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 34 of 36.
“Sir, under the existing Act, the Minister's approval is required before the Board can conduct gaming activities and the Minister approves schemes and may impose conditions on any gaming activity. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill collectively remove the need for Ministerial approval. It seems that the Board is now given a freer hand to decide what kind of gaming activities are carried out and under what conditions. For instance, it appears that it can decide the rules of the game, how to calculate dividends and what kind of credit facilities will be available. I would like to ask for clarification on the following: (a) What was the original rationale for requiring Ministerial approval in the first place? Was it due to a need to supervise the gaming industry to safeguard the public interest? (b) By removing the need for Ministerial approval, is the Government giving the Board more liberty to promote gaming as it sees fit? Is it foreseeable that gaming would proliferate society further, more addictive forms of gaming may arise and credit will be made more easily available? Are we putting society at greater risk with this approach?”
“Sir, four supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). First question is, whether there is any fresh intelligence that the Government has obtained that Mas Selamat is still in Singapore. Second question is, security analysts have observed that Indonesia is a logical place for Mas Selamat to escape to. In fact, as early as 1st March 2008, which is a few days after the escape, there were some analysts predicting that he already fled to Indonesia via a speedboat to Bintan. I would like the DPM's assessment on whether this is a likely scenario. Third question, about one month after the escape, the DPM had said that his Ministry would examine if there are sufficient legal powers within Singapore territorial waters to do effective searches or whether the law will need to be amended. I would like the DPM to update us on this. And last of all, Sir, the Interpol Chief had commented in the aftermath of this case that when it comes to such escapes, the first hours are crucial and it has now been five months since the escape. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether he has changed his assessment of the likelihood of recapturing Mas Selamat in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Government had previously predicted that inflation would actually ease off in the second half of this year due to the effect of the GST hike last year being dissipated over the year. Given that now there is an unprecedented inflation in food and oil, does the Government see a risk in inflation rate in the second half of this year not actually easing off?”
“Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify this point which he did not refer to. It is concerning section 17A(6) where he mentioned that after making the order, he would have to come to Parliament to convince Parliament that the order was necessary. My query during my speech was whether at that time MPs would be given a free vote on the matter or would the Whip be in place.”
“MOH's reply to the feedback was helpful in listing some examples of activities considered risky by the Ministry, for example, intercourse with sex workers, unprotected sex with multiple partners and sharing needles when misusing drugs. While the list can never be exhaustive, I would support putting into the Act some examples as illustrations which should be helpful to people trying to understand and comply with the law, rather than to make them read Hansard, the website and so on, to have a sense of the ambit of the section. 3.21 pm”
“Sir, I have two queries on the Bill. The first is in relation to section 17A. Sir, clause 12 inserts the new section 17A which allows the Minister for Health to declare either the whole of Singapore or a part of it as a restricted zone and he can do this if he considers that a serious outbreak has occurred or is imminent. As the outcome of this order is very drastic and will affect the movement and livelihood of our people, should this be a decision left to the Minister alone? Is it not possible to have an urgent Parliament session to decide whether the order should be made in the first place? Section 17A(6) provides that the Minister should present the order to Parliament as soon as possible after it is made and Parliament will have a chance to annul the order, in which case the order will cease to have effect. Is it the intention for the Members to have a free vote to support or rescind the order, or will the Whip remain in place in which case the Minister's order will be endorsed as a rubber-stamping exercise? Sir, my second query relates to sexual activity by a person who has reasonable cause to believe he has been exposed to AIDS or HIV. The existing section 23 only requires those who know that they have AIDS or HIV to take certain steps to inform their partner and obtain consent before the sexual activity. Clause 18 of this Bill amends section 23 to include this category of persons who do not know but have reasons to believe that they have been exposed to a significant risk of contracting AIDS or HIV to take certain steps. During the Ministry's e-consultation with the public, I noted that there was feedback that the phrase "reason to believe that he has been exposed to a significant risk" was ambiguous.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his Statement. A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what, in his view, is the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD? Is it a hands-off approach leaving everything to the Director ISD? Or should the Ministry actually monitor some annual data from the Ministry? For example, we were told yesterday that there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second clarification, Sir, is with respect to the inquiries that are held after lapses in Government function. In this case, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and, as we know from the legislation, the Committee would report its findings to the Minister and it is a closed door affair. Sir, of course, when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse – whether it is actually a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. And, in the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, would it not have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the Minister whose department is being investigated? Third clarification is that Minister Mentor made some remarks around March and April saying that the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the Prime Minister's view and the Cabinet's view that the Government should not be blamed for this incident?”
“Clarifications for the Minister on the topic of juvenile homes. Earlier on the recidivism rate, the Minister mentioned the rate of about one-third recidivism within two years. But according to the estimates given to us, in page 63 of the Budget book, the latest recidivism rate for FY06 (actual) was put at 48%. Is it not closer to one is to two relapsing into crime within two years? Second clarification is that the Minister did not address my query on the additional expenditure which is spending on security services to reinforce supervision and security in the MCYS homes. My question was: is this recognition that the homes have indeed been too lax and that there is a need to increase security provision? And last of all, has the Ministry actually done anything so far to try to arrest the increasing recidivism rate in juvenile homes?”
“Young offenders reside at the Singapore Boys' Home or Girls' Home when the Juvenile Court thinks that they need to be removed from the community in order to be rehabilitated. But how successful have these homes been in helping our youngsters turn over a new leaf, or have we inadvertently made things worse? According to Ministry data, the rate of recidivism or those who reoffended within two years of release rose from 23% for those released in 2000 to between 25% and 30% in subsequent years. Recently, the Minister gave a written answer that for the cohorts released in 2003 and 2004, the rate was 38.5%. In the Budget estimates, the actual recidivism rate in FY06 was a peak of 48%. What are the reasons for the sharp upward trend? Regarding the Boys' Home, about a year ago, Dr Carol Balhetchet of the Singapore Children's Society noted that there would always be boys who emerged from the home even more aggressive and would have "contaminated" others too. She noted that boys she counselled did not fear going to the Boys' Home. So the boys released from the home told the press that the disciplinary regime was too lax. I note that MCYS is increasing its expenditure on the purchase of additional security services to reforce the supervision and security in MCYS' Homes. Is this a recognition that the homes are too lax? Dysfunctional Families”
“Sir, two clarifications for Minister of State Mr Gan on the plans to re-employ workers between 62 and 65 years of age. Earlier, he mentioned that the Ministry would actually allow employers to re-employ workers turning 62 at the same job but at a lower pay. What is the justification for doing that, especially since the drawdown age for CPF monies is being moved to 65 and such a pay cut for the same job is hard to justify? The second clarification is: could he elaborate more on what are the enforcement mechanisms for the new re-employment law? Does it have any teeth? What recourse do workers have?”
“5 percentage point difference in interest rate assumption will lead to a change in payouts by about 10%". For those with lower Minimum Sums, the monthly payments under CPF LIFE, at 4% interest with additional 1% on the first $60,000, are estimated to be between $300 and $500. Downward fluctuations in interest rates could bring their payouts to below subsistence level. This outcome is highly undesirable. How will these members be protected? Third, there is still wide concern about inflation risk and the fact that CPF LIFE payments are not inflation-indexed. This could seriously erode purchasing power. The Committee discussed this but decided against it. With most people probably opting for the default scheme of Refund 80, the premium would be deducted at age 55 and only payable 25 years later. We will be locking away significant sums for 25 years of investment. Is it not possible to use the investment returns to provide some protection against inflation?”
“Sir, CPF LIFE has sought to address some of the objections to the original compulsory annuity proposal. Its stated aim is to help Singaporeans' CPF savings last a lifetime. While we await further elaborations on the details, some of its features raised concerns. The first concern is its lack of universal coverage. The catchment group has narrowed from the original plan to include most CPF members below 50, to only those with at least $40,000 in their Minimum Sum balances. 25% of active CPF members will not be covered due to insufficient balances. As mentioned earlier by other Members, including Prof. Kalyani Mehta, the ironic outcome is that those who are more likely to end up as the aged poor are not covered, which includes the lower income, those with unstable employment and those without families to depend on. What is the Government's plan for their old age security? Second, according to the Committee's report, one of CPF LIFE's aims is "to provide a steady income for life". The question is: how steady is it, considering interest rate fluctuations? Last year, the Government decided to unfix interest rates on the Special Medisave and Retirement Account (or SMRA) from 4% to fluctuate with a long-term bond yield rate. Now, the base rate on all CPF monies is 2.5%, with an additional 1% interest on the first $60,000. If the interest rates on SMRA should fall to this level, the projections of monthly payments shown by the Committee in the Annexes to their report will not apply as they based their assumptions on interest rates being between 4.5% and 5.5%. In the MOM website, it is stated that "for the entire duration of the policy, payout amounts can change, depending on the actual CPF interest rates and underlying mortality experience. For instance, a 0.”
“Last week, there was a spate of reports on the extremely low standards amongst the PEOs. The Straits Times wrote a scathing report on these PEOs as well as on CASE which administers the CASE TRUST for PEOs. As the Vice-President for CASE, I would like to state that CASE took on the role to accredit the PEOs under CASE TRUST, which is under the Education Excellence Framework. This was at the request of EDB in 2004. There is one primary focus - which is to protect students' fees. Under the CASE Trust Student Protection Scheme, the fees paid by students to the PEOs are protected by an insurance scheme or by depositing with an approved bank. It is not possible for CASE to check on the academic credentials of the teachers of these PEOs or whether they are degree mills. CASE is not a Government agency and simply does not have the ability or resources to carry out such checks. The guiding principle must be caveat emptor and students who desire to pursue higher education must surely do their own homework to check that these PEOs are of the desired quality, especially if they want to pursue a university education. But many of these complaints, Sir, are valid and it is only right that students studying in these PEOs are given more stringent protection against dishonest or inept management who do not run a proper school, who have dubious lecturers or degree programmes or who do not wish to provide sufficient protection for the fees paid for by their students. I would thus urge MOE to take up the task of monitoring and regulating the PEOs to give better protection to the students. Sir, this call has been made by CASE previously and I would urge MOE to respond quickly before further damage is caused to Singapore's reputation as an education hub. Fourth University”
“So I would urge the Government to consider increasing the education grants to universities, so as to reduce the impact of the increase in their costs. The universities would then have less pressure to increase fees at such regular intervals. Better still, Sir, if we can freeze all fee increases, as with other Government fees that we have just frozen. Sir, I also read in the newspaper last week that Stanford University will not charge tuition fee to students from families earning less than US$100,000. Princeton is also reported to have given grants to families with annual incomes as high as US$200,000. The budget for Education is the second highest after Defence. Surely we can improve on our financial support for our students as well. Sir, I also call on the universities to do more to promote the availability of bursaries as well as to consider ways to reduce costs. I have seen several full-page advertisements in the newspapers recently, advertising the merits of the universities. I wonder at the need to incur such costs to advertise in Singapore where there is more demand for places than available places. 1.00 pm Sir, students who have benefited from a low cost university education are able to pay back to the State the subsidies which they have taken, through their payment of income taxes. In addition, many of these students would then feel a stronger affiliation to their alma mater because of the goodwill generated when we provide a low cost university education. I believe our students will remember the benefits they had derived from studying in Singapore. They will return to provide support for the universities where they came from, once they have achieved success in their lives. Sir, let me turn now to Private Education Organisations (PEOs).”
“Does the Ministry monitor the level of student debt, and how many years the graduate would be in debt upon his graduation? University Education and Private Educational Organisations Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Sir, recently, in February 2008, NUS, NTU and SMU announced fee hikes of between 4-20% for undergraduate courses, and this came after a fee hike of about 3% barely two years ago in 2006. I understand that manpower and operating costs have increased. I also appreciate the efforts of the three universities to provide more financial help and scholarships. But the reality is that not everyone is eligible for the financial help, and not everyone wishes to apply for financial help. As some of these students are from middle income families, they do not feel that they should rely on Government bursaries to pay for their education. Some students may also have to depend on their parents to stretch their income to pay for the increased fees. I spoke to some students who will be entering university next year, and they said that they would have to give more tuition, and some have said that they will take on part-time jobs to finance their students. Sir, I was once such a student many years ago. When the university fees were increased, I had to give tuition to help cover the increased costs. I felt terrible having to stretch out my hand to my parents and ask them for that little bit more money. I know how hard my parents had to work just to earn that extra few dollars. But, honestly, Sir, it also never crossed my mind to check whether I was eligible to apply for a bursary. University education is not like any other commodity where if the price is too high, we can seek alternatives. For many Singaporeans, a university education is a way to a brighter future.”
“Sir, last month, our three universities announced tuition fee hikes for the coming intake. The universities justified the increases on rising manpower and operating costs. Specifically mentioned was the need to hire staff to keep up standards. In 2005, the MOE Steering Committee on University Autonomy, Governance and Funding had recommended that tuition fee increases for NUS and NTU be kept at a maximum of 10% per year. The recent hikes by each university were on a cohort basis, with the next fee fixed for the cohort for the duration of their course. I agree that the principle is good. However, I would like to clarify whether the 10% cap is still relevant with a cohort lock-in system. For example, in the case of the NUS law course, if one is to conclude, that one-time fee rise of 20% for four years works out to less than 10% a year, and hence it is within the cap. As the world continues to pay a higher premium for such talent, we can expect our universities to face even higher wage bills for academics. Since students have to co-pay 25% of the cost of university education, does the Ministry foresee that the cap on tuition fee increases will be higher than 10% in the future, especially in courses where academic expertise is very expensive? While the policy to enable universities to charge realistic fees to keep up standards makes sense, this could work counter to affordability and potentially affect social mobility of poorer students. Universities are required to submit proposed fee increases to MOE for approval. What considerations does MOE take into account to decide whether fee increases are to be approved? Based on the Finance Minister's Budget Speech, I wish to conclude that so long as bursaries and loans are available, course fees can escalate.”
“Madam, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister of State. She mentioned earlier that GIC and Temasek would work towards disclosing what is in Singapore's interest to disclose. I find this quite general. I wonder if she could elaborate a bit more on what she means by that. For example, is GIC looking towards preparing an annual report of some sort? Is it prepared to review the worth of its funds, its returns, which sectors it is involved in, for example?”
“What are the areas that GIC and Temasek are looking into where more public and systematic disclosure can be given about their structure and activities? Change of Mindset Er Lee Bee Wah: Madam, a concern I would like to bring up today is that of a surplus mentality among the GLCs, TLCs and statutory boards. This means an organisation's main aim is to reap the profits at the end of a year that can be published proudly in its annual report. I think this is an area where the mindset should be changed. We are living in a new enlightened economy where the bottomline is not only financial responsibility but environmental and social as well. This change of mindset will help the masses and indeed live up to the spirit of public service by showing their genuine concern and sincerity in helping the people rather than show the company's profitability. They must fulfill a social responsibility and look out for those from lower-income groups in times of difficulty. They need not be apologetic for their lack of surplus numbers but remember that they were set up with public funding and public patronage. I, therefore, urge the Ministry to look into the terms of reference for quasi-Government bodies to temper the over-zealous focus on surplus at the expense of public interest. These companies include those that provide basic necessities, such as food, transport, water and power supply. Instead, I propose that these quasi-Government organisations or companies put emphasis on increasing societal support and be more transparent in any decision-making process and be benchmarked against their ability to deliver public service. Financial Reporting Standards”
“Madam, in recent months, Sovereign Wealth Funds have been put in the spotlight. As SWFs venture to buy stakes in businesses in other countries, suspicion about their motives and resistance to sensitive industries falling into the hands of foreign governments, are understandable. To assess the transparency of SWFs, Edwin Truman, Senior Fellow at the Pearson Institute for International Economics, came up with a scoreboard for Sovereign Wealth Funds in October 2007. He and his team assessed 32 SWFs, including our GIC and Temasek, on whether systematic, public information was given on the fund's structure, governance, transparency, accountability and behaviour. Out of 32 funds, Temasek came out 11th, while GIC was third from the bottom. Domestically, there is a high public interest element in keeping Singaporeans informed about the management and returns on funds under the charge of GIC and Temasek, which are collectively estimated to be between US$200 billion and US$500 billion. While more is known about Temasek, 10 other SWFs still scored better than it on the Truman scoreboard. The GIC scored poorly in all categories. In January 2008, Minister Mentor spoke to the media as Chairman of GIC and said that the International Monetary Fund was looking to Singapore, among others, to set disclosure benchmarks for SWFs. He said that this would lead GIC to become more transparent about its activities, "but we are not going to disclose just how much year by year we make or lose because that is none of their business. What they want to know is: are we manipulating the market." Madam, even if it is none of their business to know how much GIC makes year by year, surely it is the business of Singaporeans to know this.”
“Using the cost savings to give more help to the neediest Singaporeans is a much stronger justification for introducing means testing. Just as there will be a sliding scale of decreasing subsidy for those above the 50th percentile, we can also introduce a sliding scale of increasing subsidy for those below, say, the 25th percentile for Class C wards. Or if it is difficult to get accurate data for these income groups to identify their percentiles, then perhaps we can simply provide a higher subsidy for those living in HDB rental flats or 1- or 2-room flats. This will maintain the economic principle of co-payment while ensuring that those who need the most help do get it.”
“For instance, hospital medical social workers will review the cases of those with a large number of dependants. But this results in uncertainty and delay, which are the very drawbacks that the simple system was supposed to address. I think most people would agree that, in principle, household per capita income is a better indicator of neediness than personal income or housing type, and I believe that this can be implemented. Sir, IRAS records data on declared wages as well as all tax reliefs claims. The tax reliefs claim by a person would be objective evidence of the dependants in that household. The declared incomes of all persons with the same address can then be aggregated and used to calculate the per capita for that household. IRAS can do this and maintain a back end system storing the means tested status of Singaporeans, which hospitals can then access to ascertain patients' means tested status. For those who do not file returns or pay taxes, they can be asked to file returns to claim the dependant's tax reliefs they are eligible for, for purposes of means testing. Sir, I would now like to touch on the savings from means testing will be used. It does not seem that the current subsidies for Class C and B2 wards will be increased. Instead, the Minister intends to upgrade the quality of these wards. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider that decision. Do we really need to close the gap between the different classes of wards so much? I think most Singaporeans would prefer to maintain the current gap between Class C and B2 wards over having means testing. Instead, I think there is a strong case for increasing the subsidy for Class C wards for the lowest income.”
“For instance, when it comes to education, all Singaporeans can have their children educated in the mainstream schools. Education too is a heavily subsidised item, but everyone, rich or poor, pays the same fees for basic primary or secondary education. Why is the Government not pushing for means testing in mainstream education then, with children paying fees on a sliding scale, depending on household income? Could it be because the Government sees education as an investment while hospitalisation is seen as a liability? To paraphrase the words of the Health Minister, everyone needs healthcare most towards the latter part of his life, when he or she is not at the peak in earnings. Means testing for hospitals will create a lot of uncertainties for many citizens at a time in their lives when affordability of healthcare is most critical. Singaporeans should not be subject to such anxieties. Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, MOH will be introducing means testing this year. I strongly support the principle of subsidies being channelled such that those who need more help will get more. This is a sound principle. It is fair and equitable, and must be beyond question. But as with all things, the devil is in the details. I would like to touch on two aspects. Firstly, the proposed method for assessing income. To keep things simple, MOH intends to use personal income for those who are working and housing type for those who are not. Sir, I touched on this when I spoke on the Budget Statement. This will effectively penalise households with a low per capita income, in particular, higher income earners with big families and multiple dependants. The Minister has said that the implementation will be flexible and will allow for special deserving circumstances.”
“Let me quote from the Minister's speech: 'With such marginal difference in ward facilities and while fees in Class B1 are more than double those in Class B2 and four times those in Class C, we expect many patients who would normally choose B1 to now choose B2 or C.' The question then is: why would MOH want to introduce means testing to address an issue that is itself self-creating in the first place? Since clinical care in all wards is of a high standard, do we need to add non-essential creature comforts for highly subsidised wards? Somebody has to pay for this and, more likely than not, the patient will end up paying for it. Would it not be prudent for MOH to manage expectations rather than to raise them and increase cost unnecessarily? I believe most patients in Class B2 or C wards will understand why they will not be getting the same comforts or are not able to choose their doctors, unlike those in other wards. It has been argued that means testing is already implemented in public housing. So, why not for hospitalisation? There is a significant difference. Households earning $3,000 or less are entitled to a 3-room flat, while those earning under $8,000 qualify for a 5-room flat. Those with higher incomes get less subsidies, but their flats are bigger which they can also monetise and sell for more. Public housing is touted as a way to build up wealth for the future. Thus, means testing for public housing based on market subsidies is still quite acceptable to people. Sir, the root of this means testing should be about whether there are some baseline expectations which Singaporeans should have of the Government. What essential services should we expect to be available to everyone equally, regardless of means?”
“Sir, on 7th January, Health Minister gave a keynote speech at Changi General Hospital. Means testing for hospitalisation was touted as the way to go to address two issues - one, the issue of fairness in distributing health subsidies; and, two, to meet rising expectation for better services from all patients, rich or poor. Sir, I find the justification for means testing not convincing and somewhat contradictory. First, the issue of fairness. According to the Health Minister, it becomes unfair when high income patients begin to occupy subsidised beds. An over crowded Class B2 or C ward will come at the expense of low income patients who do not have the means to afford an alternative ward. But the question is: if it is expected that there will be over crowding in our subsidised wards, is this due solely to the presence of high-income patients? As our population ages, demand for hospitalisation will legitimately rise. What about the high growth rate of our foreign population welcomed into Singapore to churn our economy? Have our social services, including healthcare, kept pace with these trends? The Government has to address these fundamental issues before asking working-class Singaporeans to go and pay more for such an essential service as hospital care. The second reason given by the Minister is that in efforts to meet rising expectation for better services, MOH is improving the standard of physical facilities in subsidised wards to be as good as Class B1. Inevitably, by doing so, it will attract more downgraders.”
“But this is not the be-all and end-all of everything because, as Ms Sylvia Lim has said, when there is a need to put out advisories, when there is a need to have media stories about particular crime trends, this will also take place. Indeed, even in the last annual release of statistics, Police took the opportunity to highlight certain areas of concern. Youth crime was one. Crime against elderly was the other. I think Ms Ellen Lee spoke on it the other day. And also scams by telephone or other means was another. So I think Singaporeans do have a sense as to what to look out for. 1.45 pm”
“On the second point, like I have said, the context is important. In some countries, people do not report crime because they are not sure of what follow-up action there will be and it is difficult to report crime. But, in Singapore, there is access to the Police in terms of the ease with which Singaporeans can report crime. That is one point. Secondly, it is the confidence Singaporeans have that when they do report a crime, it is taken seriously, there is follow-up action, and it is not just there for the record. So, I think we can say with some certitude that the percentage of unreported crimes in Singapore is low. On the first point, she has heard me wrongly. I am not saying that the Police will change the current practice; in fact, it was just implemented last year where they now take an Overall Crime approach. I have explained in my speech why we do that. Because, really, the message is that Singaporeans will be interested to find out what is the general trend for crimes that impact them - the person, the property and the public at large. So the six categories already reflect that. The assurance is that, in terms of selecting the offences to be put in each of these categories, ie, the basket of offences, Police has looked at what these offences are and has chosen offences which will impact public safety. For example, in this review, offences such as simple cheating or transmitting hoax messages have been put into the basket of offences that would then be reflected in the six categories, while offences such as breach of hire purchase agreement or pyramid selling have been taken out. So when Singaporeans read that, they will get a good sense as to whether Singapore is becoming safer or not.”
“The second clarification is that crime surveys in other countries have enabled Police to better their procedures because they found dissatisfaction in the public about the police procedures they were asked to go through. So, is it not in our interest also to try to flag out some of these improvements that we could make? Lastly, Sir, international data shows that there will always be certain crimes which are under reported, even in countries with high confidence in the Police, eg, sexual crimes, crimes against persons. So, if we are really interested to know the actual crime situation, should we not do the crime survey to flag out some of these statistics? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the context of different countries for doing different things is important. I think we had this debate yesterday. So certain countries which are vast, like the UK, do unreported crime surveys to really find out what is happening on the ground. But, in Singapore, I think we are compact - we have 4.6 million people - and Police is there on the ground all the time, including the NPCs and also other officers who are in touch with the grassroots leaders and the residents. So, I do not think there is a need to formalise this with surveys because feedback comes back all the time. I am sure Ms Lim and Members of the House will agree. We get an earful from residents should there be dissatisfaction with Police services on the ground, whether it is molest cases or foreign workers who drink in the neighbourhood. So I do not think there is a need like in some countries to do formal crime surveys. My point is, therefore, not that Police is not interested to know the perceptions of Singaporeans as to the state of the service or whether or not some Singaporeans indeed do not report crimes.”
“Sir, some clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Sir, first regarding the statistics released by the Police for crimes in 2007. I was not sure whether I heard the SMS correctly to say that the Police would actually release the statistics which they collate regularly. In other words, even though they are adopting a crime class approach now, they will actually give the breakdown of all the different offences and the occurrences of those offences that make up that total for that crime class. Is the SMOS saying that they would actually publish the sub-categories and the numbers on the website since they are gathering it anyway? The concern is that the crime class is very broad and it may mask certain trends within individual offences in the class. Secondly, Sir, with regard to the crime surveys, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that our system is accessible to all Singaporeans, there is high confidence and so on, but I think it is a little bit unscientific at the moment to claim that because we do not have data showing that. And the crime surveys in other countries have actually managed to flag out certain groups which find the criminal justice system inaccessible. So, in Singapore's context, I am just thinking aloud, we may find, for example, that foreign workers, even though they are victims of crime, may not come forward to report. There may be other groups with less education, and so on. So, are we not interested to find out how accessible our criminal justice system is actually to all groups of Singaporeans? Secondly, Sir, the crime surveys -”
“Such surveys were very useful to uncover the actual crime situation, public perception of whether reporting crimes will be worthwhile, what stops people from reporting, and so on. I believe that with the above improvements, we will get a clearer and more accurate picture of the crime situation which will help in crime prevention and Police service delivery. Funding of Prisons”
“Sir, each year, the Police release statistics on the crime situation in Singapore. However, the picture is not complete. Firstly, reported crime. Last month, the Police reviewed a new approach when releasing statistics on crimes in 2007. This was a crime class approach where offences are grouped into six broad rubrics, for example, theft and related crimes, offences against the person and even miscellaneous crimes as a class. Could the Ministry clarify why this approach was adopted? One weakness I find is that the public does not know exactly which crimes make up each crime class. For example, under offences against the person, it is stated that this class includes murder, rioting, rape and outrage of modesty, amongst others, which were not explained. The public will be interested to know if specific offences are on the rise but the information is only given ad hoc. Could the Police publish all the sub- categories and numbers in each crime class on its website? Secondly, unreported crime. It is not accurate to rely on Police crime statistics to reflect the actual crime situation. What if a crime is not reported or it was reported but somehow went unrecorded by the Police? In order to uncover this dark figure of crime, victimisation surveys have been used in other jurisdictions. For instance, the Home Office in Great Britain has been running the British crime surveys since 1982 and in the United States, the national survey began even earlier. In such surveys, a representative cross-section of the population was asked whether they have been crime victims, whether they have reported the crime and the reasons for reporting or not reporting.”
“Sir, last January, Parliament was told that there was no evidence of a Subutex black market and that the majority of Subutex abusers seem to have kicked the habit. How far has the situation deteriorated last year? How many Subutex abusers have been arrested for Subutex abuse or abuse of heroin or other drugs? The recent news of the spike in heroin linked arrests is a cause for concern. Last year, heroin linked arrests went up by 600% to 670 cases, the highest figure since 2002. Out of those arrested, 90% were repeat abusers. The Central Narcotics Bureau said that one of the reasons was the release of 4,000 hardcore addicts from prison over the years. What does this suggest about the effectiveness of our drug rehabilitation programme and long-term imprisonment as a strategy to fight drug abuse? Public Expression”
“In any case, as I have said, even if the accused challenges the confession statement, its validity or its voluntariness, there is an established process where this can be verified or indeed thrown out by the Courts as has happened. For the more serious cases, eg, murder, my understanding is that it is not likely that prosecution will proceed just on a confession statement. And certainly in recent years, because of forensic science and the ability to cull evidence from different sources, this is seldom the case.”
“Ho Peng Kee: Madam, as I prefaced my remarks just now, we are still looking at all the details in the CPC. Since Members have asked, I have given a sketch of what is to come. Personally, in terms of the details, I think it will be premature to give the details here; otherwise you will say it is already cooked. We are actually cooking it, we want to consult our stakeholders. But, certainly, in terms of timelines, we will look at what is a fair timeline because here the point is to inject greater transparency. It would not work if the prosecution tenders its case to the defence too late for the defence to even prepare its case. The other point is about exculpatory statements. Again, we are looking at the entire situation. But what we are considering is after the defence has submitted its case to the prosecution, the prosecution will tender to the defence all relevant statements of the accused. So it could very well include these exculpatory statements. Like I have said, even now exculpatory statements are taken into account by the prosecution. There is nothing to hide because in framing the charge or in deciding whether to charge the accused, all these will form the entire matrix of evidence that will come before the Public Prosecutor when he exercises his discretion whether or not to charge. On videotaping, like I have said, the context is important. Why did other countries introduce videotaping? The context is really loss of confidence in the police and public outcry to get the police to show what it is doing. In the context of Singapore, I think this is not the case.”
“Madam, some clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, on the issue of pre-trial discovery. I know the Ministry is working on a framework. I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could clarify, in terms of the timing of the disclosure of the accused person's statements to the counsel or to the accused himself, what kind of timeframe are we looking at, how much in advance of the trial is the disclosure going to be done. Secondly, in terms of statements which are not incriminating, in other words, they are exculpatory statements where the accused explains his non-guilt or why he did certain things which make him not responsible, would those exculpatory statements also be disclosed to the defence in due time before the trial? Thirdly, on the issue of videotaping, I think Assoc. Prof. Ho would also know that it is not in every case that the Police has evidence other than the confession to convict the accused. And the law stands that a confession itself can alone be the basis of a conviction. So, it is extremely incriminating if the statement is positive in police terms. A lot of weight is given to the statement and, hence, I do not quite understand why the Ministry is not willing to consider video recording because it would at least be an accurate record of what happened during the statement-taking process, whether the contents came from the accused's mouth or were paraphrases, for example, by the investigating officer because he felt it was more appropriate. Because certain nuances in the language can be very important, can be given much weight during the trial itself. So, I do not quite understand why the Ministry is resistant to this idea. Assoc. Prof.”
“As for Singapore, whether one gets to see the evidence early, currently depends on the prosecution's discretion. As former High Court Judicial Commissioner, Amarjeet Singh, noted in a 2005 article, "This is too important to be left to chance and a statutory framework should be enacted for early and comprehensive pre-trial discovery." Developing Local International Law Enterprise 5.30 pm”
“Madam, there are two best practices from developed countries which I believe should be adopted to strengthen our criminal justice system. The first is the video recording of statements and confessions taken by Police from accused persons. This practice is in place in Australian states, the UK and several states in the US. Having video recording has proven to be good for both the prosecution as well as the defence. For the prosecution, it protects police officers from groundless accusations that they mistreated the suspect or did not accurately record what the suspect said. Video recording in other countries was found to have saved lots of Police and court time as more accused persons decided to plead guilty after watching the video recordings. For the defence, video recording helped to ensure that there was no mistreatment of the accused during the statement recording and that the record accurately reflected what the accused said. The technology for video recording is now relatively accessible and inexpensive. If adopted, this practice will encourage all to maintain high standards in law enforcement. Madam, the second aspect is that the Ministry should provide a legal framework for comprehensive pre-trial disclosure of evidence. The issue is one of fairness. Currently, our Criminal Procedure Code already puts an obligation on the suspect to disclose his defence early when he is under investigation and he is warned that if he does not disclose it, the Court is less likely to believe him. The prosecution should likewise disclose early what evidence it has, whether it intends to use the material or not. Such disclosure is required in countries including the UK, Hong Kong and Australia.”
“Sir, a question on overseas voting. At last year's COS, I raised the issue of overseas voting as well. And one of the matters which I asked the Prime Minister's Office to consider was whether it is possible for the overseas voters to vote earlier so that their votes could arrive in time to be mixed with the local votes on polling day. DPM Wong mentioned that the Elections Department would look into its feasibility and implications. My concern is that in some of the single seat constituencies especially, the number of overseas voters could be as low as two people. So there may be some concern about anonymity. I wonder whether the Elections Department has actually evaluated whether it is feasible to get the overseas voters to vote earlier, so that their votes can be counted together with the local votes.”
“Sir, I think it is quite clear that the Government has chosen to raise GST from 5% to 7% last July without compelling reasons, and this increase has compounded the inflation pressures on the people. Given that the increase was not necessary, the Government should do the following to alleviate the suffering of the people: (1) Reverse the GST rate back to 5%; (2) Additionally, since food inflation is exceptionally high, zero-rate GST on essential food as other countries have done. Sir, if the Government did these, the people would appreciate it. They would be better off than having to live with ever increasing prices, long after the one-off giveaways have been spent.”
“For FY08, the Government has once again projected a deficit of about $0.8 billion. In a commentary in the Business Times Weekend Edition of 16th February 2008, Chief Economist at Daiwa Institute of Research (Singapore), Mr P K Basu, wrote a commentary entitled "Deficit Next Year? Just Don't Bet On It". It was observed that Singapore's budgetary accounting system is among the most conservative in the world, as the fiscal balance is obtained by subtracting both operating and development expenditure from the Government's operating revenue alone. The Government's ample investment income is not counted as Government revenue, though in recent years, it has made a "small concession" by using up to 50% of investment income to fund special transfers. The writer also notes that since the Government is starting FY08 with a larger surplus as a base, next year's fiscal balance will also be stronger, assuming budgeted increases in revenue and expenditure. Coming back to his initial question of whether there would actually be a deficit in FY08, he writes: "A betting man could do worse than place a large wager on actual revenues comfortably exceeding the Budget's projections next year too!" Sir, I note that there are signs that the Government expects the economy to still do well in FY08. It has projected increases in statutory board contributions and personal income tax. It has even projected an increase in corporate tax collections, when the cut in corporate tax is supposed to have kicked in. It also expects strong collections from land sales, projecting land sale receipts to be nearly $10 billion.”
“Sir, leaving aside the higher than projected GST collections, significant under-projections were seen in corporate income tax, personal income tax, statutory board contributions, asset taxes and stamp duty. Without the additional 2% GST, conservatively, the surplus would still have been about $4 billion. In a Citigroup report released on 28th January, Citigroup economist, Mr Kit Wei Zheng, noted euphemistically that "the fiscal year 2007 assumptions were overly conservative". He went further, "In hindsight, the GST hike may have been unnecessary or could have been delayed or staggered ... the GST hike has contributed to the unexpected bulge in Government revenues, while exacerbating inflation pressures." Finally, Mr Kit expected that the Government would probably not reverse the GST hike in any way "as it would be tantamount to admission of a mistake". Sir, both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have cited three reasons for the rising inflation. Global price hikes in good and oil was only one of the three reasons. The other reasons cited were the hike in GST and the revision of annual values of HDB flats. Both these reasons were not external but were the Government's policies. Sir, with the prices of food, transport and other essentials rising, Singaporeans have found that the addition of increased GST has had exponential effects. Adding on another 2% on a higher base price has increased the cost of some items by more than 20%. Only very few people's incomes have risen by 20% since last year. Sir, going forward, should GST be at 7% in the coming years? We must assess whether there is a need and the impact on the people. Here, we come again to the Government's budgeting policies and practices.”
“I noted that it was also likely that stamp duty collections would rise due to the recovery of property market. The prospect of the Constitutional amendment to broaden the definition of "Net Investment Income", or NII, would also yield additional funds. I had asked if the corporate tax cut would result in revenue loss of $700 million, as the Government claimed, because the experience elsewhere showed that such cuts "paid for themselves", as they were stimulative in nature, resulting in more business activities which would yield higher tax collections. The question of whether land sales should be included as revenue to fund expenditure was also raised. In short, the indications were already there last year that the GST hike was probably not needed. Today, we see that the Government's estimates can hardly be called "estimates"! The Government coffers are bulging at an estimated $6.4 billion surpluses, revised from a deficit of $0.7 billion projected last year. That is off by more than $7 billion. Indeed, commentators have noted that the surplus estimate of $6.4 billion is still a provisional figure, which will only be finalised after FY07 ends, in other words, after March 2008. There is expectation that the surplus would "almost certainly" be more than that. This is because the Government has provided for a large deficit for the final quarter of FY07 which, in their view, is probably an over-provision. It should also be noted that the overall budget surplus was achieved without the benefit of the broadened NII definition, which is still not ready. Neither does it include land sales which, in FY07, was a whopping $10.5 billion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first say a few words in Mandarin and then continue in English. (In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, Sir, during last year's Budget debate, the Workers' Party asked the Government why it was necessary to increase GST by 2%. We had believed that the Government’s sources of revenue would be able to fund the expenditure. At that time, I had asked whether corporate tax cut would result in revenue lost, as the Government claimed, because the experience of other countries showed that such corporate tax cuts are economically stimulative in nature, resulting in more business activities which would yield higher tax collections. With the recovery of the property market, it is also likely that stamp duty collections would increase for the Government. So, it is not necessary for the Government to increase GST by 2% last year. The projected $0.7 billion deficit has become a $6.4 billion surplus. Therefore, with enough sources to fund the expenditure, I feel that the GST hike was probably not needed as it would add on to the burden of our people. *Cols. 881-882. (In English): In last year's Budget debate, the Workers' Party was criticised for asking the question of whether the GST hike of 2% was needed in the first place. We had highlighted that, according to the Government's own estimates for FY07, there would be enough alternative sources of revenue to fund the additional social spending of $2 billion-$4 billion per year. At last year's Budget debate, I had pointed out that based on the Government's estimates for FY07, increases were already projected in personal income tax and statutory board contributions.”
“Sir, I think one of the safeguards in the Criminal Procedure Code, as far as caning is concerned, is that the prisoner should be certified medically fit to be able to handle the number of strokes that are being inflicted. I would like the Minister to inform the House as to whether there have indeed been cases, which have been reported on the Internet, that some prisoners actually needed to be hospitalised after being inflicted with certain number of strokes because of the physical injury that had been caused to them in the course of the caning session.”
“Sir, the second aspect relates to the compensation for the cost of medical treatment which has been raised by some Members already. Under the existing subsidiary legislation, the worker can claim expenses related to hospital treatment subject to caps per item, for example, ward charges of $9,000, operations may be claimed at $4,800 per admission and x-rays at $1,500 per examination. There is no limit to the number of operations, x-rays or other treatments. Implants and artificial limbs are paid in full. Clause 37 of the Bill amends the Third Schedule to now set absolute limits for the cost of medical treatment, being the cost of one year's treatment or $25,000 per accident, whichever is lower. As the Minister of State mentioned in his Second Reading speech, there are cases where a worker requires prolonged treatment and multiple operations exceeding $25,000. We are also not sure how possible means testing for hospitalisation in the future will affect the amounts payable. Sir, while caps on compensation may be understandable, we are talking here about reimbursement for expenses which have to be paid out. I am told by some lawyers who practise in this area that the current legislation is fair and works well. Could the Minister of State further elaborate on why there is a need to change this? Finally, Sir, I have a comment on the drafting of a provision concerning occupational disease. This is clause 8(b) of the Bill. Clause 8(b) amends section 4(3) of the Act which provides for a situation where a worker contracts an occupational disease sometime after leaving employment. Though one can make out the intention of the paragraph, I believe the wording of the section can be reordered for better clarity. 4.50 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the amendments are improvements on the existing Act. The category of employees covered has widened and the compensation limits have gone up. However, Sir, I would like to seek clarifications on two aspects of the Bill. The first aspect concerns death cases, specifically, who is to claim the compensation when the worker has died? Under the existing Act, compensation is to be paid to the worker's dependants, defined as his immediate family and other relatives. Under clauses 9 and 11 of this Bill, the Commissioner for Labour is to be empowered to decide not to pay dependants but instead to make payments to the estate of a worker, ie, if the worker has left a will, the compensation can be paid to the beneficiaries named in the will. Sir, I can see why this change could be useful in some situations. For example, there may be a worker who has been estranged from his family from young and has willed away his property to someone else dear to him, for example, a foster parent. In such a situation, it may be fair that the estranged family should not get a windfall from his death. However, what if the worker is supporting his family and yet has willed away his possessions to a non-family member? In such a situation of competing claims, what is the Commissioner supposed to do? The amendment says that he cannot give compensation to both dependants and the estate, but must choose between the two. Is the Commissioner supposed to make a value judgment based on who needs the payment more, or who is more deserving, from a moral standpoint? This amendment introduces a possible contentious angle to the Act and is of some concern.”
“Yes. Sir, the last point is that there has also been public sentiment that somehow hurt caused to public officials is taken much more seriously than hurt caused to the ordinary citizens, and there is an indication that they feel that, somehow, they are treated as less valuable. What is the Minister's comment to that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think, clearly, the case must be that if a person is performing a public service and he is hurt in the process, like a bus captain or carpark attendant, the Police has every reason to initiate action. Otherwise, it will undermine their ability to perform the public service. I think that is very clear. But on the other side, I would say the Police is prepared to be more flexible in cases where, like I said, it may not constitute grievous hurt, in terms of the hurt that is caused. But in terms of the situation that arises, if the offence, for example, takes place in a public place where there are other witnesses involved and where if the hurt is not as high or as grievous but it is serious enough, in those situations, I would expect the Police to at least seriously consider initiating action. GDP BONUS FOR MINISTERS 15. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Prime Minister whether the GDP Bonus for Ministers is awarded based on real GDP growth or nominal GDP growth.”
“Sir, last two questions. Yes, I acknowledge that in the last Penal Code review, the punishment for VCH has gone up but the classification as a non-seizable case still remains. In fact, in letters written by the public to the press recently, they were basically asking, "If they witness such an incident and is non-seizable, should they even bother to call the Police?" Because they are basically setting themselves up for disappointment and it jeopardises their sense of safety. So I think the classification of whether it is seizable or not is still relevant. And if the Ministry has concerns about what kind of relationship should be in or out, we can discuss that further.”
“We have signalled the fact that we do view causing hurt as serious because we amended the Penal Code and we raised the punishment from one year to two years (maximum punishment), fine of $1,000 to $5,000, if I am not wrong. I stand corrected. But I think that is the enhanced punishment. But still, in terms of the process, the process must remain like that because do not forget, if we make cases where the hurt is not discernible, visible and clear, what it means is that we are empowering the Police under the Penal Code to have special powers, if it is classified as voluntarily causing grievous hurt, ie, powers of arrest or powers to summon witnesses. In some of these altercations between neighbours, for example, or between family members, in fact, it may be difficult for the Police to ascertain who is at fault and therefore who to arrest. Just because the complainant lodges the complaint does not mean that the other party should be the party who is arrested because he or she is at fault. We have thought very deeply about this situation. We know that there are Singaporeans out there who feel that the Police should do more. But I think I should paint this context, that the Police is not deaf to these calls and, therefore, in the appropriate case, the Police will indeed investigate and they have done so in many of these cases.”
“In the other cases where it does not constitute grievous hurt, third parties are interposed so that the aggrieved party who is a complainant is given an opportunity to ventilate his complaint. In fact, over the last few years, Police has made it easier for him to lodge a complaint with the Magistrate, helping him furnish a form and, in fact, letting him know who to contact at the Police station if he or she needs help. Then, he decides for himself whether he wants to initiate that process. Because he may calm down and, in some cases, after calming down, the parties decide they will not want to go ahead. And if he lodges a complaint, the Magistrate then assesses what is the best course of action to take. The Magistrate, in many instances, will direct the Police to investigate, because the Magistrate feels that, given the nature of the hurt, the circumstances in which the hurt has taken place, yes, there should be further investigation. So, he decides after due deliberation. Or the Magistrate may think that this is a case that he should send for mediation. So, mediation involves the community mediators, Justices of the Peace. In many of these cases that are sent for mediation, the parties actually make up, which is better. Because, otherwise, if it goes to Court, some of these cases where hurt takes place, in fact, this is a situation where it is better for the parties to make up. So, interposition of the third party is important. Causing hurt - I would agree with Ms Sylvia Lim - is serious. But that does not naturally therefore mean that we should classify it as voluntarily causing grievous hurt.”
“Under the Penal Code, currently, you need to be emasculated, to have bone fractures or to be out of action for about 20 days before grievous hurt is made out. Is this bar not too high? Are we setting too high a tolerance for violence? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: On the first point about the rising number of incidents of people disputing and causing hurt to each other, I think that is a situation where, as a society, we should take note. As a society, different parties can play different roles. That is why, for example, the CMCs have been formed, so that people who are in dispute, even before they hurt each other, at an early stage, they themselves or the grassroots leaders can persuade them to settle their dispute. We have recognised this long ago as a function of living in an urbanised society, fairly high pressured, where people live in close proximity in some instances and, therefore, the numbers of relational disputes have risen. But, having said this, it has not therefore changed the fact that the nature of the dispute is still essentially one where two parties hurt each other, sometimes in circumstances where it is difficult for the Police to establish fault or liability because they are not there. They were not there to see how it started or who provoked who and what happened. Therefore, these are disputes where it is good to interpose third parties. I think that is the nub of this process where, unless grievous hurt is caused or in instances where public safety is involved, ie, road-bully cases, or where the victims are vulnerable (like young children, infirm or mentally-challenged people), the Police has initiated action. Or, like I said, when somebody from a public service (eg, bus captain, car park attendant) has been hurt.”