Vikram Nair
Singapore
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer, as well as forming a workgroup to look into this issue. I think it is worrying that platform workers have a much higher rate of workplace injuries than many other groups and I think compensation is one component, but does the Minister of State think any interim measures are needed while the wo…”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I think it is an improvement from the last time this question was asked two years ago, which was 17 minutes and 164 minutes. So, there is improvement. But a one-and-a half-hour waiting time is still quite long.”
“Thank you, and I thank the Minister of State for flagging the answer to me as well. So, I have a supplementary question. The answer was that the Ministry is engaging the digital service providers as well as preparing advisories for parents.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response and to explain that the OCHA Directions are being issued to Telegram as well. The only reason I mentioned Telegram specifically is it seems to emerge in a whole range of crimes, including selling of drugs, etomidate, sexual crimes, scams.”
“It seeks to enable efficient cross-border travel while retaining Singapore's legal framework and ensuring that foreign officers cooperate within defined limits. It also provides for reciprocity, so that Singapore officers can exercise similar functions in Malaysia.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note that amongst the different sources of energy, diesel prices have risen much higher than electricity prices. And diesel fuels many commercial operators, including buses and lorries, which feeds into many other sectors.”
The complete record
Every one of 760 lines we hold for Vikram Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 16.
“These included football matches, dining at restaurants and eateries and watching plays and performances. Of course, this is probably part of the reason I came down with COVID-19, as did my daughter. However, for both of us, the experience was not particularly bad. Although we had mild symptoms for a few days, we did not test positive until our pre-departure test, where my daughter and I tested positive. Thereafter, we isolated ourselves, in line with the UK's guidelines at the time. However, within about two days, we were testing negative again and our symptoms were relatively mild. In my case, just a slight sore throat and runny nose. As we spoke to more people, we realised that almost everyone knew someone or had family or friends who had come down with COVID-19 and some had come down with it themselves. For most, it was not debilitating and life could go on. Of course, this is not to trivialise the COVID-19 experience. My wife and I had three shots of the vaccine and this, probably, helped us in resisting and overcoming the virus. My daughter had the benefit of youth. However, from what we understand, the immunocompromised and those with pre-existing ailments remain vulnerable to serious complications. Additionally, there are studies in the UK pointing to a group of people who suffer symptoms called "long COVID", which means they have different after-effects following a COVID-19 infection, some of which can be serious and debilitating. My suggestion is that it may be better for us to proceed with plans to ease our restrictions and move closer to life as normal but, at the same time, remind and educate the more vulnerable to take extra precautions.”
“This would clearly be a mistake. The second is we must continue to maintain and build good and deep relations as well as mutually beneficial economic ties with as many countries as possible. We hope never to go to war, but the stronger and deeper our ties with the world around us, the better our chances of avoiding war and also of getting support from the international community in the event we are drawn into a war. It is always a big ask for others to join our conflict, but they may help in other ways, which will be vital. Third – and this is more short term – I would also like to ask the Minister for Finance whether he sees any significant economic turmoil from the war in Ukraine on us and whether any additional measures may need to be taken in the Budget to provide for this. The second topic – and now coming to home more directly – is our response to COVID-19. Singapore has done an excellent job of handling this crisis. We have taken a generally cautious, science- and evidence-led approach that has enabled us to achieve a high vaccination rate amongst the population and kept fatalities at a relatively low rate. The main price we have paid is living with social restrictions, which have taken a toll both on the economy and on the mental health of some of our people. Over the last few months, with Omicron spreading, COVID-19 has been affecting even many in our highly-vaccinated population. I, myself, came down with COVID-19 in December when I was with my family in the UK. The UK's approach to COVID-19 was quite different from Singapore's and, while there were some restrictions in place, including requirements to wear masks indoors, many activities had resumed when we were there.”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Budget. I will deal with three matters in my speech: first, the war in Ukraine and its implications for Singapore; second, our response to COVID-19; third, I have some suggestions in relation to public housing. First, on the war in Ukraine. This war broke out after the Budget Statement, but before this debate. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest conflict on the European continent since World War II. There remain risks that this conflict may escalate further. The eruption of conflict has already created turbulence in financial and commodity markets. It is anticipated that, in the long term, various commodities may rise in prices, adding to inflation. I support the principled position that Singapore has taken in relation to this dispute. While we are not against any country, we stand firmly against this invasion as a violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. As at the time of this speech, it remains the case that despite the violation of international law, Ukraine is largely fighting alone against Russia. However, the international community has been swift in taking action, including tough economic sanctions, against Russia. This raises a number of related issues for us to consider. The first is that defence spending is vital and we must ensure we have the capability and resources to survive in the event war is visited on us. While I expect we will have more details on the defence spending in MINDEF’s Committee of Supply – I have filed several cuts on that – I think we need to remain committed to defence spending and national defence even during times of peace. There will be many demands on our spending in the coming years and it is always tempting to say we should cut defence spending in times of peace.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for taking a very clear, principled position and explaining how Singapore stands on this. I have two clarifications. The first is the United Nations has always been an important institution, at least for setting the benchmark against aggression. But would this send a message that it will be difficult to restrain big powers from engaging in acts of aggression and is there more the world community can do in this respect? I know Singapore is just a small voice in that, but is there more that the world community can do in this engagement? The second is, in relation to specific measures that Singapore may take, this will be elaborated on later, but I think it will be important for whatever we do in this message to send the clear signal that we stand against these acts of aggression and the UN Charter must be upheld.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. One of the issues with scams is that the perpetrators are normally based abroad. I just wanted to check whether there is any framework in place for us to actually cooperate with foreign agencies in order to identify the perpetrators and have them prosecuted for these actions?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think these agreements are very good for both Singapore and Indonesia. I just have one clarification. The intention is for all the agreements to come into force at the same time. But if, in the ratification process, say, only one or two get ratified and one or two did not, what will happen to all three agreements in that situation?”
“Having said that, this matter has been raised before, including in this House, and in the past, we had always believed that having a single Legal Services Commission had worked well for Singapore and had certain advantages. This included that officers could be rotated across functions and to develop broader experiences. Judicial officers, for example, could benefit from having had stints as counsel, such as public prosecutors. Similarly, those acting as public prosecutors may also benefit from having spent time as registrars, or even as district judges, as they will see matters from the perspective of the bench. There is also a perception that the judicial service would be the more desired branch and, in the past, those in other parts of the legal service may aspire to be judicial officers if they performed well. So, while I note that the separation of functions does not prevent cross-posting of officers, and the Minister in his introductory statement has stated secondments will be available, will such cross-postings be more difficult, now that there are different commissions governing both? Is there also a risk that if an officer stays only in one branch of the service, they may not get the broader perspective they used to be able to get in the past that will help them perform their functions better? Does this also mean that legal careers will be set in stone, depending on which side of the branch they start in? Clarifications notwithstanding, I support both Bills.”
“Mr Speaker, like most of the others before me, I declare my interest as a practicing lawyer. I speak in support of both Bills. These Bills involve the setting up of a Judicial Services Commission in Singapore which will oversee the judicial officers in both the State Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission’s role includes determining the appointment, confirmation, placement on permanent establishment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of judicial officers. So, essentially, this controls the personnel function. These functions were previously carried out by the Legal Services Commission, which oversaw all legal officers in the Public Service, including both the judicial services, those in the Attorney-General’s Chambers and those in other public agencies. The Legal Services Commission will remain, but its remit will no longer cover judicial officers. Related to these changes, the Chief Justice, who was previously President of the Legal Services Commission, will now be President of the Judicial Services Commission, while the Attorney-General will now be President of the Legal Services Commission. The rationale for such changes is that it allows specialisation in each of the services and for the senior officers in each branch to properly evaluate and appoint the officers to that branch. This is obviously quite sensible. There is also an argument that this provides a cleaner separation of powers, with judicial officers cleanly separated from those performing other functions, such as in public prosecution. This separation of functions exists in many countries, including many in the Commonwealth.”
“There is information on the MTI website that simplifies the benefits of free trade agreements for people and, of course, if more information is needed, if a debate is needed on the cost and benefits, we can always have Motions in Parliament. So, in my view, I do not think the amendment is necessary because it insinuates that there is not enough information out there and we cannot make sensible decisions with the available information. Mr Speaker, for that reason, I would not be supporting the amendment.”
“The main reason I am objecting to the amendments is firstly, they change the substance of the Motion. This Motion is a very clear one. There are two Motions before this House. Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion claims that Singaporeans' job anxieties are caused by free trade agreements like CECA. The Minister's Motion is quite different. It focuses on the measures we need to take to deal with Singaporeans' anxieties and denounces the link to CECA and free trade agreements. I think what Mr Pritam Singh is really trying to do is to include one of his pet topics – a request for more information – into this debate, which is really quite different from what the core of this debate is. The first amendment, of course, where he is changing the word "supports Government action" to "calls for stronger Government action" also has an insinuation that the Government is not doing enough. I personally do not think this is fair to the hard work done by people in MOM who I know are bending over backwards to enforce and take measures to support local employment. So, I do not agree with that amendment. The second amendment to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans. There is, actually, a great deal of information out there already. There is quarterly labour market data, advanced market data coming out with breakdowns of Singaporeans and foreigners employed. So, I think an insinuation that there is not adequate information out there is something I cannot support. In relation to free trade agreements, there are the agreements themselves out there in the public domain which anyone can read but I think very few do, except perhaps a few people like us lawyers. But that information is out there.”
“We do not want to be overwhelmed by more foreign workers than we can absorb or to expand our total population beyond what our island is able to accommodate. So, if you look at the White Paper properly, it is really a very balanced Paper that looks at Singapore's long-term needs and how many foreigners we can accommodate within that framework. Against this backdrop, I think, to me, it is very clear that CECA and free trade agreements really have nothing to do with the anxieties Singaporeans face about jobs. There are very real anxieties Singaporeans face and the way to address those is to make sure we continue to create new jobs and be an attractive place for investments to come in. I am also one of those who agree that we should have protection for Singaporeans and I was also one of those who spoke in favour of the anti-discrimination laws, which I am glad are coming into force. This will give an additional lever. Currently, MOM already has the power to take away work passes for foreign workers for employers who engage in discriminatory practices. What potential anti-discrimination laws would do is also give the aggrieved individual a personal right, a personal remedy. So, to me, this is one more additional measure to prevent employers from exercising discrimination. Let me, in closing, also address the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh. I am glad that the Workers' Party does seem to have a lot of common ground with us. They have stated expressly that they agree free trade agreements are important for Singapore's future and he has also acknowledged that CECA has been used as a dog-whistle in some corners for racist behaviour. But I will have to stop short of supporting the amendments. I would actually be objecting to them.”
“If people in this House who have the ability and should research and look into things before coming, do their homework, I think we will probably be in a situation where we have clarity on these issues. I have heard feedback from many people in the Indian community about the discomfort they are feeling with the current anti-CECA stance being perpetuated, which is a thinly-veiled attack against Indians. Even the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged it is a dog-whistle in some corners. Many in Singapore’s Indian community also get caught up and mistaken in this anti-foreigner torrent. In some ways, I can understand why members of the public may have mistaken beliefs that treaties like CECA are causing foreigners to take their jobs. Essentially, they may be feeling job pressures and job losses, particularly during the pandemic. At the same time, they may see many foreigners, including Indian nationals, having jobs. But these jobs are in different sectors and these jobs, if the Singaporeans are eligible for them, they should apply for them. And if they are not given fair consideration, they can report to MOM and MOM will take action against the employers. So, I think it is important for us to help solve misunderstandings and make it clear that even though there are foreigners who have jobs, they are not getting it by virtue of free trade agreements like CECA. But Mr Leong Mun Wai also talked about the Population White Paper and said that this was a White Paper that proposed allowing foreigners to come into Singapore. I was actually in this House when the White Paper was being debated. And again, if you read the White Paper, it says very expressly, we cannot allow in an unlimited number of foreign workers.”
“Generally, if any of them wishes to visit Singapore, they will need a sponsor from Singapore to indicate they are visiting for business purposes when they apply for a visa. And on this basis, they may be granted a visa to visit. The same applies for people who wish to visit for investments and the same thing applies to Singaporeans who wish to visit India. So, this facilitates the free movement of people to do business. Does this take away jobs? No. Does this create jobs? Potentially, yes. Because more people are coming here to do business. More businesses start up here. More businesses service other parts of the world. Chapter 9 of CECA does not change anything in relation to citizenship, permanent residence and long-term employment. And this is very expressed in clause 9.2. This means that Singapore retains full discretion on who it admits. The drivers for our long-term employment policies are our needs, as Dr Tan See Leng has explained very clearly in his Ministerial Statement. If it is felt we do not need that many people in a particular sector, or that Singaporeans can do the jobs, it is already within our power to do this and CECA does not change this. So, what really is Mr Leong Mun Wai trying to achieve with this Motion? CECA is just one out of 26 free trade agreements that we have. Why focus on this one? Is it simply to target Indian nationals or, worse, people of Indian ethnicity? It is clear that the anxieties about jobs relate to structural issues that have nothing to do with CECA. At the same time, CECA potentially helps to create jobs for people by facilitating investments and trade. According to MTI, some 97,000 locals were employed in 2019 by organisations that invested in India.”
“Consumers and businesses will, therefore, have choices to purchase goods and services from all over the world while producers of services can, likewise, look at more countries for a potential market place. Related to the aim of improving businesses between countries, there are also bilateral and multilateral investment agreements. Typically, these are a different species of agreements. These agreements usually permit countries to invest in each other and the host country would provide protections for such investments such as not to expropriate them. For those of you who have read about a more tumultuous past, there are many situations where foreign investors go into a country, and, because of political turmoil, those investments may get expropriated. So multilateral investment treaties provide that kind of minimum protection. Some treaties go further. They have clauses that provide Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) status, which means that we will give this country the same provisions it gives to any other trading country. Against this backdrop, CECA is primarily a free trade agreement that allows goods and services to flow freely between India and Singapore. It has some clauses that protect investments and these include protections against expropriation in Chapter 6. Let us come to Chapter 9 of CECA. This is where Mr Leong Mun Wai, I think, has found the language on free movement of persons. There is language here on the free movement of persons. But what it allows is the free movement of persons for temporary purposes. This is primarily to facilitate people wishing to visit one country or another for business purposes. I am part of Rajah and Tann’s South Asia Desk and I have a number of clients from India.”
“For those who retain jobs, especially in this current climate, there are many people who feel pressured working from home as well, because they fear potential redundancies. Maybe the bosses do not know that they are working, so they work longer hours. And I think all of this adds to Singaporeans' anxieties about jobs. As Members of this House, we have to be very clear what are the causes of anxieties. What happens if there are situations where foreigners take Singaporeans' jobs? And we have all heard anecdotal evidence of this. MOM has many levers that it does pull in these situations. Currently, companies are required to actually comply with the Fair Consideration Framework, which means that they must give consideration to the resident population first before they apply for foreign work passes. As a lawyer, I have dealt with many companies which have been on the wrong side of this and which have been investigated by MOM and against whom MOM takes actions. So, these levers are exercised judiciously. What do free trade agreements have to do with all this? I think it would help if people understood free trade agreements. And it is clear that Mr Leong Mun Wai may not even have read the relevant provisions. The primary aim of free trade agreements is the removal of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods being traded. Generally, the higher the tariffs, the less trade takes place as the cost of trading goes up. Reduction of tariffs encourages trade by reducing transaction costs. Free trade agreements also usually have provisions to facilitate the transfer of services to flow freely between countries.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. I also oppose the Motion proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai to the extent that it states free trade agreements like CECA are responsible for the anxieties created for Singaporeans in relation to jobs. I am quite surprised that Mr Leong maintains this position despite the clarifications that had been provided in the last Sitting about how free trade agreements like CECA work. It is common ground that Singaporeans have anxieties about jobs. As advisor to the Metal Industries Workers' Union, I have seen retrenchments take place and I have seen how businesses cope with difficulties. The usual cause of retrenchments is usually business difficulties or restructuring. This has nothing to do with free trade agreements. These are business realities. In the course of COVID-19, many industries have suffered as well, sectors like retail, F&B and tourism. Even well-known names like Robinsons have folded during this period. The sufferings of all these businesses have nothing to do with free trade agreements. Global businesses are such that business cycles have become much smaller, there is a lot more volatility and people may need to change jobs because the world changes. Industries become redundant very quickly. Typically, in situations where redundancies take place, the reality is that it is usually the foreigners who lose their jobs first as work passes are not renewed. For those Singaporeans who need to be redeployed or reskilled, where industries are unionised, the unions come in to help. So, this is how we try to work with Singaporeans with job anxieties. And right now, the job anxieties are only going to get more.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move in line 3 after the word "society", to add the following words: "and looks forward to action plans in the upcoming Government White Paper arising out of the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development". The Motion as proposed by the Workers' Party is one that I think everyone in this House agrees with and as my colleague, Ms Sun Xueling set out, has been in line with the Government's efforts since inception and over the last year. The additional words I am proposing are to tie the spirit of the Motion with concrete action, which I hope the Government will put forward in its White Paper. I propose that the debate of this amendment take place concurrently with the debate on the main topic. I look forward to support for this amendment from my colleagues in the Workers' Party too. I am sure they too would want to see what plans the Government has in store as well for these issues being raised. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Yes, I have given copies to the Clerks for distribution.”
“Despite all the issues raised though, almost all the women acknowledged that tremendous strides have been made in relation to women's issues in the course of their lifetimes and almost all had better opportunities than their mothers and grandmothers. However, there is still much to do. (In English): Deputy Speaker, in English. The journey to get more equal outcomes for women is ongoing and one that our Government has been pushing hard since Independence. I thank my colleagues from the Workers' Party for their support in this important journey. As the Motion rightly acknowledges, this is a whole-of-society effort to remove the barriers, both visible and invisible, to help women achieve their full potential. I would, however, like to go a little further and would like to see action and concrete steps to help remove these barriers. In relation to this, the Government had announced in September last year that it would be presenting a White Paper arising from its findings from the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development. Many conversations with different groups of women had been taking place, similar to the one I had mentioned earlier, and I expect there will be interesting insights from these Conversations. What I hope is that the findings in these dialogues can be converted to action plans. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in line with the above, with your permission, I would like to propose to amend the Motion.”
“She also mentioned that many of the men she meets are intimidated when they find out she has a PhD and is engaged in research. A number of women echoed issues related to discrimination at the workplace. The law is clear that pregnant women cannot be discriminated against. However, some women indicated that notwithstanding this, employers sometimes express displeasure when a woman is pregnant, especially in the case of smaller companies, which puts them under pressure with bosses and colleagues. Older women who have taken several years to be out of the workforce for caregiving duties, have challenges finding jobs again, even though they may have relevant skills and qualifications. In relation to caregiving, some mentioned that the availability of childcare and senior care facilities have been helpful in allowing them to minimise time out of the workforce in order to care for loved ones. However, they also mentioned that support for those caring for seniors is still lagging behind the extensive support that there is already for childcare. Senior care leave is not provided for and senior activity and daycare centres are not as readily accessible. There is also a tremendous emotional burden when caring for loved ones in their twilight years. In addition, another topic that was raised was the stigma women faced when in unconventional living situations. These include single unwed mothers who are unable to get many of the benefits that married mothers could, even though they are usually in a worse-off situation. Divorce also carried stigma and some continued to remain in abusive marriages because of this.”
“In University, all around me, women were very well represented and the law faculty had around equal numbers of men and women. However, after entering the workforce and starting my own family, I realised that women still face obstacles to attaining substantive equality. There are not as many women as men in leadership positions in organisations and women still end up being the primary caregivers for children and the elderly. Usually, because they are the primary caregivers, they will drop out of the workforce or work part-time at some stage of their working lives, which in turn feeds into more difficulties getting back into the workforce. These issues are often more difficult to solve as they involve changing not just laws but social attitudes and "invisible" barriers or "glass" ceilings. These have been matters that the Government has continued to focus on over the years. Last year, for example, the Government started conducting a series of dialogues called "Conversations on Women Development". As Ms Sun Xueling mentioned earlier, there were 160 such talks. I attended one of these dialogues, along with Minister Indranee Rajah with Indian and Sikh women, organised by SINDA, REACH and the Young Sikh Association. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now continue in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this dialogue with Indian women that Ms Indranee Rajah and I participated in, we broke up into smaller groups, each focused on different issues women face in achieving equality. One set of issues raised by women was that although the laws were in place for equality, family and societal expectations had not changed to a large extent. One woman, who was a scientist in her 30s, mentioned that her family members still keep pressurising her about marriage.”
“Their children, my parents' generation, were born during the post-war baby boom. The daughters of that generation, unlike their mothers, had the opportunity to attend and complete school. In fact, Primary school was mandatory for many of them. My maternal grandmother, who was an excellent cook, refused to allow any of her four daughters to assist in the kitchen, insisting they study instead. This generation of women who joined the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s were more economically independent than the generation before them. This period also saw women become global leaders. Leaders of this era included Golda Meir in Israel, Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Indira Gandhi in India and Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. It was quite clear that women were capable of leadership at the highest levels. In my household, my father and mother both supported each other in caregiving and providing, and they also had support from our grandparents. In contrast to my mother who was kept out of the kitchen by her own mother, my mother actually got me my very first cookbook back when I was in Primary school and encouraged me to try out the recipes. When my mother went off to further her studies for three years while my brother and I were in Primary school, my father and his parents played the main caregiving role. Essentially, I grew up without too many stereotypes on male and female roles and believing that women could do and achieve anything men could and, likewise, that men could also play a part in the household. In Primary school, I was fortunate to be in the top class in my Primary school, but boys were outnumbered by girls, two to one. I went to an all-boys Secondary school, but in Junior College, again I was outnumbered in class, boys to girls, two to one.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the progress of women's rights has been long drawn and hard fought in many parts of the world. Even in developed countries like the UK and the US, women obtained only basic legal rights such as the right to vote in 1918 and 1919 respectively, thanks to the efforts of early women's rights activists like the suffragettes, the century before that. Around the 1960s and 1970s, women's movements started taking off again in the Western world as the movement focused on political and economic rights, and substantive equality. Helen Reddy's famous song, "I am woman" was from this era, in 1971, topping the charts in 1972. Singapore had a jump start in women's rights with the Women's Charter in 1961, which was focused on legal equality for women. This included making polygamy an offence, prohibiting marriages between close relations and including a minimum age for marriage. So, we can imagine some of the issues that were present at that time. Consent of the married couple was also made a requirement. Rights and duties of husbands were legislated for and protections were put in place in the event marriages broke down. This legislation was ground-breaking at the time, forcing many established practices to change. Since then, women have made leaps and strides in the journey to equality. I have seen this in my own family. Both my grandmothers had their education cut short in Primary school as a result of World War II. After the war, neither returned to school. One was told that being too educated would make it more difficult to get married. The other, who was the eldest child in her family, had lost her own mother and had to take care of her younger siblings, so she took on a caregiving role as a young teenager.”
“My suggestion to deal with this would be for developers and main contractors in turn to take a more reasonable approach in making payments to contractors lower down the value chain for partial completion of work, even if this means entire milestones may not have been completed as required under the contract. If this is not done voluntarily, then, further legislative intervention may be necessary to address this issue – otherwise, it is the parties in the middle of the value chain that may crack under pressure. Notwithstanding the points above, I support the Bill.”
“To cushion the blow for these purchasers, there are provisions here permitting them to make claims against the developers for a portion of any additional rental expenses they may incur as a result of having to find alternative accommodation during the period of delay. Is the Minister of State able to share any data on how many purchasers have used this provision and what is the overall financial impact of these payments on developers would be? Second, the aim of the legislation is to share the costs and losses across the value chain. I am interested to know how effectively this is being done in practice? Third, while extensions of time are being given for project completion, payment is the lifeline of the construction sector and work is still expected to continue during this period. Is the Government aware of companies in hardship because they are expected to continue to work but are unable to receive payments in the meantime as a result of this legislation? This will typically apply to the main contractors and others who may be sandwiched. So, what will happen is the subcontractors who are below them, may be able to get extensions of time from delivering against their obligations; which means that the work the contractor higher up has to do to receive his payment, will not be complete. But this contractor higher up the value chain may have to pay other sub-contractors who had done their work. I am just curious whether any larger contractors or contractors at the middle of the value chain have been facing hardship and may face further hardship as a result of this.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer who advises on construction law and has clients in the construction sector. I generally support this Bill. This Bill extends many of the interim relief measures that were provided to the construction sector to deal with COVID-19 for a further six months. The construction sector has been hard hit. The freezing of borders and shutdowns in various countries have meant delays in supplies arriving from overseas. Locally, manpower constraints have been acute as it has been difficult to get workers from abroad, while workers located in Singapore have been prevented from working or delayed from working both by the general lockdown and safety measures as well as dormitory specific constraints. Labour costs have also risen as employers compete with each other for the limited available manpower. Against hits backdrop, the Government’s interventions have provided an important lifeline for those in the construction sector. Extensions of time have been given for performance of obligations, which is vital because liquidated damages may kick in otherwise. The rights to call performance bonds have been limited, and effectively, the legislation has prevented parties from penalising counterparties who cannot perform because of COVID-19. Generally, I think this is a well thought through Bill that tries to carefully share the burden of the losses arising from COVID-19. Absent legislation, I think it is likely to fall on the smaller players down the value chain. I do have a few clarifications to ask the Minister of State. One group that will suffer from delays in construction is the ultimate purchaser.”
“The self-employed were also supported, in particular, those in the affected transport sector like taxi drivers. During the lockdown period, many of us were wishing for a vaccine. This vaccine is now here and being rolled out. I would thus strongly encourage everyone to take it. These vaccines have gone through extensive clinical testing and are generally safe to be taken. For those with serious medical conditions or concerns, you may check with your doctors to be sure. If we are able to get a large part of our population vaccinated, then it will be harder for the virus to spread, protecting even those amongst us who are unable to take it. We have put up with a lot of challenges in the last year – the next step, to take the vaccine, should be a lot easier and it is my hope that everyone who is able to will take it as soon as they can. 1.16 pm”
“Other Members in this House have spoken on how we should incentivise people to take vaccines, with Dr Lim Wee Kiak suggesting that vouchers be given out, and Mr Alex Yam suggesting it be made mandatory. My suggestion is a variation on the scheme but I would suggest that what we should do is give incentives to people who take the vaccine but not monetary incentives. We should give them more liberties. So, for example, if you have a group of people who are all vaccinated, they may be allowed to meet in groups of larger than eight. Workplaces may be allowed to operate at higher than 50% occupancy if everyone who is attending in the office has taken the vaccination. So, these are sort of gentle ways to, I think, nudge people into taking the vaccine, to give them very tangible, immediate benefits. Ultimately, it is my hope that we will be able to get all people vaccinated as soon as possible. Vaccines can remain optional but I think if benefits are linked to it, liberties are linked to it, people will take it up more. It is my hope that all eligible people will take the vaccine soonest, as this will probably have the greatest impact in getting back to as close to normal as possible. Mr Speaker, in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the past year has been a difficult one for all of us because of COVID-19. Some of you or your loved ones may have been infected by the virus. Many more would have experienced loss of income, loss of jobs and big changes in lifestyle. The Government provided significant support last year, providing companies with help like JSS, which provided support for up to 75% of Singaporean’s salaries which helped keep many people in jobs. Those who lost jobs or had significant loss of income were given financial support.”
“Frontline workers kept essential services like hospitals, food supplies and transport running, parents and teachers played their part in helping with home-schooling and later the opening of schools. Today, the situation is under control again, and our journey here was enabled because of collective effort and cooperation. But the situation can change rapidly. All it takes is one or two clusters and it will spread again. The most important next step in this battle is the vaccination. Happily, Singapore is in a position where we have adequate supply of the vaccines coming in the course of the year. According to the BBC, vaccine efficacy based on data coming in is actually quite strong, with Pfizer, Modena, even Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine all having efficacy levels of above 90%, which is a measure of how much they reduce the risk of coming down with symptoms of COVID-19. Although no vaccine has 100% efficacy, even for those people who do come down with COVID-19 symptoms after taking the vaccine, it had generally not been fatal. So, the symptoms are usually more mild. So, what this means is there is close to 100% protection against serious effects of COVID-19. The benefits are definitely there to the individual for taking the vaccine. But we have a slight problem in Singapore. The slight problem we have is that our community spread rates are low and most people are less afraid of getting the virus. So, a number of the people I have spoken to have suggested they would prefer to take a wait-and-see approach; there is no urgency to take it, so let other people take it first. Of course, if everyone does this, there will be a risk that our vaccination rates do not go up as quickly as we would like them to.”
“I think what we also could do is to lend our voice and continue to do so on the international sphere, and to the extent we can aid in the assistance of working out global solutions. The two most important players in this space are the US and China. While they are rivals on some fronts, hopefully, on this front, there is an opportunity for them to take the lead in unison. Both President Xi and President Biden have publicly voiced their commitments to reducing emissions, have taken measures, and the next step is to do so in the international scene. If we reduce emissions and ideally, incentivise and promote reforestation, the effects of climate change may be reversible, but we must work collectively to take effort. The second topic I will discuss is COVID-19. Just a little over a year ago, in the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 was a little known virus which had been spreading in China in the province of Wuhan, but had little footprint elsewhere. Singapore anticipated the seriousness of this threat and set up its Ministerial taskforce as early as January 2020 with both strategy and tactics coordinated at a high level. We have had our ups and downs in dealing with this virus, the most difficult stretch being the two-month circuit breaker, the period when the virus was spreading rapidly in our foreign worker dormitories. Notwithstanding the challenges, we have generally managed well and kept our fatality rate amongst the lowest in the world. We have also managed to absorb a large part of the economic impact because of the emergency financial measures we put in place – companies were supported in their payroll, rentals were reduced and managed, and workers who lost jobs or lost income were given compensation. Many people played a part in this process.”
“Not only that, but the developed world still continues to have a significantly higher carbon footprint than the developing world. In my view, the only sensible solution to this is that we have to pay countries to conserve their forests. And in order to make this payment, there must be a price on pollution and carbon emissions. These ideas are not new; they have been developed in various international treaties like the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol. Ideally, if we can have a global carbon trading market, we may be able to have a fair system where countries that create carbon sinks to absorb carbon get payments for doing so, and countries that emit carbon pay for the same. This way, countries will be incentivised to reduce emissions, in which case they pay less. And countries that may be engaged in reforestation and absorb more carbon can get paid more. This will hopefully create a virtual cycle where countries can be incentivised to reduce emissions and, if possible, even to engage in reforestation. Of course, this is ideal. In order for this to work, the countries emitting carbon have to acknowledge they have a problem. So, what can Singapore do? Singapore is a small country. We cannot really move the meter very much on the global scale. Our own emissions are probably a drop in the ocean. But I think our Budget measures show a clear commitment to reduce our own carbon footprint and to maintain and manage our own development in a sustainable way. We had a very long discussion earlier on on the clearing of land in Kranji. The fact that land clearing gets so much attention in this House, to me, is a good sign of how seriously we take this commitment. We recognise the need for development but we also recognise the need to do so sustainably.”
“I was very much moved by Sir David Attenborough’s documentary "A Life on Our Planet", which is really a sad reminder of what we have lost in the course of just one lifetime. Some of the frightening figures there include 15 billion trees are being cut down each year and that more than half our rainforests are gone. Coral reefs, which also absorb heat, are dying at an alarming rate because of rising water temperatures and pollution. There are also reports that 60% of invertebrates have been wiped out since 1970. There are large numbers of species going extinct and the current age is being referred to as the Sixth Great Extinction. Yet, our journey down this path has been paved with good intentions. People want better quality lives and development generally entails clearing land and development. We had a microcosm of this discussion just earlier. This is also why the greatest carbon emitters are the biggest economies, namely the US and China. The greatest carbon sinks are in the developing world. The developing world wants to develop and be more like the developed world, and this entails clearing land. One area where this is being very publicly debated is the clearing of the Amazon rainforests in Brazil, where land is being cleared at one of its fastest rates. President Jair Bolsanaro has publicly defended his country’s right to clear land for development, while the rest of the world insists it should not. Brazil's view is understandable. Brazil does not see why it has to forgo its own development for the benefit of the rest of the world. On the flipside, it views the developed world, where countries already benefited from deforestation, are not being fair in telling the developing countries not to develop.”
“Mr Speaker, I will focus on two topics in my speech: climate change and COVID-19. One is the most important long-term threat the world faces; and the other, the most immediate threat that is on the minds of world leaders and people around the world. The one thing they have in common is that both address concerns that can only be addressed by concerted effort on the global scale. These problems must be addressed collectively and individual efforts are not going to be enough. Climate change is getting more and more attention. There is broad consensus that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. As more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are emitted, the faster global temperatures rise. The drivers of carbon emission include the industrial development and agriculture, which are in turn driven by consumption. On the other end of the equation, carbon sinks, which are largely forest and plants that absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, are being increasingly destroyed as forests are cleared to make way for development. The effects of climate change are going to be felt by everyone. As global temperatures rise, the arctic ice caps will start to melt and sea levels will rise. Singapore has already started to make plans for dealing with this in the previous Budgets. At the same time, there will be increased desertification as temperatures rise, and more and more eco-systems and species face the risk of dying out as temperatures rise. There will be extremes of weather, droughts and floods. While people may continue to make adjustments to survive, quality of life will definitely get more harsh and difficult. Another casualty in this process is the natural world.”
“The more information you have, the better you can test the truth or falsity of a person's story. And I think this is important. Ultimately, if we want to keep COVID-19 in control, we need to use TraceTogether. Why? Because TraceTogether makes contact tracing significantly easier. A person does not have to remember where they were the last 14 days. They do not have to remember exactly how much time they spent at each place nor do you have to do individual interviews for each and every person. So, to me, it goes without saying that TraceTogether is necessary for this fight. Is TraceTogether something to be feared? Is it a huge invasion of your privacy? In my view, it is not. In my view, the fact that TraceTogether can be used to solve crimes, it may help exonerate innocent people. To, me, that is one more reason to use it, rather than to be afraid of using it. Ultimately, it is our duty as Members of this House to be role models as well. So I think it is important for us not just to reiterate or echo fears that are outside but explain to people whether there is a proper basis for their fears or whether these fears may be overblown and the important considerations, the benefits of using this outweigh, whatever fears we may have. Because ultimately, when we use TraceTogether, the more of us that use it, the better we can solve the community spread of COVID-19. I also hope the better we can solve crime. But I do acknowledge that there are people who have concerns about privacy and therefore its use in crime fighting is going to be limited. So, yes, I do have my reservations on these restrictions, but as this Bill is a compromise, I support it.”
“If you were wrongly accused, would you want the Police to use this data to show you were somewhere else the time it happened? Probably yes. But that cannot be done now, unless it is a serious crime. Police are also being prevented from using SafeEntry data now for anything apart from serious matters. SafeEntry would show what time you entered a place and maybe what time you left if you had checked out. I know that at many places, they monitor you checking in but they do not monitor you checking out. Admittedly, again, it is not perfect. It is just one more clue to help put the whole picture together. If used in conjunction with TraceTogether, it may show when you went and it may show when you left, if you can remember where you went to and the Police can find someone else who was there at that point in time. You could be corroborated by a stranger. To me, what SafeEntry does, is similar to what visitor logs at condominiums and so on, may have done. Generally, we accept that people who maintain properties can keep entrances of visitors when they come and go. And this is often used in, both in civil cases as well as in criminal cases to find out whether a person was at a particular location, at a particular point in time. To me, SafeEntry is a far more sophisticated visitor log far, more accurate, and the fact that its use is being limited is actually a concern because, again what you are saying is, no, no, you cannot see the whole picture, you just have to work with this limit of information. To me, in identifying how a crime happened, who was there, these are not straightforward processes. And for those who do trials, there is plenty of uncertainty involved in all these things.”
“By the time the Police come, the people involved in the fight had disappeared. If that fight is not serious, then, that is going to be one of those potential unsolved crimes – people disappeared, not serious enough to investigate. But if they could use TraceTogether data to find out who did it, then that may be another solved crime. Would you want your TraceTogether data to assist in Police investigations with that situation? I would have no objections to it. Likewise, if someone was hauled up, being interrogated for a crime. And if he were to say, "Oh, yeah, I was in the coffeeshop and I think the Member of Parliament was there, maybe Member of Parliament so and so". Then, if he was not close proximity, he maybe blindsided, cannot remember, you can check the TraceTogether data as well. The key point about TraceTogether is that it is useful to place you together with a stranger and placing a person is an important part of the solving the mystery of the crime – who done it? where was he at the time it happened? I do not see any principled reason why this data should not be relied on by Police. The second point is SafeEntry. Currently, TraceTogether data can be used for serious crime. But I also have reservations on things that are excluded. For example, if sexual assault is not serious, it cannot be used; violence not amounting to grievous bodily harm non-capital drug offences. These acts are not serious under the current legislation but would you want the Police to use all data available to solve these crimes? My answer would be yes. If you were a victim, if one of your family members was a victim, would you want Police to use all available data? Pretty sure the answer is yes.”
“In fact, with most of my residents, the kinds of things they ask surveillance for usually gets rejected but this includes dealing loanshark harassment, littering, inconsiderate neighbourly behaviours, noise nuisance, speeding, traffic offences and parking offences. The Police have done a very good job of dealing with serious crime. Minor crime is obviously not prioritised but this is what causes the most nuisance amongst many of our residents. And even in these situations, people are always ready to trade off privacy for a fast resolution to issues. People understand that Police have limited resources and they are generally supportive unmanned surveillance methods. Where would TraceTogether and SafeEntry come in? What does TraceTogether do? TraceTogether does not track individual locations. It is not this autonomous pilot scene where everyone goes, what you are doing or is it going to retrace your story. The only information TraceTogether has is who is near you at that point in time. This is obviously very useful in contact tracing because you may not know all the people you are in close contact with over a two-week period. But for this very reason, it can also be helpful if you are trying to solve "who done it", a mystery of what happened here. Let us say, obviously, in a case of murder, it is very clear cut. The victim is there. The victim cannot speak; the victim is dead. The victim has a device. You may be able to infer from that device who was in close proximity at the time of the event. How about other cases? What about cases where you cannot see the victim. Maybe you are sitting in a coffeeshop. A fight took place behind you. Your token is here but you did not see what happened but you were at the location.”
“The general rules of evidence, certainly in civil proceedings is, you have a duty to disclose all evidence that is not privileged, even if it goes against your client's case. This is because your primary obligation is with the Court, to help the Court find the truth. Even in criminal proceedings, there are obligations on prosecutors to disclose evidence that may go towards showing the person is not guilty. All this is there because we want the Courts to have the best available information to arrive at the truth. So, generally, the rules and the society that we live in has this presumption that the Court has to have access to all available information. And, of course, for the information to get to the Court, it must first be gathered, in this case, by the Police. I understand that this limitation is only to the powers of the Police and not to the powers of the Court. But in practical terms, where you only have 25 days to gather this evidence, if the decision is not made upfront to gather this evidence, it is unlikely to be gathered or used in Court. So, against this backdrop of the manpower crunch, Police have regularly kept up with the latest policing methods, using technology wherever possible. One obvious example is the use of CCTVs, which are now there at the ground floor lift lobbies and staircases to HDB flats. There is obviously a trade-off in privacy, but I think Singaporeans have generally been comfortable with this. They trust the Police; they cooperate with the Police. I always find more requests for more CCTVs, not less.”
“This power is understandable. When a crime happens, Police have to piece together what happened. The crime scene is not going to the tell the Police the story. If they are lucky, they will have eyewitnesses who can identify the accused, get confessions and close the case. But what if they do not have ready eyewitnesses? What if they have people who were there but who did not see things but who may be able to give information or device? These are all different situations you may find yourself in after a crime has happened. The Police have a wide variety of investigated methods, that is, old-fashioned style investigations, maybe like Sherlock Holmes – you look for clues, you piece together, you draw inferences. But while those make good stories, they do not help you solve a large number of crimes that take place regularly. So, Police use data, they use technology, they find corroborating evidence from as many sources as possible to try and understand what happened. Even after Police work is done and the suspect is found, a trial may be necessary if the suspect does not plead guilty and where evidence gathered by the Police and investigators are put to rigorous testing. As a lawyer, I take part in trials and I can tell you, the truth is not always straightforward. There will be competing versions of narratives and the Judge sitting there has to decide who is telling the truth. The more information and data you have, the better you will be able to piece the story together. And the standard for proving guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. So, it is a very high threshold you have to take before you can establish someone has done something wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, while I understand the context for this Bill, and the reservations many of the earlier Members have mentioned about privacy, I wish to state that I have a somewhat different view. I, too, have my reservations on this Bill, but it largely has to do with the limits its placing on the powers of the Police to obtain information under the CPC. And I think one of the points that we cannot trivialise, is how difficult Police investigations are and how difficult the process of finding the truth can be as well, even if matters were to go to Court. In Singapore, we have a low crime rate and most Singaporeans go about their daily lives without fear of crime. An important reason for this is that we have effective law enforcement by the Police. Singapore's Police Force is small, relative to the population. We have just under 9,700 regular police officers in Singapore, which is around 170 per 100,000 people. This is one of the smallest in the developed world and even amongst our neighbours. For example, the US has around 238, Hong Kong has 487 and Malaysia has around 320. Yet, despite the small Police Force, they have been effective at keeping the crime rates low. This is in part because it has strong support from the population. And people make reports whenever they see anything amiss. For Members of Parliament, you know this, almost every other thing ends up in a Police report; whether it is a neighbour dispute, complaint about noise. People share information freely with the Police, trust the Police and expect them to be able to solve crimes. This expectation is reflected in section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code which allows a Police officer above the rank of sergeant to order a person to "produce any document or thing" to assist in investigations.”
“Thank you. I have listened to the discussion and explanation. One point that I would like to make is that I would actually support the use of TraceTogether for Police investigations. Because not only is it necessarily helpful in finding out who may have been in the vicinity of a crime, for example, but it can also help exonerate people who are wrongly accused. So, for example, if you accused and TraceTogether will tell you who was around you, it may help you establish an alibi. So, I would suggest that people who are accused or assisting in investigations, should be able to request that the Police do check their TraceTogether to see if they may have alibis at the time of the offence.”
“Class licences have been used in other areas too, for example, in legislation by MCI in relation to the media, although in this case, given many of the class licensees will be individuals, it will be important for them to know the relevant rules that will apply. I will be interested to know what steps the Government will take to keep the class licensees informed of such rules. While the mechanism being used is that of a licence, in substance, what needs to be done is for the individuals in possession of such weapons to know exactly what is permitted and what is not to stay out of trouble. The other changes largely involve the rationalisation and harmonisation of offences that existed across many different pieces of legislation. There were some inconsistencies in these previously, as different offences were covered by different rules and developed at different times, but the overall changes in this new legislation rationalises the penalties based on degree of culpability, which means that there will be higher penalties for intentional offences and less for unintentional ones, as well as seriousness of the harm, which means higher penalties for more dangerous weapons and where weapons are used to cause harm. These are, of course, very sensible and the general principles on which all criminal legislation is based. I therefore support this Bill.”
“The new rules will make it an offence for people to possess the blueprints required to 3D print gun parts. Now, this is a tough measure, but one which I welcome as the more easily something dangerous is readily available, the tougher the rules must be to discourage its possession and use. This sends a clear, no nonsense signal that we are remaining tough on the possession of weapons, even if all that one possesses is a blueprint to 3D print such parts. While the use of guns by military and the Police are heavily controlled, one area where members of the public may access weapons is at private shooting ranges. A few years ago, in 2017, the Police already had imposed measures to better control activities at these premises, including measures to make such premises more secure and to better control the type of weapons being used. This Bill allows the Police to issue licences for ranges, which allows Police more flexibility to regulate how they will operate through the imposition of licence conditions and they would be able to ensure the most stringent conditions for the use of firearms in Singapore and to ensure that such firearms are not easily available outside. The introduction of a class licensing regime for lower risk activities balances the generally tough approach with practicality. There are some people who participate in lower risk activities such as the use of air rifles for sport. The introduction of a class licensing regime to deal with these is a clever method and saves each person the hassle of getting an individual licence.”
“Mr Speaker, I speak in support of this Bill. Singapore is well known for its no nonsense approach to weapons possession. The possession of guns and firearms by members of the public is prohibited, and the usage of firearms is heavily restricted and generally limited to the armed forces, police and a few private gun clubs. The possession of other weapons, including items that might be used as weapons such as knives, is also controlled and people are not permitted to be in possession of such items in public without good reason. Strict laws like this have played an important part in keeping Singapore safe and we do not have horror stories of shootings and gun violence. While we do have other weapons being used in incidents like gang fights, the strict laws against improper possession have also permitted police to move pre-emptively in such cases, arresting individuals in possession of weapons without good reason even if they have not used it for violence yet. As such, violent fights with weapons are also few and far between. Against this backdrop, these latest changes to legislation and harmonisation of several different Bills tighten and expand the laws to cover developing areas of potential threats. One example of such a potential threat is the 3D printing of gun parts. While smuggling guns or gun parts into and around Singapore is not easy and subject to the strictest of penalties, it has now become possible to manufacture gun parts with 3D printers, which are becoming more widely available. The blueprints for such weapons may be found on the Internet, or more commonly, the Dark Net. With such blueprints and a 3D printer, individuals could 3D print usable gun parts.”
“I do not have a straightforward answer to this because of the difficult question of how we are going to have adequate resources but I do support a public defender's office because this would at least institutionalise a group of lawyers who would be there to defend victims who need earlier access to lawyers. If I were to look at many of these specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering. If I were to look at many of the specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering. The plight of the poor, improvements in the law enforcement agencies process and more justice for victims of crime. There are many good suggestions here which can be taken into account as we evolve the criminal justice system and as part of the normal review process. To sum up, Speaker, I agree that fairness, access and independence should be cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. I do not think the Government should ever rest on its laurels. I think principled and systemic reform should continue as it always has over the years. I support the spirit of the Motion. I do not think we need a Constitutional Committee for this but, of course, this is early in the debate, so my mind is not closed. But I also think it is important for us to acknowledge the good work that has been done so far. I would like to record my thanks to everyone involved in keeping our criminal justice system working, including the Police, the Prosecutors, the defence counsels, the Courts, the Prison Services and the many organisations and volunteers working to assist the process of crime prevention, victim support and rehabilitation.”
“In 2013, the Appropriate Adult Scheme was piloted for suspects with autism spectrum disorder, mental health conditions and intellectual disabilities. This was for vulnerable accused persons or suspects. This scheme proved to be useful and was made permanent in 2015. In 2017, this was expanded to include all young suspects under the age of 16. These are all additional safeguards that have been put in place as our legal system evolves. This represents our commitment to ensuring that the legal system continues to be one that is fair and just. A second aspect of this that is of course important and it is access to justice. In the earlier speech, Minister K Shanmugam made clear that we have a very large number of accused persons. I think 66,000 was the number every year – I mean, people who are accused of crime. These are all in the reports. Clearly, it is not feasible for the state to fund immediate legal representation for everyone. However, for serious offences, I agree it is important for people to have proper representation. There are several schemes in place that do this already. The Supreme Court's Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, or LASCO, provides everyone accused of capital crimes with legal representation. There are of course a series of different aid schemes as well which I think the Minister mentioned. This includes the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. All of these are basically cooperative schemes led by the bar but with the Government's support as well. If resources permit, and as was clear from the question I raised earlier, it would be helpful if more people are given access to legal counsel and possibly at an earlier stage.”
“The Courts always had a discretionary power to order compensation for victims but victims did not have a right to insist on this. The 2010 reforms required the Courts to consider victim compensation in all cases. Victims were empowered to take part. If the Court chose not to grant compensation, it had to give reasons for doing so. This mechanism gave victims a right of compensation, which would save them the cost and emotional energy of a second trial process if they were satisfied with the compensation. Another feature of the 2010 reforms – and this goes to how our legal system looks at rehabilitation – is community-based sentences were expanded. Prior to this, accused persons had limited alternatives to prison like home detention and probation. In 2010, a wide range of alternatives was introduced, including short detention orders, day reporting orders, mandatory treatment orders, community service orders and community work orders. What this allowed is it gave the Courts a broader flexibility to give sentences that were more proportional for less serious or less culpable offenders. This too was enhanced by further reforms in 2018. A wide range of other reforms that have taken place over the years included safeguards for minors and victims of sexual offences and for accused persons in death penalty cases. In 2018, another significant step was the introduction of video recording of interviews because what took place when police statements were recorded started becoming more contentious as these were challenged in trial. The video recording of interviews was also a helpful step in resolving these concerns because judges would also be able to observe the demeanour and behaviour of the accused.”
“However, from the lawyers' perspective, this appeared to be unfair because the defence counsel would be operating without knowing what the prosecution had up its sleeve and needed to get their clients to try and recount what had happened and what they had told the Police. Where there were inconsistencies that emerged at trial while the accused was being cross-examined, the defendant's lawyers would not be able to take instructions for the reasons for this and whether there was any other explanation for the inconsistency other than, of course, the accused lying. The criminal disclosure requirements that were amended in 2010 required the prosecution to disclose a summary of their case, a list of exhibits the witnesses would rely on, including Police statements prior to the hearing. The defence would do likewise. There was an exchange of information. In this way, it was somewhat analogous to the process that have been in place for a long time for civil cases. As a final step, the prosecution would share the remaining Police statements of the accused and copies of documentary exhibits. This allowed both the prosecution and defence counsel to anticipate matters and better reduce the drama in Court. In 2018, following further amendments, the list of offences covered by these procedures were broadened to include offences under the Moneylenders Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The 2010 reforms also provided for victim compensation because victims are also an important part of the criminal process. In the past, criminal law was largely about convicting those accused of crimes and victims were witnesses in the process. If they wanted personal relief, they may need to commence separate civil proceedings.”
“Like many other countries, for those with drug-related crimes, there is a higher likelihood of recidivism and of committing other crimes. This is why keeping the drug situation under control is of vital importance and why we have always supported the toughest measures against drug traffickers. Our criminal justice system is also not one set in stone. It is one that has evolved over time. The only point in which I think I depart a little from my friends is I do not think you need a grand Constitutional Commission to reform criminal law. Constitutional Commissions are usually to change the Constitution and I do not see any proposals to change the Constitution specifically as yet. But criminal law reform, I think, is part of the natural process of developing our system. I will give some examples of how the criminal law has evolved through the natural process of criminal law reforms. Given the tough penalties we have for offences, I think it is important that accused persons must have a fair hearing process and they should not be unnecessarily detained. This too is a journey that has taken place over the years and more and more rights and liberties have been given to accused persons. Some examples. In 2010, there was a major reform of the criminal law. The prosecution before this was not required to share details of the case or Police statements with the accused before the trial. This was because it was believed that if the accused was innocent, his story should be consistent at all times and if he tells a different story at the trial, the statement to the Police could be brought up to contradict his account. This was the reasoning for why the system was the way it was before that.”
“Mr Speaker, while I do not agree with all the points made by my colleagues from the Workers' Party, I do support the spirit of the Motion. I agree that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and that the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. The legal system should not discriminate based on race, language, religion or economic status. I think these principles are universal. These are, of course, not the only principles that one has to bear in mind when considering a criminal justice system. To these, I would add that the chief purposes of a criminal justice system are also to keep a country safe and keep the crime rate down. People should not live their lives in fear for personal safety or being victims of crime. A criminal justice system should have measures in place to prevent recidivism or re-committal of offences as well as processes in place to help reform those who are convicted. The challenge in designing a criminal legal system, of course, is that one has to carefully evaluate the effects of any proposed changes on these different principles. Singapore's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world and this is despite the fact that we are sitting close to the "golden triangle" for the drug trade. Generally, anyone can go out late at night in most parts of Singapore without being worried about personal safety. Many people leave doors unlocked without worrying about break-ins. While many of us take this for granted, this personal safety we feel is really the result of a well controlled crime situation. Our rate of recidivism is also low, especially for those whose crimes are not drug-related.”