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 35 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is regarding the rising trend in the number of reported VCH cases. In a written answer to me in October last year, I was told that in 2005, there were about 5,500 cases; in 2006, it jumped about 900 cases to 6,400; and now in 2007, we were just told that it has come to 8,800 cases, which is a jump of more than 2,000 cases. So, my first question is: does this significant increase in the number of cases not suggest that tougher actions need to be taken in respect of VCH as a crime? Secondly, Sir, there have been indications that the public does not quite agree with the Ministry's stand on this matter as, apart from the cases of familiarity, there have also been quite violent stranger transactions. For example, most recently in December, a businessman had his head smashed against a car in Wheelock Place and it was classified as VCH, even though he needed four stitches in that instance. Does maintaining the status quo not undermine the public's sense of safety, since VCH has such a wide coverage in terms of the scenarios envisaged? Thirdly, Sir, there may be a need for us to recalibrate how we classify seizable and non-seizable cases. Just to take an example - if I were to scratch Prof. Ho's car, it will be vandalism and it will be seizable; but if I punched him in a private capacity and his nose bled, then it is not seizable. I think the public finds this rather non-sensible, and there may be a need for us to re-look at VCH. Last of all, I have a suggestion. If the Ministry is not minded to be persuaded that at least when it comes to classification of grievous hurt, perhaps we could re-look at what amounts to grievous hurt.”
“And I believe that this would include members who are not fraudulent because there is already a provision within section 43 itself allowing the Board not to refund the premiums at all in such circumstances. Madam, the last two clarifications concern the new Part VIA providing for the payment of benefits under the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. Under the new section 57C(2), the Government can recover any WIS payments from members in three circumstances: if the member made a statement false or misleading in any particular, if the member contravened any regulation or if the money was paid by mistake of the Government. However, Madam, there could be circumstances where it is unjust to recover the monies, for instance, if the monies were paid due to the Government's mistake. For example, the member did not qualify for WIS or was overpaid, and the member may have used the money, not knowing about the mistake as well. Another situation could be the member making a technical error in his application which is not material at all. Should the Government consider refining this provision in order to be fair to innocent members? Lastly, the new section 57F allows the Minister to make regulations concerning how WIS payments given to members in cash may be utilised. Madam, WIS is supposed to help members cope with living expenses, and since each person's immediate needs may differ, will restricting the use of WIS cash be a helpful move? 6.17 pm”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on four aspects of the Bill. The first concerns nominations made by CPF members as to who is to receive their monies upon death. The current section 25 provides that after the nominations are made, they are considered revoked if the member thereafter gets married which makes sense since the circumstances have changed. Clause 12 provides that there may now be other circumstances where a nomination is considered revoked. However, these new circumstances have not been spelt out in the Act but will be prescribed by the CPF Board later. Madam, the revocation of a deliberate nomination by a member is a drastic outcome as it involves inheriting a major asset of the member. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that these other circumstances would actually put into effect what is already in the regulations. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any new circumstances for revocation of a nomination being contemplated. Secondly, Madam, clause 15 touches on the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme. The current section 43(2) provides for the situation where a member takes out the insurance and the Board has reason to believe that he was already incapacitated or suffering from a terminal disease before he took up the insurance. In such an event, his insurance will be cancelled and all premiums he paid using CPF funds will be refunded to his account with interest. Clause 15 will change that to give the Board the discretion only to return part of the interest to the member. I would like to ask why the Board needs to change this position which would seem somewhat heartless in the circumstances as the member is already incapacitated or terminally ill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier the Minister mentioned that diversification of our food supply sources is one way to stabilise food prices. I wonder if he could elaborate on whether the Government is looking at other sources of supply that we have not hitherto tapped on and what are these sources, and whether there is a chance that this will help us to stabilise food prices. Secondly, have we fully exhausted our potential for local production of food?”
“There are other factors that are involved when you decide whether a punishment is appropriate. You consider the severity of the offence. You consider the proportionality of the offence to the publishment. And you consider the relativity in punishment between offences which are related. So, on unlawful assembly - I think if she had listened to me quite carefully - she will see the context which I have explained, that it is not just an offence on its own but how it relates to rioting, how it impacts public perception. So that is the context. The other point is why do we not explain how the process takes place. Again, like I have said, we looked at all the provisions and we see whether for each provision, the punishment should be enhanced in accordance with the factors that I have just enumerated. It is a very serious exercise. Once you do that, you have to have coherence and consistency. And to find a proper relationship between the offences, we have to match them and ensure that we are not out of line, and not just with the Penal Code but also with other statutes too, like the Women's Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act. She mentioned being drunk in public, from 10 days to six months. Will 10 days be a deterrence? That is the key point. Is 10 days a reasonable punishment? That is another key point. So, you just cannot say whether it is doubled, tripled or quadrupled in some of the sections. But the start point must be whether or not the punishment in its original form really reflects, like I have said, the severity of the offence and has a deterrent effect. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, in his speech, when he was referring to section 141 on unlawful assembly, he mentioned that actually the number of cases is not going up, and this is the case with the current existing maximum jail term of six months. If that is the case, then what is the reason for us to quadruple the maximum jail term if the problem appears to be contained? My second question: I do not think that he has adequately explained how the 110 offences where the maximum jail term is being increased were actually chosen. From what he has said, it appears that the Ministry officials, consulting perhaps other civil servants, looked at the offences and decided some of the punishments are too low. But being criminal legislation, I think when we fix maximum jail terms, it should reflect how society views that particular crime. And, secondly, perhaps if there is a rising trend in those crimes, then there is a justification to raise those. So, how far does the Ministry actually get feedback from society that these 110 offences were taken too lightly by Parliament? And were there statistics actually to justify raising the punishments in those 110 cases? Just to give some examples. Why is it necessary to increase the punishment for obstructing arrest from two years to five years, which is two-and-a-half times the punishment? For being drunk in public, it is going up from 10 days' jail to six months' jail. These are some examples. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: On Ms Sylvia Lim's first point, she talked about rioting cases. Yes, indeed, they have not gone up but have ranged between 30 and 40 cases per year. But that is only one factor, which is the prevalence of the offence.”
“Column No : 2242 Column No : 2242 EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Column No : 2242 Column No : 2242 PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed. 6.04 pm”
“A Bill of this nature which introduces significant amendments to our main criminal legislation should be referred to a Select Committee. Sir, a Select Committee comprising Members familiar with the administration of criminal justice and social affairs should do a comprehensive review of the criminal law. They should scrutinise each clause to see if each change is justifiable and what else should be changed. MPs should receive expert opinions from legally-trained persons on whether the drafting or wording of the provisions requires finetuning. The Committee should also revisit court decisions interpreting certain important provisions in order to clarify the intent of those provisions and make amendments, where necessary. Although there has been a round of public consultation before the First Reading, the weakness of that process is that the feedback given by the public is not a matter of public record and will not be accessible. Also, views submitted in the public consultations are filtered by civil servants. Parliament, as the law- making body, should allow MPs or a selected group of them to have direct access to representations by people on very important legislation such as this. There may also be groups from the public who would like their concerns recorded in an official parliamentary report of the Select Committee, for example, those concerned with spousal violence or sexual orientation. Recording such input in an official document is a testament to the vibrancy of our public discourse and participation. Sir, the Penal Code is our main criminal law and expression of society's barometer of what is criminal and what is not, the relative seriousness of offences and how citizens are to be punished. I strongly urge the Government to put this Bill to a Select Committee.”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the intention is to entrench such a "shoot to kill" policy and what safeguards there are to prevent mistaken shootings? Next, Sir, I move on to the point on the extortion law. Sir, this relates to amendments to section 383 of the Code which, in my view, completely change the nature of the crime of extortion. For many decades, extortion referred to someone threatening to do something illegal and demanding money in order not to carry out the threat, for example, "Pay me $10,000 or I will burn your house." Burning the house is something illegal. By clause 73 of the Bill, section 383 is to be amended to cover situations where the threatened action is legal. A new illustration C is a scenario where a Police officer threatens to report someone who has actually committed an offence. The Police officer in that scenario demands money not to report the matter. Sir, in my view, the amendment clearly confuses extortion with corruption. There have in fact been court cases such as PP v Chua Boon Teck where it was ruled that Police officers demanding money so as not to exercise lawful powers of arrest are not guilty of extortion, but are guilty of corruption. I do not know the rationale for merging the two concepts which, in my view, should be distinct. Sir, next, I would like to say a few words on the Petition presented by the Nominated Member on section 377A. Sir, the Workers' Party leadership, several months ago, discussed extensively the issue of whether section 377A should be retained or repealed. After much deliberation, we were unable to arrive at a consensus that it should be repealed and, as such, we would not be calling for its abolition. Sir, my last point relates to why the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.”
“In illustration (c), the scenario is that information is received that someone is attempting to plant a bomb at an MRT station and a profile of the suspect is given. A person who fits the profile is spotted carrying a backpack and behaving suspiciously. When the Police officer approaches and orders him to stop, the person runs towards a crowd. The Police officer exercising judgement in the circumstances decides that the suspect has the bomb and shoots the suspect. Sir, this scenario seems similar to a fatal shooting which occurred in London at Stockwell tube station in July 2005. There, the Police mistook a Jamaican student for a suicide bomber and shot him at least five times in the head. According to some versions, he was seen running away. Despite intelligence, the Police still found an incorrect match between the profile and the subject they shot. Transplanting that to the scenario here, the Police can tell you that many people run from them, not just suspected terrorists, people who have committed minor offences, overstayers, foreign workers afraid of the law or even the mentally unstable may do so. Reading the illustration, I would worry if this indicates a "shoot to kill" policy especially since we do not know how specific the profile given to the Police is. Will certain demographic stereotypes be more vulnerable to being mistakenly killed? MHA has said that in any court case, the judge will still need to decide if the shooting was justified. But this illustration is supposed to give our security officers and, I quote, "greater operational confidence to take necessary actions" which, read in another way, may be a signal that if one has not much information or when in doubt, one should shoot.”
“Caning is controversial internationally, but if one must justify why we cane offenders, it is just deserts for pain which the offender has caused to the victim, for example, hurt, injury or the threat of violence. Caning is a severe punishment, and it is always combined with jail as the offences tend to be serious and to make it easier, administratively, to arrange for the caning to take place. On the other hand, a fine is usually meted out for less serious offences or can be combined with jail usually for non-violent offences. Sir, the offences which the Ministry has identified for all three forms of punishment include abduction, voluntarily causing hurt with weapon, culpable homicide and outraging of modesty. But what kind of scenarios would justify combining caning with a fine and jail? Would there be an overkill? Clarity is needed on this point. Sir, next, I move on defences concerning security operations. Section 79 of the Code deals with a defence of justification. It provides that a person has a valid defence if he commits an offence thinking, rightly or wrongly, that he was justified to do the act. A typical scenario is where a Police officer arrests someone, having information that he is a suspect which information later turns out to be wrong. The Police officer has a defence in that he acted in good faith at the time of the offence. Clause 17 introduces three new illustrations to explain this defence in the context of counter terrorism operations. While MHA has explained that these are not intended to expand the defence, illustration (c) seems to suggest that Police are given large latitude to shoot to kill.”
“Sir, it is important for us to distinguish between gatherings which are violent, such as rioting, and those which are peaceful. The constant refrain of fearing law and order problems makes a mockery of the licensing law. Why have a law saying a permit is needed when it is seldom granted? The Minister for Law mentioned on Friday that Singapore needs controls as we are a densely populated country - but so is Hong Kong where peaceful protests are frequently seen. Sir, as our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protest as a form of expression. By all means, we can have laws about how, where and when such processions may be held. But a wider law reform is needed. Section 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws, such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies, should be modified. Sir, my third point concerns combination of jail, caning and fine for the same offence. The amendments will allow, for the first time, a combination of jail, fine and caning for certain offences. This has not been allowed up to now because the Criminal Procedure Code has a section disallowing the High Court from imposing all three punishments in one case. Up to now, the sections of the Penal Code also state that only two forms of punishment may be combined in any one case. The Ministry is proposing to remove the restriction to two punishments and says that this proposal to allow combination of all three punishments will give flexibility to the sentencing judge. But we should go back to first principles. What are the purposes of jail, fine and caning?”
“Under our law, a person who organises a procession or assembly after the Police rejection of a permit, can be punished with a maximum six months' jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence, five or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly. Sir, the decision in Tan Meng Khin's case overturned another Court of Appeal's decision, PP v Foo Son Hing, one year before that. In the earlier case, the Court of Appeal considered the words of section 141 and determined that it was aimed at gatherings which threatened public tranquility or a breach of peace and hence peaceful gatherings would not be punished as unlawful assemblies. In the later case of Tan Meng Khin, the Court of Appeal changed its mind and read section 141 to cover gatherings to commit any offence even if there is no threat to public tranquility. Connected with this, offences connected to unlawful assembly show drastic increase in the maximum jail terms under the current amendments. Being a member of such an assembly will see stakes rise from six months to two years, and joining an unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse, will go up from two years to five years. Sir, we should bear in mind that there are already many laws in place which can punish people who attempt or collaborate with others to commit any offence. The prosecution has enough to choose from to charge groups of people who collaborate to commit crime, for example, abetment, conspiracy, or attempt. Sir, Article 14(1) of the Constitution supposedly enshrines the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms. Although Article 14(2) allows Parliament to set limits to this freedom, it is stated that it should be for the security of Singapore and public order and no more than that.”
“Sir, I do find it somewhat regressive that in this day and age when we have many more sentencing options at our disposal, including community-based sentences, we still seem to be relying on sending people to jail as a response. What about rehabilitation and reintegration? Already, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies, Singapore has the second highest rate of imprisonment in Asia with 350 inmates out of 100,000 persons, excluding the population in our drug rehabilitation centres. Sir, we must also be very careful that we maintain a sense of proportion in dealing with pegging punishment for offences. Parliament had over-reacted in the past, with over-harsh punishments under the Immigration Act, sending pastors and elderly landlords to mandatory minimum jail terms for unintentionally harbouring illegal immigrants. Then, in 2004, the Act was amended to make it more reasonable. Similarly, today, we should be wary of subjecting our people to excessive punishment before realising years later that we were over-zealous. Sir, my next point is the law on unlawful assembly. This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading, "Offences Against Public Tranquility", and replacing it with "Offences Relating to Unlawful Assembly". By clause 30, we will be deleting "Mischief or Trespass or Other Offence" and replacing it with "to commit any offence". As the Senior Minister of State has pointed out, section 141 is being amended to bring it in line with the recent Court of Appeal case of Tan Meng Khin. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of six months or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquility.”
“Any statistics used to show crime increases must be adjusted for population since we can expect more crimes when there are more people. Therefore, even if there is an increase in the number of offences, it does not mean that we have a bigger crime problem on our hands. The Senior Minister of State has said that the maximum jail term does not mean that the judge must give the maximum sentence. That is true, but it will increase the exposure and, generally, sentences will go up once the maximum point is increased. Once maximum sentences go up, accused persons, even the innocent, may face pressure to plead guilty. This is because under sentencing practice, a guilty plea usually attracts a discount in sentence as it is supposed to indicate some remorse. A person who claims trial and is found guilty after a trial would generally get a higher sentence than one who pleads guilty. Now, how does a higher maximum affect this calculation? To illustrate, an unlawful assembly may have gathered and a passive bystander is also rounded up by the Police. Currently, this person will have to ask himself, "If the judge does not believe that I am a passive bystander, then I will face a maximum of six months' jail, and I'm willing to take the risk and fight the case." Now, after the amendments proposed, this person will have to ask himself whether he is prepared to face a maximum of two years' jail. If he is not, then he may consider pleading guilty even when he is not. Let us not forget that the vast majority of people hauled before our courts have no lawyers to speak for them and may have no confidence that they can successfully mount their defence. So, unless there is a compelling need to raise the maximum sentences, we should bear in mind this unacceptable side effect of doing so.”
“In some cases, the punishment has been tripled or worse, for example, assault on a Minister or MP, from seven years to life imprisonment; and unlawful assembly from six months to two years, quadrupling of the maximum sentence. I shall say more about unlawful assembly later. Another group of offences seem to be attracting heavier punishments is offences committed by public servants and offences committed against public servants. Jail terms are up under sections 221 and 222 where a public servant facilitates escape of persons in custody. The same is true of offences committed against public servants. For example, under section 225, the punishment for someone who tries to obstruct an arrest is being doubled and can go up to 20 years' jail. The general justification given by the Ministry is that it has taken into account trends in society from 1984 to now and that punishments have not been increased unnecessarily. The Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned proportionality and prevalence of the offence, but, Sir, I do not think this general statement is sufficient to justify disturbing these penalties which seem to have worked for years. First, punishments reflect how seriously society views a particular crime. Hence, we punish murder more seriously than theft. By quadrupling or tripling the maximum jail term, is the Ministry saying that from 1984 to now, these crimes have become three or four times more serious in their nature? Increased punishments can sometimes be justified because certain offences are prevalent and we would like to deter people from committing these crimes. Are we facing soaring crime rates? We should also remember that our population numbers have gone up from 2 million to 4.7 million.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs first floated the Bill for public consultation a year ago, and I am glad to see that in this version tabled before Parliament, some of the feedback have indeed been taken into account. Nevertheless, there were still many areas of concern. And, today, I would like to address the following aspects of the Bill: (1) Increases in punishment; (2) Laws on unlawful assembly; (3) Combination of imprisonment, fine and caning for the same offence; (4) Defences concerning security operations; (5) Law on extortion; and (6) Why the Bill should be sent to Select Committee. First, increases in punishment. Generally, I have no quarrel with the increase in fines as it reflects the change of value of money due to inflation in the past decades. To pay a fine of $500 in the past hurt people more than to pay $500 in today's dollars. So, the increase in fines is understandable. However, I have deep concerns about the increase in the maximum jail terms. The loss of liberty 20 years ago does not cause less today. As MHA has acknowledged, there have been increases in the maximum terms of imprisonment for 110 offences. Besides the broad sweep, the extent of the increases for each offence is significant. Some offences have their maximum terms quadrupled; some tripled. To take some examples, punishments for several offences have doubled. For example, for distribution of pornographic material, it has been increased from six months to one year; harbouring offenders, from 10 years to 20 years; causing hurt, from one year to two years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what concerns me is to what extent Singapore might be implicated in somehow propping up the military authorities in Myanmar in their oppressive tactics. The reason I ask this is that there have been some press reports recently as well as in the past. Just to cite one example, a Melbourne newspaper called The Age last month came out with an article called "Web of cash, power and cronies" which reiterated in fact some contents from an earlier article in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1998. The content of those articles was basically to say that Singapore had in fact been much involved in shipping ammunition and other military equipment to Myanmar and had also been instrumental in helping to set up a cyber centre where intelligence equipment was subsequently used to monitor activists. So I would like to ask the Minister to comment on these articles, whether there had been some activities as such in the past and to what extent it has minimised now. Such clarity I think would be very important for us.”
“In dollar terms, the taxes collected rose by more than $6 billion compared to five years ago. Sir, our approach to ageing population must be a balanced one between fiscal considerations and taking care of our citizens. We, too, believe in self-reliance. But self-reliance, if practised to its extreme, condemns the weak and less able. If we call ourselves a developed nation, one of the indicators should be how benevolently we treat our fellow citizens, particularly, the vulnerable. We should do our utmost to avert a slide towards becoming a country where our elderly live their golden years in anxiety or poverty. 2.58 pm”
“The proposal to increase interest rate on the first $60,000 by 1% is a step in the right direction. But is it really the best endeavour of the Government? The Second Finance Minister said yesterday that it was fair and sustainable. But given that inflation will eat away at the CPF balances, can more be done to boost returns while managing the risks? Several Members have already spoken at length about this, and I do not intend to belabour the point. However, one cannot help but notice that in other countries, some pension funds are able to consistently generate a rate of return of more than 10% (for example, the pension funds in Canada). Manpower Minister told us on Monday that the Government had evaluated the 2002 Economic Review Committee's recommendations to boost returns using private pension plans but was unable to devise an acceptable scheme which shielded members from risk. However, it has been five years since the ERC's report. By now, there would be many more case studies from various countries whose pension reforms have run for some years. Risk management tools have probably also become more sophisticated. Should the Government not regularly re-visit this issue of boosting CPF interest rates? Finally, Sir, various Ministers sought to remind the public that the Government was spending more than $1 billion to increase interest rates, fund Workfare, etc. However, it should also be noted that, simultaneously, Government revenues have gone up significantly arising from taxes collected. The Business Times on 8th September reported that IRAS' collections for FY 06 rose 15% from the previous FY, part of a steady increase of five years since FY 02. These comprise corporate and personal income tax, GST, stamp duty and property tax.”
“Employers' CPF contributions had in recent memory been cut from 20% to 13%, and only recently restored to 14.5%. Besides all the above, the rule allowing members to withdraw 50% of their savings is being phased out, starting from January 2009. In six years' time, if members cannot meet the Minimum Sum when they reach 55, they will not be able to withdraw anything, except $5,000. Indeed, Sir, to sum it all up, it seems to many that a member's CPF money is becoming a bit of a mirage, a virtual pool of water which seems just ahead but, as one approaches, it is, in fact, found to be much further away. Sir, there is sufficient empirical evidence that workers, even over the age of 40, already have difficulties competing with younger workers and even foreigners for jobs. Even if they find work, there are issues of amount of income and job security. Part-time work or contract work is the lot for many. It is reported in the press that last year, about 12% of the resident workforce or 172,000 workers were on contract work, the bulk of whom were older and with less education. There must also be unreported cases in the informal sector as well. It is not uncommon for us to come across sole breadwinners doing odd jobs to feed school-going children. The Government may well argue that due to our longer life expectancy, the responsible thing to do is to delay the draw-down age so that the CPF Minimum Sum can last till 85 rather than 82. But in the light of the CPF changes over the years and the uncertain re-employment scenarios, is it fair to Singaporeans to do so? Returns Further, Sir, there will be no need to delay the draw-down age if the Government works on improving returns on CPF savings, which will then be boosted to last a longer time.”
“Even the Minister of State conceded that some companies would not be able to offer re-employment if they were undergoing structural changes or due to other circumstances. Secondly, those who work beyond 62 are vulnerable to having reduced income. A study was done of unionised employees that re-employed workers beyond 62 in the last 18 months (this was reported in the Straits Times on 25th August 2007). It was revealed that only 20% of the companies retained workers at the same job and pay, while 70% had to work the same job but for a lower pay, and 10% got a different job altogether. As this study only captured those who did re-employ workers who reached 62, it is not known the fate of those who were not re-employed. On Monday, Minister Teo Chee Hean also mentioned the re-employment of retired teachers as adjunct teachers. This suggests income reduction in the public sector as well. Thirdly, Sir, there are many who will suffer a cash crunch in their 50s and 60s due to changes in CPF policy over the years. First, the Minimum Sum to be left in CPF at 55 years has gone up progressively over a short time. Since 2003, the Minimum Sum has progressively gone up from $80,000 to the current $99,600 within four years, and will continue rising till it reaches $120,000 in six years' time. Apart from this, we are also required to leave a Medisave required amount in the CPF. The Medisave required amount will also go up rapidly from the current $11,500 by $2,500 per year and in six years' time, it will be $25,000. This means that Singaporeans will soon need to have a total of $145,000 kept locked in the CPF when they reach 55. On top of this much larger sum, it also takes longer to accumulate savings due to reductions in employers' contributions.”
“Another point to note is that even if we can show increased participation in the labour force, it does not tell us how much they can earn and whether these earnings are sufficient even for subsistence. Under current definitions of employment, a person is, in fact, considered employed so long as they work at least one hour in a week. Sir, the proposed law to re-employ people after 62 may only reach those who are employed at 62. Even then, what recourse will employees have if employers do not re-employ them? Yesterday, the Minister of State sought to assure the House that the law would be enforceable, but gave few details, except to say that a tripartite committee would be formed to look into the implementation issues and report later. On Monday, Manpower Minister said that the tripartite committee will report on the re-employment regime and guidelines within two years from now! If that is so, how can we agree to delay the draw-down age now, when these details are still up in the air? Will the new law become just a piece of paper? Is it a case of putting the cart before the horse? We should also note the remarks of the President of the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) that re-employment after 62 must make economic sense or businesses would lose their competitive advantage. Nominated Member Edwin Khew expressed similar sentiments yesterday when talking about the survey of employers by the Singapore Business Federation. SNEF proposed that the criteria for re-employment should include medical fitness and job performance. What will happen to those workers who are, rightly or wrongly, deemed economic liabilities?”
“However, as mentioned by the Minister in charge of the civil service during Question Time on Monday, there will be employees who decide that at 62, it is time to slow down. He gave the example of a head of department in a school who might want to be a teacher and relinquish HOD responsibilities. If such a person was not able to concurrently receive his monthly CPF payments at 62, he may not have the luxury of making such a choice. Others, who have slogged in the rat race for more than 40 years, may want to find peace by devoting more time to volunteer work or charitable acts. By indirectly compelling them to continue working into their mid-60s, there would be fewer younger retirees to form the current backbone of manpower for social, community and even religious activities. How would that impact the morale and quality of life of our society? Next, to delay the draw-down age (DDA) to 65 will cause hardship to many, first, due to the highly flexible employment landscape and, secondly, due to changes in CPF policy over the years. First, fixing the retirement age at 65 obviously does not mean everyone will be working up to 65. Yesterday, Minister of State for Manpower sought to assure the House of the viability of the plan to re-employ workers after 62. For residents between the age of 55 and 64, the employment rate is currently about 54%. The Minister of State said that the Ministry's target was to raise this to 65% in five years, which was, in his own words, "an ambitious target". Thus, we are not at all certain that 65% is achievable. And even if it was achieved, what about the other 35% who are not working?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his statement on Monday, Minister for Manpower told the House that we should work towards a retirement funding system which is sustainable for the full lifespan of Singaporeans. As this debate has already thrown up many issues, I wish to concentrate mainly on the proposed delay in the draw-down age and why the Workers' Party is not able to support it. Delay in draw-down age ("DDA") Sir, the Government's decision is to phase in a delay in the draw-down age to be in sync with the new retirement age of 65, and later 67. We have no objections to raising the retirement age to later, as it gives workers the option of working longer or leaving their jobs earlier. The question is whether it is justified to then delay the draw-down age to match the retirement age. The Member for Hougang told the House that we do not see any necessary linkage of the retirement age and the draw-down age. Internationally, we have examples where the retirement age and the age of pension entitlement are de-linked. Some countries are working towards having no fixed retirement age while maintaining a pension age. On the other hand, in the USA, one is entitled to draw social security payments at 62, even though the full retirement age is 65 or 67, depending on the year one is born. In Singapore, the de-linking of the retirement age with the draw-down age is more compelling as we are talking about members drawing down on their own savings. Any delay in the draw-down age will affect Singaporeans' lives in profound ways. First, we should recognise that delaying the draw-down age, in effect, is an economic pressure on workers to continue at the same pace as before.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have feedback from older residents, especially those who are not literate in English, that they find going to hospitals a stressful experience. Because even though there are signages, they do not understand the signages because they are largely in English. I have also noted from my own visits that most of the signages, even for key directions, such as pharmacies and clinics, are all largely in English. Will the Ministry please take this feedback seriously and to study whether patients can actually negotiate within the hospitals if they cannot read English proficiently?”
“Who else will know about the application and is there any guarantee that the political figure will not come to know of it? Would leaks botch up the investigations? (3) The question of how much disclosure is required to get Police approval. Under clause 11(7), the applicant may be required to disclose to the licensing officer what evidence and information he already has in hand. Who would come to know of these details? Sir, besides the issue of political office-holders, there are other categories of people which need prior approval to investigate but seem to have little to do with public interest or national security, for example, under clause 11(2)(c), it covers any person working in a Government building, or any person working in a private school which has mainly foreign students. This would seem to mean that we will need Police approval to tail even a cashier working in a food court in a Government building or a local security guard working at an international school. Is this not too wide? Sir, there are already laws in place prohibiting intrusions into protected places, laws against trespassing and so on. Why add this blanket requirement to inform the Police of such security assignments? Lastly, Sir, clause 42 of the Bill amends the Miscellaneous Offences Act to include a new section 22(A). Section 22(A)(4) permits the licensing officer to allow certain private investigators or private security personnel to carry truncheons and even handcuffs. Given that private security personnel do not have Police powers under the law and they do not have similar training requirements, are we not running a risk of excessive force being used by these private security personnel? 3.41 pm”
“For instance, a person may have reasons to suspect that a political figure is in a relationship with that person's spouse which will give grounds for divorce. That person will need a private investigator to gather evidence to see if there are grounds to start divorce proceedings. This has nothing to do with national security. Why should that person be required to seek Police's permission to monitor the political figure's movements? Another example could be a case where a member of a political figure's family attempts to use his political connections for business gain, a case of suspected corruption. Due to the sensitivity of the case, the complainant may want to get a private investigator to produce a preliminary report before reporting the matter to the authorities. In this situation, some would in fact argue that it is in the public interest to allow the private investigation to carry on undisclosed. Sir, no matter what standards of personal integrity are imposed by any organisation, there will be some who fall short. History has taught us that even in Singapore, by enacting this clause, are we inadvertently erecting a firewall around our political office-holders? The requirement for prior written approval will also generate doubts in people's minds about the effectiveness of subsequent investigations, for example, (1), the issue of time. How long will the Police take to consider the application? Will it be a few days or a few weeks? What if a transaction is on-going and it is over by the time the approval comes? (2) The question of approval channels. When the Police are considering the application for approval, who should they inform or seek advice from? Would the Minister for Home Affairs be consulted?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill in general and I also appreciate the rationale for professionalising the industry. However, one provision which I believe is of considerable concern is clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 provides that no person may accept a security assignment unless the licensing officer has given prior written approval. What amounts to a security assignment is defined in that clause to encompass various situations. Although the Minister has explained that the concern is public interest and national security, my view is that the provision is too wide. The most politically sensitive aspect is that the security assignment includes any brief requiring the gathering of information or surveillance of a "political figure". A "political figure" is itself defined in clause 2 to mean four categories of office-holders - the President, the Prime Minister, a Minister or a Minister of State. In other words, the effect of this clause is that it will be illegal for any person to accept a brief to conduct surveillance or to gather information on the President, Prime Minister, any Minister or Minister of State unless he applies to the licensing officer and gets prior written approval. Further, Sir, clause 11(2)(b)(v) makes it clear that the need to get prior approval extends to gathering information or doing surveillance on the political figure's household member as well. Sir, let me elaborate on why I believe the provision is too wide. Singaporeans may have legitimate reasons to want to gather information or ask for surveillance on political figures or their families. To illustrate, let me play devil's advocate.”
“Sir, is the Senior Minister of State then saying that even if political organisations organise outdoor activities for, let us say, 20 people, and there is no risk of disruption to public life, the Police will still not grant the permit? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Police will have to assess each application as it is made. But within the parameters is as I have stated them to be. I think we have explained this many times in the House. In fact, when Mr Low Thia Khiang became an MP in 1991, there was an exchange with Prof. Jayakumar in 1992, and this was explained very clearly. And, thereafter, I have also explained this many times - why when you have an event organised by a political party, that may have a greater potential for law and order problem, because you may be behaving well but there may be other people who may disagree with your point of view and there could be quarrels and debates on the ground, attracting other people. So, I think it is better to keep the policy as it is. Maybe they could cycle round the stadium or have it in an indoor venue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify something which Ms Rajah had mentioned about what I said in my speech. At no time in my speech had I said that I was happy with the composition of the LSC, as far as it relates to the career progression of the Subordinate Courts judiciary is concerned. In fact, Members with a longer memory will know that it has been a consistent stand of the Worker's Party that the Subordinate Courts judiciary needs more security in its tenure and this is not a new argument that we are raising. We have raised concerns in the past about the present composition of the LSC because of the perception that they may not be promoting security of tenure as far as the Subordinate Courts judiciary is concerned because of the potential of transfer. So it is not quite accurate what Ms Rajah said about my speech earlier. Just to reiterate, the amendments that we are considering today give the Prime Minister a direct nomination role on the LSC. And I think Members will realise that this may have the perception of giving the public the opinion that the career progression of judicial officers is subject to the Executive assessment of their performance and this is something that will not strengthen the system, and my point still remains.”
“The members of the Personnel Boards will be appointed based on LSC's recommendations. Since the composition of the LSC itself is going to change to specifically include the Prime Minister's nominees, then recommendations of the LSC for the Personnel Boards would carry the same concerns about how independent they are vis-a-vis the Executive Government. While it may well be the case that the nominees are persons of integrity, would they be perceived as truly independent actors? Sir, this Bill touches on one of the pillars of the rule of law, ie, the law is to be applied to everybody equally, regardless of status or power. While we have entrenched safeguards to protect the independence of the High Court judiciary, we have not done the same for the Subordinate Courts judiciary. The Subordinate Courts' jurisdiction has been enlarged greatly over the years. They handle the vast majority of criminal cases - the Deputy Prime Minister himself mentioned a figure of 200,000 a year - and civil claims up to a quarter million dollars are also handled by the Subordinate Courts. According to their Annual Report 2006, they dealt with more than 350,000 cases in 2006. Thus, in terms of caseload, their role in the administration of justice directly affects more lives than the High Court. Sir, it is my strong belief that we should avoid taking any steps which might be perceived as weakening the independence of the Subordinate Courts judiciary. I believe that the proposed change in the LSC composition carries a real risk of undermining public confidence in the neutrality of our courts. And, as such, the proposed change is of grave concern. 3.30 pm”
“If the concern is to ensure that the Legal Service manpower policies are in line with the rest of the civil service, it seems to me that the PSC representatives on the LSC can already perform that role. Sir, the Members of the PSC who are sitting on the LSC had originally been appointed to the PSC on the recommendations of the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General who also sits on the LSC is a member of the Government. To now have two members specifically nominated by the Prime Minister potentially gives the Executive branch of the Government even more influence over critical career decisions of our judicial officers. Sir, my concern is that this can be interpreted as a regressive step for judicial independence. Under the existing system, it is already clear that the Subordinate Courts judiciary does not enjoy security of tenure, unlike High Court Judges, as they can lose their judicial role at any time by being transferred out of the courts to other departments. Whatever the rationale of having a category of the Prime Minister's nominees on the LSC, we should step back and ask ourselves what message is being sent. Even if the intention is not to weaken the role of the Subordinate Courts judiciary, how would the public perceive this move? Would they not think that the judicial officers would still need to consider the interests of the Executive Government in reaching their decisions? After all, the system we are putting in place specifically allows nominees of the Prime Minister a say in their career progression. Sir, clause 9 proposes a new Article 111AA to set up Personnel Boards to exercise the functions of the LSC permanently, ie, once the Boards are constituted, the LSC can no longer exercise these functions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise serious reservations about one aspect of the Bill, and that is clause 8 which amends Article 111 to make changes to the composition of the Legal Service Commission. Sir, these reservations arise because the Legal Service also comprises persons who are serving in the Subordinate Courts judiciary as Magistrates and District Judges. The Subordinate Courts administer justice and all of us have a right to expect that the judicial officers will administer justice impartially. As such, we must make all efforts to give the public confidence that the personnel management system of these judicial officers will enhance their standing as independent arbiters of disputes. I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's justification for the changes. Notwithstanding that, I believe that clause 8 has the potential of undermining public confidence in the courts' independence. Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises the Chief Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, and up to two members of the PSC. Under clause 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed to include up to two nominees of the Prime Minister. If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make career decisions, such as promotions and transfers. Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new category of LSC members who are the Prime Minister's nominees?”
“Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in the memoranda of understanding with foreign educational institutions setting up in Singapore, how is due emphasis given to secure adequate commitment to these projects so as to ensure that they are not easily abandoned.”
“Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does the pullout of the University of New South Wales Asia affect Singapore as an education hub; (b) what were the considerations that led to this pullout; and (c) how much of this can be attributed to the expectations of the Economic Development Board in terms of student enrolment. 7. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the Ministry's plans to make Singapore an education hub; (b) how has the withdrawal of the University of New South Wales from Singapore affected Singapore's image as an education hub; (c) what are the reasons for the University's decision to withdraw from Singapore; and (d) what were the University's needs which the Economic Development Board was unable to accede to. 8. Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much has been spent by the Government on the UNSW Asia project and what are our outstanding liabilities to third parties such as banks, construction companies and other service providers; and (b) what is being worked out with UNSW in relation to financial compensation payable to Singapore. 9. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) during the negotiations between the Economic Development Board (EDB) and University of New South Wales (UNSW), what safeguards were taken to mitigate the risk of UNSW pulling out from Singapore; (b) how were the interests of enrolled students protected; and (c) in view of UNSW's public statements on its liability and losses arising out of its pullout and its duty to report to the Australian Parliament, whether EDB remains bound by confidentiality obligations and, if so, why. 10.”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Minister could further clarify on this issue of compensation. In his earlier statement, he mentioned that the authorities first became aware of the mistake on 2nd April when the family telephoned the court to inquire about the case. I would like the Minister to tell us when was the first offer of compensation made. And was that urgency brought about because of a threat of a law suit against the Government? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I do not have the details on that aspect of the chronology. [Please see clarification during sitting on 17th July 2007*. ] But I do know, from my discussions with the Attorney-General's Chambers, that as soon as the Attorney-General's Chambers became aware of the error, an official from the Attorney-General's Chambers did meet up with Mr Dickson Tan and his family to (a) apologise for the error, and (b) to offer settlement terms. As far as I know, it was well before any threat of legal proceedings was in the air. *Cols. 1221-1222, 17th July 2007. UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES ASIA (Impact of pullout and related issues) 5. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in light of the recent pullouts by the University of New South Wales in 2007 and John Hopkins University in 2006, (a) if he will explain why Singapore has not been able to retain its foreign universities; and (b) whether he is confident that we will be able to continue to attract reputable universities to set up campus in Singapore. 6.”
“Sir, there has been an allegation by the prisoner's family that after the caning took place, he attempted to write a letter to his family informing them of the mistake that had taken place. The allegation is that the Prison authorities stopped the letter from going out to the family. I would like to ask the Minister whether this allegation has been investigated and the facts have been found about this allegation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could clarify some paragraphs in the statement issued by the joint Ministries of Home Affairs and Law on 30th June, released to the media. In that statement, there were certain paragraphs saying that the prisoner was asked at various points in the procedure whether the sentence was correct and he did not protest. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether it is actually the position of the Government that the prisoner also owes a duty to check the correctness of the Government's actions and, in that sense, he is not free from blame in this incident.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party opposes clause 2 of the Bill which raises the rate of goods and services tax to 7% with effect from July. We have already articulated our reasons in the Budget debate in February and I do not intend to repeat them here. Sir, following up on what was mentioned by the Nominated Member, Mr Banerjee, I also have a clarification concerning the charging of a fee for advanced rulings, and this is more in relation to the quantum of fees to be charged. It seems, from the Schedule, that a trader who is seeking an advanced ruling is being charged time cost, as the initial fee of $525 for the first of four hours will be supplemented by an hourly fee of $131 per hour beyond the first four hours. The trader is also expected to reimburse the Comptroller for any external consultations which he may need to make in making the advanced ruling. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the trader would actually have an estimate of the approximate fee that he may have to pay for his application. Secondly, how strictly is the time cost enforced, in the sense that if the authorities are slow, would they be prepared to give a discount on the time that they have spent? 3.12 pm”
“Sir, just to follow up. Could the Minister of State please elaborate on whether there have been objections from unions and, if so, how many objections have there been? Also, in terms of the applications, which the Minister of State says were rejected by the Commissioner of Labour, do we know how many had been rejected in the last few years since the enactment of the section? Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the specific number in hand. If the Member is interested, we will obtain the number for her. NEW MALAY SYLLABUS FOR PRIMARY ONE TO FOUR The following Question stood in the name of Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim - 15. To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether there are plans to enhance awareness and encourage the adoption of the new Malay syllabus for Primary One to Four students to private education institutions teaching Malay Language as part of their syllabus; and (b) whether the review of the Malay Language curriculum looked into the needs of students with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia.”
“Sir, could the Minister of State also tell us whether the Commissioner of Labour has actually rejected any applications from employers, and also whether there have been any objections from unions in relation to any particular application?”
“Sir, in the parliamentary debates in 2004, when this section was debated for passage, the Minister had indicated to the House that the Commissioner of Labour would require the employers applying for exemption to show how the profits which they have made from more efficient use of manpower would be shared with the workers. I would like to ask the Minister of State how the Commissioner of Labour monitors this, what does he require the employers to submit, and what is the follow-up to ensure that these benefits are shared with the workers. Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, when an employer submits an application for exemption, the employer would be required to submit the whole scheme of arrangement, including how it intends to share the profits or savings out of this flexible arrangement. Once that is established, the Ministry of Manpower will continue to monitor and to get feedback from the employer, as well as from the union, if the company is unionised, to ensure that this scheme is adhered to. For companies and employers who violated the Employment Act or the approval given by the Commissioner of Labour, action would be taken against them.”
“However, section 201C(7) provides for situations when the Minister need not consult the committee, that is, if he is satisfied that the emergency is sudden and extraordinary such that it is not practical to consult. If the Minister orders deployment without consulting the committee, his order can continue for 72 hours after which it will lapse unless the committee confirms it. Sir, if the ground situation is indeed very grave, should the Prime Minister not be a critical decision maker, instead of asking the Minister to decide after consulting a committee? Should the Prime Minister not make the decision? Next, Sir, although it may be far-fetched to imagine it now, we may one day have a Minister in charge who has ambitions to overthrow the Government and take control, and in answer to the preceding Member, Dr Ong, it could very well come from this ruling party in years to come, we can never say. The proposed section 201C would allow this Minister to deploy the army for 72 hours without seeking approval from anyone. Once the three days have passed, it may be the point of no return. As such, Sir, I have grave concerns about the powers given to the Minister under section 201C and would urge the Government to review this. Lastly, I would like to seek clarification on one of the relevant events in subsection 10 of section 201C and, that is, injury or threat to life of such person as the Minister proposes to specify in his order. It seems very drastic to mobilise the army to protect an individual. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill mentions that such individuals include foreign dignitaries. Could the Minister clarify who else the Government has in mind for this triggering event?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do appreciate that the intention behind these amendments is benign. However, I have some concerns regarding the proposed section 201C relating to the deployment of the army for land operations as it appears to contain some rather drastic powers given to the Minister for Defence. Under section 201C, a relevant event, as defined by subsection 10, must occur or be likely to occur before deployment. Section 201C gives the power to declare that such an event has occurred to the Minister for Defence. First, I would like to ask the Minister if he could clarify the constitutional status of section 201C. The Constitution currently prescribes that it is the President who will issue any proclamation of emergency. Such an emergency is defined under Article 150 of the Constitution as a grave situation where the security or economic life of Singapore is threatened. The existing SAF Act itself, under section 198, envisages that it is the President who will decide whether emergency powers should be in force. Looking at the triggering events in this Bill, under subsection 10 are situations listed such as a terrorist attack and damage or disruption to the operation of infrastructure, which would seem to overlap with the emergency situations defined by the Constitution since these events too threaten the security and economic life of Singapore. As the President is not intended to be involved under this Bill, does this undermine the Constitution? Second, Sir, the Minister in charge has very wide powers. Section 201C provides for the Minister to consult a committee before ordering deployment. This committee is to be appointed by the Prime Minister.”
“On top of all these, officers are also covered under a basic group term life insurance and personal accident insurance package, with a payout of $180,000 for deaths. Officers who had opted for additional coverage will receive higher payouts. The Police Central Welfare Fund will also provide the families an immediate bereavement grant of $4,000 to help defray the cost of the funeral arrangements as well as, for the longer term, provide annual grants for the officer's children's education. In addition to these monetary compensation items, the SPF provides emotional and psychological support through its psychologists and trained paracounsellors. They will be in touch with the officer's family right from the onset. Colleagues and paracounsellors from the officer's unit will also provide logistical and emotional support during the funeral wake and indeed thereafter. Sir, as losing a police officer in the line of duty is indeed tragic, let me assure Ms Lim that we will provide all means of assistance to help the officer's family when it happens. PROJECTIONS OF TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS 15. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in light of the many projects that are presently in the pipeline, such as the Integrated Resorts and transportation projects, what are the projections on the types of technical and engineering personnel required for manufacturing, construction and research and development in Singapore.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what amount or range of compensation is paid by the Government to the next-of-kin of police officers who are killed in the course of duty. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, every case of a police officer killed in the line of duty is indeed a sad one. Our sympathies are with the bereaved families. These officers had put their lives at risk to keep Singapore safe. When an officer dies in the course of his work, every effort is taken to ensure that the officer's next-of-kin is taken care of, not only in terms of monetary compensation, but also through psychological and welfare support. The Pensions Act, together with the Pensions Regulations and the Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) (INVEST Plan) Regulations, depending on which scheme of service the officer is on, ensures that the officer's family is adequately compensated. Sir, for officers on the Pension scheme, there is a death gratuity lump-sum, the quantum of which would depend on the officer's last drawn salary. For officers on the HUS (INVEST) scheme, the officer's family will receive the total balance in the officer's INVEST Retention and Retirement Accounts or one year's salary, whichever is higher. In addition to these payments, the officer's family may also receive a payout of up to $111,000 under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Sir, for married officers, the officer's widow will receive monthly dependents' pension of one-third of the officer's pensionable emoluments, and his children, up to 18 years of age, will receive monthly dependents' pension of one-fifteenth of the officer's pensionable emoluments.”
“Sir, I do appreciate what the Senior Minister of State has said about not commenting on the recent incident, but there had been press reports that some of the intruding boats are actually capable of reaching speeds which are beyond the top speed of our special task squadron boats, and I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, firstly, whether this is true. Secondly, if it is true, does this mean that we need to have higher speed boats? Thirdly, are the intruders armed in previous cases, what are they armed with, and what are our own police officers equipped with to protect themselves from such threats? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me assure Ms Lim that, in terms of the wherewithal of the PCG, including the types of boats they have, including the weaponry on board, they are well-equipped and well-armed to deal with these intrusions. Indeed, I think the hon. Member may know that in 1995, we secured the PK classes of boats which can reach top speeds of 50 knots. In terms of speed for speed, they can actually take these boats on. Of course, these boats are smaller and, therefore, in the darkness of the night, they will try to manoeuvre and, in trying to evade arrest, may try to make turns. So, this normally happens. I will not comment on this case, but this is likely to have happened. In terms of the armoury on board, yes, PCG officers do have arms on board, including rifles that can be used, but it is not normal for PCG to do that because the first attempt is to disable the boat. In the past, when dealing with smugglers of contraband items, they are not normally armed. POLICE OFFICERS KILLED IN THE COURSE OF DUTY (Compensation to next-of-kin) 14.”
“Senior Minister Goh had previously told Parliament that we could not expect Singaporeans to behave like people in other countries because we are a young nation, and people still see things in material terms. How sad! After 41 years of nationhood, National Service, and National Day Parades, what do we teach our children? Do we judge a person's worth by his salary? If so, we have wasted millions of tax dollars on these nation-building efforts, which have truly been in vain. Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals. As such, I cannot agree with the Members who see political office as yet another career choice. It must be more than a job and the holder must be able to think of others besides himself. In the popular American comic strip, "The Wizard of Id", there was a public address by the King to his subjects from the royal balcony. The King began, "Remember the golden rule". One of the subjects called back, "What's that?" Back came the royal reply, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." If the gold is indeed taxpayers' money, then Singapore is not that far from the Kingdom of Id. And it does not matter what transparency the Government has claimed in its attempt to justify the pay hike. 3.12 pm”
“For university graduates, the median gross monthly income is about $4,450. This would take the Minister about one day to earn. As we move salaries up to 88% of the benchmark, we will find that the average worker's monthly pay may be earned by a Minister in a matter of two or three hours. Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort, drawing taxpayers' money at such rates? Can Ministers and Singaporeans share the same dream? Another reality is that our leaders may face problems in marshalling the people to make sacrifices for the country. About four years ago, Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told the House that his son had asked whether one should be prepared to die for Singapore. This sparked off a heated public debate. The cynics invariably linked this question to Ministerial salaries. To quote a member of the public, and I paraphrase, "Who are we trying to kid? Before we start talking about dying for Singapore, let us look at our leaders. We are told that we cannot get good leaders unless we pay top dollar. So why expect more from the rest of us?" Citizens should be able to look to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future. What will happen when crunch time comes? Is this a time bomb planted for the future of Singapore? Sir, if we are seriously unable to interest good people into public office, we must ask why other countries can do it and we cannot. Is it just the money or the fact that we have not invested in creating a culture of high public spiritedness? In some countries, there are young people who aspire to hold public office.”