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 28 of 36.
“A supplementary question again for the Senior Minister of State. In the news reports so far that we have seen, there were reports in June and also in October about these burglaries committed by foreign groups. I think in July as well, the Police issued a media release talking about the fact that they had managed to foil a group from Hong Kong which was on a transnational housebreaking operation. That was announced publicly. I would like to ask whether the Government is concerned that the choice of Singapore as a housebreaking destination by foreign groups is something that we should be concerned about. Is there a trend of concern?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, some supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I am sorry that the Senior Minister of State's answer came very quickly, so maybe I did not hear him correctly. My question was about the first 10 months of 2012, and the first part of his answer dealt largely with the first nine months, so I wonder whether he could clarify that. Secondly, the Police has made it public that they noted a surge in housebreaking cases committed by Latin Americans recently. I would like to ask specifically about this phenomenon, for these housebreaking cases which are committed by professional burglar groups, how many cases are there? Are they geographically spread out in Singapore or are they concentrated in certain areas? For this group of Latin Americans, could the Senior Minister of State tell us how they entered Singapore, as in, did they fly in directly from their home countries or did they come by land, for example, from some neighbouring countries? Lastly, I wonder whether the Government is considering the conditions of Social Visit Passes for certain groups of people. I know it is a difficult area but, right now, I think most people can enter Singapore for one month which also allows these professional burglars to plan and the time to commit serious cases. So, I wonder if at some point in time, the Ministry would look at restricting the number of days that people can stay in Singapore, perhaps on a case-by-case basis, or based on certain originating countries. Page: 1206”
“Under section 31A, so long as an officer suspects that a person has consumed drugs, he can order him to provide a hair specimen. How would this work in relation to someone who has consumed drugs overseas? Should a Singaporean who consumes cannabis in Amsterdam two months ago expect to have his hair tested upon arrival at the airport? I note that the existing section 8A of the Act criminalises drug consumption overseas by Singapore citizens or permanent residents if their urine tests are positive upon return; however, this amendment Bill does not amend that section to say these returning residents are subject to hair tests too. Could this be clarified please? Sir, in conclusion, this amendment Bill enhances various tools and punishments to tackle trends of concern, and also takes a step in mitigating the harshness of the mandatory death penalty regime. To that end, it is to be supported. However, as mentioned at the start of my speech, I believe the Government needs to continue its review of the death penalty in particular its mandatory nature. In addition, the courier clauses appear to be problematic and should be monitored closely for further review. 4.33 pm”
“The wording only requires that there is a gathering and not that there is a gathering where drugs are in fact present or consumed. Is it the intention to include cases where so long the gathering takes place, the planner or arranger who thought the drug would be consumed there, would be guilty even if eventually no drugs were brought? I would like some clarification on this point. Next, Sir, enhanced punishment for influencing young or vulnerable persons to traffic or import drugs. Clause 5 sets out section 12(A) which creates a new offence of procuring a young or vulnerable person to traffic in drugs, which will attract a harsher punishment by way of a stiffer minimum penalty. I agree that an increase is justifiable at this point of time, since the Government has found recent evidence that more young abusers are being introduced to drugs by their neighbours and friends who are repeat abusers. Page: 1085 Sir, finally, I have a query concerning hair tests. Clause 11 introduces section 31A allowing CNB to conduct hair tests to determine if the suspect should be placed under supervision. The Government has explained that the hair test is superior to the urine test because it has a longer detection window of three months after the drug is consumed, whereas the urine test has a window of about one week. According to Minister of State Masagos' speech at the CNB Workplan Seminar in April, the purpose of introducing the hair test is to "deter CNB supervisees from relapsing into drug abuse as it will be very difficult to avoid detection". While the Minister of State has stated that hair tests will be used on existing supervisees, it would seem that hair tests can be used on fresh cases as well.”
“For instance, during a law reform exercise in New South Wales, psychiatrists there felt that requiring them to confirm the specific cause of a person's impairment of mind was too difficult and arbitrary. Instead, the New South Wales law was changed to simplify the defence to require that "the offender's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability (to be reduced)". Sir, it should also be remembered that accused persons who may not suffer from any psychiatric condition and yet be vulnerable and easily manipulated. For instance, in the case of Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317, an accused of subnormal intelligence was entrapped by CNB officers into delivering cannabis. In other words, CNB officers instigated him to supply drugs to them. Evidence was placed before the court that his cognitive capacity to reason was borderline in that he would be unable to reason things like persons of average intelligence; that he might easily fall into difficulties and even allow others to hurt or misuse him. The Court of Appeal held that he had no defence. Sir, there should be scope in such cases for the death penalty not to be imposed. I would urge the Government to do further review of this provision in due course. Next, the new offence of arranging or planning gatherings. Clause 4 introduces section 11(A) which makes it an offence to arrange or plan a gathering knowing that a controlled drug was or was to be consumed at the gathering if a gathering of two or more persons takes place.”
“Why not simply require full co-operation, without the additional requirement of substantial assistance to disrupt drug trafficking activities? Thirdly, Sir, the PP's certificate of co-operation cannot be challenged except for bad faith or malice. This means that, in actual fact, the judge's discretion under section 33B is very limited. However, it is foreseeable that some accused persons may not receive the certificate even if they were willing to provide the CNB with whatever information they had. Since this certificate is truly a life and death matter, is it not better for the judge to decide on the question of co-operation if there is a dispute? In other words, if the defence says that the accused co-operated fully with the PP but yet did not receive the PP's certificate, the PP should provide the reasons to the court and the court could make a finding. If there is concern about the sensitivity of operational information given, we could provide for non-publication of the details. I have one final clarification concerning this category of couriers, and this is relating to cases where the couriers have already been sentenced to death. If the accused had not shared information previously with the CNB, is it open to him to do so now and hence bring himself within section 33B? It would seem just to give him this avenue, since it was not available to him previously for his consideration. Page: 1084 Next, Sir, I move on to mentally vulnerable couriers. The intention behind this change is good. However, I would like to ask why the Government decided to follow the wording of diminished responsibility in the Penal Code, when this has been the subject of academic criticism and law reform in other countries?”
“The first circumstance involves couriers whom the PP will certify have co-operated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). I have some concerns about this provision. Page: 1083 First, the new section 33B(2) requires the accused to prove that his involvement was restricted to being a transporter, sender or deliverer of the drugs in question. Does this therefore mean that section 33B will only apply in cases where the accused admits or pleads guilty to a capital drug charge? Will this provision be available to those who claim trial but, during the trial, decide to admit to being a courier? Put another way, is the PP prepared to issue a certificate of assistance even when the accused claims trial to a trafficking charge? Secondly, the PP must certify that the accused has "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore". The Explanatory Note to the Bill expressly clarifies that information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the Act "will not suffice". According to this wording, a low-level courier who knows nothing about the drug network will go to the gallows, while another courier who has more information, and is presumably closer to the higher echelons, can escape death. This would be a perverse outcome, a point which Mr Edwin Tong raised earlier in his speech as well. In addition, the phrase "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities" suggests that the CNB should show some success in its drug operations based on the accused's information. Is this what is intended? This would not be fair to the accused, as operations may fail due to the information being outdated or due to law enforcement incompetence.”
“This practice was expressly recognised as legal by the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v PP [2012] 2 SLR 49. It would be interesting to find out how many accused facing the death penalty on the facts have escaped death due to the PP's decisions. As it stands, the inherent discretion of the PP is already very wide. Retaining the mandatory death penalty arrogates to him the additional discretion of determining the punishment the accused should face, which is not his role; it also emasculates the judges whose role it is to mete out justice based on the facts. I submit that if the death penalty was not mandatory but left to the sentencing judge, the system would be seen to be more transparent and open to public scrutiny. In the alternative, Sir, it would also be open to the Government to provide that, for the most serious crimes, death would be the presumptive sentence, leaving an escape clause for the judge not to impose death in special circumstances. There are many precedents in other countries for using presumptive sentences. For example, in Western Australia, the presumptive sentence for murder is life imprisonment but the relevant section allows the judge not to impose it if that sentence "would be clearly unjust" given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and the offender is unlikely to be a threat to society upon release. The Government could consider such a device for the most serious offences instead of mandatory death. Sir, next, I move on to the amendments concerning couriers. Under the new section 33B, a courier can escape the death penalty and be sentenced to life imprisonment instead, if his case falls within two strictly-defined circumstances.”
“Today, it is not my purpose to canvass the pros and cons of the death penalty per se, but to highlight the real problems caused in our system by its mandatory nature. As the Workers' Party has pointed out in the past, giving the sentencing judge no choice in the sentence is undesirable, as the case outcome is determined by the choice of charge, which vests in the Public Prosecutor. Discretion is thus pushed upstream. Moreover, unlike a judge's decision, which is reached in open court, reasoned and subject to appeal, the Public Prosecutor's decisions are opaque, not reasoned in the public, and unappealable. Page: 1082 I am certain that the Public Prosecutor (PP) and all his deputies in the Attorney-General's Chambers are very mindful of the consequences of their decisions on the choice of charge in mandatory death cases. Former Attorney-General Walter Woon summed up the dilemma succinctly in a quote published in The Straits Times of 20 October. He said: [(proc text) "My problem with the mandatory death penalty is that the hard decisions are taken by the prosecutor when exercising prosecutorial discretion. You cannot imagine the contortions we had to go through to find some way to not charge a person (with a capital crime) because the judge had no discretion but the prosecution did. We did our very best to not charge people with capital offences if we could help it." (proc text)] Drug cases highlight the extent of prosecutorial discretion. The PP can decide to prefer heavier or lighter charges based on any set of facts. The PP can even artificially reduce the amount of drugs in the charge to below the actual amount found, to enable the accused to escape death.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill has several purposes. I shall first deal with the application of the death penalty, followed by some queries about other aspects of the Bill. First, retention of the mandatory death penalty. In July this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told the House that though the Government had been reviewing the death penalty for drug trafficking for some months, it had concluded that "the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances". Indeed, as explained by Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now, this Bill retains the mandatory death penalty for trafficking and importation of drugs, except in two circumstances which I will touch on later. Deterrence has long been central to the Government's stance on having the death penalty, and making it mandatory for certain offences. However, how far the death penalty actually deters crime has long been the subject of international debate. There have also been conflicting studies on whether the death penalty deters crime or not, though most of these studies were on homicide offences. I would like to ask the Government whether it relied on any particular studies or its own data to conclude that the death penalty or mandatory death actually deters crime and, in particular, drug trafficking. Besides deterrence, capital punishment is sometimes justified from a retributive perspective. In other words, death is considered a just punishment for an offence which is deemed very serious. Which offences "deserve" death may be subjective, and this is a matter of judgment for each society to make. Singapore is understandably tough on drugs, having been through the 1970s when drugs caused untold harm to many families and threatened society in general.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Besides the income criterion which the Minister discussed, one of the criteria for CHAS benefits is the annual value of the property that a person lives in. Currently, there is a disqualification for Singaporeans who live in properties of annual value of more than $13,000. In effect, this will exclude most Singaporeans living in private homes. As we know, there are many elderly citizens living in modest homes which they inherited or they bought a long time ago, and they are not cash rich. I would like to ask the Minister whether in his review at some point in time, the Government would re-look at this property annual value criterion to enable some of these Singaporeans to benefit. Afterall, we are talking about healthcare benefits for senior citizens and not handouts.”
“Under section 6 of the MCA, determining the "best interests of the person" lists many considerations, including the person's past and present wishes and feelings; it also requires the decision-makers to place themselves in the shoes of the person, to ascertain what the mentally incapable person would have likely decided on his or her own, considering the person's wishes, beliefs and values. In addition, in deciding whether sterilization should be done on a mentally incapable person, the MCA principles would suggest that decision-makers should not be motivated by a desire to bring about that person's sterility; this is analogous to section 6(5) of the MCA, where decisions on life-sustaining treatment should not be tainted by a desire to bring about that person's death. Sir, the reference in section 6 of the MCA to respecting the person's beliefs and values is vitally important in decisions concerning sterilization. As we are aware, there is a sizeable group of Singaporeans, particularly from the Muslim and Catholic faiths, who do not endorse sexual sterilization for contraceptive purposes. The Voluntary Sterilization Act itself at section 10 recognises that there are Singaporeans who have "conscientious objections" to sexual sterilization. While those with mental capacity can decide for themselves what they wish to do, those without mental capacity will have this very personal and intimate decision made by others. Extra care should, therefore, be taken in implementing these provisions. Those entrusted with assessing whether sterilization would be in the best interests of a person with mental incapacity should accordingly give due weight to the person's beliefs and values.”
“The current law also states that the doctor is the final gatekeeper of whether such sterilization is in the best interest of the person and of society generally. It is not clear from section 3 itself what considerations the doctor should take into account or how decisions had, in fact, been made in the past. The need to consider "society generally" also appears ambiguous, and may open the floodgates to eugenics where we only allow the fit to reproduce and the weak are denied the right to be accorded full human dignity. To that extent, clause 3 of this amendment Bill seems to improve things. First, there is no longer a sweeping assumption that a person with a recurrent hereditary disease, epilepsy or mental deficiency is automatically not able to make these decisions; the new section 3 will allow others to decide only if the person is considered to be "mentally incapable" as defined by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Secondly, potential sterilizations of persons without mental capacity must be approved by the High Court. Such judicial oversight in itself will introduce more transparency and consistency in decision-making, as reasoned judgments may be published in law reports and serve to guide future cases. Thirdly, the amendment now makes it irrelevant to consider the interests of "society generally" as this phrase will be deleted from the section. The decision now whether a mentally incapable person should be sterilized will be based on the consideration of the "best interests of the person" alone. Page: 987 What then amounts to the person's best interests? This is not defined in the Bill, which instead directs us to Part II of the Mental Capacity Act for the relevant principles and definitions.”
“Sir, overall, this Bill takes an important step to better align our Voluntary Sterilization Act (VSA) with certain international norms concerning the rights of disabled persons. However, the proof of progress will be in its implementation. I will also raise a concern about the Bill later in my speech. Page: 986 The Explanatory Note to the Bill states that this amendment seeks to align the VSA with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("CRPD"), "by removing provisions which may lead to discrimination against disabled persons". Turning to the CRPD, Article 23 states that countries should ensure that "Persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others". In other words, the amendment should put disabled persons on par with others, as far as the decision to undergo sexual sterilization is concerned. To this end, I agree that the current law does require amendment, as it is not satisfactory in certain respects. Under the existing section 3 of the VSA, a person with "any hereditary form of illness that is recurrent, mental illness, mental deficiency or epilepsy" will be liable to be sterilized if two conditions are satisfied – first, that the spouse, parent or guardian consents; and second, that a doctor confirms that it is "in the interest of the person undergoing such treatment and of society generally". The section seems to assume that any person with a recurrent hereditary illness or any mental deficiency would be incapable of making up his or her own mind about sterilization, thus justifying the spouse, parent or guardian and a doctor taking over that decision.”
“Mr Speaker, just two supplementary questions. I thank the Minister for the details as to the timings and so on. In the Gazette, it is also mentioned that the RO or ARO will decide the order in which the different candidates will speak. Is there a principle to this? For example, is it by alphabetical order? Last of all, it is also mentioned in the Gazette that we have to use equipment as authorised by the RO. So, can I assume that the equipment will be provided – the Public Announcement (PA) system?”
“Sir, the retirement age and re-employment provisions passed in January provide opportunities for Singaporeans to be re-employed from 62 to 65. However, to worker, the Act gives the employers flexibility on several counts: to challenge the medical fitness of the employee, to say that there are no vacancies and to reduce employment terms. Employers can also use the employment assistance payment instead offering re-employment. This has led to insecurity among older employees especially since the Government had already pushed back the age at which members can draw their CPF savings from 62 to 65. As the retirement age remains at 62 years, workers will only be able to draw down their CPF monies three years after retirement. The employment rate among workers aged 55 to 64 was about 59% in 2010. This figure tells us that these workers are employed but not whether there is under-employment. The Minister had previously noted that the recent recession had impeded progress towards achieving the target employment rate for these workers to 65% by 2012. Will more be done to improve employability of older workers? Secondly, the current mechanism to resolve re-employment disputes relies on workers to complain against their employers. This may not be a practical option to the worker who may risk souring relations with his employer or even losing his job. Will the Ministry consider a proactive approach to protect older workers from exploitation, for example, random audits of re-employment contracts?”
“Sir, the report is dated 2010. Exactly when the data was collected, I will have to go and search on that. The report is dated 2010.”
“For example, if the household is innocent, or if there are vulnerable victims in the household, or if the harassment features aggressive tactics, then the Police may deploy its CCTV at no cost to the house owner. I will highlight Mr Arthur Fong's input about Delta Citizenry. I think that is the key. If residents in the block show resolve to tackle loansharking, it will have a very strong impact on the ground.”
“Sir, one clarification for Minister of State Mr Masagos. He mentioned in his reply to my cut that the Ministry was not sure how updated the studies that I referred to were, that is, the studies that mentioned gang activities in prison. One of the studies which I have is actually dated 2010 and I will send him the study which is publicly available for his assessment. Now, one clarification for Senior Minister of State concerning loanshark cases: I appreciate the concerted effort taken to confront this problem. I wonder if he could tell us whether it is standard operating procedure for the Police to attend to every complaint of harassment, that is, splashing of paint or graffiti. I have ground feedback that sometimes the Police does not even attend to the case. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Police will work together with the community to fight loansharks. It depends on the situation. For example, if a person who has been harassed several times and he calls the Police, Police may not come immediately because, in a sense, the harassment is over. The paint is there on the door. I distinguish that from a call where somebody says "Hey, there is somebody lurking around." Or where people on patrol say that "I have seen somebody who has got paraphernalia that may be associated with loansharks". I think, in those cases, Police will respond very quickly. But the point to note is that Police knows that, especially for innocent households, they face a harrowing experience. Other than just responding to calls, what is a better approach will be a collective effort, including technology, such as judicious use of CCTV.”
“I have come across academic papers where ground research has shown that certain gangs like Omega are still active in prisons and active in recruiting members from within the prisons, often along racial lines. I would like to ask the Ministry the following: (a) Does Prisons Department keep track of gang activities within institutions? (b) Are our prisons fertile recruitment grounds for gangs? (c) For those who have renounced their affiliations under GRP, what steps are taken to protect them from being hurt or victimised by other inmates or upon their release? (d) To what extent has gang affiliation caused recidivism amongst inmates upon release? The Chairman: Mr de Souza, please take your two cuts together. Organised crime”
“Sir, I will be speaking on two cuts. First, brain drain from the Police Force. There are currently good career prospects for security professionals in Singapore. More business activity has meant more corporate security positions to be filled. In particular, the Integrated Resorts (IRs), with the casinos, require highly skilled and experienced security staff and have been aggressive in their recruitment. I understand that quite a number of Police officers have resigned to take up jobs in the IRs, lured by significantly higher monthly pay. Has Police management been tracking this phenomenon? Can the Ministry give an indication of the numbers and experience of those who left? Is there a concern that we are losing valuable experience in our state Police? Has there been any response from Police management or the Ministry to confront this issue? Gangs in prisons Next, gangs in prisons. It is now known that people with gang affiliations will end up in prisons. It is also likely that gang members are recruited within prison walls. Ten years ago, our Prisons Department implemented its zero-tolerance policy towards gangs in prisons where those found to be engaging in gang activities would be charged, segregated and punished. In 2009, the Gang Renunciation Programme (GRP) was added. Under GRP, gang leaders and members, who are assessed to be serious about leaving gangs, will be prepared and facilitated to renounce their gang membership in front of the prison population. According to Prisons Department's released data, as at 30th December 2009, 80 inmates have gone through GRP and renounced their affiliations publicly.”
“Sir, first, one clarification on what the Minister said about the Workers' Party's views on social safety net. If the Minister read that paragraph – and I am recalling it from memory – what was actually put there was that we believe that there should be unconditional needs-based social safety net. And there is a sentence that follows from there, which talks about the fact that more resources may be required to investigate each case, but people in need should be helped. So I do not think the Minister should have any issue with helping people in need. Next, I would like a clarification from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck about Singapore soccer. I agree with him totally that we should invest long term and not expect instant results. But he did not really address the point of how we have come to this crisis point now. While we can wait for our youths to grow up and feed into our national soccer team, the question is what has been happening prior to that. Have we been somewhat neglectful in our soccer development policy that leaves us now to have a lacuna?”
“Sir, Singapore's shock exit in the group stage of the AFF Suzuki Cup in Hanoi in December led to much public outcry about what was ailing Singapore soccer. One sign that Singapore soccer is ailing is how we have plummeted in the FIFA world rankings over the years. From a 75th position in 1993, our national soccer team dropped to 101 in the year 2000 and now we are ranked 142nd. That is a drop of 67 places since 1993. While the Lions did not perform up to expectations in Hanoi, the focus quickly turned on the local S-League and dwindling interest from sponsors and Singaporeans. We all know that the health of the local league has a direct impact on the standard of the national team as the local league should uncover talents to feed into the national team. After more than 10 years of relative mediocrity in the S-League, some of our brightest national players have left to join the Indonesian soccer leagues on much better terms. Should the exodus continue, it will become more challenging to cobble together a national team of our best players to represent Singapore. Recent decision such as the sacking of the entire national team and overhauling the S-League suggests some management issues. What led to such a crisis point? Is the Government satisfied that the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) had managed the team and the League competently? Singaporeans want local soccer to succeed. The recent announcement by the Singapore Sports Council to increase funding to the FAS for its Talent Development Programme by 50% offers hope for the future. In the meantime, the FAS has announced a strategic plan for 2010-2015, aimed at taking Singapore football "to the next level". As 2010 was not a good year, it would be important to get clarification on what the next level really means.”
“Sir, there are 20 SPED of special education schools operated by VWOs and co-funded by MOE and the National Council of Social Services. Currently, parents choose and apply to the schools resulting in some parents making multiple applications. As the SPED schools meet different needs, parents might not have enough knowledge of the schools to apply to the most appropriate one for their child. When there is a lack of fit with the admission criteria, the child is referred to another school. This is both time consuming for the parents and not beneficial to the child as timely and appropriate placing for the child is critical to his learning. To help parents make *Cols. 4061-4062. better informed choices and to streamline the application process, a centralised agency could be set up to channel applications to a suitable school. Parents will only need to make one application and can focus more time on the child. Next, while education in the mainstream schools are not means-tested, school fees in SPED schools are subjected to means-testing since 2006. Is it fair to special needs children to subject them to means-testing while those in the mainstream schools pay a fixed school fee? With an average of only 550 children per year placed in the SPED schools over the past three years, can the Government make our society more inclusive by extending similar subsidies to all SPED children? Finally, I understand that some SPED schools are also facing a resource crunch in terms of insufficient therapists. How are resource levels being monitored to ensure that early intervention programmes are not undermined? Primary 1 registration”
“He has mentioned in the past about factors taken into account by the Drug Advisory Committee but exactly how they weigh the factors, and so on, is not very clear. As I mentioned in my speech, there have been pharmaco-economists who have said that our process appears to be a trade-off because it is a simplified evaluation. So, would it not be in the public interest to give more information in order to let the public have confidence in this assessment process? Last of all, just now, the Minister mentioned the 3Ms again. From what I know, from data in year 2000, the 3Ms only accounted for 10% of our total health expenditure. Recently, I filed a Parliamentary Question to ask whether the Minister could update on this but he only gave the inpatient coverage but not the general. So I wonder whether the Minister could update on how much the 3Ms cover the national health expenditure.”
“Madam, I would like to make one clarification and seek a few more from the Minister. First, it relates to the Standard Drug List (SDL). I think when the Minister first started his response to me, he suggested that I was making him rehash things which he had answered before in Parliament but really the crux of my cut is about transparency, and I do not believe that there was any Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed previously about transparency concerning the SDL. The first clarification for the Minister is this. The lists which are readily available online, which I mentioned, include the WHO's essential drug lists which the Minister had previously mentioned that our SDL was based upon with local adaptation. That is published online and the Minister was saying that it is really not a secret. So, if the SDL is not a secret, then why not consider publishing it? My second point: the Minister mentioned that he did not see why it was necessary to publish it, but I would like his comments on these possible benefits which have been pointed out to me as well. First of all, private doctors have commented that they would find it useful to look at the lists because they could refer their private patients to get the subsidised drugs from polyclinics. Secondly, they will also be in a better position to price their own drugs. And, thirdly, for sick people or families with sick people, they would find publication of the lists useful in their own research about treatment options. The third clarification from the Minister is concerning transparency of the decision-making process which I do not think the Minister really touched on.”
“The Government has stated that the Eldercare Fund would not replace community support in this sector, and that community donations are vital in financing step-down care for those of low and low-middle income. According to the MOH website's write-up on eldercare, "voluntary welfare organisations should continue to raise funds from the community and do their part in helping the needy and indigent patients to foot their share of the charges using the donations raised." In this Budget, the Government has set up the Community Silver Trust to provide donations for long-term care providers. While community-giving must be encouraged and incentivised, my question is what role the Government is playing to monitor and moderate the cost of long-term care to the patient or user? Overseas Medisave use”
“Australia and Canada both devote entire websites to inform the public of the process of decision-making and the rationale for decisions. The information includes reasons why a drug is not included, with clinical data to back up their conclusions. As we are talking about the danger of life-saving drugs, more transparency will go a long way towards building public trust. Osteoporosis Next, osteoporosis is a major public health problem worldwide and a particularly significance to Singapore's ageing society. The Government is aware of this as seen in the issue of the MOH's clinical practice guidelines circa 2008 on osteoporosis. Osteoporosis suffers on increased risk in fractures which may require hospitalisation and cause their health to deteriorate due to prolonged immobilisation. Many patients who sustain fracture do not return to their previous functional status and may require long-term institutional care. Figures from Singapore show that the incidence of hip fractures has gone up significantly since the 1960s, five times more in women and 1.5 times more in men. One year post-hip fracture, between 20% and 25% die, 30% of survivors are semi- or fully dependent. The costs to the individual, family and society are thus significant. Adequate treatment of osteoporosis is best essential to reduce these effects. What efforts have been made towards increasing public awareness and prevention so that this disease is not undertreated? Long-term care Finally, long-term care. The Eldercare Fund was set up in the year 2000 to grow income and provide funding for nursing homes and other long-term care providers.”
“Sir, first, standard drugs list. The Government maintains a standard drugs list (SDL) of subsidised drugs. However, there are some issues of transparency concerning the list and decision-making processes. First, is the SDL public information? It is not easy to find the SDL and even doctors I have spoke to were uncertain. In comparison, it is easy to locate the central drugs list maintained by the World Health Organization and several other countries online. Secondly, there is little information about how our Drug Advisory Committee raise various factors before deciding if a drug should be on the list or not. The Committee reportedly takes into account factors, including the cost effectiveness on each drug, but what exactly does that mean? For instance, how are the findings on pharmaceutical economic research used in this decision-making process? [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Indranee Rajah) in the Chair] 4.21 pm I understand that there is, within the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), a unit called the Pharmaceutical Economic and Drug Utilisation (PEDU) Unit. This unit assists the Drug Advisory Committee to assess the cost effectiveness of such drugs and the financial impact to the Government's drug budget. In 2008, there was an analytical study entitled "Healthcare Systems and Pharmaceutical Economic Research in the Asia Pacific Region" published in the journal, Value in Health. The authors of the book opined that the Singapore system involves "A simplified cost effectiveness evaluation", which was in fact a trade-off considering the available staff at our Pharmaceutical Economic and Drug Utilisation Unit, and how far the Drug Advisory Committee understood and accepted pharmaceutical economic concepts. Can the Singapore decision process be made more transparent?”
“Due to our density of population, the consequence of an incident such as a fire in a building could exact a heavy toll on life and property. Does the Ministry not see the need to at least work towards tightening up the industry via training and, later, licensing requirements? 1.30 pm”
“Sir, residential properties which are badly managed will adversely affect the quality of residents' lives, and may even become safety hazards which cost lives. For example, last November, a fire in an apartment block in Shanghai left 50 dead due to inadequate fire prevention measures. Locally, property management is important in order to prevent and mitigate risks, such as fire outbreaks, electrical outages, and flooding from storms due to poor drainage and faulty water pumps. In Singapore, businesses offering property management services are not licensed, nor are their owners or staff required to undergo any training in the basics of property management and maintenance. There is also no national accreditation body. Instead, Government's policy is that the industry self-regulates. These are gaps which should be plugged. We basically adopted Australia's strata management laws which incorporated the concept of managing agents. However, we did not port over the Australian requirements for regulation of managing agents. In Australian states, managing agents are accredited businesses with training requirements for their key staff. Instead, in 2006, SPRING Singapore launched a Singapore Standard on the Performance of Managing Agents for Strata Residential Developments (SS519). SPRING and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) are promoting the SS519 for voluntary compliance. This standard only covers the basic terms which should be in the fair contract between the managing agent and the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). However, I understand that today even this voluntary standard is in danger of being reviewed and a Working Group has been formed which may further relax the standard in favour of managing agents.”
“Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister concerning the Preah Vihear conflict and ASEAN's role. The solution that was reached in Jakarta – many observers feel that it is a short-term solution. But, nevertheless, it appears to have been reached primarily because of the active intervention of the ASEAN's chair, Indonesia. And Indonesia in this process has committed to sinking its resources to contribute to that. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether he sees this arrangement as something which was customised because of who is currently sitting in the ASEAN chair, or does it somehow set a sort of precedent for future ASEAN chairs that they should be prepared to commit resources as well to assisting in bilateral disputes and if Singapore were to be chair at that time, would we foresee sending out our Police or armed personnel into that kind of situation? Second clarification is that the Minister mentioned that the observers were unarmed and they are currently being sent, of course, into an armed conflict, albeit ceasefire situation. So what would be the role as observers? Are they just supposed to take notes and report back?”
“Will the Minister share what progress has been made towards forging a common identity and better understanding among the peoples of ASEAN states? It is also not too clear how ordinary Singaporeans are being engaged in this process. Malaysia”
“Sir, the tension between Thailand and Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple flared up once again in February with mutual attacks across the disputed border, resulting in casualties and deaths on both sides. This is the fifth time that Thailand and Cambodia have engaged in low-level military conflicts since October 2008. This conflict has shone the spotlight on ASEAN as a grouping that exists first and foremost to maintain the peace between member states. This dispute is a test for ASEAN's credibility. But what role can it play in such bilateral disputes and what are the limits? Since its founding, ASEAN has adhered to the twin principles of non-interference in the affairs of member states and a consensus building decision-making approach to guide its members' interaction with each other. How did these principles impinge on the grouping's ability to settle disputes between members since dispute settlement could be viewed as interference? Does the consensus-based approach effectively give each state veto power? On the more general issue of creating an ASEAN community by 2015, it would be instructive for the Minister to provide an update on the progress of the three planks, namely, the political security community, economic community and socio-cultural community. I note, in particular, that the ASEAN's Socio-cultural Community (ASCC) is to achieve solidarity among the ASEAN nations and peoples by forging a common identity and building a caring and sharing society. The ASCC blueprint of 2009 sets out some bold objectives and activities to achieve these goals, including teaching of common values and cultural heritage in school curricular and supporting the learning of ASEAN languages.”
“Recently, I came across cases of disabled adults being left at home due to lack of further education opportunities after they turn 18 years old, or the inability to afford daycare activity services. There is still much more that can be done by the Government in this area. This aspect must not be forgotten if we are to achieve the vision mentioned in the Budget Statement – a truly inclusive society "where everyone can contribute and share in a nation's progress". 12.08 pm”
“Early intervention is critical for special needs children to mitigate the effects of their disabilities but there are waiting lists for schools and therapies, suggesting a resource issue and losing precious time from the child's formative years. If Singapore were to sign up to the Convention, investments will be needed to ensure that children with disabilities enjoyed similar educational rights. Sir, Article 9 of the Convention provides that States shall take measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the physical environment, to transportation, to communications, electronic services and other facilities on an equal basis with others. We have made significant progress in implementing barrier-free accessibility. However, this does not apply to older buildings so many remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The public transportation system is also not yet completely barrier-free. For example, it is expected that buses will be completely wheelchair-friendly only by 2020. In addition, disabled persons should have a concessionary travel rate, just like students and seniors. Most importantly, how easily can a person with disabilities access public information? To what extent are e-Government initiatives disabled-friendly? The Singapore Institute of International Affairs noted in a recent report that Singapore does not have comprehensive disability legislation aimed at moving away from viewing persons with disabilities as "objects" of charity and towards viewing them as "subjects" with rights and capable of inactive members of society (SIIA UPR submission 2011). If we are seriously considering signing to the CRPD, the appropriate investments will need to be made.”
“All the more for persons with disabilities who usually have little bargaining power – there is a need for special protection to safeguard their rights and quality of life. A look at the CRPD will reveal that Singapore falls short in several areas by international benchmarks. I will highlight just a few. Article 7 of the Convention requires countries to take all necessary measures to ensure that children with disabilities have full enjoyment of all human rights on fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children. Article 24 recognises the right to education, including lifelong learning, and expressly prohibits excluding children from compulsory education on the basis of disability. Currently, our Compulsory Education Act ensures that every child attends at least six years of primary school. However, the subsidiary legislations specifically exempt children with physical or intellectual disabilities from compulsory education. While this may have been gazetted for practical reasons, seen from the Convention's standpoint, it is a form of discrimination. The current situation is that special needs children in Singapore are not enjoying the same legal rights to education as other children. It is largely left to voluntary welfare organisations to educate special needs children. The Government provides some subsidies, but parents of special needs children still bear a much heavier financial burden than other parents. Apart from the additional expenses parents will spend associated with the child, school fees are means-tested, unlike in the mainstream schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the aims of this Budget is to foster social cohesion and to build an inclusive society. The term "inclusive society" has different meanings to different people. One important aspect of an inclusive society is that it should be one that integrates people with different physical and mental abilities into the mainstream. By this yardstick, our society still has some way to go to qualify as inclusive. This Budget does provide for a continuation of MCYS' programmes for the elderly and disabled and gives some support to special education (SPED) schools and students. I note that the Ministry of Education has also committed some money for the development of three SPED schools. However, to be truly inclusive, Singapore needs to commit rules and resources towards integrating persons with disabilities in a much more holistic way. The Government recently submitted a report to the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Council has a process called the Universal Periodic Review which examines the human rights record of each UN member. This year is our turn and the Government submitted its National Report as part of that process. In the National Report, the Government mentioned that it was considering signing four international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It also said that Singapore is "actively studying the provisions of the CRPD". While some may see this as progress, we are actually laggards. We have not yet signed the Convention when 147 countries have already signed it, including all our ASEAN neighbours except Myanmar.As mentioned in the Budget Statement, social cohesion "cannot simply be left to market forces".”
“A clarification for the Minister. The Minister earlier mentioned that attempts will be made to find work for people above 62, and certainly we would support such job placement efforts. Our concerns would be about the workers who are unable to be placed in jobs and the criteria for special CPF drawdowns. As he mentioned, I think these are very strict medical criteria which many people would not be able to meet. So, my question for the Minister is: why is it not possible to allow a member to draw his own CPF savings at an earlier date while stretching the payments out for a longer period?”
“Sir, further to clarify – I am sorry I did not hear completely the Member's point because I was out for part of the session – but also to highlight that in other countries where they have allowed different draw-down ages or for members to choose when to draw down the CPF, they have also stipulated that the amount be stretched out over a period of time. I believe that this can be accommodated within the concerns of the regime. 5.08 pm”
“These CPF balances were accumulated through decades of work and the money belongs to CPF members. The Government can always educate and encourage people to work longer or to delay drawing down their CPF monies voluntarily. 4.15 pm”
“It is reported that this cut was common, even in unionised companies and also present in the public sector. With this new re-employment legislation giving employers a free hand at 62, are we exposing our senior workers to being short-changed further when they reach 62? Sir, in addition, the Bill gives employers the option of not offering re-employment but to pay the employment assistance payment under the new section 7C. In some way, this Bill does not ensure employment till 65. In fact, it subjects our senior workers to a stressful re-employment process at 62. Sir, further, the re-employment law only applies to workers who at 62 are still employed. It does not help Singaporeans aged 62 find a new job. As at 2009, the employment rate of older residents aged from 55 to 64 was about 57%. The rate of those aged 60 or more would be lower. Even for those who are working, what kind of employment they had and whether there was under-employment is not clear since the person is counted as employed as long as he works for at least one hour a week. Sir, if the Government wants to delay Singaporeans their CPF draw-down age to 65, it should at least correspondingly provide for a more seamless transition of employment from 62 to 65. Further, Sir, the Workers' Party is still of the view that the CPF draw-down age should not be linked to the retirement age or the re-employment age limit, whatever we wish to call it. Not everyone can work till then and some may need to have an easier pace of life. In fact, in the Minister's Second Reading speech, he acknowledged that workers in this age group would need to have choices. Sir, as such, I believe that Singaporeans should be able to commence their CPF balance draw-down at about 60 years old.”
“If a worker has some medical condition, will medical opinion be conclusive as to the fitness for work or can be the employer make his own subjective assessment? The next hurdle arises if the employer says that there is no vacancy to justify re-employment which is allowed under section 7C. Though there are tripartite guidelines on the re-employment of older workers, the guidelines I read simply said that the employer should consider all available re-employment options. But who can argue against the employer's assessment of whether there are vacancies or not? Will MOM be able to suggest to the employer how vacancies can be accommodated within the employer's business? Will the worker be able to suggest where vacancies might exist against the employer's assessment? Assuming the worker manages to navigate the first two hurdles, he will be offered re-employment. This is where the third hurdle comes in. What kind of job and benefits will he receive? It is clear from the proposed section 7A that the employer is free to reinvent the wheel by offering a different job with different terms and conditions. He can even ask the employee to continue at the same job but with much reduced pay. In addition, the contracts for re-employment may be from year to year or even a shorter duration by agreement. The new section 7B makes clear that previous years of service will not be counted for benefits except entitlement to annual and sick leave. Sir, with so many "ifs" and "buts", are we exposing our senior workers to shabby treatment? Indeed, it has been noted that the existing law which allows employers to cut workers' pay by up to 10% when they reach 60 has been used by employers liberally.”
“Sir, three years ago, Singaporeans were subjected to Central Provident Fund reforms which deferred the age at which they start drawing down their balances from 62 to 65 years. At that time, the Workers' Party opposed the deferment of the draw-down age (DDA) to 65 as there would be Singaporeans who would not be able to work or work at the same pace till 65. Though this Bill does provide opportunities for Singaporeans to continue working till 65, my view is that the provisions give little assurance to older workers that they will remain meaningfully employed after they turn 62. Let me elaborate by going into the specific provisions. First of all, the retirement age is not changed. The name of the Act is being amended to Retirement and Re-employment Act by clause 3. This enables the Government to provide for re-employment opportunities for older workers without actually changing the legal retirement age. Clause 6 which amends section 4 does not increase the national retirement age which remains at 62 years. The new section 4 merely enables the Minister the discretion to change the retirement age by Gazette to up to 67 years at some later point in time. Next, re-employment obligations and hurdles. Clause 9 of this Bill provides for re-employment of workers beyond 62. It sets out three, what I consider hurdles for workers before re-employment is confirmed. The first hurdle concerns who is eligible for re-employment. Under the new section 7A, the employee qualifies for re-employment if he has obtained the satisfactory performance appraisal and is medically fit. How will medical fitness be determined? Though there is a presumption of medical fitness provided, the employer can prove otherwise, according to the Bill.”
“Sir, also under the current section 49, one of the options that the Court has, in care and protection cases, is to require the parents to enter into a bond to exercise proper care and guardianship over the child. This Bill introduces a new subsection 11, where the parents fail to enter the bond in time, they will be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $2,000. Sir, as mentioned by Members earlier, I wonder whether this provision will actually help or hurt the distressed family more. Sir, finally, to end off, I would like to make a general comment about homes instituted under the Children and Young Persons Act. I note that under the existing arrangements, the same institution could be gazetted for a variety of purposes under the Act. For instance, the Singapore Girls' Home is a place of safety and an approved home, an approved school as well as a place of detention. Is it right for us to put all these different children, with different needs, in the same institution? The children in need of care and protection were removed from their parents to be placed in a place of safety. Should we not separate them from those who have committed offences?”
“The Court's powers include power to order that the child be removed from the parents' care and placed in a foster home or an institution. Sir, while we are concerned to protect children, the process should also be a fair one. Although the parents have a right to attend the hearing and to be heard under section 49(3), it is not spelt out that they are entitled to see and challenge the report put up by MCYS to the Court. In a recent case of ABV and Another v Child Protector, mentioned by Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef earlier, the parents' appeal to the High Court from a Juvenile Court order, placing their child into care. The High Court disapproved of the then practice of not providing the parents with the case information given to the court. In answer to my parliamentary question subsequently, the Minister indicated that MCYS will henceforth provide information or leave it to the Court to direct them. While I note that the Ministry has heeded the Court's opinion, why is there no provision in this Bill to ensure that the parents are duly informed of their case which MCYS is presenting against them? On a related point under section 49, the Court can order a child or young person or his parent or guardian to undergo medical and psychological assessments which outcome must be reported to the court. Section 49(7) is being amended to say that a copy of this assessment must now be given to the protector as well. But there is no mention of a copy of the assessment being given to the parent or guardian. I would like the Minister to clarify what the practice is and if a copy is not given to the parent, this seems rather high-handed, especially since under that section, the parent is supposed to pay for the assessment to be done.”
“Next, Sir, my concern is about voluntary care arrangements. Clause 22 introduces a new section 48A about voluntary care arrangements. Such arrangements enable the Director of Social Welfare to have a child placed in a care arrangement so long as the parents consent. There would be no need to seek the approval of the Juvenile Court in such voluntary cases. I note that there is some concern among welfare workers about the lack of court oversight in voluntary arrangements. It was pointed out, during the public consultation of the Bill, that even when people act in good faith, there is a danger of over-reaction, resulting in false positives, ie, children assessed to be in need of care and protection when they were not. It was recommended that Court oversight should be an integral part of all such care and protection arrangements, including voluntary arrangements, to give further assurance that the child's welfare has been thoroughly considered. This appears to be a sound recommendation but it is not in the Bill. Sir, it is likely that the sort of parents who would be asked to agree to voluntary care arrangements would be facing other struggles in life and may not have the luxury of legal advice. We should, therefore, be more vigilant to guard against the situation when parents perceive that they have no choice but to agree to care arrangements suggested by the Director. Why not provide for Court oversight, even for voluntary arrangements, to make the process more rigorous? Sir, my next concern is about how much due process there is for parents at the Juvenile Court. Clause 23 amends section 49 on the Juvenile Court's powers in care and protection.”
“Sir, while I note and support the Government's intention to protect the safety and well-being of children and young persons, I have several concerns about the Bill. Sir, the first concern is whether, under this Bill, poor families are at greater risk of being broken up. Clause 5 amends section 4, regarding situations where the child is considered in need of care and protection. The amendment was introduced into section 4(c), a new category of families, where the authorities may consider removing the child from his parents. This scenario is where the parent is unable to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life, even though the parent's failure has not been wilful or unreasonable. So this new scenario is quite different from the existing scenario of children being taken into care, where the parent is usually blameworthy in some way. An inability to provide one's family with adequate food or lodging could result simply from reasons like poverty or lack of employment prospects. In this respect, I share the concerns of Mdm Halimah Yacob and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan. This amendment potentially puts poor families at risk of being broken up and their children fostered out or institutionalised, simply because they are poor. To take a child out of his own family to grow up, raised by strangers or institutions is a drastic step which would change lives forever. If the parents are found to have a good relationship with the child, should the Government not instead support the family while keeping them intact? If the parents cannot provide adequately due to poor resources, is it not the Government's duty to provide or mobilise resources to assist the family in food, medical aid and lodging?”
“Sir, three supplementary questions for the Minister. The Malaysian Foreign Minister spoke to Channel NewsAsia in mid-December in the wake of the leaks and he commented that the episode will not help bilateral relations between our two countries and that Singapore will have to do more to convince Malaysia that it is really interested in having good relations with Malaysia. I would like the Minister's comments on whether he agrees that, from the Malaysian point of view, these comments appear to suggest that they consider it a setback in the relationship. The second point is: the Ministry has said that the records of the US diplomats are not fully accurate and that one of the meetings did not even take place. So, has the Government taken issue with the US State Department on the recording of these minutes? And the third point is that the Minister told the press that this episode would likely affect diplomatic communications with US diplomats, that is, we would have to manage the risk in dealing with US diplomats. I would like to ask whether the Government has actually made any changes since then in how we deal with US diplomats.”
“The question on the programmes attended by the suspects who were charged or rounded up.”