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 6 of 64.
“If the party wants to do so, I think they are free to spend whatever they need or even to appoint somebody overseas as their polling agent. But, again, that must be subject to the availability of space in a particular overseas polling station because, as we know, Singapore is quite frugal. We do not have large Missions like some countries and, therefore, we may not be able to find enough space to accommodate all the parties that want to send their polling agents to those countries. On the last question of contingency plans, these are still being worked out. This particular Bill only deals with overseas voting and registration for overseas voting.”
“The timing right now to close the poll for overseas station no later than we close the poll for the Singapore station is a correct one. We will see how else we can deal with the situation of too few voters in a particular constituency. But as more Singaporeans go overseas to work and register themselves to vote, then the chances are that many of them will come from a particular constituency, and therefore the question of secrecy or anonymity of the vote will no longer arise. In fact, even if there are five overseas Singaporeans who voted for a particular constituency, nobody can tell really how the five individual members actually voted other than to know that maybe X number for one party and Y number for another party. Beyond that, who voted for who is anybody's guess. I think the Opposition Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, also once agreed with me that the vote is secret and we cannot really tell. On the eligibility criteria, I have explained that. Mr Siew is quite happy with the change. His suggestion about Government funding the polling agent to go to a polling station overseas is something that we will not need to do, because there is no law compelling any party to send any polling agent to the polling station. It is not compulsory. They do not have to do it. In fact, there are some parties that could not even have enough polling agents for the Singapore elections. So we do not see the need to spend public money to send the Opposition or PAP polling agent to an overseas station. We should trust the integrity of the election process and, so far, there has been no complaint. People know that our election is fair and transparent and it is not an issue at all not to have polling agents to oversee it.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the amendments in this Bill. I will answer the questions raised by both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Siew Kum Hong. Ms Lim asked whether we could expand the number of overseas polling stations or not. Right now, we have nine. There are certain basic criteria we have to consider before we decide to open an overseas polling station. Firstly, we must have a Mission in that particular country. Secondly, we must have enough Singaporeans living in that country. And, thirdly, if the election is to be held in a particular city, we also must have enough mass in that particular city. What are the numbers we look at? If we have 10,000 Singaporeans living in a country, say, China, definitely, we will have a polling station in China. If there are more than 1,000 Singaporeans in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, we will have an overseas polling station in these two cities. Short of that, it is hard to justify opening an overseas polling station because it does require a lot of planning and resources to deal on the actual day of polling. So from the studies we have made, I think the expansion to the current list of nine cities is enough. If there is a need to do more, we will look at them and see what more can be done to open up more polling stations. On advancing the end of poll for overseas polling stations, I have explained before that it will shorten the time for overseas voters to make an informed decision. I have just heard Mr Siew saying that five days of campaigning is the same as nine days of campaigning, so why not close four days earlier. I am not sure if the Opposition will agree with that. I think we all want to have as much time as possible to put our views across.”
“Currently, only diplomatic Missions may serve as overseas polling stations. This is because they enjoy diplomatic immunity and any activity conducted in it remains under Singapore’s control. To deal with situations where a particular Mission is not available to cope with the number of voters, we will expand the class of premises that can be used as overseas polling stations, to include the official residences of our senior diplomats. These premises similarly have diplomatic immunity. Clause 10 of the Bill makes this change. This is connected with the amendment to the definition of “overseas polling stations” in clause 2. By clause 12 of the Bill, we will also lift the existing cap on voting hours at overseas polling stations in section 39A, overseas polling stations. This means that an overseas polling station may operate beyond the current limit of 12 hours when necessary. However, an overseas poll must close not later than the close of the polls on polling day in Singapore. This is unchanged. Amendments to the Presidential Elections Act Clause 13 of the Bill makes related amendments to sections 2 and 22A of the Presidential Elections Act in the same manner as the amendments in clauses 2, 11 and 12 of the Bill. Sir, as more Singaporeans venture abroad to work or study, we will strive to ensure that they remain connected to Singapore. This Bill seeks to make it easier for overseas Singaporeans to register and vote while at the same time preserving the integrity of the election process. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.16 pm”
“Other miscellaneous amendments Extra-territorial application of the Parliamentary Elections Act Like most of other laws, the Parliamentary Elections Act currently applies only to acts and omissions occurring within the territory of Singapore and there are no means to enforce its provisions against citizens outside Singapore. An overseas voter who commits an election offence while he is in an overseas polling station therefore cannot be charged in our courts here. Similarly, false claims or declarations made by overseas Singaporeans to gain registration also fall outside the Parliamentary Elections Act’s application. While making it easier for overseas Singaporeans to vote, we must have avenues to deal with those who undermine the integrity of the electoral process by committing an election offence or making false declarations. The Bill therefore provides for extra-territorial application of the Parliamentary Elections Act to ensure that the integrity of the election process is not undermined. For example, the making of any false declaration when applying to register as an overseas voter or to change the allotted overseas polling station will be an offence, even if made outside Singapore. The person, if convicted, faces a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 21 of the Parliamentary Elections Act for this purpose. Clause 12 of the Bill similarly gives extra-territorial effect to the regulations governing overseas voting. The legal proceedings for these offences will take place only in Singapore. Improving access to overseas stations Sir, we have designated nine cities where overseas polling stations may be set up.”
“Overseas voters will also be allowed to de-register or to change their assigned overseas polling station at any time before the Writ of election is issued. This will address the inconvenience arising whenever a registered overseas voter returns to Singapore or relocates to another city which is designated for overseas voting. We will also simplify the registration procedures in a number of ways. We will create an online facility to allow all Singaporeans to register as electors. The Bill does not deal with this explicitly. Regulations will be made under the Parliamentary Elections Act later. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 11 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to remove the current requirement for every objection to be submitted in duplicate. With online processes, overseas Singaporeans will find this useful, especially if they are non-voters, and want to apply to restore their names to the registers of electors, or if they need to file claims to names omitted or objections to names found in the revised registers of electors during the 14-day period when the revised registers are open for inspection. Clause 7 of the Bill also amends section 13 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow the Registration Officer to update the list of overseas voters in the registers of electors whenever necessary. The Registration Officer will be empowered to remove from the register the names of overseas voters whose contact addresses have ceased to exist or are outdated. The Officer can also enter the name onto the appropriate register once the person whose name is removed has notified the Commissioner of National Registration of his new contact address.”
“This covers the scenarios where Singapore citizens who acquire or apply to acquire foreign citizenship or where they exercise any rights which are accorded exclusively to the citizens or nationals of that country. For example, casting a vote in any foreign national election or the mayoral elections of metropolitan areas like London will be disqualifying acts. Simplifying the registration process of overseas voters Now, let me move on to the second group of amendments, which is in the area of registration procedures, especially for overseas voters. Today, all voters, including overseas voters, who wish to register, must submit a completed and signed application form with supporting documents, either by hand or registered post, to any local or overseas registration centre or to the Elections Department. Overseas voters have just 21 days to register themselves for overseas voting after the registers of electors are revised and open for inspection. The present registration period of 21 days is tight and may be too far removed in time from the actual issue of the Writ of election. The last GE saw Singaporeans who were newly-resident overseas travelling long distances to the nearest Singapore Embassy only to be disappointed that they could not cast their vote, because they had not registered during the 21-day window. We will now allow overseas voters to register themselves at any time before the Writ of election is issued. Once the Writ is issued, registration will cease. Once the election is over, an overseas Singaporean can apply to register as an overseas voter for the next General Election. Clause 8 of the Bill does away with the 21-day window period stipulated in section 13A.”
“Foreign electoral registers Next, certain voter disqualifications were reviewed after the 2006 GE in view of feedback from overseas voters. The current Parliamentary Elections Act disqualifies overseas Singaporeans from voting if their names are entered in the electoral registers of other countries. The rationale was to exclude any citizen who could be a participant in the political process of a foreign State. In 2006, we learnt that the UK authorities require all households to submit the particulars of household members annually. This is compulsory and applies to foreign residents from Commonwealth countries, which include Singapore. The information is then entered into the UK electoral registers. Some Singaporeans who were living in UK had their names entered into the UK electoral registers and were thus unable to register for overseas voting in the 2006 GE. We should distinguish between Singaporeans who choose to participate in the political process of a foreign State and those who are included in foreign electoral registers and do nothing more. The former will continue to be disqualified whereas the latter should be given an opportunity to vote. Clause 4 of the Bill will amend section 6(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to delete the current disqualification for overseas Singaporeans on account of their names being entered in the electoral registers of another country or territory. Instead, the disqualification criteria will be aligned to the circumstances under which a person may be deprived of Singapore citizenship, as spelt out in Article 135(2) of the Constitution.”
“The amendments can be grouped into three broad areas. First, we will relax the qualifying criteria for overseas Singaporeans to vote. Second, we will simplify the registration procedures for overseas voters. The third area comprises a number of miscellaneous amendments to support the first two groups of amendments. I will now elaborate on each of these areas. Relaxing the qualifying criteria for overseas voting Residency requirement Overseas Singaporeans have to meet a basic residency requirement before they are eligible to register to vote overseas. We will continue to retain a residency requirement. Many countries have minimum residency requirements for their overseas voters. Currently, all overseas Singaporeans who wish to vote must fulfil the requirement of having resided in Singapore for a cumulative period of two years within the period of five years before the cut-off date for the registers of electors. In addition, they must maintain a local contact address with the ICA, so that their names can be entered or retained in a constituency’s register of electors. Clause 3 of the Bill will shorten the residency requirement to a cumulative 30 days out of the last three years before the cut-off date for the registration of electors. This will allow more overseas Singaporeans to vote. All an overseas Singaporean needs to do is to come home for 10 days a year to visit his family and friends. This is a far more liberal residency requirement compared to the present one. The Bill also does away with the current special treatment for Government officials and scholars or employees of approved international organisations who are employed or studying abroad, and their family members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, over the years, the Government has reviewed the conduct of every General Election (GE) and made the process simpler to both candidates and voters without compromising the integrity of the electoral process. After the 2001 General Elections, Elections Department implemented a number of improvements for the 2006 General Election. The Parliamentary Elections Act was amended in 2005 to simplify the nomination process, and streamline the post-election reporting of political donations and election expenditure, among other issues. During the Committee of Supply debate this year, I informed the House that Elections Department has also reviewed the 2006 GE and will implement more improvements for the next GE. A key review area concerned overseas voting, which is the subject of the Bill before the House. Overseas voting The 2006 GE was the first time when overseas Singaporeans could vote. 1,017 overseas Singaporeans registered to vote. 335 of the 553 overseas electors from the 16 contested constituencies eventually voted at the eight overseas polling stations. Now that we have experience in conducting overseas voting, we are prepared to take bolder steps to facilitate the participation of more overseas Singaporeans in our national elections. The constituency of overseas Singaporeans is growing as more Singaporeans go abroad to work and study. It is estimated that more than 150,000 Singaporeans are working or studying overseas today. This number will grow. It is important that they remain engaged in our domestic affairs and not lose the connection with their homeland. The Bill before the House proposes a number of amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to that end.”
“The standards required to be met by private ambulance operators are currently being reviewed jointly by MOH and SCDF, and the revised guidelines will ensure that all ambulances and crew will be equipped to handle medical emergencies for which they are despatched. Selected private operators will also be required to meet the same performance standard of reaching the incident site within 11 minutes, 80% of the time. Their ambulances and crew would also be subjected to regular stringent audits as is practised today for SCDF. To help ensure a steady pool of proficient fresh hires, SCDF collaborated with the Institute of Education (ITE) in 2007 on a 3-year dual certification programme in Nursing as well as Paramedic and Emergency Care. The first cohort is expected to graduate in 2009. The Civil Defence Academy will also provide training to operators to ensure that they are able to meet the required standards. TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS (Complaints of professional misconduct or negligence) 6. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health since the establishment of the TCM Practitioners Board in 2001, (a) whether there have been more complaints pertaining to professional misconduct or negligence; and (b) whether the current number of registered practitioners is as expected or does it fall short of expectations.”
“Outsourcing of Government functions is not new. In 2003, the public sector embarked on a best sourcing exercise to incrementally market test functions provided by Government departments and statutory boards. The objective is to derive the best value without compromising service delivery to the public. In the case of the Emergency Ambulance Services (EAS), the number of calls has been escalating over the years. In 2004, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) EAS responded to 82,870 calls. By 2007, the total number of EAS escalated to 109,459, an increase of more than 30%. The elderly, aged 65 and above, accounted for 30% of all EAS calls. MHA expects the demand for EAS to continue to increase in the coming years with the ageing population. There is, hence, a need to increase the supply of EAS services to meet the specific needs of the users. SCDF emergency ambulances and crew are costly and highly geared resources designed to handle not only EAS cases but also extreme crises, including biological and chemical terrorist incidents. For 2007, almost 60% of all EAS calls were non-critical medical cases, which do not require the high competency level of SCDF’s EAS. The outsourcing of such cases to competent private providers is, hence, a viable option without compromising service delivery. These private providers will be managed by SCDF and augment its current fleet to meet the rapid rise in demand for ambulance services. By providing a calibrated service, they will help keep costs manageable. Interested operators will be put through a rigorous and stringent selection process. Private providers selected to augment SCDF’s fleet will also be required to retrofit ambulances and hire crew according to almost similar specifications as per SCDF ambulances and crew.”
“Persons who emigrate generally do not declare this to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they leave. The only available data which gives an indication of the number of emigrants from Singapore is the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship and left Singapore. Over the last three years, an average of about 1,000 Singapore citizens renounced their Citizenship each year. The reasons for renouncing Singapore Citizenship vary, ranging from marriage to foreigners, to yearning for a different environment. Most of the Singapore citizens who renounced their Citizenship took up new citizenship in countries in Southeast-Asia, the United States of America and Australia. EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES (Rationale for outsourcing to private sector) 4. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale for outsourcing emergency ambulance services to the private sector and what are the risks to Singaporeans of such a move.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Singapore citizens emigrated from Singapore in the last three years and which countries did they emigrate to; and (b) if available, what are their reasons for leaving Singapore.”
“MOM generally allows foreigners who are under investigation for illegal employment to work in Singapore under MOM's Temporary Job Scheme during the period of investigation, subject to the prevailing work pass requirements. Thereafter, if the foreigner is found not to be culpable of an offence (for example, where he was deceived into believing that he was working legally), he will be allowed to continue working in Singapore if he wishes to do so provided he meets the prevailing work pass requirements. All complaints of abuse are referred to the Police. MOM and Police will then work closely with the NGOs and respective Embassies to assist these workers to ensure that their basic needs are taken care of. Any negative perception arising from our classification as a “Tier 2” country is unjustified. Singapore is committed to ensuring that we are not a destination for human traffickers. We have in place robust laws and processes to achieve this. We have a committed and competent law enforcement system. Singapore has often been criticised for being too tough in law enforcement. To be criticised instead for being too soft in the US State Department’s TIP Report is strange indeed. Our Police will, of course, continue to work against trafficking as they do against all crimes. They are answerable to the Singapore people who will judge how they perform. In this regard, it is fortunate that the public at least is better informed and has a better understanding of the realities on the ground and can separate fair fact from unfair conjecture. EMIGRATION OF SINGAPOREANS 3.”
“Collaborative efforts include regular coordination meetings as well as the dissemination of information and collateral through the Embassy. Reports of isolated cases of abuse should not obscure the fact that the majority of foreign workers in Singapore are reasonably well-treated. In a survey conducted by the Feedback Unit in April 2006, 90% of all FDWs said that they were happy with their employment in Singapore. Turning to the protection of trafficking victims, the Report criticises the Singapore Government for not directly operating victim shelters but instead referring potential victims of trafficking to foreign embassies or shelters operated by NGOs. This criticism is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of local conditions. Social services in Singapore are delivered by Voluntary Welfare Organisations working in partnership with, and usually subsidised by, the Government. This “Many Helping Hands” approach to social service delivery empowers committed individuals and dedicated agencies on the ground to provide swift and comprehensive intervention. The Government ensures that the protocols are in place and that all staff of these agencies are trained to discharge their respective roles. We also provide funding for all victims referred to NGO shelters as well as financial support for ad-hoc refurbishment projects. This funding model ensures that the NGOs are always able to assist with the maintenance and upkeep of each referred person. Lastly, the Report states that Singapore does not provide trafficking victims with a legal alternative to removal to countries where they may face hardship or retribution. This is again untrue.”
“Drug abuse rates in cities of the same size as Singapore are very much higher. If we record fewer arrests made against drug abusers and traffickers this year, would that mean that we are not serious enough about enforcing our tough laws against drugs? From 2005 to 2007, 35, 33 and 28 cases of human trafficking respectively were reported to the Police. Upon further investigation, however, none of these cases was substantiated trafficking cases, although one case reported in December 2007 is currently under investigation. In Singapore, we investigate and prosecute any person who commits an offence but we cannot obviously “arrange” for prosecution numbers to go up without evidence or basis just so that we can get a better rating from the US State Department. We are aware that some foreign workers take large loans or are made promises of high salaries by labour agents which are later not kept, but these situations mainly arise in their home countries and cannot be effectively regulated by receiving countries. Singapore therefore supports the principle of balanced responsibilities between labour-sending and receiving countries to tackle the problems faced by migrant workers. At the same time, MOM is committed to addressing the issue within Singapore’s jurisdiction, and has rolled out a number of initiatives. For example, employers are prohibited under the Work Permit conditions from recovering employment-related expenses such as the levy and security bond from their FDWs. Singapore will continue to work closely with the Embassies of the respective labour-sending countries to ensure that the interests of FDWs are protected during their stay in Singapore.”
“The Report also states that a “significant number” of FDWs in Singapore face physical or sexual abuse. This is again a distortion of the realities on the ground. Under Singapore law, it is an offence for employers or employment agencies to withhold the FDWs’ passports against their wishes. Wrongful confinement of FDWs is also a serious offence under the Penal Code. NGOs and Embassies are also aware of the laws that have been put in place to address any complaints and are encouraged to persuade those subjected to abuse to report their abusers to the authorities for further action. Every report of a FDW who is physically or sexually abused is taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. No effort is spared to bring the offender to justice. The number of substantiated FDW abuse cases handled by the Police fell from 157 cases in 1997 to 68 cases in 2007, in spite of an increasing FDW population. From 2001 to 2007, 28 employers, spouses or household members were jailed for FDW abuses. From 2004 to 2007, MOM successfully prosecuted a total of 13 errant employers for failing to pay wages due to their FDWs, 5 of whom were eventually jailed. Over the same period, MOM also revoked the licences of 10 employment agencies and did not renew the licences of 18 others. Instances of FDW abuse are not widespread. The frequency of abuse should be seen in the context of the total number of FDWs in Singapore, some 180,000 as of 2007. In terms of enforcement of laws, the Report also alleges that we have not prosecuted or convicted any trafficking offenders during the reporting period. It wrongly assumes therefore that we have not been serious about enforcing our laws against trafficking. This is a rather strange indicator to use.”
“The course not only educates the FDW on safety issues and rights which safeguard her well-being, but also informs her of available avenues through which she can raise concerns and problems. FDWs are informed of a toll-free FDW helpline manned by Ministry of Manpower (MOM) officers, and given feedback forms in prepaid envelopes to surface any problems they may encounter. MOM also conducts random interviews with FDWs working for the first time in Singapore during their initial months of employment. These one-on-one interviews allow MOM to determine if the FDWs have adapted to the work environment in Singapore and serve as an additional avenue for FDWs to raise any concerns which they might have. There are therefore ample opportunities for a FDW to contact the authorities if she is forced, deceived or coerced into employment against her will before and after she starts work. We do not agree with certain observations made in the Report on Singapore. It alleges that Singapore is a destination country for women and girls “trafficked” for the purpose of labour and commercial sexual exploitation, and alleges that women from India, Thailand, the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China who travel to Singapore voluntarily for prostitution or work are subsequently deceived or coerced into sexual servitude. This is a gross distortion of reality. Our investigations have revealed very few cases of forced servitude. In cases where force, coercion or deception is found, the offenders will be punished through our criminal laws. The evidence does not show that sex workers are forced or deceived to work as prostitutes in Singapore. Many indeed come here for economic reasons.”
“For example: • Women's Charter, section 141 (trafficking in women and girls) – up to five years' imprisonment and fine; • Women's Charter, section 140 (forcing a woman or girl into prostitution) – up to five years' imprisonment and fine; • Penal Code, section 373A (bringing a woman into or out of Singapore by fraudulent or deceitful means for the purposes of prostitution) – up to 10 years' imprisonment and fine; • Penal Code, sections 372 and 373 (selling or buying a person under the age of 21 for prostitution) – up to 10 years' imprisonment and fine. We make a committed effort to detect and punish acts of trafficking. When a sex trafficking case is reported or when a foreign sex worker is arrested, Police interviews the woman at length to establish if any criminal offences were committed. If any offences are detected, action will be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. Police also leverages on intelligence sources, and does not depend only on the willingness of the sex worker to lodge a report if she has been victimised. Another key focus of the Report is our treatment of Foreign Domestic Workers working in Singapore. Every FDW enters Singapore voluntarily via proper channels and is issued with a work permit. They should therefore not be included in a report on human trafficking. Notwithstanding this, we have many measures in place to protect FDWs against exploitation. Prior to the issuance of the work permit, a new FDW attends a Safety Awareness Course and sits for an entry test without the presence of both her employment agent and employer.”
“Tough laws and a competent law enforcement regime have resulted in low crime rates and a high level of community safety and security. Our approach to human trafficking is not different from how we deal with crime in general. We have in place laws which criminalise the different aspects of sex trafficking, among which are the offences of forced prostitution and using false pretences to bring a woman into the country for prostitution, under sections 140(1)(c) and 142 of the Women's Charter, and under section 373A of the Penal Code. The Children and Young Persons Act specifically prohibits trafficking in children. Indeed, Singapore takes sexual exploitation very seriously. As noted by the Report, we have extended our laws to criminalise prostitution involving a minor under the age of 18, extended extra-territorial jurisdiction over Singapore citizens and permanent residents who purchase or solicit sexual services from minors overseas, and make organising or promoting child sex tours a criminal offence. In relation to the protection of Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs), we have stringent laws which are actively enforced. As is well known, employers who abuse their FDWs are prosecuted, and we have prescribed a more severe maximum punishment of one and a half times the norm for acts of assault against domestic workers. Non-payment of salary is also punishable under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. Punishments for human trafficking under our laws are severe and sufficiently deterrent.”
“The US State Department’s assessment of Singapore as a “Tier 2” country in its Trafficking-in-Persons (TIP) Report 2008 (“the Report”) means that in their view, we do not meet the “minimum standards” of the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000, but that we are making “significant efforts” to meet those minimum standards. The minimum standards prescribed under the U.S. Act are as follows: (1) The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking. (2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or where the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault. (3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offence. (4) The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. We do not share the view of the US State Department and its classification of Singapore. Our laws are tough but fair and our approach to crime has been uncompromising. This applies as much to human trafficking as it does to any other crime. In addition, we have an effective law enforcement regime with high rates of successful prosecution.”
“ELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING (Basis for charging) 61. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will explain the basis for charging a $10 administrative fee for motorists who pass through an ERP gantry without a properly-inserted cashcard or a card of insufficient monetary value; and (b) whether the administrative fee is too hefty as a proportion to the ERP charges.”
“Mr Chan Mun Chiong was convicted by a District Court under the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) for not disclosing that he was HIV positive before engaging in sexual intercourse. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. A charge for committing an act of gross indecency under section 377A of the Penal Code by having oral sex with a 16-year old male in a public toilet of a shopping complex was not proceeded with but taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. As to why he was charged under section 377A, our basic approach remains, as stated by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Penal Code amendments in October last year, which is that the Police does not take active enforcement measures to seek out homosexual activities between consenting adults that take place in a private place with a view to prosecution. Mr Chan Mun Chiong’s case, however, is not such a case. It is not the result of active enforcement against him in a private place. Mr Chan was investigated by the Police after a report was lodged by a 16-year old male who had oral sex with him. Thereafter, Police referred the outcome of its investigation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The Public Prosecutor decided to charge the accused under section 377A after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the complainant’s age and the fact that the offence had taken place in a public toilet. In short, if there is a complaint made by a person of an alleged offence under section 377A of the Penal Code, Police will act upon the complaint. Thereafter, for any report disclosing an offence, Police will place the evidence before the Public Prosecutor for a decision as to whether or not to proceed with prosecution.”
“I am told that in Choa Chu Kang, there is an initiative where the residents and grassroots members perform regular patrols at car parks to deter and detect crimes at car parks. Since its implementation in April 2008, such crimes have reduced significantly. In addition, the Police have been collaborating with the Town Councils since June 2006 to equip the Town Councils with mobile CCTV cameras. Some of these mobile CCTV systems, which are owned by the Town Councils, have been deployed at public car parks to prevent thefts from vehicles. Police advisories on petrol theft have been done at the local level and not as an island-wide crime advisory. This is because the thefts have occurred primarily in certain clusters. The number of cases which have occurred so far is very small, considering we have about 145,000 motorcycles and scooters and about 725,000 cars and other vehicles currently registered in Singapore. Opportunistic crimes like petrol thefts can be prevented if only vehicle owners take anti-theft measures. The Police will do their part. In fact, all property owners have to be vigilant and should be responsible for taking some basic steps to safeguard their property. CASHLESS CARD DEPOSIT CHARGE (Refund) 53. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry will consider (i) helping the needy NETS card users by requiring the operators of cashless cards not to raise their charges from the current $2 refundable deposit to a $5 non-refundable fee; (ii) getting LTA to lower the $5 non-refundable charge for the ez-link card; and (iii) refunding the deposit upon expiry of these cards.”
“There were a total of 27 cases of petrol theft reported in 2007, of which 25 cases were from motorcycles and two cases were from cars. Between January to June this year, there were 41 such cases reported, of which 37 cases were from motorcycles and four cases were from cars. The cases occurred mainly in Woodlands, Jurong West and Bukit Panjang estates, in both open and covered car parks. Since 2007, Police have solved eight cases of petrol theft and are continuing to investigate the other cases. Clearly, motorcycles are more prone to petrol theft as their petrol caps are exposed and if unsecured, can be removed easily. Every vehicle owner should take responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are properly secured. Petrol tanks can be protected by using fuel-locking caps, which are readily available in the market. This is a simple precaution which acts as an additional deterrent. Motorcycle owners can also cover motorcycles with canvas sheets secured by locks, which make it difficult for thieves to reach the fuel caps and siphon the petrol out. The Member asked why the Police have not issued an advisory to warn the public to take preventive measures against petrol thefts. The Police has alerted residents and vehicle owners at the affected areas through the local grassroots about such thefts and worked with relevant agencies and grassroots organisations through the Neighbourhood Watch Zone (NWZ) and the Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) in preventing and detecting such crimes. For example, residents in a neighbourhood may form a watch group to look out for suspicious characters at car parks.”
“MHA has taken and will continue to take a multi-pronged approach of having tough but effective laws, raising public awareness and maintaining a high level of enforcement. THEFT OF PETROL FROM MOTOR VEHICLES 52. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will provide a breakdown of the cases involving theft of petrol from motorcycles and other motor vehicles reported to the police in the last 12 months; (b) what are the locations where these thefts occurred; (c) what progress has the police made so far in their investigations; and (d) why is there no police advisory to warn the public to take preventive measures against such thefts.”
“Mandatory caning for illegal immigrants and foreigners who overstay more than 90 days was introduced in March 1989. In August that year, then Minister for Home Affairs informed the House that more than 10,000 immigration offenders surrendered themselves and were repatriated even before the law came into operation. Two more amnesties were given and an additional 2,000 immigration offenders surrendered themselves. After the law was introduced, the number of overstayers fell sharply from 4,120 in 1988 (or 0.1% of the 4.3 million total visitor arrivals) to about 2,330 in 1990 (or 0.04% of the 5.3 million total visitor arrivals). Last year, the figure was 4,800, or 0.05% of the record number of 10.3 million visitors to Singapore. This low proportion demonstrates the deterrent effect of the provision. As stated in my reply to Parliament on 26th May, mandatory caning remains an important and necessary deterrent against immigration offenders. However, it is not the only measure employed to tackle the problem. For example, through publicity efforts, ICA educates employers and landlords on the due diligence checks they must perform before employing or renting out their flats or rooms to foreigners. MOM has stepped up its outreach efforts to educate employers and workers on our employment and immigration regulations, including issuing a guidebook in various languages which highlights the penalty of mandatory caning for overstaying. Enforcement efforts against immigration offenders by ICA and Police have also been stepped-up over the years. Singapore remains an attractive destination for potential immigration offenders.”
“SINGAPORE ECONOMY (Outlook) 12. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the outlook for the Singapore economy in the short and medium term given the current global situation; (b) whether his Ministry intends to revise our annual growth rates; and (c) what advice can the Ministry give to employers and employees to keep afloat in this uncertain time. 13. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the prospect of stagflation affecting Singapore, if it has not already set in; and (b) what are the measures considered to avoid the pitfalls of stagflation. The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 12 and 13, please?”
“Sir, I have just said that we do not have any fresh intelligence to show that he is still in Singapore or he has left. We have no intelligence to show that he has already left and that there is also no intelligence from our foreign counterparts to show that he has already gone to another country. As regards the security analyst's assessment, that is his assessment and we do not have intelligence to confirm it. On the legal powers of searches, I think Ms Lim might have read about what I said some time ago regarding the legal powers of searches for vessels at sea. Right now, the Police have powers to search whenever they need to, and we do not think we need more powers in this regard. On what the Interpol Chief had said that the first hour is crucial, that is also his opinion. I am sure he is a professional and I believe that he has his own basis to make this comment. As far as we are concerned, we have done what we could during the first hour and we could not find him. RECENT SECURITY LAPSES (Preventive measures) 11. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why have there been repeated serious security lapses across the Ministry over the past few months; (b) what measures have been taken to prevent a culture of complacency in the Ministry; (c) what measures will the Ministry take to assure the public that there is no such culture of complacency; and (d) whether the security audits of detention facilities carried out after Mas Selamat's escape had addressed the risk of human error. The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will be responding to Dr Teo Ho Pin's Motion of Adjournment on security lapses and public confidence, and the Question raised by Mr Siew will be answered then.”
“Sir, two private individuals have approached the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and offered to put up a cash reward of $1 million for information leading to the apprehension of Mas Selamat inside or outside Singapore. They have asked MHA to operationalise their proposal because they wish to remain anonymous as they are concerned over the prospect of themselves, their families or business interests in the region becoming a target for retaliation. Sir, this is not the first time a bounty has been offered for information on Mas Selamat. In March, a labour-supply company and a non-government organisation offered $50,000 and $5,000 respectively for information on Mas Selamat. A security firm offered $1,000 to its staff to help track him down. As a policy, the Singapore Police Force does not offer cash reward for information on fugitives and unsolved crimes, or for assistance from the public. However, we do not object if private corporations and individuals wish to offer cash reward for information on the whereabouts of Mas Selamat. We are encouraged by such continued public support. We remain committed to finding and capturing Mas Selamat no matter how long it takes. We have done it before and we will do it again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our security agencies have been working and will continue to work very closely with their foreign intelligence and security counterparts. These include Indonesian counterparts with whom ISD have had several successes in the apprehension of Jemaah Islamiah fugitives including Mas Selamat himself in February 2003. The Indonesian authorities' recent arrest of a group of terrorists, including a Singaporean, in Palembang demonstrates the usefulness of cooperation with foreign security counterparts. Up till now, our security agencies have not received any information from their Indonesian counterparts to confirm that Mas Selamat is presently hiding in Indonesia. Neither do we have domestic intelligence that shows that he has left the country. Nevertheless, we obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Mas Selamat could have managed to escape Singapore for another country. Singapore is not a fortress. As an island, our borders are porous. There can be no 100% control over all illegal exit and entry even if our enhanced security operations have kept this to a minimum. I am not aware of any country that can prevent with absolute certainty illegal entry or exit across the length of its borders over time. We will do our utmost to find Mas Selamat whatever it takes. If Mas Selamat has escaped abroad, we will work with the relevant foreign counterparts to track him down and bring him back into custody in Singapore. We have done it before; we will do it again. We will also continue to work on all possible scenarios. In this regard, although there is no intelligence at present to substantiate it, as more time passes, this scenario of Mas Selamat being harboured by sympathisers inside or outside Singapore must logically be treated as increasingly plausible.”
“As a society, Singaporeans must want to encourage and support marriage and parenthood and to facilitate parents who want to work to continue to do so even after they have children. Such a societal mindset is necessary before any measure can take effect. The Government is committed to fostering a pro-family environment in Singapore. However, we have to cut our clothes according to the size of the cloth which we have and also fashion it in a way which fits our culture. CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES (Review) 8. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether his Ministry will consider enhancing the current childcare subsidies to encourage housewives from lower-income families to seek employment; and (b) when were the childcare subsidies last reviewed.”
“This is because family life is supported and treasured by the larger community which provides sufficient support for couples with children from employers to friends to relatives and neighbours. Indeed, Sir, the societal belief in gender equality and balancing work and family are the key factors fostering the high fertility in the Nordic countries. The New York Times on 29th June 2008 carried an article entitled "No Babies?", that highlighted the differences in the societal mindset and fertility outcome between the Nordic countries and the southern European countries such as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, demonstrating the effects of these key factors. With better education and career opportunities presenting themselves to women in the past decades, women are faced with the conflict between traditional family role of a woman, mother and entering into an attractive career as an individual. The Nordic countries have quickly accepted these trends and have taken steps to accommodate mothers who want a career as well. Over time, society has come to accept that fathers, too, play a part, and have a very important role in parenthood in the Nordic countries. When men take a more active role in child-raising, women are also more willing to have more children and work at the same time. On the other hand, in a more patriarchal southern European countries, society attitudes continue to expect women to stay at home to raise their families when they have children. As women increasingly aspire to have a career, such social pressures have led to very low TFR of about 1.3 in the southern European countries that I mentioned.”
“On the other hand, Singapore is in a fast growing and competitive region where operating costs are generally much lower. If we are to offer the same generous levels of social subsidies as in the Nordic countries, we will have to raise our taxes very significantly. But to do so would also mean that we price ourselves out of the Asian market. Well-educated Singaporeans will leave and businesses will shift their operations overseas. We simply cannot afford to lose them. We have to decide what can work for us based on what we can afford in our local and regional context. Sir, instead of crafting policies and measures wholesale from other countries or cherry-picking those which seem attractive, we should examine our own strengths and weaknesses and adapt and localise these policies to meet our needs. But, ultimately, Sir, there is a limit to what the Government can do. Getting married and having children are very personal decisions. At the end of the day, society is the one to prosper, but strong emphasis on children and family life, positive peer influence, support from employers and friends and an overall pro-family environment are essential. This is what we found out in countries with a high TFR. Societies and employers that support women to balance work and family life, that provides for a more equal sharing of the child-raising responsibility between mother and father where societal norms favour family formation than to have higher TFR. This is also the case in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and the United States. In the US, they manage to achieve this without a high tax subsidy regime of countries in Europe.”
“Sir, indeed, there has been much interest recently among Singaporeans on population issues and whether the Swedish model will work for us or not. Some Singaporeans are for the adoption of the Swedish model, while others cautioned against simply transplanting ideas and measures from other countries and expecting them to work in our own context. The Swedish experience does provide some useful learning points. But as I mentioned earlier, we must also be mindful of the differences in the context especially the overall political, social and economic environment between Singapore and Sweden. Sweden does provide many pro-family benefits such as highly subsidised childcare services and fairly generous parental leave entitlements. But childcare is not entirely free as some people believe. Parents still need to co-pay up to a third of the fees. It is only free from the fourth child onwards. Not many modern Swedish families have three or more children. Sweden also offers 480 days of parental leave that parents can take until the child turns eight with up to 80% of the parents' income paid by the State, capped at about $5,600 a month. Sir, these pro-family benefits are indeed very attractive but they are not really free. They are paid for by the taxpayers. Like Denmark, Sweden has a high personal income tax rate of up to 60% and a high VAT rate of 25%. Another significant difference between Singapore and the Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, is that they are operating in a largely homogeneous high cost region in Europe, characterised by high social spending funded by very high taxes. These countries are able to adopt the same social economic structure as they are competing against one another on a level footing.”
“The details of the proposals are being finalised and an announcement will be made next month. *Cols. 2951-2960.”
“In the Nordic countries, in particular, working mothers are given a lot of financial and institutional support in child-bearing and childcare from the government, their employers and the society in general. For example, parental leave of up to 64 weeks in Denmark gives working parents time to care for their children when they are very young, and highly subsidised quality childcare provides ease of mind and allows them to go back to work. *Cols. 2945-2950. Such social benefits come at a price. The Nordic countries have a high tax regime to support these benefits, eg, Denmark has a personal income tax rate of up to 63% and a high Value Added Tax (VAT) rate of 25%. I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a table* comparing the benefits given to and tax rates paid by the citizens of these countries. High income taxes in these countries do cause other problems. An article in the International Herald Tribune on 5th December 2007 discussed some of these. In comparing with the Nordic countries, we need to be mindful of the differences in the political, economic and social environment and the tax regimes between Singapore and these countries. We have to decide what can work for us, based on what we can afford and our local context. Sir, the Government wants to promote a more pro-family environment in Singapore to create the conditions for marriage and parenthood. The Government is considering how we can further enhance our overall environment to be more pro-family. Areas under study include facilitating socialisation and interaction opportunities for singles, providing more financial support for parents, fostering a more pro-family workplace environment and providing more viable childcare options for parents.”
“The Government enhanced the marriage and parenthood package in August 2004. There is an improvement in the number of births from 35,135 in 2004 to 37,074 in 2007. We have managed to stabilise the declining total fertility rate and reversed it slightly from the historic low of 1.26 in 2004 to 1.29 in 2007. But this is still low and more efforts will have to be made to increase it to a more significant level. Singaporeans have given feedback that the marriage and parenthood package in 2004 has helped to address some of the concerns that they have on getting married and having children in Singapore. However, they continue to face practical constraints such as limited socialisation opportunities for the singles to find a prospective partner, work-life balance, financial concerns and childcare concerns. Sir, the Government has studied various countries with high fertility, including Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France and the United Kingdom. The Nordic countries, in particular, have generous family benefits to support couples in having and raising children. They have provided some useful learning points. Besides the low TFR, Singapore has a low female labour force participation rate (LFPR) for ages 15 and above at 54.3% in 2007. In Singapore, people generally want to work and have children too, but we have not been as successful in this regard compared to the other countries which have been able to achieve a high female LFPR of 65% to 75% and a high TFR of above 1.8 concurrently. While it is not possible to establish a direct causal relation between sustained female labour force participation and procreation, these countries have shown that the two can co-exist.”
“Sir, the proportion of childless ever-married women has been increasing over the years. The percentage of childless ever-married female residents aged 30-39 increased from 14.1% in 2000 to 19.7% in 2007. For those aged 40-49, the percentage increased from 6.4% in 2000 to 7.7% in 2007. The number of childless ever-married women is one of the factors behind our low total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.29 in 2007, which is among the lowest in the world. The other causes of low TFR are that more Singaporeans are not getting married or marrying later. And for those marrying later, they tend to have children later and have fewer children. The proportion of single male residents aged 30-34 increased from 30.7% in 2000 to 34.7% in 2007; that of single female residents increased from 19.5% in 2000 to 22.2% in 2007. For the age group 45-49, the proportion of male singles increased from 10.5% in 2000 to 12.5% in 2007; and that of females increased from 12.5% in 2000 to 12.8% in 2007. The median age at first marriage has also been increasing over the years. For male residents, the median age at first marriage increased from 28.6 in 2000 to 29.7 in 2007; for female residents, it increased from 26.2 in 2000 to 27.2 in 2007. Given later marriages, the median age of women at the birth of their first child increased from 28.4 in 2000 to 29.5 in 2007. On average, ever-married female residents aged 40-49 had 2.1 children in 2007, down from 2.2 in 2000 and 2.8 in 1990. I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a handout* on the statistical trends that I just told Members about. Sir, yet, based on the surveys and public consultations that the Government has conducted, most Singaporeans desire to get married and have children.”
“Over the past three years, the number of summonses issued for failure to use child seat restraints or approved ones averaged around 30 summonses each year.”
“Sir, I said on 21st April that we have no information that Mas Selamat has left. It is the same position that we still hold today. We have received no information from our foreign intelligence partners in the region that Mas Selamat has appeared on their shores. We have no information specifically on where he could be, but we cannot work on the assumption that he is no longer in Singapore. Therefore, we have to work on the assumption that he is still in Singapore, and all the necessary border security measures ought to be in place. SUMMONSES FOR SEAT BELT OFFENCES (Numbers) 8. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2005 to 2007 (a) how many motorists were summoned for seat belt infringements; (b) how many deaths were related to drivers and/or passengers not wearing seat belts at the time of the accident; and (c) how many motorists were given summonses for not securing infants (baby capsules) or children (booster seats when required) in vehicles. The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, about 5,109 summonses were issued by Traffic Police in 2005 for seat belt offences compared to 3,973 summonses and 3,198 summonses in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Also, over the past three years, an average of four persons who died in road accidents were found to be not wearing seat belts, of whom three were drivers. It is not possible to state definitively that the deaths could have been avoided if the person had been wearing a seat belt, but it is clear that the wearing of seat belts reduces the risk of fatalities.”
“For the disciplinary body that looked into this issue, officers who have mitigating reasons would have submitted them to the disciplinary body. I am not here to second guess what they did because I was not present at the inquiry process, so I would not be able to answer the last question. But as regards the other two questions about expectations and job responsibility, I think a job is not just what is written down in the job description. To do that is a very simple thing. He just follows the job description, but a job means that he has to put himself into it and, he has to dedicate himself to the role that he is expected to perform, and that is the expectation that people may have on him. Therefore, even if it is not written down in the job description, I think when a job needs to be done because it is an important job to do, then the officer ought to do it. It is the same thing about conformance and empowerment. Conformance is not for conformance to rules or conformance to job descriptions. I think what a good officer needs to do is when he does the job, the job descriptions simply give him a guide as to what is expected of him but when he is on the job, he does what is necessary to do the job right the first time.”
“I did not quite get the last question that Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked. Can she repeat it please?”
“Yes, the right to have somebody represent them. It is not just restricted to those who were dismissed. All officers who were charged for particular offences and they have to appear before a disciplinary board have the right to get somebody to represent them.”
“Punishment must be based on dispassionate reflection of what is reasonable and fair to those culpable or liable. Otherwise, it will lead to grave injustice. This would only serve to undermine morale and the commitment of all other officers and, eventually, the strength and the effectiveness of the organisation itself. I believe this is surely not the outcome sought by Members of this House. Mr Fong also asked about the morale of the officers. Indeed, ISD officers were most upset by the escape of Mas Selamat. The officers, particularly those in the WRDC, feel that they have let down Singaporeans who have high expectations of the ISD and especially because they always held themselves to the highest standards of professionalism. However, as professionals, they are also determined to learn from this setback and redeem themselves to regain the public's trust and confidence. Members of the House can rest assured that while the reputation and morale of the ISD officers had taken a beating, they have continued to hold their heads up and remain focused in the mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure. Members should also rest assured that we will not let this incident affect the recognition and development of deserving ISD officers. Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the DPM could clarify. For the officers who were eventually dismissed and demoted, were they given the opportunity to be represented by somebody during the proceedings, which is usually the case for such civil service proceedings?”
“Mr Fong asked whether the Director, ISD, should not be held accountable and disciplined for Mas Selamat's escape. This is an assessment which I, as the Minister, have to make. I considered the matter and found no basis to justify this. Indeed, as Head of the Department, the Director, ISD, has broad responsibility over the actions and performance of the whole organisation, but to ascribe to him culpability over the lapse which such broad responsibility is, in my view, an unreasonable and overly onerous burden. Let me explain why. Based on the COI report, the lapses which led to the escape of Mas Selamat were not due to departmental-wide systemic or policy failures. The COI found that the systems and protocols in the WRDC were generally sound but specific individuals had failed to abide by them in this case and it was a degree of lack of supervisory vigilance as well. It was not shown that the Director, ISD, was aware of any of these lapses but took no action to rectify them. Neither was it shown that he ought reasonably to have known of these lapses. I have informed this House on 21st April this year that the Director, ISD, told me that he accepted responsibility for what had happened, and that I told him that I have full confidence in him and that he must carry on. I also told Members that I have informed the Prime Minister who agreed with this view. The Director, ISD's immediate task is to follow through with all the recommendations of the COI and prevent another slackening of vigilance. He will ensure that the recommendations are satisfactorily implemented and report to me the progress. Allow me to conclude by saying this. As we take to task those who are responsible for the lapse, we must always be mindful to be both fair and just to all concerned.”
“Sir, Mr Arthur Fong's question boils down to the question of accountability and at what level accountability should rest. Indeed, this question of accountability has been raised many times since the escape happened. When things go wrong, Sir, those who are responsible for the incident must be held accountable. Responsibility is determined based on a set of objective tests to establish fault, the underlying reasons and any mitigating circumstances, and we have to consider the following issues. First, did the officer in question fail to discharge his duties and thereby cause Mas Selamat to escape? Second, what were the reasons for the failure? Was there a lapse in the judgement or sheer negligence? Was there a deviation from approved systems and processes or were there systems and processes faulty, to begin with? Third, if another officer of the same level or experience and professional accomplishment is placed in the same circumstances, would he have similarly failed to discharge that duty? In the disciplinary inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Police and the ISD, all these objective tests of responsibility were rigorously applied, not just on the officers who are directly implicated in Mas Selamat's escape but also on their supervisors, and all the way up the management ladder. Supervisors have a duty to control and ensure that the subordinates discharge their duties after due consideration. Failure on the part of the subordinate to discharge his duty indicates that the supervision of him was not complete. Of course, if the subordinate fails, it does not mean that the supervisor is automatically at fault and so on. The supervisor must show that he has reasonably discharged his supervisory duties.”
“Sir, the disciplinary process is such that when an incident like this happens, an investigation has to be carried out. At the department level, an investigation has first to be carried out, and this was done. Then, the officers concerned who are found to be culpable would be served with a letter telling them that they are liable for certain negligence or whatever activities which they should have done but not done. The officers would then be given an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary committee or the person in charge of the disciplinary proceedings. They would also be given the chance to explain themselves. The disciplinary body would then come to a decision. A decision will be made whether to sanction or not to sanction those persons found liable. If they are sanctioned, then they also have a right of appeal within 30 days of the sanction. All these steps were taken by the disciplinary body, and the officers concerned have been sanctioned, as I have just explained. They, too, of course, will also have the 30 days to appeal. This is within the appeal period. So far, no appeals have been made by any of the eight officers.”
“Even though he was not responsible for the lapses of the specific officers down the line, he bears responsibility on account of his statutory appointment as the Officer-in-Charge of the WRDC. Although this Command Director has not been subjected to disciplinary action, the incident and his removal from the OIC appointment will have a bearing on his performance appraisal.”