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 18 of 36.
“Mdm Speaker, one of the key thrusts of the Bill is to reduce the likelihood of our PE night spots being owned and managed by those engaged in serious crime or organised crime activities. I agree that this is important, not only to promote a safe environment for patrons, but also to deny serious criminals a source of income and a means for money laundering. While I support the Bill's overall aims, I have two sets of queries on the Bill regarding PE licensing and enforcement. First, on licensing. The licensing of PE establishments vests in the Licensing Officer. For those who wish to appeal against the Licensing Officer's decisions, the Bill proposes the setting up of a new PE Appeal Board to replace the Minister as the appellate authority in certain types of appeals. Clause 15 amends section 16 of the Act to provide for the Appeal Board to be the authority to hear appeals against the Licensing Officer's decisions if the appeal is from a specified establishment or a prescribed class of applicants or licensees. At the same time, other appeals will continue to go to the Minister. I would like to know what the general division of work will be between the Appeal Board and the Minister. Is it the intention to let the Appeal Board hear appeals which may be of a more routine nature, while the Minister retains the power to hear appeals in more difficult or complex cases? Or is it vice versa, with the Appeal Board dealing with the more difficult appeals? My second set of queries relates to enforcement as set out in clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. Clause 17 amends the current Act significantly in terms of the right of entry and inspection of enforcement officers.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. A clarification for the Leader of the House. I appreciate very much her confirmation that when the House and, indeed, the Government debates any issue, it is important to look at all relevant viewpoints. My exhortation was actually to the House as a whole, that there may be a real scenario in the future where it may be more in the public interest actually to defer a Bill or Motion because an important public petition has been presented. I would like the Leader of the House's confirmation that it is conceivable in the future that this might have to happen.”
“In that debate, Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun indicated his consent to have the petition heard together with the Bill and his view that this was appropriate, should be given due weight. However, the House should be mindful that in future cases, we should endeavour to ensure that all petitions are granted their due process and hearing by PPC. The House should bear in mind that it may be in the public interest instead to do the opposite to defer the Motion or Bill, unless there is urgency, until the petition has been considered by PPC and its report sent to Parliament. Parliament might well benefit from a fuller understanding of the issue from the aggrieved or concerned persons before considering the Bill or Motion. In summary, Madam, while the new power under Standing Order 18 is a useful power to have, my view is that it should be used most judiciously, bearing in mind the importance of the public petitions process.”
“Some may ask what difference a reference to the PPC will make, since the contents of the petition can be read by Members during a debate on a related Bill or Motion. The difference to me is very significant. The PPC is a Standing Select Committee whose procedures are governed by Standing Order 103. PPC is empowered to call for witnesses, papers and records and can independently report its opinion and its observations to Parliament. Compared with the procedures of the whole House, the PPC would have more time to fully investigate the grievances of the petitioners and hear them out personally if needed, and call for relevant documents, including documents from the Government. The public petition procedure is provided for by the Standing Orders, and it is a vital link between Parliament and the members of the public. There is a due process that should be granted to petitioners. If the petition is not referred to the PPC but is considered by the whole House during a debate of the Motion or Bill, the burden would naturally shift to the Member presenting the petition to fully convey the petitioners' concerns and grievances, which is probably expecting too much of the Member. Madam, the recent debate on the administration of Justice Protection Bill provides a window as to what could potentially be problematic in the future. A petition of the Bill was presented through Nominated Member Kok Heng Leun but it was dealt with summarily during the debate of the Bill. In that case, the wording of the Bill was not made public until after it was presented in Parliament for First Reading. So, it could well be said that the petitioners could not have initiated their petition any earlier.”
“Mdm Speaker, while I am prepared to support the Motion, I would like to place on record my concern about one of the proposed amendments. This relates to the change of Standing Order 18 on petitions. In gist, my concern is that the new power to be given to the House must be used with great care and should never be seen to curtail the public petition process. Let me explain. The proposal by the Standing Orders Committee is to amend Standing Order 18 to provide an option for the House to decide that a petition need not be referred to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC). This might be done if the Speaker is of the view that the subject matter of the petition relates to a matter being already before the House, by a way of a Bill or Motion, in which case, the petition can be considered at the same time. The Committee's report states that this is to avoid the situation where the Bill or Motion has already disposed of the matter before the PPC considers the petition, making the petition moot. Under the current Standing Orders, all petitions initiated by the public must be brought to this House through a Member who is not a signatory to the petition. In other words, the Member is not necessarily a person who shares the concerns of the petitioners but is merely a necessary conduit through which a petition may be presented to Parliament. The Standing Order provides that every such petition must be referred to the PPC, except in very limited circumstances. I am concerned that this new power, if used routinely, would result in petitions not being given their due hearing, or send a signal that petitions are not important.”
“Yes, Madam, we would like the WP Members' dissent to be specifically recorded that we cannot accept the Bill because of Clause 24.”
“Yes, Madam. To follow up on what the Senior Minister of State mentioned about the AGO, our proposal is that the AGO does rotational audits of all Town Councils. I think what the Senior Minister of State is responding to is that he is saying that under Part VIA, if the Minister should instruct so, the AGO may be activated. Fundamentally, to ensure an even keel and uniform standard throughout all the Town Councils, we see great value in getting the AGO to do rotational audits of Town Councils, whether or not the Minister triggers them.”
“He also mentioned that MND has also been so-called quite nice to AHTC by writing to us to tell us that our accounts, maybe there are some things that we need to clarify but, at the same time, we see a media release yesterday, nicely timed for today's debate. So, this is just another example of the Ministry's behaviour. For now, one last clarification. I am not too clear about what the Senior Minister of State meant regarding the conflicts of interest and the C-suite, which he talked about in his opening speech. Currently, the way the provisions are worded, so long as this person has a significant influence over the business of the MA, that person would not be able to be a Town Council Secretary or GM. The point is, is it just the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)? What is the meaning of significant influence? It cannot just be at that level.”
“Madam, four clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier in his speech, he alluded to the Court case which MND brought against AHPETC and the position that we took at the time. I would like to clarify that we took the position based on legal advice and, as it turned out, the Court did rule that MND was not the proper party to sue the Town Council in that instance. Secondly, regarding civil servants, the Senior Minister of State seems to suggest that I am implying that civil servants are not responsible or somehow biased. Let me just clarify that as a former civil servant myself, I do recognise that civil servants do their best to act responsibly. But in this case, what Part IVA is expecting HDB employees, for example, who are appointed as inspectors, to do is to possibly make adverse findings against their political masters. The investigation will be triggered by the Minister for National Development himself. While he may want to do the right thing or the public servants may want to do the right thing, the reality is such. I think those of us who are realists will know the problem. Thirdly, regarding the issue of whether MND is the proper entity to implement or to supervise Town Councils as such, as the Senior Minister of State has repeated many times, fundamentally, Town Councils are political institutions. To vest a political officeholder with the decision-making power over political institutions, is just not tenable. As I mentioned in my speech, it is not just my view, but it is also the view of some corporate governance observers who have mentioned that, at least in terms of perception, it just does not look right.”
“I have a clarification for Mr Chong. In his speech, he was making a vague reference to AHTC's handling of funds vis-a-vis Punggol East. I am not sure what he is complaining about. Is he still sticking to the statements he made during the election campaign that $22.5 million worth of sinking funds handed over to us have been unaccounted for? That was the phrase that he used. My second question is about control failures. He mentioned that AHTC has control failures and that these control failures should not have happened in the first place. Is he saying that PRPGTC has no observation points in their annual audits from the auditor?”
“The setting up of such a tribunal would go a long way towards having a more considered and just resolution of disputes, and residents will automatically benefit. Madam, let me conclude. For the reasons I have stated, the Bill has some merits, such as explicitly requiring management of conflicts of interest and accountability which we fully support. But there are other parts, such as the new Part VIA which are fundamentally flawed to the extreme conflicts of interest they perpetuate. The provisions are also prone to abuse by the incumbent Government. We ask the Government to remove clause 24 that introduces the new Part VIA and instead use the existing laws and rotational audits by AGO to safeguard the public interest. In addition, we ask the Government to set up a housing tribunal along the lines of independence suggested. If the Government cannot agree to remove clause 24, WP will oppose the Bill.”
“For instance, HDB may wish to erect structures which will become a burden for the Town Councils to maintain; or Government agencies may require information from Town Councils in certain prescribed formats, which non-PAP Town Councils will incur significant time and cost to produce; or HDB may take a hands-off approach when Town Councils or residents face problems with the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) flats, resulting in slow resolution or non-resolution of issues by the developer. It may be natural for HDB to defend its own interest but that does not equate to the public interest. Currently, the dispute resolution mechanism between Government agencies, Town Councils and residents is the Courts. This is not ideal as Court processes are time-consuming and costly to Town Councils and residents. Going to Court is also adversarial in nature and would jeopardise the relationship between the Government, the Town Council and residents. It is necessary to put in place a simple mechanism to help resolve issues that crop up from time to time between MND, HDB, NEA and other agencies and Town Councils and residents. We suggest the setting up of an independent housing tribunal that tries to mediate and adjudicate disputes relating to the management of public housing. The tribunal should be chaired by a Judge and have members who are qualified in relevant fields, such as engineering, architecture, project management and horticulture. The tribunal could function with procedures which are low-cost and less formal. Where the tribunal makes a decision, its decisions will be binding, unless on an error of law, which would be appealable to the Courts.”
“First, while we cannot accept what is proposed in Part VIA, we totally support the principle that Town Councils should be subject to regular audits and checks due to the significant amounts of public funds they manage. In our view, instead of having the Minister direct partisan investigations, we should revive the audits by AGO. Town Councils were in the past audited by AGO and we believe that AGO should be tasked to audit Town Councils on a rational basis, that is, a few Town Councils should be picked each year for audit. Madam, AGO is an Organ of State under the Constitution. It fiercely defends its independence and has earned a good reputation for highlighting problems in Government departments and Statutory Boards. Such a scheme of AGO audits would engender greater confidence that the exercise is impartial and focus on what the public interest is, safeguarding of public monies. Our second suggestion involves the resolution of disputes or differences between MND, HDB and other Government agencies on the one hand, and Town Councils and residents on the other hand. The new section 21A will require Town Councils to work cooperatively and collaboratively with HDB, NEA and others. There seems to be a presumption in the Bill that the Government agency is always right, that Town Councils have no legitimate case, and Town Councils should simply comply with what HDB or NEA tell them to do. Town Councils will be liable to fines if there is non-compliance. This is not a balanced prospective. I will just give three examples to illustrate.”
“To take another example: we have also seen past records of how the Ministry advised a PAP Town Council how to make good a breach of TCFRs quietly behind closed doors, without any media release on the same. These are but two examples of the double standards practised by the current Government. It is, in our view, dangerous to arrogate to a partisan Minister the solemn duty of overseeing Town Councils, which are essentially political institutions. Furthermore, according to the new section 43E, the persons the Minister will appoint as inspectors of Town Councils include public servants and HDB employees. Is this tenable? These civil servants depend on their jobs to support their families. Do we expect these HDB officers to issue stinging reports against the Town Councils run by the Prime Minister or the Minister for National Development? If they do, they should be ready to throw in their resignations. From the corporate governance standpoint, experts have noted that having Town Councils report to MND is problematic. For instance, it was observed by Assoc Prof Mak Yuen Teen that the current model had MPs as Town Councillors responsible for Town Councils that are overseen by MND. But MND was also accountable to the same people who are Ministers or MPs. He said, "I think this creates, at least, perception issues… that the system might be unfair or lenient to Town Councils because the PAP dominates the Government". Madam, the scheme proposed in Part VIA does not serve the public interest but the interest of the incumbent Government. We reject this scheme as being fundamentally flawed. Having said that, Madam, we have two suggestions on how the public interest may be safeguarded in the context of Town Councils.”
“Matters can also be referred to law enforcement agencies, if warranted, as with the case of the Ang Mo Kio Town Council's GM being referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). So, why the extreme step of giving the Minister investigative powers over Town Councils? Furthermore, what amounts to "a reasonable suspicion of a material irregularity" is very subjective. The Bill does not even require any irregularity to be proved, just a suspicion of a material irregularity. What would trigger such an investigation is purely up to the Minister to interpret. Secondly, and more importantly, Madam, the scheme, as proposed, perpetuates the biggest conflict of all. Who is the gatekeeper of this regime? The Minister for National Development. But the Minister himself is supposed to be running a Town Council, too, as are his Senior Minister of State and Minister of State. His bosses, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers and the Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure, are all also running Town Councils. Their comrades in arms are running all the Town Councils in Singapore except one − our WP Town Council. Is the Minister a suitable gatekeeper, with these massive conflicts of interest? It is not possible to argue that the Ministry is a politically neutral body, as recent history, unfortunately, belies that claim. Singaporeans will recall that during the General Election campaign in 2015, the Ministry was an active campaigner against WP, issuing statements practically daily on the alleged misconduct of AHPETC. After Polling Day, the Ministry took a break and little was heard for weeks.”
“This Bill presents an about-turn from the original intent of Town Councils, which was to empower MPs to run towns with minimal interference from the Government. These new provisions are also a likely response to the Court judgment in the case filed by the Ministry against AHPETC, where it was held by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the Ministry was not the proper party to sue Town Councils. The Courts analysed that the framework of the Town Councils Act clearly showed that the Minister was only entitled to intervene in very few and specific circumstances and did not have a general power of oversight. Insofar as this Bill purports to enable the Ministry to manage or even curtail a Town Council's work, this goes against the original intent of forming Town Councils in the first place. Madam, what is even more disturbing to me is the vast new powers given to the Minister to order investigations into the affairs of a Town Council if there are "reasonable grounds to suspect a material irregularity in or affecting the conduct of a Town Council's affairs". He may also order such an investigation if a Town Council under a compliance review does not produce certain information required by the review. First, I would like to point out that there is already an existing framework in place. As it stands, Town Councils undergo annual audits, and auditors flag out issues on an annual basis. Where there is concern about a particular Town Council, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) can be called in, just as the Government did to AHPETC in 2014. The AGO team would devote time and expertise to unravel any matters and issue public reports.”
“Can the Minister tell the House how many of the current slate of Town Council Secretaries and GMs will have to leave their posts when this provision is effective? Earlier in his Second Reading Speech, Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee mentioned that it would catch officers in the C-suite. But as it is phrased, it is about people having significant influence. I would argue that it is likely to be larger than the C-suite. So, I think the Ministry should clarify this point. Madam, as far as conflicts of interest are concerned, we feel that in one respect, the Bill does not go far enough. The proposed section 15(2) will require the Town Council Secretary to maintain a Register of Declarations of interests and potential conflicts of interest made by Town Councillors. This Register of Interest of Declarations is to be kept and maintained by the Town Council Secretary, and each disclosure is to be brought up at the relevant Town Council meetings. In our view, this is useful but does not go far enough. Instead of just maintaining the Register, we would call for all such registers to be published for the scrutiny of residents. On our part, we are ready to publish the declarations related to AHTC. Next, I move on to the proposed mechanism for oversight. I now turn to clause 24 which introduces a new Part VIA on Oversight and Monitoring of Town Councils. Part VIA introduces new sections 43A to 43H, basically giving tremendous power to the Minister to devise strategies for compliance reviews on Town Councils and for the Minister to order investigations into particular Town Councils. These new provisions give the Minister powers that he did not have before.”
“Mdm Speaker, I will focus on the conflicts of interest and the proposed mechanism for oversight by the Ministry. And in doing so, I will draw on my experience as the former Chairman of AHPETC and as the current Vice-Chairman of AHTC. First, conflicts of interest. A key feature of this Bill is on conflicts of interest, as provided in clauses 8, 9, 10 and 13. First, let me say that WP agrees that conflicts of interest should be managed carefully. This certainly applies to Town Councils which handle tens of millions of dollars of public funds each year by way of S&CC payments from residents and Government grants. The Bill recognises that conflicts of interest will arise from time to time and need to be managed. Indeed, the practice of declaring potential conflicts of interest and recusing oneself from decision-making is unobjectionable and has been in place in our Town Council since inception. The Bill focuses on the potential conflicts that can arise where a Town Council appoints an MA to manage the Town. Clause 13 introduces a new section 20(1A) that a person who exercises a significant influence over the MA cannot hold a Town Council position of Secretary, General Manager, Finance Manager or their deputies. The post of Town Council Secretary/General Manager (GM), is an onerous one involving both compliance with regulations and leadership of a large operation. Where town management is outsourced to an MA, the person appointed to assume the heavy duties of Secretary or GM will not be a junior staff from the MA. In fact, we know that prior to General Election 2011, Aljunied Town Council was managed by an MA where the Town Council Secretary/GM was the Managing Director of the MA. So, conflicts of potential conflicts exist in PAP Town Councils as well.”
“I would like to clarify with the Member about his reading of the KPMG report. My question is very simple − whether there was any finding that there is criminal intent.”
“Yes, sorry, Madam. That was the first clarification. The second clarification is that the Member talked about late transfers of sinking funds and his observation was that it could only mean that we have overspent our routine funds and so on. But does he not agree that if a Town Council is deprived of Government grants, that could also be a reason why it may not be able to make timely sinking fund transfers? The third point is that the Member quoted a professor talking about the KPMG past payment review where the professor mentioned that there could be some criminal liability involved. I would like to ask Mr Zainal Sapari whether he has actually read the report and whether there is any finding of criminal intent.”
“Yes, I will start off my clarifications before Mr Singh does. Clarifications for Mr Zainal Sapari. He was going on about the handover of Punggol East and saying that Pasir Ris/Punggol East Town Council had a lot of operational problems and so on. But I am quite surprised to hear that because can he not confirm that AHTC and PRPGTC have actually met many times for the handover and has he ever raised these problems to our Chairman?”
“Madam, I have clarifications for the Member.”
“Many on Public Assistance are elderly and/or permanently unable to work, are usually not in robust health and have no relatives to help them. Would it not be more efficient for the Long-Term Assistance scheme to make direct payment to the relevant agencies?”
“Madam, there are two broad ComCare schemes to assist those in financial difficulties − Temporary Assistance via the Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance Scheme, and Long-Term Assistance, the latter commonly known as the Public Assistance (PA) Allowance. Regarding Temporary Assistance, I would like to clarify how the Government tracks its success. Is it simply based on the number of persons helped, or is there tracking as to how many persons managed to attain self-sufficiency to no longer need the scheme? Based on the cases I have encountered, there seems to be a rule or guideline that, after a number of months, the quantum of help is reduced and then help is refused altogether. While I support the rationale of incentivising persons to be self-sufficient, we sometimes see families stricken with illness and mental problems who have limited means of helping themselves. Another issue about Temporary Assistance that has recently cropped up is how it interacts with the Silver Support Scheme. Some Singaporeans who receive both Silver Support and Temporary ComCare assistance were apparently advised that their Temporary ComCare assistance might be reduced in view of the Silver Support payments. Could the Ministry please clarify this? Finally, I move to the Long-Term Assistance scheme. Currently, the Public Assistance allowance of $500 for a single person is meant for the person to defray his living expenses. The PA allowance is usually given in a cash lump sum, from which the recipient is expected to pay his bills, such as rent, utilities and Town Council S&CC. This is different from those on Temporary Assistance, where the Government commonly makes direct payment of utilities and S&CC bills to agencies.”
“Thank you, Madam. I have a clarification for Minister Ng. Earlier, he spoke about the steps to make the public transport system more inclusive for disabled passengers as well as families. And he mentioned a new scheme where families would be allowed to bring children in strollers on board, rather than to have to fold up their strollers. So, I would like to clarify whether, actually, he would agree that this ties in nicely with my cut on wheelchair space because you would need more space on the buses now for these various wheelchairs, prams and so on, and that the Government will bear this in mind when it looks at the design of buses.”
“Should a contingency arise, say, in the MRT system that requires evacuation or diversion of passengers, do our emergency plans spell out how we will communicate and protect those who are physically or mentally impaired, including the wheelchair-bound or those impaired in vision or hearing? To what extent have such plans been exercised? Silver Zones − Design and Education”
“Madam, we have made concrete progress in recent years in making public transport more accessible to disabled persons. There are two areas I wish to highlight for further review. First, the space available on buses for wheelchairs. The Minister previously confirmed that 92% of public buses today are wheelchair-accessible and the goal is to make this 100% by 2020. While certainly welcome, the fact is that the number of wheelchairs that a bus can accommodate is very limited. According to the operators' websites, SMRT buses can accommodate two wheelchairs, while some SBS Transit buses can only accommodate one. I have received feedback from disabled persons living in a charitable home about the difficulties posed when a few wheelchair-bound persons need to travel at the same time. Due to the limited space on board, they would need to board the buses in turn and wait at their destinations for subsequent buses carrying their friends to arrive, greatly increasing their travelling time. Besides their personal situation, they also rightly point out that as the general population ages, we can expect that a few wheelchair-bound persons may need to be on board the same bus at the same time. Now with the Bus Contracting Model, where the Government owns all operating assets, I ask the Government to look into having buses with more wheelchair space. Secondly, while we may have made good infrastructural improvements and removed physical barriers, it is vital that our public transport emergency plans provide for the safety and safe evacuation of persons with disabilities.”
“Understandably, naming these hospitals after the two donors has caused controversy, with public chatter that the naming rights were sold relatively cheaply. Could and should the hospitals have been named in a more meaningful way? URA has guidelines for the naming of buildings, which say that the names of persons, living or dead, should not be used unless there is significant cause to do so. Persons who are honoured have to be "outstanding persons who have made significant contributions to Singapore." Before granting approval of names, how carefully does the Government assess the reputation of donors? What safeguards are there against donors who may be trying to shore up their reputation in the name of philanthropy? The issue is even trickier when the donor is a living person, as his legacy could always turn from good to bad if he gets into personal, financial or legal problems later. The question is to what extent the names of our public buildings should be sold to the highest bidder. Should we have loftier aspirations instead, by naming public facilities to reflect ideals rather than wealth? In comparison, names like the Lim Bo Seng Memorial bring abundantly more to the national consciousness and to future generations. Coastal Water Pollution”
“Sir, a nation is grounded in its history and common frames of reference. The names we put on public buildings become part of our nation's consciousness, a collective memory for present and future generations. Today, we see the commercialisation of facility names all over Singapore. We have the DBS Singapore Gallery and the UOB Southeast Asia Gallery at the National Gallery Singapore, the Far East Organisation Children's Garden at Gardens by the Bay, the OCBC Arena and the OCBC Aquatic Centre at the Singapore Sports Hub. Had there not been a public outcry over naming rights, the sports hub and facilities flanking our National Stadium might be known as OCBC World today. Our public universities, too, are dotted with many examples, like the College of Alice and Peter Tan, and the Mochtar Riady Building. While the generosity of donors should be encouraged and accorded due appreciation, what kind of message are we sending by naming even a children's playground after a corporate entity? Some clarity from the Government was seen in 2013 when it came to national icons, such as the National Stadium and Sports Hub. Then Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong noted in a Parliamentary answer that while OCBC had donated significantly to the project, the names of such national sports icons would not be commercialised. Apart from sports, what about the naming of other landmark facilities, such as our public hospitals? We now have the Khoo Teck Puat and Ng Teng Fong General Hospitals. These hospitals were fully-funded from Government grants, with the donors reportedly giving a fraction of that towards various healthcare programmes.”
“No, Madam, I wish to say that my reservations remain but, nevertheless, I do respect that AGC has to continue with its work, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $154,612,600 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $4,836,000 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Madam, I would like to state once again that my cut was not meant as a personal attack on Mr Hri Kumar nor a question of his legal competence. But I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. The first is, she mentioned that Mr Hri Kumar was the most eminently suitable candidate for the post of Deputy AG. Is she by implication saying that the Government does not see any other candidate from the Legal Service that could fill that post? The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned or was trying to say that AG or Deputy AG has a limited role because, ultimately, the decider would be the Courts. But does she not agree that actually, under the Constitution, AG and Deputy AG have very wide prosecutorial discretion? They can decide whether to charge someone, what charges to prefer and their discretion is virtually unappealable. So, in that sense, the posts of AG and Deputy AG are something with vast power, in fact, vis-a-vis the Courts. The third clarification is that I do not know whether the Minister is able to give an indication of whether should the Deputy AG be faced with a file that is politically charged or has political connotations, whether he would actually take the step of recusing himself, which I think it is quite a common procedure in other countries as well.”
“To this end, I am most concerned about the recent appointment of a former Member of Parliament as the Deputy Attorney-General (AG). This is not a personal attack against the new Deputy AG nor on his legal competence. But it is my view that filling a constitutional post in an Organ of State with a party politician is not ideal as it carries a risk of undermining public confidence in the AGC's stated mission of fair and independent prosecutions and it is a risk that is best avoided. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Madam, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC's) establishment headcount this year will be at an all-time high of 594 which, compared to the actual headcount seven years ago, is a 42% jump. It would be enlightening to know why so many more officers are needed, where these additional headcounts have been allocated, and whether this trend will continue and why. Next, the Mission Statement of the AGC reads as follows: "Serving Singapore's interests and upholding the rule of law through sound advice, effective representation, fair and independent prosecution and accessible legislation". There are two further observations I wish to make. First, we see senior AGC officers recruited from the private sector, such as from large law firms. I agree that AGC can benefit from private sector talent who inject fresh perspectives and updated market knowledge. However, do such persons receive any briefings to reorientate their mindsets to function as public officers rather than private sector lawyers, from serving a client to serving the public? A private sector lawyer may be briefed to go all out to protect his clients' interests, but an AGC officer should not simply go all out to ensure that the Government wins in Court but should serve Singapore's interests by promoting justice. It is common these days to see AGC officers refer to Government bodies in Court as their "client" and in correspondence as well. This, to me, is disturbing. 4.30 pm Secondly, AGC, as an Organ of State, should be independent and ready to rein in the Government if it acts unlawfully or it is abusing its power.”
“Madam, for the Senior Minister of State. I appreciate what he has said about risk assessment. But I do not think my question has been answered about whether the Government has actually assessed whether it is feasible to issue APOs, for example, with stun guns. I think the Singapore Police Force actually has that issued to some officers, but I do not know whether that has been considered for APOs. I just wanted to know yes or no.”
“Madam, clarification in the opposite direction of Patrick Tay's clarification. In my cut, I did ask whether the Government had considered issuing non-lethal weapons, for example, to APOs. I wonder the Senior Minister of State could respond to that.”
“This gap in our law is not consistent with our CRC obligations as Article 40 obliges state parties to ensure that every child up to the age of 18 has his/her privacy fully respected during criminal proceedings. Children between 16 and 18 years old are also not protected by section 29 of CYPA which protects those under 16 years old from being detained for adult offences. This gap in our law is again not consistent with our obligations under CRC as Article 37 obliges state parties to ensure that every child up to the age of 18 is detained and separated from adults. Consider this, at 17 years old, many of our sons and daughters are still wearing school uniforms in junior college or attending polytechnic or Institute of Technical Education. Until they reach the age of 18, surely they could be given the full protections Singapore has signed up to provide under CRC. Otherwise, what is the point of signing this treaty? Madam, turning to the framework we do have, I note the Minister's commitment to extend the Appropriate Adult scheme to young suspects under the age of 16 in the light of the suicide of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim. I hope the Ministry will have a legislative framework to entrench the Appropriate Adult scheme and extend it to those below 18. Will the Ministry also consider admitting parents of such suspects to act as Appropriate Adults? Skills Training for Ex-offenders”
“In some cases, the individual under investigation may suffer in his ability to earn a livelihood while the investigation continues, for example, when a person's vocational licence to be a public bus or taxi driver is suspended or revoked during the pendency of investigations. Sometimes, cases hang for months with no visible investigative step being taken. This leaves the accused person in indefinite limbo and unable to earn a living. Could there be a monitoring mechanism to ensure that such cases are investigated with a certain haste? Youths Facing Criminal Proceedings Finally, I wish to touch on young suspects and their rights in a criminal justice system, in particular, those aged 16 and 18. Singapore has acceded to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). This is one of the few human rights treaties that Singapore has acceded to, showing the importance our country places on this set of international obligations. Article 1 of CRC defines children as persons below the age of 18. Under Article 4 of CRC, Singapore is obliged to undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. However, Madam Chair, our Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) defines a child to be a person below the age of 14 and a young person to be between the ages of 14 and 16. This means that children between the ages of 16 and 18 are not covered by the protection under CYPA. For instance, children in Singapore between 16 and 18 years old are not protected by section 35 of the CYPA which prevents the media from publishing their particulars or identifying details of those under 16 years old involved in Court proceedings.”
“What about psychological testing? Is it time to consider arming APOs, especially fresh recruits from overseas, with less lethal weapons, such as stun guns? Safeguards during Police Investigation Next, I move on to safeguards during Police investigations. Singaporeans want the Police to be effective. At the same time, the criminal justice system needs to balance state power with due process and ensure that investigations are conducted lawfully, with suspects accorded their constitutional and legal rights. One of the safeguards proposed by myself and others during previous Committee of Supply (COS) debates was to video-record the process of the recording of statements from suspects. As argued previously, such a procedure will also save the state from spending time to address frivolous challenges in Court and protect officers from false allegations. The Ministry had indicated that it would do a pilot project in the first quarter of 2016. Last October, I was disappointed to learn from a Parliamentary answer that the Government had decided to put the initiative on hold, pending putting the legal framework in place. Could the Minister elaborate on the rationale and when we can expect the pilot to commence? 2.15 pm Secondly, the right to counsel upon arrest has also been debated in the past. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees the right to consult the legal practitioner to a person under arrest, but case law has held that this right is subject to the exigencies of Police investigations. During the COS debate 10 years ago, in 2007, there was a pilot announced to give early access to counsel. What is the status of that initiative? Finally, there is an issue about the length taken to complete the investigations.”
“Mdm Chair, first, the Auxiliary Police. The need for additional resources for policing is clear. The population of Singapore is now more than 5.6 million, compared to 4.4 million in 2006, a 1.2 million increase over 10 years. More people mean a higher population density, increased interaction and proximity, more potential for crime and more assets to protect. Over the last few decades, the role of the Auxiliary Police has expanded exponentially. From an initial brief of static guarding of key installations to accompanying cash in transit, the Auxiliary Police are now in roles that require them to interact with the public in a variety of scenarios, such as crowd control, management of prisoners, checkpoint security and policing liquor control zones. The training of the Auxiliary Police has been enhanced, but is it adequate to ensure that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) are equipped to meet the challenging needs of handling complex and unpredictable situations? Policing Singapore is complicated by the fact that our population consists of 1.7 million non-resident foreigners. In answer to a Parliamentary Question I filed, the Minister has confirmed that Certis Cisco has obtained approval to recruit officers from Taiwan due to manpower shortages. I wonder whether the shortage will lead to a compromise in recruitment standards. Several Singaporeans have expressed to me their concern about foreign APOs walking around with firearms. Related concerns also crossed my mind, in particular, in the wake of the Little India riots in 2013, when it was clear from the incident reports that quite a number of the APOs at the scene were not Singaporeans. What security risk is posed by having foreign APOs carrying firearms? What risk mitigation measures are in place?”
“Thank you, Madam. I have a clarification for Minister Ong Ye Kung on my cut on money laundering. He mentioned in his response that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) had done an evaluation last year and generally gave a good report on our measures. But is it also not true that in that report, they actually said that while we were probably good at tackling smaller scale financial crime, we were not strong on cross-border, the bigger cases. There was an observation that we should try to target the more complex cases and that is expected of us as a sophisticated financial centre. So, my question is whether the Minister agrees that, actually, the Government or we are still on a learning curve on how to respond adequately to these, as he says, complex cross-border transactions. 5.15 pm”
“I would like to ask the Minister, will the Government take its regulatory measures a step further and actively try to detect bad institutions and, if so, what are the steps by which it intends to do this? Strengthening Responsible Financing”
“The Singapore branch of Falcon Private Bank, another private Swiss bank, was also shut down by MAS in October 2016 after being linked to US$3.8 billion of 1MDB fund flows. Standard Chartered Bank was fined, while both UBS and DBS were penalised by MAS. Bankers have since been convicted and jailed. All these happened after last year's COS debates when Minister Chan Chun Sing said that MAS has put in place a "robust preventive regime". Mdm Chairman, this ongoing saga has severely tarnished Singapore's reputation as a financial centre. In June 2016, MAS announced that it would combat money laundering by strengthening enforcement. This included the setting up of a dedicated anti-money laundering department, a dedicated supervisory team to monitor risks and carry out on-site supervision of financial institutions, and a new enforcement department to work jointly with CAD. However, even MAS has acknowledged that "it is not possible to prevent regulatory breaches and misconduct even with intrusive supervision". Therefore, we are still very reliant on financial institutions and their employees themselves being vigilant and filing suspicious transaction reports. This regimen breaks down when institutions themselves have fostered a culture of non-compliance, as we have seen with BSI and Falcon Bank, in how they wilfully ignored the risks in the 1MDB-related transactions. Billions in transactions and millions in bonuses are tremendous incentives to break the law. Even with vigorous enforcement, punishments will only be meted out after the fact and Singapore's reputation in this regard will still be damaged.”
“The rationale for the TDSR policy is well-known. While the Government has a good intention, TDSR is a blunt instrument that has seriously affected certain groups of Singaporeans in the current economic climate. I raised this in a recent Parliamentary Question, but feel compelled to raise it again as some of our residents are in the affected group. The TDSR restricts borrowing from financial institutions to 60% of a person's monthly income, and applies not only to loans to purchase a property, but also to loans secured on a property. The first affected group will be retirees who have properties to mortgage but no income, who may need some liquidity for one reason or another. A second affected group would be those who have suffered a drop in income or been retrenched in the current downturn, but who can offer property as collateral for a loan. What these persons ask for is a tweak to the TDSR policy to give them flexibility to re-schedule their debt obligations, at little risk to the lenders. It seems that banks are applying TDSR strictly, with no or few exceptions. Money Laundering A Malaysian government investment company, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has spawned criminal and regulatory investigations into embezzlement or money laundering in at least 10 countries. Billions of funds associated with 1MDB and wealthy financier Jho Low have reportedly flowed through bank branches in Singapore. The repercussions on our banking industry have been severe. BSI, one of Switzerland's oldest private banks, had its Singapore branch shut down by MAS in May 2016, because it was the custodian bank for $2.3 billion of investments from 1MDB.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, a clarification for the Minister for Finance. Earlier, he referred to my raising of the PIC scheme. The point I was making was whether, as an example, the PIC scheme, but, in general, whether there are any mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of expenditure in terms of the outcomes that are intended to be achieved? He mentioned that the PIC scheme was largely effective. We have seen productivity data that seems to be very mixed and also weak in the domestic sectors for the last couple of years. And I am wondering whether he could elaborate further on whether there is any publicly published Government report that shows the effect of the PIC scheme on productivity. Because I may have missed something that his Ministry or MTI has published.”
“Thank you, Madam. A clarification for the Member. I would like to thank him, first of all, for his explanation of our long runway for the carbon tax. But I think if he had listened to my speech carefully, the point I was making was that the reasons used by the Government to justify the water price increase have been there for quite some time. Unless he is trying to suggest that these factors only dawned on the Government recently and that is why they had no time to give Singaporeans more warning of the increase.”
“Doing so will help to ensure that we do not place unnecessary tax burdens on the people. 12.38 pm”
“We spend a few hundred million dollars here, a billion dollars there on different kinds of programmes, but we never really found out years later whether those programmes were any good or not." Since the Government looks to the people to raise funds for such expenditures, public accounting of the outcomes of spending is warranted. Madam, another issue that has been raised from time to time is whether the Government's revenue from land sales should be factored into the Budget as a source of revenue. I raised this matter during the Budget debate 10 years ago and I am glad that other Members also see the pertinence of raising this question in this year's Budget debate. Economists have recently also revived this question in their current discussions on Singapore's fiscal sustainability. At the time I made my speech 10 years ago, the revenue from land sales was in the region of $4 billion to $5 billion. Today, we see the revised land sales figure for this Financial Year to be $11.8 billion and the projection for the coming Financial Year to be $8.2 billion. Tapping on land sales to fund annual Budgets is internationally accepted and practised by other governments. As our expenditures are expected to rise in the coming years, is it not reasonable to seriously think about utilising land sales revenue to fund the Budget? This will reduce the need to tax the people further. Madam, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, few will quarrel with the need to spend more on areas, such as healthcare and public transport infrastructure. The legitimate questions being asked are whether we have done adequate reviews of past and current initiatives to weed out wasteful and ineffective expenditures. The other issue is whether we have completely recognised our sources of revenue.”
“We now read that the SkillsFuture Scheme launched just last year, has also been subject to a potential fraud of $2.2 million, already paid out. While I understand that designing a scheme is not a simple process, what lessons have we learnt in order to minimise such wastages of public funds? This year, the Committee for the Future Economy (CFE) has come up with seven broad strategies to tackle the challenges ahead. Minister Iswaran took us on a tour on some of the key thrusts on Monday. We have also had such committees to review our economic strategies in the past. Have we had any review of what had worked in the past and what had not? For instance, in 2010, we had the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC). The ESC had made recommendations to improve productivity which the Government accepted and implemented. The aim was to grow productivity by 2% to 3% per year over a decade, which should bring us to a 30% productivity increase by 2019. However, after seven years, productivity improvements are way off target and weak in domestically oriented sectors like retail and food & beverage. What lessons have we drawn from here? And can these lessons be applied to the CFE's strategies? Madam, after the Budget Statement, several economic round-table discussions were held. Various economists expressed concern about fiscal sustainability. They called for greater accountability on the outcomes of public spending, which they thought was necessary before the need for additional revenues and new and higher taxes should be called for. At the roundtable organised by the Economic Society of Singapore, SIM University economist, Dr Walter Theseira, made the following observation, "Every few years, we have a big transformation package.”
“Our healthcare system is still facing capacity shortages, as seen from the 20-hour waiting times for beds at certain public hospitals. I understand that the waiting time at some hospitals providing Long-Term Acute Care are indefinite. As for infrastructure, Singaporeans will benefit from a more comprehensive rail network, which will hopefully ease traffic congestion and provide more efficient connectivity. One legitimate question to ask, however, is whether there is an effective mechanism to assess whether expenditure that has been incurred has been effective in achieving desired outcomes. Take, for example, the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme (PIC) introduced in 2010. I believe the Government's intention was to design an inclusive scheme, with less red tape, which would be easy for businesses to access. I am aware that businesses are supportive of the PIC scheme, but for various reasons, not necessarily related to productivity. For example, in 2014, a post-Budget survey conducted by KPMG, 58% of the 80 senior executives surveyed admitted using the PIC to defray operating expenses, instead of using it to raise productivity. Madam, I am not faulting the Government for its system design at the outset, as it may not be possible to foresee initially all the ways in which a scheme may be gamed or exploited. But now that the scheme has run for some years, how effective has the PIC scheme been in achieving its aim of boosting productivity? The PIC is a huge scheme, with the Government putting in billions of public funds. Do we know whether the results were worth the huge cost? As it turned out, millions of dollars were also sucked out of the system through fraudulent or dubious PIC claims. What lessons have we learnt from this?”
“Mdm Speaker, when the Finance Minister delivered the Budget Statement last week, the announcement which grabbed the most attention was the increase in the price of water by 30%. Besides the quantum of the increase, what shook people were the suddenness of the announcement and the very short lead time from the announcement in February to its implementation in July. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources gave various reasons for the water hike. But these reasons are longstanding. The justifications, such as increased cost of production, the need to build more desalination plants and so on, did not come up suddenly. For the last 17 years that the water price was unchanged, did it not cross the Government's mind before this year that it would want to raise the price of water? By contrast, there is a two-year lead time for the impending carbon tax, which the Government is announcing ahead of its implementation in 2019. This lead time is welcome, as it will enable businesses and consumers to prepare, such as by strategising and investing in energy-efficient measures. Coming back to water, why was it not possible to prepare Singaporeans for the increase to take effect in July this year, with an announcement similarly two years ahead of time − in July 2015? Perhaps, July 2015 was not a good time to make such as announcement. Madam, the other statement in the Budget speech which caused insecurity and unease was at paragraph E.18 − that as we invest more in healthcare and infrastructure, the Government would have to raise revenues through new taxes or raise tax rates. Few people would quarrel with the need to invest more in healthcare and infrastructure.”