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 32 of 36.
“Some PAP Members in this House have different views and they all believe that continued domination of the PAP in political, social and economic arenas of our society is the best way forward and best assurance of the future of Singapore. Some PAP MPs also believe that the PAP’s self checks are enough to ensure a clean and non-corrupt Government as Opposition parties may become corrupt when they take over the Government. We believe we can leave it to Singaporeans to judge and decide whether they agree with this thesis. I would like now to respond to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday on the changes to the political system. Overall, Sir, my distinct impression is that the ruling Party now realises that it has gone too far with the GRC system, and that this has affected the political development of its own MPs. The ruling Party may also realise that the demise of the Opposition is not good for the PAP nor for Singapore. Let me now move to the specific changes announced. First, the proposals regarding the size of electoral constituencies. It is natural to welcome the formation of more Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), or single seats, from the legal limit of eight up to 12. The Workers' Party's position still remains that we should revert the entire system to SMCs. Though the PAP's claim is that GRCs ensure minority representation, we have seen in Singapore's past that minority candidates were elected as individuals without any need for such affirmative actions. The PAP's own minority Ministers and MPs, and the late Workers' Party's Secretary-General, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, are testament to this. Be that as it may, this increase from eight to 12 single-member seats is a step in the right direction as far as we are concerned.”
“This can be explained by the fall in intimate patrols such as foot and bicycle patrols, fewer house visits, and shortened Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) hours. MHA’s Addendum states that it will recruit 1,500 additional officers into the Home Team as a whole, with these officers being spread to police, immigration and other units. Will this be sufficient to meet the challenges in the coming months and years? How does this figure compare with the findings of the Human Factors Study? Will Singaporeans find that the spillover effects of the casinos were not sufficiently contained because inadequate resources led to a deterioration in the quality of life in Singapore? The Government must make these answers known in the coming months. Sir, next, I move on to evolving the political system. The Member for Hougang has already touched on some aspects of why the existing political system cannot be said to be robust. He cited how the Executive Government controlled Parliament due to its overwhelming majority and why the only real check on the ruling Party had to come from outside it through elected Opposition Members. Our firm belief is that it is the threatened or actual loss of elected seats which will temper the dominance of the ruling Party. More than any parliamentary debate, this threat of loss of territory reminds the Government of where its mandate comes from and that they govern at the will of the people. It also enables Opposition MPs to prove that they are able to take care for their constituents and work with them directly to improve their lives.”
“The Government assured Singaporeans that measures would be put in place to reduce the collateral damage to society which the casinos would bring. The Home Affairs Minister told Singaporeans that the Ministry would do its best to keep Singapore safe and secure, which would need adequate resources. Last August, when the House debated an adjournment motion on security lapses, the Second Home Affairs Minister showed a table of police-officer to population ratio in Singapore, Hongkong and New York. Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkong’s ratio and 55% of New York’s ratio. We were also told of huge numbers of overtime hours clocked by our Immigration officers. At that time, without counting the added demands of having casinos, it was already acknowledged that the Home Team was stretched and strained and, unable to clear their leave, leading to a Human Factors Study on operational fatigue within the Home Team. This study confirmed the work overload and understaffing in several areas even before the casinos are functional. Since preparations for the casinos commenced, there has been further drawdown on manpower as experienced officers have been drawn from other units to man the new units in charge of casino-related matters. Meanwhile, our population of 4.84 million is expected to continue to grow, to a capacity of six million eventually. This population also has a high percentage of foreigners who bring new law enforcement challenges due to language and lifestyle differences. In addition, on the community policing front, there is a public perception that police presence in housing estates has dropped from the levels in the 1990s when the Neighbourhood Police Posts were in full swing.”
“Sir, at this stage of the debate on the President’s Address, I will focus on the coming security challenges and evolving the political system, including responding to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on changes to the system. First, the coming security challenges. The security landscape of Singapore is set to become more demanding than ever in the coming months. The opening of the two Integrated Resorts with casinos is just a few months away. This event has the potential to threaten the quality of life in Singapore for all of us if mishandled from a law and order perspective. I am aware that the law enforcement agencies have been making extensive preparations for this event. The casinos will demand tremendous resources towards meeting criminal activity of an unprecedented nature in Singapore. Indeed, the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) Addendum states that the Ministry is studying how overseas organisations deal with transnational crimes and criminal organisations, and strengthening measures against loan shark activity. It is foreseeable that Police would need to have heavy presence, both inside and outside the casinos, both in uniform and plainclothes, to battle the problems caused by foreign gangs, prostitution, illegal money-lending, money-laundering, casino fraud, robberies and thefts, among others. These are complex problems and our approach must be wholehearted from the beginning, otherwise it will be much more difficult to recover if organised crime takes root here. In 2005, when the casinos were debated in the House and among the public, thousands, such as the group called Families against the Casino Threat in Singapore (FACTS), campaigned against them.”
“Sir, supplementary question for the Minister. Could the Second Minister enlighten the House as to why Singapore only committed this year to adopting the international tax Standard. When we look at the list of countries in the OECD list, that are in the white list, the countries are very diverse, including countries like China, Mexico, Turkey and so on. So could the Second Minister tell us why we only committed to it this year and could she also give an estimate as to when she expects that we will be able to move into the white list?”
“Sir, a follow-up to the Minister's last answer. Sir, the public is trying now to assess Temasek's explanation of why it divested its stake in BoA/Merrill Lynch and the answer that came from Temasek was that to continue in BoA would be against the investment thesis that Temasek had first embarked on. So, would the Minister not agree that it would be in the public interest now for the public to know whether during that stockholders' meeting, Temasek actually voted against the merger – which will be consistent with Temasek's answer now – or if it had voted for the merger, then I think further explanation would be required?”
“Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister. Could the Minister enlighten the House – during the December stockholders' meeting when the merger with BoA was discussed by Merrill Lynch stockholders, did Temasek vote for or against the merger? If it voted for the merger, why was that the case? Secondly, could the Minister also tell the House why Temasek felt the need to divest its entire stake in BoA all at once, instead of staggering the divestment and, in light of what we know of BoA value/shares now, the loss would have been significantly less if there had been some staggering of the divestment?”
“So this rationalisation, in fact, results in the tightening up on small groups. Fifth clarification, Sir, with regard to filming. Even though the Minister says that the filming provisions are targeted at protecting terrorists' operations, the section is clearly not worded as such. And does the Minister not agree with what I have said earlier that the wording is so wide that it actually can cover routine law enforcement operations, which is what the section actually says? Last of all, perhaps I should ask the Minister to clarify what he did not clarify and that is that in relation to local activists, particularly political groups, is there really any change in the sense that will we be allowed to organise activities outdoors, apart from stadiums and Hong Lim Park, or is it status quo.”
“Sir, first, may I make a few clarifications regarding what the Minister commented about my speech. First point, Sir, is relating to the regulation of assemblies and permits. The point that I was making in relation to the experience from IMF is that we do recall that there were some public statements made by the organisers of the IMF then, to say that Singapore had agreed to provide a space for protestors, and so on, and had reneged from that agreement. So my point was whether this permit regime is actually made in order to ensure that Singapore could continue to be a venue for such international summits. The second clarification, Sir, is in relation to consumer rights. My point was that consumers could have legitimate grievances against traders, and the mere fact that they returned to or near the place of trade to seek some answers from the trader may displease the trader and the trader may ask the Police to exercise move-on powers. So why is that a legitimate exercise when the consumers are merely going back for some answers, which is something quite legitimate? Third clarification, Sir, is that as far as special events are concerned, I have said in my speech, we can understand why there is a need for heightened security during special events/activities. So we generally have no issue with regard to that. Fourthly, the Minister asked what issues I have with rationalising the PEMA regime and the MOA. Even though he says that this is only, in a sense, very similar to the current position, this is really not so because as he himself pointed out, currently under the MOA, if four persons or less are going to organise an activity and it does not amount to public entertainment, they do not need a permit at all.”
“As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the Government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems. Sir, on balance, the Bill as a whole will give the State carte blanche to control citizen activity and further erode whatever little powers Singaporeans have to pursue legitimate causes. This is contrary to the Workers' Party's belief in "power to the people". And for all these reasons, we oppose the Bill.”
“If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies are world-class, we should not tarnish the image of the agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. We believe world-class status should be achieved not by way of curtailing legitimate rights of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the equation as well. Earlier, the Minister, as well as some Members, mentioned the current situation in Thailand. The problem in Thailand involves constitutional issues. The legitimacy of the each subsequent government after the military coup has always been in question since. Each camp believes it has a legal claim to power. The messages from both camps are similar. They want to force the existing government to call for fresh elections to ensure legitimacy. If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about consequences of having weak public order laws. It is because the Thai people feel cheated. The Thai police and army are not weak either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Does the Government think that slapping a Move-On Order on 100,000 Thais will work? The Singapore Government should not take advantage of this situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other hand, Singaporeans have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing and are being penalised for doing nothing.”
“The Government may say it does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it cannot possibly believe that such abuses will not happen here. Even if we were to talk about covert officers' identities, if I happen to film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively, am I to be silenced simply to protect their identities? What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his justice? As I have said before, citizen journalists have important roles to play to counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new technology to secure evidence against the all-powerful State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure of information relating to Government actions. We do not even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law enforcement agency actions. Sir, the Government has already banned political films which are not totally factual under the Films Act. Must it also ban non-political films which faithfully record actual events? If the concern is not to prejudice ongoing operations, why is there no provision to return the films after the operation is over, instead of providing for the films to be destroyed altogether as in clause 38(3)? Instead of having such a blanket provision, can our law enforcement agencies not find other ways to ensure operational effectiveness? During any operation, it already has discretion to physically cordon off areas if this is needed for operational reasons or public safety. This will limit the proximity of the public to such areas.”
“With such wide wording, what is the potential cost of this to accountability for the exercise of State powers and protecting fundamental rights of citizens? A good illustration is the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson which took place on 1st April, the eve of the G-20 meeting. Tomlinson was apparently on his way home after work when he had to pass through an area where there were some protestors. Police were on duty, obviously, on some sort of law enforcement operations. Tomlinson collapsed and died of a heart attack on the way home. As questions were being asked about why Tomlinson died, the police initially said that there was no indication that he had had any altercation with the police prior to his death. However, this position became untenable when a video taken by a New Yorker in London on business showed the police violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably. The revelation of this footage, together with other eye witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances of Tomlinson's death. The question the Government must answer is this: does it not agree that a wide, discretionary power to ban films of law enforcement activities will make the police less accountable to the public for its actions? If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson's death may have been covered up. If the above case were to happen here, how does the Government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens?”
“The Minister earlier mentioned the international ratings of Singapore being high for stability and that we should enact this Bill in order to ensure that happens. But my argument is this: if we have maintained those ratings, does that not suggest that the current regime is adequate for that purpose? Overall, I am not convinced that our existing arsenal of laws has hampered the police in law enforcement and the policing of public order. Move-on powers have been very problematic in other countries due to the wide discretion given to police, to even order law abiding citizens to move-on. Our regime does not even provide for any independent oversight of such actions. Move-on powers are dangerous in leaving citizens in limbo over how they can move and seek legitimate redress. Next, Sir, filming of law enforcement activities. Clause 38 allows police officers to stop a person from filming law enforcement activities. The Minister earlier said that this provision was targeted at security operations and not ordinary law enforcement activities. But is that what the clause says? Clause 38(5) defines "law enforcement" activities as "activities carried on by law enforcement officers in the exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law". Therefore, clause 38(1) will allow a police officer to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity if he thinks it will prejudice the conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation. The Minister's interpretation that it applies to security operations only does not seem to be borne out by the wording of the section. Law enforcement operation or investigation could well include crowd control, crime investigation or other routine matters.”
“The Minister earlier mentioned internal checks such as the requirement for the rank of Sergeant but this is really an entry level rank for fresh recruits holding A-Levels and Diplomas. By contrast, in the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, section 49 provides for a Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) which reports to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The CMC must conduct a review of police orders to move-on and prepare a report, which must be submitted to the Speaker to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly. Where is the provision for review under this Bill? Indeed, in MHA's overview, there is mention of internal accountability, but nothing on public accountability. MHA has argued that move-on powers would give police an intermediate option and allow people to avoid being arrested. However, Australian research has shown that this was not true there – issuing move-on directions did not result in fewer arrests in public spaces. In fact, issuing move-on directions resulted in more charges for public space offences as reported in an article in the New South Wales Law Journal, 2007. Sir, the Penal Code already allows us to charge people with criminal conspiracy for merely agreeing to commit an offence, and for attempting to commit offences, even if the act is not complete. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the police powers to prevent offences before they occur. The Miscellaneous Offences Act already criminalises many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as abusive language and disorderly behaviour. Such an approach forces the police to take a strict and disciplined approach to proceed only when they have evidence of offences.”
“To illustrate, the police can order a group of persons outside a business or shop to disperse because the owner has complained that they are interfering with trade by, for example, standing at the entrance of the shop. Could this become a pro-business Act of the Government at the expense of consumers' rights? There could be situations where these persons could have a legitimate claim against a business, eg, deaths or food poisoning from consuming contaminated food, or even bank customers who have lost their savings due to mis-selling of products. So long as the public are not committing or intending to commit any offences, why should they be told to disperse? The Explanatory Statement gives other examples such as people preventing others from leaving a place or people disrupting an event. But in such cases, we already have existing laws under which they can be charged, eg, with wrongful restraint under the Penal Code or disorderly behaviour under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. MHA claims that our Bill is narrower than the Australian law, specifically the Queensland legislation, because our Bill targets behaviour rather than the mere presence of persons at a particular place. To me, this is a minor difference, as a person's mere presence could easily be classified as behaviour, for example, loitering by mere presence can be considered a kind of behaviour. There are also some Australian legislation which are much narrower. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory, move-on powers are only to be exercised when violence is imminent. Further, one important feature of the Queensland legislation totally absent in the Bill is how police directions to move-on will be monitored and reviewed outside the SPF.”
“Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support. Regarding indoor political activities, MHA has said that these will continue to be exempted so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. Why is this exemption not written into the Bill, but left to regulations? Regulations can be amended as and when the Government likes. In the Explanatory Statement, it mentioned that the "current exemptions under the MOA may retain their status" under the POA. Does this mean that the Government is not prepared to commit to opening up to allow Singaporeans to discuss current issues even indoors, since it does not write this exemption into the Bill but continues to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of the Government? Next, move-on powers. Clauses 34 to 37 give the Police a new power to order people to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. This is a convenient option for law enforcement to diffuse potential law and order problems, if not for the fact that such a move-on direction conflicts with the right of peaceful assembly enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the Government is well aware of this infringement of the rights under the Constitution, as clause 36(2) expressly recognises this. Looking at clause 36, the persons who are directed to move-on need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to move-on in the interests of good order. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.”
“Activists and political parties such as we in the Workers' Party are very familiar with having our applications for police permits for outdoor activities rejected under that regime, due to so-called potential law and order problems. Such rejections were Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) up to as recently as 2007, when the Party's application to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed out of hand. The Bill now suggests that outdoor assemblies and processions may be allowed, even if cause-based, ie, with political content. Does this mean that political parties in Singapore will now get approval to organise outdoor activities at venues besides Hong Lim Park and stadiums? Or is this designed to please the international audience and to save the Government from further embarrassment? We all remember in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings here. Twenty-seven foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed, and a badminton court was designated as protest space, leading NGOs to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally. The change in definition of "assembly" and "procession" is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of five persons or more. This means even one person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen's freedoms. First, to say that one person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the Government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than five persons which had disrupted public life?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The policing of public order has been the subject of contentious debate in democratic countries. How far should State power be used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances to the point of using force, even lethal force? In Singapore, an individual's right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV, entitled "Fundamental Liberties". However, that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order. Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens. Has this Bill crossed the line asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-a-vis the State? First, special events security. The Public Order Bill is tabled ahead of the APEC Meeting to be held here in November. Singapore is obliged to ensure that such events proceed according to schedule and without untoward incident to world leaders. To ask Singaporeans to subject themselves to stringent checks to enter the Special Events area, for only the duration of the event, is a compromise on individual rights that people can understand. However, there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill. The three aspects most glaring are the changes relating to: (a) Public assemblies and processions; (b) Move-on powers; and (c) Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations. First, public assemblies and processions. The Bill repeals section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and takes over the police permit regime under section 5.”
“This is especially because we are surrounded by countries where money could be a real inducement. As such, we do not believe it is wise for Parliament to approve the current provision and leave the com- pensation framework details to be worked out later administratively. We are of the view that the Minister should send the Bill to a Select Committee to have clause 3(f) scrutinised independently by Members of Parliament after receiving the opinions of the general public and experts, with a view to reduce the risk of profit and exploitation. One consideration could be administering the sums under a trust, especially sums relating to future costs and losses, to be disbursed at future dates. If the Minister does not agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee, we would abstain from supporting the Bill due to concern about the wording of the clause. 2.52 pm”
“If unrelated donors are permitted, then the risk of organ trading in disguise is clear. Members will recall the case of Mr Tang Wee Sung who was convicted under the Act recently. In that case, the hospital Ethics Committee had, in fact, approved the transplant relying on false declarations of family relationship and that no money had changed hands. The figure in that case was reportedly a five-figure sum of about $23,000, a sum which may not be large by local measures but apparently enough to induce. We are aware of the suffering of kidney patients and can understand their overwhelming desire to improve their lives by obtaining a kidney by whatever means possible. However, as specialists have noted, there is still scope to expand our existing programme rather than prematurely wade into controversial waters. In 2004, the World Health Organization passed a resolution which encouraged live organ transplants but also warned of the risk of the poor and vulnerable to transplant tourism. Last September, the then Acting Head of the Centre for Bioethics at Monash University, Mr Robert Sparrow, made this observation, "It is hard to see how incentives could be large enough to make a meaningful difference to rates of donation without also establishing the risk of exploitation." Most Singaporeans can probably accept a change to the Act to provide a more generous reimbursement of donors for losses which can be proved, based on the principle of "equity", as mentioned by the Minister yesterday. However, if a secondary purpose is to increase organ supply, then whether the sum is now geared towards inducement will arise. The current formula in clause 3(f) is very wide and may prove to be a backdoor to organ trading.”
“What will the donor’s health be like after the donation? Will his earning capacity be affected? We may budget for poor health but he may recover very well. What if he comes from a region of high unemployment? If a foreign donor says he intends to seek the best medical specialist in Singapore for his long-term care, how do we ensure that he will do so? The sum to be paid will need to be determined upfront before the donor will agree. The contract is therefore likely to provide for all possible costs, even as a lump sum payment. The Minister himself has said that the amount could reach six-figure sums. One consequence of this is that only wealthier patients are likely to be able to afford to contract for an organ. On the flip side of the coin, would not the donors more likely be those who are poor, prepared to risk bad health for some money? Secondly, Members have already highlighted some issues concerning foreign donors. At the Singapore Medical Association Conference in November on this issue, concern was raised about Singapore becoming a hub for transplantation tourism, with other countries following our bad example. Sir, currently, living donor transplants are regulated by hospital ethics committees who usually restrict such transplants to cases where there is a family or at least a strong emotional relationship between donor and donee. This is to reduce the likelihood of a money motive behind a proposed donation. Is the Ministry retaining this requirement of family relationship, or will it become a free-for-all where unrelated living donors can donate? If the requirement of relationship is retained, the risk of money motive is smaller but still present if false declarations of relationship are made or the relationship is remote.”
“With the promise of more public education to encourage living donors, enhancing the efficiency and pool of cadaveric donors, and the inclusion of Muslim cadaveric donors recently, this multi-pronged effort will increase supply to some extent. Should we not wait for these moves to take effect before enacting the proposals to increase payments to living donors? Sir, regarding living donor payments, everyone can agree with the general principle that the donor should be reimbursed for losses connected with the donation. In this sense, the current HOTA needs to be expanded for more reimbursement to the donor. The problem is that the proposed formula under clause 3(f) could be used for profit and even become a backdoor for organ trading. Clause 3(f) of the Bill relaxes the threshold of what can be paid to the living donor. Under the existing HOTA, section 14(3)(a) provides that a blood or organ donor may only be reimbursed for expenses which are necessarily incurred by a person in relation to the removal of any organ or blood. However, under the proposed section 14(3)(c), organ donors may now be paid sums for "defraying or reimbursing costs or expenses which may be reasonably incurred" in relation to a wide range of items, including travel, accommodation, cost of domestic or child care, loss of income and long-term medical care. Therefore, we are now talking not just about reimbursement of expenses actually incurred but a projection of all losses, including future losses. The new formula leaves room for profit. First, it builds in a factor of speculation as to future losses, such as long-term medical care and future income losses. The wording contemplates losses even 10 years down the road. Any such calculation will be based on assumptions and uncertainties.”
“Sir, we are all aware of the waiting list for kidneys, averaging nine years, and the suffering of kidney patients undergoing dialysis while waiting for a transplant, sometimes in vain. Thus, the proposals under the Bill to increase organ supply by removing the age cap for cadaveric donors, and to facilitate living paired donations, are welcome. The cause of the long wait is a shortage of kidneys for transplantation. Why is there such a shortage? One reason is that the demand for kidneys is high due to the high incidence of kidney failure in Singapore. Secondly, it seems that Singaporeans are still apprehensive about organ transplants by living donors. Last July, a local kidney specialist, Prof. A Vathsala, noted that Singaporeans were reluctant to donate organs to their relatives unlike in Norway where the entire family would turn up for evaluation. It is well-known that in Norway and Spain, supply has almost matched demand. MOH has agreed that more can be done in Singapore by way of public education to encourage organ donation. Another question to ask is whether the existing HOTA has been under-performing in cadaveric transplants. Even though the current HOTA auto-includes locals as cadaveric donors, has this scheme been efficient in producing results, or has it been under-used? During the Ministry’s consultation on the Bill, suggestions were received on how to improve the current processes for cadaveric donation, eg, by salvaging more organs from trauma deaths, earlier identification of potential organ recipients, and improving organ preservation. In response, the Ministry agreed that it would continue to strengthen the process.”
“Sir, three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I am well aware that the Civil Service does have foreigners in its employment. But does the Senior Minister of State not agree that for the key office holders in the sensitive Ministries such as MINDEF, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and even MTI, these are restricted to Singapore citizens?   ; Second question is that given that the past reserves under Temasek's charge are a strategic national asset, does the Government not feel worried that our national interests might be somehow jeopardised by having a foreign CEO with a complete overview of Temasek's strategy and operations? And third question is that although the Senior Minister of State mentioned that Mr Goodyear is on the permanent employment of Temasek, as we know, Temasek goes for succession planning, so I assume that after a certain period of time, he will relinquish his CEO post. With nothing to hold him back to Singapore, what is to stop him from working for Temasek's competitors overseas? And given the fact that he may not come back to Singapore, does the OSA really help us?”
“Singaporeans have many channels to obtain and verify official and unofficial information. There are also many laws in place such as the defamation laws, Penal Code and Sedition Act to catch content which is objectionable. Our society should be ready for and work towards the removal of the ban on political films altogether, in other words repealing section 33 of the Act.”
“With the easing of the ban on political films, and the uncertain boundaries mentioned, should the penalties for political films not be lowered as well? Earlier in the second reading speech, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the Election Advertising Regulations would be amended. He also mentioned that there would be no blackout period on new films during the election campaign, ie, political activists and parties can produce new films during the election period. I would like to seek a clarification from him on this, in the sense that during the campaign period, the timelines are usually very urgent and would there be a mechanism such that the requirement for submission to the PFCC before approval would be waived during the election period? Otherwise the delay caused there might render the films, in a sense, ineffective. Sir, a final point to note. We have allowed controversial political films like Fahrenheit 911 to air here. Members may recall that that film was made by American Michael Moore, heavily critical of the then President George W Bush and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. By allowing the film in cinemas here, can we then infer that the Government will allow something similar with local content to be produced and aired here as well? If not, is the Government saying that it is all right to laugh at other leaders in the world but not at our own? In my view, the ability to take criticism and laugh at one self is a sign of a society's maturity and magnanimity and I urge the Government to adopt such qualities and accept films as nothing more than an expression of diverse opinion in a healthy democracy. Finally, Sir, Singapore has a high literacy rate and high Internet connectivity.”
“If that is so, it must allow the recording of events, whether held in accordance with the law or not, because such events are essential to the growth of the blogging community and independent news portals. Furthermore, these are mostly recordings of events that the mainstream media is not interested to cover. Next, the ban on the use of animation and dramatic elements is another strange restriction imposed on political films that should be discarded. First, animation aids story-telling. Secondly, dramatisation is the essence of story-telling for any serious and creative film-maker. It is somewhat ironic that the theme of the 2007/08 Media Development Authority’s Annual Report was "The Digital Way Forward: An Animation Special". The MDA Report identified animation as a key growth area for development. So, what kind of catastrophic harm can a promising technology inflict on the public when applied to a political film? Is animated text permissible? Are special effects allowed? If nothing can be animated in a political production, why call it a film? Besides, how can we celebrate the use of dramatisation in some films and at the same time censure the use of it in others? If the Government is worried about viewers being carried away, the Government can simply require all films to carry a mandatory disclaimer urging viewers of political films or documentaries to draw their own conclusions. I urge the Senior Minister of State to seriously consider removing this incomprehensible restriction on the use of animation and dramatic elements on political films completely. Sir, the 1998 Amendment fixed the penalty for those who make or exhibit political films at a maximum of $100,000 fine or two years' jail or both. This is indeed a very heavy penalty.”
“Miss Tan Pin Pin, an award winning director, wrote on behalf of 10 other film-makers to the Straits Times in 2005, questioning what constitutes 'bias' in making political films. She said, "all works of art are the expression of the artiste’s opinion, which may favour a particular viewpoint or argument over another". This means that the ambit of what is permissible will be ambiguous and uncertain. If we are sincere about promoting diversity of opinion, why have the restriction? There is no need to treat Singaporeans like children. They can assess for themselves whether the views or messages in a film are reasonable or not. However, if the ban on biased and partisan films remains, film-makers and the public should have a clear understanding of how the Board and Advisory Committee evaluate films. To add transparency to this assessment process, can it be mandated that for each film that is banned, the opinions of both the Advisory Committee and the Board be made public? Clause 2(c) expands the list of permissible films, which is a small step forward. However, the unnecessary limitation placed on some of these films is a giant step backwards for political engagement, artistic freedom and active citizenry. For instance, the proposed sub-section 3(c) of the Films Act allows only the recording of events that are held in accordance with the law. Therefore, any unrelated bystander caught filming a protest on a cellphone could be prosecuted. To me, this does not make sense. Citizen journalism is a useful counterpoint to the official mass media. Singaporeans should be informed of what is going on within our borders, whether legal or not. The Government has stated that it wants to engage the online community seriously.”
“Sir, it has been 10 years since the Films Act was amended to ban political films. The 1998 amendment, carrying heavy penalties, was termed by some MPs then as harsh, vague and detrimental to our goal of becoming a First World country. Late last year, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) recommended that we should work towards eventual repeal of section 33 of the Films Act altogether. As an interim measure, it recommended that step one be, to prohibit only those political films which were intentionally misleading. To be fair, I feel the Bill has some merits, but is still far from what the AIMS Committee had proposed. The current amendment will still leave many film-makers, civic-minded citizens and political parties confused and bewildered over the many limitations imposed on permissible political films. The Bill suggests that the Government is still somewhat paranoid when it comes to opening up the political landscape. For instance, in the amendment to section 2(2)(a) and (b), the issue on whether a political film is biased or partisan is now clearly dependent only on the opinion of the Board of Film Censors. By contrast, the AIMS committee had recommended that the Board should not exercise the function which should be passed to a group of independent adjudicators comprising of citizens of high standing with public respect. Instead, the new section 4A allows the Government to appoint 'Advisory Committees' (the PFCC) to advise the Board on such matters; however, the section makes it clear that the Board can override the views of the PFCC. Sir, to begin with, most films, political or not, carry the values of the maker or author, which may not be shared by others.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, some clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister. One, will the Prime Minister make a public announcement when he does appoint the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, because this is a matter of public interest and I do not think we should have to keep filing questions to ask this fact? Secondly, how long after the appointment is the Committee expected to take to complete its work? Third, could the Deputy Prime Minister also clarify what the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee will take into account in drawing up the boundaries, besides population changes? And four, can the Deputy Prime Minister, on the Prime Minister's behalf, give an assurance that after the boundaries are announced, there will be a reasonable time lapse between that date and Polling Day?”
“Sir, as mentioned by the Member before me, the proportion of resident contract employees last year was a 5% increase over the previous year. Currently, the figure stands at about 189,000 and the number of resident employees on short-term, casual or on-call employment is about 72,000. Sir, the vulnerability of this group has been well reported. Compared to permanent staff, these workers often have no medical benefits, may not receive CPF contributions and there are usually no retrenchment benefits. As the Government has identified this as an area of weakness, what plans does the Government have to provide more security to this group of workers? Sir, on the issue of Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) touched on by the Minister earlier, it is already been noted that informal employees will only get the WIS CPF benefits if they contribute significant sums into their MediSave accounts. A year ago, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary told Parliament that this requirement to pay into Medisave is a likely reason why many casual workers did not receive WIS benefits. I would like the Ministry to update us on whether the take-up rate for WIS for casual and informal workers has improved since then.”
“The Government may worry that these elderly Singaporeans will exhaust their savings in less than 20 years. Well, if they outlive their CPF savings, they can join the PA scheme after that which, after all, is designed to make Singaporeans who are unable to work, owing to old age and have no means of subsistence, to have some support from the Government. CPF LIFE”
“Sir, the CPF LIFE scheme which will start in 2015 will provide qualified Singaporeans with a payout of at least $350 per month for those with full Minimum Sum in their Retirement Account. I would like the Minister to consider helping elderly Singaporeans who do not have much in their CPF and are not to be covered by CPF LIFE. These Singaporeans have less than the Minimum Sum at drawdown age. As the rules require whatever small savings they have to be drawn over 20 years, many of them will draw down less than what a PA recipient will receive at $360 a month. Take, for example, the case of Mdm A, an elderly Singaporean aged 70, with less than $24,000 left in her CPF savings and living alone in a rented flat. Currently, she is drawing down less than $300 a month from her CPF to survive. She worries when and where her next meal will come every month. The PA allowance is a useful reference point, as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports says, "It is calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients." If the Government thinks that $360 is what a PA recipient needs for basic living a month, it cannot expect an elderly Singaporean like Mdm A to subsist on less than $300. I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing elderly Singaporeans who do not qualify for CPF LIFE and PA to draw down on their CPF savings an amount equivalent to the PA allowance every month. We should not make these people worry about how to make ends meet every day in their old age. I am not asking the Government to fund the basic living needs of these elderly Singaporeans. I am only asking the Government to allow these people to draw down on their own CPF savings an amount equivalent to the PA allowance.”
“Such a statement would then be kept on the file and at the relevant stages of the case, the victim's views can be presented. For example, the victim's fear of the offender causing harm can be surfaced at the bail hearing. Key decisions by prosecution such as reduction of charges should be informed and explained to the victim. As the case proceeds, the sentencing judge can also refer to the statement to assess the seriousness of the offence by looking at the harm suffered by the victim. Sir, currently victims often do not get compensation. The Chief Justice recently called for the courts to re-activate the compensation order provisions to ensure that victims can benefit. To increase the likelihood of such orders being made, the VPS can document exactly what losses have been caused by the offender with some supporting evidence. Their statement can then be easily referred to by the judge to calculate an appropriate sum for an order of compensation from the accused person. Singapore has used victim impact statements for several years but only in a small minority of cases usually where the prosecutors instruct the Police to record them. This is very limited as it does not address victim's concerns early in the case. We should look at how the system can be improved to systematically recognise victims' rights rather than take ad-hoc approaches. I hope the Ministry can seriously study the progress made by other countries in giving victims a better deal under the criminal justice system. Legal Status of the Right to Vote and Entrenchment”
“Sir, many countries now recognise that the criminal justice system focuses too much on the offender and how he should be punished. By contrast, the victim is a pawn in the process. He is to cooperate with the State to participate in Police investigations and later to give evidence in court. He often gets no compensation for losses, pays for his own medical treatment and suffers inconvenience during case processing. To address this, the United Nations, in 1985, adopted the declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crimes and use of power. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, amongst others, have since changed their domestic laws in line with this declaration. There has also been growth in victim studies and victimology movements, not only in the western world, but also in Asian countries like Japan. The focus of these efforts is towards giving the victim more voice in the case process and some redress for the wrongs suffered. Crime victims in Singapore suffer similarly. I believe it is timely to consider how we can ensure that the victims' concerns and rights are systematically addressed. One suggestion is for the Police to routinely ask crime victims if he or she wishes to make a victim personal statement (VPS) which is practised in countries like the United Kingdom. This is not the same as the witness statement where the victim states how the crime took place. Rather, the VPS focuses on the victim, how the crime has affected the victim's life, what safety concerns he or she now has, whether physical or emotional support is needed or whether he or she wishes to be kept informed of the process and important decisions made in the case.”
“Sir, in 2005, Parliament debated the decision of the Government to proceed with casinos in integrated resorts. To assuage concerns about the social ills of excessive gambling, the formation of the National Council on Problem Gambling was announced to advise the Government on these problems, and to initiate preventive programmes, activities and services. In the NCPG's annual reports, we see millions being spent on the media blitz on public education and prevention. Less is known about the funding and preparations to be put in place for a robust counselling network to support problem gamblers. The Ministry has appointed two pilot counselling centres which have already been providing intervention services since September 2006. .45 pm Last January, the Minister told the House in a written answer that the pilot centres were already facing challenges, as only one third of the problem gamblers completed their treatment. He indicated that NCPG and IMH would work together with an international advisory panel of gambling addiction experts to enhance counselling and treatment for problem gamblers and their families. What progress has been made on this so far? Are there plans to expand beyond the two centres before or after the IRs are opened? And are such counselling programmes to be fully funded by the Government, or will the counselling centres be expected to raise some of the funds themselves?”
“Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the impact of the current turmoil was to reduce the overall portfolio value of Temasek by about 31%, if I heard her correctly. Can she also tell us by how much the GIC overall portfolio has been reduced in the percentage terms, because I did not quite hear that?”
“Sir, in this financial crisis, Singaporeans are naturally concerned about the health of our reserves managed by GIC and Temasek. According to reports, Temasek invested nearly US$6 billion in Merrill Lynch which is now worth about 20% of that. It has large paper losses in StanChart and Barclays. GIC's investment in Citibank of about US$7 billion may now worth also about less than 20%. Last October, the Finance Minister discussed the Government's stance on transparency of GIC and Temasek as follows: "Public disclosures had to be shaped by the SWF's characteristics as long-term investors, with the ability to ride out cycles. A short-term focus on financial disclosures would not shed light on the right areas." However, the Government is the legal trustee of the funds and the ultimate true owner is the people. They deserve to know how this turmoil has affected our national wealth. Can the Government tell us how much paper losses had been incurred? What is the Government's assessment of how this has affected the liquidity of the funds and their ability to take opportunities in a downturn? And, lastly, does the fact that both funds invested so heavily in the financial sector, at the same time, undermine the diversification objectives of our sovereign wealth? Returns and Risk Taking by GIC and Temasek”
“Sir, two clarifications for the Minister. The first is relating to my query about means testing for nursing home subsidies. I think the Minister missed my point about the difference between taking gross pay and net pay. My point was that the net pay is a more accurate reflection of affordability because it tells us how much disposable income the family has actually to pay for the nursing home charges. That was my point with regard to the means testing. I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that that is a more accurate test. The second clarification is that yesterday, the Minister spoke about the nursing home in Johor in a rather positive term, I would say. I would like to clarify whether he is actually suggesting that this should be an option for families in Singapore to consider because I think this would be quite a bad indication of affordability of our own healthcare services here and also a reflection of our national values.”
“Madam, the Institute of Mental Health maintains the Woodbridge Hospital Endowment Fund to raise public donations. The purpose of the fund is stated as providing welfare and medical care for needy patients. In explaining the need for public donations, the IMH website states, "Although there is the Medifund, there are some patients from the lower-income group who do not qualify because of the stringent criteria." Examples are given of programmes supported by public donations. For instance, IMH highlights that mental patients need not only medicine but also psycho-therapy sessions. However, noted the hospital, "Some patients do not seek treatment because they cannot afford to pay for this service." It is worrying that IMH needs to ask the public for money to provide essential treatment for its low-income patients. Should the Medifund criteria not be relaxed for mental health services? Mental Healthcare”
“Will the Government review the means test to take into account only the net or take home pay, or raise the cut-off incomes for Government subsidies? Earlier the Minister mentioned increased subventions to step-down care institutions of $35 million. I would like him to clarify how much of this amount is going to the nursing homes and whether it is meant to defray expected inflation in wages and operating costs. Or will there be enough money for the homes to reduce the amount payable by the non-affluent families based on the current bill size? And lastly, Madam, what are the options do such families have to take care of their aged sick besides the nursing home care? Homecare and Caregivers Support”
“Madam, last year, I raised the issue of affordability of nursing homecare and the means test for Government subsidy. The Minister replied that the means test is reviewed from time to time. As the cost of nursing homecare continues to rise, I believe now is the time to look at the financial impact of such charges on families and to review how we can assist them. Currently, Government subsidies for step-down care are means-tested, based on household per capita income. The rate of subsidy is tiered at either 75%, 50% or 25% subsidy depending on per capita income. And for those whose per capita income is more than $1,000, no subsidy is given. Under the current framework, the impact of nursing home bills on families can still be very drastic. I know of one family whose father has dementia and is in a commercial nursing home. The household has four persons. The two adult children together earn about $4,400 in gross pay. According to the means test formula, the family does not qualify for subsidy because the household gross income of $4,400 divided by four members means that the per capita income is $1,100. But the net income which the children have, after deduction of CPF, totals only about $3,500. Each month, they are paying the nursing home fee of about $2,000, which is more than half the household income. The per capita income left for the remaining three family members is about $500 each. Considering that the two adult children need to travel to work daily, is this not a very high burden on the family? One aspect of the means test that is hard to understand is why it is computed based on the gross pay of the household, including the CPF component? After all, under the current policy, CPF balances cannot be withdrawn to pay nursing home charges.”
“Sir, in October last year, the Business Times reported that Singapore continued to suffer a twin trade deficit in the US in both goods and services. In respect of goods, since 2000, the US exported more goods to us that it imported and the surplus has been increasing year after year. According to US government data, the US trade surplus for the first eight months of 2008 was US$9.5 billion which puts Singapore among the top 10 countries with the largest trade deficit in goods with the US. As for services in favour of the Americans in 2006 and 2007, it was significantly higher than previous years', around US$3-4 plus billion. Is this an indication that the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, in its implementation, has favoured the Americans? Have we encountered difficulties penetrating American markets and can we expect the FTA to be in parallel, in view of the current US protectionist sentiments? Cut Total Costs to Save Jobs”
“Sir, I have some clarifications, firstly, regarding the private security industry and, secondly, regarding the prisoner incident that I raised earlier. First of all, for the Second Minister, regarding the private security industry. I would like to know whether the Ministry tracks the dropout rate of security officers who have been trained, licensed, and then fall out of the industry after three months. Because, from my feedback, this is one of the challenges that the security providers face. Secondly, in relation to the prison incident, I heard the Senior Minister of State explain the various precautions taken to ensure that prisoners have recourse to protect themselves and to complain. But from the report of the recent incident, it seems that the incidents occurred over a period of about nine days, and the injuries to the victim were rather serious. And I am just wondering whether after that incident, there was any review taken by the prison authorities as to whether the existing channels of reporting are actually adequate and whether there has been any enhancement to that. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there are panic buttons in the cells. I am just wondering whether there are also other things, eg, closed-circuit TV. Are there guards just stationed outside the cells, if so, why did anybody not hear anything? Has there been any strengthening of the safety measures after that incident?”
“Sir, it was reported in November that a male prisoner who was sharing a cell with three others was seriously and sexually assaulted by his cell mates sometime between April and May. He was apparently punched and kicked until he suffered severe fractures and internal injuries, including the ribs, liver and breastbone. The victim was allegedly sodomised and forced to have oral sex. The injuries were apparently so serious that he had to be warded in the hospital for two months. The three suspects are now facing criminal charges in the courts. Sir, all Prisons face inmate management issues. But this incident is straight out of Prison's movies such as the "Shawshank Redemption". Sir, I note that the KPIs under the Ministry show that the incidents of assault cases in Prisons appear to be increasing somewhat over the last three years from 15 to 22, and now 26 cases per 10,000 inmates. What precautions are taken in deciding cell sharing arrangements? How was it that the incident continued undetected and what measures are in place to detect and pre-empt serious incidents of this nature? Vice Trade and Sex Shops”
“At the lower end of the market where margins are low, this has facilitated some dubious practices, such as the same guard working consecutive 12-hour shift. There is anecdotal information of some Malaysians who are doing this and living out of suitcases. How serious is the shortage and what can be done to increase recruitment and retention? After all, this is one industry which will still survive in the downturn. Next, although the price of security services has generally gone up, how far has security officers' salaries gone up? What can be done to encourage employers to get a fairer deal to their employees? Last, Sir, the annual audit of agencies done by Police regulators has been kept optional so far. When the audit first commenced, only one-third of the agencies opted out. But, last year, 50% opted out. Such non-participation undermines efforts to upgrade standards and leaves guards exposed to bad management. What is the Government's hesitation to make the audit compulsory? Crime Prevention”
“Sir, in the last three years, much effort has been made by the Government to uplift standards in the private security industry. Training and licensing requirements under national frameworks are in place since 2005, which has given the public some assurance of baseline skills and knowledge in every security officer. At the agency level, the Police regulators have been working with security service providers and conducting audits to check service and operational standards. These audit results are published to motivate agencies to strive for higher standards. 5.45 pm Sir, these moves have not been universally popular. They have resulted in some service providers recouping and even dropping out of the industry. However, they are moves in the right direction. As more reliance has been placed on private security to complement our law enforcement officers at major and public events, security officers must be able to handle members of the public, exercise judgment and understand their duties and liabilities. To attract responsible and committed people to the industry, security businesses must be well-run with good management practices and fair employee benefits. From my dealings with security service providers, many lament that there is still a serious manpower shortage. Although the number of licensed guards has increased significantly, they note that retention in industry is a big challenge. Their experience is that the attrition rate in the first few months is high because entry is fairly easy but the job hours are long and considered unglamorous and the pay is low. The manpower shortage has resulted in security agencies having difficulty carrying out security jobs which they have secured.”
“So because of these extraordinary circumstances, what I am asking for is that for the six-month period, which is supposed to be a very bleak period, could the Ministry consider giving some assurance to the unemployed person so that he can maintain his own subsistence, and also assist him in the job search, because many of them may not be able to afford to spend their time in training and not look for jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek a clarification from the Finance Minister. In his round-up speech, the Finance Minister has still not given the House any idea of roughly how much we still have in our current reserves that justifies the Government to ask the President for a drawdown on the past reserves. In particular, I am wondering if he could clarify, for example, some of the major items of receipts, such as land sales revenue. In the last two years, I think, collectively, it was about $18 billion. And for next year, it is anticipated to be another $8 billion. How is this not factored in? How does this affect the calculation? Secondly, Sir, I would like to clarify the Finance Minister's comments on my proposal to assist the unemployed. First of all, the proposal which I made is targeted at the unemployed person himself and it is not meant to replace schemes that would assist the family as a whole. So it is targeted at the unemployed person who has lost his income. Second, admittedly, my concern was more about the lower-income wage earners rather than the PMET group as such. My next clarification is that even though the Minister went into some detail on how the CDCs and the other agencies are helping with job placement, training, etc, does the Minister agree that in the next six months, the job situation would be quite different from what we have been experiencing previously, and the job search would presumably take much longer, and the anxieties placed on the unemployed person would correspondingly lengthen? In that sense, our experience with the CDCs so far is that in terms of cash assistance and other help, it is actually quite small in terms of the cash amount. And the other assistance which the Minister referred to requires appeal to multiple sources of help.”