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 27 of 36.
“Madam, the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) framework aims to professionalise industry sectors and improve labour mobility into and within these sectors. WSQ is also meant to be "a powerful business tool for employers to access and maintain a skilled workforce." Given these highly industry-centric goals, it is important to track if those trained are contributing to the industries they are trained for or at least using their skills for the economy. Currently, the Approved Training Organisations (ATOs) are required to conduct post-course evaluations using Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation. I also note that the Institute for Adult Learning has issued a note to practitioners in 2011 on the need to monitor and evaluate CET activities to ensure accountability for tax dollars spent. How is the Workforce Development Agency tracking whether those trained are contributing to the industries or to the economy generally? If so, what does the data show and are there areas to review to minimise resource wastage? The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Madam, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute handouts to Members.”
“What are its current research priorities concerning dengue generally? A breakthrough in research may finally remove the impotence with which those affected by dengue meet their fates. Page: 16 Rats in HDB Estates”
“Madam, Singapore is currently subject to another onslaught of the dengue virus. It seems that the current dengue outbreak has peaked at an unusual time of the year at end of 2012 and the start of 2013, rather than the usual July-August periods in the past. The affected areas appear to be mostly in the eastern and north-eastern sectors of Singapore, including residential estates, and the Yio Chu Kang and Serangoon areas. I would first like to acknowledge the tireless efforts by the teams at NEA in their outreach and enforcement efforts – going door to door in their inspections and public education. NEA has also collaborated with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and our Members regularly in responding to the dengue situation. NEA's work and surveillance, public education and enforcement are well-known. However, according to the NEA's dengue website, one of the key thrusts of its approach to dengue includes research. I understand that NEA has been active in research under the auspices of its Environmental Health Institute (EHI). In 2011, EHI has been recognised by the World Health Organization as the global centre for reference and research. Research is critical to improve the current treatment responses as there is no drug to treat or prevent dengue yet. Sufferers have to wait for the disease to play out and be treated via fluid replacement. It was reported that last year, a team of researchers from our university medical schools and the Defence Science Organisation laboratories manage to discover a human antibody which may have the potential of limiting the damage caused by the dengue virus Serotype 1 while inside the human body. Does NEA collaborate with such external agencies to synergise its research efforts, especially regarding prevention and treatment responses?”
“Madam, Transparency International (TI) has recently come up with a government defence anti-corruption index, where countries are ranked from A to F on corruption risk in defence. Singapore was rated D+, which TI defines as indicating a high risk of corruption. MINDEF has issued a response reiterating that it is prudent in managing its resources, has its own audit Page: 152 mechanisms and does not tolerate corruption. While the Government's position is well known, it is still worth studying TI's observations about Singapore. Countries which fared better had higher scores for political oversight, financial corruption risk and integrity in defence procurement. In political oversight, TI even singles out our Defence Supply Committee as being "provided with minimal information to guide decision-making". I think we should continue to review how much more information about MINDEF's spending can be shared with Parliamentarians and the general public to reduce corruption risk. Australia and Germany managed to be graded A, and the USA was graded B, even though arguably they have equally compelling security concerns about transparency. Can we be a bit more transparent? It is interesting that every now and then, international publications such as Jane's Defence Reviews make revelations about specific purchases of military hardware by the SAF and yet we seem to survive the disclosure. Has the Government closed its mind on this issue, or is it studying how MINDEF can move towards more oversight to minimise corruption risk? National Service as Cornerstone of SAF”
“Madam, many Singaporeans worry about rising electricity bills. According to the Singapore energy statistics 2012 released by EMA, the price index for electricity tariffs that applies to households has seen an increase of about 47% from 2005 to 2011. The current formula for electricity tariff has managed to protect households from wide fluctuations last seen in 2008. However, we have to continue to look for ways to help Singaporean households manage their expenditure on electricity. Since 2000, the Government has liberalised the retail and electricity market in phases, and believes that the competition among the retailers of electricity benefits consumers with greater efficiency and competitive prices. To date, the household market which accounts for about 25% of the total electricity demand is still not yet contestable. According to EMA, full retail contestability is still under review. The issue was raised in earlier Committees of Supply under MTI. In 2007, the Government indicated that there was a study on an Electricity Vending System (EVS), which will help to reduce administration and business cost. At last year's COS, the response was – to have full retail contestability, there is a need for a system, like the intelligent energy system (IES). I understand phase one of the IES pilot has been completed, and phase two is on with some testing in households in Punggol. May I ask what is happened to the EVS? Can MTI also give a preliminary assessment of IES, and whether full retail contestability is likely in the near future? Manpower Development in the Energy Sector”
“As for air-con ledges and panels, Town Councils are responsible where an air-conditioner has not been installed but where it has been, the responsibility for repairs and replacement rests with the flat lessee. HDB has made a gallant and intriguing attempt to guide Town Councils and flat lessees through what is caused by an inadequate definition of "common property" under the TCA. Page: 156 In comparison, the definition of "common property" under the BMSMA is much more practical and clear. In addition to being "not comprised in any lot", property is only deemed "common" if it is "used or capable of being used or enjoyed by occupiers of two or more lots", that is, units. If this definition was adopted for HDB estates, the bamboo pole holders and air-con panels and ledges would not be common property but would be properly the responsibility of HDB and the lessee. Such a definition would enable Town Councils to focus on property for common use and give rise to a more equitable allocation of expenses. I hope the Government will review the definition of common property under the TCA, for better management of HDB estates. Lifts in HDB Multi-storey Carparks”
“Sir, at the outset, I wish to clarify that my cut today will not touch on matters currently being studied by MND, under the review ordered by the Prime Minister. As the review is still in progress, and I am assisting in the review, those matters will be deferred to after the review. For today, I wish to focus attention elsewhere, on something foundational to the Town Council's functions – the concept of "common property" under the Town Councils Act (TCA). Town Councils exist to control, manage and improve the common property of HDB estates. I will argue that the definition of common property under the TCA is inadequate, and should be reviewed, for example, to bring it in line with the definition of common property under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA). For a Town Council, the definition of what constitutes "common property" is of paramount importance, as it has legal responsibility for it and must bear the cost of maintaining it. Under the TCA, the definition of common property is "any property which is not comprised in the flat, subject to certain named inclusions and exclusions". I believe this definition of "common property" is too simplistic and has given rise to many practical problems. There are items which may be outside a flat but be used by the occupants of just one flat alone, rather than be for "common" use, for example, bamboo pole holders and air-con ledges and panels. HDB, in fact, had to issue a circular in March 2007 to Town Councils with Standard Operating Procedures on who is responsible for what. So, for bamboo pole holders, the flat lessee is responsible for routine maintenance, but cost of replacement is to be shared between the lessee and the Town Councils.”
“This will not increase costs for the Government, as it would have had to pay royalties for music played anyway. However, this move will ensure that our local songs or music account for a good share of the royalties paid. This will also increase their public following, with more members of the public recognising and appreciating local songs. I believe such a simple move can be documented easily to ensure that our local songwriters get the royalty payments due to them. I urge the Government to consider this suggestion to give our local creative musicians a leg up. ICT and Productivity”
“Madam, an integral part of evolving Singapore's identity must include encouraging the creation and promotion of local music. Original music tells the world about local rhythms and sounds. When words are put to music, the lyrics paint a picture about Singapore, Singaporeans, our relationships and our way of life. These are powerful anchors for Singaporeans as well, unifying us in ways which words alone cannot. Local songs are part of our unique legacy. Local songwriters, however, cannot live on love and fresh air. The viability of their careers hinges on how much they can earn from their work, and how Page: 68 wide a reach they have. I believe that for those who create original work, especially songs, the Government could take a simple measure to boost the sustainability of their careers. This move will ensure that local music is played constantly and consistently, which will provide sustenance for the song creators to take their careers further, even internationally. Currently, songwriters receive royalties when their songs are played in public, whether the songs are played in CD form or are played live. All organisations playing music or songs in public as part of their business or ambience must pay the song-music owners through COMPASS or the Composers and Authors Society of Singapore. When foreign works are played, the royalty money flows out of Singapore. To channel more royalties to flow to Singaporeans, the Government can take the lead to encourage consistent and significant playing of local music. Currently, the Government plays music in its building lobbies, phone systems, and at events and occasions. At all these occasions, the Government can direct its organisations to routinely include local works as often as possible.”
“Thank you, Madam. Two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on her response to my cuts. The first is regarding the disclosure regime and whether other statutes, for example, the PCA, would be brought under it. The Senior Minister of State seemed to suggest that it is something discretionary and may or may not happen. But my question is: should we not proceed on the basis of whether there is any good reason why it should not be brought under that regime? After all, is it not desired to have uniformity in these pre-trial disclosures, especially for cases heard by the District Court? The second clarification is concerning the issue of video recording. The Senior Minister of State appeared, in the gist of her remarks, to say that this issue is actually an MHA issue. Perhaps, she would like to clarify because, historically, MinLaw has taken ownership of this issue of video recording, both in the CPC review in 2010 as well as certain statements made to the media about this issue. I would like to ask: does MinLaw not have an interest in the standards of evidence brought before the Court and how Court time is used? In fact, Mr Kumar also alluded to the fact that much Court time is being used now to refute such allegations which I think video recording could somewhat mitigate. In other countries, it has been shown that prosecutors are pushing for this because they have found the value in video recording in the handling of trials. I would Page: 56 like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is actually MinLaw's ownership of this issue or whether it is just something which they think MHA should take the lead on from now on?”
“At the same time, I call on the Government to let the Elected Presidency to evolve in tandem with Singaporeans' reasonable expectations of the roles and functions of the office, all in the name of entrenching good governance. Enforcement and Enforceability”
“This is notwithstanding that Singapore's Head of State is not vested with the same powers as the executive Presidents of the United States, France and many Latin American countries. There was the palpable expectation that the presidency should be a watchdog that can both bark and bite. The sense was that the current reactive powers of the Elected President results in a watchdog that could only bark, and even then only in limited circumstances. However, put simply, the Elected President is not designed as a countervailing source of political power in our system of Government. The silver lining is that Singaporeans saw the first presidential contest in 18 years as an opportunity to demonstrate their aspiration for a more robust political system and to entrench good governance. Page: 41 Would the Government consider using the next couple of years before the next presidential election to create better awareness and understanding of the constitutional limits of the Presidency? I note the Minister's own efforts in trying to clarify the role and function of the Elected President but I felt that it did not make much headway in the lead up to the hustings, particularly as it came on the back of the bruising 2011 General Election. Madam, candidates must run for the office that exists, not one that they wish to have. The Elected President is a little understood and a much misunderstood institution in our system of constitutional government. More importantly, the electorate must be discerning to know which candidate is over-promising on the Elected President's constitutional powers and mandate. I make this call to Singaporeans to better understand our system of Government.”
“In other countries, video recording has been found to save Police and Court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person's right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the Page: 40 Government at least re-think its position on this issue or at least for capital cases? Secondly, the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 introduced a new pre-trial case disclosure regime where both prosecution and defence are required to disclose evidence relevant to the case well ahead of the trial. Since its implementation, I have assisted as defence counsel in a few court cases under the framework, and I can see its value and contributions towards a fair trial. Currently, only District Court cases under the Penal Code and selected statutes come under the disclosure regime. Other cases, for example, those charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) have not been brought under the framework yet. As the framework has proven useful and successful, when will its scope be expanded to cover other laws like the PCA? Role of Elected Presidency Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Madam, the fourth Presidential Election in August 2011 was the first contested election for the presidency since 1993. Candidates presented competing, and often conflicting, visions of the Elected Presidency. In some respects, the conflicting visions were encouraged by the electorate which had high expectations, and saw the President as a political player to function as a check on the Government.”
“Madam, I would like to raise two areas for review concerning the investigation and pre-trial stages of criminal cases. First, I would like to revisit the suggestion to video record the statements given by accused persons in custody, which Mr Hri Kumar just touched on. This practice of video recording is in place in various jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused's own lips and were not force-fed. I first raised this issue during MinLaw's COS five years ago in 2008. At that time, the Government's response was that video recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case. While I agree that video recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety or allegations of such, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused's will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video recording will settle that question decisively.”
“I would like Government to clarify whether the decision was based on any evidence of what has or has not worked in Singapore or in other countries; in other words, to what extent was the decision evidence-based?”
“Sir, policing models worldwide are evolving. Most countries start off with traditional, reactive models, which focus on solving crimes after they occur and responding to calls for assistance. As countries develop, there is increasing evolution towards proactive models which focus on crime prevention. There is a wide body of research from developed countries on the effectiveness of different policing strategies in crime reduction. For instance, evidence from the United States generally shows that community policing in and of itself is not effective in crime reduction, though it is useful in promoting good relations with the public. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that problem-oriented policing and hot spot policing show strong results in crime reduction. The general thrust of the research is that successful policing strategies combine two elements – focus on specific problems, and diverse approaches which involve not just law enforcement but other stakeholders. For instance, if a neighbourhood has a high incidence of housebreaking, successful responses typically involve the police focusing on the problem area and working with the local housing authorities, citizens and the local councils to approach the problem from many fronts. In Singapore, our policing models have gone through several milestones. Community policing was introduced in the 1980s via the Neighbourhood Police Post system, which was then replaced by the Neighbourhood Police Centre model around the year 2000. After more than 10 years of the NPC model, we now have the recently unveiled Community Policing System (COPS). Page: 130 It has been publicly stated that the reason for the change to COPS was to adjust to new population trends and to devolve more authority to the local units.”
“Though we do not want to be obsessed with rankings, has the Government studied Transparency International's methodology and examined the reasons why Singapore was recently rated below Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden? Singapore Corruption Index”
“Mdm Chair, since Chinese New Year last year, Singaporeans have been gripped by the investigations and subsequent prosecution of several top civil servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There have been recent reports of corruption complaints against other public officials, for example, an assistant director from the Media Development Authority (MDA) is suspected of borrowing money from applicants for MDA grants. Now, an assistant director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) itself is under investigation for alleged embezzlement. This series of announcements naturally arouses public concern. On the one hand, we can certainly take comfort in the fact that the complaints came to light and are being investigated and prosecuted. On the other hand, some may worry whether there is cause for concern about slipping standards of conduct in the Public Service? The most recent report of the CPIB available on its website is for the year 2011. It shows that from 2007 to 2011, there had been a steady fall in the number of corruption-related complaints to CPIB. During this period, the number of CPIB investigations also declined significantly, from 323 in 2007 to 138 in 2011. As 2012 appears to have been a busy year for CPIB, could the Government confirm whether the declining trend has now been reversed, that is, has there been an Page: 107 increase in the number of corruption complaints and prosecutions in 2012? At the international level, Singapore's reputation of having a Public Service low in corruption is still well-maintained, having been in the top five of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index list for at least a decade. However, while we were rated joint number one in 2010, we have been ranked fifth for the last two years.”
“Mdm Chair, during the Opening of this Parliament in October 2011, the Prime Minister said it was necessary to take a more open approach to Government and to governance. In particular, he mentioned that the Government would need to share more information with the public, including information on population trends. He said that while not everything could be disclosed, wherever possible, it would disclose more rather than less. One area worthy of review is information about our population. Singaporeans have an interest to know who lives among us and in what numbers. The Government annually releases data on the size of the population and some demographic details. However, the Government has not been willing to disclose certain other details, such as the country of origin of persons in Singapore, for example, the numbers of PRs taken in from specific countries each year. Even at the Parliamentary level, when Members of Parliament had filed questions on how many persons from specific countries had been granted PR status, the standard Government answer was that it was unable to provide the data. Instead, answers given provided numbers from broader regions like the total numbers from Southeast Asia, or the total numbers from other Asian countries. By contrast, there are other governments which are more transparent. For example, Australia publishes annual breakdowns of their new citizens, indicating the former citizenships held by the new citizens. Will our Government be prepared to do so as well, or at least to answer Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to this effect, in line with the Prime Minister's indication of greater openness? Page: 88 Or would the Government elaborate on what concerns it has about releasing such information? Foreign Spouses”
“However, as noted in the Budget Statement, the increase will only be significant for investment properties at the high end. In addition, the tiers proposed also expose a potential loophole which could be exploited. It assumes that wealthy people will invest only in high end properties and does not address the fact that a wealthy person could buy multiple units of mid-range properties which would enjoy lower tax rates. A wealthy person may well do this as mid-range properties may be easier to rent out. Under the proposed tiers of property tax, it seems that a person's potentially vast cumulative property wealth falls under the radar and will be taxed at a lower rate than someone who has just one high-end investment property. Would it not have been fairer as a wealth tax to assess a person's cumulative property interests, rather than to have a per property standalone approach? While it may require more administration, I believe the relevant Government land registries have exhaustive records of who owns residential Page: 45 properties and in what proportions. Madam, to sum up, I acknowledge the Government's attempts in this Budget to introduce further progressivity into our tax system and its focus on targeted help which will go some way to mitigate the inequalities faced by Singaporeans. What is of utmost concern to most Singaporeans is worry over the rising cost of living. This should give us greater incentive to have more progressive taxes which will reduce the need to raise other kinds of taxes which increase the overall cost of living such as the GST. In this regard, I urge the Government to continue to look at ways to introduce more progressivity into our tax system for the well being of our society and the nation as a whole. 1.46 pm”
“Madam, my second point relates to one of this year's Budget proposals – the move to introduce tiered property tax for residential properties. For owner-occupied homes, higher tax rates are being introduced that raise the tax rates for homes from the current top rate of 6% to a new top rate of 16% by January 2015. It was stated that most retirees will end up paying less property taxes. I would like to ask for clarification about the basis of this statement about retirees. Is it based simply on the fact that only 12,000 residential homes fall within the annual values which now attract higher rates? Or is the statement about retirees based on some analysis of the age of persons currently living in the higher value homes? The Budget attachment entitled "Measures for Households", states that owner-occupied homes of annual value of less than $59,000 will enjoy lower property taxes. I am advised that the cut-off annual value of $59,000 for higher taxes could conceivably include an older home in a good location, which retirees may have purchased long ago or which they themselves may have inherited. The Government has explicitly acknowledged in the Budget Statement that there are retirees who are not cash rich even though they may live in homes of significant value. Some considerations and concessions should be given for this. For non owner-occupied residential units, this Budget will replace the current flat rate of 10% tax to introduce a tiered rate based on the annual value of the property, ranging from 11% to 19% from 1 January 2014; and from 1 January 2015, 12% to 20%. This tiered system being introduced is admittedly more progressive than the status quo.”
“Despite these new moves in the progressive direction, I would like to highlight two areas which I believe will make our tax system fairer and more progressive. First, our regime of personal income taxes. Currently, our personal income tax system is already progressive. For instance, those earning less than $20,000 per year do not pay any income tax. Thereafter, there is a tiered system where higher rates of taxes apply to income earned above certain thresholds. Finally, at the top end, those earning an annual income of more than $320,000 are taxed at 20%. It has been noted by several economists that there is room for further tiering above the $320,000 threshold, as the current tiering catches a wide range of income earners in this top bracket, ranging from a university professor who just makes it to this bracket to a banker who earns millions of dollars a year. I understand that this cut off of $320,000 has not been adjusted for around a decade, while in the mean time, incomes at the higher ends have soared. There is clearly scope to have more tiers at higher rates, say up to 25%, for those who earn above certain higher thresholds. For instance, those earning between $320,000 and up to $500,000 could be taxed at 20%; those earning between $500,000 and $700,000 at 22%; those earning between $700,000 and $1 million at 24% and above $1 million, 25%. Even at a maximum income tax of say 25%, such a top rate would still be low globally. While some may argue that such a move might reduce our attractiveness as a destination for high earners, I believe Singapore would still have major selling points to them, such as the ease of doing business here and Page: 44 low corporate tax rates.”
“It signifies that Singaporeans are journeying together as one people towards the future with the stronger helping the weaker. There was a recent study of 54 nations by social psychologist Prof Shigehiro Oishi and others, entitled "Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well Being of Nations". The study analysed data from 54 countries, including Singapore, and concluded that progressive taxation was positively associated with a nation's sense of well being. It was shown that, generally, countries with higher degrees of progressive taxation had citizens showing more satisfaction with their lives, as they evaluated their lives at higher scores. According to this Page: 43 study, Singapore was rated in the lower half of countries surveyed in terms of progressivity of the tax system. That is, more than half of the other countries' tax systems were rated as more progressive than Singapore's. As for life satisfaction, Singaporeans ranked their lives less optimistically than those in many developed jurisdictions such as Israel, the United States and countries in Europe. Though the study measured a subjective index, namely citizens' sense of well being, this measure is important. One's sense would affect one's morale and confidence in the future. These would in turn affect one's desire to procreate – something high on our national agenda. What is the state of progressivity of our tax system currently? According to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) data, the top 11% of income earners already contribute almost 80% of the total tax takings in Singapore. It was noted by Assoc Prof Chia Ngee Choon that Budget 2013 makes a further progressive move by implementing a "decisive shift" towards taxing wealth, namely luxury cars and homes, rather than just incomes.”
“These include higher Workfare Income Supplement payouts, double GST Vouchers for lower and middle income households, and S&CC rebates. These are, in principle, good measures. The Government has also indicated that it is thoroughly reviewing the financing framework for healthcare. The stated aim of this review is to bring down Singaporeans' out-of-pocket share of medical costs while the Government takes on a larger share, again, focused on lower to middle income groups. This is welcome. The issues of healthcare costs and healthcare inflation are indeed uppermost in Singaporeans' minds, especially with our ageing population. It is also a topic that I have spoken about in previous Budgets. I look forward to the fleshing out of the directions of the review, as promised. The other strategy which is key to mitigating inequalities is a progressive tax system. Simply put, a progressive tax system should aim to require those who have more to contribute more to the national coffers which will then be used as general revenue and for re-distribution to those in need. I believe Singaporeans on the whole see the wisdom and need for this, including those who are better off. There should be a fair contribution towards our fellow citizens and to the country as a whole. In my speech, I wish to urge the Government to continue to look for ways to make our tax system more progressive and suggest that there is still room to do so without unrevealing our economic strategies. What would be the benefits of making our tax system even more progressive? Besides the benefit of mitigating inequalities through re-distribution, having a more progressive tax system is symbolically and psychologically important at the national level.”
“Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget makes several important statements about the need for social cohesion amidst rising inequality. While income inequality is also large in other global cities, the Government has explicitly recognised that further steps to temper inequality must be taken because we are not just a city but a nation. Indeed, the concept of being a nation implies a people with a common identity, bound together psychologically in community. After all, we are all in the same boat. While some inequality is useful to provide incentives to invest and to work, high levels of inequality are undesirable. Apart from the socially devastating effects of high inequality, there may be negative impacts on economic growth itself. An International Monetary Fund staff discussion note in 2011 observed that high income inequality was associated with shorter spells of economic growth. The authors found that countries were better able to sustain growth over longer periods of time when levels of inequality were reduced. We face the twin challenge of needing to improve lives and yet keeping our country cohesive. What makes a society a good one? The influential philosopher John Rawls argued that a good society re-distributes its wealth so that all its citizens have the same opportunity for future success in the form of equal access to public goods such as quality education and healthcare. To this end, it is widely acknowledged that key government responses to inequality should include targeting subsidies to those who need them, and a progressive Page: 42 tax system. This year's Budget continues to target subsidies to households to mitigate the rising cost of living.”
“We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate. Madam, our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the Government's projections, in exchange for a reduction in GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singaporean identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds. Let me conclude: what the Government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers' Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the Government's proposal. Is it worth it? The Government's White Paper is entitled: "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore". While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe that the Government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore". For these reasons, the Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion. 6.21 pm”
“Madam, on our part, the Workers' Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the Government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the Government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days. We believe that Singapore should work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5% to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5% to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by at least 1% per annum, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the Government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, Page: 104 preserving our precious land reserves for future generations. This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it.”
“The Workers' Party does not endorse proceeding headlong onto the Government's suggested path. Underlying its plan is that the population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation's quality of life. To quote a population expert, Frederick Meyerson, immigration is "essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations". Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve Page: 103 our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants. What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use are instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Ministry of National Development shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the "Others" category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with. In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren? At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.”
“The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents' share of child-rearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government are worth some study. My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate. Next, Madam, promoting Singaporean-friendly immigration. We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans and be parents of Singaporean children. Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the Government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour? Next, do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million? Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The Government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3% to 4% from now to 2020, and 2% to 3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The Government also justifies these targets by citing the ageing population and the declining old-age support ratio.”
“Accordingly, we do not agree with the Government's definition of what would constitute a Singaporean "core". Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever. Next, Madam, focus instead on Total Fertility Rate (TFR) recovery. How, then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean TFR. The Government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the Government's key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups. Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The Government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it "hopes" to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility. For instance, South Korea, too, was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in five years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just "hoping", the Korean government recognised that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for Page: 102 family life and promoting gender equity within the family.”
“If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what percentage of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Would not this figure be below 50%? Is this what the Government means by retaining a Singaporean "Core"? The White Paper states that "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation", with the word "heart" printed in bold italics. It further states that: "to be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core." Mdm Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore Core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings, such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who Page: 101 grow up in and with Singapore. Therefore, the policy of "topping up" shortfalls in our total fertility rate with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean "core" is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with new citizens we have, with a Government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore's economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.”
“Mdm Speaker, this debate may be one of the most critical Parliament will have. It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future Page: 100 as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore. Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore Citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly four are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table. The Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate. First, what is a Singaporean "core"? A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean "core" in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore Citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. Fifty five percent is too close to the all-important threshold of 50% majority. Further, a closer reading will also show that the 55% includes new citizens. Singapore Citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030.”
“Okay. My second query actually relates to section 394D, the new section that is being introduced. It provides that no party has a right to appear in the petition of confirmation but the Court of Appeal can decide to hear any party. My point was that if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear one party, I think it is only right that the other party also should be present because this is the last court appearance. The presence of both parties would enable the other party to respond to any new matters which may be raised. Since this is the last hearing before the death sentence is confirmed, I think that would be a fair way to go about it. Page: 1278”
“So, can I just clarify with the Minister that the trial Judge can give his opinion about why the sentence should not be carried out?”
“Yes, Sir. If I may be permitted to clarify my first point about section 313(c). As the Minister read out just now, the current section requires the trial judge to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence which he imposed should or should not be carried out. But under the Bill, now he is only restricted to saying why the sentence should be carried out. And my question is: the omission of the second part appears to me significant because even though he, the trial judge, decided to impose the death sentence, he could have done so under circumstances where it was mandatory. That is why his opinion on whether there are any circumstances why it should not be carried out would still be relevant under the current regime as it would be read later by the Cabinet in advising the President to exercise his prerogative for mercy. That was my first query.”
“Sir, even as we, as a society, strive towards a criminal justice framework that seeks to properly balance, on the one hand, the cardinal objectives of keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe, and, on the other, that those convicted receive a punishment that is appropriate to the severity of the crime committed, we must not miss the underlying collective significance of this Bill before us today and the amendments passed by this House to the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well as the Penal Code. And what is this significance? Well, collectively they urge Members of this House and Singaporeans to appreciate the value and sanctity of life. On this note, I support the Bill. 5.21 pm”
“As such, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider re-introducing the requirement of having two High Court Judges to hear cases involving capital offences. Sir, the Minister would agree with me that it is at the trial stage that important findings of fact are done. An appellate Court is loathed to disturb a finding of fact, given that it did not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence first-hand and also of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. Given such deference, having two Judges at the trial level can enhance the public's confidence and that of the accused person in the trial processes. We no longer have the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court level and should be able to deploy two High Court Judges in capital offence cases. I also seek the Minister's clarification on the role of the President in clause 7 of the Bill. My understanding is that the President will have to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, and that the President has no discretion in this matter under the proposed new procedure relating to the execution of death sentences. As such, would it not be better not to bring the President into the framework, given that his role is apparently a procedural formality? I fear that this may reinforce the perception that the President is a mere "rubber stamp".”
“It is provided there that no party has the right to be heard in a petition of confirmation, but the court may, if it thinks fit, hear any party either personally or by advocate. If the presence of the parties is still to be discretionary, I think it is important that, if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear from one party, the other party must be present as well. This will enable the other party to respond, if necessary, to any new matters which are raised, and make this last Court appearance fair to all parties before the death sentence is confirmed. 5.17 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Sir, the thrust of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code means that no sentence of death can be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal whether on appeal or through review. This amendment provides an additional safeguard in our capital punishment regime. Sir, this Bill recognises the irreversibility of the death sentence once it is executed. Since a life is at stake, it is of central importance that there is no doubt as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction when a sentence of death is passed. The overriding concern with substantive justice is just as crucial even as we move from a mandatory death penalty regime towards one where we give our Judges a limited discretion. Page: 1276 Sir, I regard the combined effect hoped for from the limited discretionary death penalty regime and a more robust procedure relating to the execution of sentences of death is one that seeks to continue secure buy-in and build confidence in the legitimacy of our death penalty regime.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides for the Court of Appeal to automatically review all death sentences passed, in cases where the accused does not lodge an appeal. I welcome this additional check by our highest Court, which will confirm whether each death sentence was correctly imposed before we send anyone to the gallows. Page: 1275 I would like to seek two clarifications on the Bill. First, clause 7 amends section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding what is to be done after a death sentence has been passed by a High Court Judge. The proposed change to section 313(c) will now provide that the trial Judge must produce a report stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason why the death sentence should be carried out. By contrast, the current provision states that he should give his opinion whether there is any reason why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. I would like to know why the Judge now no longer needs to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence should not be carried out. I think his opinion on this is still highly relevant, since we are still retaining offences where the death penalty is mandatory, such as intentional killing under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, and for drugs and firearms offences. I note that the trial Judge's opinion on whether the death sentence is justified will later be read by the President, who has the prerogative of mercy. There may be strong mitigating circumstances which the trial judge noted, but due to the mandatory provisions, he had no choice but to impose the death sentence. However, the President can still do something about it by exercising his prerogative of mercy. My second clarification concerns the provision at section 394D.”
“Sir, our execution figures, based on Ministry of Home Affairs data, showed that execution has declined significantly since the 1990s. Yet, the overall crime situation has not worsened; in many respects, the crime situation has improved. It may well be that our tough stance on crime can continue to work even without the death penalty. It is also possible to argue that even before the amendments this week to the Misuse of Drugs Act and, now, to the Penal Code that is before the House, we already do have a de facto discretionary death penalty regime through the availability of prosecutorial discretion where the Public Prosecutor may opt not to proceed on capital charges in appropriate cases. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are making a necessary and important first step in moving towards the discretionary death penalty with these proposed amendments to the Penal Code. This continues the similar move to the discretionary death penalty regime under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which this House passed the relevant amendments earlier this afternoon. I welcome this calibrated move to a discretionary death penalty regime. On this note, I support the Bill and look forward to regular and robust reviews to determine the need and use of the death penalty as an integral part of the administration of criminal justice in Singapore. Page: 1271 4.58 pm”
“We inherited our Penal Code from British India and, while it was a revolutionary piece of legislation in the nineteenth century, it is time for us as an independent state to ensure that the provisions, the assumptions, and the presumptions that undergird the Penal Code are relevant and in keeping with the needs of our nation and evolving societal norms. In this context, it is right that the mandatory death penalty is to apply only where there is a clear intention to kill. Page: 1270 Sir, the Government has always insisted that the Mandatory Death Penalty (MDP) has helped to keep Singapore safe. Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining features of our society. While we could choose to retain the mandatory death penalty, I am heartened that the Government has taken the important first step of determining that the mandatory death penalty is not needed for all types of murders. I do not see this shift to a discretionary death penalty regime for murders as signalling that we are no longer tough on crime and that we are letting up on murders in particular. Instead, this shift to a discretionary death penalty regime is necessary if we are to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our administration of criminal justice. Giving our Supreme Court judges the discretion in sentencing in cases of conviction under section 300(b), (c) or (d) is an imperative if we are to temper justice with mercy. This judicial discretion is necessary in order for judges to weigh the relevant factors, the mitigating circumstances, and to individualise sentencing. In so doing, we are also able to give offenders a second chance in appropriate cases.”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I must have misheard the Member. 4.53 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this important Bill that provides that, in cases of murder where killing is not intentional, the Court will have the discretion to sentence the accused to either death or life imprisonment. The court may also order caning in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment. This move to a Discretionary Death Penalty (DDP) regime for certain types of murder is significant. Although Singapore is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Singapore's position is that the death penalty should only be imposed for the "most serious crimes". Indeed, in January 2004, in response to an Amnesty International report on the death penalty, the Government asserted that Singapore "imposes capital punishment only for the most serious crimes". It is also not in doubt that murder, particularly of the kind envisaged in section 300(a), is a most serious crime. Sir, the Penal Code provisions on murder, however, are wide and extend beyond intentional killing, that is murder falling within the meaning of sections 300(b), (c) and (d) of the Penal Code. For instance, for a section 300(c) murder, it is irrelevant whether or not the accused person intended death or knew that death was likely. Put more bluntly, the applicable mens rea is the intention to cause injury, and nothing more.”
“For instance, a person intending to cause injury which is sufficient to cause death is a murderer, but a person intending to cause injury likely to cause death commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This may be why the Member before me, Mr Alvin Yeo, classified the situation as "chaotic". Sir, there has also been criticism from the judges of the Federal Court of Australia who had to apply our Penal Code to a homicide which took place on Christmas Island, which used to be part of Singapore territory The case is Chong Wooi Sing & Toh Yuh Teng v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 22. Arising from this, a law academic, Prof Stanley Yeo, has urged the Singapore legislature to act to improve the clarity of these provisions. Sir, one option the Government may want to consider in due course is re-drafting the homicide provisions to exclude overlapping offences and have mutually exclusive categories. There are precedents from other countries to study, for example, the Australian states, and the UK, which both had law reforms in this area. The Americans have first and second degree murder, and then manslaughter. If a review is done to remove the overlap between culpable homicide and murder, I believe the law will be clearer; and the public will also better understand the homicide provisions. Page: 1269 Sir, in conclusion, the Government is moving in the right direction by this amendment Bill, to give the judges sentencing discretion for murder cases. It should continue to do more law reform, in particular, remove the mandatory death sentence from murder and make it discretionary. The Government should also consider law reform to improve the homicide provisions.”
“Some factors which could be considered by the Court for such departure include whether the accused acted under duress, whether the murder was premediated or not, and if the accused did not carry any weapons to the scene. Sir, next, I shall move on to Law Reform. While I acknowledge the significance of the changes this Bill brings, I believe further reform of our homicide provisions is desirable. For instance, it remains a mystery why section 300(c) should still be classified as murder, when the accused need not have intended death nor known that death was likely. Even after this amendment Bill, the Judge could still impose death for section 300(c), which is not easy to justify. It seems more appropriate to move such situations lower down the seriousness ladder to a lesser category of homicide which does not attract death. Sir, as a wider law reform exercise, the Government may also wish to look at the broader structure of the homicide provisions. We inherited our Penal Code from our colonial days, and the drafting of the homicide provisions has been criticised by no less than an eminent jurist, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who drafted our Criminal Procedure Code. He labelled our homicide provisions as the "weakest" part of the Penal Code, calling them "obscure" and "not fully thought out". His criticisms were several. Homicide itself has not been defined in the Penal Code, except in the context of culpable homicide; murder is a species of culpable homicide; the definitions of murder and culpable homicide also closely resemble each other, such that it is difficult to distinguish between them.”
“There could well be a conflict of expert evidence, for example, on whether the accused has some mental illness which would diminish his responsibility for his actions, forcing the court to choose one expert over another. In addition, defences are strictly worded and sometimes expect a person to behave in very measured ways. For example, for the partial defence of provocation, the accused must not have had time to cool off, which is construed strictly. Sir, we can all agree that society should be clear that killing someone with an intention to kill ranks amongst the most serious crimes. I would argue that this will still be achieved if the death sentence was available to the judge, especially since a wide range of circumstances are caught under section 300(a). As a second alternative, I repeat my suggestion that the Government could consider phrasing the death penalty as the presumptive sentence for section 300(a). Page: 1268 There are precedents elsewhere for this. For instance, in the Criminal Code of Western Australia, it is provided under section 279 that an accused found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless "that sentence would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and (when) the person is unlikely to be a threat to the safety of the community when released from imprisonment". We should consider employing such a device here, which would still send a strong signal to society about the seriousness of the offence of murder and yet allow Judges to depart if the circumstances of the case warrant it.”
“For instance, an accused finds a childhood friend whom he discovers has been having a long affair with his wife behind his back, in his matrimonial bed, and is unable to get over the betrayal despite a lapse of time. Another example is where a person who kills under a threat that his child will be killed if he does not do so, will be guilty under section 300(a), because the defence of duress does not apply to murder. An intention to kill can also be formed on the spot. There is no requirement for premeditation or any pre-arranged plan to kill under section 300(a), whereas in some other jurisdictions, murder which is not pre-meditated is classified as murder in the second degree. Do all accused coming within section 300(a) deserve to die, without exception? At the lowest, there would be a split of opinion on the matter. If I could borrow a phrase from the judgment of then Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon, now our Chief Justice, in PP v Lim Ah Seng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 957: "Every killing is utterly tragic; but this does not mean that every killer is to be punished in the same way." Sir, it is true that persons charged with murder under section 300(a) will not hang if they can prove that they have a valid defence under the Penal Code. For instance, if the accused can prove that he acted in self-defence, this is a full defence leading to acquittal. If he can show that he was provoked by something sudden and grave, he may have a partial defence which would reduce his sentence to a long jail term. However, these defences will only succeed if the accused is able to prove them in Court on a balance of probabilities. Because the burden of proof is on him, he must convince the Court and, preferably, find witnesses to support his case.”
“During the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) debate, I had touched on the mixed nature of studies which tried to ascertain the deterrent effect of the death penalty on homicides. I had also spoken then about how the mandatory death penalty shifts power away from the Courts to the Public Prosecutor, enabling him to determine the outcome of the case through the choice of charge. I note the Minister's earlier statement during the MDA debate that former Attorney-General Walter Woon's reservations about the mandatory death penalty shifting power to the Public Prosecutor applied particularly in the context of homicide cases. Now that the Bill retains mandatory death for section 300(a), it is necessary to ask whether mandatory death is justifiable as retribution for intentional killing. Having an intention to kill is clearly more blameworthy than the mental states required under sections 300(b), (c) or (d) – after all, the accused in section 300(a) intended to bring about the death of the victim. However, a closer examination of situations coming within section 300(a) will show that an intention to kill can be present in a wide range of circumstances, which, I submit, should not be lumped together for the same sentence of death. Page: 1267 At one end of the spectrum, taking the most evil of circumstances, we have mercenaries hired under contracts to kill, intending to profit from committing murder. We have also had groups who rob and kill hard-working taxi-drivers with deadly weapons. Moving to the other end of the spectrum, we find more multi-faceted scenarios where the accused is not inherently a killer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill makes an important and overdue change regarding the sentencing of homicide cases. Overall, this is good step towards a more just sentencing regime for homicide, and I support it. Nevertheless, there are still serious issues requiring law review which I believe the Government should look into in due course. Sir, it is overdue but very welcome that the Government recognises that the existing definition of murder under section 300 of the Penal Code is just too wide to justify the death penalty in every case. For instance, section 300, limb (c), has long been much criticised by academics for attracting the death penalty mandatorily. Under this limb, a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally inflicts an injury which causes death, not necessarily knowing that the injury is of a fatal nature. A classic example is a stab wound to the thigh, which many people do not realise is usually sufficient medically to cause death due to a severance of the femoral vein. In such cases, the accused person may not have intended death and may not have even known that death was likely to result from the injury. It was clearly too harsh to have mandatory death in such cases. Accordingly, I am happy to note that the death penalty will no longer be mandatory for murder under section 300(c) and also for section 300(b) and (d), where the accused did not have a specific intention to kill. The alternative of life imprisonment gives the judge some room to give weight to the circumstances of each case. This is a progressive step to give some discretion to the courts, so that any mitigating circumstances can be taken into account. Next, should the mandatory death penalty be maintained for section 300(a)?”
“Sir, on the issue of the presumptive sentence, what has happened in other jurisdictions is that they allow the Judges to decide when the offenders' circumstances merit a departure from the usual sentence. I heard what the Minister said earlier about the Judges' preference for it to lay it out, but my preference is actually to have a general clause because we cannot foresee all the circumstances that could arise in each case. And I think the Judges would be appropriately placed to assess the merits of each case as it unfolds before them in the Court. And I appreciate if the Minister could at some point in time come back on the entrapment issue when he looks at the case. Page: 1247”
“Sir, I would like to ask for clarification. I am not sure which Minister will answer this question. I think none has addressed my alternative of providing for presumptive death sentence for drug cases. So, I would like to ask whether the Government would look at this possible device where the Courts are told that the usual sentence is death but there may be circumstances where the Court looking at the offence or the offender can depart, but these will be exceptional cases. One example that comes to mind was a case which I brought up in my speech where an educationally subnormal accused was entrapped by CNB to deliver the drugs. This is just an example I can think of, but I would like the Government to address that. Page: 1246”