Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 64.
“Removing Prisons Visit Privileges of Members of Cabinet or Parliament Let me next turn to the proposal to remove the Prisons visit privileges of Members of Cabinet and Parliament. Currently, besides members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament, the Prisons Act already empowers every Judge, Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, to visit any prison to examine the conditions of the prison and the inmates. Visiting Justices are Justices of the Peace who have been appointed for the specific purpose of checking on the conditions of a prison and that of the prisoners on a regular basis. They forward their observations to the Prisons Authorities and to the Minister. As distinguished private citizens, they provide a valuable service in presenting reliable and balanced feedback on the state of our prisons. The Visiting Justices conduct monthly visits to all Prison institutions to inspect the physical conditions of prisons and to hear feedback from prisoners during such inspection rounds. The roles of the Visiting Justices are clearly spelt out in the Prisons Regulations. As there already exists an adequate check by neutral parties on the Prison authorities, the current provision for Members of Parliament and members of the Cabinet is hence not necessary. Malaysia removed its provisions relating to MP's visits from their new Prisons Act enacted in 1995. The United Kingdom and Hong Kong Prisons laws do not have such a provision. Hence, my Ministry is proposing that the provision be deleted from the Prisons Act. Clause 22 of the Bill seeks to do this. Let me assure the House that prisoners are not left without any avenues to express any grievances they may have.”
“Clause 7 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section in the Prisons Act to empower the Director of Prisons to employ auxiliary police officers to serve as escorts and guards while the prisoners are transported to, or from, any prison. It also defines the powers given to such auxiliary police officers. Prisons Department will take measures to ensure that the auxiliary police officers meet strict security standards. Even with the outsourcing, Prisons will continue to be accountable for the safe custody of inmates both within and outside prisons and drug institutions. Appointment of Committees of Inquiry The Prisons Act will also be amended to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint Committees of Inquiry to investigate into the death of any prisoner or look into any other matters pertaining to the administration of prisons. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 7 which empowers the Minister to appoint such Committees. Among other things, these committees will be empowered to summon witnesses and to refer witnesses who lie or misconduct themselves to the magistrates' court for prosecution. Use of Weapons Against Persons Facilitating an Escape While the current Prisons Act empowers our Prison authorities to use weapons against prisoners who are escaping or attempting to escape, it does not cover situations where other persons are involved in facilitating an escape. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Prisons Act to empower Prison officers to use weapons against any prisoner or person who attempts or facilitates an attempt to escape or attempts to damage or break open the enclosure of a prison or a prison vehicle.”
“In addition, eligible offenders will go through rigorous assessments to determine their suitability for emplacement onto the Scheme. These assessments will be conducted by the internal Prison committees as well as an independent Advisory Committee, made up of distinguished members of the community. The conduct, attitude and response to rehabilitation and the risk factors of eligible offenders will be scrutinised. Under Home Detention, offenders will be released on licence to reside at home under strict regulatory control, which includes mandatory reporting to the authorities for counselling and stipulated curfew hours of 10 pm to 7 am, which will be monitored via electronic tagging. Offenders are also required to be gainfully employed or involved in academic pursuits. Those who violate these conditions are liable to be recalled to prison while the breach is being investigated. Those found guilty of breach will be adjudicated and punished, and have their release orders revoked. Outsourcing of Prisons Escort Functions I shall now move on to the proposed outsourcing of Prisons escort functions and the consequential extension of the necessary powers to commercial security agencies. Currently, armed prison officers escort and guard inmates during trips outside prisons and drug institutions. Such outside escort duties include hospital and security ward duty, escort for court attendance and inter-institutional prisoner transfer. Outsourcing the escorting of low-risk prisoners to a commercial security agency will free trained prison officers to take on more sensitive and higher value frontline operational duties such as the management and rehabilitation of inmates. Prison officers will however continue to escort high-risk prisoners.”
“Home Detention has been implemented at the tail-end of the detention period for drug inmates and Criminal Law Detainees as well as Reformative trainees released onto statutory supervision. Countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia have successfully implemented Home Detention. It serves as an avenue for the earlier release of prisoners who are most amenable to rehabilitation. Its implementation serves a number of purposes. Firstly, allowing the offender to be closer to his family and the community will help him to better reintegrate into society after incarceration. The deterrent element is still retained as offenders will be subjected to restrictions and surveillance via electronic tagging. Secondly, as this scheme allows offenders to remain in the community, it keeps the families intact and allows offenders to be gainfully employed. Reaction to our announcement of the Scheme, especially those from families of offenders, has been positive. Clause 10 of the Bill introduces a new Part IVA in the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-end Home Detention Scheme. The Scheme will allow selected offenders serving jail terms of six months and above to be released early on home detention up to a maximum of six months. These offenders must have served at least half of their imprisonment term before they become eligible. The selection of eligible inmates will be based on a stringent set of criteria. Only offenders who are assessed to be least likely to pose a risk to society will be considered for the Scheme. Prisoners serving life imprisonment, offenders of serious or violent crimes, and drug and sexual offenders will not be eligible. Clause 24 of the Bill provides for a new Schedule which lists the type of ineligible offenders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Prisons Act was last amended in 1997. Further amendments to the Prisons Act are now necessary to enhance the effectiveness of our Prisons Service and offer our penal population with more rehabilitation opportunities. Community-Based Sentences I shall first cover the main set of amendments, which are related to the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention for penal inmates. In 1998, I asked my Minister of State to chair an Inter-Ministry Committee to examine the feasibility of introducing Community-Based Sentences into our criminal justice system. Among its recommendations are the extension of the use of Probation to adult offenders, and the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention, Boot Camp, Community Service Orders and Re-integrative Shaming. My Ministry is mindful that the use of Community-Based Sentences must neither compromise the objectives of our penal regime, nor give the victim or the public the impression that our system is becoming lenient towards perpetrators of crimes. Tough penalties would continue to be meted out to deserving offenders. Community-Based Sentences complement, not replace, the traditional forms of punishment of imprisonment, caning and fines. There is scope, however, in Singapore's criminal justice system for lighter sentencing options with a greater rehabilitative element for those who commit relatively minor offences, and first-time offenders. This is especially so if there are mitigating circumstances. That is why we are amending the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-End Home Detention Scheme. Tail-End Home Detention for Penal Inmates Tail-End Home Detention is not new.”
“While the incident is something that all of us deplore, the point is that unless you take unnecessary risks in our parks, it would be quite safe to use our parks.”
“Sir, he will have another chance to have a crack at it. He could choose any constituency he wants at the next general elections. POLICING OF PARKS 10. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps are being taken to police the various parks that are used by joggers and others so as to ensure a safe environment for them. The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, the National Parks Board, Police and the community are jointly responsible for ensuring safety in our public parks. The Police, in addition to park rangers, regularly patrol public parks, to project their presence. The Police also carry out anti-crime operations whenever necessary. The Police cannot be everywhere all the time to prevent and deter crime. Members of the public should also play their part and take proper precautions, such as not going to secluded or poorly-lit places when they are alone. They should also report to the Police or the park authorities whenever they see suspicious persons lurking in the vicinity. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Is it not true that recently there was a case where a jogger was attacked in broad daylight and, as a result, suffered fatal injuries? Would that not be regarded as a particularly worrying thing for us to look again at the security in the parks? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Our sympathies are with the family of this girl on the incidence of this crime. It is a heinous crime. But the point is this: The overall situation in the parks is safe. That is an important point to note. In fact, over the last two years, only seven out of the 228 rapes were committed in the parks and playgrounds. All of them were committed, except for one, by persons known to the victims.”
“Sir, I think the Non-Constituency Member is rather presumptuous that we are afraid of a defeat. I do not think we are ever afraid to confront any issue, but when there is a need to, we will do it. But the law does not provide for compulsory by-election. The Prime Minister does not think there is a need for it, and that is it.”
“Sir, Article 49 is very clear that a by-election would be called in accordance with any written law. The written law for election is the Parliamentary Elections Act. If the Non-Constituency Member feels that the Government has violated the Constitution, then he should take the case to the court and seek a redress there rather than to raise this here from time to time hoping that one would be called so that he can try again.”
“Sir, the Article is very clear that a by-election is to be called in accordance with the law, and the law is the Parliamentary Elections Act. If the Member does not know, read up section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. It is there.”
“Sir, since the Member quotes Article 49, maybe he can read Article 49 for us so that we can understand.”
“Can the Member quote me the Article in the Constitution that demands a by-election be called?”
“Sir, the law does not provide for a compulsory calling for a by-election whenever a vacancy arises. That is the power of the Prime Minister according to the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“The Prime Minister can delegate any Minister to reply a question on his behalf. The Prime Minister does not need to give a reason for not holding a by-election. He had given one reason before, and there are other reasons too. But, as I have said, the law provides that it is up to the Prime Minister to call for a by-election for any vacancy in a constituency. It is up to him. That is in our law.”
“As with any other investments, diversification minimizes the risk level of the entire portfolio. Temasek Holdings, the Government investment holding company which monitors the performance of our portfolio, has made profits averaging $2.2 billion a year over the last 10 years. It has current shareholders' funds totalling $46 billion. If the Member has a specific question on a specific venture, I will provide the details as appropriate, just as I have done in the past when questions had been raised in the House on GLCs. PUBLIC HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS 4. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry will consider bringing forward the implementation of major public housing and infrastructural projects to restore the growth of the construction sector which contracted by 16% in the third quarter of 1999.”
“For the year 1999 (up to end November), the Registrar of Societies approved 187 applications. Of these, 134 (72%) were approved within three months, 45 (24%) were approved within three to four months and 8 (4%) were approved after four months. Three applications were refused registration in the same period. GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES 3. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance (i) if he will furnish a detailed statement of all losses suffered or incurred by wholly-owned Government companies or corporations and Government-linked companies in business ventures undertaken by themselves wholly or with the private sector from 1965 onwards; and (ii) whether any of these losses have been recovered and, if not, whether the losses have been written off. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Government-linked companies, like all other companies, are run on a commercial basis. They face the usual business risks, including market, technology, commercial and political risks. Not all investments will be profitable, nor may the profitable ones be profitable every single year. Government has to look at the returns on its investments on a portfolio basis, and not take the simplistic position of looking at the profits and losses of individual GLCs year to year. There are tens of thousands of projects and business ventures undertaken by GLCs. They are undertaken with corporate and business structures which best facilitate the commercial activities in highly competitive environments. There are some 1,600 GLCs in total. To pursue the details of every venture by every GLC for every year since 1965 does not make sense. Government looks at its investments on the basis of overall performance of its portfolio of companies.”
“Applications for Public Entertainment licences are classified under `establishment' and `ad hoc' types of licences. `Establishment' licences are for premises/outlets such as pubs and amusement centres, which provide public entertainment. `Ad hoc' licences are mainly for events that last a short period of time, for example, concerts, dramas, plays, variety shows and talks. Police has publicly pledged to process 90% of all establishment licence applications within 8 weeks and adhoc licence applications within 3 weeks. Applications for establishment licences take a longer time to process as more detailed checks have to be conducted before the Police can be satisfied that law and order will not be compromised for the duration of the licence. In 1999, more than 50% of all applications were processed within a week while 91% of all applications were processed within 3 weeks. For ad hoc licences, 96% were approved within 3 weeks. Only 179 (4%) applications out of 5,312 applications took more than 4 weeks to process. 109 (61%) of these 179 applications were for establishment licences. Only 64 (1% of total) applications, comprising 54 establishment and 10 ad hoc applications, were rejected in 1999. The Police constantly reviews its internal processes and will similarly review the time required to process applications for public entertainment licences with a view to speeding it up. NUMBER OF REGISTERED SOCIETIES 2. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs for the year 1999, what is the number of societies that were registered and what is the number of applications that have been refused or delayed by more than three months.”
“There is no specific offence of "rage" in our laws. Instead, depending on the acts and injuries that result from the "rage", one of the following offences may be committed: voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons, rioting or criminal intimidation. The penalties for these offences range from a fine to life imprisonment and caning. In serious cases, the prosecution will seek deterrent sentences. These provisions in our laws are adequate against such misbehaviour. The number of cases of voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons, rioting and criminal intimidation dropped from 1,468 in 1998 to 1,109 in 1999. The recently reported cases of assaults in a cinema and fast food outlet should be seen in the context of this declining trend. There is no cause for the public to be alarmed. CPF CONTRIBUTION RATES 19. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he will explain whether the current Central Provident Fund (CPF) policies in respect of the accumulation of balances in the individual's account, will adequately ensure that retirees, particularly those who are currently self-employed, will be sufficiently taken care of for the period of their retirement; and (b) whether there are any plans to increase the CPF contribution rates for the self-employed to bring them in line with the CPF contribution level of employees.”
“Low's last point is on section 30B where he mentioned that the premises could be issued with a closure order and the order could be lifted later and that there is no mention at all why a closure order is issued and on what grounds the order would be lifted. He wanted to know the rationale behind the closure order in section 30B. The closure order would only be issued in a scenario where the owner refuses to comply with the order by the SCDF to rectify any non-compliance in the fire safety works and the situation is such that the non-compliance will pose an imminent danger to the occupants of the building. With the closure of the building, the Commissioner may then take action to carry out the rectification works and the closure order would be lifted when the necessary rectification works have been completed and the building meets the fire safety requirements. I think I have answered all the questions raised by the two Members. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Even under the present law, no such provision is in place and the Attorney-General's Chambers has told me that this is also the case for the Professional Engineers Act and the Architects Act. The check really lies with the SCDF where the Commissioner must exercise his discretion in screening the complaints to ensure that they are not frivolous or that they are not without basis and the SCDF is prepared to re-look into the issue if there is any evidence of abuse. Prof. Low also talked about the grey areas he spotted and the additional cost involved, and he also alluded to the point that the landlord normally may want to resist or delay the rectification work causing the QP to commit the offence under section 7(b). I would like to explain that section 7(b) itself is not amended. But under section 23(7)(b) - maybe he is referring to section 23(7)(b) instead - the order to rectify non-compliance is issued to the owner and therefore it is in the owner's interest to carry out the rectification work. There are a couple of points on the demolition order or removal order under section 30, which is being served on the landlord if the building has already been issued with a temporary fire certificate. Prof. Low says that the order is served only to a qualified person if the fire safety works are in progress and in the case of a completed building, he thinks the landlord or tenant should also be served with the order because he is likely to be the party causing the obstruction to the actions. Let me assure him that, for cases where the fire safety works are in progress, the order can be served to either the owner or qualified person. And in practice, the SCDF serves the order on both the owner and the qualified person. Prof.”
“So it is quite a substantial reduction in view of the new system. As regards Prof. Low's questions, I will deal with them specifically. Firstly, with regard to whether the Registered Inspector will be subject to disciplinary action by its own professional body, it is really up to the respective professional body to decide whether the Registered Inspector has breached or contravened any of the board's own regulations or provisions under the Professional Engineers Act or the Architects Act. As regards the conflict about appointing an acting Chairman and that section 6B(3) requires that all members of the Inquiry Committee must be present, I have been advised by the Attorney-General that there is no conflict between these two clauses. The acting Chairman, if so appointed, will act in the capacity of Chairman for the Inquiry. Together with the rest of the members of the Inquiry Committee, they will still fulfill the requirement that all members of the Inquiry Committee must be present to constitute the quorum. I would like to assure him and Members of the House that the same people who have been appointed to sit in the Inquiry Committee will investigate the case from the beginning to the end. The Commissioner would not exercise his powers to substitute the Chairman, if that is what he is concerned about, or any other member, if the Inquiry Committee has commenced its proceedings. Prof. Low also asked whether the complainant who makes frivolous complaints against a Registered Inspector without any reasonable ground should be punished. There is no provision in the current Bill for any action to be taken against any person who makes false complaints against a Registered Inspector.”
“I thank the Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Chen is concerned about the grey areas of interpretation after the building work is done. I am sure FSB in working together with the various professional bodies will make sure that such problems do not regularly happen and that the Fire Safety Code is regularly reviewed to make sure that grey areas are clarified. As far as the Code is concerned, we can make it as explicit as possible but we cannot cover all eventualities. But with the process of dialogue which has been going on for a long time between the various professional bodies and SCDF, I think this process of consultation will continue to work well to improve the Fire Safety Code. As regards the plan fees, I would like to assure the Member that we are not reaping all the benefits of cost savings and not returning some of the savings to the parties concerned. Even before the self-regulation system was implemented, it has always been the responsibility of the qualified persons to ensure that the plans comply fully with the fire safety requirements. The self-regulation system only entrusted the qualified persons to take greater care in preparing their plans and ensure that the fire safety reqirements are fully complied with. But with the self-regulation system, the FSB's efforts are now directed at providing consultation to the public and conducting detailed audit checks on the plans that were submitted. Plan fees were already revised and adjusted in September 1998 when the self-regulation system was implemented to better reflect the actual resources used by the FSB. Compared to the previous plan fees structure, I am told that the FSB's assessment is that there is an average cost reduction of about 23% for an application.”
“To close this loophole, clause 5 amends section 13 of the Act to empower the Commissioner when issuing a FHAN, to require the offender to take the necessary steps to prevent the re-occurrence of the said fire hazard. With this amendment, SCDF can take immediate action against recalcitrant owners/occupiers. Conclusion The proposals that I have presented today are necessary to ensure that the Act remains relevant to our needs. They will enable us to maintain one of the highest fire safety standards in the world. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The power to demolish a building will only be used as a last resort, in situations where the unauthorised fire safety works or the building works actually pose an immediate danger to the occupants of the building. These new provisions are in line with similar provisions in the Building Control Act. Making Fire Hazard Abatement Notice permanent The Bill also proposes amendments to facilitate the enforcement of the Fire Safety Act. Currently, under section 13 of the Act, the Commissioner has to issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice (FHAN) to the occupier, owner, or employee of a premises to remove the fire hazard each time a fire hazard is detected, for example, blocking of passageway to the fire exit. The FHAN also specifies a timeframe for the removal of the fire hazards. If the FHAN is complied with, then the case is closed. Otherwise, SCDF can either compound the offence, remove or seize any property causing the fire hazard, order the owner or occupier to close the premises for up to 72 hours to remove the fire hazard, or apply to the Magistrate's Court for a Fire Hazard Order. However, under the current law, there is nothing to stop the owner or occupier from committing a new fire hazard offence after the previous fire hazard has been removed. SCDF needs to re-issue the offender with a fresh FHAN even if the nature of the new fire hazard is similar to the previous act. As a result, SCDF has to closely monitor recalcitrant cases and issue a FHAN each time the same type of offence is committed. This is unproductive. The number of such recalcitrant cases has been on the rise. There were 63 cases in 1999, compared to only 15 cases in 1997 and 12 cases in 1998.”
“The concept of self-regulation for Qualified Persons under section 23 will be extended to the submission of approval for fire safety certificates under section 29. The amended section 29 of the Act will empower Commissioner SCDF to issue a Fire Safety Certificate (FSC) or a Temporary Fire Permit (TFP) for a completed building based on the certification given by a Registered Inspector. Random checks may be carried out before or after such certificates are issued. The Commissioner will also be empowered under the amended section 29 to similarly revoke the Fire Safety Certificate or the Temporary Fire Permit if he is satisfied that the certification or information given by the Registered Inspector is false or if the applicant fails to comply with his order to carry out rectification in the building. Provision for powers to order the demolition, removal, closure, alteration or demolition of buildings Sir, let me now turn to enforcement action to be taken in respect of non-compliance of fire safety requirements under the Act. Clause 8 inserts new sections 30A, 30B and 30C. These sections will confer powers on SCDF to take appropriate action against cases of unauthorised fire safety works. Section 30A empowers Commissioner SCDF to order the demolition or removal of illegal fire safety works in cases of severe non-compliance. He may issue an order for closure of a building or part of it, and enter any building to demolish, remove or alter any works causing the non-compliance. Section 30B provides for the servicing and enforcement of a closure order, while section 30C provides a channel to appeal to the Minister. The new provisions will enable SCDF to better deal with cases of non-compliance.”
“This has led to instances where some Qualified Persons made careless submissions and relied on the SCDF to point out their mistakes in writing. Further, under the self-regulation system put in place by SCDF since September 1998, SCDF would approve the fire safety plan prepared by a Qualified Person immediately if the Qualified Person has also filed a written declaration that the plan fulfils the fire safety requirements under the Fire Safety Act. If an approved plan is found not to be complying with the Act in subsequent audit checks, current provisions in the Fire Safety Act do not allow SCDF to revoke it. SCDF can only issue a written direction for the owner of the project to make the necessary amendments to the plan. Clause 6 will amend section 23 of the Act to allow Commissioner SCDF to reject a submitted plan outright, without having to issue a written direction. This power will be used for cases where there are glaring errors in the submission plans. This will place the onus on the Qualified Persons to ensure that their plans comply with all fire safety requirements. It will also prevent the Qualified Persons from being reliant on SCDF for the written directions. The proposed amendment to section 23 also empowers Commissioner SCDF to revoke an approval granted earlier if audit check reveals that the Qualified Person has made a false declaration of compliance or provided false information to the Commissioner during the submission of the plan. Fire Safety Certificate or Temporary Fire Permit for newly completed building Currently, under section 29 of the Act, the person for whom the fire safety works are carried out is required to apply to the Commissioner for a fire safety certificate.”
“The formation of such a committee will ensure a greater level of professionalism and independence in the investigation process. The Fire Safety Act currently only allows Commissioner SCDF to de-register a Registered Inspector because of misconduct. There is no other form of punishment. The current law does not provide for graduated penalties commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 5 of the Fire Safety Act to empower the Commissioner to impose additional forms of penalties, namely, suspension from practice, and written warnings. The new section 6C(7)(d) inserted by clause 4 also empowers the Commissioner to impose a fine of up to $5,000. The Commissioner will only de-register a Registered Inspector if the latter is involved in serious cases of negligence or misconduct such as fraud, misrepresentation or dishonesty. Power to disapprove plans without a written direction and revoke approvals granted for plans of fire safety works I will now move on to the system for approving fire safety plans. Currently, a person who wishes to construct a new building has to appoint a Qualified Person (QP), who is a professional engineer or architect, to prepare a fire safety plan. This plan has to be submitted to SCDF for approval. In the course of checking the plans submitted by the Qualified Person, SCDF has detected errors, such as the lack of endorsement from the QP in the plan submissions, or sprinklers are not specified. Under section 23 of the current Fire Safety Act, Commissioner SCDF cannot reject a plan submitted to him without first issuing a written direction to the Qualified Person to ask him to comply with the fire safety requirements.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Fire Safety Act, or FSA in short, was enacted in 1993. In order for SCDF to keep up to date, it is necessary to amend the FSA to provide for new powers for the SCDF as well as to fine-tune some of the existing provisions. Graduated penalties for Registered Inspectors and the establishment of a Committee to investigate complaints and to recommend penalties I shall first touch on the proposed changes to the Registered Inspector (RI) scheme. Registered Inspectors are a group of professional architects and engineers registered under the Fire Safety Act. The owner of a newly completed building is required to appoint a Registered Inspector to inspect and test fire safety works in the building. The Registered Inspector has to certify that the fire safety works are completed in accordance with the fire safety plans and the Fire Safety Act before the Commissioner will issue the Fire Safety Certificate for the occupation of the building. While the current Fire Safety Act allows Commissioner SCDF to appoint a committee to assist him in considering applications for registration as Registered Inspectors, it does not provide for the appointment of a committee to assist the Commissioner to investigate into any complaints of misconduct or negligence by a Registered Inspector. To provide for a more transparent system of investigation, clause 4 of the Bill will create new sections 6A to 6D to give Commissioner SCDF the power to appoint a Committee either on his own accord, or upon receipt of a complaint, to investigate into any complaint against a Registered Inspector. Members of the Inquiry Committee will comprise qualified persons such as professional engineers and architects, and officers from the SCDF.”
“And he very cleverly uses a case from the Privy Council to say, yes, Rule of Law does not mean written law; yes, we have obeyed the written law. But besides the written law, there is something called the rules of natural justice. Speaking as a lawyer, I think it is indeed true that there are rules of justice which are part of the laws of Singapore, and we do not deny that. Perhaps the debate is so esoteric a topic, that it is the reason why most of the speakers in this House so far have been lawyers. But let me just give a graphic illustration of what Rule of Law is and is not. If you talk about Rule of Law, it is the exact opposite of law of the ruler. Rule of Law means the law decides what you can do, what you as a ruler can do. Law of the ruler means what I say as a ruler, that is law. In some countries around us, we have read the newspapers, it makes headlines when a ruler stops at the traffic lights. Because in that country, the Rule of Law is so abused and violated that when finally a ruler does stop at a traffic light, it is news! I think what would be news in Singapore would be a Minister or an MP shooting the red light. That is breaking the law, and they will be taken to court, I am quite sure, if that happens. So Mr J B Jeyaretnam finds nothing wrong with the law, and nothing wrong with our application of it.”
“Sir, I think these are fine points that we are debating. If the PAP is in charge, we are the Government. Over the last 40 years, we have been the Government. Whatever that were accumulated is a result of this Government's policies, and that is a fact and a reality. So when we make a promise and say, "Well, you elect us, we will do this for you, we will carry out our programme." And for the last 9 or 10 terms, this is what we have been doing. That is a reality. We are not politically naive as that, surely. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, listening to the debate in this House over the motion and the amendment, I was reminded of this story. Two housewives went to the market and they saw a rather big fish. They were arguing about how long it was. Housewife A said, "Well, I have got a way to determine this." And she pulled out a string, measured the fish and then compared it to her arm, and she said, "It is about 50 cm." Whereupon housewife B said, "No, it is not." She took a look and she said, "It is 49.74 cm." Whereupon housewife A said, "How did you know? How can you be so accurate?" And housewife B replied, "Ruler, lor." Sir, as we debate what Rule of Law means in this House and whether we value it or not, I think sometimes we must be clear that we know what we are talking about. We cannot be inexact and flawed in our definition of what Rule of Law is. We cannot take a string and say this is what I think Rule of Law is. I do believe that Mr J B Jeyaretnam who has spoken extensively acknowledges that there is Rule of Law. The only problem he has is that this Rule of Law, because it is so well upheld by the Government, he has to re-define it.”
“And I believe I have seen it too, what difference does it make? You are not in charge of the Government. If you have not read the PAP's, too bad!”
“Let us not quibble about whether you have or you do not have. Assuming that you have, and I believe that you have --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose.”
“Sir, again he says the PM has intimidated the voters. The PM says, "These are my programmes. If you vote for me, this is what you get. If you vote for the Opposition, this is what you will not get from me." I think that is fair. Why? Because it is our programme, you vote for me, I give you my programme. If you vote for the Opposition programme, and if I still give you my programme, then I must be stupid! Cannot be, is it not? If we are stupid, we would not be here. Workers' Party has a manifesto. Yes, I am aware of that manifesto. But if people do believe in the manifesto, if they trust you to deliver - Mr Jeyaretnam: You said the Opposition Party had no manifesto, no programme. Those were your words.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam became the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party since 1972.”
“From 1965 till 1981, when Mr Jeyaretnam first came to this House and made a big song and dance about it, those were the years when the PAP had total control of this House and in all policy-decision making. Of course, he would say, "One party, and therefore oppressive and bad for the people." But the records say otherwise. Over those few years, despite the difficulties we faced and the issues we had to deal with, despite some people who wanted to down Singapore, we have succeeded. We have succeeded because of the policies that we have formulated, the ways we have implemented them and the ways the people have supported them. They knew quite well in their hearts that this Government delivers whatever it promises. While we had complete control in this House, we did not abuse it. In fact, we have had some of our older colleagues play the role of the Opposition to counter, challenge and criticise our policies to make sure that we were not all of the same mind, moving in one direction regardless of whether the policies were right or wrong. We moved on and we succeeded. In 1981, Mr Jeyaretnam came to the House. What additional contribution did he make? I think the record is there for people to see. In 1984, Mr Chiam came to this House. In 1991, four Opposition MPs came to this House. I think the people had enough. In one term, the people recognised some of them were just not competent enough to serve them and two of them are no longer in this House. That is the kind of Opposition we have. So when Mr Jeyaretnam is unable to get more people to support him, and unable to attract the right people to work with him, do not blame it on the People's Action Party or the Government. He should only blame it on himself.”
“Sir, I did not originally intend to speak but having listened to this long and rambling speech by Mr Jeyaretnam, I think I should say a few words, lest he gets away with thinking that he is always right when he is always wrong. I am no doctor, no lawyer, just a Minister. Common sense tells me and sometimes I read journals and what may interest me. I know that as we get older, our short-term memory gets worse. Our long-term memory is always there. So Mr Jeyaretnam recalls all these past instances and selectively remembers certain things and conveniently forgets others that he has learnt over the years. When he quotes certain instances, he has forgotten all the answers that have been given in this House or that have been replied to in other forums. He just completely ignores them or conveniently forgets them. The few examples he gave in this half-an-hour of additional time that he has as a result of this amendment boiled down to three or four points. The first point he made was that in a democracy the Government should not have more than two-thirds majority, otherwise it is not a democracy. I do not know by whose definition it is for this particular term of democracy that the Government should not have more than a two-thirds majority. When you have a democratic system, in our case a system that allows the people to elect and choose a government every five years, they decide who they want to govern them. We know that the people have decided, since 1959, that the People's Action Party is the party they want to govern Singapore. Except for the initial years, we have got more than two-thirds majority since. That is the wish of the people, not the wish of the PAP.”
“Prof. Chin, may I just interject here. I think we all enjoy listening to your lecture. So can you please direct your lecture to all of us and look at us, and not look back at Mr Jeyaretnam?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before Mr Jeyaretnam continues with his lecture, may I just move the exemption motion to give more time.”
“This new provision is in line with existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act, which allows the court to order convicted motorists to pay up any outstanding arrears of ERP charges. Conclusion Sir, the introduction of enhanced penalties to the various offences as listed under the Road Traffic Act will send a strong signal to deter would-be offenders from committing these offences and curb the rise of such incidents. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to deny motorists with outstanding warrants of arrests renewal of road taxes, and the empowerment of various agencies to tow away vehicles when the registered owners have outstanding warrants of arrests in force against them, will show that the Government is serious in taking action against motorists who blatantly disregard notices to attend court that are served on them in connection with traffic or parking offences committed by them. With the proposed amendments to facilitate the implementation of an automated VEP and toll collection system, motorists will enjoy smoother traffic flow at the Checkpoints, as well as greater convenience in the payment of tolls and VEP fees. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The powers conferred on an employee of LTA may be exercised in respect of any vehicle which is being used or parked on a public road or in a public car park. The powers conferred on a police officer may be exercised in respect of a vehicle that is found at any place, including private premises. Police would tow or immobilise a vehicle found on private premises if, upon going to the private premises to arrest the offender, they cannot locate the offender but find his vehicle on the private premises instead. The vehicle will be released when the offender has surrendered himself or the warrant of arrest has been cancelled by a court. The powers conferred on a police officer may also be exercised by an auxiliary police officer who is authorised in writing by the Commissioner of Police to exercise such powers. Automated VEP and toll collection system Sir, to facilitate the implementation of the automated VEP and toll collection system, clause 7 of the Bill will allow the Minister to make subsidiary legislation for various aspects of operations, including the following: (a) provide for the Vehicle Entry Permit to be stored in an electronic form on such stored value card, device or appurtenance as may be issued; (b) provide for the levy of a fee for the issue of such stored value card, device or appurtenance; (c) prescribe the manner in which any fee or tax is to be levied and collected, including the use of electronic or computerised or other facilities; (d) prohibit the entry into or exit from Singapore of any foreign vehicle if any fee or tax payable is in arrears. Clause 7 also empowers the court to order a person who has been convicted under those rules to pay up the outstanding arrears of VEP fees and any tax that may be levied under those rules.”
“The increase in fines is the same as in clause 3. (c) Clause 5 raises the maximum fine for failure by a resident of Singapore to inform the Registrar of his possession or use of foreign-registered vehicle. Again, the increase in fines is the same. (d) Clause 8 raises the maximum fine for failure by a registered owner to produce proof of scrap or export within 1 month upon cancellation of registration of a vehicle by the Registrar. The increase in fines is the same. (e) Clause 10 raises the maximum fines for the offences under section 129 from $2,000 to $5,000. These offences include making false statements, forging licences, furnishing false particulars, and driving or permitting an off-peak car to be driven with a tampered or altered supplementary license. Tougher measures against motorists with outstanding warrant of arrest Presently, a motorist against whom there is in force a warrant of arrest relating to an offence under the Parking Places Act or the Road Traffic Act is allowed to renew his vehicle tax licence once he surrenders himself to a Police Station or the Warrant Enforcement Unit, and is formally arrested. However, the motorist may thereafter jump bail, not pay his fines or fail to attend court. Clause 6 of the Bill empowers the Registrar to deny a motorist the renewal of his vehicle licence until his case is conclusively dealt with by the court. Clause 9 of the Bill empowers a police officer or an employee of LTA to immobilise or seize and detain any vehicle which is registered in the name of a person against whom a warrant of arrest is in force in connection with any traffic or parking offence committed by him.”
“The card reader will electronically deduct the toll charges from the CashCard or dedicated smartcard. Motorists driving Singapore-registered vehicles can use the CashCard, which they currently use for paying ERP charges, to also pay for tolls at the Checkpoints. Motorists driving foreign registered vehicles will be required to purchase a dedicated smartcard at the Singapore Checkpoints before entering Singapore. The smartcard, called the Autopass Card, will record the vehicle number, date, time and point of entry of the vehicle. When a motorist leaves Singapore, the VEP fees and toll charges will be computed and deducted automatically when the Autopass Card is inserted with sufficient cash value into a card-reader. The Autopass Card may be used for subsequent trips to Singapore. In other words, when the foreign motorist returns the next time, he will not have to purchase a new card if he has with him the old card. The automated system will cut down the transaction time currently taken for the issue and sale of Vehicle Entry Permits at the Checkpoints. While in Singapore, the motorist may use the Autopass as an ordinary CashCard and enjoy the benefit of cashless transactions. Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. Increasing fines for certain offences under the RTA The provisions in the Bill which increase the maximum fines for the six offences I mentioned earlier are as follows: (a) Clause 3 raises the maximum fine for the offence of unlawfully altering a vehicle or trailer - (i) from $1,000 for a first conviction to $2,000; and (ii) from $2,000 for a second or subsequent conviction to $5,000. (b) Clause 4 raises the maximum fine for the offence of keeping or using an unregistered vehicle.”
“These measures include not allowing a motorist against whom there is an outstanding warrant of arrest to renew his road tax until he has been arrested pursuant to the warrant or he has surrendered himself, and his case conclusively dealt with by the court. It also includes giving powers to the Police, LTA, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers to immobilise or seize and detain any vehicle which is registered in the name of a person against whom there is in force a warrant of arrest relating to a traffic or parking offence. Motorists who settle their traffic or parking fines promptly will not be affected by these measures. Our record shows that about 95% of motorists settle their cases by the final reminder. However, warrants of arrest will be issued against those who choose to ignore repeated reminders to pay their fines as well as the notices requiring them to attend court to answer the charges against them. And if they still do not take action to surrender themselves when warrants of arrest have been issued against them, they will face the tougher measures which we intend to implement. Sir, the Road Traffic Act also needs to be amended to facilitate the introduction of the automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System, which is targeted to be implemented early next year. The automated system will make it more convenient for Checkpoint users to pay their toll charges and VEP fees, as well as help to speed up the flow of traffic through the checkpoints. Motorists will no longer need to purchase toll coupons in advance before going to the checkpoints. All they need to do is to insert a CashCard or dedicated smartcard with sufficient cash value into a card-reader installed at the immigration booths.”
“For cases involving the unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers, there has been a rise from zero cases in 1995 to 9 cases in 1998. There were also 53 cases in 1998 involving forgery of licences and the driving of off-peak cars without valid supplementary licences - approximately a 140% jump in the number of cases handled from 1995 to 1998. The proposed amendments to increase the maximum fines for these offences are thus necessary to check the trend of more persons committing these offences, and will serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. The Government, had on 26th April 1999, announced its intention to implement a package of tougher measures against recalcitrant motorists against whom there are in force warrants of arrest in connection with traffic and parking offences. As of September 1999, there were 39,197 outstanding warrants for parking offences. Together with other traffic-related warrants, a total of 54,604 warrants are still outstanding. These statistics show that a large number of warrants of arrest have been issued because many motorists who have committed parking or traffic offences simply ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences. Ignoring a notice to appear in court to answer a charge, even when the offence is a relatively minor offence such as a parking infringement, is a grave matter as it shows a blatant disregard for the law. The Government takes a stern view of motorists who do not comply with such notices. Tougher measures will therefore be imposed to ensure that there is effective enforcement against motorists who commit traffic or parking offences and thereafter ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences committed by them.”
“Following a review of the penalty system for offences under the Road Traffic Act in 1998, it was felt that the quanta of maximum fines for the offences were generally adequate deterrence, except for 6 types of offences. These are: i. Unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers; ii. Keeping or using unregistered vehicles; iii. Failure by a resident of Singapore to inform the Registrar of his possession or use of a foreign-registered vehicle; iv. Failure by a registered owner to produce proof of scrap or export within 1 month upon cancellation of registration of a vehicle by the Registrar; v. Making false statements, forging licences, furnishing false particulars; and vi. Using another vehicle mark, plate or documents, forging a mark, plate or document or using them, and driving or permitting an off-peak car to be driven with a tampered or altered supplementary licence. The quanta of maximum fines for the 6 offences were set many years ago . The fines need to be raised in view of the relative severity of these offences and the fact that the number of cases has been rising over the years. To cite some statistics, the number of cases for keeping or using an unregistered vehicle has risen from 69 cases in 1995, to an average of 76 cases each year from 1996 to 1998. During the same period, there was almost a three-fold increase in the total number of incidents involving Singapore citizens, work permit or employment pass holders illegally using Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore. The average number of cases of motorists failing to produce proof of scrap or export documents upon cancellation of registration has risen to 11 cases per year from zero cases in 1995.”
“Sir, if the Opposition had more Members in this House then, of course, we would not be able to deny them of their opportunity to be represented in this Committee. But this Committee's job is to appoint members to the other Sessional Committees and rest assured that Opposition Members will be appointed to some of the Sessional Committees. If he were to look at the proportion of PAP MPs and Opposition MPs, and if we were also to have an Opposition Member in each of the Sessional Committees, then they would be over-represented. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection: Prof S Jayakumar Mr Wong Kan Seng Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Goh Choon Kang. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the objective of this Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act (RTA) for the following purposes: (a) To increase the fines for certain offences administered by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) under the Road Traffic Act; (b) To implement tougher measures against motorists against whom there are outstanding warrants of arrest in connection with traffic or parking offences; and (c) To facilitate the operation of an Automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System. I will now elaborate on the reasons behind the proposed amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection: Prof S Jayakumar Mr Wong Kan Seng Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Goh Choon Kang." Sir, with the end of the First Session of the Ninth Parliament in September, the term of the Committee of Selection and the other Sessional Committees had lapsed with it. Parliament has to appoint a Committee of Selection which appoints members to these Sessional Committees. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, may I have your consent and the general assent of the House to move that Item 4 on the Order Paper be taken immediately before Item 1, as I have another engagement.”
“Sir, if the Commercial Affairs Officer decides that that is a matter to be pursued and he conducts an investigation but actually there is no basis to do so and therefore abuses his power, the matter will be found out. There will be internal checks. There will be meetings. There will be proper follow-up. There will be operating procedures to ensure that whatever the officer investigates is proper, and there is a basis for such an investigation. As to his question on clause 2, I do not think that this is the only piece of legislation that has the words "which appears to him". I am sure there are also other pieces of legislation that have the word "appears" and I am sure Mr Jeyaretnam, as a lawyer, should know. And, as I said, I depend on the Attorney-General for his advice whom I deeply trust. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes past Five o'clock pm. Table - Summary of Adjustments to November 1998 Cost Cutting Package (Cols. 505-6)”
“So if Mr Jeyaretnam thinks that just because somebody does not like another person's face an investigation can be launched, then let me assure him that that would not be the case. If he does know of any case, please let me know and I will certainly look into it.”