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 26 of 36.
“Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Second Minister. Earlier, the Second Minister mentioned that, so far, there have been no prosecutions under the Act. I wonder if he is concerned about that because the Act has been in force for about 10 years now. How does he read the fact that there has been no prosecution so far? Secondly, it is in relation to the UN listing, a point which I raised earlier about the two groups which ISD identified as active in Singapore in collaboration with Al Qaeda and JI. I agree with what he mentioned about the definition being an inclusionary one, so it is not just whether you are on the list but also whether you are engaged in such activities. My follow-up question is whether Singapore, as a member state of the UN, had tried to get these two groups listed because, I think, under the procedure, member states are allowed to do so. I would like his clarification on that.”
“This makes it difficult for the courts to regulate the proper use of the legislation or for an accused person to have the full protection that the criminal law regime normally provides. For me, the heart of the matter is a definitional one in which terrorism is neither completely within nor outside of our criminal law framework. Madam, despite my reservations, I support the Bill. 3.37 pm”
“Given that criminal sanctions will be imposed on convicted persons under the Act, the Bill does not specifically provide that it would be an offence for a person, such as a law enforcement officer, to wilfully suppress information to the court, or provide information which he knew or believed to be false. The way clause 6 is drafted presupposes that the state could and would do no wrong. In addition, clause 6 excludes the possibility that, even in the pursuance of a specific operational objective, executive actions would always operate in a just or reasonable manner. Given the broad powers conferred by clause 6, the potential for abuse is always there. Madam, I am all for equipping the law enforcement agencies with the requisite powers to keep Singapore safe and secure. However, these special powers must be balanced by the appropriate safeguards. Although not directly under the purview of the principal Act, I would like to ask the Minister whether other measures would be applied to those individuals who are found to be guilty of supporting terrorism financially. Would such supporters of violent extremist ideology be required to undergo counselling similar to that for alleged terrorists? Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government intends to have a comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation, rather than several Page: 55 stand-alone legislations, with the omnibus Internal Security Act as the primary legislative tool. I say this because I find the foundational premise of this Bill to be somewhat conflicted. The principal Act is a criminal legislation but it is also endowed with special powers that take it beyond the criminal law framework.”
“But the need to exercise discretion properly is fundamental in any anti-terrorism legislation, with the Judiciary performing the ultimate check and balance role. Our anti-terrorism laws must be cognisant of the need for fettered discretion. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to increase the maximum fine for the various terrorism financing offences under the Act. It proceeds on the premise that fines ought to be aligned with the financial penalty for money laundering offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A). However, given the severity of terrorism in terms of its impact on society, should not the fines and the jail term be heavier than for Page: 54 less severe offences, such as money laundering, for non-terrorism offences? Clause 6 seeks to protect from disclosure the identity of any person who gave information to the authorities under the principal Act under a legal duty. Clause 6 also criminalises the disclosure of information which will likely prejudice the various investigations under the Act. Madam, while I appreciate the necessity of protecting identities and disclosures of information in order not to compromise investigative and enforcement actions, I am concerned with the broad wording of clause 6. Given that the liberty of an accused person is at stake, surely he must be given sufficient information on the allegations against him to enable him to mount a proper defence? But the proposed section 10A provides for a blanket non-disclosure regime which makes it difficult for an accused person to mount a proper defence. Further, there are no safeguards in place to restrict the operation of clause 6 to situations where it is absolutely necessary on operational grounds.”
“This is regardless of whether the person participates Page: 53 in or facilitates the commission of specific acts of terrorism. The definition issue was debated in this House in August 2002. But a decade on, it is also apt to revisit the definitions, notwithstanding that defining "terrorist" and "terrorism" is fraught with much difficulty. The transnational dimension of terrorism adds to the complexity. Madam, because there is yet to be an internationally agreed, binding definition of terrorism, could we be bolder and attempt to fill the definitional void? Clause 2 widens the scope of who is a terrorist to include a person merely by just belonging to or being associated with specified terrorist organisations. I fear that we would lose some of the moral high ground against terrorism with such a broad application. Put another way, it is like the Government saying, "Trust us, although we can't define them specifically, we know a terrorist, a terrorist act, and terrorism when we see one and so need a broad enough definition for us to act against them." Why should we be concerned? A broad and tautological definition means that the law is more exposed to the increased possibility of abuse by the Executive, wilfully or otherwise, by over-zealous determination to deal with a perceived threat. To be sure, the prudent and principled use of discretionary powers by the various executive agencies in our various anti-terrorism legislations will go a long way towards maintaining the legitimacy of the various laws on our statute books. Mdm Speaker, it is impossible to legislate that those upon whom such discretionary powers are vested will exercise such powers with utmost scruples, responsibility and wisdom.”
“The fact that there has been no successful terrorist attack in Singapore may give rise to a false sense of security. At the same time, there is an almost irresistible, evocative appeal in the label of "terror", "terrorism", and "terrorist". The mere use of any one or all of these T-words brings us into the realm of the extra-criminal world with all the attendant fears, dangers, moral panic and even a crisis. Nevertheless, as a society, we cannot allow ourselves to be paralysed by the terrorist threat. This is so even as we treat terrorism as an existential threat. The Government has described Singapore as an "iconic target" for terrorists. The statutes, including this Bill before this House, that provide special powers to the authorities to deal with the scourge of terrorism, must be properly justified. The use of special powers must be strictly constrained by reference to the needs of policing to prevent terrorist activities and for prosecuting terrorism. However, in fighting terrorism, it is absolutely essential that this operational imperative must be balanced by the critical need to ensure that the values we hold dear are not compromised or undermined by the operational imperative – values, such as rule of law, due process and protection of fundamental freedoms provided for in our Constitution. Madam, with those broad remarks as the context to my consideration of the Bill, I now turn to specific clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 broadens the definition of "terrorist" – primarily through a new First Schedule in which membership of or association with specified "terrorist entities" would automatically make a person fall within the definition of a "terrorist" under the Bill.”
“28 pm Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to ensure that Singapore strengthens its counter-terrorism measures and continues to give effect to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the United Nations Security Council resolutions, especially Resolution 1373 (2011). The main focus of the parent Act and the amendment Bill before us is not about outlawing terrorist acts but it is about criminalising financing of terrorist acts, such as the provision of financing and other resources and support to alleged terrorists. Such precursor acts are essential to the terrorism supply chain by which terrorists commit terrorist acts. Significantly, the principal Act extends the reach of criminal law to precursor acts or acts preparatory to a terrorist attack. It does not target terrorists per se; instead, it is targeted principally at non-perpetrators of terrorist Page: 52 acts. Although this Bill does not substantively change the law, it is worth bearing in mind that the principal Act has a significant reach. It potentially captures actions that do not constitute attempt, conspiracy, or incitement of a terrorist attack. By moving to the margins of this supply chain and to activities that occur before an act of terrorism, the danger that innocent interactions and everyday transactions could fall within the penumbra of this anti-terrorism legislation is not to be simply brushed away. In short, the impact of such precursor offences on individuals and communities can be significant, given that ethnic communities do transfer funds, not through the usual banking channels. The threat of terrorism remains real.”
“Given the active and significant role of both KMM and MILF at that time, I was surprised that these groups were not specifically listed in the UN Al Qaeda list. Is there a reason for the exclusion? Page: 51 Has the risk threat assessment changed or is evidence to prove the linkage with Al Qaeda insufficient? Would the exclusion make the UN list less effective? Madam, my last query relates to exemptions given by the Minister under section 7 of the Bill. Clause 4 amends section 7 regarding when the Minister can exempt the person in Singapore or any Singapore Citizen outside Singapore from certain prohibitions against transacting in properties and services involving terrorist individuals or entities. The new section 7 will allow the Minister to also exempt the person from section 4(b), that is, the person may be permitted to provide properties and services to an individual terrorist but not for a terrorist entity. The explanatory note for the Bill states that the supply to an individual terrorist may be allowed if it is not for a terrorist purpose. The rationale for the change was explained as to allow a terrorist and his family funds for basic necessities as required by the humanitarian exception under the UN Security Council Resolution. Earlier, the Minister also mentioned that part of the rationale was rehabilitation. While the rationale is justified, I would like to ask if there are any safeguards to ensure that the funds of other assets are not channelled to terrorist purposes, especially now that there is an auto-exemption regime. For instance, will there be follow-ups to account for how the money is utilised? Despite the queries I have raised, Madam, I support the Bill. 3.”
“The individuals or groups listed are recommended by the UN to be subject to exit visas, travel bans and arms embargoes as set out in the Security Council Resolution 2083 of 2012. The UN framework also builds in a check-and-balance in the office of ombudsmen who will assess requests for individuals or entities on the list to be de-listed. Given Singapore's past experience of being a target of JI, it is good to note that the JI is on the UN's Al Qaeda list. The links between Al Qaeda and JI are clear and had been cemented by Hambali, a JI elite who is a member of Al Qaeda. Hambali had arranged for Al Qaeda to fund JI and train them in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to school young members of JI families in radicalised madrasahs in Pakistan. Also on the UN list is the JI's younger cousin, Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) which was founded in 2008 by one of the core founders of JI, Abu Bakar Bashir. The JAT has been linked to several terrorist attacks in the past two years in Indonesia. Madam, I have a concern regarding the comprehensiveness of the UN list. In the wake of the JI arrest in 2001 and 2002, MHA put up a White Paper on the JI in 2003. The White Paper carried a chart showing the links between the Al Qaeda and the JI which also implicated two other groups – the Kumpulan Militan Malaysia (KMM) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). MHA stated then that KMM had hosted 911 Al Qaeda suicide bombers and helped JI procure ammonia nitrate for making explosives. As for the MILF, MHA stated that they had received funding from Al Qaeda, conducted training of Singapore JI detainees in Mindanao and even directed the Singapore detainees to private US establishments for attack.”
“Financing enables terrorist groups to survive and thrive and to fund their recruitment, training, operations and even public outreach. The task of suppressing terrorist financing is a challenging one as such individuals or groups solicit and transfer funds from various channels which are difficult to track. Often, groups get financing through fund companies or legitimate welfare or humanitarian organisations. For instance, JI reportedly received funds from abroad via cash couriers, remittance and gold shops, donations, funds companies making purchases for JI's use and collections from Muslims and Muslim charities. Given that terrorism financing involves multiple, informal and even the fairest channels, are we able to gauge whether the Act has any tangible effect in suppressing terrorist financing in Singapore since it was enacted more than 10 years ago? For instance, how many prosecutions have been carried out since the Act came into force in 2003? Are there other indicators the Government is Page: 50 tracking? The United Nations Security Council has also acknowledged that the existing sanctions on terrorist financing could be strengthened and has indicated that they will try to do so by June 2014. Is Singapore engaged in this review process? Will the Minister be able to tell us what general directions are being studied by the UN? I now turn to queries on two clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition of "terrorist" and "terrorist entities". These will now cover all individuals and groups listed by the UN Security Council in the Al Qaeda Taliban sanctions lists as updated from time to time at the UN's official website.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise and support the Bill which will update and better coordinate our efforts to tackle terrorist financing. However, I have some queries on the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the framework which I shall elaborate on later in my speech. The 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda in the United States in 2001 and the Bali bombings by the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) in 2002 awakened the world to the ascendency of terrorists around the globe. Governments worldwide mounted massive and coordinated crackdowns. In Singapore and Malaysia, arrests were made of suspected terrorists in 2001 and 2002 which had been a success to the crushing of JI division in Singapore and Malaysia at that time. Al Qaeda has also been abated by counter-terrorism operations by the US and other governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 2002, this House also passed a parent Bill – the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act – as part of a global effort to tackle terrorist financing. Just as the situation appeared to be somewhat under control, more recent events showed that terrorist groups may go through periods of melee but are capable of regeneration and resurgence which should not be written off. Within the last two weeks, the US government detected chatter among high-level persons from Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula talking about a major attack and leading to the closure of several US embassies and consulates in the Middle East. Close to home, sporadic terror attacks in June and July this year had occurred in Sulawesi and Java by persons who are linked to the JI and Al Qaeda. It is clear that our counter-terrorism efforts must continue and a key component to tackle is financing.”
“Thank you, Madam. Madam, I have supplementary questions concerning the scope of the Auditor-General's audit. Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the AGO's capabilities had been beefed up and there have been more staff, but I understand that their audit is limited by the Audit Act, which sets out the nature of the audit that the AGO conducts. I have done a comparison, for example, with the Malaysian Audit Act. It appears that, in Malaysia, the AGO there has wider powers in terms of the nature of their audit. For example, the AGO can look into whether public properties have been properly disposed, whether there has been waste and extravagance and so on. So, my question is, one, whether the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm whether, indeed, the scope of AGO is perhaps narrower than some other governments and, secondly, whether the Government has plans to review the scope of the audit done by AGO.”
“Thank you, Madam, two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, I understand that in some other countries like Norway where Alpine Bau has got some works, there is an option being explored about whether they could resume works even though they have filed for insolvency. Am I reading the Minister correctly that that option is not being pursued, in other words, the contracts with Alpine have been terminated by LTA? And the second question is, since there is going to be additional costs incurred, is there any contractual provision by Alpine, for example, some performance bond or guarantee, where we could recoup back some of these additional costs for their non-performance?”
“But on the issue of access, as mentioned by the Member, clearly we understand why it is important for us to give access to the MTOs so that they can go in if there are rectification and maintenance work that needs to be done. But notwithstanding this, we have to consider the issue of access charge, given the feedback that we have received from the previous meeting the IDA had with the Town Councils. So, we are prepared to look at this again. Page: 51”
“Madam, supplementary questions for the Minister. We would like to facilitate IDA's rationale of improving coverage for mobile users, including our residents. Does the Minister agree that the coverage would probably be better from the rooftop as compared to a lower lying space? Secondly, we have done some checking on the frequency of access requests by these mobile operators at our Town Council for the first six months of this year and it works out to about 74 requests a month. So, it is a significant number of requests and there is a certain cost incurred by the Town Council to provide access to the rooftop because it is supposed to be a secured space and so on. I think the Minister understands that. So, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that this change in the COPIF would pass some burden to the Town Council, taking it away from a profit-making entity like the telcos. Would he consider reviewing at least this aspect, where access is given, could there be some arrangement where we could have a reasonable charge or get reimbursed for the cost incurred? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: In terms of the location, this is about in-building coverage. So, it does not have to be on the rooftop. It could be in the car parks or basement. But we leave it to the MTOs to decide where exactly is the best location, in consultation with the building owner. We do not have a preference. What COPIF does is to specify a minimum space in which the building owners would have to give to the MTOs. Anything beyond that, they have to agree on a commercial basis. I do not quite understand why there are so many checks in Aljunied Town Council – 74 requests. I am quite curious which MTO, but we will check on that.”
“Thank you, Madam. Minister, it is still the consistent position of our Town Council that Mr Tai, at no time, said that the hawkers had to pay extra to fulfil the Town Council's annual obligation to clean the high areas. At no time was this said. I do not think that these documents showed it either.”
“Thank you, Madam. The documents of minutes that Minister showed us clearly took place in the context of the discussion on spring cleaning. And he has not answered my earlier question as to whether he agrees that there is a difference between the quarterly spring cleaning and the annual cleaning of the high areas. That is, the first question. Secondly, does he not accept that NEA was open to the Town Council conducting high area cleaning on dates which did not coincide with the spring cleaning? Third, if we look at the quotation that he mentioned on page 7 of the bundle – he mentioned some discussions which some hawkers may have had with Mr Low. I will leave it to Mr Low to talk about that [Interruption]. Looking at this quotation, this is a quotation from ATL, the cleaning contractor, addressed to the Market Association. They issued a separate press release, I think round about early June, to state that this quotation was requested by the Market Association and does not coincide with their annual obligation to clean the high areas under the Town Council contract. Does Minister not agree that nowhere is the Town Council implicated in this quotation? It is a quotation by a commercial company.”
“Madam, the Minister has just given us a stack of documents. I would like him to point out where it is quoted that Mr Tai has asked the hawkers to pay extra for the high area cleaning under our annual obligation.”
“Madam, as far as our investigations go, Mr Tai at no point in time asked for extra money to be paid to the Town Council for high area cleaning. Page: 26”
“Madam, I do not think the Minister has cited any correspondence from Mr Tai which says that the Town Council is asking the hawkers to pay extra. What the Minister mentioned in the email just now was that Mr Tai was saying that arrangements with spring cleaning, those details should be discussed with NEA. I do not think Mr Tai asked for any extra charges to be paid.”
“Page: 25 The next point is he mentioned the incidents concerning Block 538 in Bedok North, saying that we have not fulfilled our responsibilities, we have tried to deny our role and also lie about it. But does he not remember that this whole confusion started because of an email from an NEA official on 7 February? In fact, if he looks at that chain of correspondence, he will see that the Town Council staff were asking NEA to confirm the dates for the scaffold erection and dismantling, and the reply that came back was, that the Hawkers' Association would be making arrangements with their own contractors for the scaffold erection and dismantling. So, how is the Town Council supposed to read that? Is that something that the Town Council is supposed to be blamed for? Madam, I will just make these clarifications from now and respond later.”
“Madam, I would like to make some clarifications and also ask some supplementary questions of the Minister since he has made very serious allegations against myself and Mr Pritam Singh's integrity. First of all, as far as obligations of the Town Council are concerned, I think the Minister would be aware that all conservancy contracts of Town Councils typically contain a clause requiring our conservancy contractors to conduct cleaning of high areas of hawker centres at least once a year. And he would also know that this is the case with the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council as well. So, would he not agree, first of all, that there is no incentive for the Town Council to get hawkers to pay extra because our contractors are obliged to provide this service in the first place? Secondly, the Minister makes a lot of substance over certain emails that our Property Manager, Mr Tai, may have sent to the hawkers about spring cleaning. Does he not agree that spring cleaning and annual cleaning of high areas are not the same thing? His emails, as far as I recall the Minister talking, were referring to spring cleaning as such, and not the annual cleaning of high areas. The third point is that the annual obligation of the Town Council to clean the high areas of hawker centres, I do not think NEA goes as far as to dictate the dates of these annual cleanings. There is no law requiring the annual cleanings to coincide with the spring cleanings as such. And during our Town Council's discussion with NEA, we are given to understand that NEA is open to us having alternative dates for the cleaning of the high areas. So, does he not agree that really annual cleaning and spring cleaning need not coincide?”
“Yes, Madam, I would like to ask the Minister about what he earlier said about the standard software packages that he thinks could be purchased for town management. This seems to contradict what Mayor Teo has been saying about how there was a need to look at the redevelopment options and how to make sure that things are optimised for the Town Councils. I wonder whether the Minister could explain, in this context, what does he mean? Are the PAP Town Councils wasting too much time?”
“Yes, Madam, clarification on the Minister's last but one response. He cited his experience in the hospital to say that you can always buy software off the market. But does he not agree that Town Council management software is actually customised. I do not know what other software he is suggesting can be bought off the market.”
“Thank you, Madam. Minister did not answer my clarification on his personal view of whether a one-month termination clause for a critical IT system is reasonable and does not jeopardise continuity of services to residents.”
“As he well knows, and I have stated this publicly in the past, one reason was that we needed to take over and it is true we were busy with that, but the second thing is also that we needed the public to see the sting of the clause before they can understand how it can jeopardise the handover. So, it is a question of when it is appropriate to raise it. So, these are my clarifications for now, Madam.”
“I can name them as a fact: Esmaco, EM Services, CPG. We knew at that point in time that all these companies have contracts with PAP Town Councils. In fact, the incumbent MA of Aljunied requested to be released because they thought that it would be detrimental to their business interest because they were doing work for PAP Town Councils and they felt that they could not carry on working for both Town Councils. So, it is with that landscape that we had to make a certain decision to find an MA willing to work with us in the Town Council. The set-up of FMSS was because of this very real possibility that we will be faced with nobody else to do it for us. And we stand by that to say that we acted in our residents' interest to ensure continuity because of this landscape. I am not sure why the Members in the House are laughing because I think, perhaps, they have not been in this position as we have but these are the facts. Now, the next clarification which I should repeat is that FMSS shareholders and directors are not WP members at all. So, it is very different from AIM. As Member Denise Phua pointed out, it is not really a parallel to draw that comparison. The seventh point is, I wonder whether the Minister can confirm his personal view about whether a termination of one month's notice for a critical IT system is reasonable. How does that not jeopardise residents' interest when you have that such clause. I would like his personal view on that. The last clarification for now is that he mentioned, as some others have mentioned, that we are raising this issue of AIM as an excuse for our poor performance or alleged poor performance under the TCMR. He is asking why we did not raise it earlier when we knew of it earlier.”
“The auditors have in the main said that the tender was in compliance and we did take our due diligence to ensure value for money for our residents. He quoted certain prices on property units. I will have to double-check on that because I think there may be some errors in the prices that he mentioned. But, in any case, the other contracts that he talked about were actually awarded earlier based on earlier pricing. So, inflation and so on would affect EDU pricing. So, we need to compare apples with apples. So, in actual fact, just to reaffirm, we have actually done a special audit for that. Now, the next point that Minister mentioned was the part of my speech where I asked whether the tender to AIM was really in substance open because one of the conditions of the contract was that all of the directors needed to have Town Council experience and not just IT experience. So, the point being made there was about software companies: how many software companies really have all the directors having Town Council experience. But Minister came back to say that our MA would be such a person. But actually our MA is not a software company. They are actually an estate management company. So, it is in the context of software companies that I was asking that question. Now, perhaps the most important clarification I should make is, he appears to suggest that the set-up of FMSS and so on was due to some preferential treatment being given by our TC management to our party supporters, as he put it. Now, I would like to set certain facts straight. Of course, it is true that FMSS was set up after the May 2011 General Election. The landscape of that was this: one is that we all know that there are only certain companies in the market that do town management for HDB estates.”
“Madam, I have listened to the Minister's roundup speech and I have to take issue with his ascribing to me personal motives of pride and arrogance. Because I think nothing can be further from the truth. The reason why we raised this matter for public discussion and debate is because we want to improve things for the future. So I, definitely, do not accept his ascription of those motives to me, personally. And I would like to make a few clarifications. I have counted them; there are about eight. The first is that Minister mentioned that I exercised my right as Chairman of the Town Council to waive a tender for the MA contract when it was first awarded after the General Election. And, of course, as he knows, under the rules, there is a provision to do so provided that you satisfy the conditions for the waiver. At that time, the reasons were recorded accordingly as in there was urgency in the public interest and, in large part, due to the termination clause present for the TCMS to be cut off. So, we needed to actually put in place an MA to handle the handover and time was running against us. Now, the second point he mentioned was about the open tender that was called one year later. That is a fact. It is true, of course, that there were three companies that picked up the documents at that time and only FMSS tendered. Now, we realise our duties when dealing with a sole tenderer that we need to ensure value for money for our residents. So, in actual fact, we went through some due diligence and actually commissioned a special audit of that tender award. So, we have gone through a special audit in the case of awarding the tender to our MA in 2012.”
“Yes, Madam. I would like the Member to clarify what he just said. He mentioned that the termination clause in the contract of one month applies equally to Town Councils regardless of which party runs it. But I wonder if he can explain what he understands by material changes to the membership of the Town Council. That is one. And, secondly, did AIM terminate any other Town Council under this clause?”
“Thank you, Madam. I have just one clarification for the Member. Earlier, she mentioned that when the 14 PAP Town Council chairmen were discussing this transaction with AIM, they did not know whether they would be fielded in the next General Elections and so on. I would like her to confirm if I am looking at the correct document, because the agreement for sale is actually dated 3 January 2011. So, is that the correct date?”
“I thank him for his narration of the Punggol East handover. He mentioned the discussion about the need to acquire a new server if we were to migrate to the TCMS for Punggol East under our management. I would like him to clarify whether actually there were some figures discussed during the meeting that data migration might cost up to $130,000. That is the first question. The second question is I would like his confirmation on whether he agrees that a handover on a SMC scale is actually a much smaller task compared to a handover on a GRC scale.”
“Madam, can I ask for two clarifications from the Member?”
“We believe that the sale of the TCMS by the PAP TCs, whatever its other ancillary benefits, was to enable AIM to cut off any non-PAP TC from using the TCMS at short notice crippling the TC. By doing so, they acted in a party political interest and jeopardised the public interest using a critical asset developed with public funds. In this light, I cannot help but recall the parliamentary debate in 1988 when the Town Council Bill was first presented for the Second Reading. At that debate, the then first Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong justified the introduction of Town Councils as providing political stabilisers to the political system. He said there was a need to protect the public by ensuring that political parties which aspired to be Government should first prove that they could run a Town Council for a constituency. He said, "If a new party finds itself unexpectedly in Government, it would be like an aspiring pilot taking over a SIA jumbo jet in mid-air before he has flown solo in a Cessna. This cannot be in the interest of passengers in the jumbo. TCs are the Cessnas of our political system." He also highlighted that some PAP MPs had expressed a fear that Opposition MPs could win some seats, prove themselves able to run the Town Councils and, thereafter, fan out to other constituencies in subsequent elections. Is this what this whole AIM episode is about, ensuring that the passengers in the Cessnas have bumpy rides or even crash land? Does the Government even care about the passengers in the Cessnas or are they simply collateral damage in a bigger political game?”
“First, restrictions should be in place in the Town Councils Act to prohibit the sale of critical assets or systems still needed for TCs' operations to third parties. On no account should TCs relinquish control over the use of assets which should survive any change in political leadership. The most critical system would be the IT system for town management. Ownership of the town management software system and its intellectual property rights should reside with the Town Council. Second, Town Council management systems which serve several constituencies should be configured to be easily "segregable" at low cost in the event of boundary change or leadership change. This should be ensured for the 3G TCMS. Third, another important IT system which should be safeguarded for continuity is the Tele-Monitoring System (TMS) which monitors lift breakdowns and lift rescues. All TCs are currently using the TMS from the same provider and, at the minimum, the existing termination period of three months is too short and should be reviewed. Fourth, important service contracts, such as those for Managing Agent and Essential Maintenance and Services Unit (EMSU), should provide for a longer termination period to allow for a fresh tender to be called if necessary after a handover. Finally, unilateral terminations by contractors of essential contracts due to a change in political leadership should be disallowed. Should there be a need to put in place another contractor due to business considerations, a mutual discharge can be agreed between the TC and the contractors. Madam, we are ready to provide further input on the review if needed. Let me conclude.”
“As custodians of public funds, all MPs must act in the best interest of residents, regardless of which political party they support. At the same time, TCs unavoidably have some political elements. The manner and quality of town management is one factor in a voter's choice of MP, and MPs wish to do well in town management in order to get re-elected. However, it does not mean that MPs can allow TC assets to be endangered or cut off from TC use for political reasons. Let me, at this juncture, share some essential facts about AHPE Town Council and correct some misconceptions. The IT system in use in AHPE TC belongs to the TC and will be there for use even if there were to be a change in political leadership. There are no equivalent termination clauses, unlike the AIM transaction. In fact, I understand that Potong Pasir Town Council is still using the IT system developed before the change in political leadership in 2011. I also take strong issue with the misleading release by MND on our Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd. The Straits Times of 7 May reported that MND gave examples of how politics and Town Councils sometimes mixed, which included, in our case, the former General Manager of Hougang Town Council and her husband setting up a company to provide town management services to AHTC. We find this insinuation mischievous as neither she or her husband nor any of the Directors and shareholders of the company are WP members. They were hired based on their experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang Town Council. What is MND implying? The Minister should explain. Madam, I now come to the final part of my speech – our key recommendations for the review of Town Councils.”
“It is quite clear that time is needed to develop a system of this complexity; in the PAP's own estimation, 18-24 months. Did the PAP TCs not realise that this aspect of the AIM transaction endangered the continuity of public services, or perhaps that was the intention in the case of a change in political leadership? It was fortunate, indeed, that the Workers' Party could use the IT system in place in Hougang Town Council and upscale it within a much abridged time to cater for a town of GRC magnitude. What if the constituency was one by a political party not running any Town Council or by an independent candidate? Or is the continuity of public services not important to the PAP once they lose a constituency? Next, Madam, no finding has been made about the wastage of public funds caused by the need to replace IT systems due to a change in political leadership. Once the system has been developed with TC funds, the residents have a beneficial interest in it since they contribute to TC funds via service and conservancy charges. Why should they pay again for a replacement system just because the Town Council Management has changed hands? Even those who live in private estates have asked me about wastage since TCs are also funded by Government grants that they, as taxpayers, contribute to. MND has made a finding that there was no loss of public funds caused by the AIM transaction. But what about the wastage of public funds which the transaction brings about? Residents and taxpayers pay twice for political intrigue. How is that justifiable? Let me now move to the nature of Town Councils and the recommendations for strategic review. Town Councils provide essential public services to HDB dwellers via public funding.”
“We find this quite puzzling since the TCs had experience in developing the first and second generation TCMS and should have known that one year was too short. Now, as MND has noted, two extensions were required after that and a fresh tender was only called this year, in 2013. Was there any re-development work from 2011 to now? The timing of the sale to commence a few months before the General Elections in 2011 also calls for explanation. Was it a pure coincidence or was there simply a need to sell the software quickly so that termination can be effected if political seats were lost? Madam, let me now turn to the termination clause. The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the one-month termination clause are unconvincing. First, no attempt was made to explain why a material change in the membership of the TC should allow unilateral termination by the contractor with one month's notice. It is unfortunate that MND did not seem to query this as this was the crux of exchange between the PAP and the Workers' Party. Could it be that there is simply no good reason to give? Some attempt was made to explain why termination may be fair in the case of a change in boundaries. It was said that the contractor might be faced with a much larger town than anticipated but be held to a fixed price to its detriment. I am not sure why there was this worry. At that time, the TCMS was being developed for the whole of Singapore, except two SMCs, namely Potong Pasir and Hougang. In addition, the contract itself already provided for variation in price based on the number of property units. The real sting of the termination clause lay in its one-month notice period. Is a one-month notice period reasonable for a critical IT system?”
“I wonder how many companies in the software business in Singapore can say that all their Directors have TC experience – perhaps only AIM. The tender period was advertised as 14 days, shorter than the minimum period of three weeks for local tenders required under TC Financial Rules 74 sub-rule 6. It was then extended by another week to give three weeks. Why the initial period advertised was one week less than the minimum was not explained at all in the MND report. In addition, one of the companies which picked up the tender forms had told the media that there was insufficient information in the tender documents to make a decision whether to tender. This was in The New Paper. Next, Madam, risk assessment of AIM. The PAP TCs told MND that one of the key reasons for selling the software to AIM was that AIM agreed to bear the risk of any price increases by NCS in maintaining the software even after the original contract with NCS expired. We have not been able to find this exact clause in our documents. However, even assuming so, on what objective basis did the PAP TCs assess that it was safe to entrust this risk of cost increases to a company with a paid-up capital of $2? Who will pay in the event of a cost increase? What about the risk of AIM being wound up? The PAP TCs highlighted AIM's track record but based on the tender documents we have seen, AIM listed only one prior project, also a sale and leaseback. When AIM was asked to fill in a table indicating the identities of their key technical and professional staff, a line was drawn across the table with only one word typed in "outsourced". Next, Madam, duration and timing of the sale and leaseback. MND noted that the TCs underestimated the complexity of the task of developing the new generation TCMS software.”
“The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the sale of software and intellectual property raised more questions than answers. They told MND that having the software reside in a single entity was better than having the vendor deal with 14 TCs which would be cumbersome and inefficient. But surely, this can be easily overcomed since the PAP TCs have a Co-ordinating Chairman who can coordinate to ensure the proper authorisations. The TCMS was developed with $23.8 million of TCs' operating funds. Surely, there is reason to retain ownership and control over it for the residents in the 82 electoral wards then under their charge. Much ado is being made in the report that the second generation TCMS was almost obsolete and had limited value. But does this mean that it is of limited value to the TCs using it now? If the system ceases to function without replacement, TC operations will grind to a halt. Another incomprehensible justification is the saving of $8,000 for the 14 TCs that arose from the sale. The $8,000 savings is the difference between $140,000 paid by AIM and the sums paid by the TCs back to AIM during the one-year leaseback. This total savings of $8,000 shared among 14 TCs amounts to about $571 per TC. Is saving $571 significant enough a reason for a TC to sell a system? Next, Madam, the tender terms. It was emphasised in the MND report that the choice of AIM was made after an open tender. Was it an open tender in substance? The tender was advertised and five companies picked up the documents. However, a closer look at the conditions of contract will reveal that the specifications required each of the Directors of the tendering company to have adequate experience with the operations and functions of a Town Council.”
“We accept this responsibility and have pledged during elections to manage towns entrusted to us to the best of our ability. We intend to continue keeping this promise. We raised the sale to AIM after the MND released its banning of Town Councils under the revised TC Management Review framework in December 2012. Contrary to what some PAP Members have charged, it was not raised as an excuse for non-performance nor are we asking anybody to wait 24 or 30 months or five years for us to perform. AHTC was actually ranked well and comparably by MND in the areas of cleanliness, maintenance and lift breakdowns – the critical functions residents care most about. The main point which required public explanation was that the new indicator of corporate governance was graded as pending, as our auditors took much longer to complete their work. This was due to the need to reconcile accounts being kept under two different IT systems with differing nomenclature. We do not believe that the AIM sale served the public interest, and the public deserves to know about this and assess it for themselves. We find it unacceptable for any TC to relinquish control over critical TC assets developed with public funds to third parties who can cut the TC off from using the assets to service residents. In our view, the PAP TCs had unjustifiably risked a disruption to public services and that this should not be allowed to recur. I am relieved to read that the MND recognised the need to preserve continuity of public services as a paramount priority. The question is: why did the PAP TCs not recognise the risk of service disruption when selling the TCMS to AIM? Madam, let me now go into some detail about our misgivings concerning the AIM transaction.”
“Further, the terms of the sale of the most critical town management IT system had unnecessarily endangered public welfare, particularly the relinquishing of ownership to AIM with the one-month termination clause. MND fell short in not admonishing the PAP TCs for risking disruption to the public in the name of politics. MND also did not take cognisance of the wastage of public funds incurred when such terminations required replacement systems to be set up. In addition, the one-year sale and leaseback was clearly an underestimate of the time needed to redevelop a new TCMS. The fact that the one year happened to straddle GE 2011 suggests that whatever good faith the TCs had in the sale to AIM, there were political objectives in crippling any new TC leadership of a different political affiliation, hence, endangering the public in the process. Second, as regards the MND's recommendations for a review of TCs, we find that while they will improve continuity of services during a handover of TC management, their recommendations do not go far enough to prevent wastages of public funds. MND should entrench principles to recognise the public nature of assets being handled by TCs which should be safeguarded for public benefit regardless of politics. Before I go further, I should, at the onset, state WP's position concerning town management and why we brought the AIM sale to public knowledge in December last year. Workers' Party MPs are committed to being politically accountable to voters for town management under the current regime. Whatever else is done in other countries, the responsibility for town management has been legislated to the MPs under the Town Councils Act.”
“Mdm Speaker, this debate has been triggered by the controversies surrounding the sale of Town Council Management System (TCMS) software by 14 Town Councils managed by the PAP through the Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2011 prior to the General Elections. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging the public interest in this matter and for ordering MND to investigate and to do a broader-based review of the nature of TCs. I would also like to record thanks to the Ministry officials for their efforts. Where do we stand today after the review? MND's findings cleared the AIM transaction but highlighted areas for strategic review of TCs. It seems, however, that members of the public who have been tracking this issue are still asking critical questions and many are not convinced that the 14 PAP TCs acted in the public interest when they sold the TCMS to AIM. It is necessary to debate this matter calmly and clearly to enable the public to understand the issues more fully and realise what is at stake. That was why I re-filed an Adjournment Motion last week. The Government's subsequent decision to enable the matter to be debated under Standing Order 44 is belated but it is the correct thing to do. Let me first summarise how the Workers' Party and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council view the MND findings before elaborating. I shall thereafter make recommendations for the review. First, we do not agree with the findings regarding the AIM transaction that public funds were safeguarded and residents' interests had not been compromised. From our reading of the documents available to us, there were aspects of the tender suggesting it failed to follow the spirit of what an open tender should be.”
“Yes, Madam, just one more clarification. I understand all that, Senior Minister of State. Just that the FSM may be aware of his responsibilities but the organisation has to support that, and if that is not forthcoming then the FSM cannot be legally liable for the lack of staff in the CERT teams, for example.”
“Madam, I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. This concerns the legal liability of the FSMs in relation to the formation of the CERTs. It was mentioned in the press release issued by MHA on 14 January that under this new scheme, the FSMs will be required to ensure that the response plan guidelines are complied with including upgrading the competencies of the in-house CERTs. And as I mentioned in my speech earlier, the FSM in the scheme of the organisation is not a very high level employee, so I would like the Senior Minister of State to confirm that the legal liability does not fall on him if there is non-compliance but on the building owners and management.”
“The FSM in a building is likely to be a mid-level employee with several corporate roles, for example, he could be an occupational safety and health officer doubling up as an FSM. To place on him the responsibility of ensuring that competent CERTs are in place which comply with SCDF guidelines on emergency response seems very onerous. Will the Government assist building managements to comply with this new requirement of CERTs and if so, how? For instance, are there any plans to develop new training courses in emergency response planning to cater specifically to the new statutory requirement for CERTs? 3.17 pm Page: 47”
“Examples of such matters would include: the potential emergencies from outside the building which the management should plan for; whether there is potential to share emergency resources with nearby facilities; and even which open areas to use as assembly points, especially at our blistering pace of urban renewal. Worldwide, it is increasingly recognised that public-private partnerships in emergency planning, involving both Government and private organisations, will improve the quality and practicality of the emergency plans. At the same time, through joint efforts, SCDF would have a good grasp of the private sector expertise and resources available which could be tapped on in national emergencies. Could Ministry explain how SCDF will collaborate with the building managements to comply with the new requirement and to improve the quality of emergency plans? For instance, would SCDF provide a template for building managements to use and adapt? Finally, Madam, the role of Fire Safety Managers and the Company Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Clause 18 will amend section 22 to require buildings with fire safety managers to now have CERTs with competent in-house staff. The proposed section 22(3A) states that it is the building owners or occupiers who are required to maintain the CERTs. However, the MHA's Press Release dated 14 January 2013 indicates that it will be the responsibility of the Fire Safety Managers (FSMs) to ensure that the response plan guidelines are complied with, including upgrading the competencies of the in-house teams to form CERTs. Is this task too onerous for the FSM to be held responsible for?”
“In addition, the proximity of our homes, workplaces and recreational spaces means that when emergency plans are drawn up for buildings, they should be able to respond to not just critical incidents from within the building but those which could potentially come from nearby facilities and even the external natural environment. What then is SCDF's optimal collaborative role in emergency planning? Madam, the law currently places the responsibility for emergency planning squarely on the building owners and occupiers. Under the Act as well as Fire Safety (Fire Emergency Plan) Regulations 2008, they have to prepare and execute the emergency plans, conduct regular drills and gather tenants to form Fire Safety Committees. The role of the SCDF itself is reflected as issuing of guidelines about the contents of plans, reviewing records and so on. SCDF's role appears to be as regulator and auditor. Under this Bill, building management will have an even more onerous statutory obligation, with wider coverage to include non-fire emergencies, which will require more specialised expertise. What will SCDF do to assist building management in drawing up the required emergency response plans? Even though the building management should bear the primary responsibility for the plans, the benefits of SCDF being involved in drawing up the emergency response plans would be tremendous. SCDF could advise on Page: 46 matters which the building management has no knowledge of or control over.”
“Madam, I am in general support of the rationale for the Bill, however, I wish to seek some clarifications on clauses 17 and 18 which require designated buildings to provide Emergency Response Plans and Page: 45 to have Company Emergency Response Teams. Specifically, I wish to ask what role SCDF will play to collaborate or partner with building managements to comply with the new requirements, and whether the burden being placed on the fire safety managers under the new scheme is, perhaps, a bit onerous. First, Madam, the new requirement for emergency, not just fire, plans. Clause 17 amends section 21 of the Act to require owners or occupiers of designated buildings to have in place not just a Fire Emergency Plan but an Emergency Response Plan. The new requirement is supposed to obligate building management to cater for all emergencies, not just fires, that may cause injury or loss of lives. Earlier, in his second reading speech, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the emergencies should be fire-related but I do not see this restriction in the legislation. So, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State could clarify further on the scope of the emergencies to be catered for. Clause 18 will amend section 22 to require that buildings which are currently required to have fire safety managers shall also have competent Company Emergency Response Teams as part of emergency preparedness. Madam, the need to prepare response plans for emergencies is self-evident, and this is especially so in our high-density urban environment.”
“Thank you, Sir, two clarifications for the Minister of State concerning tracking of CET outcomes. I understand that WDA releases fact sheets that tell us about feedback from trainees as well as companies on the usefulness of training; but the findings that have been released are aggregated across the 18 sectors. I would like to ask whether the Ministry can release sector-specific findings so that there can be better accountability of the training outcomes by sector. Page: 165 Secondly, it was also stated that WDA tracks staff retention post-WSQ training, but I did not see any findings being released on that. Could the Minister of State share with us whether there are any particular sectors which are facing more retention issues than others, post-WSQ training?”