Zainul Abidin Rasheed
Singapore
“I think much has been done as far as recovery is concerned, and the Japanese government itself is now paying due attention to reconstruction. Just at the Jakarta meeting, in fact, there was a lot of sharing of what has been done, and while they are grateful, they also look forward to us working together in terms of the reconstruction.”
“Kelp that he had met Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when Mr Lee visited Moscow in 1970. Even though then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at that time showed an interest to learn from the Soviet socialist system, he changed his mind after visiting the Soviet Union and made changes to the political system and the system of governance in Singapore…”
“In my opinion, the measures and programmes to achieve progress are quite visible and numerous. The Community Leaders’ Forum network continues to develop. What else should be given attention to, especially in relation to dysfunctional families and divorce cases?”
“I found the Malay workers in the Middle East very encouraging. This is one of the best opportunities for us in this new area. Finally, the three-prong Government measure is to ensure that every citizen will continue to contribute towards the development of Singapore to ensure that every Singaporean will be given the best opportunity to en…”
“Sir, I believe ASEAN's credibility does not just hinge on Myanmar. ASEAN's credibility has been built over the years and we have shown a lot of credibility in many areas in terms of international relations.”
“As the President has said, when we take advantage of the existing opportunities through globalisation, we must also pay attention to the fact that these new opportunities should not result in a wide income gap.”
The complete record
Every one of 455 lines we hold for Zainul Abidin Rasheed, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Part IV – Move-on powers Under existing laws, where a person is committing an offence which is not seizable, Police can observe and warn that person that he has committed an offence and follow up with post-event investigations. Alternatively, the police may arrest the person on the spot if his actions amount to a seizable offence. Both options have their shortcomings. The first option is unsatisfactory as it essentially allows an illegal situation to continue and presents very limited scope for our enforcement officers to stop an incident from escalating further and causing further damage. The second option, however, gives no flexibility to the Police in cases where the person or group does not pose a substantial threat and they are amenable to counsel. We have studied other jurisdictions and found the Australian model of move- on powers to be useful. Such powers would allow pre-emptive action to defuse a situation or disrupt the continuance of an illegal act. The British recently made all offences seizable to give their police extra powers. We do not want to go in that direction. Part IV confers powers on police officers (whether or not in uniform) which are necessary for effective modern policing and law enforcement. A police officer may exercise move-on powers under clause 36 in relation to any person at or near a regulated place if a police officer reasonably suspects the person’s behaviour is of such a nature as described in that clause. A police officer in those instances may give a person or group of persons any reasonable direction. There are restrictions under clause 36 on giving a move-on direction, as it interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly.”
“However, an event organiser may avoid liability for failing to comply with a direction if he is not the owner of, and within seven days after he is given notice alleging that he has been guilty of the offence, he furnishes by declaration to the Commissioner, the name and address of the person who is the owner of the infrastructure or property, as the case may be. The Commissioner of Police then may, with the approval of the Minister and during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force, give another written direction to the person named in the declaration as the owner of the property or infrastructure. If the owner fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this other direction to him within seven days from the date of the written direction, the owner will be guilty of an offence. The Act also prescribes the offence of interfering with a special event under clause 32. This involves a person engaging in violent behaviour, or disrupting, interfering with, delaying or obstructing the conduct of a special event. As an added security measure during special events, all public assemblies and processions within a special event area will require a permit. A public assembly or procession that is exempted from advance notice and permit requirements, or one taking place in an unrestricted area, or one that is excluded from any prohibition in a prohibited area, would still require a permit if the place of the public assembly or procession is within any special event area during such period as the declaration relating to the special event area is in force. I will now deal with Part IV of the Bill dealing with move-on powers.”
“Additionally, the Minister must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the event may be disrupted if the powers in this Part are not exercised, there is a need to protect persons involved in or at the event, there is a reasonable likelihood that the event, because of its nature, might be at risk of an act of terrorism, or that the exercise of the powers is required as a condition for holding the event in Singapore. The Minister may take into account certain features of the event before declaring it to be a Special Event. Under clauses 24 to 29, powers of inspection are given to police officers, whether or not in uniform, and approved persons. Police will be allowed to search persons and personal property, prohibit certain items from being brought into the special event area, request reasons for entry from suspicious persons and refuse entry to specific persons to the special event area. Failure to comply with any request or direction will be an offence. To ensure the safety and security of the event participants, the Commissioner of Police has the power to issue directions to event organisers of special events and owners or occupiers of premises within a special event area to take or not take certain actions. The directions may be issued only during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force. An event organiser who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any such written direction shall be guilty of an offence under clause 30.”
“Conversely, we have provided stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. This is a recalibration of the penalty system in accordance with the individual's regard for the rule of law. A person organising or taking part in an assembly or a procession, who knowingly fails to comply with any direction of a senior police officer at the scene, may also be guilty of an offence under clause 16. Obstructing the free passage of any ambulance, fire engine vehicle, police vehicle, or inciting others to do so, will be an offence under clause 18. Such an obstruction could mean the difference between life and death. Part III – Special events security I will now deal with Part III of the Bill, which relates to special events security. In the current security climate, all major international events are trophy targets for terrorists. We cannot afford to take our eye off security. Several of our provisions in this Part have been drawn from Australia's APEC law passed in 2007 as well as the Australian Capital Territory's Major Events Security Act 2000. Members should note that Australia's APEC law allowed Australian law enforcement agencies to serve notices on persons at their homes to prohibit them from going near APEC meeting venues. The UK's Anti-Social Behaviour Act allows the Police to remove people back to their residences. We have decided against adopting these additional powers. Under Part III of the POA, the Minister may make an order declaring an event to be a special event after considering certain criteria. Only events that are of national importance will be so declared. The Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary for preserving public order and the safety of people and for the avoidance of disruptions to the event.”
“A person has a right of appeal to the Minister under clause 11 against the Commissioner's decisions. Clause 12 provides for the establishment of prohibited areas, in which there can be no holding of any public assembly or public procession or both. Such areas have to be designated by the Minister by way of an order published in the Gazette. The Public Order Bill also empowers the Minister and Commissioner of Police to prohibit public assemblies and processions in direct response to specific public order and security developments – clause 13. That clause also provides that the Commissioner of Police may prohibit all public assemblies or public processions or both for up to 28 days in a particular public place, if it is necessary in the public interest to do so. The factors that may be taken into account are set out in that clause. Both the Minister's order and the Commissioner's notification will have the effect of cancelling any previous permit granted. It will be an offence to organise or participate in an assembly or a procession in contravention of such an order or notification. Clause 14 provides for unrestricted areas, whereby no advance notice and no permit, subject to basic and minimal conditions, will be required for the holding of assemblies or processions or both in such areas, for example, the Speakers' Corner. Any contravention of any condition will be an offence. By reference to the MOA, we have updated the penalties for organising and participating in unlawful assemblies and processions. Under the new regime, we have two sets of penalties; one for first-time offenders and the other for repeat offenders. We have lowered the penalties for first-time offenders by removing the jail term for organisers.”
“The individual or group can apply for a permit and the Police will have to decide on the application in accordance with the principles set out in the Bill. This moves away from a proscription based on the number of participants in the activity. Instead, the focus is on the activity itself and whether, regardless of the number of participants, it may have a disruptive effect on the public. The net effect of these changes will, as I have stated earlier, be a substantial relaxation from the current position: our proposed approach to exempt sporting and recreational activities organised by certain organisations, will, in real practical terms, mean that about 50% of the activities that now require permits will no longer require permits. Part II – Assemblies and processions Part II sets out the framework for regulating public assemblies and processions. Compared to the PEMA and MOA, the Bill makes clearer the application requirements, the public order grounds for approving, rejecting or cancelling an application, and the procedures for appeal to the Minister. Under the Public Order Act, an assembly and procession may take place if a permit has been applied for and granted by the police. Clause 7 states that the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit on public order grounds. The reasons include causing damage to property, hostility, obstructing roads, glorifying or instigating terrorism or the commission of an offence, or if held in a prohibited area. Clause 8 allows for permit conditions to be imposed on persons organising and on persons taking part in that assembly or procession. The Commissioner of Police can cancel permits if the events or facts as set out in clause 10 exist.”
“The activities which are now exempted from the MOA and PEMA will continue to be exempted in the Bill. In addition, the Public Order Act (POA) will allow for Subsidiary Legislation which will create additional exceptions. There will be a further relaxation from the current position, to exempt commercial and sporting and recreational activities carried out by Statutory Boards and charities with IPC status. To qualify for the exemption, the primary purpose of the activity must be a commercial or sporting/recreational one. The exempted organisations will need to adhere to basic and minimal conditions relating to the safety and security in respect of the activities they organise. For instance, they cannot hold their activities anywhere within 500 metres of schools or places of worship. The exempted activity must also not pose any serious disruption or nuisance to the surrounding community. The approach we have taken in respect of assemblies and processions can be summarised as follows: (a) We have rationalised the approaches under PEMA and MOA and have set them out in the POA; (b) The activities covered by the POA are similar to those covered under the MOA – really cause-based activities are regulated; (c) Such activities can be carried out indoors without restrictions, in the Speakers' Corner, or in any other proposed exempted area without permits. But if they relate to race and religion then permits are needed; and (d) In other outdoor areas, such activities will need permits. This approach seeks to balance the desire of any individual or group to carry out a cause-based activity in a public area, with the interests of other users of that space, as well as public security.”
“Citizens who organise indoor demonstrations similarly do not now need a permit. In March 2009, the Films Act was amended to allow for certain types of films which were previously considered party political films. They can now be produced and screened, including political party manifestos and factual documentaries. I come back to the central theme I mentioned earlier: the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety and security and not affecting stability. Have we gotten the balance right? Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 50s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these two questions will answer the main question I asked. With that background, let me now turn to the Bill. I will first deal with Part I. Part I – Definitions Part I contains the definitions of the terms used in the Bill. Under the Bill, assemblies and processions are defined in clause 2 as a gathering or meeting of persons the purpose or purposes of which may be to: (a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; (b) publicise a cause or campaign; or (c) mark or commemorate any event. These three limbs are adopted from the existing framework under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA). Under the MOA, all activities falling within any one of the above criteria require permits, unless exempted. In addition, any activity by one or more persons will require a licence under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), if the activity amounts to public entertainment.”
“But being a host of such events brings with it a set of challenges: (i) Each event needs to be successfully held; and (ii) We have a duty to ensure the safety and security of the event, as well as that of the delegates. Before I deal with the Bill, I will touch on how our political space has evolved in recent years, so that the Bill can be seen in context. The increasing liberalisation of political space Since 2000, there have been a series of changes which have liberalised our political space, as part of a continuing process. In 2000, we launched the Speakers' Corner which allows citizens to speak freely without the need to seek Police approval, except when the subject concerns race and religion. That same year, we announced in Parliament changes to policy for the Police to grant public entertainment licences, for MPs to make speeches in their own constituencies if their speech is part of a constituency event organised for the benefit of the constituents and where the intended participants are from that constituency. In 2001, constituency activities organised by or on behalf of MPs and held in the constituency represented by that MP in Parliament were exempted if they wholly comprised performance of music, singing or dancing, or any other similar shows, transmission of recorded music or organised competition. In 2004, the Speakers' Corner exemptions were extended to performances and exhibitions. Indoor political activities by citizens were also exempted. That year, the Societies Act was also amended to allow automatic registration of non-specified societies. Previously, such societies seeking registration had to seek the Registrar's prior approval before becoming a registered society. In 2008, we exempted outdoor political demonstrations in the Speakers' Corner.”
“This evolution and the concomitant need for greater space for political expression must also be factored in. In this context, I will come back later to the way political space has evolved over the last few years. The fourth factor we took into account is we have now become an increasingly popular venue for major international events. In 2006, we hosted the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting as well as International Monetary Fund World Bank Annual Meetings. This involved over 20,000 participants, including Government and business leaders from all around the world. In 2007, Singapore hosted the ASEAN Summit. In 2008, we hosted the first ever Formula One Grand Prix night race. Singapore was beamed "live" to about 400 million people worldwide. This year, we will be hosting the 2009 APEC meetings which will set a new record for the number of international participants for an event held in Singapore. This is one of the most important international events of the year and we will do everything to make it succeed. As I have stated earlier, this meeting is a key reason for introducing the Bill at this stage. Next year, Singapore will host the Youth Olympics. According to STB, Business Travel and MICE visitors constituted approximately 29% or close to three million of our total visitor arrivals in 2007. This amounted to over $5 billion or 39% of our total tourism receipts. This industry will only grow in importance and its value by 2015 is expected to be $10.5 billion. For Singapore, being a host to such events has a number of very substantial benefits: (i) It increases our international profile and diplomatic space which is important to protect our sovereignty; and (ii) There are considerable economic benefits, both direct and indirect.”
“If key facilities were to be shut down as a result of instability, the impact on us would be far greater and far more corrosive than it would be in larger countries. As a result of our intense focus on stability, we rank highly on international surveys which assess countries’ political risk. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy and World Bank Institute have constantly featured safety and security as key competitive advantages of Singapore. This matters to the companies which put billions of dollars into Singapore. When Las Vegas Sands, Genting, Exxon-Mobil and Shell amongst others, invest billions, they assess the country’s stability over the several decades it will take to recoup their investments. This is a really no-brainer. A chaotic socio-political situation will preclude sustained economic growth for us. Recent events, including events in our region, show that we cannot take stability for granted, and the incalculable damage that can arise from instability. This is not to say that references to "stability" alone can justify any and every restriction on political freedoms. As I have stated earlier, the correct approach would be to find the optimal balance: to ensure proper space for the exercise of political rights without compromising stability, in a diversely and densely populated little island. But given our limitations in size, structure of our society, and the geo-strategic situation, stability has to be given greater weight in deciding what is the optimal balance. The third factor we took into account is the need for greater political space. Our society is continually evolving. We now have a highly literate, largely well-educated population. Civil society is growing; and there is now a more active citizenry.”
“The key philosophy underlying the Bill is that there must be (a) adequate space for the individual’s rights of political expression; (b) without compromising society’s needs for order and stability. As a statement of principle, that would be unexceptionable to most people. The key practical issue is: how do you get that balance right? Many of us recognise that it is possible to make a nod to the principle, and at the same time either cut out completely most forms of political expression as a way of controlling political space; or alternatively at the other extreme, have complete chaos and little respect for law and order, in the name of political freedom. We have seen both happen in other countries. Neither outcome would be good for the development of a prosperous, stable democracy. We also recognise that there can and will be legitimate debate on how the right balance should be struck. In determining the right balance, in this Bill, the following factors were key: First, population density/population mix of Singapore. We have one of the highest population densities in the world – over 6,800 persons per square kilometre. We also have a diverse racial and religious mix. Several other countries also have a diverse mix, but few have them in as compressed a space as ours. Every action by one group of people, however small, can have an impact – physically or emotionally – on another group. Race, language and religion remain potentially explosive issues. Those who think otherwise can look at recent history, including the history of countries in South-East Asia. The second factor we took into account is stability. We believe that stability for us is an existential issue – both economically and as a society.”
“PUBLIC ORDER BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.37 pm The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Zainul commented that there is a much larger number of speakers on this Bill compared with the earlier Bill. I would tell him that I would be quite happy to share some speakers with my colleague, RAdm Lui. Sir, this Bill covers, broadly, three main and two supplementary areas. The main areas are as follows: (a) Part II contains provisions which rationalise the current rules for public assemblies and processions; (b) Part III sets out the rules applying to special events which require high security; and (c) Part IV sets out powers for the Police to give "move-on" orders. The two further supplementary features are: the power to prohibit filming in specific situations, and the requirement that property owners exercise greater responsibility in respect of certain activities on their premises. This Bill is part of the continuum of purposive and measured changes to our framework for political space, evolving in tandem with development in our economic and social landscape. It is being brought to this House, in the context of major international events which are going to be held in Singapore, including the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings later this year. The backdrop of current events in Thailand with international leaders leaving the conference by helicopters hurriedly show very tellingly the need for this legislation. Singapore cannot afford the luxury of having these meetings disrupted.”
“The new NHB, PMB will indeed be doing so in the coming year. On the level of support, I think the principle is that it is the responsibility of the owners or the occupiers of the national monuments who have the primary responsibility of undertaking the proper maintenance and repair of these monuments. The Government steps in where necessary, particularly for urgent, major repairs which, unless they are effected, would put the monuments in danger altogether. We have put $5 million over the next five years, as a start. We hope that this will be sufficient. If not, we will have to go back and see whether we can raise more funds. We believe that the primary responsibility is indeed on the owners. The Government can step in from time to time to co-share in the responsibility financially but largely in terms of providing the right level of advice and support. On that note, Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member once again for his input to the Bill that is before us today. I think monuments certainly are something that we continue to treasure. Without them, Singapore would be a less distinctive and familiar place and therefore, given the importance of these monuments, there need to be reasonable laws that will empower the Board to carry out its duties and to deter potentially errant parties who may cause damage to these social markers of our history. So, in conclusion, Sir, I put the Bill before the House and ask for their support in effecting it to law. 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. – [RAdm Lui Tuck Yew]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“We have an ongoing process to look at buildings which we consider to be historically or architecturally meritorious to be considered as buildings to be preserved as national monuments. There is a process, and it is ongoing. Every few years, we nominate a number of such institutions, whether religious, commercial or otherwise, to be considered as national monuments. I believe that in time to come, we will also be adding to the 55 buildings that we have as national monuments. Buildings which are historically rich and structures that have added significantly to our past to grow the collection of national monuments that we have today. On whether the penalties are sufficient, we have revised the penalties for the first time since 38 years ago. From $5,000, individuals can be fined now up to a maximum of $100,000. And for corporations, that fine is doubled to $200,000 with additional daily fines of between $5,000 and $10,000 in the event that it becomes a continued offence. This is drawn in line with other Acts, for example, the Planning Act, and we believe it should be a sufficient deterrent at this point in time. But we will certainly take the Member's input into consideration and monitor if such penalties are sufficient. There are, indeed, actually very few cases where monuments have been wilfully defaced or where the owners have been recalcitrant, in terms of restoring such monuments, as suggested by the Board. But we believe that the enforcement framework and penalties' framework that we have introduced today will suffice for the time being. On the recommendation to increase the level of support and advice from agencies, this is indeed something that we can take into consideration, particularly in issuing more detailed renovation and maintenance guidelines.”
“Having said that, I believe that the Government should also provide more financial support for those generally in need of help for maintenance of our national monuments. Sir, Singaporeans are concerned about retaining their cultural built-up heritage. There have been recent letters in the press where some Singaporeans from the older generations mourn the loss of historical markers. Monument owners, on the other hand, fight a losing battle since the building maintenance costs are high. Now PMB and NHB's role is crucial to offer them support. I think it is more than just money. I think they should also continue to advise them on matters of restoration and intra-agency assistance from other Ministries, where possible. The National Monument's grant of $5 million, which I was told, would be spread over five years, while welcomed is still rather small. I think the Government is only providing that as a token assistance, not really for maintenance but for at-risk restoration works. So I would like to urge the Ministry to increase the support to make our preservation efforts be more fruitful. 3.05 pm RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank the Member who has spoken so passionately in support of the Bill. Let me assure him that while he may be the lone speaker, his support is neither measured nor treasured based on quantity, but rather the quality of his input and certainly he has done great credit. The Member has raised several points, and let me try and take them in turn. One is the possibility of gazetting the Singapore Conference Hall as a national monument. Let me run through the process.”
“If one were to look at the number of buildings that have been gazetted as monuments, you will see historical, ethnic, religious, education, tourism, and even industry to remind us of the war. But maybe it is about time, Sir, that we should also look at buildings which have actually contributed to the moulding of our modern and new nation. Here, I would like to suggest that the PMB and NHB look at the former Trades Union House and the Singapore Conference Hall. This was built in 1965. In fact, this was a venue for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in 1971. It was a popular convention centre in the late 60's and 70's, before the arrival of the World Trade Centre, Raffles City Convention Centre, Suntec City and the Singapore Expo. To Singaporeans, it was also an important nomination and counting centre at elections where election results were announced and post-election press conferences held. And the Prime Minister's National Day Rally was also held there in the early 80's before it moved to Kallang Theatre in 1986. It was also a popular venue for pre-university seminars in the 70's. Many National University of Singapore graduates will also remember the place as their convocations were held there during the 70's and the 80's. Enough of the past. Let me now move on to the future, Sir. I would like to raise two specific points here. One, I know that the Acting Minister has mentioned that the penalty is raised from $500 to $10,000. But I wonder actually in present day dollar terms whether even $10,000 is sufficient to make sure that those who are culpable and responsible for lack of action are taken to task. So I would like to suggest that the Ministry reviews that amount and see whether it is necessary to raise it in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I trust it is not because of lack of interest on the subject of preservation of monuments but more because of the confidence our Members have in MICA and PMB on a job well done. I think one need only be with Dr Lee Boon Yang on some overseas trips, which I went on once to the Middle East, to observe his eye for details and his heart for such matters. In fact, the same spirit was also shown by our new Acting Minister when he officiated at the MOU signing for the heritage institutions. Sir, this Bill was first enacted in 1971, some 38 years ago. But it also brings me back down memory lane, because 28 years ago when I was the Editor of Sunday Times, we were very actively involved in debating this issue of whether the Singapore Government was doing enough for the preservation of monuments. I think this is an important subject because it is not just about our past but about our contemporary thinking on our past and values for the future. If I may, Sir, I would like to quote this editorial written in 1981 in the Sunday Times, and it reads: "It is always a cheerful sight to see the government responding to the needs of the nation. That is as true of preserving our links with the past as it is with tearing down dilapidated structures and putting up spanking new buildings in their place or in creating jobs and providing public housing. As our society matures and grows older, new demands and priorities will set in. Conserving what we have of our history and our roots is just one of these new factors in the task of a successful administering of a country." Sir, I would like to congratulate the Monuments Board. Although it had a very slow start, from eight monuments in 1973, it has grown to 55 in 2006. But yet, I suppose, more could be done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I notice that I am the only speaker for this Bill, compared to the 16 for the Bills on Public Order and Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. I know that these two other Bills touch on important subjects, but I thought there could be a better balance. Maybe the young should also pay some attention to that.”
“It certainly made the family of the late Mr Nathan value the role that he had actively played in promoting life values based on IRO's ideals. Similarly, when I attended a meeting in Gujarat, India last month, I was able to visit the Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram. Gandhi, as we know, is a global figure who gave a great deal of attention towards inter-religious relations and harmony, and rejecting violence. The role played by icons like the late Mr Gandhi had an effect on me. We need to draw lessons from his life values to promote similar values in Singapore. With economic growth rates expected to decline, we must ensure that the harmonious lives that we have built together all these years through thick and thin, will be maintained and further strengthened. We have to strategise to ensure that no matter whether the economy grows or declines, it will not affect our race relations in Singapore. We hope that more assistance will be given to the Self-Help Groups and the VWOs, because they play an important role to ensure harmonious life in Singapore. As we are still celebrating the Lunar New Year, let me end with a Chinese saying, "Ren ren wei wo, wo wei ren ren " – All for one and one for all. *Cols. 1613-1614. 4.53 pm”
“4 million last year to $3 million this year) to neighbourhood programmes to fill the social and service gaps, after taking into account national programmes. But this must also be done with bonding and better harmony in mind. In the early 70s, I was told that if the economy could grow at 6.5%, we should be able to take care of all our people, including the lower income, particularly the lagging Malay and Indian communities. They relatively are behind in terms of skills and income. Now, with a shrinking economy, they will most likely be affected first. To avoid income gaps growing and resources being diverted to more economic programmes, the Government must ensure that there is enough allocation of funds for bonding programmes to continue. (In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, although generally we accept that the Singapore Government is a secular one, and the Government also does not want to be seen as taking the side of any particular group, especially in religious group activities, I feel that the Government must also consider the importance of supporting programmes that promote the spirit of inter-religious harmony and inclusiveness. The Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) is one example. The Inter-Racial Confidence Circle (IRCC) is another. They have been making excellent progress in promoting inclusive behaviour and they deserve greater support. Recently, I was at the funeral of the late Mr V R Nathan, Chairman of the Hindu Endowments Board, and I was very amazed, happy and felt assured when I saw leaders of different faiths paying their last respects and offering prayers for the late Mr Nathan.”
“One area which needs due attention is the support programme for families and direct assistance to households. I applaud the slew of assistance programmes announced, from GST Credit to S&CC and rental rebates, which will certainly help when many people are expecting reduced incomes and bonuses. The personal income tax rebates of 20% is welcome, although many wished that the cap could be pegged higher. Even the middle class too, Minister Tharman said, will receive significant benefits. I would, however, urge the Government to monitor this group and the benefits they receive, as many still feel the middle income squeeze and they often feel neglected. I am most happy to see more Government funding for the Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and the VWOs. The increase of $15 million for VWOs is rather small, but the total amount dished out ($220 million) is a significant support for the organisations that help make a success of our Many Helping Hands approach. Similarly, I welcome the additional $4 million to be given to the SHGs over the next two years, to a total of $9 million a year. The additional funding to the CCC-ComCare Fund to $7 million a year over the next two years will also help encourage the SHGs and grassroots organisations to play a more active role, in addition to the role played by the CDCs. As one of the Mayors, I would also like to encourage better bonding and synergy of roles between the CDCs and the GROs. The Government should incentivise that with more funding. At the NECDC, we are already extending our hands to the GROs and are working with advisers and VWOs to enhance our help to the needy, particularly in job and financial assistance. On top of national projects, the NECDC is devoting more of its resources (from $1.”
“And it is for this reason, I would like to urge Minister Tharman to elaborate on the basis as to how the Government decides what formula to use when deciding to dip into our national reserves. While there are always Singaporeans who would want more of the sacred cow slaughtered, there will be equally, if not more, who would urge the Government to be conservative, prudent and not to be trigger happy at dipping into the national reserves. To the latter group, this sacred cow needs careful nurturing and rearing, and to beware of the temptation to break the piggy bank. In other words, it is not halal, not allowed, to rob our own piggy bank. Sir, I would like to applaud the Resilience Package introduced by the Government. Jobs, jobs and more jobs must be the way forward for our people , if we want to prepare our people for the realities of today's challenges. Yes, more is also given to help the needy, but we would want our people to meet the challenges with dignity rather than develop a crutch mentality. We are happy that Minister Tharman has chosen creative approaches through Jobs Credit and reskilling through SPUR for workers and professionals. This indeed is more than the "SPUR" of the moment. I agree to the need to encourage our workers to earn their "SPURS" and sharpen their skills and competitiveness. This will stand them in good stead for the longer term, especially when the economy turns for the better and we want to be there to exploit the new opportunities that will surface. I will not touch on the business stimulus package which Mr Inderjit has dwelled on at length but suffice to say that it will go a long way to bring about better confidence and optimism, something lacking these days in the private sector.”
“For the first time in our modern history, we have decided to dip into our reserves. It is unprecedented. So much so, it has left many among the more conservative and sober businessmen, worried about the signal which Singapore Government wanted to send. It must be that bad for the normally tight-fisted and prudent Singapore Government to release its hold on our national reserves, a sacred cow held dearly and closely to our hearts. Many a time, many Singaporeans had tried and pressed the Government to relent and release the reserves, including the last recessions in 1985, 1997 and 2001/2003, but let us also remember that sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander. Let us not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Even Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had declared that "if this is not the rainy days we have all this while built and kept our reserves for, then what is a rainy day?", only to caution, practically in the next breath, that this does not mean "breaking the piggy bank". Yes, it does not take economic experts to know that there will be more that needs doing. While Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised "more", if and when needed, perhaps to be reviewed in six months' time, like the Budget Supplement also dished out during the last recessions, I believe it is better to do the saving in two or three steps, rather than rushing in blind. I believe there is no right or wrong answer as to what would constitute an appropriate formula for such supplementary help. Nevertheless, there are still many Singaporeans who might have been disappointed that the S$4.9 billion from the reserves was too small and too conservative a move for such an extraordinary and pressing time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a word, the Budget is extraordinary. In Malay, it is luarbiasa, or beyond the norm. It is no longer the SOE or the so-and-so budget for the Standard Operating Environment, but SOE as SoExtraordinary. In the spirit of the Budget highlights presented by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, it is now also SOEasy to appreciate where the Government was coming from to meet the challenges of the impending testing times. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget 2009. In the US, President Barack Hussein Obama has proposed a US$819 billion economic stimulus recovery plan, and experts are saying that it is still not enough to get out of the current mess the banks on Wall Street have left the state of the economy in America. Not a single Republican voted for it, saying it is wasteful and would not be effective, as it tilted heavily towards new spending instead of tax cuts. Similarly in Europe, much of the bailouts seem "Money Not Enough". In the famous five-day World Economic Forum in Switzerland this week, world leaders and economic experts grappled with what to do. The Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Prof. Kishore Mahbubani, said, "Everybody's lost in Davos". The roundtable wrapped up two days ago in the atmosphere of doom and gloom that it began, with a realisation that the depth of the crisis is still unknown and the solution remains elusive. Premier Wen Jiabao of China called on the world to act in concert as, he said, "We are in the same boat." We sink or swim together. What about our Budget, Sir? Have we done enough? Will it again be a case of too little, too late? These must be some of the questions Singaporeans are asking. By Singapore standards, this year's Budget is indeed a record.”
“I see MBMF as a public wakaf system or "people's wakaf" (people's endowment trust) that we must ensure its success together. If in the past, we had rich people who put aside their land or money for the building of mosque and madrasah, in this modern and sophisticated age where we have a fund-raising mechanism like the CPF, the MBMF should be maintained and further improved to fulfill the needs of a society that changes with the passage of time. I have only one suggestion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that MUIS continues the effort to reach out to the community through its briefings, and use the available communication systems, including Friday sermons, to spread the message so that more of the community will fully understand the reasons behind these amendments. This important amendment needs not only the support of the Parliament but, most importantly, it must have the blessings and be embraced by our community. *Cols. 849-852.”
“Dr Yaacob also mentioned the development of Al-Ansar mosque. I myself was involved in the mosque building committee of the Al-Ansar mosque and we know how difficult it was to raise funds for the construction of this mosque. This mosque certainly needs upgrading. So, with the inclusion of this need into the amendment on AMLA, I am sure that this project can be carried out successfully. The incorporation of funding for religious education development under MBMF is most heartening to me. Although there are parties who will question the need, whether in terms of the number of students to be assisted, or in terms of a secular government allowing MBMF to be used for religious education, I think it is once again an example of how unique Singapore is. If the future of the madrasah education system is questioned by many around the world, whether it will be a breeding ground for terrorism, we in Singapore want our religious education system to succeed. Although the number of students who will benefit from this MBMF funding will be limited – which is 400 per year or 4,000 students generally – their impact on the religious lives of Muslims in Singapore is huge. I fully agree with what Dr Yaacob said – that religious education is very near and dear to the hearts of the Muslims here. But, certainly, there will be other questions raised, through the feedback received, on the amendments to the Act, not just why we should include funding for the madrasah, but also the amount of increase proposed, especially in difficult economic times. But I am sure that if this can be explained and clarified, most of the Muslims in Singapore will support it. And this, certainly, is for our common benefit.”
“This, to me, was a milestone as it was an important signal to the Muslims that their contributions and 'investments' should not only be made for the mosques – which many consider for purposes of hereafter – but also for their children's education, a call which began to be more pronouncedly felt in the '80s and '90s, especially with the formation of Mendaki. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to speak in Malay. (In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, allow me to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has facilitated the work of Mendaki and all Malay-Muslim organisations for their efforts to improve the performance and prestige of the Malay-Muslim community. Allow me also to applaud the noble efforts of Mr Haji Mansor Sukaimi, former Member of Parliament for Kembangan, who passed away recently. He was among those who pioneered the setting up of Mendaki, and strengthened the efforts of our community towards excellence. I support the proposal to amend AMLA to increase this contribution, both for redevelopment and upgrading of mosques, as well as for the needs of the madrasahs. After we had built 23 beautiful mosques in the HDB areas at a cost of almost $120 million, it is time now for MBMF to be used also to upgrade the existing mosques. It is especially important to uphold the good reputation of the existing mosques, because the eminence (syiar ) of the religion emanating from the mosques will not be preserved, if these mosques are not maintained and upgraded. If most Singaporeans want upgrading for their lifts and HDB flats, certainly mosques must not be left out. The inclusion of this effort as part of MBMF will enable this project to be implemented successfully and smoothly.”
“Perhaps the Minister could look into the need for a mechanism to allow periodic scrutiny of AMLA and to allow MUIS and other AMLA-related agencies to be proactive in facing changes and challenges of the future. Allow me, Sir, to focus on the amendment related to expanding the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF). I support the move to include the upgrading of old mosques in the MBMF and also the funding of religious education. With more uses envisaged, it is only right that the amount collected from Muslim workers should also rise. They make sense and is a logical progression to what we have achieved thus far. It is more than icing on the cake. It is like adding raisins and almonds to the cake of community development. I feel hungry already. [Laughter.] I remember when the MBMF was first introduced in 1975 to replace mosques torn down because of resettlement and to build new mosques in HDB satellite towns, there was a lot of unhappiness. It started with a contribution of just 50 cents per Muslim worker, collected through the CPF check-off machinery. This is something which was done, courtesy of our secular Government. It was not because of the amount, but trust was not there then. Some felt that the Government should pay for the mosques redevelopment, while others felt that the budding MUIS needed time to gain trust of the community then. But after a number of the new mosques were built, and the community could see for themselves the products of those contributions, confidence grew and trust began to be felt, so much so that when the call for more contributions was made, a vast majority responded positively. In 1984, the fund was enlarged to include contributions for Mendaki.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself have been our Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, and had been instrumental in initiating the process of earlier AMLA amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the current Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, for taking these new initiatives, the second during his term, to introduce new amendments to ensure that AMLA remain relevant and effective. I do not need to emphasise the challenges faced by the Malay/Muslim community in the context of an ever-progressive Singapore, what more, in the context of our globalised world. The Malay/Muslim community has made credible strides to uplift in tandem with mainstream Singapore. Yet much more awaits in terms of meeting the challenges of the future and the community needs to streamline its machinery and enhance its programmes. The AMLA amendments today spell out the areas which need the community's urgent attention. They speak volumes of the challenges the community faces and without these amendments, the efforts to overcome them can be made a lot more onerous. As spelt out by Minister Dr Yaacob, the amendments would help strengthen family-related matters – raising the minimum marriage age for Muslims from 16 to 18, strengthening powers of the Syariah Court Orders, redefinition of maintenance for better protection of wives – and widen the scope of MUIS work related to Halal certification, wakaf and haj services. These are amendments in the right direction. AMLA has been amended twice before in 1999 and 2005. I applaud these moves and would like to recommend that the community should not feel shy of further amendments, if and when necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I say Assalamualaikum. In today's world where Islamaphobia is still a problem that needs careful and sensitive handling, I am proud to say that we are able to discuss key and pertinent issues of the Administration of Muslim Law Act, or AMLA, without fear and prejudice. Indeed, with an open mind, free of the cobwebs of racial and religious discord present in many places in the region and in the world. I see the management and, worse, mismanagement of the issue of the administration of Muslim Law in the world as a possible time-bomb in many parts of the world, where Muslims live as siginficant minorities or even as majority population. Many non-Malay non-Muslim MPs here might take this AMLA Amendments as a Bill of interest as though to the Muslim community only, but it is worth noting that it has important and far-reaching significance to Muslim Singaporeans and beyond. For sure, we are familiar with the branding "Uniquely Singapore" in terms of tourist attraction. Every year about 10 million tourists visit our Singapore for its varied attractions, including the racial and religious harmony we live with and which forms part of our branding. Members might still remember how I describe "secularism with a soul" as uniquely Singaporean, our own style of racial and religious harmony. The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), first enacted in 1968, provides for the establishment of MUIS to administer Muslim affairs, the appointment of the Registrar of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) and the establishment of the Syariah Court, and it is indeed a unique feature that reassures the Muslim community that its religion, Islam, and their Muslim way of life, have their rightful place in plural Singapore.”
“Myanmar has already been accepted as a member of ASEAN, the ASEAN 10. Sometimes we wish that as though life can be so perfect that we want everything to be rosy and nice. But I think it is also part of our life challenge that when we have problems, we have to learn to cope with problems and those challenges. And I think ASEAN has proven that despite the setbacks we have faced in terms of some of the attitudes from countries that are outside ASEAN in wanting ASEAN to move faster in some areas, as far as Burma is concerned, wanting to put more pressure on Myanmar, I think we as a group has shown that we have our way of dealing with things, our ASEAN way. So, the fact that Myanmar continues to be a member of ASEAN, to me, is a contribution. As a group we want to remain united despite the challenges, despite the problems, we want to show that we can also work out the challenges but I think there are occasions where we need more time and better understanding. But more important, I think we need to build on trust and confidence between Myanmar and ASEAN, and also between Myanmar and the rest of the international community. MAS SELAMAT INCIDENT (Update on disciplinary actions against officers) 7. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on the disciplinary actions against those officers assessed to be culpable in the Mas Selamat incident.”
“I think clearly we have advanced as an ASEAN Community. I think if one were to recall the kind of challenges that we have faced over the last 40 years, you will see that there were big challenges when we were the original 5, original 6, before we became 10 in ASEAN. There were a lot of difficult problems. Even on the economic front, I think we have made tremendous progress in coming out with the ASEAN Community, which the Charter was signed at the last ASEAN Summit in Singapore. So, I think there are a lot of pluses as far as ASEAN is concerned, and this is recognised the world over. In fact, during my trips to other regions, they even look up to ASEAN as a model, as an example of a regional grouping. We can be proud of the progress we have made. But as far as the issue of Myanmar in ASEAN is concerned, I think there are clearly challenges, problems if you like, which I think we have to continue to face. But eventually on the issue of Myanmar within ASEAN, I think ASEAN has made progress. For example, at the last ASEAN Summit and also at the meeting on the Myanmar cyclone we had on last Monday, even in those situations, cases we have shown that ASEAN can work together with Myanmar and Myanmar is willing to play along with ASEAN. But, also, at the same time we also have to understand some of the concerns that ASEAN has, which Myanmar has, facing the international community. So I think clearly there has been a lot of progress but there are certain challenges we have to face together as a group in ASEAN. And I think we will continue to make progress.”
“On the question of distribution of aid and also whether it is true that food was rotting away, yes, I have also seen news reports on it. I am afraid I do not have an answer to that, but we will check on it. On the question of assurances on the US$5 million aid, in fact, during the conference yesterday, there were quite a number of countries which also were willing to pledge more, but they also wanted some assurances in terms of distribution and also in terms of what we consider as the needs of the Myanmar people. So I think the ASEAN mechanism which they have started work on – they had a back-to-back meeting yesterday after the conference – will look into all these questions, including to ensure that assistance that has been pledged or provided will be going to the rightful destination, which is the Myanmar people. So, we will do our best to ensure that the donations either from the Government directly or money collected through our people will be well-utilised and well-distributed. On the question on the referendum – the last question which the Member asked, I think I mentioned just now that while we were disappointed that the NLD were not party to the drafting of the constitution, we believe that it is an internal matter decided by the government of Myanmar. While we have been invited to observe the referendum being carried out, we will have to see how the development evolves, and we will have to take it, again, step by step.”
“While it took some time for us to convene a meeting, it did not mean that nothing was done. In fact, we have been able to send in earlier tranches of aid and we have been making steady progress in attending to those needs. While some may see it as ASEAN's credibility being put to question, I think ASEAN also recognises the challenges posed by having to deal with a regime that has its own way in dealing with such situations. But as I mentioned earlier on, there has been progress made, and I think we should work on those developments and progress and ensure that we get the most out of those opportunities to help the Myanmar people.”
“I think Singapore, as Chair of ASEAN, has always taken the approach that we need to understand where each member of ASEAN comes from. ASEAN has taken a long time to come to this stage today where we can gain the kind of understanding and cooperation. I think members will remember how we have moved, step by step, in terms of political cooperation in facing some of the more difficult issues and challenges in the earlier days. But now I think ASEAN is also recognised as a group which has greater cohesion and greater sense of unity. Myanmar has been a challenge to ASEAN and whether it is a question of the demonstrations and the way the authorities in Myanmar responded to the demonstrations and now Cyclone Nargis, I think they have been found wanting by the international community. But at the same time, we also know that we have to get the understanding, trust and confidence on the part of the Myanmar government in order to ensure better cooperation and a better working relationship. And there has been progress, both in the context of the aftermath of the demonstrations and also Cyclone Nargis now. We are confident that Myanmar will also recognise the need to adhere and to answer to the spirit of Article 36 which the Member mentioned just now.”
“I think we all know the history of Myanmar's participation in ASEAN. It is not easy, but to call it hard-line – I am not sure myself. But Myanmar is facing difficult times, especially with Cyclone Nargis. But the fact that Myanmar has agreed to join in with the AMM in Singapore last Monday and the fact that when the Secretary-General of the United Nations met with Senior-General Than Shwe and he agreed to allowing aid officers and volunteers to come in has shown progress. So I think let us take it a step at a time. And I think if the Charter is ratified, of course we have better grounds to get and expect better cooperation.”
“Finally, Sir, I thank Mr de Souza for pointing to the principles and purposes of the ASEAN Charter, which all ASEAN member countries, including Myanmar, signed last November. Members would be aware that Myanmar and three other ASEAN countries (namely, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand) are still in the process of ratifying the ASEAN Charter. With the Charter entering into force, we do expect ASEAN member countries to subscribe to the values and standards spelt out in the Charter. It is based upon these values and standards that ASEAN has stepped in to assist Myanmar as a member of the family, and we expect Myanmar to cooperate fully with ASEAN and the international community.”
“Organisations like the Singapore Red Cross, Mercy Relief, Salvation Army (Singapore), World Vision International (Singapore), the MUIS-initiated Rahmatan Lil Alamin (or Blessings-to-All) Committee and the Golden Pagoda Buddhist temple have collected donations from Singaporeans, Myanmar residents and others in Singapore. These funds have been used to buy relief supplies for the Myanmar people. To answer Mr Siew Kum Hong's question, Singapore, along with other donor countries, have handed over the aid to the Myanmar authorities overseeing the aid effort. This aid is intended for the victims of Cyclone Nargis and should be used as such. But we must accept the fact that there is no alternative to working through the Myanmar authorities. They know the local situation better than anyone else, and will have to be accountable to their own people. The alternative is not to give any aid. With the setting up of the ASEAN coordinating mechanism, the distribution of aid should become more systematic. Mr Siew also asked about the legitimacy of the referendum. Although some countries have questioned the fairness of the referendum, we are not in a position to judge. Our diplomats in Yangon were invited along with other diplomats to visit polling stations. While they saw nothing exceptional, they were not able to evaluate the integrity of the entire process. Singapore was disappointed that the main opposition party, the NLD, did not take part in drafting the final draft constitution. However, we do see the establishment of a clear timetable to democracy in Myanmar, however imperfect, to be a step forward. Right now, our focus should be to help the Myanmar people through this very difficult period after the cyclone. We are opposed to the politicisation of external aid.”
“Second, based on Foreign Minister Nyan Win's detailed briefing of the damage caused by Cyclone Nargis and the help required, it was clear that Myanmar's needs are beyond what itself or ASEAN can provide. ASEAN members have therefore agreed to help channel international assistance to Myanmar. We have established an ASEAN-led coordinating mechanism to facilitate the effective distribution and utilisation of assistance from the international community. ASEAN Secretary-General Surin will lead a Task Force, which will work closely with the UN and a central coordinating body in Myanmar, in the setting up of this coordinating mechanism. Yesterday, ASEAN and UN had also convened an ASEAN-UN International Pledging Conference. The aim was to focus on the needs of those affected by the cyclone, and seek international support and financial assistance for the international humanitarian response to meet the most urgent challenges, as well as longer term recovery efforts. At the Pledging Conference, Singapore pledged a further US$5 million worth of assistance to Myanmar's relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts. In addition, we also offered assistance in the form of the continued deployment of medical teams, logistics support, heavy-lift helicopters, and water purification units. The assistance package will extend to the reconstruction of cyclone-affected areas. Private individuals, companies, and NGOs in Singapore will also do their part. Beyond the Singapore Government's efforts, Singaporeans have shown that they have a big heart by their various contributions to the Myanmar people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer Miss Penny Low and Ms Irene Ng, we recognise the critical situation in Myanmar in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis and the necessity for the Singapore Government to assist the Myanmar government and people in its recovery efforts. To this end, we had contributed a first tranche of humanitarian assistance package worth US$200,000. This included medical benefits, drinking water, water purifying tablets, tents, groundsheets, blankets, sleeping bags and emergency food parcels. Delivery of this first tranche of aid was completed on 10th May 2008. And Singapore was also part of the ASEAN Emergency Rapid Assessment Team (called ERAT) in Myanmar to assess the situation. We also despatched a 15-member medical team to help the Myanmar people on 22nd May this year which has since grown to 24. Sir, Singapore had earlier offered to despatch our DART (or Disaster Assistance Rescue Teams), medical doctors and Chinooks to assist the Myanmars in their rescue operations. However, these offers were not taken up by the Myanmars. Like the rest of the international community, Singapore recognises that no one country alone can handle a crisis of such scale and magnitude. In our capacity as ASEAN Chair and with the agreement of the Myanmar government, we took the initiative to convene a Special ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting (AMM) on 19th May to discuss how to further help Myanmar. Myanmar participated as a full member at this meeting, including attending the joint press conference where ASEAN's efforts were announced. The meeting achieved several important outcomes. First, to address the immediate needs, Myanmar agreed to the rapid deployment of medical teams from all the ASEAN countries.”
“It makes explicit reference to the liability of corporate officers where offences are committed by a body corporate and of individual partners where offences are committed by a partnership. There is some ambiguity over whether or not officers of corporate entities that enter into a partnership can be held accountable for safety lapses under section 48. The amended section will address this ambiguity to allow MOM to hold such officers liable. Sir, our efforts on workplace safety and health have shown encouraging progress, with the workplace fatality rate falling from 4.9 per 100,000 workers in 2004 to 2.9 in 2007. The strong industry support, whether in terms of participation in WSH programmes, industry sponsorship for WSH events or feedback on WSH policies, has been a key contributing factor. Moving forward, our continued success on the WSH front will depend on the strength of the partnership between the industry and the community. The establishment of the Council will strengthen industry's ownership and cement the partnership to create a healthier and safer work environment for Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. 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 Gan Kim Yong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE CHAIR”
“However, with intimate knowledge of the constraints and challenges on the ground, industry leaders represented on the Council are better placed to guide the development of "reasonably practicable" measures that stakeholders can implement to reduce and manage risk. The Council will also take the lead to promote the adoption and implementation of these codes of practice within the industry. Accordingly, sections 40B and 40C of the amended Act will transfer the power to issue, approve, amend, or revoke WSH codes of practice from the Commissioner to the Council. The Council will also take on executive functions in the areas of industry capability building and WSH promotion. The Council will administer and review the effectiveness of existing programmes and develop new programmes to improve WSH performance. In addition, the Council will be establishing new research capabilities to look into WSH trends and developments, so that it can formulate appropriate industry responses. Enforcement provisions We have also taken this opportunity to clarify two specific provisions of the WSH Act, based on our experience of operating under the Act over the past two years. Section 41 of the current Act only allows MOM inspectors to seize documents kept at the workplace. As a result, inspectors technically do not have access to relevant documents that may be kept offsite or compel the persons in possession of such materials to produce them. The amended section 41 will allow MOM inspectors to have access to all relevant documents and information regardless of their location. The second amendment pertains to section 48.”
“Achievements by the WSH Advisory Committee Since its inception in 2005, the Advisory Committee has been effective in fostering industry ownership and building capabilities to manage WSH. The Committee introduced bizSAFE, a compliance assistance programme for SMEs with more than 350 companies already signed on. The Committee engaged over 150,000 stakeholders in 2007 through the various platforms to spread the WSH message and garnered over 52,000 pledges in support of the WSH 2015 strategy. Formation of WSH Council To allow industry partnership a greater and more effective role in driving improvements in safety standards, and building a safety culture in Singapore, it is timely for the WSH Advisory Committee to be elevated to a full-fledged Workplace Safety and Health Council. Appropriately, the amendments in the WSH Act will provide more autonomy and executive powers to the Council to realise the WSH 2015 strategy. The Council will include members from key sectors such as construction, petrochemicals and logistics, to ensure that its views are balanced and representative. The Council will also bring in other relevant stakeholders such as the public sector, the unions and academia. Role and functions of Council MOM has consulted extensively in scoping the role and functions of the Council. A significant function that the Council will take on is the setting of industry standards via codes of practice. Codes of practice serve to provide practical guidance to stakeholders on how the required safety standards can be met and cover diverse areas such as scaffolds, work in confined spaces and the safe use of forklifts. These Codes are currently issued by the Commissioner.”
“In fact, many other countries have also taken similar steps and we want to have this Bill because it would then allow us to work closer with our neighbors in ASEAN and also our international partners in combating terrorism which, I think, is a growing menace and we need to move quickly. 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 Zainul Abidin Rasheed]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Background Sir, in 2005, the Ministry of Manpower outlined plans to revamp our national workplace safety and health (or WSH) framework to achieve a significant reduction in workplace-related injuries and deaths. Integral to this new framework would be the set-up of a formal structure to bring in industry partnership to jointly lead the effort to improve workplace safety. Workplace safety systems around the world have shown that better safety standards can only be achieved if stakeholders from industry are engaged. To phase in industry partnership, we started with the formation of the WSH Advisory Committee. This has worked out well, as I will outline later. This Amendment Bill takes industry partnership to improve workplace safety to a higher level by elevating the Committee into a full-fledged Council with executive powers.”
“On the question of withholding information and the benchmark used for punishment, in fact, the offences and punishments are the same as those found in section 4 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and section 10 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. So, it is not unprecedented. I think we work on that basis. If I remember correctly, in fact, the earlier Conventions were based on British benchmarks too. On the question of how immediately information should be disclosed, I think, to our understanding "immediately" means "without delay". For such things, there is wisdom in trying not to be too specific. If a person has information which he knows or believes may be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a Convention offence, for example, he knows that a bomb has been planted in an embassy, he has to report this immediately to the Police, and not take his own time to do so. He can make the report to any police officer, in person or by a 999 call. On the question about why there is no Fair Treatment clause found in Article 9 of the Convention itself, in fact, this is a clause found in most counter terrorism Conventions. In enacting the legislation to implement these Conventions, we have not found a need to specifically provide for this clause since persons prosecuted under the Act would be entitled to the rights of due process guaranteed under the Constitution and our other laws. In consulting the legislation of other countries, in the process of drafting this Bill, we have also noticed that many other countries take a similar approach. So, we are not alone in this.”
“On the question of how do we define "part of the person's household", the term is actually taken from the Convention and it is not defined within the Convention. It would be given its normal and ordinary meaning and would not extend to visiting relatives as such persons are not ordinarily part of the person's household. On the question of whether there is discretion to prosecute or what policy would Singapore follow in relation whe ther to prosecute the case in Singapore or not, I think we will, of course, have to decide on a case-by-case basis, depending on factors such as the location of the accused, the availability of evidence in Singapore and other facts and circumstances surrounding the case. That was an interesting case she brought up about the diplomat in Malaysia and Singapore, but I think we can look at it on a case-by-case basis. On the question of what if the person committing the crime does not know the family member is related to an IPP, I think there is, in fact, a presumption clause under clause 8 of the Bill that the accused would have known of the status of the accompanying family member as an IPP, but this presumption can be rebutted. I think that is the difference between us and some other countries where, in fact, we allow the presumption to be rebutted by the accused. Therefore, if the accused person shows that he did not know that the family member was an IPP, then the offence would not be made out. So I think we have not actually gone to the full extent and we have provided this clause to take care of that need.”
“Sir, as we can see, there are a lot of questions raised by Prof. Thio. I do not know, after two weeks of debate in COS, whether our minds will be as alert to register all of them. But when we have an international and constitutional law expert in the House, I suppose we can expect those good questions and I hope, in trying to answer some of the questions, it will allow me to clarify why we actually want to enact and support this Bill. I thank Prof. Thio for her support of this Bill. On the question of outraging of modesty, the offence of outraging of modesty simpliciter (by itself) is not included in the First Schedule. What is included here is the offence of outraging of modesty under aggravated circumstances under section 35A of the Penal Code, ie, voluntarily causing or attempting to cause death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint in the process of; or to facilitate the outrage of modesty. It may not be outrage of modesty directly, but acts that could lead to other more serious crime. We feel this offence is sufficiently serious to warrant inclusion in the First Schedule. On the question of whether a diplomat on holiday in a third state who is kidnapped would be recognised, the diplomat on holiday in a third state will not be entitled to protection as he is not accredited to that third state. There is no specific mention of the Vienna Conventions in the Convention or in the Bill, but it is understood that the protection accorded to diplomats and consular officials will be in accordance with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations respectively.”
“But when an extradition request is received from a non-Commonwealth State which is party to the Convention with no bilateral extradition treaty with Singapore, or if there is an existing bilateral extradition treaty with a State party to the Convention but the treaty does not provide for the extradition of persons accused of or convicted of offences against an Internationally Protected Person, clause 11 of the Bill provides that the Minister for Law may make a notification under section 4 of the Extradition Act to apply the Act. To facilitate mutual legal assistance between State Parties to the Convention, clause 10 of the Bill provides that assistance under Part III of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act may be provided by Singapore to a State Party to the Convention with respect to offences against Internationally Protected Persons. An offence against an Internationally Protected Person shall be deemed not to be an offence of a political character. This also applies to an extradition request. This is to prevent anyone from blocking mutual legal assistance or extradition on the grounds that the offences in question were committed for a political motive. In conclusion, Sir, acceding to the Convention and implementing the Internationally Protected Persons Bill will strengthen existing counter-terrorism cooperation between Singapore and like- minded countries. It ensures no safe haven for the terrorists and complements domestic legal instruments already in place to deal with terrorists. It will also reiterate our commitment to combat terrorism in whatever form and ensure that Internationally Protected Persons can conduct their work in a safe environment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.51 pm”
“Both the Misuse of Drugs Act as well as the Arms Offences Act have included provisions pertaining to the presumption of knowledge of the defendant. Many other leading jurisdictions such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have gone a step further in implementing the Convention by making it immaterial as to whether the accused had knowledge that the victim was an Internationally Protected Person. In providing that the accused can rebut this presumption, Singapore has not gone as far as these jurisdictions. Withholding information In order to make Singapore a safer place for Internationally Protected Persons, everyone must play their part. Having prior information of plans against Internationally Protected Persons enables the Government to act before these plans materialise. This is crucial as it can save lives. Hence, clause 9 of the Bill requires anyone who has information that can prevent an offence against an Internationally Protected Person, or which is useful to arrest, prosecute or convict the offender for crimes against Internationally Protected Persons to come forward and provide the information to the authorities. A person who provides the information in good faith will be protected against any civil or criminal proceedings. Conversely, failure to disclose such information renders a person liable to a fine not exceeding S$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. Extradition and mutual legal assistance Sir, the Convention requires State Parties to either extradite a Convention offender present in its territory or to submit him to the competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Under the Extradition Act, extradition to or from a declared Commonwealth country may be effected without an extradition treaty.”