are to be issued by, I presume, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the recommendation of the Minister-in-charge of the pertinent subject matter. In addition, the directions can only be issued for the purposes set out in clause 4(2), such as securing economies of scale, efficiency of public programmes, ensuring business continuity and managing financial risks.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill makes interesting reading. According to the long title of the Bill, it seeks to provide for a consistent governance framework across the public bodies and to support the whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services. To this end, the Bill has several aspects. On the one hand, it aims to standardise certain policies and practices that cut across the different public sector agencies, such as personnel matters, governance and managing conflicts of interests and financial administration. These are set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. More critically, Part 2 prescribes the accountability relationships between Government Ministers and the public sector agencies. These accountability provisions set out how Ministers should interface with public sector agencies which wield significant state power over Singaporeans on a daily basis, how should Ministers behave and what are the boundaries that Ministers should not cross. I shall focus my speech on this aspect of the Bill. Sir, clause 3 of the Bill states that one of the Bill's aims is to, and I quote, "clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, their members, their responsible Ministers and the Government." As one would assume that the Government will not legislate without cause, I would ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to clarify in explicit legislation the accountability relationships between the Ministers and the public sector agencies. Are Ministers or the agencies confused about their roles? Why legislate rather than issuing guidelines on this? Is there concern from the Public Service officials that they are being subject to political pressure from Ministers?”
“Yes, what I was asking was that the Senior Minister of State has said that some of the considerations in such transactions which take place primarily overseas and whether we decide to prosecute locally is, for example, whether our local authorities might have difficulties getting the evidence or witnesses locally. That is what I understood the Senior Minister of State to have said. So, my question was that when CPIB and AGC said in their statement that they are giving a warning in lieu of prosecution, is it a real risk of prosecution or is it a case where there will be difficulties and that is why we are saying that we are not prosecuting them but, in reality, the case would be difficult to mount?”
“The third question is, in the Senior Minister of State's response, she mentioned that by reaching this arrangement, we would have achieved much more than we could have on our own. The CPIB and AGC statement says that KOM is being given a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution under PCA. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister of State, in her response, was actually saying that it would have been quite difficult to successfully prosecute KOM, because the evidence was overseas and so on and so forth, in which case, then it is a question of whether this "in lieu of prosecution" really means anything. Finally, of course, I think the Government would be aware that there has been much interest in this case. Looking at what has been happening to Keppel as a GLC, as a corporate entity, given the large sums of money involved and the damage to our reputation, people perceive that they are just being given a slap on the wrist, whereas it is a daily affair that individuals who are not well connected, they are prosecuted for corruption offences involving $10 or $20 and they go to jail. So, I would like the Government to respond to that because I think there is some public concern about this, what is perceived to be some lenient treatment being given to KOM.”
“Deputy Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier in her response, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that I was not correct to categorise the arrangements reached between Keppel and the Singapore authorities as a three-nation plea bargain agreement. What we read, however, from the statement by CPIB and AGC in December, is that this DPA in the US was reached, of course, with the US government. But in discussion with Brazil and Singapore, and as part of that global resolution, Singapore was issuing a conditional warning to KOM here. So, my question is: is the Senior Minister of State actually saying that these agreements that we have reached with Keppel for the conditional warning were not taken in consultation or as part of arrangements with the US and Brazil, which seems to be what the statement is implying, and that we reached it independently, and we could have actually gone on to prosecute KOM if we had wanted to, it would not be in breach of any global arrangement? So, that is the first question, whether we are completely free to decide whether to prosecute or not in these discussions with Brazil and the US. The second question is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned in her response that the conditional warning, of course, carried certain undertakings from KOM which were closely aligned with the undertakings in the US agreement, but she did not really specify whether they were coterminous or whether there were variations. So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to give some examples of some of the key undertakings that we have included in the Singapore agreement with KOM.”
“Further clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I still do not quite understand how it ties. Because the section says that the AVA is empowered to give particular directions to a class of persons. It could be persons running a particular food business or producing a particular food content article. So, it does seem to suggest that AVA could actually give preventive directions as a precaution rather than based on specific information about particular cases because it talks about giving directions to a class of people.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. This is in relation to Part IIA of the Bill. I think earlier on, he mentioned in his round-up speech that those directives will be given based on certain suspicion or information that there might be a non-compliance with the Act. On the one hand, I find that reassuring, but on the other hand, if we look at the proposed section 10A, it does state that the AVA may give directions to a class of persons. So, it does seem to suggest that there may not necessarily be information relating to each particular case but the AVA could give directions to a class of persons who are running maybe a particular type of activity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification.”
“My concern is that the new powers of AVA must be carefully calibrated for different classes of activities, to take into account the nature and extent of the risk posed. This Bill should not discourage community and charitable initiatives either. It should also be borne in mind that if we are serious about encouraging and supporting entrepreneurship in Singapore, the Government should not impose excessive burdens and costs on small businesses. 6.06 pm”
“How burdensome will it be for food sellers to comply with stricter conditions from both NEA and AVA? If AVA goes headlong into imposing onerous conditions on such businesses, some of them will find compliance difficult and too costly and may cease operations, to the detriment of their customers. As for charitable and community initiatives which may be caught by the Bill, AVA should take an enabling and educational approach, rather than saddle them with costly and difficult requirements. Sir, the other aspect of the Bill that I wish to comment on is the proposed section 10I. This is a very interesting section that provides for the possibility of AVA paying compensation to a person who may have suffered loss as a result of AVA making a direction based on insufficient grounds. First, let me say I welcome this provision, as it recognises that AVA may make mistakes, and it is welcomed that AVA is undertaking a responsibility to pay compensation to persons who suffer loss due to such mistakes. I think the Minister earlier mentioned "false alarms". I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify what they consider to be "insufficient grounds". For example, what if AVA relied on an expert report that turned out to be erroneous? Another obvious question is: what kinds of losses would AVA recognise? For instance, an order to recall food and to display a Statement on the recall would result not only in wasted costs, but also cause reputational loss to the business owner, from which he may never recover. Will AVA compensate the business owner for loss of reputation and future business? Sir, to conclude, I appreciate AVA's intention of safeguarding public health by introducing this Bill. I am not opposing this Bill.”
“All these requirements are likely to be very specific, since the amended section 56 provides that the Minister will make regulations on these matters. Section 10D further provides that until such corrective action is taken, the food business activity is to be suspended. Besides section 10D, there are sections 10E, F and G which empower the AVA to impose controls over the movement of food, to recall food and to destroy and dispose of food. Section 10H will require a Statement to be published by the person in charge of the activity, with information on any food that was recalled by AVA, the reasons for the recall and what remedy the person will provide. Non-compliance with any directions carries a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to a year or both. Given that these are very draconian measures, will AVA devise a framework to differentiate between activities of high risk and activities of low risk and calibrate its regulatory response accordingly? For instance, I have received concerns from owners of traditional Chinese medicine shops. These shops mainly sell herbs and Chinese medicines, but may devote a small part of their shop to selling herbal tea eggs or herbal teas; these form a very minor part of their business, earning some of them less than $50 per day. Recently, NEA informed them that they would need to obtain a foodshop licence; they also understand that they may have to undergo compulsory training as well. It is not clear what risks have emerged that necessitate more regulation of such shops. There are many such shops in HDB estates, where business volume may be moderate to low. Sir, this Bill provides yet another major pillar for such shops to be closely regulated.”
“"Food business" is defined as a business or an undertaking or activity that involves, either in whole or in part, the handling of food intended for sale, the actual sale of food, including over the Internet and primary food production. It is further stated that an activity will be considered a food business regardless of whether it is of a commercial, charitable or community nature and even if it is a one-time activity. A literal reading of the definition of "food business" will include the following types of activities: church fun fairs, which typically have stalls selling food and drinks; persons who host dinners or parties at their homes for a fee; a one-time private fund raiser which includes a meal; and traditional Chinese medicine shops, which also sell herbal tea eggs and herbal drinks. We can all agree that such activities are worth preserving and they make an important contribution to Singapore's social and cultural depth. Under the new Part IIA, such activities would come under the new Food Safety Measures imposed by AVA. What are these new Food Safety Measures? AVA will be empowered to give new directions to persons involved in food business activities to take preventive or corrective action in respect of food or a food contact article. According to the new section 10D, these actions to be taken include complying with specific steps to ensure the safety and suitability of food that is raised, cultivated, harvested, caught, prepared, sold or otherwise handled; taking specific steps to ensure that food premises, vehicles, food contact articles and equipment are cleaned, disinfected or altered; and to ensure that requirements of the Act are complied with.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to enhance the regulation of the sale of food, to allow AVA to take food safety measures and to promote public health. While nobody can quarrel with such aims, the amendments potentially allow AVA to impose onerous obligations on a wide variety of activities and businesses. There is a danger that the duties of compliance and the costs of compliance may kill off small businesses and community activities which pose relatively low risk to public health. This Bill increases AVA's power over the current law in a few ways. To summarise, the existing law is focused on enabling AVA to inspect places where food is sold, to take food samples for testing and imposing certain specific duties on those concerned with food establishments. This Bill goes much further. As the new Long Title states, the Bill now has a more general purpose of ensuring that food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health and to ensure that the public have accurate information to make informed choices about food that is sold. Compared to the existing law which focuses on punishing violations of baseline standards, the Bill now before the House is much more preventive and prescriptive. This Bill casts AVA's net wide and installs AVA with new powers, especially in the proposed Part IIA of the Bill. While the new powers would be potentially useful in tackling errant businesses that produce or sell sub-standard food to the general public, it seems to me that other entities that provide useful services to segments of the public may potentially be subject to onerous requirements that are not commensurate with the risk. Let me elaborate. In the Bill, there is a new definition of "food business" in the proposed section 2B.”
“After a Cabinet huddle, Deputy Prime Minister Teo eventually rose and responded as follows: "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge judicially." Let me repeat what he said. "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge judicially."”
“That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency." "…Therefore, by the operation of the hiatus-triggered model, the next election, due next year (2017), will be a reserved election for Malay candidates." Unquote. That was the Prime Minister's speech. Sir, the clear impression given to Members was that the Government's decision to count from President Wee Kim Wee was based on the AGC's advice. That must have been why the Prime Minister sequenced the sentences as he did, that having taken the AGC's advice, the Government was counting the five terms from President Wee Kim Wee. The Prime Minister did not say that the Government intended to count from President Wee Kim Wee and that the AGC had merely confirmed that it was acceptable to do so. Sir, it seems that the media had a similar impression. In a Channel NewsAsia (CNA) report on 8 November, there was a headline which read as follows, reporting on the debate: "Next Presidential Election to be reserved for Malay Candidates. Prime Minister Lee says the Government has taken the Attorney-General's advice that the racial provisions in the review of the Elected Presidency will start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee." That was the headline. The impression that it was the AGC which advised the Government to count from President Wee was perpetuated the next day, 9 November, by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. During clarification time, I rose to expressly recall that the Prime Minister had said that the decision to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee was "based on the AGC's advice on how to count the terms". I asked whether the Government was prepared to publish that advice. Deputy Prime Minister Teo did not reply immediately.”
“What did the Government tell Parliament was the basis for counting Reserved Presidential Elections under the hiatus-triggered model, and was what the Government told Parliament accurate? To cut to the chase, did the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister Chan Chun Sing make misleading statements to the House that the question of which President to count from was a legal question? Did the Government all along make a policy decision itself to count from President Wee Kim Wee? Did the Government merely use the Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC's) advice as a cover to avoid full Parliamentary debate on why the count was not starting from President Ong Teng Cheong? To answer this question, it is necessary to start with what happened in November during the debate on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. During that debate on 8 November, the Prime Minister told the House the following: "… the symbolic role of the President is just as important as his custodial role. As a symbol of the nation, the race of the candidate is relevant. So, while individually, a good candidate of any race will be satisfactory, collectively, over a period of time, we need that mix of Presidents of different races, and the election mechanism must be designed to produce such a mix over time. This is what the hiatus-triggered model delivers." "When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year." "We have taken the Attorney-General's (AG's) advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, President Halimah Yacob took her Oath of Office on 14 September 2017. President Halimah is a popular figure who is well-respected in many circles. She was also my former Member of Parliament, who worked hard to serve her constituents. Yet, despite her personal attributes, the lightning circumstances under which this Government installed her as the Head of State have left Singaporeans reeling in its wake. In the immediate aftermath of announcing this year's Presidential Election as reserved for Malay candidates, the media reports highlighted how the public embraced the move with open arms, welcoming a Malay President after a break of 46 years. Yet, as the dust started to settle, it was clear that the public was very divided over this issue. At public discussion forums, such as the one organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on 8 September, law professors and retired politicians raised legal issues and shared adverse public opinions on the matter. Social media exploded in critique and satire. Indeed, in the past few days, it seems to me that the top Government leaders have been going into overdrive, trying hard to convince Singaporeans that the Elected Presidency is an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism. The Government now appears to be well-aware of the unhappiness on the ground caused by its manoeuvres to install President Halimah. Sir, this Motion does not seek to deal with the wider issues of the Presidency, nor multiracialism, which are worthy of much longer airtime. Neither is it my purpose to go into the legal arguments, some of which have been aired in our Courts in July. This Motion focuses on the Parliamentary debates, and one aspect only of those debates.”
“Clauses 33 provides that the security plans must be prepared by a person approved by the Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection in connection with those works. I would like to know whether it is intended that the Commissioner pre-approves a list of security practitioners who would be acceptable, or would the Commissioner be open to case-by-case approvals of security consultants, depending on the project or the building at hand? Will the Commissioner accept a security professional who is an employee of the owner or occupier? Lastly, Sir, clauses 37 and 44 talk about amendments to approved security plans. The amendments can be initiated by either the building owner or the Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection. In other words, after the Commissioner has approved the security plan, he can change his mind sometime later and require additional measures to be included. What if the new measures result in wasted costs, for example, if they require undoing of systems or structures already put in? It seems that, according to clause 80, the owner has to bear such wasted costs. Whether clause 80 is fair will depend on why the amendment to the plan at a later stage was needed. If the amendment was due to the negligence of the authorities in the first approval, should the owner be forced to bear the additional cost?”
“Maps available on the Internet, such as Google Earth, already show such information publicly anyway. Next, I move on to Part 4: special developments and special infrastructures. This Bill introduces new provisions that certain developments and buildings will be required to have security plans approved by the new Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection. What constitutes a "special development" or "special infrastructure"? According to the Ministry's press release on 11 September and also the Minister’s Second Reading speech, these buildings would be those which "house essential services, are iconic, or with high human traffic". Clause 34 states that the Minister will be the one designating "special developments" and "special infrastructures" that need to comply with the Act. Could there be further elaboration on the types and extent of buildings that would need to be designated? For instance, will all shopping malls be designated? What about hospitals? As for Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, clause 2 of the Bill states that Town Councils would be considered owners of common property for the purpose of the Bill. Which part of HDB estates would be deemed "special infrastructures"? Next, as far as developments are concerned, the intention is to have security embedded into the facility at the design stage. Clause 35 makes it clear that key structural works cannot commence until the security plan is approved. From a security management perspective, such early emplacement of security concerns is recommended and likely to achieve better outcomes. At the design stage, security professionals can work with architects, engineers and facility owners to ensure that security features do not disrupt the overall building aesthetics or the facility's operational needs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to protect selected areas and buildings against security risks. These threats are not merely terrorism-related but include threats from crime and accidents. It goes without saying that appropriate security measures can safeguard lives and property and minimise disruptions to essential services. Thus, this Bill should be supported. Having said that, it should also be borne in mind that we should also not go overboard and have the country in perpetual lock-down mode. We must be able to go about our daily activities efficiently. If we cannot live normal lives, the terrorists have already won. This Bill has several Parts. While I am in general support of the Bill, I have some queries and concerns to raise. First, on Part 3: protected areas and protected places. The Bill repeals the current Protected Areas and Protected Places Act and re-enacts the same provisions but includes some new provisions as well. At the same time, the maximum fines for offences have been drastically increased, from $1,000 to $20,000. I assume that this is due to the heightened security environment and inflation over the years, but I appreciate the Minister's clarification on this. Next, clause 29 introduces a new provision to make it an offence to take photographs or videos of protected areas and protected places. While it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit such actions inside or above the protected area or protected place, the section makes it an offence to take a photograph or make a recording from outside the protected area and protected place. Is it reasonable to punish someone taking a picture from outside, when he is standing in a public area, and the photograph is simply capturing what is already visible publicly?”
“Sir, actually, I remember that exchange rather well. But I think, at that time, the Senior Minister of State did not answer my question, which was that, at the idea stage, whether the MPs can work with the CCCs to provide ideas because we also have feedback, we are also on the ground.”
“Speaker, a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State regarding EUP. I would just like a confirmation that there is actually no prohibition from the Government for the CCCs to work with the Member of Parliament (MP) of the area, even if the Member is not from the ruling party.”
“Sir, two follow-up clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Is she saying that the Deputy AG, because he may not have acted on the Lee estate in some capacity in private estate, is now free to advise the Government on such matters, from the Government's perspective? Is that what she is saying? The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State did not answer directly. She said I asked the wrong question about whether there should be distance between the AGC and the Government because the critical question to her was the officers act professionally and independently. But this is really quite a different take for even Prof Jayakumar. If you read what his interview goes into, he says that he may occasionally have working lunches with the AG but it is important to have the appearance of distance. You cannot get too close to these people because people might assume that there will be some compromise. So, I think it is the appearance itself that is important, not just, in fact, whether people think they are able to act independently. The appearance when you are too close to somebody, it does not create a good feeling.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she told the House that the AG and the Deputy AG have been observing the conflict rules in their functions. I would like to ask her categorically whether she is saying that the AG and the Deputy AG Mr Hri Kumar are not involved in advising the Government on matters concerning the Lee estate. The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the fact that there have been friends of Ministers who have been appointed to various Organs of State – and I think she mentioned the Judiciary is one of them – does she not agree that for the AGC, what we are faced with now is not the Judiciary where there is security of tenure, where Judges are appointed and secured until age 65, but we have an AG now who is on a short-term contract of three years? That puts a very different complexion on things. The third clarification is: does the Senior Minister of State agree or not agree that it is desirable to have distance between the AGC leadership and the Government, which was what was believed by some former Ministers, including Prof Jayakumar, or have standards changed?”
“But, from a system point of view, do these appointments instill public confidence that the AGC will act independently in matters where the Government, or worse, the Prime Minister, has an interest in the outcomes? At the time when the appointments were being considered, were there no other qualified persons to take up those posts? What about the many career Legal Service officers who had dedicated their lives to public service? Was there no one there good enough? Coming back to facts at hand, I am concerned about the conflicts of interest. How will the AGC act in advising the Government on any decisions it wishes to take on 38 Oxley Road? Has the AGC already been giving advice to the Committee, and who within the AGC is giving the advice? Has the AG recused himself from even touching the file, since he had represented Prime Minister Lee in his personal capacity as a beneficiary? What about the Deputy AG? I understand that he only recently resigned as a cadre member of the PAP. When was this? Will he recuse himself from the matter, too, since his former party leader, the Secretary-General, is personally involved? Madam, Singaporeans are upset over this saga for a multitude of reasons. One consistent theme is embarrassment at the public airing of family disputes and that family matters should be settled privately. Another thread is whether the Prime Minister, other Ministers and the AG had exercised their powers properly in handling matters touching on the Lee estate. My concern is on the latter, particularly how we protect the rule of law and our institutions. Let us be most alive to the risk of a slippery slope that erodes public trust in the independence of our Organs of State.”
“It is stated on the AGC website that the AG, in his role as public prosecutor, "is vested with the power to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence. The AG is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government". These are the AGC's own words. Indeed, past Law Ministers had expressly endorsed the need for there to be distance between the Government and AGC. For instance, Prof S Jayakumar recently gave an interview for a book marking AGC's 150th Anniversary. There, he recalled how when he was appointed Minister of State for Law in 1981, he was given an office located at AGC, then in High Street. Prof Jayakumar then recounted as follows: "I told the then AG Tan Boon Teik that it was not proper for a Minister of State for Law to be housed in AGC because it would raise all sorts of questions about the AGC's autonomy." Fast forward to today. In prior debates this year, I had raised questions about the appointment of the current AG and his newest Deputy AG. The role of the newest Deputy AG as an immediate past MP is well-known. As for the AG, it was also well-known that he had been a senior partner in the same firm as the Law Minister for a long time. They probably understand each other intimately. We now learn from the Lee siblings that the AG also happened to be the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, and that he had advised the Prime Minister specifically on the matters relating to the Lee estate. Now, there is no legal prohibition on appointing the Government's close friends and former party comrades as the AG or Deputy AG.”
“In elaborating on its independence, the AGO states that it carries out its audits without fear or favour. In explaining its Integrity, the AGO pledges to strive to uphold the public trust in its work. Such a lofty mission is fleshed out in the AGO's annual reports, which document publicly the financial management shortcomings of Ministries and PMO. The significant contribution of AGO towards good governance and public accountability is clear to all of us. I now turn to another Organ of State, the AG's Chambers (AGC). According to the AGC website, the AGC recognises that "As principal legal adviser to the Government, the AG plays an important role in upholding the rule of law in Singapore, and thus contributes to one of the key aspirations of her people: to build a democratic society based on the fundamental ideals of justice and equality". Madam, make no mistake. The AG is a fiercely powerful state actor, more powerful than our Judges. When Judges decide cases, they are constrained by the laws passed by Parliament, and their decisions are public and appealable. By contrast, the AG, as the Public Prosecutor, has almost absolute prosecutorial discretion. He can decide not to charge a person who has committed an offence, to let an offender off with a warning, to reduce charges and so on. These decisions are most weighty, yet they are not public and not appealable. It is not an exaggeration to say that all of us are at the mercy of the AG. But each of us should be fairly treated by him since, under the Constitution, all of us are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Even though the AG is constitutionally a member of the Executive, he is expected to work independently.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Lee siblings have stated that their big brother has misused his position and influence over Government agencies to drive his personal agenda, and that they feared the use of the Organs of State against them. These are serious charges and deeply troubling. But to be fair to the Prime Minister, are the allegations outrageous? Are they merely a figment of the Lee siblings' overactive imagination? We in this House will not be able to get down to the bottom of these questions during this debate for one simple reason − there is no natural justice in the procedure adopted. With due respect to the Prime Minister, we are only hearing the Prime Minister's version, the Government's version, today. What else there is, we do not know. Indeed, allegations have been made today that the Lee siblings have been selective in their documentation and may not have been truthful. They are not here to defend themselves. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of lying. I am simply stating what we all know − that we simply do not have full information to confidently decide on who and what to believe. Notwithstanding the limited value of this session, I wish to raise one matter that should be of concern to every Singaporean who wishes to see Singapore as a bastion that upholds the rule of law. And, that is, how fundamentally precious it is that we defend with all our hearts and minds the independence of our Organs of State? We must protect the Organs of State as professional bodies with a national mission. The Government should never seek to interfere with or to influence those Organs of State set up to ensure good governance. For instance, take the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). AGO is an Organ of State. AGO prides itself in its Core Values of Independence and Integrity.”
“The current Act empowers the Licensing Officer and Police Officers to enter premises to ascertain if licensing conditions are complied with. The Bill will include a new category of officer, called an "authorised person", who, together with the Licensing Officer and Police Officers, will be called "inspecting officers". These inspecting officers will be given enhanced enforcement powers to enter and inspect PE outlets. Earlier, in his Second Reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary clarified that, as far as authorised persons are concerned, they would not have powers of forced entry and arrests. But it is also true that the Bill gives these authorised persons enhanced powers in confrontational scenarios, such as requiring production of information, accessing computers, interviewing suspects on site, and requiring witnesses to provide explanations of documents or information found. The category of the new "authorised persons" to be included to exercise these enhanced powers deserves some attention. According to clause 5 of the Bill, an individual may be appointed as an "authorised person" if he is "suitably trained". What does "suitably trained" mean? If the Government is referring to Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) becoming authorised officers for licensing inspections, does their training cover the necessary skill competencies to handle the confrontational scenarios envisaged in clause 17? Finally, on enforcement, clause 18 amends section 17A to explicitly include powers of forced entry. I would like a clarification on why it is deemed necessary now to provide the Licensing Officer expressly with powers of forced entry when he seems to have managed his duties all these decades without such an explicit power.”