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 30 of 36.
“Sir, I have a very specific clarification to seek regarding the proposed section 51. It is stated that under section 51(4), certain creditors will still be able to take HDB flats as security, for example, the Board itself, approved financial institutions and such other persons as the Minister may prescribe. According to the explanatory note, "this is to protect the right of HDB and mortgagees who have financed the purchase of the flats". Besides HDB and mortgagees, why is there a need to have a further category of persons to be prescribed by the Minister? Could the Minister please elaborate on this? EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed. 6.11 pm”
“Sir, I have two further questions. Firstly, do the Government agencies conduct audits of depot security? Secondly, which I forgot to ask earlier, is on the SMRT's reply about the workers thinking that the graffiti was an advertisement. Does the Minister find that to be an acceptable answer?”
“Sir, a few supplementary questions. First, the Minister mentioned that after this incident, the two public transport operators (PTOs) are actually stepping up their depot security quite significantly by installing more cameras, conducting more patrols, etc. Does he not agree that up to now, perhaps, too light an approach has been taken on depot security? Second, does the Minister accept that the Government has an important oversight and regulatory role when it comes to public transport security? Third, I would like to ask the Minister who in the MOT or LTA is actually in charge of security, or is it MHA? Fourth, does the Ministry audit the security levels at the PTO sites?”
“On the flood alleviation measures, as rightly pointed out, it is meant to alleviate flood in low-lying city areas. In fact, in the incident of 16th June and even last Saturday, the nine crest gates were opened progressively to allow the storm water to flow into the sea. But how the crest gates and the pump are operated would have to be decided by the water level, both inside the reservoir and outside, because if the water level outside is higher, and it is high tide, then you have to start the pumps and pump the water out. If it is lower, we can lower the crest gates. The trigger point has to be done carefully and this will take some time. If we do open up the crest gates, we have to ensure that we do it correctly. PUB had done this correctly in the last three incidents, and because of that, none of the areas downtown had any flood. As to whether or not we could have done it for the Orchard Road area, I would like to inform Members that we did but do not forget the Marina Catchment is a very large catchment. In the case of Orchard Road, the canals are all the way upstream and it may not have enough capacity or even ability to drain off the water as quickly as possible. At the end of the day, this has to be studied as a system, not just as a barrage, together with all the drains on how we can do this. As I mentioned earlier, the Stamford Canal is now our priority, we will study this carefully on how, together with the system that we put in place, we can alleviate the hotspots that we have discovered in Orchard Road.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions. First, I read that the PUB and the authorities are actually stepping up their checks of blocked drains from quarterly to monthly. So, does the Minister not agree then that this is an acknowledgement that the checks were actually not done frequently enough up to now? Second, Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify the role of the Marina Barrage because there appears to be some confusing statements in the media about this. Earlier, the Minister said that the Marina Barrage did help to alleviate the flooding situation in the first incident on 16th June. But the press reports at that time quoted the PUB head as saying that the Marina Barrage was not to be blamed, so I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate on what role the Marina Barrage played in the flooding incident. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the frequency of checks of our drains prior to the incident of 16th June was every three months and that was adequate. But obviously the 16th June's storm was an intense storm that caused a lot of rubbish to be pushed down to the Stamford Canal and caused some parts of the canal to be blocked. We decided, in the interest of alleviating as much as possible flood-prone areas, to increase our frequency of cleaning blocked drains. So it is not an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong but it is something that needed to be learnt as we go along and maybe these are the ways in which we can improve the work that we do. To the second question on the exact role of the Marina Barrage – the Marina Barrage is supposed to be 3-in-1. First of all is to create a freshwater reservoir for ourselves, second is really flood alleviation and third is for recreational uses.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister mentioned earlier this issue of transparency and that it is a convenient word. I have a very specific concern about this. Currently, decisions to compound, which are approved and not approved by the Court, they are reported in judgments. They can be appealed against. Everybody can read the reasons why the Court exercised its discretion this way or the other. By moving this decision to the DPP, that will no longer be available. I would like the Minister to confirm that this is going to be a case. I was not saying that every decision of the DPP had to be subject to public scrutiny. But the fact is by moving this decision out of the Court's hands, there will be a loss of this articulation of the reasons for exercise of discretion. Secondly, regarding caning: could the Minister clarify whether there is any intention to articulate in some kind of tariff, for example, say how many strokes were not given translates to how many months imprisonment? For defence counsel to advise their clients, this is going to be a big grey area.”
“As the Police are often the first at a crime scene with powers to seize evidence and take witness statements, what they gather at the time of the crime is likely to be reliable. By contrast, the defence is not empowered to compel such evidence. Such disclosure is required in the United Kingdom where there are rules for Disclosure of Unwanted Material set out in the United Kingdom Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and their Joint Operational Instructions issued to the Crown Prosecutors and Police. The logic of this is straightforward. Reliable evidence should not be kept away from the Court. I hope the Government will look into these two areas in the near future. Sir, overall, some important improvements have been made to the CPC. However, there continue to be areas for concern and further review. 5.32 pm”
“First is the question of access to counsel which Member Alvin Yeo before me has touched on. As the law currently stands, an arrested person will not be allowed to consult his lawyer until the police decide that their investigations will not be jeopardised. This is despite the fact that the Constitution provides the fundamental liberty that an arrested person shall be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. Sir, the Constitution was amended last month to allow the police to apply for Court Orders to detain a person beyond 48 hours via video link. Therefore, it will no longer be required to bring the arrested person to the Court premises and produce him in person before the Magistrate. I argued then why this compromises the Constitutional liberties, as the custody will be extended while the person remains in the police facility, and the Court does not have direct contact with the person under arrest to ascertain his condition. Since that amendment has now been passed, the right to counsel as a check becomes all the more critical. I urge the Government to study seriously the possibility of setting a statutory time limit after arrest when counsel must be allowed to see the arrested person, say, a few days after arrest or, at most, one week after arrest. Sir, lastly, pre-trial disclosure. The statutory framework in this Bill is a welcome improvement. Once this has been in operation for some time, the Government should strive to go a step further – towards a best practice of disclosing evidence it has collected which it does not intend to use, which could be helpful to the defence.”
“While I can accept that imprisonment can be added in lieu of caning in all the three circumstances, I have great discomfort in allowing the combined jail term to exceed the statutory maximum imposed by Parliament for the offence. Sir, the maximum jail term prescribed by Parliament is there for a reason – to reflect how much loss of liberty should be suffered by an individual in the worst possible case. Furthermore, since the Courts rarely impose the statutory maximum jail term when sentencing an offender, there will usually be still room for them to add imprisonment in lieu of caning and still remain within the statutory maximum. Would the Minister clarify why this change is needed? Next, Court powers on appeal. This issue concerns ensuring that accused persons have confidence in filing appeals. I have raised this in MinLaw Committee of Supply (COS) three years ago. There have been cases where offenders appeal against their sentences for being too heavy, and the prosecution does not appeal that the sentence is too light – yet the offender’s sentence was enhanced by the appeal Court. This possibility of a boomerang on appeal will deter some offenders from appealing against their sentences, for fear of a worse outcome. We should be concerned that people must feel free to exercise their rights of appeal in criminal cases, without jeopardising themselves. It is still my view that the CPC should be amended to provide that when only the accused person appeals against sentence, the Court can either maintain or reduce the sentence, but not enhance it. Finally, Sir, there are two other areas left unresolved which the Government should review, if not now, then in the near future.”
“First, ineligibility – women, and men above 50 or sentenced to death, are not eligible for caning. Secondly, serial offenders – a serial offender who is sentenced for several offences may be liable for more than 24 strokes, which is above the now specified limit and therefore illegal. Third, a caning which is discontinued – caning of an offender may have begun, but the caning is stopped halfway by a medical officer who finds that the offender is not medically fit to complete it. In these three circumstances, I do agree that a question arises about fairness vis-a-vis other offenders who are able to suffer caning. Sir, under the current law (section 233), when a caning was stopped halfway, the Court could sentence the offender to additional imprisonment of up to 12 months to make up for the unexecuted caning. However, there was an express proviso in that section. Under section 233(2), the Court could still not impose a term exceeding the accused’s liability under the law. In other words, if his offence attracts a maximum of seven years' jail, his original jail term plus the jail term in lieu of caning should not be more than seven years. Neither was the Court allowed to exceed its sentencing jurisdiction under the current CPC. Sir, the new Bill changes that. For all the three situations I mentioned, the Court can add imprisonment of up to 12 months in lieu of caning. And it is further stated that the aggregate imprisonment term after this addition may exceed the maximum jail term for the offence he committed and may even exceed the Court’s sentencing jurisdiction.”
“In the reported case of PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995], the accused had been charged with voluntarily causing hurt. He had made an offer to the victim who was willing to compound the matter. The Public Prosecutor objected to the composition. The Court found that there were no aggravating factors, the injuries were minor and the parties had patched up their differences, therefore there was no reason to re-open old wounds by going through with the prosecution. The High Court clarified then that the Court was not a rubber stamp but had to make a judicial decision, apply the rules of reason and justice, and consider the public interest. In that case, it was found that there was no public interest element why the offence should not be compounded. Sir, past cases show that there are instances where the Court and the Public Prosecutor differ as to what the public interest requires. With due respect, what reason do we have to think that the Public Prosecutor is superior to the Court in this regard? Sir, in addition, the Public Prosecutor is a party to all criminal cases, on the opposite side of the accused person. Since this is an adversarial system, it is better to have the Court, an independent party, to assess whether the composition should be approved. The prosecution can always make its views known to the Court before the Court makes its decision. I also do not see any compelling reason to move this decision from Open Court to the Executive Government, resulting in a loss of transparency and clarity to the general public. Next, changes to the caning provisions. We are one of the few countries which continue to have caning as a judicial punishment. However, though certain offences attract caning, some people are unable to suffer it. There are three main circumstances.”
“As a general rule, keeping minor offenders out of jail is a good principle. However, we should be careful that we do not inadvertently end up processing more people through the system and leave more people with criminal records. This "net-widening" could result if we start to prosecute people who would otherwise have been let off with a warning, just because we think there are "light" sentences available. Sir, apart from these three areas, I have other concerns about specific provisions in the Bill. These concern the composition of Penal Code offences, changes to the provisions on caning and powers of the Court on appeal. First, composition of Penal Code offences. The Bill makes a significant change regarding offences which can be compounded by the victim under the Penal Code. Under the existing law, certain minor Penal Code offences can be settled between the victim and the offender provided it is allowed by the Court. For example, in outrage of modesty cases, the victim may accept an offer of compensation and an apology, in exchange for an acquittal, provided the Court allows it. Such a route is only available for certain minor offences specified by Parliament – the CPC provides that for those offences, the victim is empowered to compound. The new section 241 removes the Court as the approving authority and gives this role to the Public Prosecutor. The rationale for this, according to the MinLaw Consultation Paper 2008, is that the Public Prosecutor will have the public interest in mind when he exercises this power. However, it was not explained why it was felt that the power needed to be taken away from the Court. There have been several local cases where the Court allowed an offence to be compounded, despite objections from the Public Prosecutor.”
“For too long, the criminal justice system has focused on punishing the offender, and neglected the harm and damage caused to the crime victim. Thus, the crime victim has had to pay for medical treatment or replace his property with his own funds, and suffers inconveniences in having to attend at police stations and court hearings, with nothing in return. The Bill has several provisions which recognise the crime victim as a stakeholder in a criminal case. It is now mentioned that a sentencing court can consider a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) under the new section 228. This will enable the Court to specifically consider the harm caused to the victim in determining the appropriate sentence. In addition, it will now be mandatory for a sentencing court to consider whether to also order the offender to compensate the victim for injuries or other losses under the new section 359. If used well, these provisions will make the process more meaningful for the victim and is a step closer to the progressive regimes in other developed countries such as Australia. One concern I have about this is whether these provisions will end up simply being on paper and not actively used. For instance, I note that under the current practice, the Victim Impact Statement is not recorded by the police in the majority of cases. I would like the Minister to clarify whether there is going to be any change to this practice, ie, will the VIS be recorded by the police in future in a wider variety of cases? If not, the Court may not have the information readily at hand to adjust the sentence or to order compensation, which will undermine the purpose of the changes. Third, community-based sentences. Increased options of community-based sentences are now available in lieu of incarceration.”
“Sir, this Bill before Parliament has now undergone some changes from the initial Bill which was floated for public consultation. I am happy to note that some points in my written submission to the Ministry have been taken into account in this revised version. The Bill makes some progressive changes in three important areas: pre-trial disclosure framework, crime victims’ redress and community-based sentences. First, pre-trial disclosure framework. The Bill provides for more balance between the State and the defence in preparing for criminal trials. The much-awaited statutory framework for pre-trial disclosure is now out. There will now be more disclosure between the prosecution and defence in criminal cases – the prosecution will now be required to furnish to the defence all statements made by the accused at any time, even those only useful to the defence. This is an improvement from the current position when such important evidence may be withheld from the defence and the Court. Likewise, the defence has disclosure obligations to reveal its defence before trial. While the framework is a significant step forward, I have one concern about this. Under the new section 231, it is still possible for either side to call witnesses or produce exhibits not disclosed at the pre-trial disclosure conference, so long as "prior notice" is given in writing to the Court and the other parties to the case. It is not stated how much notice must be given. Will this be a loophole for either party not to disclose everything at the pre-trial conference and introduce new evidence at the last minute? If so, this will defeat the purpose of the framework. Second, crime victims' redress.”
“First, the length of the campaign period matters because, in some of those countries mentioned, the campaign period goes on for 20 days, 56 days, there could be an issue of voter overload or voter fatigue. In our system, it is only nine days, so the length of the campaign period does have an implication on voter psyche in that sense. Next, he has not explained why the Government use Australia as an example. In my speech earlier, I mentioned that, according to what my Party has researched, the reason is to prevent richer parties from buying up broadcast time. In fact, during the Australian Federal elections there is no ban on Internet campaigning, and so on. So, is the Government using that comparison fairly? Next, the Minister mentions that we should not look at abuses in other countries as a concern. But I think we should because we should look at the experience of other countries to see how campaign silences have worked. And, Sir, while I do not know what is going to happen at the next election, I do recall what happened in past elections. TV footages of so called "mistakes" by Opposition being repeated on the air over and over again. I do not know whether this will happen the next time but the point is that the risk is there and we are not convinced that the cooling-off period is in the national interest and, for these reasons, we will oppose it.”
“Thank you, Sir. First, I would like to make a comment on the remarks by Nominated Member Calvin Cheng. I find it quite ironic that someone who came into this august Chamber through an interview can actually attack the NCMP scheme in such strong terms. Sir, next, I would like to move on to comments made by the Minister or comments not made by the Minister in his clarification speech. First, I have not heard from the Minister what is even more fundamental: why after all these years of conducting elections without a cooling-off period, the PAP sees a need to introduce one, after all these years? I do not think there has been any convincing reason given to Singaporeans why there has to be a change after all these years. Next, with regard to what the Prime Minister said last December, the Minister earlier sought to explain the comment about the rationality but to sum up what the Prime Minister actually said is we need a cooling-off period now because without that, there will be irrational voters at the polls. So, I do not think that I have ascribed to him anything which he has not meant. That was the implication of what he said. Secondly, Sir, as regards unrest, the Prime Minister did mention that as one of the reasons in December and the Minister also repeated a fear of unrest as one of the grounds to have this, and earlier he cited an incident at the SDA rally, but I find that a bit of a red herring because how does having a cooling-off period the next day help with an incident at a rally? I do not see the connect of that argument. Next, the Minister suggests that my attempt to distinguish the practices in other jurisdictions is not valid. Let me clarify that if the Minister does not understand.”
“Instead of being a day for voter reflection, the campaign silence instead had "a distorting effect". Sir, another way in which the cooling-off period can be circumvented is by showing Government officials carrying out their "official duties" on TV. During the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia, the European Union's Election Observation Commission noted that the state-owned television company devoted disproportionate amount of coverage to positive reviews of the incumbent President's activities and achievements in office. Examples included a daily pro-Government programme and advertisements for education reform. Sir, one major problem of the cooling-off period is how to enforce the ban on canvassing, especially if done by word of mouth. In theory, clause 34 provides that nobody is supposed to do any canvassing on the Cooling-Off day and Polling Day. But how can conversations be effectively policed? Members of grassroots organisations can easily do house visits or organise block parties on Cooling-Off day, geared towards garnering support for PAP candidates. Even if violations are reported to the Police, Police resources at that time will be spread very thin. Sir, all and all, there is no convincing reason to introduce the cooling-off period which will likely to be abused to the ruling party's advantage. For these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.”
“Under clause 30, the 24-hour ban on election advertising will not affect the mass media reporting election-related news. This itself is a tremendous loophole, which can be used in a bias manner. Allegations against Opposition candidates or attacks on Opposition policy proposals can be repeated on news, programmes on Cooling-Off day, to drum up sentiment against the Opposition and to discredit the Opposition. Though allegations may also be made against the ruling party policies, policies explanations by civil servants may not be deemed to be election advertising, since the connection with campaigning is more indirect. For instance, if affordability of housing becomes an election issue, the Ministry or HDB could announce the change during the cooling-off period, thus taking some heat off the ruling party. By contrast, Opposition parties will not be allowed to put up new responses as this will be deemed election advertising as defined under the Act. Sir, though party political broadcasts are allowed to be aired on the Cooling-Off day, these are pre-recorded a few days before and will not be able to address any issues which arose after the recording. Sir, in other countries, experience has shown that cooling-off periods are open to abuses by incumbents. In 1999, the Council of Europe published a handbook on media and elections. It was noted that the cooling-off period may be observed accordingly to the letter of the law, but breached in spirit. An example was given of the 1996 presidential elections in Russia. The incumbent President used the state-owned media to create fear of voting for the Opposition candidate by airing films that depicted gloom if the Opposition candidate won.”
“Nobody has the right to tell any other person, what amounts to a good or bad reason to cast a vote. Person A may be very affected by one issue, while person B finds it trivial. Each citizen's vote is a valid expression of his own satisfaction or dissatisfactions, aspirations or disappointments. It also make no sense at all that the ruling party is now worried that Singaporeans will be irrational when we have, in fact, become more educated and have greater access to information today. Sir, the second reason mentioned was fear of unrest. In the first place, our General Elections (GEs) have been run smoothly, with no major incidents all this while. The Government has already instituted measures to reduce the risk of disorder, for example, at the end of Polling Day, when poll results are announced, no longer are supporters of different parties allowed to gather side by side at the announcement centre. Instead, each party gathers with its supporters at different assembly areas to hear the GE results. Sir, the Government has always said that it does not blindly follow other countries, but does what works for us. Yet, it has tried to strengthened its argument for a cooling-off period by using other countries when the circumstances in those countries are different. For instance, many of the countries mentioned by the Minister had much longer campaign periods. As for Australia, the concern was not to allow rich parties the unfair advantage of buying excess media time at the critical moment, hence, the blackout period. These concerns do not apply to Singapore, as our campaign period only lasts nine days and the campaign rules do not allow us to buy air time. Sir, besides the lack of justification, the cooling-off period is likely to be abused in the ruling party's favour.”
“Sir, the Bill carries several amendments. While some amendments are useful, the Workers' Party (WP) opposes the Bill because of the changes it makes to entrench the NCMP scheme and the introduction of the cooling-off period. Sir, as regards the NCMP scheme, this is connected to the Constitutional Amendment Bill debated earlier. I have already spoken at length on that Bill, on the reasons why WP voted against the change and I will not repeat the arguments here. I will focus on the introduction of the cooling-off period. Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce an additional day before Polling Day when campaigning is not allowed. This has been called the Cooling-Off day. On this day, no symbols or badges can be displayed – clause 27; no election advertising can be published or uploaded – clause 30; no canvassing is allowed – clause 34; and no rallies can be held – clause 35. Sir, in our view, there is no convincing reason to show that after all these years without the cooling-off period, such a change is needed in the national interest. In addition, the change is open to abuse in the ruling party's favour. The first supposed rationale for introducing this change was given by the Prime Minister several months ago. He mentioned that the PAP Government was worried about irrational voters. The Minister alluded to this concern about irrationality at his Second Reading speech earlier. Sir, in so saying that voters may be irrational, the PAP Government has underestimated the intellectual strength of Singaporeans and is signalling that Singaporeans are incapable of making rational judgement through the ballot box. These assumptions reveal the distrust PAP has of Singaporeans. Furthermore, this fear of irrationality is arrogant. "Irrational" by whose criteria?”
“Sir, I thought I have made my position clear in my speech earlier but I will repeat the same. You recall that we oppose the proposal to entrench the NCMP system even further by increasing the number from six to nine because, fundamentally, we do not believe that this is the way the system should move forward. That is why we are voting against the amendment. However, as I mentioned in my speech, the Deputy Prime Minister earlier claimed or accused us of making excuses after our GRC losses, but my question is: are we wrong to say that there is gerrymandering? He mentioned Eunos and Cheng San GRC and our narrow losses there but what happened to those constituencies now? Are they still intact? So, Sir, coming back to the final question of NCMP, as mentioned by Mr Low earlier, at each GE we will have to look at the situation and assess. And at the last GE, the Party decision was that we should take up the NCMP seat because of the circumstances and the fact that we had a sizeable number of people in Aljunied GRC who wanted us elected, so on that basis we thought that we could serve the people in some way by doing so. So that is why I am here.”
“Sir, as I have said earlier, I have not changed my position. As far as I am concerned, the NCMPs who contest in an unfair GRC system have some support from the public, so there is some merit. In fact, I think PAP MPs have even supported that argument to say that there is some mandate from the people in that sense. But what we are looking for is really a system that allows a contest that is fair and balanced and I think none of us wants to come in as NCMP as an aim. We would like to represent the people in the fullest way possible, we are prepared to work for their vote, but what we want is a fair system. 5.24 pm”
“Straughan mentioned earlier, in any case during General Election the NMPs are irrelevant, Singaporeans will have to vote based on the political parties that contest. So I think the answer lies there. Next, he talked about the GRC system. I am not sure whether, by his anecdote, he is concerned that if he were to defend in a single seat he would not be able to win his ward back. No doubt there will always be language issues but the question is: does that stop people from voting? Other countries – look at the USA – they have shown that they can elect an African American to be a President. Do you mean Singapore's population is not capable of looking beyond that when they vote for an MP? Do they not judge more than just race? So, Sir, all in all, I think the Member has been rather unfair to me in his assessment.”
“Sir, thank you for the opportunity to clarify what the Member has said about my speech. First of all, Sir, I have not changed my position at all. In fact, I have repeated what I have said in May, ie, that the NCMP position is supportable from the point of view that it gives effect to voters' aspirations because people have voted for NCMP in large numbers but it would never replace the elected MP scheme. It is a stop-gap measure because of the abuses of the GRC system that have taken place over years. And I never said in my speech that NCMPs play no role. I said that NCMP seats have a limited role and I went on to detail some of the limitations. So I think the Member is putting words into my mouth. Thirdly, he asked me to clarify why I accepted the NCMP seat. Okay, we have traced the history from the time the NCMP scheme was first introduced, there were only single seats in 1984. Over the years the expansion of the mega GRCs and the gerrymandering have led us to come to the conclusion that the people's will has been suppressed at the GE and at every GE we will have to consider as a party whether the NCMP seats offered should be accepted. We are not able to say in the future what the position will be but that is the situation. Sir, next he asked whether the Opposition MPs are afraid of being outshone by the Nominated MPs because of our contributions. I think the Hansard can speak for itself what we have contributed to the parliamentary debate. Anyone who is interested can look to see how often we have filed questions or we have spoken, so I think that record stands by itself. Fifth, as his colleague, Assoc. Prof.”
“This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people's desires. Elected Opposition Members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party, not just in Parliament but on the ground. It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country becomes so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage. Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the Prime Minister should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people, which an SMC system would automatically cure. In conclusion, Sir, let me summarise. By this Bill, the Prime Minister is trying to make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems are the abuse of the GRC system and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people's desires at the elections and, instead, promoted the ruling party's own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to solve. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore. Sir, for these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. The Member for Hougang will vote against the amendment as I cannot vote! 4.35 pm”
“In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs Minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and, therefore, the Government departments would only respond to letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisers on behalf of residents in those areas. I have my own experiences of this reality. I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues, where appropriate. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases, though I would very much want to. In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP of a constituency will be in charge of the Town Council which controls the use of common space. As for the Community Clubs, these are in the hands of the People's Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organise activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards and received expected rejections. On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in Opposition wards are appointed advisers to grassroots organisations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other Government departments on behalf of residents! Sir, it may well be that the PAP wants complete dominance, with non-PAP voices provided through NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party, through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected Opposition Members.”
“Minister Mentor had also commented then on the GRCs being useful training tools, since the Health Minister who had been with him in Tanjong Pagar GRC from the previous GE "should be ready to lead his own GRC team" in the coming 2006 election. Sir, the other twin pillar of the double whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meeting published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempt to explain why certain single seats are retained when others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituency at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Coincidentally, constituencies which showed strong Opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos GRC or Cheng San GRC. Sir, a few days ago, the Prime Minister appeared in a television interview with American journalist Charlie Rose and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with the moral right to govern? Sir, in addition there are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations. Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to Government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP.”
“At that GE, 1988, Workers’ Party’s team at Eunos GRC, consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalit Baboo, secured 49% of the votes against a PAP team. By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to four-man teams. However, there were 21 single-member seats. At that election, voters elected four Opposition MPs into Parliament, in Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), including the Workers' Party's Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of Opposition MPs elected since the Barisan Sosialis walk-out in the 1960s. Sir, in the following GE, in 1997, GRCs were again expanded to even six-man GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation; instead, the excuse of economies of scale for Town Councils and Community Development Councils was used. Despite that, the Workers' Party’s team in Cheng San GRC scored 45%, with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong. By this GE in 1997, the PAP's expansion of the GRC saw only nine SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP's need to dominate. This tiny number of nine has been with us till today, such that when the Prime Minister announces an increase of SMCs from nine to 12, we hail this as progress! Sir, over the years, the PAP has itself admitted that the GRCs serve its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped to recruit PAP candidates since, "without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics".”
“Sir, under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections (GE), when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every five years to get a mandate. But instead of acting in the national interest, the PAP Government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its own political ends. Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten. Sir, the NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by Workers' Party’s then secretary-general, the late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for Opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority and, in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly at Potong Pasir with 60%. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Wong in his Second Reading speech mentioned that the Workers’ Party had rejected the NCMP seat in 1994, but I think he was mistaken, it was actually in 1984. Sir, at that time in 1984, there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double whammy to secure its political power – GRCs and gerrymandering. The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE – this was avowedly for the purpose of minority representation, despite the fact that minority candidates were still defeating Chinese candidates at the previous GEs. The GRCs started with three-member groupings.”
“I will focus the rest of my speech on the change to Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs). Sir, clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of NCMPs in Parliament from six to nine. The Workers' Party will oppose the amendment on the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of voters who supported Opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system and gerrymandering. Let me elaborate. Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was "to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including Opposition and non-government views". He said that it would "generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation". The "most important" reason for the change, according to him, was "to keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as the key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided". Sir, it is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be a sort of feedback unit or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament, as an Organ of State, should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation, where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people because the people have so elected?”
“Sir, accordingly, it is not right to compare our jurisdiction with those countries because in our system, the right to counsel is much more deferred and this makes Court oversight even more critical at the stage of first remand when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case. Sir, by allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes of concern. We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to Court to be a reason to derogate from their constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the Court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to Court. Sir, changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties protection in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the Government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4). Sir, I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament. First, entrenching Nominated MPs in the system. The Workers’ Party position on NMP remains the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past, and we will oppose the entrenchment.”
“Sir, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill. I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes. First, video-link for remand cases. Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation. Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by the Police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a Court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from police lock-up facility to the Court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer. Sir, this physical removal from the police facility into a Court, and being in the direct physical presence of the Court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect's physical condition, the way he walks, stands and speaks, for signs of exhaustion or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of first remand. This is quite unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in his Second Reading speech. Most of the jurisdictions mentioned by him, I believe, have very strong rights to counsel, in fact, immediately upon arrest.”
“Madam, as someone who has been deeply involved in adult training for more than a decade, I strongly support providing more upgrading pathways for our adults who may not have had the luxury of a full-time education when they were younger. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean announced last week that the Government would look into providing stronger linkages and clarity between our academic and skills qualifications. This was to provide upward mobility for workers and give employers greater clarity on how different qualifications relate to one another. It was also announced that the Government would be studying models from other countries. I would like to seek the following clarifications: First, has the Government identified any countries to be studied so far? For instance, is the Government considering a comprehensive system like the Australian qualification framework to link school-based vocational and higher educational qualifications? Second, regarding the new National Producitivity and CE Council, it was announced that it will comprise private sector businesses, unionists, and Ministers and Ministers of State. Since the Council would also be overseeing the development of the new CE system, should there not be representation also from the educational institutions? And, finally, is there an approximate timeline for the Government to roll out the new CET system? Productivity, innovation and CET”
“Sir, it was reported in the papers in May last year that SBS was exploring the possibility of providing concessionary travel for the disabled passengers, first on buses. That was in May, so I wonder whether the Government is aware of any outcome or progress on this?”
“Thank you, Sir. Four clarifications for my cut on concessions for the disabled for public transport. First clarification is that Minister did touch on the fact there are some vouchers available for the needy but I wonder if the Government is aware that in developed countries, the disabled are a distinct category recognised in its own right for concessionary travel, similar to the elderly. We have a system now for some concessions for the elderly, what about the disabled? Should that not also be recognised in view of the structural difficulties that they face because of their status? My second point: the Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier mentioned that the Government would encourage the PTOs to provide concessions but it will be left more or less to them. Would it be reasonable then to assume that the commercialisation of public transport really has actually taken away the layer of protection for the vulnerable group? Are we expecting these vulnerable groups to canvas their plight vis-a-vis these big commercial operators? Third point is, can the Government not assist the PTOs by, giving data or supporting a feasibility study as to how much this would really cause the PTOs if they were to provide concessions for the disabled. I think the number is small for they may not travel all that regularly except for those who work. So can the Government not assist in that area? Lastly, I believe that the disabled group has been canvassing for this for quite sometime, maybe more than 10 years on this issue and there has not been any progress. It was reported in the press that in May last year, SBS was looking into this. I wonder if the Government can update us as to whether there is any outcome?”
“Sir, disabled persons face challenges fitting into society for work, recreation and social interaction. Travel is a necessary step towards integration to work, to socialise and to be consumers. There are currently no public transport concession for the disabled. The disabled here have low earning capacity, many do not work. Those who do, earn a few hundred dollars a month, spending up to a third on travel expenses. 1.30 pm The Government has often said that we should build an inclusive society. It therefore should not take a backseat on this issue. Other governments are proactive. In the United Kingdom, for example, disabled persons qualify for a special rail card which entitles them to travel through the United Kingdom at one-third off from the normal fare. In addition, disabled persons in London can travel off-peak for free on buses, the Underground and trains. The Government cannot wash its hands off the matter by saying that the public transport system is operated commercially and it is up to the public transport operators to decide. The disabled have no bargaining power against the big companies. For instance, the Land Transport Authority, as regulator, can make it a licensing condition that the public transport operators (PTOs) recognise disabled passengers for concession travel. According to a 2001 MOH survey, less than 2% of Singaporean adults below 60 have some sort of disability. Is the number of disabled too much for the PTOs. The PTOs' operations are reaping profits of tens of millions of dollars annually, and this is part of their corporate social responsibility.”
“Three points for Senior Minister of State, Mr Iswaran, regarding the university cohort participation rate. Sir, first of all, the Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned the figures I quoted from OECD – 37% of the age cohort going to university – and he asked aloud whether that would include polytechnic courses which, in Singapore, are of high quality. I would like to clarify to him that the figure I quoted was tertiary type A, according to the OECD glossary and that is defined as theoretically-based courses designed to provide qualifications for advanced research programmes or profession such as medicine, dentistry, and so on. I dare not include any figures for tertiary type B which was defined as occupationally-oriented programmes for direct labour access. So I would like to clarify that the 37% actually relates to your typical traditional university-type courses. Second point is regarding the 30% university cohort participation rate. I would like to ask, a follow-up from Dr Amy Khor's question, whether there was a regular time frame at which this target is being reviewed. Every few years, how many years, etc? Does he foresee that in the future, we can expect this figure to go up, in line with what is happening in developed countries? Third point is the Senior Minister of State mentioned that when we look and plan for cohort participation rate at universities, we need to look at the employment opportunities and market relevance. I would like to clarify with him whether there is also a need for us to create some buffer for market relevance, not just in Singapore but also regionally and internationally which our graduates can take advantage of and create a buffer for those who are entrepreneurial and can create their own opportunities.”
“Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Sir, as the population ages and the demand for elder care increases, one way to keep healthcare cost affordable is to ensure an adequate supply of healthcare workers, especially physicians and nurses. My questions for the Minister relate to the adequacy of places in the healthcare-related academic courses. Can the Minister comment on the doctor-patient ratio we are striving towards in order to meet the healthcare needs of our ageing population? Based on these projections, to what extent can the School of Medicine, Duke and National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies and Nanyang Polytechnic meet our needs for physician and nursing training. Are the programmes expected to grow their intake in the next five years? When will the NTU medical programme be launched and how many students will be trained under this new programme? Can the Minister also comment on the role of the private sector in augmenting the training needs of healthcare professionals? Education policy”
“Sir, currently, the proportion of Primary 1 cohort admitted to the local subsidised universities is targeted to rise to 30% by 2015 with the new university and institute coming up. I would like to ask if MOE will review this 30% target with a view to increasing it. I know MOE's concerns that we should not have sudden increases in graduate numbers which may leave many unemployed or under-employed. However, since Singapore is prioritising innovation and greater productivity, the population as a whole has to raise its game and the jobs of the future will require different educational qualifications from currently. We are also trying to encourage the growth of entrepreneurs to find their own niches. With globlisation, Singaporeans who also have more opportunities overseas will still benefit their families and Singapore, directly or indirectly. In a matter of interest, according to the OECD Factbook 2009, the 25 OECD countries were expecting to graduate an average of about 37% of an age cohort from tertiary type A, typical degree level education, in 2006. It was stated that there was a strong trend in increasing their cohort participation rates in the last 15 years in line with producing highly skilled labour forces. I agree that we need to maintain standards in university admission, however, over the years, many students who were rejected by our local universities, were admitted to reputable foreign universities and did well. But this route is only available to those whose parents could afford it. I hope the Ministry will look into revising the cohort participation rate in our universities beyond 30%. Quota in medicine and nursing programmes Assoc. Prof.”
“Sir, three clarifications on my cut on Medisave for outpatient treatment for chronic illnesses. First, earlier, the Minister mentioned that he spoke to some elderly who told him that they deliberately chose not to use Medisave for their outpatient treatment. But I wonder whether the Minister is also aware of some feedback being given to him that the deductible has been a problem for some. The man I mentioned earlier hand wrote a letter to the Minister but he received a reply from somebody in the Ministry of Health. So I do not know whether the Minister is actually aware of this feedback that the deductible is causing hardship to some elderly sick. The second point is, does the Minister agree that with the caps already in place of $300 withdrawal every year plus the co-payment requirement, is there really a need for the deductible to check on over-consumption and to protect the Medisave savings? 3.00 pm The third point is the Minister earlier mentioned that to get over the deductible some clinics are offering package deals. Could the Minister clarify whether this package deal means that the patient is paying for consultations in advance? Not just the medication, but consultation as well, because patients need to go back every few months. Secondly, whether this option is something that the patient can insist on at the polyclinic.”
“There is anger amongst some elderly sick that even in their poor health condition, they have been denied the use of their own savings for healthcare. Adequacy of Medisave”
“Sir, since 2006, Medisave can be used for outpatient treatment for chronic diseases such as hypertension up to a limit of $300 per year. However, it would seem that this has been under-utilised. According to the Ministry's reply to my Parliamentary Question last month, only 15% of chronic disease outpatients paid bills with Medisave in FY2008. Of those who did utilise Medisave for payment, only 30% of claims reached the annual limits on withdrawal of $300. I recently met an elderly gentleman with hypertension who has Medisave balances but is unable to use them to pay outpatient bills. This is because of the current policy that the outpatient must pay the first $30 of any bill. He showed me that many of his polyclinic bills were below $30. According to MOH's data, the median size of polyclinic bills for chronic diseases is $36 with three months' medication. With the $30 deductible plus an additional 15% of the balance to be paid in cash, Medisave would not be usable or useful for many of such bills. Sir, there are elderly sick who have little cash and savings. Yet, they are not allowed to draw their own Medisave money for medical treatment but are asked to get family support. This increases the elderly person's dependence on family members. The elderly gentleman I mentioned told me that he would sometimes default on his follow-ups due to finances. This could precipitate a worse inpatient condition which will deplete his Medisave even more rapidly. The Government may be concerned about Medisave accounts being depleted but safeguards already exist via the annual $300 cap, the requirement to co-pay 15% and the administrative fee of $3.50. Sir, the Government should consider removing the deductible.”
“Sir, this is regarding the Energy Policy cut which I spoke on earlier and the Senior Minister of State's response. First, I would like to clarify that under the tiered system which I was talking about, the cross subsidy for the lowest tier will actually come from the higher users. So it is not a proposal to beat the State budget as such. A clarification for the Senior Minister of State. The first is I do not think he has answered my question about which countries we were expecting to import electricity from. My query is whether that would expose us to another set of, not just risk in terms of reliability of the cables but also, perhaps, another set of political risk, depending on the countries that we are referring to. Secondly, regarding the cost of imported electricity, could the Minister of State clarify whether we are expecting that cost to be higher or lower than the electricity which we generate locally? Thirdly, could the Minister confirm that in the new pricing mechanism that ESC talks about, we are expecting electricity prices to take a higher share of household income than it is now. And fourthly, he mentioned that targeted assistance to those who need it would be the way to go to assist those who need help. My clarification is whether this is just during the transition phase when we move into this new pricing system or is this going to be a permanent feature of the Government Budget.”
“There is also mention of certain outputs like sales revenue from commercialised products and processes, licensing revenues from patents and technologies produced here and the number of patent applications. However, the Singapore competitiveness report 2009 by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy observed that Government funded research institutes did not seem to be translating the scientific research into new products and services at a significant skill. Does MTI agree with the author's allusion to some under-performance? What other output and outcome indicators are tracked by the Government? How are we doing in terms of R&D output and outcomes vis-a-vis other countries at a comparable stage of R&D? Sir, next – R&D manpower. The number of full-time post-graduate research students, who are citizens or PRs, was only 26% in 2008 with 75% being non-PRs foreign citizens. The ESC has acknowledged that we need to boost the numbers of local students pursuing PhDs in R&D fields. What are the Government's plans in relation to boosting the numbers of local students pursuing PhDs in R&D? Supporting local enterprises”
“With increasing consumption levels, the tariff will escalate. The higher tariff collected in the upper tiers can be used for two purposes – one to cross subsidise the first tier tariff and, second, to encourage all households not to over-consumer electricity. Many countries, including New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong and the US, implement variations of this idea to protect small consumers. Some governments require electricity retailers, by law, to provide a low-tariff charge for small consumers. I hope that MTI's plan to open up the market for electricity supply among households to several retailers can incorporate such a requirement for the retailers to provide a low-tariff charge for small consumers. Research and development Sir, since the year 2000, Singapore has spent about $33 billion on R&D, also referred as gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD). Of this, about $12 billion was funded by taxpayers. I agree that it is necessary for Singapore to invest heavily in R&D for our nation's future, however, it is critically important to measure the output and impact of our R&D investments to ensure it is money well spent. This is, admittedly, not an easy task. The results from research may take years to materialise and some R&D may be undertaken for strategic reasons, the benefits of which may not be easy to quantify. Nevertheless, any spending from the public needs to be accounted for. First, how are we currently measuring the output and impact of our R&D investments? I note that A*STAR puts out annual R&D surveys, covering input factors such as GERD in various fields of R&D and overall GERD as a percentage of GDP.”
“Sir, the ECS has put forth recommendations on Singapore being a smart energy economy. As electricity is a modern necessity, it is of paramount importance that it is reliable, pollution-free and affordable. As regards reliability, the ESC recommended that, in the medium term, Singapore considers importing coal and electricity to diversify our energy sources so as to free up land in Singapore. I would like clarification on the pros and cons of relying on imports and, thus, becoming less self-reliant for our energy needs. Which are the countries we are likely to import electricity from? Will there be additional risks to our energy security? What are the infrastructure investments we need to put in place to enable this? Will these investments lead to higher electricity prices? Are we expecting imported electricity to be more or less expensive than what is generated in Singapore? As regards to coal, are we taking a step backwards on the environment when other countries are moving away from it due to such concerns? As for pricing, the ESC notes that economic fundamentals will mean that electricity prices will trend upwards, it further recommends pricing energy to reflect real cost and constraints, with suggestions of a carbon pricing scheme. From the point of view of the consumers, such a scheme sounds ominous, even with the offsets to help buffer the transition for the low-income. Sir, while offsets to low-income households will be useful while they last, an additional idea is to have a tiered system of pricing electricity in favour of small consumers. The fundamental idea is for the threshold level of power consumption by households to be determined. Households consuming less than the threshold level will enjoy a lower tariff charge.”
“While the property owners would have experienced the hardship of having to lose their homes and move to an IRH, I would like to suggest that the HDB provides the necessary counselling and workshop or seminar to these owners focusing on the right mindset of home ownership. This would help them to recuperate on the right note and rebuild a stable home for their families. Housing option for distressed family”
“Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Sir, I have mentioned in this House before that a home is often described as a haven. It is where one should feel secure, safe, comfortable, peaceful and able to live with our loved ones. It is where one grows, develops and achieves the best that one can be. Last year, the Minister announced that the HDB had introduced another housing option, known as Interim Rental Housing (IRH) to cater to home owners in difficult times. To me, this was an important signal in highlighting the compassion of our Government towards Singaporeans. I have met a few of my constituents who were in difficulties and I understand they were offered the IRH as a temporary measure while waiting for a permanent option. I observe that many were reluctant to take up this option and some would rather remain homeless. I would like to ask the Minister the following questions – how have Singaporeans responded to the IRH, and what is the take-up rate? With the change in the environment and location from the previous permanent home of the occupants, it will certainly affect the way one lives and carries out the daily activities. What has the HDB done to take care of the well-being of the occupants of these IRH, particularly, the educational needs of the children? Secondly, since its implementation, what is the average duration of stay of the occupants? And, finally, what percentage of these occupants have managed to find permanent homes? Sir, I would like to urge the HDB to engage these former home owners to take up the IRH rather than to remain homeless.”
“Sir, divorced mothers of lower income face challenges in housing. To be eligible for rental flats, one's household income has to be below $1,500. This puts mothers who earn slightly more at a distinct disadvantage. I came across a divorced mother who earns $1,600 working for a statutory board. She has care and control of two children attending primary school. Having sold her matrimonial home after her divorce, she is currently staying with her children in one room with a relative temporarily. However, she would have to move out very soon as the relative is getting married. This lady wishes to purchase a HDB resale flat but requires a HDB loan. She has additional income from giving tuition and receives maintenance from her ex-husband. As she also has some cash and CPF, there is reasonable basis that she will be able to repay a HDB loan for a 4-room flat, especially since she can easily rent out one room thereafter as well. HDB rejected her application for a loan saying that the maintenance payment and potential income from renting out the room had to be disregarded. As for the extra income from tuition, they needed a longer track record of at least a year for assessment. What chances do mothers like her have? Renting a flat in the open market costs $1,500 or higher. Renting a room is simply too small for her and her two children plus their school books and belongings. Such a cramped arrangement may also lead the children to stay out more, aggravating the inter-generational effects of the divorce. Can the HDB have wider criteria in assessing loans for divorcees with children? It seems a shame to dampen the drive of divorced mothers, like the one I mentioned. Interim housing Assoc. Prof.”
“Sir, I do not mean to belabour the point. But I am just trying to get a sense of how many people had served LT and have not relapsed so far? Would the Minister of State be able to shed light on that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, for LT, it is 16.9% or about 17%. That gives a sense of the relapse rate. I do not have the ballpark figures but I can give her the relapse rate, which is not bad. Of course, we are monitoring the figure. Like I have said, the numbers can go up but this is something that we have to work on to get repeat abusers off this slope.”