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 33 of 36.
“Based on my suggestion, the amount prescribed for allowance is a maximum of $500 and it also relates back to the retrenched person's last drawn pay. So, we are talking about any sum between $0 and $500, depending on how much the jobless worker was earning previously. And, secondly, even if we just take a ball-park figure and calculate, assuming that 100,000 people come under this scheme, if you multiply that by six months by $500, you will get a sum of $300 million and that is not even 10% of the Jobs Credit Scheme. As debated yesterday, our position is that there is going to be a considerable amount of wastage at the Jobs Credit Scheme and some of that money is better used in this instance to put it directly into the hands of the people who need it most, rather than to companies which have no intention to retrench anyone. So, I do not think that we are breaking the bank and the Finance Minister has not even told us how much we have in the current reserves. So, this question is something that I do not think I can confirm – that we need to dig into the past reserves – because there is no basis for me to say that.”
“In my view, some answers are badly needed before a considered decision can be made.”
“Looking at the growth forecasts, even after factoring the stimulus accorded by the Budget, the economic growth figures for 2009 are expected at around -2% to -5% of GDP contraction. This seems to support the argument that the Government should have paid attention to the demand side as well. It is still not too late for the Government to consider a cut in the GST rate by 2%. Any such cut will cost the Government about $1.8 billion, within the Government's means. In any case, the revenue loss will probably be less if people start consuming more as expected. If needed, the Government could reduce additional GST Credits given to those who are better off. Sir, lastly, use of past reserves. Finally, Government is asking for Parliament's approval to use past reserves without information on how much we have in current reserves. We are told that this package does not need us to dig into the past reserves, yet we are doing it because, and I quote the Finance Minister, "it gives us the resources that we need to deal decisively with the current economic crisis and also ensures that we have all the resources we need to correspond to the considerable uncertainties that lie ahead. It will give us full flexibility to respond as the situation requires, and to pre-empt the severe consequences that this crisis could have for our economy and our society." With due respect to the Finance Minister, that does not tell us very much. How close are we to depleting our current reserves? If things go well, we may not need to have drawn on past reserves at all. Why cannot we not go to the President only when we need to draw? Is the approval process very cumbersome? Is the drawdown on past reserves needed because the Government has lost money in its investments of current reserves?”
“The reason given was that since Singapore was a highly open economy, any stimulation of consumption demand would not be very effective, due to high import leakages, ie, consume imported goods and services, and the benefits of consumption will go to foreign suppliers. However, it has been pointed out by economists, like NUS' Prof. Basant Kapur, that to ignore the demand side of the Budget would not be advisable. A few reasons were cited. First, Singapore's Input-Output Tables 2000 (which was the latest available) showed that the import content of consumption expenditure was about 34%, whereas the domestic value-added content was about 54%. Secondly, consumption domestic demand was particularly important to the SMEs, which accounted for 55% of total employment and especially to the wholesale, retail and commercial service sectors. Third, targeted GST Credits at the less well-off were unlikely to provide as broad-based a stimulus to consumption as an across-the-board 2% GST reduction. In yesterday's Straits Times Forum page, Prof. Kapur further noted that GST Credits are targeted at only Singapore citizens above 21. Therefore, everybody else – Singaporeans who are below 21, permanent residents, foreign labour and tourists – do not benefit from the GST Credits. If the GST rate was reduced, everyone would benefit and, presumably, be more willing to spend. This will provide a more broad-based stimulus to the economy. Sir, the effect of GST on the cost of living is significant and real. When the 2% hike in 2007 kicked in, the Consumer Price Index rose by about 1.5%. Reducing the GST by 2% would thus lower the overall cost of living for everyone. Is just focusing on a supply-side Budget wise?”
“As for now, in these extraordinary times, a lifeline should be thrown to the unemployed besides the offer of training. My view is that the Government should provide at least a temporary financial assistance programme for job seekers during this period of global crisis. We could call this a Job Seeker's Allowance. Since the outlook is bleak in the next six months, the scheme could be instituted for six months and thereafter extended if the downturn persists. Such temporary assistance could be in the form of a monthly allowance of half the person's previous salary, subject to a strict cap of about $500 per month, which is pegged at subsistence plus. To ensure that such assistance is targeted only to those who need it, a means test should be designed to weed out those with significant savings, assets or family income in the same household. To reinforce the work ethic, the applicant will qualify only if he is actively looking for work and has not unreasonably rejected job offers. Sir, I believe there is scope for the Government to seriously examine such a scheme clearly targeted at those who are unemployed at this time. In this most trying of times, this will be an important relief to our job seekers while they continue with their job search. Sir, I next move on to the topic of minimising pain. The Government has given rebates on various taxes which should be of some help to businesses. However, one of the main causes of pain for everyone is still there and that is the Goods and Services Tax at 7%. In the run-up to the Budget Statement, Prime Minister Lee had already made clear that a GST cut was not on the cards.”
“Unemployment has long been associated with higher crime rates and family breakdown. More family quarrels and marriage breakdowns are likely. There may also be inter-generational effects, such as not being able to afford children's education, which will perpetuate the family sinking further into poverty. I, myself, have seen young people being asked by desperate parents to quit their education to work to support the family. This will increase the income divide in our society. If we believe that the family is the building block of the society, then this will weaken our society as a whole and, as a nation, we should all be concerned to avoid this. How does the Budget respond to these risks? Yes, the ideal is to get people back to work. But what if they cannot resume work immediately? One possible hint of any help for the unemployed comes from SPUR, where an unemployed person can enrol for training and apply for a training allowance of some sort. However, no sum or formula is mentioned on the SPUR website. There is a course fee subsidy which, I assume, means that the unemployed would still need to pay something for the course. Courses will end before the downturn ends. Some unemployed may also fall out of the SPUR net. The ruling party's aversion to anything akin to unemployment benefits is well known. However, the problem of having unemployed will remain. Globalisation will continue to test us as jobs are off-shored to cheaper locations. Even if jobs remained here, Singaporeans may lose jobs to foreign workers. While it is right that these unemployed Singaporeans must be upskilled, wherever possible, full employment at the national level is unlikely. The Government will have to provide a policy response and safety net to these citizens in the medium to long term.”
“I hope that the Government would seriously consider this suggestion. *Cols. 1841-1842. (In English ): For the average Singaporean, $20.5 billion is a sum out of this world. Even with that, economists and the Government agreed that this will not take us out of recession but is aimed at saving jobs. That is the interesting part. How effective would the $20.5 billion be in minimising pain, hence saving jobs? We all hope to save jobs. Whether jobs will be saved and how many, remains to be seen. But what we know for sure is that jobs will inadvertently be lost. The Weekend Business Time, 31st January to 1st February, the cover's headline was "Business braces for six months of deepening gloom", quoting Government data from the Department of Statistics and the EDB, across a broad range of industries, from retail to hospitality and manufacturing. The next page was a story entitled "Singapore's job market shrinks", stating that as December, the number of Singapore residents who were jobless stood at 73,100, which was a 58% jump year-on-year. Looking ahead by all accounts, the unemployment situation is expected to worsen for the first half of the year. How is the Government planning to deal with the rest of the unemployed which will grow in the coming months? The average Singaporean knows that no one owes them a living. He or she treasures the self-respect which comes with being able to provide for the family, to strive for a better life. To this day, I still meet low-wage earners who refuse tips from customers. Singaporeans are now caught in a global slump. Many have been or will be displaced from their jobs, not of their own doing, not out of laziness, but due to factors beyond their control. The consequences of being unemployed are not just economic but social.”
“(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget this year is $20.5 billion. Although the amount is very big, apart from the additional GST rebate, there are no other provisions to help the unemployed or retrenched. This is something of great concern to us. I believe that Singaporeans do understand the importance of self-reliance and to be able to fend for themselves. They want to be able to support their family, and be proud of it. However, faced with the global recession and many companies running into losses, it is inevitable that many workers may be retrenched. With the cost of employing foreign workers being lower, the possibility of local workers being retrenched is much higher. With this rising number of unemployed Singaporeans, although the Government has launched a number of training programmes and the Jobs Credit scheme designed with the hope of keeping retrenchment under control, I think that the Government should also have some ad hoc measures to help those who are retrenched and already unemployed to meet their daily needs. I know that the Government has always been very apprehensive about any welfare scheme but in these extraordinary times, apart from training, I think the Government should also give some financial assistance to the unemployed so that their families could tide over these difficult times. I would suggest a short-term financial assistance scheme could be called a Job-seekers' Allowance. Applicants must show that they are actively looking for work and did not unreasonably reject job offers. This allowance would be pegged at the equivalent to 50% of their last drawn salary, subject to a cap of $500. The moment the economy recovers, the scheme should be scrapped.”
“Even the most well-meaning of businessmen will have to face situations when their cashflow will be up or down, or they will have other costs that they will have to meet in the course of doing their business. So it is better to keep it focused, targeted and directed at debtors who have a regular income. Indeed, this is one of the key objectives of the Debt Repayment Scheme, which is to keep a debtor or a potential bankrupt in a job. That is how I started my speech, because we know that once he loses the job, it is difficult for him to get back into one, once he has been declared a bankrupt. Indeed, like I have said in my speech, the potential reach of the DRS, even excluding this group, is already very wide, perhaps 800 or 1,000 to start with. I think we should let the OA do his job well in conjunction with these people. Another point she made is on the Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel will be manned by outsiders who are experienced people, people in the marketplace who are experienced in the field, for example, insolvency practitioners or certified accountants. I think the OA also has plans to invite, for example, former Official Assignees who can come and man this Appeal Panel. So the assurance is that it will be a professional job. It will be manned by people who will know the job well. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mdm Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“Indeed, that may slow down the processing of checkpoint clearance to the detriment of the many other travellers. What we have implemented is to screen bankrupts regularly for offences of unauthorised travel with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. In summary, in response to Ms Lee, it is important to bear in mind that the OA needs to balance the legitimate interests of creditors and the genuine needs of bankrupts in the administration of bankruptcies, including this area of travel. Where there are good reasons to support applications for travel, there is no reason why the OA will reject such applications. However, for our bankruptcy administration to remain credible, the laws in place need to be observed and enforced against those who breach them. Ms Lim supports the DRS but would like to see the DRS having a wider reach to include debtors, like people in a partnership or sole proprietorship who may be doing business. As I have explained in my speech, a key requirement of the DRS is that there should be a regular stream of income. Do not forget that here we must also consider the creditors' interest. The creditors are, in a sense, forbearing to sue because, indeed, a bankruptcy petition would have been made and then the court looking at all the criteria, if the criteria are satisfied, would send it to the Official Assignee to consider more carefully, get more information to see whether or not the DRS is the best route to take. I think we should have this balanced approach where the creditors would have some assurance that if they proceed with the DRS, they would get a regular income monthly over a certain period of time which may last over five years. As we know, if you are in business, it would be difficult to assure that.”
“If the bankrupt has been uncooperative in the administration of his estate in bankruptcy, eg, he has not been making regular contributions to his bankruptcy estate for the benefit of his creditors, his applications are likely not to be approved. I understand that bankrupts whose applications are rejected are informed of the reasons which will give them an opportunity to remedy the situation. On what Ms Lee says about punitive punishments imposed on bankrupts who travel without permission, the OA will press for prosecution only after a careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances. If a bankrupt, however, chooses to knowingly flaunt the law despite being given sufficient notice of the responsibilities and restrictions on travel, in view of the bankruptcy, then the OA will be required to take the necessary enforcement action against him to ensure that the laws underpinning our bankruptcy regime remain credible. And that is why several prosecutions were conducted against such egregious offenders late last year, which were highlighted in the media. Ms Lee suggests that measures be put in place to prevent all bankrupts from leaving Singapore in the first instance. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think the current approach of placing the onus on the bankrupts to apply for approval, having of course informed them of this requirement – thus exercising personal responsibility on their part, and where IPTO's processes have been streamlined to expedite consideration of this request, coupled with prosecution of egregious offenders – is a better approach. We have about 26,000 bankrupts. It will not be practical or indeed necessary to tack them at the checkpoints to prevent them from leaving Singapore.”
“Moreover, since June 2003, applicants who have been cooperative in the administration of the bankruptcy estates are granted immediate permission to travel upon the submission of the online application. Furthermore, the OA readily grants approval for compassionate reasons or when it is shown that such travel enables the bankrupt to earn income for the benefit of his creditors. The statistics bear this out because last year (2008), some 45,329 applications to travel were made. Of these, 14,541 were for the purposes of employment, and of these applications for travel for employment purposes, 91% were approved. Hence, the bankrupts who had complained to Ms Lee are really a minority. And the key reason why the rest were rejected was because the bankrupt had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of employment overseas. Another point that Ms Lee makes is on the perceived treatment of bankrupts by some IPTO officers in handling these applications. Now and then, we do receive feedback like this, sometimes at the MPS. First, I should say that I can empathise that bankrupts and IPTO officers are often in difficult conversations regarding travel rejections and other bankruptcy affairs. Bankrupts can face difficult and sometimes demanding questions which they may feel sensitive or even embarrassed about. However, bankrupts should be assured that IPTO officers have nothing against them personally. I think they must be professional in their approach. And the officers are aware of the need to handle such applications with civility and the right attitude. So this is an assurance I can give Ms Lee in response to her feedback. Also, where applications to travel are turned down, IPTO does so for good reasons.”
“Such monitoring will prevent the bankrupt from hiding income earned or acquiring or disposing his assets overseas. As Ms Lee recognises, the OA seeks to strike a fair balance between the bankrupt's interest and those of his creditors. As much as there are bankrupts who complain that their requests to travel have been denied, there are also creditors who complain that some bankrupts travel too freely. To ensure that the bankrupts are aware of this requirement - whether bankrupts do in fact willy-nilly travel without knowing that they are breaching this requirement travel – I think that is point that she has made – the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office (IPTO) has taken a number of measures to achieve this. This is one of the areas where improvements have been made over time. Apart from the briefings which every bankrupt is required to attend, and this has been going on for some time, IPTO now also highlights these responsibilities and restrictions on its information materials and website. Also, starting from mid-2007, IPTO has been writing to persons facing bankruptcy proceedings, ie, even before they are adjudged bankrupts, to inform them of the responsibilities and restrictions should they subsequently be made bankrupt. Typically, this is done at least two weeks before the making of the bankruptcy order. I agree with Ms Lee that bankrupts who genuinely want to travel overseas to work should be given an opportunity to do so. Indeed, as she suggests, since 2002, IPTO has facilitated this process by providing bankrupts with an online travel application service on its website.”
“It seems to me that we may be defeating a real benefit of the scheme if we withhold it from our smaller businesses who are facing real pressures today. Madam, my second question relates to the composition of the Appeal Panel. The proposed section 56Q refers to the Appeal Panel who can decide whether to overrule the Official Assignee's decisions on debt repayment plans. There was public concern raised during the consultation about who would be part of the Panel and whether they were independent. The Ministry's written response was that more details of the Panel would be given in the Bill, but all that the Bill states currently is that the Panel would be appointed by the Minister. Could the Senior Minister of State comment on this? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to thank both Ms Ellen Lee and Ms Sylvia Lim for supporting the DRS scheme. They have certain concerns. For Ms Lee, it is essentially on travel, and Ms Sylvia Lim raises two points, which I will address later. First, on the point about travel. Indeed, this is not a new issue. This is something that has been raised in this House before, particularly during COS, and each time we have given our replies and, indeed, gone back to the Official Assignee to ask him to see whether he can further improve and fine-tune the system in light of the feedback that is received. But before I go into some of these improvements, I should say that, as in other countries, under our laws, bankrupts are required to obtain the prior approval of the Official Assignee (OA) before they can travel and it is for a good reason, a key reason of which is to enable him to effectively monitor the bankrupt's movements, so that he can properly administer the bankrupt's affairs for the benefit of his creditors.”
“Madam, it makes sense to have a pre-bankruptcy scheme to allow someone in debt a last chance to clear his debts. By avoiding bankruptcy and its restrictions, the debtor can continue to be economically productive with a higher probability of clearing his debts. Madam, I have two questions about the Bill. The first question relates to what kind of debtors can qualify for the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS). The proposed section 65(7) has excluded sole proprietors and partners from the scheme. This means that those from smaller or unincorporated businesses who incurred business debt are not considered suitable. Madam, I think this exclusion will rule out cases of business people who are running their businesses responsibly but have met with some temporary liquidity problems. In the current economic climate especially, these problems could arise from difficulty in collecting payments from customers or clients, or failing to get credit due to credit tightening by lenders. If the scheme is meant to provide some support for those with temporary difficulties who have the potential to return to the black, surely we should consider such people for the DRS. In the Second Reading speech, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the scheme was restricted to wage earners with regular income. However, even if we were to include sole proprietors and partners in the scheme, each case will have to be assessed by the Official Assignee anyway and a viable plan discussed with creditors as well. If the plan is then deemed to have merits, why not? In any case, if the debtor defaults on the plan, all bets are off, and the bankruptcy proceedings can still be carried on.”
“In short, Madam, this gradual process of progressively increasing rights and responsibilities of an individual up to the age of 21 as the age of majority when nearly all restrictions are removed has worked well for us, and we should keep it. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mdm Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“This approach has worked well for us, and there is no compelling need to change it. Indeed, the common law age of majority, which is pegged at 21 years, continues to apply to activities that involve significant personal responsibility such as the ones listed earlier, and voting is one such activity. As the House well knows – I am sure Ms Lim well knows this too – we take elections in Singapore very seriously. Hence, unlike many other countries, we make it compulsory. Typically at 21 years, a person would be either working or pursuing tertiary studies. He would be in a better position at that age than at age 18 years to assess the quality of a candidate and his promises as well as form considered views on the national issues at stake. As voting is a very important matter that involves choice and choice that only an individual can make personally, there is a need for a voter to have the necessary maturity to decide for himself or herself. This approach has worked for Singapore. Indeed, it is because we take this differentiated and pragmatic approach of assessing what is the appropriate age for each activity without necessarily linking it with the other restricted activities that the Government can now review and assess the age of contractual capacity objectively. What should be the appropriate age for this particular activity? As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, having considered this issue carefully, having taken into account feedback on the ground, and also the number of young people, who are under 21 now, who approach ACRA asking whether they can do business, we have decided that we should de-link the age of majority and lower it to 18.”
“I think the main thrust of her speech really is to argue, once again, for the lowering of the age of voting to 18. This, as she has said, is not a new issue for, indeed, Prof. Jayakumar had explained in the House in the COS debate in 2007, almost two years now, as to why, in Singapore, we should keep the age of voting as 18. And, indeed, we also have issued replies in the media on this point. Firstly, in Singapore, the approach we take is not to have a single threshold age of majority for all purposes. Different ages are stipulated for different activities. For example, a person can be charged as an adult when he turns 16. Before that, he is a juvenile in the eyes of the criminal law. Then a person needs to be at least 18 years before he can drive or buy an alcoholic drink or cigarettes. On the other hand, he must be 21 years before he can marry without parental approval, donate a body organ, make an Advance Medical Directive, or a will, or qualify as a member of some professionals such as being a lawyer, public accountant or engineer. In short, there is no single threshold for all these activities. Therefore, the approach that our laws take is a gradual increase in rights and responsibilities leading up to the age of 21, at which stage nearly all the limitations link to age are removed. Even then, a person may generally adopt a child only when he is 25 years old. So, in that sense, there is taking into account the age, and linking the age to the question of maturity of a person before the law says he can do something. This approach, as Prof. Jayakumar had explained in this House, is a pragmatic and,indeed, a sensible one as each activity calls for different considerations, and its significance and impact vary.”
“Finally, Madam, I come to the amendments to allow minors above 18 to enter into contracts and conduct business activities. Under these amendments, the activities include making contracts of all sorts, except for some, eg, they still cannot sell land, they can sue or be sued in their own name for contracts or other commercial activities and they can also act as a director of a company. Bringing the age for such activities down from 21 to 18 is consistent with what has been happening in other countries. It is a clear signal to the public that we expect 18-year-olds to be able to handle such onerous responsibilities, such as being liable for business deals and debts and even managing a company as a director owing fiduciary duties to shareholders in the company. This then brings me to a poser. We already require 18-year-olds to serve National Service and be mobilised to defend Singapore with their lives, if necessary. We are now willing to facilitate 18-year-olds to engage in serious business responsibilities, including managing companies and being liable for debts. Is it not high time too that we considered lowering the voting age to 18 as well? The last time I brought this up in 2007, the former Minister for Law said that voting was a serious matter. But are not these matters we want 18-year-olds to handle now serious as well? We are way behind most countries on voting age and, perhaps, with the new Law Minister, this matter can be revisited. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for supporting the Bill, including the increase of the bereavement claims from $10,000 to $15,000. As I said in my speech, it can be further amended, if necessary, in the future, by Ministerial Order. We will have to monitor and see whether this sum will remain appropriate over time.”
“Madam, the Bill has two main proposals, first, providing more compensation for death cases and, second, allowing minors to engage in business activities. I refer, first, to clause 4, amending section 21, to increase the bereavement claim from $10,000 to $15,000. Recently, a former student of mine wrote to me about how his brother was recently killed in a car crash. His brother was 20 and not yet a breadwinner. He had been a passenger in a car, driven by an acquaintance, who had crashed it through negligent driving. The young man died on the way to hospital. As usual, in such cases, charges under the Penal Code resulted in fines and a driving ban, leaving his family to wonder if their loved one's life was being trivialised. Thus raising the civil claim amount for bereavement from $10,000 to $15,000 will give such families some comfort. In any case, as mentioned by the Senior Minister of State earlier, the current sum of $10,000 has been unchanged since 1987 and, after 20 years, to raise it to $15,000 is fully justified. Some may even rightfully ask whether this new sum is still too low for the loss of a life. As for clause 5 amending section 22, I support the reasons given to allow dependants to claim loss of expectation of inheritance or savings in line with the modern practice in some other jurisdic- tions. Now the dependants can claim not just what they in fact receive from the deceased but what they would have expected to receive if the deceased had lived out his life. Such a law will produce a fairer result for dependants even though this might result in more litigation between dependants and insurance companies over whether inheritances or savings were certain or speculative.”
“Sir, in respect of the Minister's first response, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the crime victimisation surveys that are conducted in countries like the UK and the US where it is well established that members of the public do not report certain kinds of crimes, usually sexual crimes and offences against the person, and this is quite universally established data. I wonder whether he would comment on his assumption that people would seek help in all kinds of crime because the international data shows otherwise. The second point about Mr Hwang's request for statistics – I have his article here actually – the paragraph in question, he says, "One traditional justification for the lack of statistics is that these are sensitive figures which could be interpreted as indicating certain communities might be prone to commit certain crimes. But we cannot put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study." I believe what he is saying here is that there should be more transparency about the ethnic composition when it comes to certain kinds of offences.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, I believe that in Mr Hwang's article regarding the statistics which he feels could be useful for our crime debate, he did allude to the fact that the Government was quite opaque when it comes to, for example, the ethnic composition of people in our penal institutions. In fact, in 2007, I filed a parliamentary question asking for this data, and I was told by the Ministry of Home Affairs that the data is kept but they are unable to reveal it publicly. This is actually very different from the practice in the UK where such statistics on the ethnic composition of people in the penal population are published. So, would the Minister not agree that actually we are not that transparent when it comes to data like this? Secondly, in actual fact, we do not really know how much crime there is in Singapore because all our statistics gathered are based on reported crime. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that we could actually gather more statistics on victimisation in the population rather than just to rely on reported crime statistics which may not tell us the dark figure of crime.”
“Sir, several years back when Singaporeans were convinced that the IRs were the way to go, we were told that the job projections arising out of the IRs would be about 35,000 and because of the benefit of that, we should be prepared to accept some of the social ills from gambling. I note that in a parliamentary answer last year, the job projection was 20,000. I am just wondering whether MTI has further revised the job projection arising from the IRs now, in view especially of the increased number of gambling tables and whether we are going to see a higher price being paid in terms of the social ills arising from gambling.”
“Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) when will the integrated resorts (IRs) be fully opened since they are reportedly only having a soft opening; (b) whether there are changes to the terms and conditions since the contract was awarded; (c) when does the Ministry expect its initial projection of the IRs' boost to our GDP to be achieved; and (d) whether the Ministry anticipates the financial crisis to affect the business of the IRs when they open.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether in EMA's review, it is also considering something like the fuel equalisation fund that the public transport operators maintain to tide over the volatility in fuel prices. Mr Iswaran: If I understand the Member's point correctly, she is drawing the analogy from the transport system where the transport operators put money towards a fund which they then draw upon when there is volatility in the fuel oil price. We have done away with that in the electricity market for a simple reason. The objective is really to have a very competitive market and ensure that price competition, with a transparent pass-through of costs, would serve our interests best. The other thing is if we insist that the electricity generating companies put money towards a fund of this nature, bearing in mind that the cost of fuel is more than half the cost of their total production, they will need a substantial allocation of their capital for this. Then, what we inevitably are doing, is imposing higher cost on them and this cost will be passed through to our consumers as well. So I do not want to preclude any options, but I just want to highlight to the Member that these are the downside risks of doing so. But we welcome any feedback from Members, as well as the general public, in the review process. OPENING OF INTEGRATED RESORTS (Impact of financial turmoil in US) 10. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry to what extent the financial turmoil in the United States may delay or undermine the opening of the two Integrated Resorts and whether the Government is considering alternatives if the operators are unable to deliver. 11.”
“Three supplementary questions. The first question is whether the Minister can confirm that there were certain structured notes sold in Singapore which were actually under a selling restriction of not being allowable for sale to US citizens. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, under the US law, there are certain structured products which can only be sold to accredited investors, as defined under their Federal law, who are basically sophisticated investors or investors of certain high net worth? The third question is whether the MAS is considering a ban on the sale of structured products to the mass retail market altogether – in other words, setting strict qualifying criteria for investors who wish to buy such products?”
“Sir, three questions for the Senior Minister of State. Sir, earlier, he mentioned that the regulator would arrange for Singapore Power to publish more information about the electricity tariff formula. I am just wondering whether the formula is actually a state secret. Can the full details of the formula be published? And even though not everyone may understand that, there will be some people who may understand the formula, and that would help greatly in transparency of pricing issue. Secondly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there are some inconvenient outcomes in certain quarters. But if we trace back the tariff hikes over the last two years, in fact, less than two years since January last year, it has been more than 50% increase. If we look back to January 2004 to now, it has actually doubled. For the public good, which has only one supplier, does the Minister agree that this kind of price increase is not an acceptable situation? Thirdly, could we not, for example, take a leaf from what is happening in Hong Kong? For example, in Hong Kong, when the Hong Kong electricity company sells electricity, they look at the basic consumption that an average household uses, and that usage is priced at a more favourable rate. And for households that consume more, the excess units are paid at a higher rate. If we are prepared to look at that as a principle, I think the electricity price could possibly be more stable and more affordable.”
“Sir, the Workers' Party supports this Amendment. We believe that it is justified to broaden the definition of Net Investment Income to include realised capital gains from the relevant assets. Social spending must go up as our population ages. More social safety nets are required to address wage stagnation for lower-income earners and the higher cost of essentials such as food and electricity. The Bill provides for a cap of 50% of realised capital gains which can be used for current spending. This means that at least 50% will still accrete to the reserves and form part of national savings. We are thus not squandering our reserves. How much more will this additional revenue stream yield? The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, mentioned that it is expected to yield the equivalent of about 2% of GDP expenditure, which together with the 0.8% GDP yielded by the GST hike recently should be sufficient to fund the additional expenditure required. Going forward then, will the Minister confirm that there would be little justification for the Government to go back to the people to raise more revenue by further hiking GST or raising Government fees and charges? Will he confirm that the people are already doing their part and there will be no need to burden them further? [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 5.00 pm”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary some supplementary questions. Firstly, he mentioned earlier that in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, we sent 25 athletes. I am wondering if the Government has an estimate of how many more athletes we will be sending for the Youth Olympics since we are the host. Secondly, are we venturing into other sports which we did not go to at the Olympic Games itself? Thirdly, as the host country, I suppose there will be some interests in our performance. Does the Government have an idea of what would be a good medal tally at the end of the Youth Olympics?”
“For instance, he would look at the options available, ascertain what P's feelings and wishes are likely to be, and work collaboratively with the healthcare professional or administrator before decisions are made. Since there is nothing in the Bill about this, would the Minister like to explain how this gap will be closed? For instance, if there is a destitute dementia patient with no family, how would his interests be protected? Next, the Bill also gives the Public Guardian very wide powers to ask for information and documents, for example, under clause 32. Under the UK Act, the kinds of documents that the Public Guardian can call for are health, social records and care records. By contrast, our Bill does not limit the power to any particular class of documents. It is further provided that the Public Guardian is to be given "full and free access" to buildings, books, papers and electronic records. These powers seem very draconian. The only people exempted from compliance are lawyers who need not disclose confidential client information. What about others with duties of secrecy, for example? Are we now to assume that P's bankers are required to disclose information about P's property without any court order? Finally, Madam, the Public Guardian's annual report. Clause 34 requires the Public Guardian to present his report to the Minister – presumably the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports – but not to Parliament. Under the UK law, the Public Guardian presents his report to the Lord Chancellor who must, within one month, lay the report before Parliament. I wonder why the Minister does not adopt a similar disclosure of the report to Parliament. 6.12 pm”
“Second, under clause 23(1), the court can make certain decisions on P's behalf, including the execution of a will, which the Minister touched on earlier. While I note that the UK provisions also have this provision, I have some discomfort over this as my question is: when would it be right to execute a will on behalf of P? People die intestate every day, as mentioned, and the rules of intestacy will apply to distribute property to family members in a certain default order. On the other hand, if there had been a will previously executed by P while he had capacity, it should not be easily rewritten. People are entitled to make quirky decisions on their own property. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the re-execution of the will or the execution of the will by the court will be made in the person's best interests and not in the beneficiary's best interests. I wonder if he could clarify this statement further, because the will only kicks in when the person is dead. So, it obviously has to be made in the interests of the beneficiaries. Will we have a case where the court is substituting its own judgment as to what is a fair distribution of property and taking that away from P? Next, the UK Act provides for a service called the Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCA) service for persons who are mentally incapable and may not have next-of-kin or appointees. These independent advocates are provided by the state and function as independent persons to watch out for P's welfare when he is faced with two types of decisions: (1) whether to undergo serious medical treatment; or (2) whether to effect a change of accommodation. Such an advocate would support P in various ways.”
“Madam, as mentioned by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, the Bill was modelled after the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005. I have done a comparison with that UK Act and I noted that there were some interesting departures from the UK model on which I would like to ask the Minister for some clarifications. The first concerns the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA) which confers powers on the donee to deal with the property of the donor who is called "P" in the Act. Clause 14 allows a donee to make gifts out of P's property. Since the gifting will be done while P is alive, the donee should act conservatively so as not to deplete P's property which can be used for P's healthcare and other needs. However, there is no mention in the Bill about who the donee can make gifts to or for what purpose. In contrast, the UK legislation specifies that gifts should be made by the donee only on customary occasions, eg, anniversaries or birthdays, and to persons related or connected to P, or to charities as P would have done. Is it not prudent that we should similarly write into the Act the conditions under which the donee can make gifts on P's behalf? Madam, the next few issues relate to the role of the court under the proposed Act. First, I note that, in the UK, a special court of protection is set up to handle applications under the Mental Capacity Act. This clearly signals the protective function of the courts in such applications, and will develop judicial expertise and smooth interfacing between the court and social agencies involved in such matters. By contrast, the Bill provides for such applications to be heard in the High Court, presumably by generalist judges. Did the Government consider the benefits of setting up a special court instead?”
“Sir, I wonder if the Government would be reviewing the means test criteria for Government subsidies because, currently, I understand that it is quite common for the average monthly bill of a nursing home patient to reach around $2,000 a month. And the current means test actually looks at per capita income of the household not exceeding $1,000 in order to qualify for the subsidy and this takes into account gross pay, which actually the CPF portion cannot be used to pay for the nursing home fees. So I wonder if the Government would consider perhaps relaxing the means test criteria so that more people can get some of the Government subsidies for the nursing home stay.”
“Or is the PAP now saying that they have less confidence in their current minority Ministers, MPs or new candidates winning on their own? Finally, I move to the issue of time limit for by-elections under the system of single seats. Even though the obligation is already there, as I said earlier, the issue lies in the lack of a definite deadline by which a by-election must be called after a vacancy arises. This has led to long and unjustified delays in holding by-elections. For instance, in 1986, when MP for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, was disqualified from office, no by-election was held in Anson for two years until the 1988 general election. This loophole should be plugged. This is not a new issue for this House. It came up nine years ago when the Workers' Party filed a motion to debate whether a by-election should be held in Jalan Besar GRC. The ruling party was not willing then to write in a time limit. Even if a law sets no time limit for something to be done, the usual interpretation is that it should be done within a reasonable time. In this case, a few months, not years. In the circumstances, we support explicitly providing a three-month deadline, which is the same period as in the earlier Malaysian legislation. The amended motion reflects this.”
“So, it seems that the GRC is a useful recruitment and training tool for the ruling party. Has the GRC strengthened or weakened politicians' mandate? Back in 1998, Dr Ahmad Mattar already hit the nail on the head. His views were quoted in Parliament as follows and I quote, "as a Malay, I do not think I would like to contest in any elections when my victory is guaranteed, not because I am a strong candidate but because I have a so-called strong twin brother to lean on". How do voters feel about GRCs? The Government might want to do a big national survey to find out. It is not uncommon for Singaporeans to become residents of different GRCs in successive elections without moving house at all. The jokes about boundaries are endless, with the residents of Serangoon asking for their Marine Parade seaview and Tanjong Pagar GRC now fronting MacRitchie Reservoir. In my view, there has clearly been political degeneration as a result of the GRCs. To arrest this, the amended motion calls for the Government to amend the Constitution to abolish GRCs and revert to a system of single seats where each candidate is judged on his or her own merits. Can this be done? Of course. The Electoral Boundaries Committee will give effect to any changes to the system that are made. How do we ensure minority representation then, some might ask. Singapore's history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs, such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff, Mr Zulkifli Mohamad, had done so; so have Opposition leaders, like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 general election. Are we now saying that Singapore has regressed as a society?”
“Sir, I will now speak on the amended motion. Why abolish GRCs after 20 years? To answer this, we should trace history and how we have evolved. We should then ask: are GRCs good for the people or good for the PAP? In 1988, GRCs were introduced as three-Member teams. Then Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, told Parliament that the GRCs would ensure minority representation. Just two years later, in 1990, GRC size was increased from three Members to four, the reason being population growth within three-Member GRCs. In 1996, GRCs were increased from four Members to five or six Members. We were told that this was to provide the critical masses of residents needed for the Community Development Councils or CDCs to work, but these arguments are clearly red herrings. As then Deputy Prime Minister Goh had already said in 1988, even if all seats were run as single seats, MPs could still group together after the elections for economies of scale. The reasons given by the PAP also do not explain why, coincidentally, GRCs which were nearly won by the Workers' Party, such as Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC, disappeared in the following elections. In 2006, some light was shed as to how the PAP benefited from GRCs. Senior Minister Goh spoke of the PAP's recruitment challenge, and he said, and I quote, "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." Interesting. Are we to infer that the PAP candidates these days are not what they used to be? On a separate note, Minister Mentor also made comments that the Health Minister should be ready to lead his own GRC team after being under his wing in Tanjong Pagar GRC for four years.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the words in the motion from "fine-tune the electoral system" to "by-elections shall be called" in the last sentence be deleted, and the following words be inserted in their place: (a) introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish Group Representation Constituencies and revert to a system of Single Member Constituencies", and; (b) introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event a Member vacates his or her seat for any reason." Sir, the proposed amended motion has also been put down for the convenience of Members on paper.”
“Could I request the Clerk to circulate it to Members? [Copy of amendment to motion circulated to hon. Members. ]”
“Yes, Sir. I believe a written copy has been given to the Clerk.”
“In view of all these objections to the original motion, I would like to propose that the motion be amended such as to call on the Government to introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish GRCs and to revert to a system of single member seats and to set a three-month time limit for all by-elections to be called. Mr Speaker: May I have a copy of the amendment?”
“Article 49 of the Constitution already states that whenever the seat of an elected Member has become vacant for any reason, the vacancy shall be filled by election in a manner provided by law, meaning that it should be done. The Parliamentary Elections Act itself, section 24, further provides that the President shall issue a writ of election "to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation, or otherwise." There can be no argument that when an MP in an SMC vacates his seat, there is no vacancy. The issue is really with the timing of the by-election, which I shall return to later. Sir, indeed the motion shows that the GRC system is a system which does not promote representative democracy. The attempts in the motion to cure the problems with GRCs do not address the fundamental problem of the GRC that it dilutes the voter's voice. Instead of making a clear choice of which person they want to represent them, they are asked to pick a team of people and the outcome of their vote will depend on the aggregate outcome of voting in other constituencies. At the practical level, it also increases the bar for those who intend to contest, increasing the likelihood of walkovers. What Mr Wong Kan Seng had said in 1999 about one member holding the rest to ransom also applies at the nomination stage when candidates are putting themselves up for election. GRC team members can hold the others to ransom as the whole team must stand to qualify as candidates, in the correct racial mix.”
“This highlights one of the main weaknesses of the GRCs, that a team member's non cooperation could sound the political death knell for the rest. This is unjustifiable. Next, the motion goes on to propose that one half or more of the members of the GRC team have departed, a by-election in the GRC should be called as well. To propose this means that we are prepared to accept the situation where one or even two members in a GRC have left, no by-election needs to be called. The reality is that the moment even one member of the team leaves, the issue of the constituents being under represented immediately arises. To say that constituency work can be covered even by non-MPs is a dubious assertion as the residents will feel shortchanged. What about the parliamentary work? Can this be covered? Each MP is restricted to five parliamentary questions per sitting and can make only one speech in each debate. Just doing simple mathematics, the number of Parliamentary questions and speeches that can be made by the GRC team will be diminished the moment any MP vacates his seat. If GRC sizes are increased in the future, this motion will envisage three, four or even more vacancies before a by-election in a GRC is called. The under-representation of the constituents will become even more indefensible. Third, the motion asked the House to introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ of by-election shall be called in the event that a Member of a Single Member Constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. There is actually no need for the House to do this. This is already provided for under the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“Sir, the motion filed by the two Nominated Members calls for the election system to be fine-tuned. We in the Workers' Party are unable to support the motion for the simple reason that we have never accepted the GRC system and the motion attempts to entrench it. The motion is also flawed in some respects. First, it attempts to refine the GRC system by providing that the moment a minority Member has left the GRC, a by-election for the GRC will be called. We do not see the justification for the departure of any single Member, including the minority Member, to trigger a by-election in the whole GRC. In our view, this is a disproportionate outcome. Elections are won or lost by GRC teams, not on the merit of the minority Member alone. Each voter votes for the GRC team for different reasons – some may well vote because of the minority Member but others may do so because of the team leader or anchor Minister or because of some other MP. In 1999, one of the Members in Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, resigned his seat due to a criminal conviction. The House then debated the issue of whether to call a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. Then leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, spoke generally about why one Member's departure should not trigger a by-election in a GRC. He said, and I quote, "the legislated intent was not to allow any particular MPs so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom, to resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason; death, resignation, or whatever".”
“A number of events could not be planned for, for example, our checkpoints are beginning to handle so many passengers, particularly the land checkpoints, that they are probably among the busiest in the world. And a number of the requirements, for example, the Woodlands Checkpoints, imposed on our officers cannot be planned for because the episodic demand surges. So it has resulted in our Home Team officers having to be deployed or for us to look carefully at resource allocations to bring officers from the checkpoints which are less busy to the busy areas, and require our officers to do overtime. That is one of the areas that was studied by the Committee that was set up by the team of psychologists. In general terms, they have found that the stresses and strains within the system are within acceptable limits. But they have identified a few areas where they feel that we are not optimising the contact point between the stress that is necessary to make any job interesting and, at the same time, making sure that the officers are not over-stressed, and we will look at those.”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned just now in his answer that attrition among officers has risen due to private market being an alternative career. Has MHA also done any study on push factors that may have caused the officers to resign and what are the key push factors involved? Secondly, Sir, in the Minister's response during the Adjournment Motion at the last sitting, he mentioned the number of overtime hours clocked in by the immigration officers and that came as a surprise to most of us because it seemed quite a large number of overtime hours. Is the Ministry saying that there should actually be a certain number of overtime hours done by the immigration officers and what is the ideal range of overtime hours done or was it something that should have been picked up earlier and perhaps recruitment stepped up earlier? Mr Shanmugam: Sir, when we look at the resignation rate for our officers, for example, if you look at the senior officers, it has gone up from 3.2% to 3.7% and that of junior officers have in fact gone down from 3.7% to 2.3%. We will of course prefer fewer resignations but the situation, in broad terms, remains acceptable and we obviously have to compete with the market. I had said that in 2007, it was a booming market and the pay review has helped, and we believe that with redesignation of job scopes, to try and make it even more attractive and more aggressive recruitment campaign, this issue can be tackled. Secondly, as regards the overtime hours that have been put in, to some extent, as I have tried to explain in my earlier answer, this has been caused by the exigency of the situation. Some of it could have been planned for.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my second question which was about the call by the economists at the IPS Conference for a detailed study to be done on the pros and cons of our current foreign worker policies, and my question was whether the Government is doing one or considering to do one and, if so, can we have some details. If not, why not?”
“Sir, two supplementary questions. In MOM's recent annual report on wages released in 2008, it was reported that there was wage stagnation for the lowest income earners for the last 10 years and the economists attribute the presence of foreign workers as a downward pressure on residents' wages. Does the Minister agree with this assessment or that there is a cause-effect in this relationship? Secondly, in the Institute of Policy Studies Conference in 2007, economists noted that relaxed policies on foreign workers and the immigration have created a new economy where the lower wage workers are losing out. It was stated that large scale import of unskilled labour has its pros and cons and that we should do a detailed study on the cause and benefits of such policies. Is the Government indeed commissioning an independent study into this question? If so, could we have some details? And if not, why not?”
“Sir, the proposed relaxations to increase the catchment of overseas voters are a step in the right direction, in particular, section 5 eases the residency requirement from two years out of five to 30 days out of three years which should enable more to qualify. However, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendments. First of all, the definition of "overseas polling station" has now been expanded to cover the official residence of our diplomats. And based on his Second Reading speech earlier, are we to assume that the increase in polling stations is still confined, for example, to the political capitals of the countries in question? Second, is there any plan in the near future to explore other countries which are not currently listed? I understand that there are a fair number of Singaporeans, for example, in other countries such as New Zealand and India. Would those countries be considered in the medium term? Secondly, Sir, there is also the provision, section 39A, which remains unchanged that the polls overseas should not close later than the poll in Singapore which, I think, is a very right step. Is the Government considering closing the overseas polls early enough so that the overseas votes can be sent back to Singapore in time for counting to be combined with the local votes? As I previously said, this is important for voter anonymity, especially in smaller constituencies where the number of overseas voters may be very small. Lastly, Sir, I was also intending to raise issues concerning by-elections in the Group Representation Constituencies which are covered under the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, as there has been a motion filed by the Nominated Member, I will be raising my comments at that time. 3.18 pm”
“(3) Outsourcing of Home Team functions to auxiliary police and private security companies has become necessary. As jobs become divided and farmed out, coordination of security operations becomes more complex. There will be differences in organisational culture and mindset between a regular Home Team officer, auxiliary police and private-sector guards. Just as we have seen in Mas Selamat's escape, will each person be so focused on their area of work to the detriment of the final outcome? How smooth is the interface between the different agencies and how is this being monitored?”
“Sir, Mas Selamat's escape is an embarrassment and, together with the recent lapses, this has actually led some members of the public to ask whether MHA is breaking down. However, for each of these breaches, there are many other times when security was successfully provided. The nature of security is such that successful security operations are unnoticed, precisely because nothing eventful happened. Accordingly, we must not lose our perspective. At the same time, the Government owes a duty to the public to account for these lapses honestly and holistically. What I think is constructive in the long run is to step back and have a thorough review of the increasing demands on MHA, the resources needed and how to ensure that the public interest is protected. There are three questions which come to mind: (1) Are these incidents signs that MHA has work overload? I am aware of how heavily deployed the Home Team has been in recent years. Ever since 911, many Home Team officers have been deployed for counter-terrorism activities. While we seek to promote Singapore as a centre for meetings, conventions and exhibitions, every IMF meeting, every F1 Night Race is an added strain. Meanwhile, the public continues to seek police assistance every minute. We can try to leverage on NSmen, reservists or private-sector partners, but there are limitations to this. (2) The population has expanded to 4.7 million and is expected to breach the six-million mark. This will surely strain our social services, including those under the Home Team. We need more police officers, more firefighters, more immigration officers. What has been done to ensure that recruitment is keeping pace with the increased population?”