Siew Kum Hong

We not stupid, ok?

2012-01-17T10:47:00.004+08:00

The Straits Times ran a story on PAP MPs' rebuttals of Mr Chen Show Mao's speech on ministerial salaries. [note: the ST story is completely available for free, but it may not stay fully available for long]

Below is the text of what I wrote on Facebook about these PAP MPs' so-called rebuttals.

I am posting this instead of working because this article made me so fed-up. It is ok for politicians to engage in politicking, and it is entirely expected that PAP MPs would line up to try to rebut Mr Chen Show Mao (and probably told to do this, when they were scheduled to speak after him). But I cannot stand poorly-reasoned arguments, which are replete here.

1. "'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' [Zaqy] said."

An odd conclusion, because the PAP-accepted proposal pays more (on an annual basis) to ministers than the WP proposal. How you get there (the formula) is important, but where you end up (the amount) is also important. If the WP proposal omits sacrifice, then how much more so the PAP-accepted proposal which pays even more?

2. ""It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health [Amy Khor]."

Surely Dr Khor is not suggesting that the WP proposal is non-transparent. Whether or not you agree with it (I myself am not completely sold, because we would probably see the MX9 benchmark creep upwards), it is simple and transparent. The WP proposal was constructed using a bottoms-up approach, based on principled reasoning on how ministerial salaries should be determined. You may disagree with the approach, but calling it "less or non-transparent" is misconceived.

3. ""Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr [Alvin Yeo]. "Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'."

Actually, the excitement was because Mr Chen gave up a big job and a big salary to join the Opposition (no parachute for him, no near-guarantee of a win) and then become a regular MP -- with nary a whine or moan about his pay-cut. Until the PAP understands that Singaporeans loved that because it exemplifies the spirit of public service (and the uncomplaining sacrifice that the PAP likes to talk about so much), they will NEVER get it.

4. "'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr [Sam] Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin."

Actually, it should be, if the so-called talent in question is so overly-concerned about money, that a salary that can support a very comfortable lifestyle is not enough.

TODAY: Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries

2012-01-07T16:31:00.001+08:00

TODAY asked me to re-write my earlier blog post for them. I basically halved the word count and added what I read in the Straits Times about what Mr Chiam See Tong and Prof Walter Woon had said in 1994 (which Mr Chiam had repeated in 2000).

Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries
by Siew Kum Hong

Published in TODAY on Saturday Jan 07, 2012

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ministerial review committee's report has not quelled criticism of supposedly overly-high ministerial salaries.

There have always been two types of criticisms of ministerial salaries. Many were technical criticisms focusing on the flaws in the formula's mechanics, which implicitly endorsed the pegging of ministerial salaries to top private-sector salaries.

The others, which are political criticisms, decried ministerial salaries pegged to top private-sector salaries as excessive and out of touch, regardless of the exact formula used.

I think that the committee gave a good answer, but to the wrong question. The recommendations address the technical criticisms, but do nothing to stem the political criticisms.

The committee did well in fixing many major flaws in the previous formula, but it was asked to answer the wrong question.

Its terms of reference accepted the pegging of ministerial salaries to top private-sector salaries, and only required it to answer the technical question of how to implement this principle.

But ministerial salaries is a political question; i.e. "how do we determine ministerial salaries in a way that Singaporeans can and will support". That's why we got a technocrat's answer to a technical question, when what we really needed was a political answer to a political question.

Since we didn't get that, the political criticisms have continued.

The Government, and the committee, clearly think about public service in terms of sacrifice by office-holders who would otherwise command top private-sector pay, especially financial sacrifice.

But this approach will never be accepted by most Singaporeans, because they see public service in completely different terms.

Public service is not a sacrifice; it is not a burden or imposition. Public service should be a calling; it is an honour and a privilege.

It is something to be proud of, not something to bemoan and begrudge.

And running a country is a political undertaking different from running a company, which is why Singaporeans reject the constant comparisons to private-sector jobs.

But ministerial salaries should not be so low, such that only rich people will run for office, or office-holders become distracted from running the country by personal financial needs.

One approach would be to set a salary that would enable a reasonable lifestyle. What is reasonable is open to debate, but the objective should not be in dispute.

This idea is not new; according to reports, Mr Chiam See Tong and then-NMP Professor Walter Woon had proposed such an approach back in 1994, with Mr Chiam suggesting S$50,000 per month as sufficient.

Regardless of the actual number, this approach is more politically defensible as being necessary to allow ministers to do their jobs without undue distractions, while letting them maintain a reasonable standard of living. It will not satisfy all detractors, but if properly implemented, it can win over the critical middle ground of Singaporeans.

The issue of ministerial salaries has severely poisoned political discourse in Singapore. Unfortunately, these latest changes have not sucked all of the poison out of local politics.

What a wasted opportunity.

The writer is a corporate counsel and former NMP. This is an edited rewrite of a post on his blog siewkumhong.blogspot.com.

Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries

2012-01-06T01:36:00.003+08:00

By now, the highlights of the report by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries should be well-known, so I won't rehash them. A search on "singapore ministerial salaries" will quickly bring you up to speed.

There have always been two types of criticisms leveled at ministerial salaries. The first category comprised criticisms of the formula itself, that it led to distortions and did not achieve the outcomes we wanted. These are technical criticisms that implicitly endorsed the principle of pegging ministerial salaries at a discount to supposedly equivalent private-sector salaries.

The second category comprised criticisms of the absolute amount of ministerial salaries, which are seen as being excessive in their absolute amounts and completely out of touch with normal Singaporeans. These are political criticisms that will persist regardless of the formula used, because they stem from a fundamental perception that the absolute salaries are simply unjustifiably high, regardless of the formula used.

Well, here’s what I think: the Committee gave a good answer, but to the wrong question. The Committee’s recommendations will address the first type of criticisms, but will do nothing to stem the second.

I actually happen to think that within the limitations of its terms of reference, the Committee did a pretty good job. That’s because its terms of reference required (and perhaps limited) the Committee to “take into account salaries of comparable jobs in the private sector and also other reference points such as the general wage levels in Singapore”, and to implement “a significant discount to comparable private sector salaries to signify the value and ethos of political service.”

The Committee fixed a lot of the major flaws in the previous formula. For instance, by expanding the sample size of income earners from the top eight earners in six professions to simply the 1000 highest-income Singaporeans, the Committee effectively rendered irrelevant the problem of the 48 top earners being a changing cast while the ministers themselves did not change. Similarly, the new bonus structure is much improved on the previous simplistic reliance on GDP growth as a proxy for the good performance of the Government (and on that, I was reminded of this defence of the previous bonus structure by now-DPM Teo Chee Hean).

But I do think that the Committee was asked to answer the wrong question. The Committee’s terms of reference had already pre-supposed that fundamentally, the proper way to determine ministerial salaries was to compare with private-sector salaries (“how do we calculate ministerial salaries taking account private sector salaries and other guidelines”). In other words, the Committee was only being asked to answer the technical question of precisely how to calculate ministerial salaries based on private-sector salaries.

But to my mind, the question of ministerial salaries is actually a political one (“how do we determine ministerial salaries in a way that Singaporeans can and will support”). And so, we ended up with a technocrat’s answer to a technical question, when what we really needed was a political answer to a political question. Since we didn’t get that, the political criticisms I had referred to will almost certainly continue.

It is clear from the report, and subsequent public comments, that the Government, and the Committee, continue to think about ministerial salaries in terms of private-sector salaries and sacrifice by office-holders, especially financial sacrifice.

I think that is a completely incorrect approach to the question, which as I have said is a political one. This approach will never get true buy-in from the majority of Singaporeans, because they see the Government and ministers in completely different terms.

The Government and the Committee see public service as a sacrifice, as if it is some sort of burden or imposition. But I, and I suspect most Singaporeans, see public service as a calling, as an honour and a privilege. It is something to be proud of, and not something to bemoan and begrudge. That is what the spirit of public service is about.

The Government and the Committee also see private-sector jobs as being closely equivalent to ministerial posts, as if running a company is very similar to running a country. I think most Singaporeans disagree, because they instinctively understand that running a country is a political undertaking that is fundamentally different from running a company, requiring as it does political sensitivities and skills that are not always or usually needed for corporate success (and here, I am talking about popular politics, not office politics).

I do want to be clear: I don’t necessarily think that S$1m a year is excessive. I don’t know for sure what number would or should work, but it probably won’t be a small number. I do think that Singaporeans should be more mindful of wanting ministerial salaries that are so low, that only rich people will run for office. I also think Singaporeans should be careful about cutting salaries so much, that our office-holders become distracted from the all-consuming job of running the country by personal financial needs.

So that begs the question of how ministerial salaries should be set. Well, I think the starting point should be that we do not want money to drive ministerial aspirations, but at the same time we do not want ministers to have to worry about their personal finances.

One way to do this is to figure out what a reasonable salary for a minister would be, such that he/she can maintain a reasonable lifestyle. And by reasonable lifestyle, I would think that the salary should be enough to comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on.

This may or may not be a big number, but then at least it becomes more politically defensible in terms of this being what is necessary to allow the minister to do his/her job without undue distractions and while allowing the minister to maintain a reasonable standard of living. It also completely strips away the effects of the widening income gap, although it does become subject to changes in the cost of living. It represents an approach that can be explained to people and which people can instinctively understand (viz. the need to take care of one’s family).

Sadly, this is not the approach that has been adopted for Singapore. Which is why I think Singaporeans will continue to be dissatisfied with the level of ministerial salaries in Singapore.

The question of ministerial salaries is a critical one for Singapore. Not just for the obvious reason that it affects who enters into government (and who is attracted to join politics in the first place), but also for how it has severely poisoned political discourse in Singapore. Every time something bad happens, there will be people who will complain about how our highly-paid ministers had once against failed – whether or not this is justified. This cannot be a healthy state of affairs for Singapore.

The Government recognized this, hence the Committee. Unfortunately, I firmly believe that these latest changes will not suck all of the poison out of local politics. What a wasted opportunity.

The fiasco that distracted us from the bigger SMRT fiasco

2011-12-28T09:01:00.001+08:00

I was away for most of December, so I missed the two big recent news stories, namely the SMRT fiasco and Seng Han Thong’s appearance on BlogTV. I’ve been in two minds about writing on the latter incident, but finally decided to do so thanks to the remarks by Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam and the TNP article on Boxing Day. I was away at the time and so feel that I am quite distanced from this entire affair, even given my affiliation with TOC.

[disclaimer: I am a member of the core team behind The Online Citizen, but I do not have editorial duties and pretty much see my role as doing what it takes to let the editors get on with their jobs. I weigh in on articles only when asked, and primarily from a legal perspective, although I do tend to give my two cents worth when asked.]

Alex Au does a good job at a quick recap, so I won’t reinvent the wheel. A lot has already been said, so I will only make three points in this posting.

Firstly, nobody can dispute that whatever Seng said on TV, it was incredibly garbled. This is his transcript:

“I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”

As I said, I was away when it all happened, and so I had no idea what was going on when I started being copied on emails within the TOC core team about this incident. I must confess that when I finally read the TOC article that broke the story (which by then had the 2 updates and the editor’s note), I was quite confused.

Even when I read the transcript of Seng’s remarks (reproduced in the editor’s note), I couldn’t precisely figure out what he was trying to get at. I had to re-read Seng’s statement of apology (in update 1 in the article), which explained the point he was trying to make, before I stopped feeling like the ADSL guy in that StarHub ad.

So my first point is: putting aside all this stuff about whether or not the remarks were racist in nature, the sheer irony of a politician speaking in broken English on national TV about broken English was striking (and fodder for satire, as Mr Brown has shown us in his inimitable way).

My second point is about the failure in the article to attribute Seng’s comment about Malays and Indians to SMRT PR, which some seem to be trying to make hay from. Yes, the TOC article could’ve made that attribution, in which case I wouldn’t be writing this particular post.

But frankly, Seng’s words were so garbled, it’s not so easy to tell where the SMRT portion ended and where Seng’s own thoughts began. After Seng posted his explanations, we now know what he was trying to say and why he said what he did. But it was a little difficult before Seng explained. Hindsight is perfect, but there’s no hindsight when you break a story.

Having said that, my third point is that my second point is actually quite beside the point. That’s because even though Seng was quoting a SMRT spokesperson, he seemed to have adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s point (or rather, what he thought the point was); in any case, he did not contradict it. I personally think this is critical.

If you read Seng’s words carefully, you’ll see that he basically said:

SMRT person said some staff, being Malay and Indian, can’t speak English well, and hence this deters them from … (I suppose Seng meant to say “making announcements” here, or maybe “making announcements without scripts”)
We can accept broken English in announcements. (Presumably, Seng’s point was that staff with broken English should have made the necessary announcements anyway.)

Seng could only have gotten from (1) to (2), if he had agreed with and adopted (1). That’s because if there is no question of broken English, then there is no question of announcements in broken English. And Seng at no time indicated any disagreement or any hesitation about the reference to Malay and Indian drivers only, so (2) must surely only relate to them.

In other words, Seng must have, in his mind when he made the statements, been thinking only of Malay and Indian drivers who cannot speak English well. And he displayed no reluctance to make, or problems with making, those statements on that basis.

Minister Shanmugam did acknowledge that Seng did not contradict what he thought he heard the SMRT spokesperson say, but the Minister still seemed (based on news reports at least) to have focused his attention on the TOC article instead of the comments themselves. I would disagree with the Minister that the failure in the TOC article to mention the SMRT spokesperson made the article “false”, because it’s clear that Seng had adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s words (or what Seng thought those words were) for himself.

I do wish that the TOC article had mentioned the reference to “SMRT PR”, so that there wouldn’t be all this brouhaha. But that does not detract from the substance of the article. And I think the fact that other PAP MPs came out to criticize Seng, even after reading his explanations, speaks volumes about Seng’s comments. Kudos to the likes of Madam Halimah Yacob and Inderjit Singh.

I have no reason to think that Seng is a racist at heart, and it’s good that Seng explained things quickly and apologized to Singaporeans. I had been a little reluctant to post on this because of that. But I wanted to give the perspective of someone who was distanced from the events as they unfolded, and to do some justice to the hardworking editorial team at TOC. After all, nobody seems to disagree that this was an important story that TOC broke.

Face to Face 2 challenged all preconceived beliefs about the Presidential Candidates

2011-08-23T13:06:00.000+08:00

This first appeared on The Online Citizen on 22 August 2011 (and I take no credit for, and am not guilty of the clunky headline!).

Face to Face 2 challenged all preconceived beliefs about the Presidential Candidates

by Siew Kum Hong

Viswa Sadasivan asked me if it was ok to start. It was 8.35pm, about 15 minutes ahead of the scheduled start-time for filming. The four Presidential candidates were seated, the crowd had introduced themselves, and Viswa the moderator was raring to go. All eyes turned to me.

I gave Viswa two thumbs up, and the cameras started rolling.

It was The Online Citizen’s Face to Face 2, a studio discussion with the four Presidential candidates. I was not part of TOC when it organised the first Face to Face with political parties. This time round, I helped out in the organisation – and am very glad to have been part of such a special event.

We made a special effort in selecting the audience. We wanted an audience that was consistent with TOC’s DNA, and so we had academics as well as activists like Alex Au and representatives from groups like AWARE, the Challenged People’s Alliance Network, Function 8, MARUAH and We Believe in Second Chances.

But we also wanted to make sure that the views of ordinary Singaporeans were reflected, and so we had a cross-section of Singaporeans including young adults, a retiree, a civil servant, a taxi driver, a journalist-turned-real estate agent, and a lecturer. I think we did well in terms of presenting a balanced, diverse and representative audience that also reflected TOC’s values.

The heated exchange between Mr Tan Jee Say and Dr Tony Tan has predictably grabbed headlines. The forum has also focused attention on the Internal Security Act, much in keeping with TOC’s DNA. But here are some other nuggets about the candidates that caught my attention.

I noted with interest Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s description of homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice”. I was surprised by his comment that women had to obtain their husbands’ “permission” to enter politics.

And I was taken aback by his firm “yes”, in response to Viswa’s question about whether he would resign as President if he had a strong disagreement with the Government. After all, Dr Tan Cheng Bock points to his criticisms of the Government when he was an MP as examples of his independence, and yet he did not resign then; were those disagreements not strong?

More importantly, if the people have elected you as their President, would you not be letting Singaporeans down if you resigned in the face of disagreement instead of sticking to your guns and pushing on?

As for Mr Tan Jee Say, I was struck by his passion and conviction. I particularly liked his clear and consistent positions on the death penaty and the ISA. But his outburst when interrupted by Dr Tony Tan concerns me. I want a passionate President who can inspire Singaporeans, but I also want a presidential President who can fulfil the ceremonial duties of the post.

Dr Tony Tan’s courage in agreeing to participate in the forum will be under-appreciated, but must nevertheless be acknowledged. It would not have been surprising if he had decliend our invitation; after all, the People’s Action Party did not turn up at TOC’s first Face to Face forum either. So kudos to Dr Tony Tan for wanting to engage with TOC’s audience in the first place.

I also consider myself fortunate to observe a touching moment shared by Dr Tony Tan and his wife, just before the second half of the forum began. He had just returned from the washroom, and she went up to him and put her arms around him and asked if he was all right; he answered yes.

These personal moments are an important reminder that the candidates are persons first and foremost. They have feelings and families too. Debates can and should be robust, questions can and should be tough and probing, but we can and should remain civil and respectful. And I think the Face to Face 2 forum checked all of those boxes.

But something about Dr Tony Tan’s statement that he could not discuss the 1987 ISA detentions nagged at me, and it only crystallised the morning after the forum. He cited the Official Secrets Act as the reason why he could not comment; but the OSA did not seem to prevent Dr Tony Tan from disclosing that he had disagreed with the graduate mothers scheme and that he had successfully persuaded his Cabinet colleagues to reverse the policy when he became Education Minister.

That being the case, surely Dr Tony Tan should be able to tell us whether he had disagreed with the 1987 detentions, and whether he had sought to persuade his Cabinet colleagues not to proceed with the detentions. The 1987 detentions were a Cabinet decision, just like the graduate mothers scheme; so if his personal disagreement with the decision on the graduate mothers scheme, as well as the fact that he had argued against it in Cabinet, can be shared today, then surely he could share the corresponding facts in relation to the 1987 detentions.

Finally, I was surprised when Mr Tan Kin Lian said that he was not familiar with Section 377A, and needed a brief explanation from Alex Au. Considering how it had hogged headlines leading up to the petition to Parliament and the subsequent Parliamentary debate in 2007, this is a huge surprise. Otherwise, he stayed very close to his campaign messages.

The test of a successful forum is whether it challenges one’s preconceived beliefs. I have no doubt that Face to Face 2 was definitely a success on that basis. Just speaking for myself, before the forum began, I was convinced that I could possibly vote only for one of two candidates. By the end of the forum, one of those names had been replaced by another.

Who knows? Maybe by 27 August, the names would have changed again. But one thing I know for sure: I am very proud to be part of The Online Citizen. Here’s to more such groundbreaking initiatives in future.

Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament, and a member of the core team behind The Online Citizen.

Leopards and spots

2011-08-22T23:19:00.005+08:00

It is as if the PAP is determined to prove that leopards cannot change their spots. The People's Association can try its best to spin the truth, but the latest revelation from the Workers' Party completely destroys any plausible deniability that could possibly be left.

The Workers' Party's revelation has to be read to be believed, but in a nutshell, the HDB had the brazen nerve to lease some prime spots for grassroots events -- apparently previously by the PAP-controlled Aljunied Town Council -- to the People's Association. This was done quickly after the General Elections, on 27 May and 13 June, and apparently without any announcement or publication anywhere. On 15 August, the PA informed Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, that "bookings by WP will not be allowed".

This is offensive on so many levels. The HDB needs to explain why it did what it did, and the timing for those actions. Why did it suddenly lease those areas to the PA, after the PAP lost Aljunied GRC, when those areas had previously been managed by the town council? Has it ever leased such areas to the PA in other constituencies ? What was the criteria for choosing those areas?

As for the PA, this drives the final nail through its pretense of being a true grassroots organisation -- as opposed to a state-funded para-political organisation used as a mobilisation vehicle by the ruling party. If it was truly non-political, it would not issue a blanket refusal to lease these areas to the Workers' Party.

Many will consider me naive, but I had hopes after the General Elections that the PAP would truly learn its lessons, and become a fair and just party truly focused on doing the right thing for all Singaporeans -- instead of working for the party's own narrow interests. I now see that that was too much to hope for.

Before May 7, I had privately predicted that GE2016 would be Singapore's equivalent of Malaysia's GE2008, when the opposition tsunami rocked the long-time ruling coalition. I did not see that happening this year. After May 7, I thought that the PAP still had a chance of avoiding an opposition tsunami in the next elections.

Well, let's just say that the PAP MPs and prospective candidates better have a Plan B in 2016, in case they lose. Many of them will likely need to use it.

Lee Kuan Yew – giant of a repressive decade

2011-08-09T23:38:00.000+08:00

This article was first published on The Online Citizen on August 8, 2011

I consider myself a child of the ’80s. Born in 1975, I first became conscious of the world around me in the 1980s.

Even by Singapore’s standards, there were a lot of changes in that decade. Many of these changes have gone on to become integral and fundamental to what Singapore is today.

Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) were introduced in 1988. Much of the foundation of today’s transport system were laid, with the AYE, BKE, ECP and PIE being opened throughout the decade and the MRT being officially opened in 1988 (after a soft launch in 1987 with just five stations – I still remember my dad taking me to ride the train from Ang Mo Kio on its first day!). Even the hotly-debated topic today, the Elected Presidency, was first mooted in the 1980s.

Echoes from the darker events of the ’80s still resonate today as well. The much-hated graduate mother scheme has reared its head again in the pre-campaigning for the Elected Presidency, with questions have been asked whether Dr Tony Tan had supported or opposed it. The likes of Teo Soh Lung and Vincent Cheng, as well as others involved in social enterprise Function 8, have continued to raise questions about the 1987 so-called Marxist conspiracy.

One man dominated the landscape through all these developments and events: Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He was the Prime Minister through the entire decade, stepping down only in 1990. Mr Lee’s dominance of the 1980s was all the more reinforced with the retirement of his colleagues from the First Generation leadership throughout the 1980s, starting with Toh Chin Chye in 1981, continuing with Goh Keng Swee in 1984 and culminating with S. Rajaratnam in 1988. In comparison, Mr Lee took another 21 years more to leave the Cabinet, which occurred only this May in the wake of the General Elections.

What then were the 1980s like? If we had to identify one single theme from the decade, what would it be?

Unfortunately, I would have to say: repression. The scars of the 1987 detentions lasted for 3020 years; it is only in recent years, that the former detainees have felt able to tell their own stories and ask the questions that have cast such doubt on the government’s official account. The treatment of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition politician to win a parliamentary election in post-independence Singapore, left a sour taste, with Mr Jeyaretnam being disqualified from Parliament despite a strongly-worded judgment in his favour by the Privy Council. The actions against Mr Francis Seow sent a warning signal to other would-be dissidents, while the muzzling of the Law Society and hence the legal profession continues today.

These events from the 1980s, followed by the defamation suits in the 1990s and criminal prosecution of the civil disobedience activists in the 2000s, did much to silence dissent and instill the much-discussed climate of fear in Singapore. It is only this year, that this climate of fear has been reduced, if not dissipated.

Mr Lee was a driving force, if not the main player in the government, in all of these events. So as I looked back at the 1980s, I could not help but think of Mr Lee. He was truly a giant in Singapore’s history. Sadly, he was also the dominant figure in this repressive decade.

What next for the PAP?

2011-05-08T01:02:00.004+08:00

What. A. Night.

The Workers' Party has now cemented its position as the second party in a two-party system, albeit one that remains heavily skewed in favour of the People's Action Party. The WP will be celebrating its groundbreaking win in Aljunied GRC, and rightly so. The strong results of even its lesser-known candidates demonstrate the power of the WP brand -- indeed, a study by an Australian polling firm shows the WP brand to be as strong as the PAP's.

What does it mean for the PAP though? How will the PAP respond?

First and foremost, the PAP lost because it had lost touch with the ground. It had clearly under-estimated the extent of antipathy towards it by a large margin. Was this because of a failure in the intelligence from its grassroots organisation (aka the People's Association, even though it is a statutory board), or did the leadership simply ignore or overlook the grassroots intelligence? Those of us on the outside will never know.

But what we do know, is that it was the PAP's arrogance that had led to its downfall. The themes of government accountability and arrogance played so strongly with the electorate, that the Prime Minister was compelled to apologise for the errors of his Government late in the campaign. But it was clearly too little, too late for disenchanted voters. Worse, only the PM and George Yeo actually noted the problems with the party; it was almost as if all of the other ministers remained, in Minister Lim Swee Say's words, "deaf frogs" to the criticisms from the electorate.

I remember that the PM's "apology" speech at Boat Quay was reported in two parts, on the front page and on an inside page. The portion of the report on the inside page was dwarfed by a big article on Minister Mah Bow Tan, quoting him as intending to raise the $8000 income ceiling on HDB flats in response to feedback. Two things struck me: firstly, even though PM had acknowledged the failure to anticipate and prevent spiralling housing prices as a mistake, there was not a single squeak of sorry from Mr Mah; and secondly, the feedback on the income ceiling was not new at all, so why was the Minister considering the change only now?

So the real question is whether the PAP has truly accepted and internalised the lessons from this election and the messages from the voters. My own sense is that the middle ground, that big chunk of voters in the middle who decide the fate of elections, largely approves of the PAP as the governing party, but had grown to dislike the PAP and its style. And that is something that is entirely within the party's control.

I for one think the PM got it right, when he said that the PAP government was not perfect, and will make mistakes, but must acknowledge and admit mistakes, apologise, and then rectify the problem and try to prevent a recurrence. The problem though, is that the PAP hadn't done that at all in the past 5 years, in particular in terms of admitting and apologising for errors.

The PM was spot on when he said that the PAP needed to re-connect emotionally with voters. If the PAP wants to arrest this slide in its popularity, then it needs to be authentic and sincere in engaging with the people.

But the early signs on election night were not positive. The two ministers facing the most personal criticism over the past few years have been Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng and Minister Mah Bow Tan. Both led their teams to a 57% vote share, below the ~60% national average for the PAP. DPM Wong described it as "strong support" from Bishan voters, while Minister Mah called the 10-point swing against him since 2006 a "strong mandate". Few would agree with those claims, which ring hollow and false. If they truly believe their words, then the lessons from GE2011 would appear to have been lost on them, in which case the Opposition can expect even more gains in the next elections.

GE2011: what I'm getting up to

2011-05-01T01:31:00.000+08:00

Some of you may know that I am part of two gazetted political associations, namely local socio-political community blog The Online Citizen and MARUAH, a registered human rights NGO in Singapore.

For the elections, I have been live-blogging for TOC at the rallies that I'm attending -- so far I've been at WP's Hougang rally on 28 April (phone network died so not much live-blogging there), NSP's rally at Delta Hockey Field on 29 April, and SPP at Potong Pasir tonight. To follow my live-blogging, go to my Twitter profile or follow #TOClive on Twitter.

As fun and exciting as live-blogging is (and it is), it's what I'm doing with MARUAH that's potentially more far-reaching and important. MARUAH are conducting an election watch project. Given the lack of access in Singapore (Elections Dept has so far not responded to our request for access to polling and counting stations) and our lack of resources (thanks PMO for the gazetting!), we've had to scope the project carefully and limit it to what we know we can do rigorously.

MARUAH will be doing monitoring how the Straits Times, TODAY and The New Paper cover the GE for the duration of the campaign. The results from the first 3 days are up, please check them out!

Workers' Party rocks Hougang, 28 Apr 2011

2011-04-29T01:16:00.004+08:00

I made it a point to catch the Workers' Party rally tonight. It's their first rally, and I wanted to see Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao and Yaw Shin Leong in action. I also wanted to see -- for myself -- just how big the crowd is.

The second question is easier to answer: it was a massive crowd. See for yourself (photo at http://darrensoh.com/elections/), make sure to scroll all the way to the left:

The crowd was so big, that the mobile networks basically all died. After a while, nobody had any service at all. It was sheer exhilarating and inspiring madness.

As for the speeches -- Low Thia Khiang was his usual polished self, working the crowd effectively in English, Teochew and Mandarin. Sylvia Lim had a great performance as well, definitely much much more powerful than her speeches in 2006, although I was a little surprised she didn't deliver a Mandarin speech (at least a short one). Her call-and-response style worked very well. Chen Show Mao did a couple of sentences in Tamil, rather more in Malay, and was excellent in Mandarin -- but the pacing for his English speech was a little too slow. And Yaw Shin Leong acquitted himself well, although he kept building the crowd to a crescendo (which was really skilfully done) and then going an anti-climactic "ok?".

But for me, the surprise of the night was Gerald Giam. He was frankly quite stiff in the TV forum with the other parties. But he was really good tonight, worked the crowd well, delivered his speech strongly and convincingly and basically rocked the house. Gerald looks to be a real gem in the making.

Now that I'm back at home, adrenaline fading and legs aching, caught up on Facebook and much of the material from the other rallies, the question in my mind remains one asked by one of the speakers (Chen Show Mao?): last election, we also had huge crowds, but look at the voting outcome. What will it be like this time?

Disgust and loathing in Singapore

2011-04-24T23:38:00.007+08:00

UPDATE: I should have added that so far in this campaign, I have respected SM Goh Chok Tong for his call to keep things "clean" (even though it is self-serving since Tin Pei Lin is in his GRC, but it was the right thing to say), Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng (and indeed the rest of PAP) for not mentioning Mr Chiam's health, and Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang for declining to make any personal comment about Tan Jee Say. I would also express disappointment at the NSP's Yip Yew Weng for perpetuating race-based politics (see the piece in last Saturday's(?) Straits Times about multi-cornered fights) thereby playing into the PAP's hands in terms of justifying the continued existence of GRCs.

Not much in Singapore politics gets me really worked up anymore. All too often, it just feels like "been there seen that".

In fact, nowadays, the things that tend to rile me are not about the substantive issues themselves -- it's gotten too easy to predict the PAP's response and arguments to explain why something I agree with is "not right" for Singapore. Instead, what gets my blood boiling will be questions of (un)fairness and (in)justice.

Most recently, it was the attacks on Tin Pei Ling, who does enough to destroy her own credibility in her own speeches and responses to questions without needing any help from gutter would-be-journalists trawling her Facebook account. Today, it was this personal attack by the PAP.

The PAP can try all it wants, but the objective here is transparently clear to everyone: to tell the world that Vincent Wijeysingha is gay, and thereby win the votes of that part of the population that will vote based on just this single wedge issue, regardless of any other issue.

The rest of the statement -- in particular the allusion to an alleged discussion about "sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age" -- is just outright unjustified mudslinging insinuation that seems designed to imply a linkage between Vincent Wijeysingha and that discussion. If you watch the video in question, you will find that:

(a) Vincent Wijeysingha does not talk about sex with boys or lowering the age of consent for boys.

(b) only M. Ravi talked about that, and he also does not advocate lowering the age of consent for boys. Instead, he seemed to be talking about the age of consent for boys in the context of making a more general point (it's hard to tell precisely what the point is, because the clip has been edited -- perhaps deliberately -- such that what went on before is not shown).

[At this point, I hope that those responsible for posting the video and the misleading description about "lowering age of consent for sex with boys aged 14" are aware that they may have contravened Section 61(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. And I certainly hope that the Elections Department will be fair and investigate this case, and prosecute if the culprit is found.]

Considering that the constituency in question is Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, a fairly rich area which may well have a higher than average proportion of conservative Christians, this move may yet pay off in terms of votes. But it would fundamentally damage the fabric of Singapore politics, by opening the door to the slippery slope of mudslinging attack politics, where personal attacks are disguised as questions about "agenda".

This PAP statement is no different from, and is in fact worse than, the gutter attacks on Tin Pei Ling to degrade the political discourse in Singapore. I did not want Singapore politics to degrade like this, so imagine my dismay that it is the PAP itself bringing politics down.

I hope -- no, I trust and believe -- that Singaporeans will see through this PAP statement for what it is. Now that the SDP has posted its response, the ball is really in the PAP's court. Will the PAP retract its statement? Will the PAP apologise? Will the PAP understand that there will be a backlash to this, the same way there was a backlash to their efforts to demonise James Gomez in 2006?

Well, we can all let the PAP know exactly what we think of this. Speak up, whether online or in the papers. Ask your grassroots leaders what they think about it, and whether they agree with the tactics apologised. Ask the next PAP candidate who asks for your vote, what he/she thinks about this and when the PAP will apologise. Ask the PM if the Government's stand on all this has changed, since he presumably had the last word on this during the Section 377A debate in 2007.

The strangest part of all this is that the political parties, including the PAP, have historically been discreet on personal lifestyles and indiscretions, as noted by Cherian George. It is unclear if this statement has been endorsed by the PAP leadership, but in the absence of any public dissociation by the party from the statement, we can only conclude that it was. That would mark the PAP leading us to the kind of "First World Parliament" that we know we do not want, namely the gay-bashing tactics of US conservative right-wing politics.

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like

2011-03-29T21:33:00.003+08:00

This post will be short, because I am on a business trip right now. But I feel compelled to write this quickly before going back to work, because I am that disgusted and upset.

The PAP recently unveiled 27-year-old Tin Pei Ling as a potential candidate in the upcoming elections. What has been happening on the Internet (especially Facebook) since has been nothing short of disgusting.

Ms Tin is reportedly a business consultant at a big accounting firm, and apparently is married to what would seem to be a high-flying civil servant in a position of some importance. From the news reports I've read, she had been volunteering with grassroots organisations since 21.

Some folks seem to have taken it upon themselves, to dig up what they think is dirt on her personal life, in an effort to put her down and besmirch her reputation. These efforts have included personal photos apparently from her Facebook account before she removed or privatised them (and here is an object lesson to the PAP and indeed all parties: tell your candidates to privatise their online presence before announcing them!), insinuations about who she is married to and how and why she married him, and claims about her purportedly extravagant lifestyle, so on and so forth.

This is essentially a young woman who has taken a huge leap into the unknown by stepping forward as a potential candidate. Her motivations are still unknown (other than whatever she has publicly stated), her competence and suitability as an MP remain to be seen, and she has not said much about her policy positions. In short, she is still pretty much a complete unknown.

And that is precisely my point. I would like politics in Singapore to be about the candidates and their views and their competency/suitability as MPs and office holders. I would not like politics in Singapore to become an exercise in gutter journalism. If and to the extent that a politician makes morality and virtue part of his/her platform or public persona, then that becomes fair game as well -- but only then, and not before.

I would like Ms Tin to be given a chance to show what she would be like as an MP, instead of digging up all this personal stuff -- things which, frankly, to my mind have been overblown and do not say anything about her suitability as an MP, or even her as a person. She is a 27-year-old professional, not a nun.

I find what has happened to be quite offensive and reprehensible (which is why I am deliberately not including details of or links to the comments). It is almost as if people, in their antagonism towards the PAP, are willing to overlook and ignore what is right and what is dignified.

The consequence of all this, is that people will be deterred from joining politics, even more so than before. I for one will openly admit that I have thought about it and decided against taking the plunge, in part because of these things. I have been a victim of these whispers. It is not fun. It is not right. It is not what I would want Singapore politics to be like.

And so I will not like, comment or share these stories and articles. I will lose, and have lost, some respect for those who pile in with their derisive comments on Facebook (some of whom I had respected before). I will choose to publicly express my disagreement with what has happened and is happening, and my sympathies for Ms Tin.

I sometimes feel like we have the government that we deserve. Well, through our actions, we will also get the politics that we deserve. Let's think about what we really want Singapore politics to be like.

Answering the question you wish had been asked

2011-03-20T11:03:00.001+08:00

Former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara once said: “Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.” I was somewhat amused at just how blatantly this rule was used in two recent letters to the Straits Times Forum, to completely ignore what the questions that had actually been asked.

Why preschool funding is extended only to PCF kindergartens

On Thursday 10 March, ST Forum published two letters asking if, and why, the S$290 million in funding announced by the Government would go only to preschools operated by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

In one letter, Yee Jenn Jong said:

"In my 15-year involvement in the industry, I have not known of any government funding for upgrading the facilities of privately owned centres, so I cannot see how this can lower the cost of preschool education in such centres.

There is also no reason for the Government to fund the upgrading of centres run by NTUC and PCF as they have their own fund sources and are usually already paying rent that is below market rates."

In the other letter, Ms Yvonne Lee shared her elation upon learning that the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) will be extended to grant financial relief to families whose monthly incomes do not exceed S$3500, but was then told by the Ministry of Education that only pupils in PCF kindergartens would be eligible.

Both letter-writers queried why government funding should be extended (or limited) to PCF kindergartens, and also called for the funding to be extended to privately-run preschools as well.

On Wednesday (16 March), ST Forum published a joint reply from MCYS and MOE. These are the pertinent paragraphs from the letter (the rest was pretty much just corporate PR boilerplate):

"The Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, disbursed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), aims to ensure that children are not deprived of a preschool education because of the family's financial circumstances.

The increase in the eligible monthly household income criterion from $1,800 to $3,500 from April 1 will let more families benefit from the scheme's subsidies.

Eligibility requires kindergartens to be registered with the Ministry of Education (MOE), be non-profit, secular and in a good financial position to provide quality preschool education.

These criteria serve to ensure that assistance is targeted at kindergartens which serve lower- and middle- income households. There are about 240 eligible kindergartens which are well-distributed across Singapore."

Nothing at all about PCF kindergartens, and nothing at all about why the funding did not extend to privately-run preschools. Probably not coincidentally, the PCF states on its website that it runs 247 kindergartens located across Singapore. A cynic would wonder why MCYS and MOE chose to cite the "about 240 eligible kindergartens" statistic, without addressing the question of whether all of these are run by PCF, and if so why.

NTUC's "symbiotic relationship" with the PAP

A letter from Ang Miah Boon was published on Wednesday 9 March, noting the recent reports about a number of potential PAP candidates from the civil service resigning to join NTUC and asking the following questions (quoted verbatim from the letter):

"- How is NTUC able to absorb these people? In any corporation, positions are based on needs. Were the positions specially created for these candidates?

- Why is NTUC providing candidates only for the PAP? Can senior executives of NTUC stand as opposition candidates? Can one be part of the NTUC leadership and remain an opposition party member? Can we separate these jobs from politics?

- Do MPs who work for NTUC take directions from NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, who is Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, in Parliament?

- Finally, how many MPs should come from the NTUC? While I acknowledge that the voices of the union members should be heard, I am less certain about the number who should represent the congress in the House."

NTUC's reply, signed by NTUC President John De Payva and Sec-Gen (and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office) Lim Swee Say, was published on Tuesday 15 March. It essentially repeated the well-known (and frankly, tired) statements about why it is good for workers for NTUC to be so close to PAP.

It also completely ignored and disregarded the questions posed in the letter -- to the extent that it addressed any of the concerns raised in the letter, it would be the implied conclusion that NTUC, being a symbiotic partner of the PAP, would never, ever allow its members to stand as opposition candidates.

Let's just have a honest debate

I personally found the responses tremendously disappointing. The letter-writers felt strongly enough to take the trouble to write in to ST Forum, posing very pointed and direct questions. The replies did not do justice to, and to my mind did not respect, the letter-writers. These are valid questions that deserve answers -- but it seems that the answers will not be forthcoming.

This outcome does nobody, least of all Singapore, any good. People will speculate about why MOE, MCYS and NTUC deliberately chose not to engage directly, and they will draw adverse inferences. The outcome? A more cynical and disillusioned public, which is understandable but certainly not desirable.

MP Hri Kumar responds to me

2011-03-18T09:31:00.000+08:00

I received an email from Hri last night -- he mentioned that he had been trying to respond to my last post the past couple of days, but for some reason had not been able to post the comment. He then asked for my help to publish it.

Given the length of his response, and also the attention that our exchange seems to have garnered, we decided that it would be appropriate to publish his response as a standalone blog post. I've not really had time to digest it fully, but will aim to respond over the weekend -- since this is my blog, it's my chance to have the last word! :)

Hri's response is reproduced below in full, without edits.

Kum Hong,

We agree on a number of things. You have met my “extreme” example of an able-bodied person who does not want to work (I have met some, by the way) with another “extreme” - “the single mother supporting two children and an elderly mother, who has to go home after work to take care of her children and mother”. We both agree that the latter is more deserving of help.

But where we disagree is this: you feel that no help exists currently, and the children of the single mother will be trapped in the poverty cycle. The truth is that she will be helped, by both the Government as well as private parties. Let me give you some concrete examples. One of things we try our best to ensure is that no child is deprived of a good education, or even a meal in school, because of the lack of funds. So we help poor families with a combination of Government subsidies, COMCARE support, The School Pocket Money Fund and other sources. In Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC, we raised over $3 million last year from private donors to fund community scholarships for children of poor families for the next 10 years. We even visit the homes of those who do not enroll their children in kindergarten (although enrolment is not compulsory) to make sure that this not because of the lack of funds; and if it is, we help them with the fees. The number of children who do not go to kindergarten has now fallen to 1% of their cohort - most of these children are home-schooled.

So, it is easy to berate the current system as “punish(ing) the children for the sins of their parents”. But that is simplistic and inaccurate.

I prefer our current system which directs help to those who need it, rather than one which purports to give universal and unconditional aid. It actually means much more work for the Government, as it involves examining each case and determining the most effective form of help to give. But I think that is a worthwhile exercise as different families have different challenges and circumstances. What is wrong is for us to simply give public money to everyone who holds his hand out, without proper scrutiny and assurance that it will be effective and reaches the right people. Many taxpayers will object to using public money to support people who can help themselves. Their views are also relevant.

I am not suggesting that we have a perfect system. We do not. Where we can, and should never stop trying to, improve is to develop a system which ensures that every Singaporean who needs help is not missed. That is a real challenge. The only way to meet it is to involve everyone, from the Government, grassroots organizations, VWOs and the immediate community. Every Singaporean should feel that he has a part to play in looking out for those less fortunate than him. I think that is how it should be.

There will also be challenging cases – like your example of an able-bodied father who refuses to work, to the detriment of his children. I know of a real life example in my constituency. The way we helped was to find work for his wife, and to calibrate our aid so that the children have their needs met and are able to continue their education. We did not “turn our heads away”.

So I think we can agree on one more thing – real life does not lend itself to simple solutions like the one you have posed. But I am happy that this debate has gained interest, because it shows that Singaporeans feel strongly about this issue.

Response to questions from Hri Kumar

2011-03-13T20:59:00.005+08:00

It seems that MP Hri Kumar posted a comment in response to my piece "Room for fresh ideas on income gap". I missed it earlier but was just told about it.

Here is his comment in full:

Kum Hong,

How does this idea work? If an able-bodied person decides that he does not want to work, do we all have to ensure that he has a "minimal standard of living"?

If he is earning a living, but refuses to upgrade himself, do we pay him the difference between what he earns and the "minimum" sum he needs? Where is the money from the endowment fund going to come from - all of us I presume?

How much will such a fund require as a start and how much do we need to replenish it annually? What programs or other expenditure are we dropping to fund it? Unless these questions (and many others) are answered, I am afraid you have wasted a Saturday."

I guess Hri and I must have very starting points and different philosophies on how (and to what extent) to help those less fortunate than us. Prof Kishore Mahbubani has suggested that the Government has, through its own surveys, ascertained that it costs S$1700 pre month for a 4-person household to maintain a "reasonable standard of living" -- as defined by the Government itself. The question then is whether we, as a society, have a duty to ensure that everyone has that reasonable standard of living (and corresponding standards for households with different configurations), and if so how.

I will take each of Hri's questions in turn:

How does this idea work? If an able-bodied person decides that he does not want to work, do we all have to ensure that he has a "minimal standard of living"?

In an earlier piece "Beefing Up Workfare" (published in TODAY on 24 Jan 2011), I had advocated using Workfare (but essentially pumped up on steroids) as the basic mechanism to get working families up to $1700 per month. So I do not subscribe to the idea of giving an able-bodied person, who deliberately chooses not to work, $1700 per month.

But as we will see below, this question oversimplifies the difficulties of real life.

If he is earning a living, but refuses to upgrade himself, do we pay him the difference between what he earns and the "minimum" sum he needs?

What does "refusal" mean? Perhaps we need to define that. I can anticipate the theoretical construct of an able-bodied person who is the sole breadwinner who works and earns a living (short of $1700), who can find the time to go for upgrading but deliberately chooses not to, because he/she prefers to sit in a coffeeshop drinking beer and smoking with friends.

But again, that may be an extreme. What about the single mother supporting two children and an elderly mother, who has to go home after work to take care of her children and mother? Does she have time to upgrade? If she declines to go for upgrading for this reason, is that "refusing to upgrade"?

What if the person works two jobs, both of which still come up to less than $1700, and going for upgrading might mean losing this precious second job? What if the person works just one job, but the job is not a fixed 9-5 job (as most jobs are wont to be nowadays), and the employer is not sympathetic and does not encourage the person to go for upgrading courses outside of working hours?

Do we penalise these workers as well, because of the possible existence of the theoretical construct?

In the Budget speeches, during the National Day Parade and at the National Day Rally, we frequently see celebrations of those workers who have managed to upgrade themselves and get better jobs. Kudos to them. But it would be a mistake to conclude from their shining examples, that all of the others who have not had those successes, had deliberately chosen not to take that path of upgrading.

Where is the money from the endowment fund going to come from - all of us I presume?

Yes, from all of us. If I were Carlos Slim, then I would fund all of this by myself. But if we, as a country, purport to subscribe to the principles of the Universal Declaration, then we have to fulfill those obligations applicable to us as a country.

In a Straits Times article "Thumbs-up for 'many helping hands'" (March 9, 2011), social welfare policy expert Prof Lester M. Salamon noted that "countries around the world have learnt that the problems of poverty, maintaining health, improving the environment, even fostering culture, cannot be handled by private philanthropy alone. 'They require as well the active involvement of government and the resources that government alone can command.'"

He went on: "No country that I am aware of has made the many helping hands philosophy work well yet without the government taking a significant leadership role. Perhaps Singapore will be the first one to do it. But since we don't have much data on non-profits here, we won't know whether it is working or not."

So yes, I think the money has to come from all of us, and I do not see an issue with that.

How much will such a fund require as a start and how much do we need to replenish it annually? What programs or other expenditure are we dropping to fund it? Unless these questions (and many others) are answered, I am afraid you have wasted a Saturday."

I'm not in a position to answer these questions -- the piece is meant (or rather hoped) to start a conversation, a debate, ideally a process. But the answers to these questions can be developed along the way.

I also don't understand why it is necessary to have all (or even most of) the answers in place before something can be considered; after all, even the Government conducts public consultations on proposed policies, presumably because the Government doesn't already have all the answers (otherwise it would be a wayang, would it not?). When MPs make speeches and propose policies, they also do not purport to offer complete solutions with all questions before making these suggestions.

So no, I don't feel like I had wasted that Saturday.

Since Hri has posed some questions, I have some of my own.

I agree that an able-bodied person may deliberately choose not to work, and we can then validly decide not to support him/her -- people have the right to choose, but they should also be prepared to live with the consequences of their choices.

But what about the others who are also impacted by those choices, but have no influence over it? If the able-bodied father of two children deliberately chooses not to work, and the mother is for some reason unable to work, then do we simply turn our heads away and ignore the children's and the mother's suffering? If the mother is able to work, but is not able to make enough to meet that $1700 per month standard, then do we nevertheless punish her and her children for the father's choices?

Do we ignore our duty to give the next generation the chance to succeed, and thereby punish them to a vicious cycle of poverty? Do we punish the children for the sins of their parents? Because punishment is exactly what it would be, if we have the power to help but decide not to -- because the father made the wrong decision. For all of the Government's rhetoric on personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, we hardly hear anything said about ensuring that the parents' sins are not visited on the children.

Yes, simple questions have clear, easy answers. But real life usually does not lend itself to simple questions like the ones posed to me above.

Room for fresh ideas on income gap

2011-02-28T22:46:00.004+08:00

I wrote this over Saturday morning. The ideas in this piece had been percolating in my head over the past week, and they all came together and gushed out over a few hours. First published in today's TODAY.

Room for fresh ideas on income gap

Keep our economic model, but set up endowment to fund measures to ensure a minimal standard of living

05:55 AM Feb 28, 2011

As I thought about last week's Budget statement, a quote by Albert Einstein kept playing in my head. The pre-eminent genius of the 20th Century once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I am of course not suggesting in any way that the Government is mad, but what struck me most about the Budget - which Parliament will debate today - was that it was pretty much more of the same, albeit "upsized" for the anticipated elections: More ad hoc special transfer payments to help the low-income, more tax incentives to increase productivity, more funding for training and research and development, so on and so forth.

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that Singapore's approach to helping the low-income must "remain centred on opportunities, not entitlements".

Many Singaporeans would agree with this, and they would disagree with the need to change a winning formula when the past policies have worked.

But I would hazard that most of those stuck at the wrong end of the widening income gap would disagree about the past policies having worked. Based on Department of Statistics figures, the Gini coefficient increased from 0.442 in 2000 to 0.472 last year, or from 0.430 to 0.452 if government special transfers are taken into account. So it is understandable for the low-income to question if more of the same would really address the issue.

At a forum at the National University of Singapore (NUS) last Tuesday, economist and NUS assistant professor Chia Ngee Choon noted that the Government's targeted 30-per-cent increase in productivity over the next 10 years would probably be achieved only by the middle and upper class, and asked: "Does this tide of economic growth raise all boats? It may raise only those in the middle income and above." In other words, the opportunities may be there, but they will fall largely to the middle- and high-income.

If the strategies used in the past have not successfully addressed one of the most critical socio-economic issues facing Singapore, why then would more and more of the same lead to a different outcome this time?

I am not advocating the wholesale abandonment of our existing economic model. But surely it is time for a fresh think about how to address the widening income gap.

For starters, the way we characterise and think about a stronger social safety net has to change. I am not calling for a Nordic-style cradle-to-grave social welfare system, or for the Government to use generous benefits backed by punitive taxes to equalise incomes across society.

But we have the room and resources for institutionalised social welfare measures to ensure a minimal standard of living reasonably commensurate with our overall developmental status as a society.

Anything beyond that minimal level should not be based on entitlement, but must instead result from the opportunities that the Finance Minister talked about, which we have to work hard to keep open to all. Entitlements and opportunities do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Some will argue that this would represent a dangerous first step down a slippery slope of ever-shriller calls for increased benefits. But this argument implies a willingness to disregard the suffering of our less-fortunate brethren, simply because of a theoretical risk that our Government cannot resist public pressure.

We can also mitigate any such "slippery slope" risk by funding such measures through a substantially-funded endowment fund, and topping up the fund only when resources are available - much like what is being done with the ElderCare and Comcare funds, as well as the National Research Fund.

The Government had, in its National Report for the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review process submitted recently, affirmed that "Singapore fully subscribes to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)".

The UDHR provides for everyone to have the rights to social security and an adequate standard of living. But the latest Budget measures fall short of those commitments.

Government surveys have found that a four-person household needs about S$1,700 per month to cover basic costs of living, according to Professor Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Yet statistics show many low-income households in Singapore fall below this threshold, and there were no Budget measures to specifically rectify this.

Ad hoc transfers like the one-off "Grow and Share" package in this year's Budget fall short of what our commitment to the UDHR requires, depending as they do on the existence of surpluses and the discretion and generosity of the government of the day.

In his New Year message at the start of this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong identified the widening income gap as a key concern to tackle. The lack of fresh ideas in the Budget statement was therefore disappointing. Hopefully this will change after the Budget debate that starts today.

Siew Kum Hong is a corporate counsel and the vice-president of MARUAH (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Singapore), a human rights NGO and gazetted political association.

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

2011-02-07T08:38:00.000+08:00

29 January 2011

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

MARUAH notes the statement by NGO Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) and various media reports about the recent initiation of police investigations into three SFD members over their alleged sale of copies of the book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock at a film screening held on 14 November 2010 at the Substation. The SFD members are being investigated under Section 502 of the Penal Code, for the knowing “sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter”.

Although the police commenced investigations against Mr Alan Shadrake, the author of the book, for criminal defamation in 2010, no formal charges have been instituted. It is thus troubling how an investigation can begin into the sale of printed substance containing defamatory matter if the book in question has not been found by a court of law to be defamatory. Indeed, charges have not even been brought.

MARUAH therefore calls upon the Singapore Police Force to explain why it is initiating these criminal investigations on the three SFD members in relation to the sale of the book, when the author himself has not been charged.

Furthermore, if the Government’s position is that the sale of the book would be unlawful, then the proper course of action is to ban the book outright, which is a transparent action that is accountable and subject to judicial review of the courts where appropriate, and also conforms with the rule of law.

MARUAH President Braema Mathi says: “These criminal investigations by the police carry a much heavier ‘footprint’ than contempt proceedings. In this case it is bewildering why the police are investigating sellers of the book when there is no criminal defamation charge against the author or contempt proceedings against the three members.

”MARUAH is opposed to investigations without any reasonable basis, as these will only serve to significantly chill public debate on the death penalty and detract from Singaporeans’ constitutional right to free expression. ”

For the last time, TOC is not a political party!

2011-02-06T20:59:00.003+08:00

I was a little bemused (and later amused) to see a letter in ST Forum on 29 Jan, that basically insinuated that I had become a Nominated Member of Parliament as an "attention-gathering exercise" and a stepping stone to entering partisan politics.

I finally found the time to draft and send a reply to ST Forum on CNY Eve, and ST published an edited version of my letter yesterday (5 Feb). The original letter, my unedited reply, and the published version are all reproduced below. I must say that I felt that while I have no issue with the brevity of the published version, ST's edits quite substantially the key points in my letter, including the significant point about mistaking "political association" for "political party".

LETTER FROM CHEONG TUCK KUAN, JAN 29

Mr Cheong Tuck Kuan: "I was surprised to read that one of the four volunteers at The Online Citizen ('Online Citizen submits names of 4 volunteers'; Tuesday) is former Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong. We must guard the systemic integrity of the NMP scheme and its appointees must remain non-partisan leaders of opinion. NMPs intent on entering mainstream politics should be barred from joining political parties for five years after their terms end. Otherwise, the scheme may be wrongly perceived as an attention-gathering exercise.

MY UNEDITED REPLY, SENT TO ST ON FEB 2

I refer to the letter from Mr Cheong Tuck Kuan ("Protecting a scheme"; Jan 29), where he appeared to suggest that I was "intent on entering mainstream politics", had joined a political party in being a volunteer with The Online Citizen, and had become a Nominated Member of Parliament as "an attention-gathering exercise".

I do not agree with Mr Cheong that my constitutional right to free assembly should be restricted simply because I had been a NMP. But in any case the question raised by him is a theoretical one, because I have not entered politics and have not joined any political party.

TOC is not a political party, and the Prime Minister's Office intention to gazette it as a political association does not make it one. Instead, TOC is a website that provides regular Singaporeans with a platform to share their opinions about all aspects of life in Singapore, a place where Singaporeans can come and talk about what is foremost on their minds. It does not engage in partisan politics, and has no interest in doing so.

Indeed, Mr Cheong's error demonstrates how the PMO's decision to designate a civil society group as "political" will retard the development of an active citizenry. Given Singaporeans' general reluctance to be associated with partisan politics, the conflation of activism with "politics" will deter Singaporeans from being active in the first place. This does civil society, and indeed all of society, a disservice.

EDITED VERSION PUBLISHED ON FEB 5

MR SIEW KUM HONG, former Nominated MP: 'I refer to the letter by Mr Cheong Tuck Kuan ('Protecting a scheme: NMPs should be barred from joining political parties for five years after their terms end'; Jan 29), in which he appeared to suggest that I was 'intent on entering mainstream politics'. The question raised by him is a theoretical one, because I have not entered politics and have not joined any political party. The Online Citizen (TOC) is not a political party, and the intention to gazette it as a political association does not make it one. TOC is a website that provides regular Singaporeans with a platform to share their opinions about all aspects of life in Singapore, a place where Singaporeans can come and talk about what is foremost on their minds. It does not engage in partisan politics, and has no interest in doing so.'

Why I decided to join TOC

2011-01-25T07:31:00.001+08:00

Yesterday afternoon, The Online Citizen sent a letter to the Prime Minister's Office naming four people who will be responsible for the preparation and accuracy of TOC's donation reports under the Political Donations Act. I am one of the four, together with Joshua Chiang, Leong Sze Hian and Ravi Philemon.

Apart from a poll that I helped TOC to conduct in 2008, I've never had any formal affiliation with TOC. But I know some of the TOC folks and have immense respect for all that they have done.

So when Ravi sent me an email on Thursday 20 Jan, asking if I was willing to have my name put down as one of the persons responsible for the preparation and accuracy of TOC's donation reports, I had to think hard. I eventually agreed to do so, because I firmly believe in what TOC is trying to do, and also because I wanted to demonstrate support for TOC through this challenging period.

As of today, apart from the responsibilities around the donation reports, and also perhaps responsibilities around TOC's with MDA as a political website, we've not discussed what other role I might have in/with TOC. For all we know, there may be nothing else. We'll see how it goes. I'm looking forward to the ride.

Beefing up Workfare

2011-01-24T22:53:00.004+08:00

I believe that Singaporeans have a right to a decent standard of living -- but how we get there is an open question. I am ambivalent on the minimum wage, because of the possible or likely undesirable side-effects.

Workfare is not new and is not a PAP invention. Instead, it is based on the idea of a "negative income tax". But Workfare in its current form tweaks the idea, and channels what is in my view a disproportionate amount of money into CPF. Which then makes its purpose quite different from the objective of a minimum wage.

[note: this was first published in TODAY]

Beefing up Workfare

The economic principles underlying Workfare work but more has to be done for it to deliver help

by Siew Kum Hong
05:55 AM Jan 24, 2011

In the past few months, various eminent persons have weighed in on the debate over a minimum wage. Last week's Parliamentary debate saw Members of Parliament (MPs) endorsing the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS) as a superior option.

Yet, a number out there seem to remain unconvinced.

I believe it is misconceived to frame the issue as a choice between Workfare and a minimum wage. Workfare in its current incarnation pays employees about 29 per cent of each payment in cash, and the rest into their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts. For self-employed persons and informal workers, everything goes into Medisave.

The bulk of Workfare therefore seems to be primarily aimed at helping recipients save for retirement. Indeed, the CPF Board's website states: "… we should not downplay the importance of building up CPF savings as many low-wage workers have difficulties saving enough for their retirement. The WIS that is paid into CPF helps them do that."

Putting it in another way, Workfare today represents an investment by the Government today, to reduce its potential future financial burden of caring for the future elderly and ill. It may not be intended as such but that is the implication.

While it might be argued that the CPF component can be tapped for current housing loan repayments and hospital bills, only 29 per cent of Workfare goes directly towards mitigating today's difficulties in making ends meet. Self-employed and informal workers - arguably the ones who most need help - do not even get this cash component.

A minimum wage, on the other hand, directly addresses low-wage workers' present-day difficulties. It puts cash directly into their hands, to survive today to see tomorrow at a level deemed acceptable by society.

This is why I think it is incorrect to frame the debate as a choice between Workfare and a minimum wage. They ultimately solve different problems. This also explains the cognitive dissonance experienced by those who remain unconvinced after last week's Parliamentary debate.

I do not believe that Singaporeans support a minimum wage for its own sake. Instead, Singaporeans support the fundamental philosophy behind a minimum wage, which is the idea that everyone should be entitled to a decent living wage. That is to our collective credit, speaking as it does to a shared commitment to a caring, compassionate society.

According to Professor Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Government surveys found that a household of four needs about $1,700 per month for a decent standard of living. So the real question should be, what is the best way to get breadwinners to that number?

I am not a trained economist. But to my mind, it is not entirely clear that introducing a minimum wage today will inevitably lead to better overall results for society. A minimum wage will surely lead to some loss of jobs, and the precise number is unknowable. The status quo is not ideal, but introducing a minimum wage may not necessarily be better.

But that is not to say that we have no other options. The economic principles underlying Workfare, well, work. Radical adjustments to Workfare will be necessary, but we can use the same principles to improve low-wage workers' present-day lives.

We can help workers achieve the decent living wage that they deserve, without the costs of a minimum wage - albeit with different costs, which would presumably have to be borne up front by the Government.

There has been a lot of focus on improving the operational details of how Workfare is currently administered. But what we really need are fundamental changes to Workfare. I have three broad recommendations.

Firstly, the cash component must be significantly increased. Otherwise recipients will continue to struggle to meet their present-day needs, and the calls for a minimum wage will persist.

Secondly, the eligibility criteria must be relaxed. In particular, we have to make Workfare more meaningful, relevant and beneficial to those who need help the most, namely the casual workers.

Finally, and most importantly, the Government must spend dramatically more on Workfare. It currently spends about $400 million a year to benefit 400,000 workers, all of whom earn $1,700 per month or less.

That equates to an average of $1,000 per worker per year, or $83 per month. That would hardly seem near what is needed by Workfare recipients to reach the decent living wage mentioned by Professor Mahbubani.

To put it in perspective, $400 million is 0.8 per cent of the Government's estimated expenditure of $46.4 billion last year. We can definitely do better and do more towards ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from economic growth.

In many ways, I am heartened by the strong support for a minimum wage, which shows that so many Singaporeans have their hearts in the right place.

I am also a little disappointed that while the supporters of Workfare agree that low-wage workers need help today, they fail to recognise that Workfare in its current form does little to deliver that help.

We need to fundamentally re-think the objectives of Workfare and re-engineer it accordingly - and we need to act soon, for the sake of those workers.

Siew Kum Hong is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

When school and grassroots work do not mix

2011-01-04T22:13:00.004+08:00

UPDATE: Apropos of nothing, this article by the current president of BLYC was recently published in the PAP's magazine.

I've been on leave the past few weeks, and TODAY happened to ask if I wanted to start writing for them again. Seemed like a good idea to me. This was my bugbear at the time, so here it is.

When school and grassroots work do not mix

by Siew Kum Hong
05:55 AM Jan 04, 2011

Those familiar with Singapore's political history will remember the role played by student activists in the '50s and early '60s. But that ended when schools were depoliticised after independence.

For better or worse, schools have been neutral and independent institutions of learning for the past few decades. So I was surprised to read a Dec 24 story in The Straits Times, about a co-curricular activity (CCA) in Raffles Institution (Junior College) called the Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC).

BLYC was set up by five students, including the son of Madam Ho Geok Choo, who is the Member of Parliament in the Boon Lay ward of West Coast GRC.

The BLYC describes itself as the "first youth club in a grassroots setting", and its activities have included volunteering at meet-the-people-sessions, among other things..

I actually see student activism, in and of itself, as a good thing, and a necessary foundation for an active and concerned citizenry.

But partisan activities that favour a specific political party or politician should not be officially sanctioned and endorsed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) or schools.

And that is where I think MOE and RI(JC) got it wrong with BLYC.

I believe most Singaporeans would agree with me that it is inappropriate and undesirable, if not harmful, for schools to be used as vehicles for partisan political activities.

Campaigning for political parties and politicians is clearly improper in schools and workplaces. By extension, it is inappropriate for MOE and schools to officially sanction and endorse activities that directly or indirectly support any specific political party or politician.

After all, we expect our schools to be impartial and independent. Mixing politics and education like this is dangerous.

It risks compromising the professionalism of our schools and devaluing what is taught.

The crux here is that MOE and schools must remain impartial and clearly stand above the political fray.

Lawyers always say that the law not only has to be fair, it also has to be seen as being fair. Similarly, the educational system must stay scrupulously clear of politics and avoid favouring any political party. And it must be seen to be doing so.

The existence of BLYC and its official recognition as a CCA, may arguably be acceptable, if it is a purely student-driven initiative and if it does not even engage in political activities in the first place. But is this the case?

Firstly, BLYC was initially not officially recognised. As a result, the founders had difficulty recruiting volunteers.

According to The Straits Times' report, it was only after Madam Ho raised the matter with then-Senior Minister of State for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam that the club was made an official CCA.

This might suggest that, BLYC may not have survived without MOE's and RI(JC)'s official support and sanction.

Secondly, some may have asserted that BLYC engages only in grassroots activities and not politics. But in Singapore, that is an illusory distinction.

The People's Association is widely seen as being aligned and intertwined with the People's Action Party (PAP).

Tellingly also, The Straits Times decided to run the story on BLYC as a sidebar to an article on the electoral situation in West Coast GRC.

A past president of BLYC was quoted as saying: "Our intentions are not to get involved in politics, our intentions are to serve". But the students' intentions are beside the point.

After all, if the students truly only want to serve, they are always free to volunteer directly, without needing an official CCA. The point is that MOE's and RI(JC)'s official sanctioning and support of this sort of activity undermines the impartiality of our education system.

The only way in which grassroots activism can legitimately be an official CCA, is if it is irreproachably non-partisan.

Otherwise, having an official CCA like BLYC will only raise doubts about the integrity and impartiality of our schools.

The writer is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

Misunderstandings about the Singapore Constitution

2010-08-13T23:41:00.002+08:00

The Online Citizen has done a good job reporting the judgment given by Justice Steven Chong today in the Yong Vui Kong case.

The outcome was not in the least bit surprising to me. The Constitution is quite clear -- the President has no discretion on clemency applications, but is instead required to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. To my mind, this judgment is entirely correct in law.

Understanding this better requires a little trip back in legal history. Singapore started off with a constitutional presidency -- the President was the head of state, but was a nominal one and was really a ceremonial post. This was consistent with Singapore being a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition, where executive power lay wholly with the elected government of the day. If you will, the President was the republic's equivalent to the constitutional monarchy in the UK (i.e. the Queen of England).

Under this approach, the President (just like the Queen) has no discretion and must act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. A constitutional crisis ensues if the President fails or declines for any reason to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.

But this changed with the Elected Presidency amendments in 1991. They introduced a hybrid approach whereby the President was to be elected, with some veto powers over executive decisions. These veto powers may be exercised by the President in his/her sole discretion, i.e. the President does not need to follow the advice of the Cabinet on such matters. But on all matters, the President continues to be bound by the advice of the Cabinet.

Article 21 of the Singapore Constitution sets out this position. It lists those decisions where the President may use his/her own discretion. All other decisions must be made in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. It should be clear from Article 21, that the power to grnat a pardon under Article 22 is one where the President is legally bound to follow the decision of the Cabinet.

None of this is actually controversial. When I studied this in law school (and my graduating class is having our 10-year reunion tomorrow, so this was 12-13 years ago), this was taught as a straightforward fact and there was no controversy on this. Indeed, even the Wikipedia entry on the President of Singapore (current last edit being on 18 July 2010) correctly correctly describes how the powers of the President may be exercised.

I want to be clear that I am talking about the law as it is, i.e. applying a "positive" approach to the law here. I am not, in this post, talking about what the law should be (i.e. applying a "normative" approach). I must confess that, bearing in mind that we are a parliamentary democracy and bearing in mind the stated objectives of the Elected Presidency, I see no particular reason why the power to grant a pardon should be one where the President should be entitled to use his/her own discretion and not be bound by the advice of the Cabinet.

Finally, I think it has to be said that the courts have been very fair to Yong Vui Kong ever since the appeal process began in earnest. They have given Yong and his lawyer M. Ravi every opportunity to make every argument possible. In this particular instance, Justice Chong's "invitation" to the prison authorities to extend the deadline for submitting a clemency application, pending a decision by the Court of Appeal on any appeal against his decision, is a very welcome statement.

Babies cannot drink on MRT trains?!

2010-08-04T22:32:00.003+08:00

I was watching the 9.30 news (which is supposed to really be news, and is nothing like The Noose!) and saw a news story about there being fewer people being caught eating and drinking on MRT trains.

You can find the web story here. But frankly, it does not convey the true absurdity and ridiculousness of the rule. The news clip did.

The clip showed an SMRT inspector asking at least two different adults, each with a baby or toddler in a pram who was suckling from a milk bottle (although one of them appeared to be drinking water not milk), to essentially cease and desist. In fact, the inspector was asking at least one of them to get off the train and go with him to the station staff room, where the baby could drink "in comfort".

WHAT THE...!??

Come on. Surely that has got to be absolutely ridiculous and uncalled-for. First, you are talking about babies and toddlers drinking out of milk bottles -- the risk of leakage or spillage is pretty low. Second, you are asking them to get off the train to go with you to your staff room, just so their babies and toddlers can drink -- that's got to take at least 30 minutes, if not more! Third, well, you are talking about babies and toddlers!

The SMRT inspector was, to his credit, very polite and patient. But still!

There is a Latin phrase called "reductio ad absurdum", meaning "reduction to the absurd". To quote Wikipedia, it is "a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence". Well, SMRT is certainly taking its rule against eating and drinking on trains to its absurd conclusion.

My wife felt that this showed how Singapore is so much about binary states and dichotomies: "yes/no", "right/wrong", "black/white". There is little or no discretion or common sense employed, when rules are being enforced. She's clearly right, of course. (You might say that, yes, of course I would say that!)

But my own takeaway from the clip, was about how Singapore rule-makers frequently make rules that punish the innocent majority, for the infractions of a small minority.

In this case, it was a small minority of commuters who were eating and drinking on trains and generally being anti-social and inconsiderate. Well, crack down on them! But SMRT clearly went overboard and is punishing everyone for the actions of a few, instead of focusing its enforcement efforts only on those few.

The web story also noted that most of the "offenders" were secondary school kids eating bread and drinking water. Hardly the most offensive of conduct. Indeed, I wonder how many of the 143 so-called offenders were caught for sucking on a lozenge, which ranks right up there for absurdity, next to telling parents to take their babies and toddlers off the train so that they can get a drink out of milk bottles.

What a joke and waste of time, effort and money this whole thing is.

The "market" as deus ex machina (or, The Scapegoat For Rising Housing Prices and Other Inconvenient Realities)

2010-07-27T01:12:00.000+08:00

Today’s newspapers (both TODAY and The Straits Times) featured comments by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan about rising prices in the public housing market.

"It's in the interest of buyers to have low COVs, but it's in the interest of sellers who own the flats to have high COVs. So, between these two groups, we must let them fight it out. The Government is not able to settle or fix COVs to say that it should be this or this figure. The Government prefers not to interfere. But we can interfere in the supply. This is something we can control.”

In short, the Government will not set or fix prices directly -- but it will indirectly influence prices by manipulating the factors that affect prices. In particular, the Government will influence supply, and then leave it to the magic of “the market” to set prices. These latest statements are consistent with what Mr Mah told Parliament back in April, that the Government intended to leave the purchase of resale flats by first-time flat buyers "to the market".

"Leave it to the market" is a rationale that is often trotted out, to justify why the Government should not intervene in something or other, be it rising housing prices or rising COE prices. But government policy can have a huge impact on prices (and sentiment, which can drive prices in markets like property), as implicitly acknowledged by Mr Mah when he talked about ramping up supply as a way to moderate price increases.

In this case, what’s ironic is that the Government is now scrambling to fix a problem that is largely of its own creation. Why are housing prices rising so quickly? Here are some likely reasons, all linked to Government policy from the last few years:

Recent HDB changes making it easier for HDB owners to rent out the entire flats. After living in the HDB flat for a few years (I think 5 years in most cases), HDB owners can now rent out their entire flats even after upgrading to private property. Previously, they would have had to sell their HDB flats if they want to move into private property. Well, not any more. This has been portrayed as a liberalization, and hence presumably A Good Thing. But the reality is that it keeps potential supply off the resale market -- I suspect that many HDB-owners who upgrade to private property actually keep their HDB flats as an investment property to rent out. In fact, HDB flats strongly outperform private apartments in terms of rental yield.

The influx of foreigners. I work with a lot of foreigners, and I think in many cases they do bring net benefits to Singapore. In light of our immigrant roots and as a matter of necessity, I do think we have to be open to foreigners. But I also believe that we are close to the creaking limits of our country’s present infrastructure; that the rate of increase in recent years has been too fast; and that this influx has limited the opportunities available to locals. In other words, the Government did not think through the costs of such a rapid increase in the foreign population in Singapore (costs which are of course not captured in the GDP figure), and continues to disregard these costs. The Government’s approach of “sharpening the differences” between citizens and foreigners misses the point, because it focuses on increasing prices for foreigners, which only makes life harder for them without making life better for citizens.

The ease with which foreigners could become permanent residents (PR), thereby qualifying to purchase HDB flats. I know of at least one foreigner whose PR application was approved in 3 weeks or so. This has massively increased demand for public housing, hence driving up prices. The absolute number of PRs purchasing HDB flats may constitute a fraction of the overall HDB-purchasing population, but you actually only need a small number of purchasers bidding up prices at the margins, for overall property prices to increase.

The rise of en-bloc sales over the past decade. I’m told that a popular retirement strategy for older folks who cashed out from en-bloc sales, is to buy a HDB flat in cash and then live off the massive cash balance left over for the rest of their retirement. The lax rules for en-bloc sales therefore channels cash-flush buyers into the HDB resale market, hence the advent of near-million-dollar HDB flats.

HDB’s dogmatic adherence to its Build-To-Order (BTO) model. Burnt from the huge supply overhang of public flats when it massively over-built in the face of the HDB bull market that ended in 1996, HDB now only builds flats when it is confident of selling most of the flats built. This means that HDB will launch a project (i.e. start taking orders from interested buyers), but only start construction when most of the flats (I think at least 70%) have been booked. This avoids a supply overhang, which means that the cost of public funds being tied up in unsold public housing (which is saved by the Government) is transferred to citizens, who end up bearing the cost of a longer waiting period for new flats. In addition, the delay in getting a flat drives potential buyers to the resale market. This in turn pushes up resale prices, which actually then increases BTO prices down the road since BTO flats are priced at a discount to the then-prevailing market price. So this policy is a vicious cycle that delivers a double whammy (if not more) to prospective buyers.

But most fundamentally, increasing HDB prices marks the coming to roost of the Government’s deliberate (and much ballyhooed) policy of making one’s flat a financial asset for retirement purposes. This works only if flat prices increase over time – otherwise, they would make really bad investments that are unsuitable for retirement. By mixing up the public policy goals of providing affordable accommodation and helping citizens plan for their retirement, the Government has ended up achieving neither, with public housing becoming increasing unaffordable and many retirees being asset-rich and cash-poor.

The point that I ultimately want to make, is that the “leave it to the market” message is deceptive when the bearer of the message is able to manipulate the market. Markets do not exist in vacuums, but are instead influenced by government regulations and policies. So when the Government declines to intervene or to change the underlying rules, it is really a conscious political decision to maintain the status quo.

In such cases, the “market” becomes a convenient scapegoat for a mess that’s really of one’s own creation. A deus ex machine, if you will, that conveniently resolves an inconvenient political truth.

So the next time a government official or politician talks about “leaving it to the market”, or blames the market for something or other, be a little bit more questioning. Drill deeper and find out if that person is really helpless to influence the market. I would bet that’s not the case in most cases.

More on 50-year floods

2010-07-22T22:50:00.002+08:00

A reader recently pointed out that a "50-year flood" is not literally a once-in-50-years flood. Quite educational for me, actually.

So that made for a really good segue to a full-page article on page A8 of today's ST (July 22, 2010), headlined "100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour". Here are my key takeaways from the piece:

Flooding can be expected when more than 100mm of rain falls in an hour.
Out of those 10 occasions, 8 resulted in floods.
Out of those 10 occasions, 2 were in 2009, 3 in 2008, 2 in 2007 and 3 in 2006. In other words, we've been getting the so-called 50-year flood two or three times a year. If that is the case, then based on the USGS explanation of a 50-year flood, we probably need to re-define what a 50-year flood means in our context.
The highest one-hour rainfall ever recorded was 148mm in November 1995.
The last 10 such occasions highlighted in the article (which seemed to exclude the recent floods) ranged from 101mm to 137mm.
By comparison, the 16 June storm that flooded Orchard Road saw 101.6mm in 2 hours. Averaged over 2 hours, that was about half the rainfall of the top 10 recorded rainfalls from 2006 to 2009.
On the other hand, the more recent storm on 17 July brought down 114mm at Lower Pierce Reservoir, but 194mm at Poole Road in Tanjong Katong.
PUB lists 52 low-lying, flood-prone zones. Presumably, these make up the 66 hectares of flood-prone areas today (yes yes, down from 3,178 hectares in the 1970s, as PUB, Dr Yaacob and others have reminded us). And yet, the recent areas flooded, such as Orchard Road, Opera Estate and Jalan Boon Lay, are not on that list.

Having read the articles, some questions came to mind.

Did Dr Yaacob have the statistics at hand, when he described the first, 16 June storm as being "once in 50 years", when the statistics clearly show that it wouldn't even have made the top 10 over the past 5 years?

What has changed, for Orchard Road to suddenly become a flood-prone zone now? The (new) official line is that Stamford Canal could not handle the amount of rain coming down. But the statistics show that in absolute terms, the amount of rainfall coming down on 16 June was not truly an outlier. So could it have, as some have speculated, been due to all the construction and development work, that has changed the run-off patterns such that a lot more water went into the Stamford Canal than previously? Or some other reason? Instead of saying that the Stamford Canal could not drain the amount of water going into it and then thinking solely on widening the canal, why are we not asking why the amount of water going into the canal was so much more compared to before?

Does the "66-ha of flood-prone areas" statistic still hold true today? What is PUB's methodology in identifying these areas, and updating this list?

Did the National Climate Change Committee even look at flooding as a possible result of climate change? Because looking at its website, that did not seem to be a focus area at all. So much for scenario planning.

It's of course true that Singapore cannot be completely flood-proof. But I don't think anyone is really asking for that. Talking about half of Singapore becoming canals is a straw man argument that ignores the real point.

I think what has shocked and upset people, are the scope and location of the floods that have been occurring, and the Government's cavalier response so far. Frankly, if the flooding had been limited to the recognised flood-prone areas (i.e. those on PUB's list), I'm pretty sure there would not have been the amount of backlash that has arisen.

But they are not, they are in new areas, including very highly visible Orchard Road, and the Government did not know what was going on and seemed more interested in maintaining its not-to-be-blamed Teflon coating than in digging in and figuring out what really happened -- the first step to finding a solution. That was what was most disappointing.

Finally, I just wanted to say kudos to Victoria Vaughan, the ST journalist who wrote the story in today's ST. I suspect she knew exactly what she was doing, laying out all the facts for discerning readers to figure out what the real questions are. If only she could (or had the editorial leeway to) ask those questions in the article itself.

MARUAH Pillar Talk #2: Trial Observation

2010-07-22T01:21:00.002+08:00

This is a MARUAH event for next Friday. Promises to be interesting.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

2010-07-20T22:58:00.004+08:00

So Elton John once sang. I don't know if our ministers are his fans, but they certainly seem to have taken that to heart as a motto.

The latest to bear that out is Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Frankly, that has always seemed to be a bit of an unexciting, boring post -- but boy has he been in the hot seat over the past two months.

It's all thanks to the heavy rain that has variously been ascribed to us being a tropical country (duh), La Nina (which should not be a surprise since it is a cyclical phenomenon), and even Typhoon Conson (despite it being over 2000km away). It even got so that another minister asked PUB, the key agency under Dr Yaacob's charge, to explain the flooding.

And despite a whole barrage of questions in Parliament yesterday (resulting in front page covers, headline news and multiple-page coverage in the Straits Times and other papers), nary a single "sorry". No apology, no admission of error or fault, nada.

Nevermind that the original reason given by Dr Yaacob for the first Orchard flood was that the Stamford Canal was blocked, but otherwise it was adequate -- but now actually it was not adequate and could not drain quickly enough (front page news today). Nevermind that it took three, yes three, floods in two months before our million-dollar salarymen could figure out that it might be a good idea to issue public warnings about potential flooding (and even now that's still not been decided).

Nevermind that his comment that the first flood was a "once in 50 years" event in terms of intensity has now come home to roost, given that the second flood was just as heavy and the third flood even more so. Nevermind that we also had a flood in November 2009, that Dr Yaacob also described as "once in 50 years".

Are we then in the year 2210, since presumably we've had 4 once-in-50-years events?

Today's Straits Times covered the Q&A in Parliament yesterday. The first question was from Ms Lee Bee Wah, referring to "three floods" in one month and without any reference to Orchard Road. Dr Yaacob's opening statement was:

"In the last one month, we have seen three intense storms. Only two caused flooding in Orchard Road, not all three. The June 25 flood did not cause any flooding. No, Orchard Road was not flooded. We have to be precise."

I am a lawyer. Precision is one of my catchwords. But this was not precision. Quite the reverse, this was obfuscating the question. Ms Lee did not refer to Orchard Road. Ms Lee did not mention the flooding of Orchard Road. Ms Lee did not talk about how shops in Liat Towers have given up on re-opening until the flood risk has been addressed. The reply was quite telling and revealing of where Dr Yaacob's head was at.

Perhaps the apparent obsession with Orchard Road was due to the bad press Singapore has received thanks to the floods, for example in Australia. This must all have been a slap in the face for a government so obsessed about foreign rankings and benchmarking against other countries.

I was in Bali when the first flood struck, but it was big news there. A friend was in Lombok then, and he said the locals were laughing at Singapore, asking how could this happen.

How could this happen, indeed. I am normally reluctant to reactively blast the government for mistakes and errors. This is the real world, things go wrong and people make mistakes. On most things (obvious exceptions are national security etc), it is OK for people to make a mistake once -- that is a learning opportunity.

But I have zero to low tolerance for a repeated mistake. Making the same mistake again only suggests that nothing has been learnt from the first mistake, and that is unforgivable. Not confronting the truth squarely and admitting errors simply means that the problem has not been openly acknowledged and so will not be fixed.

Insisting that the system is fine and the problem arose only because of an external circumstance beyond anyone's control (e.g. blocked grating at the Stamford Canal causing the first flood), without properly investigating the reasons why, smacks of groupthink, with the group convincing itself that the system works and the problem must be something else. Telling us that we will never be flood-proof and so we should simply suck it up, smacks of evasion of responsibility. Reversing the position on the cause without admitting an error and apologising, simply smacks of hubris and arrogance.

I contrast this with the apology by DBS CEO Piyush Gupta, when IBM apparently caused the failure of DBS's systems. (I still don't understand how multiple layers of redundancy could be trashed by one single error -- isn't that the whole point of multiple layers of redundancy?) He came out, owned the problem, publicly and openly explained the reasons without taichi-ing, and apologised. Thrice.

Mr Gupta received kudos for that response. This is not some petty demand for an apology to make myself feel better, or some sort of bloodlust for heads to roll. This is about knowing that the people responsible know that they are responsible, which is the first step towards fixing the problem. Because it's not just about widening or deepening the Stamford Canal, this is about re-evaluating how MEWR and PUB do things and designs the flood system and figuring out how to avoid more repetitions.

This is about feeling that our ministers truly and sincerely understand the pain they've caused, and by that I mean pain to all Singaporeans, if only because of the sheer embarrassment around the world. This is about setting an example for all Singaporeans, to say that everyone is accountable, and that leaders are the most accountable.

Very simply, this is about Doing The Right Thing.

There were a couple of debates in Parliament when Mas Selamat escaped. I spoke at one of them, asking for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng to apologise to Singaporeans for a whole chain of errors in domestic security (Mas Selamat, letting people through airport security with the wrong passport, etc). The Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr K. Shanmugam replied on his behalf, and neither offered an apology nor touched on it.

This is a flaw that seems to afflict so many, if not most, of our political leaders. It reinforces the disaffection that Catherine Lim first wrote about almost 20 years ago. It suggests an arrogance in those who are supposed to serve the people. It puts into question whether the government feels accountable or responsible to the people.

All we want, is to hear someone responsible say sorry. And yet it seems so hard.

Transcript of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech

2010-07-14T08:51:00.003+08:00

A text transcript is here, courtesy of some, er, livestock. And to be clear, and to again show the pointlessness of this entire exercise by the Government, the posting of this transcript does not violate the Acting Minister's order banning the film.

Why censorship is evil

2010-07-13T21:15:00.003+08:00

When I signed the Arts Community Position Paper on Censorship and Regulation, one of the ArtsEngage folks emailed me asking if I could blog about it. I wanted to, but never quite got around to it. Until now.

The catalyst was the ban on Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew. I won't go into the substantive content of the film, or the comments by Dr Lim -- that is for another day and another forum, and I will only say here that detaining someone for 19 years without trial is quite unacceptable, to say the least. But I will talk about censorship.

The point here is that this was a factual recording of a speech, nothing more nothing less. No deceptive editing, no emotive music, no crafty juxtaposition of images. So the usual arguments trotted out by the Government about the "special emotive power" of film do not apply.

If there was anything in this film that could possibly be the subject of a ban~~deserved to be banned~~, it would have to be the words used by Dr Lim. If his speech was somehow illegal or unlawful, then the authorities should go after him for having made that speech and used those words. Go to the source and address the root problem, so to speak. Instead, the Government has chosen to suppress the film, without prosecuting Dr Lim for the speech. If the speech itself was lawful, then how can the possession or distribution of the film be unlawful? Why should the film be banned? How can the recording of words be somehow more illegal than the words themselves? And if Dr Lim had acted unlawfully, so much so that the Government saw fit to take action and ban the film, then why are they not prosecuting him?

And so we get to the nub of the matter. Censorship by administrative fiat, as in this case, allows the censor to hide and suppress inconvenient or unfavourable facts, ideas and/or words, regardless of whether those facts, ideas and/or words are true, justified or lawful. It gives the censor a convenient tool that obviates any need to confront or address the facts, ideas and/or words in question. It denies one's right to speak words that are lawful. And the fact that all this can be done, in itself has a censoring effect.

That is the nature of censorship in Singapore. That is why I signed the ArtsEngage paper. That is why regulation and not censorship has to be the way.

And this case shows why the Internet is such a powerful tool against censorship. The Acting Minister's order was for Martyn to take down all copies of the film uploaded by him onto YouTube and his blog. Well, the video is already widely available elsewhere, presumably thanks to the efforts of others subsequent to the issuance of the order. Martyn can comply fully with the letter of the order, without affecting the availability of the film on the Internet.

(As an aside, there may in fact be a procedural flaw in this exercise by MDA. They served on Martyn a letter from BFC and a press release from MICA, but it seems, at least from his blog, that the actual order by the Acting Minister was not served on him. This may be a procedural defect. How do we know whether or not an actual order has been signed, or that even if signed, it was without defect? A defect in the order can render it null and void -- ironically, a legal principle recognised by Dr Lim in the film when he recounted how the court once ordered his release because the detention order was signed by a civil servant instead of the Minister, as was required.)

Ultimately, this is again another exercise where Singapore is embarrassed (EDB and STB can do all the branding and marketing campaigns they want, but actions speak louder than words and incidents like this shout things out loud), with very little real effect. Well, I should correct myself -- maybe this incident has had a net positive effect. After all, the film is still available and has received a lot of free publicity, and the spotlight has been cast yet again on the dangers of censorship.

Doesn't one-third passing mean two-thirds failing?

2010-07-11T21:12:00.004+08:00

There was such a blatantly unthinking spin-job (or absolutely rubbish journalism) in today's Sunday Times, that I simply had to blog about it. This was "1 in 3 foreigners passes new Service Literacy Test", on page 6.

So there's a new English proficiency test for foreign service staff that was introduced by MOM in May. This was presumably in response to ongoing complaints by locals about foreign service staff having a poor or limited, sometimes even non-existent, command of English, widely recognised as a critical common unifying language in ethnically diverse Singapore.

140 people have taken it to date, out of which one-third have passed. One would think the logical headline would be that two-thirds of the workers who took the test failed -- certainly that is what immediately came to my mind.

And when you read the accompanying box, it gets better. This is apparently one of the questions from the test:

Guest: Excuse me, can you give me an extra bottle of shampoo?
Housekeeper: Certainly, Sir. Do you need anything else... extra soap or towels?
Guest: No, just the shampoo

Question: What does the man want?

a. More shampoo
b. More soap
c. More towels

Come on! That was the standard of English proficiency being tested, and two-thirds failed?? And yet the headline led with "1 in 3 foreigners passes"?? That was either pure spin or poor journalism -- but so blatantly done that I couldn't let it pass.

Update/correction: There was a grammatical error in the original question which I've corrected -- that was all mine, and was not in the original article.

Pay-TV changes: A new distortion?

2010-04-24T10:28:00.000+08:00

This was published in the TODAY newspaper on 15 March 2010. The only thing I'd add is that the bandwidth question will go away when the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network comes onstream.

Pay-TV changes: A new distortion?

PUBLIC sentiment has finally moved the mountain that is the Media Development Authority (MDA). With the prospect of not getting to watch the World Cup live still looming large, the MDA has finally reversed its longstanding position on exclusive carriage deals for pay-TV content.

Last Friday, the Government announced that pay-TV operators would now have to allow competitors to carry all new exclusive content.

This finally addresses consumers' increasingly bitter complaints about the bidding wars for football content between StarHub and SingTel.

This applies only to exclusive content acquired or renewed since last Friday. So SingTel will retain its exclusive rights to the English Premier League for the next three seasons, and consumers who want to watch both EPL and, say, HBO will still need two set-top boxes for now.

It has taken seven years for this change to come. MDA started examining exclusive carriage agreements in 2003; announced its findings that they did not forestall competition in 2006; and conducted a triennial review in 2007 that did not address such agreements, despite the rumoured astronomical sum paid by StarHub in 2006 for the 2007-2010 EPL rights.

It was only when SingTel wrested the 2010-2013 EPL rights from StarHub for another reportedly astronomical sum, and football fans began protesting the implications, that the Government's position began to shift. The finding by MDA's study that the proliferation of exclusive carriage arrangements here was actually an international anomaly probably sealed the deal. One can only wonder why such a study was not done earlier.

Competition in the pay-TV market has yielded some positive outcomes. For instance, SingTel has introduced new content, and its season pass product is an innovation that genuinely increases consumer choice. So the fundamental premise that competition can benefit consumers is correct.

Where MDA had earlier fallen short, was in failing to correctly identify the bidding wars for football content as a market failure that needed a regulatory response. Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew's description of the situation as a "market failure that is evident" was therefore welcome.

There have been warning signs, such as the spiralling cost of EPL content and the ongoing fiasco over the World Cup. Indeed, the proverbial canary in the mine positively screamed last June, when English broadcaster Setanta filed for bankruptcy. It had overpaid for EPL rights, but could not attract enough customers to recoup its high costs.

That could have been Singapore's road to ruin, if MDA had allowed the destructive battles between StarHub and SingTel to continue. Indeed, SingTel and StarHub appeared to have recognised the potential for mutually assured destruction, when they submitted a joint bid for the World Cup rights.

Devil in the detail

The questions now are whether the proposed solution will work, and whether it introduces new distortions or problems.

All new exclusive content obtained by an operator must be offered to other operators, and the other operators must carry such exclusive content offered.

This has interesting and unclear repercussions.

First and foremost, exclusive carriage agreements will probably become less common. It would now make more sense for an operator to insist on non-exclusive arrangements, and differentiate itself through innovative content packaging. Genuine increased differentiation will enhance consumer choice, which would be a positive outcome. MDA has said it will work with the industry on the details, and that is where the devil lies.

Given that SingTel and StarHub use their respective networks to deliver other services (such as broadband) besides pay-TV, how will they ensure that their networks have sufficient bandwidth to cater for all these services, the increase in high-definition content, and also other operators' exclusive content?

How will exclusive pay-per-view content be shared and billed?

It is also as yet unclear how content owners will respond. For instance, what if content owners insist on exclusive arrangements, and the operators decline to pay the higher costs associated with exclusivity and forego the content? How will MDA respond to this?

The move to have all exclusive content carried by all operators was perhaps unexpected by most observers. Perhaps, a less intrusive approach could have been to require only certain MDA-designated "critical content", such as EPL rights, be made available to all players, which would be similar to the concept of "essential facilities" in the telco world. But that opens the Pandora's box: What is "critical content" besides EPL?

The pay-TV market has still not stabilised. This change will result in even greater flux. M1's enthusiastic reception suggests that it is emboldened to enter the pay-TV market, and thinks its ability to present a viable triple-play offering has been strengthened.

But first and foremost, let's hope that Fifa takes its cue from the Government and recognises that SingTel's bid for the EPL rights was not sustainable, and hence the asking price for the World Cup rights ought to be reduced.

If that happens, then Singaporeans will praise this policy change and its very immediate results.

The writer is a corporate counsel and former Nominated Member of Parliament.

Politics and policy-making

2010-04-23T00:22:00.003+08:00

Last Friday, I spoke to a class of NIE students. These were Masters students doing a class on curriculum in Singapore, and it seems that the tutor has traditionally done a forum in the last class of the course. I spoke together with NMP Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Lisa Lee, a JC teacher.

I talked about various things, and two of the questions I posed for the class were:

Who are the people making policies in education -- the politicians and bureaucrats, or the educational professionals?

And what are their motivations in policy-making?

The point I was trying to drive at, is that policies -- in general, not just in education -- are frequently or usually made by politicians and bureaucrats, who may not or are usually not subject-matter experts in the particular area. The policies may be, at least partly, consciously or unconsciously motivated or driven by extraneous considerations.

I am not saying that policies are self-serving or are designed in such a way as deliberately benefit any particular class or that policy-makers do not sincerely believe that the policies are for the best. But I am saying that when politicians and bureaucrats make policy, especially in complex specialised areas like education, they may be driven by other considerations.

So what to make of Dr Ng Eng Hen's disclosure that the Ministry of Education is re-looking the relative weightage of Mother Tongue in the PSLE examinations? This is the latest in a long line of moves to reduce the consequences of students doing poorly in Mother Tongue, largely in response to longstanding complaints from certain parents and students about the difficulty in doing well in Chinese.

I don't have a great command of Chinese -- it's not even remotely near good. I can just about read a Chinese newspaper article, with some struggle and a fair bit of contextual guesswork -- having a dictionary helps a lot, but doesn't really speed things up all that much. Nowadays, I am almost exclusively English-speaking -- I speak Mandarin mostly to my mum, frequently to the office pantry auntie, and otherwise to service staff. The decline in my Chinese grades began in Primary 3, and culminated in an E8 the first time I took 'AO' Chinese -- by some fluke, I scored an A2 my second time. That's one instance where the truth probably literally lies somewhere in between.

So if anything, I'm a prime candidate to sympathise with the complaints of the English-speaking chattering classes. Except that I don't, not really.

After all, the playing field is level. Everybody goes through the same exam. We don't move the English-language academic goalposts for those who don't speak English at home and accordingly have a weak command of English (not coincidentally, they also tend to be from the lower- if not lowest-income households) -- why then do we always move the Mother Tongue (specifically, Chinese) academic goalposts for those who don't speak Mandarin at home and accordingly have a weak command of Chinese (who, not coincidentally, tend to come from the other end of the socio-economic spectrum)? [and the Learning Support Programme in P1 and P2 for kids who are week in English is not given enough time or resources to make a difference -- 30 minutes per day is far from enough and smacks of lip service]

We talk about meritocracy and equity of opportunity -- in fact, the Government consistently boasts about it. But true meritocracy and equity of opportunity assumes that the ground rules are fair to all, and do not permit hidden biases (admittedly perhaps unconsciously-held) resulting in different rules for different folks.

What flabbergasted me then, was the suggestion that the current PSLE weightage for Mother Tongue may be too high, because it deprived otherwise-deserving kids of places in so-called top secondary schools. When I read that, I thought there was some kind of disproportionate weightage. Well, Mother Tongue counts for 25% -- I know lawyers are supposed to be lousy at Math, but that seems about right to me since there are 4 subjects at PSLE. Seems fair to me.

Looked at it another way, reducing the weightage for Mother Tongue effectively advantages (in a relative sense) those who are unable (for whatever reason) to do well in Mother Tongue. Why don't we reduce the weightage for Math, for those who are great at multiple languages but really suck at numbers? Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses, why is one particular set of weaknesses picked out for crutches and other special treatment?

And really, is the inability to get into a so-called top secondary school really the end of the world? That is cited as the driving motivation to re-look the weightage for Mother Tongue -- but in the same breadth, we talk about the need for different measures of success beyond academic results. Irony and mixed messages, anyone?

Perspective is important in policy-making, to remain objective and keep an even keel. I don't see too much of that in this particular case.

Feeding community cats

2010-04-20T22:32:00.007+08:00

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Gandhi

We have a dog and four cats. Our latest is a three-legged Siamese-cross kitten that my wife and I found near our estate one night. One of her legs is just a stump (you can just see it in this picture) -- it's a clean break, so it wasn't natural. The vet thinks it was either a trap, or something (say, a bike) ran over the leg, or she lost it in a fight. We named her Mei-Mei -- she's almost 7 months old, and has really come a long way.

We found her only because we were feeding the community cats (aka stray cats) outside our estate. We heard the mewing as we were feeding the cats, and found her crouching in the shrubs, staring hungrily -- but fearfully and warily -- at us. We feel lucky to have found her. In fact, all of our pets are strays -- the dog was my wife's, picked up as a puppy from a drain, and our other three cats were all kittens found by other people and adopted by us. We've actually found another orphaned before, whom we fostered for a bit before we managed to re-home her with someone -- we found Coco's mother dead one day, for reasons unknown.

We feed the cats every night. There used to be a couple of ladies who would also feed the cats, but gradually they stopped (one moved away, I don't know what happened to the other one. Now it's just my wife and I, and another lady who comes around about once a week.

We started feeding them because we found them pitiful, or in local parlance, very "poor thing". (As an aside, I'd be keen to know if anyone has a "proper" English translation for "poor thing"!) They have to survive the rain, the traffic, this that the other -- we didn't want them to also have to go hungry or cause a nuisance when foraging for food.

As the cats became more familiar with us, they became so affectionate. The ones nearest our estate would wait outside our gate if we are a bit later than usual in coming out to feed them, and would scamper towards us the moment we open the side-gate and step out. In fact, sometimes they actually just sit and wait outside the side-gate!

They are not afraid of us, and will run along beside us (or more likely, keep running across our path and thereby trip us up) as we walk towards the designated feeding spots. Some of them would keep trying to rub themselves against our calves. And they all purr oh so loudly as they eat the food voraciously.

Very often, I wanted so badly to just gather up all of them in my arms and cuddle them. It will never happen though -- they are not used to it, so any attempt to do that will almost certainly just result in a multitude of scratches.

So we worry when they are hungry, because some of them are on the other side of a busy road and so sometimes try to run across the road when they see us coming. And we are very sad, when any cat we've been feeding stops showing up, because the odds are pretty much stacked against it. And we feel guilty about taking holidays, because what will happen to the (our) cats?

I initially saw the nightly cat-feeding as a chore. But after a while, I began to look forward to it, when I realised that it was actually good for me. It would calm me down however stressed I was, and it soothed me in a way that few things could. After feeding them, I would invariably feel glad in the knowledge that they were all safe and sound for another night. Small mercies can go a long way.

Not many people understand why feeders do what we do. Maybe that's because not many people feed. I firmly believe that only those who do it will truly understand. But even short of that, I think people should be able to understand the sense of compassion that drives feeders to do what we do. I will always remember what my then-new helper said, to my great embarrassment, when she found out that my wife and I feed the cats around our area: "Oh, you must be good people!"

I have tremendous respect for a lot of feeders, who go way beyond what my wife and I do -- they organise, they advocate for the cats they take care of, they engage with and mediate between town councils and unhappy residents, and very often they foster cats for rehoming. All for some furballs to whom they really owe no obligation or duty, other than a general sense that we need to take care of and protect the defenceless and those less fortunate than us, human and otherwise. All out of their own time and money. That is true selfless altruism, because there really is nothing in it for anyone.

And you know, while it is an extremely fragmented circle, the fact remains that animal welfare groups are a fantastic example of successful grassroots activism: completely ground-up, spontaneous and responsive, passionate and devoted to the cause, geographically-dispersed, well-organised and highly-networked, and most importantly and most strikingly of all, largely self-funding even if it is largely shoestring.

Siamese-y, Sissy Soo, Blackie, Phantom, and the Fuglies, thank you for brightening up my nights and lightening my spirits. I only hope more people get to enjoy such moments with your little furry kindred. And to Little One and Reverse Panda Eyes, I hope you are OK wherever you are, but if not at least you are in a better place. Yes, I know the names probably either don't make sense or sound completely random to anyone other than us -- blame that on us, not the cats.

PS. To feeders and would-be feeders, please do familiarise yourselves with the dos and don'ts of feeding -- you can check out the materials available at the Cat Welfare Society website and the Singapore Community Cats blog.

"Calling Singapore Home" on Al Jazeera's 101 East

2010-01-25T10:08:00.002+08:00

I was part of a panel on Al Jazeera's 101 East programme last week. The YouTube videos seem to have been making the rounds in the forums and blogosphere already, but here they are anyway.

Part 1

Part 2

Social Activism @ NTU

2010-01-21T23:46:00.003+08:00

This is a series of talks organised by the NTU Sociological Society. I will be speaking on 28 Jan.

The Social Activism series seeks to analyze social issues from various sociological perspectives and draw links across concepts such as class, gender and globalization. Through the sharing sessions, we hope to raise awareness, understanding and discussion of upcoming social trends and to address misconceptions.

As Singapore becomes more integrated into the global economy, new social trends arise and more people are falling behind. It is hence essential to discuss and understand about such trends as it helps people in making sense of the community that we live in. In addition, there is a need for proper understanding of social issues, since youths will be the future stewards of the country.

Speakers & Venue:

>>> 19th Jan: Asst. Professor Saidul Islam (NTU HSS Division of Sociology) - Socio-Environmental Activism (NTU LT12, North Spine)

>>> 21st Jan: Mr. Jolovan Wham (Executive Director, Humanitarian Organization for Migratory Economics) - Migrant workers: Misrepresented, Misunderstood, Mistreated (NTU HSS Seminar room 8)

>>> 26th Jan: Mr. Alex Au (yawningbread.org) (People Like Us) - “Feminism & Sexuality” Its relevance today: Innate? Choice? Sharing of differing viewpoints (NTU LT12, North Spine)

>>> 28th Jan: Mr. Siew Kum Hong (MARUAH) (former-NMP Jan 07 - July 09) - New media and Political Participation in Singapore (NTU HSS Seminar room 8)

Timing: 1730 - 1930hrs
Directions can be found at: http://ntuss.blogspot.com/

Programme Outline

1730-1740 --> Guests to be seated
1740-1745 --> Opening Address
1745-1845 --> Discussion/Talk by Speaker
1845-1915 --> Q & A
1915-1920 --> Closing
~ 1930 --> End

Note: Closed door session - NO video-recording unless allowed by speaker
This event is brought to you by NTU Sociological Society.

whose Right is it anyway?: 31 October 2009

2009-10-27T00:04:00.002+08:00

I received this in my inbox. Please note that the location is currently TBD -- while some other sites publicising this event list the location as SMU, I understand that the location will be changed. (Disclosure: I am a member of MARUAH, and will be moderating a session at this event. And the flyer is er courtesy of TOC!)

Dear Friends,

MARUAH, a local human rights advocacy group, is organising a youth human rights workshop together with UNYAS on the 31st October 2009, 9.00am to 5.30pm at [location TBD]. Entitled 'whose Right is it anyway?', some of you might be interested in attending this workshop.

This workshop aims to raise awareness about human rights and sensitise young people to the everyday human rights issues surrounding them, and would feature well-known speakers along with specially designed small-group sessions to engage in human rights.

What YOU can gain out of this:
- Learn more about the basics of human rights and what it can mean to you.
- Join in the interactive session and discussions on rights
- Taking the step forward to get involved in the rights discussion that is slowly gaining momentum in our country.
- Get the opportunity to meet other youths who come to the event with diverse point of views.

Registration is required for this event. You can find out more about the event here: http://maruah.org/2009/10/08/yhrw/ or see the attached eflyer for details.

Thanks!

Consultation Workshop (22 Aug): “Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – The People’s Views”: 22 August 2009

2009-08-15T22:12:00.004+08:00

Disclosure: I am part of MARUAH.

When the ASEAN Charter was signed 2 years ago, it contained a clause requiring the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. This clause was deliberately kept short and vague, so as to get all the ASEAN countries to agree to it. There was no definition to the body, nothing on its scope, powers, and composition.

Well, the Terms of Reference for the body (now called the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights) have been agreed. The next phase in this process is for the governments to appoint their representatives to the Commission.

MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) is therefore holding a public Consultation Workshop on the Commission and the selection of Singapore's representative to the Commission, on 22 August, 8.30am to 3.45pm. All are invited and it is free. Online registration can be completed here. Please attend if you have any interest in human rights.

National Day 2009: thoughts on being Singaporean

2009-08-05T22:51:00.004+08:00

The NDP organising committee asked me to contribute something to the NDP website. So I wrote this. It's been awhile since I've written something like this, so it took some time to get back into the groove.

Also, when I first looked at the website, some of the articles (e.g. by Prof Tommy Koh and Viswa Sadasivan) were long and thoughtful, and I thought I'd better match up to those standards. I wanted this piece to be thoughtful and reflective, but more importantly I wanted it to be authentic and heartfelt, and not a cliched collection of stereotypical platitudes and jingoistic rhetoric.

When I was done, I was unsure about it. It's a little bittersweet and not rah-rah at all. I'm sure some will even find it negative and a downer. In fact, I considered including Alfian Sa'at's quote ("If you care too much about Singapore, first it’ll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.") but decided that it went too far and also it was not quite correct -- what could break your spirit and heart is not the nation, but the government. But I make no apologies for feeling how I feel, and I really do believe that more Singaporeans agree with my sentiments than may appear to be the case.

National Day 2009

I wrote this after returning from a business trip. I've always found that being away helps to me to see more sharply, how I feel about Singapore and being Singaporean.

I used to enjoy travelling out of Singapore; indeed, at one time I even wanted to emigrate. But it's different now. When I'm away without my wife, I look forward to coming home to her and our pets. When I'm away with my wife, we look at the pictures and videos of our pets on my cellphone. We even worry about the stray cats in our neighbourhood whom we help to feed, about whether the other cat-feeders are taking care of the strays. Nowadays, landing at Changi always brings the sense of comfort and relief of coming home.

These sentiments speak to my roots in and my affinity to this country. The sense of acceptance and belonging here is central to the idea of being Singaporean. And I like to think that more Singaporeans share this feeling than not – even those who profess to feel alienated by certain policies in this country, do so because they care so deeply about her.

I am currently reading President Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. He begins the book by discussing the deep divisions in American politics today, and then points out that Americans still have more in common than not.

I firmly believe that it is the same for Singapore. Quite apart from the universal values shared by most or all human beings, such as hard work, thrift and fillial piety, there are more hopes and values that unite Singaporeans than we sometimes care – or dare – to admit.

We are grateful for our amazing progress and growth since independence, which has lifted our standard of living with a speed experienced only in a few other countries. This is thanks to meritocracy and social mobility, which continue to form the bedrock of our system. And so we insist that ability married with hard work must be able to get one everywhere and that being born poor must not sound the death-knell for one's dreams. Because so many of us have benefited from the powerful force of social mobility, we understand the dangers of the growing stratification of our education system.

We have an innate sense of justice and equality, of fairness and equity. We are all equal under the law and under the Constitution, and we cry foul at perceived unfairness and bullying tactics. And so we want the administration of our country to be guided not by pragmatism and political expediency but by justice and fairness, which is why we cheer the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang when they stand fast to these principles and resist the carrot and stick of lift upgrading.

We have compassion for the less fortunate, and we empathise and sympathise with others. We know, that there but for the grace of God go ourselves. That is why when disaster strikes our unfortunate fellow human beings elsewhere, we do not stint on aid and support, as with the tsunami of 2004 and the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. That is also why we want the kinder, gentler society that was first mooted years ago, knowing that we are rich enough to do better than $330 per month of Public Assistance for single-person households, even though such households do receive a lot of other help.

We value openness and transparency, because we know how important the absence of corruption in Singapore has been to our success, especially in light of the devastating effects of corruption in other countries. We also want to have more say in our destiny, because Singapore is our country and her future is intimately intertwined with ours. These are why we want greater accountability and transparency in how the country is run and how our investments are managed, so that we can be confident that our precious reserves are treated with the due care that they deserve.

We need tolerance and understanding of one another and one another's differences, so that persons of faith can practise each of our religions and speak and act openly and freely. But we must all acknowledge the realities of the country we live in, and always stay mindful of other persons' sensitivities and opinions and respect the boundaries required of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.

Most of all, we want a Singaporean Singapore. Just like how we wanted a Malaysian Malaysia and not a Malay Malaysia, we do not want a Chinese, Indian, Malay or Other Singapore. And so we want to celebrate the things that make us all the same and bring us together, and refrain from constantly emphasising our differences such as with the ubiquitous CMIO classification.

These are truths and values that many, if not most or all, Singaporeans hold close to their hearts. They may sit uncomfortably with some amongst us. But they are what Singaporeans think and say, in private, in coffeeshops and on the Internet, and the more honestly we confront these hard truths, the sooner we will resolve them and turn these challenges for Singapore into strengths of Singaporeans.

So this National Day, let's reflect a little on what really binds Singaporeans together, more than food and our undeniable love for it, the little details of our everyday existence like buying Toto and 4D, and shared experiences like National Service. Let's think about how we can, in each of our own little ways, contribute to making Singapore the happy, prosperous, progressive and democratic society based on justice and equality. And then let's make a start at converting thought into action. Because that is the true commitment of a Singaporean to Singapore.

Siew Kum Hong is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009).

Guest piece on Blogtv.sg: Speaker's Corner CCTV cameras

2009-08-05T00:52:00.002+08:00

This was published on Blogtv.sg earlier today. They asked if I was willing to write something on this, and I obliged. It was an easy decision -- the absurdity of the situation lends itself to criticism.

“It was quite ridiculous” – Ex NMP Siew Kum Hong Speaks About Speaker’s Corner CCTV Cameras

Posted at 9:44 am under Uncategorized

I came to know about the installation of CCTV cameras at Speaker’s Corner on Facebook, when I saw it in my newsfeed. My immediate thought was: “what the…!”

Singapore has always struggled with an image problem, in that it is seen as a very tightly controlled society, by both Singaporeans and foreigners. When Speaker’s Corner was first launched in 2000, that was seen as a step forward (albeit a baby step) in terms of expanding the space for public discourse in Singapore. And the Prime Minister’s announcement last year that the regulations governing Speaker’s Corner would be relaxed was also welcomed by most as another baby step forward.

So the installation of CCTV cameras would seem to be a significant step backwards. The practical effect is that they may well deter people from speaking or demonstrating at Speaker’s Corner, or to even show up to attend events, for fear of being captured and somehow “marked”.

It does not help that the explanations proffered by the police to date have been unconvincing, to say the least. In response to queries from TODAY and The Online Citizen, the police stated that “CCTVs are used to complement Police presence on the ground and to project a greater sense of security. … As part of an on-going initiative to enhance security in the neighbourhoods, Police have been extending CCTV coverage to other parts of the island. Hong Lim Park is one such area. These CCTVs do not record audio inputs and are installed for safety and security.”

This response begs further questions, all unanswered. Why was Speaker’s Corner selected for the CCTV installation? And why now? After all, it is usually quiet, if not deserted. Have there been any incidents of crime to warrant a “projection” of a greater sense of security? Does not the police post adjacent to Speaker’s Corner already project a strong sense of security? In what way is that inadequate?

When TODAY asked me to comment on this development, I told them that frankly, it was “quite ridiculous”. And I stand by that. We hold Speaker’s Corner up as a sign of how Singapore has opened up, to show that there is room for free speech and a place for demonstrations and protests in Singapore. The Prime Minister even said last year, “So I think there is no need for the police to get involved. … The overall thrust of these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future and we will progressively open up our system even more. …”

And then we go and install surveillance cameras. How do you reconcile that most striking symbol of a police state, with the goal of free speech and liberalisation?

My own suspicion is that the cameras were installed in advance of the upcoming APEC meeting in Singapore. During the IMF-World Bank meeting in Singapore in 2006, there was a public protest at Speaker’s Corner, as well as an attempt to march to the venue of the meeting. The film Speakers Cornered captured the events of that day. I can only surmise that the CCTV cameras are in anticipation of similar incidents. But at what cost to Singapore?

Siew Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009), and currently an aspiring civil society activist. While in Parliament, he spoke on a number of issues including ministerial salaries and civil liberties, and he also submitted to Parliament a citizens’ petition bearing over 2000 signatures calling for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in October 2007. He was also involved in the recent events at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).

Links for the day

2009-07-24T15:50:00.004+08:00

A couple of quick links for the day:

text of the valedictorian speech by Loo Zihan, which was covered by today's ST

video of the valedictorian speech:

moving tribute to Anthony Yeo (RIP)

The free market does not protect consumers

2009-07-21T23:21:00.004+08:00

The Singapore Government is often said to be pragmatic in the extreme, perhaps even to a fault, and not in the least bit dogmatic or ideological. But I've always believed that when it comes to matters of consumer protection, it hews to an ideological adherence to corporatist free market ideals, preferring to leave things to the market instead of regulating to protect Singaporeans.

Two recent incidents bring this into sharp focus. Firstly, the slap-on-the-wrist by the MAS on financial institutions over the misselling of structured deposits, which I've posted about. Secondly, the Brookes Business School incident, where it now turns out that RMIT had complained to MOE as early as 2007.

The Brookes incident, and indeed all previous fraud cases involving private schools, fundamentally stem from MOE's previous reluctance to regulate the private education sector. Just like how MAS did not, and continues to decline to, closely regulate the sale of high-risk investment productsm, setting the stage for Singapore consumers to lose up to half a billion dollars. Just like how MND steadfastly refused to regulate property agents, until the sheer chutzpah of some ERA agents was exposed in court, and only then did the Ministry start talking about regulating the industry.

These instances demonstrate that when it comes to consumer matters, the Government would very much prefer to leave things to the free market, which is as good as saying that the Government would prefer not to regulate to protect consumers, presumably in the name of avoiding imposing additional compliance costs on businesses.

I've always wondered about that -- if they are not supposed to engage in prohibited conduct in the first place, then how much incremental costs would they incur, and should they not be incurring those compliance costs in the first place? The reasoning is just too unconvincing. It is nothing short of an abdication of a government's responsibility to protect consumers.

If one firmly and sincerely believes in protecting consumers, then one would surely adopt a proactive stance in doing the right thing, and not wait for multiple cases to occur before taking action. As mrbrown tweeted so succinctly, "Must more people kena then act ah?"

MAS and structured products

2009-07-19T23:12:00.006+08:00

A SMS message from a good friend (my best man and my proposer for NMP, actually) this past Friday reminded me that that was officially the last day of my NMP term. Well, as I've been telling people -- life goes on lah.

And so will this blog. In the past, I've refrained from posting my quick thoughts here, because I preferred to articulate them in Parliament. Well, since that is no longer a consideration, I hope to post my thoughts more frequently.

When MAS announced the outcome of its probe into the misselling of financial institutions and the consequent bans on FIs selling structured products, I felt so disappointed. For the past few months, MAS had been taking its time to complete its probe, while facilitating or even encouraging investors to go through its 3-step dispute resolution process to claim compensation.

But it seems quite probable that MAS would have, at an early stage of its investigation, already come across evidence of breaches by the FIs leading to institutionalised misselling. That being so, should not MAS have suspended its 3-step process pending the conclusion of its probe, so that all investors would have the full facts before them before being asked to agree to the FIs' offers of compensation? Has MAS spared a thought for those investors who were offered partial compensation and decided to cut their losses and accept the offers out of exhaustion or desperation? Who should compensate them now? Do they have any recourse for MAS' delay and failure to act?

More importantly, MAS' response to the misselling was to slap bans on the FIs in question. But as Leong Sze Hian has pointed out, they are now being prevented from selling products that nobody really wants to buy anyway. They have made their money, their employees have pocketed their bonuses from selling these high-risk products to low-risk-appetite consumers, and now many of their customers are stuck between the rock of partial or no compensation and the hard place of litigation. Once again, consumers end up holding the baby.

Surely the better and more responsible solution would have been for MAS to order the FIs to compensate -- in full -- those customers who had purchased structured products from them, in those cases where the FIs had been in breach of the rules. MAS does have the power to do so, under Section 58 of the Financial Advisers Act. That would be the just and equitable thing to do.

It would have provided real deterrence to FIs. A comparison with the punishments meted out by the UK's Financial Services Authority in cases of misselling shows very clearly just how inadequate the punishments imposed by MAS are. So much for a world-class supervisory and regulatory regime.

No To Rape

2009-07-11T01:46:00.002+08:00

Parliament debated the Penal Code amendments in 2007. That debate was dominated by the non-repeal of Section 377A. But another important issue was the partial abolition of the marital rape defence, under which it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. My thoughts on this injustice are in my speech.

A few Singaporeans have now started a campaign to repeal the remainder of the marital rape defence that remains on the books. I signed the petition earlier today, and I would encourage everyone to join me in expressing your disagreement with the Government's stand that in most situations, it is actually OK for husbands to force their wives to have sex against their wives' consent.

NMP results are out

2009-07-06T19:17:00.004+08:00

I received a notice from Parliament a couple of hours ago -- it was the Second Report of the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament, which I've reproduced below. In short, I was not re-appointed, and the new NMPs (who will be sworn in on 20 July) are:

Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee
Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua
Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei
Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan
Mr Teo Siong Seng
Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan
Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong
Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen
Ms Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling

I am of course disappointed that I was not re-appointed; I felt and continue to feel that I could contribute meaningfully to Parliament for a second term, which is why I applied for it in the first place. Having said that, I am glad that I had the opportunity to serve, and I hope that I had contributed to Parliamentary debate (as the NMP scheme was intended to). Beyond that, it is really for Singaporeans to judge my time in Parliament for themselves.

I do want to make one point. There have been some who have said that I misconducted myself as an NMP during the AWARE episode, and/or that my involvement in AWARE was unwise. I am sure that they will say that again, now that the results of the NMP process are out.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it here: my involvement in AWARE was in my personal capacity and not as an NMP, and in any case I do not think that I did anything wrong, improper or inappropriate at all. Presumably, those who feel that I was unwise, thought so because of the adverse impact that my public involvement in AWARE would have on my chances for re-appointment.

Well, I would like to think that if I had not been re-appointed because of the AWARE incident, and I had known that things would turn out this way, I would still not have done anything differently.

From day one, I've promised myself that I would not say or do anything, or refrain from saying or doing anything, simply because it would or might affect my chances of a second term as an NMP if I wanted to re-apply. I felt that that would have defeated the purpose of being an NMP. I wanted to be true to myself, and I did not want to pull any punches. So just as I did not allow the possibility of offending the Government stop me from asking tough questions and making difficult points, I also did not allow the possibility of adverse publicity stop me from my involvement in civil society causes and organisations that I believed in.

So my answer to these folks who thought I was unwise, is that perhaps it reflects more on you and your readiness to compromise, than it does on me and my naivete. It is not that I did not think of the possible consequences of my actions; I was fully aware, and I consciously chose to do what I believed -- and continue to believe -- was the right thing.

Finally, I would like to wish the new NMPs all the best in their term, and hopefully they will enjoy their time in Parliament as much as I did!

SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SELECT COMMITTEE
ON NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
AS NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The Special Select Committee, appointed pursuant to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to nominate persons for appointment by the President as nominated Members of Parliament, has agreed to the following Report:

Introduction

1 On 14 November 2006, Parliament resolved in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore that there shall be nominated Members of Parliament during the term of the Eleventh Parliament. On 18 January 2007, the President, on the nomination of the Special Select Committee of Parliament, appointed nine persons as nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years. The term of service of the nine nominated Members of Parliament will expire on 17 July 2009 and, under section 4(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the vacancies that will arise shall be filled by the President by making appointments on the nomination of the Special Select Committee.

2 The Members of the Special Select Committee were nominated by the Committee of Selection, with Speaker as ex-officio Chairman. The Committee comprised the following:

Chairman: Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Speaker)

Members:
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua
Mr Low Thia Khiang
Mr Mah Bow Tan
Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM
Mr Michael Palmer
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
Mrs Josephine Teo

Invitation to the General Public to Submit Names of Persons for Consideration by the Committee

3 Under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the Special Select Committee decided that an advertisement inviting the general public to submit names of persons for consideration by the Committee be inserted in the Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu and The Straits Times on 6 April 2009. Publicity to the information was also given in a press release.

4 Submission of names was required to be made on forms obtainable at the office of the Clerk of Parliament. Each form had to be signed by a proposer and a seconder and by not less than four other persons, all of whose names shall appear in a current register of electors. The person to be proposed was also required to complete a curriculum vitae form in which, inter alia, he was required to write an essay on the kind of contribution he hoped to make as a nominated Member of Parliament and to submit written references from two referees sealed in separate envelopes to the Committee. The closing date for the submission of names was 11 May 2009.

Formation of Functional Groups

5 The Committee decided that it would continue the practice of inviting the six functional groups, namely, business and industry, labour, the professions, tertiary education institutions, social and community service organisations, and media, arts and sports organisations, to submit names of suitable candidates for the Special Select Committee to consider.

6 The names of the coordinators appointed by Mr Speaker for each functional group and an invitation to organisations identifying themselves with any of the functional groups to contact the coordinators to propose their nominees were publicised by the Committee in a press release issued on 5 April 2009.

Consideration of Persons Proposed

7 By the closing date, the Committee received a total of 46 proposal forms (including those from the functional groups) of which 3 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

8 Section 2(3) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution provides that, before making any nomination for appointment by the President as nominated Member of Parliament, “the Special Select Committee shall, wherever possible, consult other Members of Parliament in such manner as it thinks fit”.

9 On the advice of the Committee, the Speaker wrote to all the elected Members of Parliament on 19 May 2009, informing them of the names of the persons proposed for consideration as nominated Members of Parliament and asking the Members of Parliament if they had any comments on these persons and if they knew of any reason why any of them should not be considered for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament.

10 The Committee assessed the suitability of all the 43 eligible candidates. In assessing their suitability for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament, the Committee took into account the criteria set out in section 3(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which provides that the persons to be nominated by the Special Select Committee “shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement; and in making any nomination, the Special Select Committee shall have regard to the need for nominated Members to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible”.

Nominations of the Committee

11 The Committee found many of the candidates to be well qualified to be appointed as nominated Members of Parliament. However, as stipulated under section 3(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, not more than nine nominated Members of Parliament can be appointed. The Committee has therefore nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament:

Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee
Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua
Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei
Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan
Mr Teo Siong Seng
Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan
Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong
Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen
Ms Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling

Speech on the President's Address: 25 May 2009

2009-05-25T23:26:00.005+08:00

[UPDATED: videos added, and see transcript of PM's speech here]

I spoke today in the debate on the President's Address in opening this new session of Parliament. Parliament was prorogued last month, meaning the previous session of Parliament was ended and a new session would begin. It does not mean that Parliament was dissolved, and is not related to the calling of a general election. It also does not mean that my term as a NMP is over, as the duration of my term is fixed at 2.5 years (or until Parliament is dissolved), and is not affected by the prorogation.

The video and the text of my speech are below. I had to scramble this morning after reading the reports of the Senior Minister's remarks on changes to the political system, basically re-writing a big chunk of my speech. But I think it was good, because his comments provided a reference point for what I wanted to say.

Motion of thanks on President's Address: 25 May 2009

Part 1

Part 2

1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Economic situation

2. It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism . While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something we all need to give some thanks for.

3. Now that there is greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister had, in his Budget speech in January, already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise, and demonstrated much foresight.

4. Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses if any.

5. At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so – but we can still only point to the same few examples like Singapore Airlines, most or all of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President.

Principles governing political system, and changes to the system

6. Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging, even implicitly, that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”

7. The Senior Minister has set out three fundamental principles for these changes: firstly, they must be fair to all contesting parties and not be biased in favour of any party; secondly, they must result in a strong and effective Government, and not a weak coalition Government; and thirdly, they must facilitate representation for diverse views in Parliament, including Opposition views.

8. Sir, I have three comments on these principles laid down by the Senior Minister. Firstly, it seems to me that these three principles implicitly accept that fairness in the electoral system is critical for its legitimacy, and also that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a diversity of views in Parliament, including Opposition views. I applaud the Senior Minister, and the Government, for taking this stance. The rules must be fair, and must be seen by Singaporeans as being fair, for the electoral system to have the necessary legitimacy and for the elected Government of the day to have the moral authority to rule.

9. My second comment is that any principles that we seek to apply to the electoral system must be limited to principles on the ground rules and the processes and procedures for elections. These principles should not prescribe outcomes in Parliamentary representation, which should be determined through the ballot box.

10. Taking the second principle, about the system resulting in a strong and effective Government, I would agree with it to the extent that it argues against pure proportional representation. But we need to understand, and to accept, that even in a first-past-the-post system, it is possible to have an outcome where no single party wins an absolute majority, thereby necessitating a coalition government.

11. We should also remain open to the possibility of a hybrid system, where the majority of seats are determined by a first-past-the-post system, but with a limited number of seats allocated by way of proportional representation. Such a system would be consonant with the Senior Minister's third principle, of facilitating diverse views in Parliament, and would do so in a manner based on voting patterns, which makes it more consistent with democratic principles than a scheme like the Nominated MP scheme.

12. My third and final comment, Sir, is that these principles should be applicable to the system as a whole, and not just to the changes that will be unveiled this week. These are important principles that go to the fundamentals of our system, and hence should permeate the entire system. Fair and just changes tacked onto a system viewed as lacking in legitiamcy, would not save the system itself.

Political apathy and disengagement

13. But before we go into the changes themselves, we should first examine why we are seeking to change the political system. The President has explained that it needs to evolve, to respond to changes in circumstances and goals. I think globalization may have made our longstanding problem of political apathy and disengagement amongst Singaporeans so critical, that we now have no choice but to squarely address them.

14. Why is it a problem, that Singaporeans are apathetic about and disengaged from the political process? To begin with, Singapore is, and must be, fundamentally for Singaporeans. That being so, Singaporeans have to be responsible for shaping the Singapore story. We cannot leave it to anyone else to do so. And to shape the story, Singaporeans need to participate in politics.

15. We can import workers and professionals: construction workers, domestic workers, nurses, IT professionals, engineers, bankers, even CEOs. But we cannot import our politicians and our leaders. We are an immigrant nation, but we are also a sovereign nation. We can take advice from foreign advisers and consultants, but only we ourselves are capable of truly understanding the unique challenges facing our country and making the right decisions for Singapore. The destiny of Singapore has to lie in the hands of Singaporeans, and of Singaporeans only. There are only 4 million odd Singaporeans, and even one Singaporean opting out or being excluded from this collective process of decision-making called politics is one too many.

16. Today’s globalised world has made it easier for Singaporeans to pack up and leave this country. People leave for a combination of reasons, and economic opportunities are certainly a key consideration. But some research has shown that the perceived political climate in Singapore is also a relevant factor. More importantly, only Singapore can truly give Singaporeans a sense of political rootedness and full participation in the political process, and such a sense of political stakeholding could go a long way towards keeping them here.

17. Meanwhile, technology has made it easier and more tempting for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, to plug in and tune out. We have to engage these Singaporeans and help them understand the importance of staying anchored in the offline world, so that they can have a say in moulding the Singapore that they want to live in, one that provides them with the freedom, stability and security needed for their continued immersion in online social networks, computer games and Internet video, if they so choose.

Changes to the GRC system

18. So what can we do? What changes should we look at?

19. I think there are many things that can be done, and there is no single magic bullet. But in this speech, I will touch only on the most fundamental act in a democracy: the vote.

20. The act of voting represents the core of democracy and political participation. Yet, a large number of Singaporeans do not get to vote at each election, thanks to the prevalence of walkovers. Many Singaporeans have told me about their dismay at never having voted in their lives. While there may be other reasons for walkovers being so common, the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies is obviously a key reason. We cannot deny that the incidence of walkovers has been accompanied by the proliferation of five- and six-member GRCs.

21. For many Singaporeans, past changes in electoral boundaries, often pertaining to electoral wards that have just witnessed a close contest in the preceding elections, have also undermined the sacred act of voting. The oddity of Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC is merely the most striking example of such changes. I must point out that the changes to electoral boundaries leading up to the 2006 elections were not so egregious, and for that I thank and commend this Government. I hope that there will again not be any drastic changes when it comes to the next general elections, whenever they may be called.

22. Even if we accept that GRCs are necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament, which is consistent with the Senior Minister’s third principle about diverse representation, there is nevertheless room for reducing the size of GRCs. I believe that there is also room to introduce more Single Member Constituencies, above the Constitutional minimum of 9 SMC wards. These moves, together with clear commitments to refrain from the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries and to openly publish the reasons and justifications for any such re-drawing, will all go a long way towards restoring Singaporeans' respect for the political process in Singapore, and hence increasing their desire to participate in and engage with the political process. The act of voting embodies participation in democracy, and seeing and experiencing the potential for impact imbued in their vote will naturally lead to renewed political consciousness and empowerment amongst citizens.

23. The process of awakening Singaporeans' political consciousness and getting them to become more politically engaged is a long-term undertaking, and there are many things that can and need to be done. But given the central role played by voting in a democracy, that has to be the starting place if we truly want Singaporean politics to evolve and Singaporeans to participate. The sheer symbolism of a reduction in the size of GRCs and the introduction of more SMCs will go a long way towards convincing Singaporeans that the PAP is serious about political change, even if it may potentially put its absolute dominance of this House at risk.

24. Sir, the next elections have to be called by 2011. Even as we work on overcoming the economic difficulties facing us, we cannot run away from the immutable reality of the electoral timetable, and we should not close our eyes to the long-term challenges facing Singapore as a society, a polity and a nation. There is no better time to start facing up to them than with the next elections, and I urge the Government to make the right choice for Singaporeans, even if it may be at a potential cost to the ruling party. Only then, can we truly fulfill the Singapore Promise, and create our Home, our Future and our Singapore.

25. Sir, with that, I support the motion.

The line has been crossed

2009-05-18T03:15:00.004+08:00

The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.

I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

While I have not previously taken any action in response to the attacks to me on the Internet, I feel that this latest attack crosses the line and goes beyond any attacks that I am willing to countenance as being fair game for a public figure. I do not think that it is appropriate or acceptable for any MP, including an NMP, to accept any funding, whether local or foreign.

Accordingly, I made a police report on this matter tonight. I have also requested those forums that I am aware are currently hosting these falsehoods, to take them down.

In the interests of full transparency, I did meet with certain Swedish gentlemen recently. Details of those meetings are set out in my statement to the police. I met them at their request, just as I have met other foreigners from time to time, including staff from the various High Commissions and embassies in Singapore (such as from Australia, the US, the UK and other EU countries) and visiting foreigners, such as academics doing research on aspects of Singapore. At these meetings, we discuss matters related Singapore, in particular current affairs and the political situation in Singapore. From my perspective, these meetings are to help the foreigners obtain a better understanding of Singapore. I do not think that there was anything wrong with those meetings, and I have nothing to hide.

While I continue to believe that it is, on the whole, beneficial for Singaporeans to speak up for what they believe in, and I certainly hope that this wish and desire will continue and extend beyond the current discussions around the NMP re-nomination process and homosexuality, I also do believe -- and have always believed -- that rights and freedoms have limits.

I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet.

TODAY article tomorrow (well, Friday)

2009-05-15T01:44:00.001+08:00

There will be an article in tomorrow's (Friday's) TODAY. This article will be about what is essentially a complaint to the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, insinuating that my actions in relation to the AWARE EGM had breached the Legal Profession Act.

I gave some comments to TODAY, and I only want to reproduce the following in point form:

I hope that this complaint is not part of the ongoing organised campaign targeting me.

I am confident that my actions did not breach the relevant provision of the LPA. My conscience is clear and I sincerely believe the law is on my side.

I am currently considering whether to write to these 4 groups, to clarify my position.

It's been a long day and it's late. So I'm going to sleep on this tonight, before deciding what/whether I will do anything else. Much as I want to move on with life, it seems that some folks simply cannot put what happened with AWARE behind them.

Observations of a lapsed citizen

2009-05-12T01:18:00.003+08:00

Someone forwarded this to me, and I thought it was well-written and well-thought-through. The writer describes herself as a "lapsed citizen" -- not that she had let her citizenship lapse, but that she has ceased to be active in civil society. She was quite active in the late 90s and early 00s, but I had not heard from her for many years, until she sent me these observations last week.

Also, unless another significant event takes place that I want to write about, this will be my last post on what happened with AWARE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many lessons to draw from the AWARE episode. While areas like steeplejacking or religious versus secular space in NGO are pertinent but I see also other more interesting aspects from my perspective of a "lapsed citizen"'.

2 worlds of Singaporeans collided at the Aware EGM. Not religious versus secular but 2 types of citizenry and their differences were so glaring it was blinding.

Legitimacy and authority

Josie, TSM, and their supporters were clearly more deferential to authority and hierarchical in their approach in life. Josie and the exco first expected to be shown this deference by their official position and by their credentials (as opposed to their passion, conviction or clarity of their own views whatever those are). I have read some comments by others that this is a miscalculation on their part. I dont think its a miscalculation, They may genuinely think their credentials alone would remove any doubts on their capabilities and were caught off guard when it did not resonate with the crowd. Some of the original AWARE members have equally impressive credentials but I dont think that is how they define themselves.

Josie and co are certainly not alone in this view of what gives them legitimacy. Verifiable or otherwise, it is widely accepted that Singapore society values academic excellence as a proxy for intelligence, success, wealth and therefore a higher right to rule and to lead over others.

Josie and co assumed their official postions allowed them to dictate how the meeting will be conducted without taking into account the original impetus for the mtg - that more than half of the original April AWARE membership had petitioned for their removal and that was the nature of the EGM they were presiding over. The underlying arrogance resulted in a team that was clearly unprepared to manage the meeting, mount their own offense/defense or even plan for an unfavourable voting outcome.

When their legitimacy was not accepted by the crowd (exasperated by their own mismanagement early in the mtg), they clearly crumbled and did not know how to regain any semblance of control of the EGM - the task of controlling the crowd ceded to the petitioners who ended up stepping into a void and took over to try to marshall and calm the crowd from the floor.

TSM make a similar mistake as Josie and her team, perhaps only amplified by the higher expectations on her given her self outed role as the puppetmaster.

They were very Singaporean in their view of how they thought the world should work and where is their rightful place in the world. It was just that there are apparently more than one definition of being Singaporean.

Submissiveness and (overly) respectful of hierarchy

While impassioned speakers come to the mic one after another and spoke their mind, Josie and the exco repeatedly asked for the "right of reply, coz its only fair" instead of just taking the mic time they had to actually reply! They were strangely waiting for the crowd to give an ok signal for them to start replying. I was amazed - it was perversely submissive behaviour. None of Josie's exco look or behaved like they were comfortable leading in any environment other than in a hierarchical manner where they can govern by official authority or within clear structural framework.

They spent more mic time asking for the right of reply than actually seizing the opportunity to respond to any of the criticism leveled at them. Not hearing a reasonable defence from them is probably the anticlimax of the whole afternoon.

By their behaviour, they strangely deferred to the crowd which became the more dominant force in the room. Josie and team effectively bowed to authority and waited for permission to speak, a permission that never came. They were meek as sheep in spite of their daring coup de'tat that culminated in the need for an EGM.

I doubt many of the people who spoke or were in the crowd would have quietly sat there if the roles were reversed. We would have fought back instead of being cowed.

They were meek like what Singaporeans were supposed to be. Again, the Singaporeans on the floor provided the contrast that not all Singaporeans are meek.

Individuals and the Independent Spirit

The supporters of the petitioners were boisterious and of independent spirit. The original petitioners thru We Are Aware had sent information ahead of time requesting that supporters let the petitioners lead and raise topics at the EGM. I read that as they were asking us to refrain from going to the mic and give the mic time to the official petitioners.

I recall having an instinctive resistance to the idea of anyone telling me not to speak or presuming to speak on my behalf. From the queue of people going to the mic, I was glad to see that many other people at the meeting were ignoring that suggestion.

I queued for about an hour and 45 mins to get into the hall. I also had my queue broken up once and had to rejoin another part of the queue before finally making it into the room. People came singly or in groups of about 2 to 3. Anecdotally, most do not seem to know any of the original AWARE members. They were individuals.

They supported the original AWARE's position on the vote but they did not necessarily deferred to their authority either. They cheered when they hear familiar names (and then strained their necks to see the faces coz they dont seem to be able to recognize the familiar AWARE faces) but were not about to sit quietly and only let the "old" AWARE speak on their behalf. They had something to say and they were making a beeline to queue for the one open mic on the floor.

For those of us who had hosted and sat through countless meetings/conferences where we beseeched people to ask questions at the mic, it was remarkable how the queue of people who wanted a turn at the mic never seem to end. They queued, spoke their mind and were more eloquent than anyone could have hoped or expected.

For civil society to continue to develop, our citizens need to participate in a contest of ideas and be willing to (re)imagine what is the society they want to live in and that they wish their children to inherit. The ability and willingness to step forward to express themselves as individual citizens who have a collective stake is key for ideas to surface and to persuade others to coalesce around a definition of society acceptable to all. I was reminded by sharp contrast public figures and politicians in Singapore who could not articulate their views or form arguments with clarity, passion or conviction, let alone persuade and inspire citizens.

Individual citizens rising beyond the concerns of daily bread and butter issues to bother about something that does not hit the pockets directly. I was reminded of the energy you find in schools, energy and passion we are often expected to lose as we graduate to adult life and hunker down to focus on earning a living.

The lapsed citizen in me always believed such Singaporeans exist in sufficient quantities because it is in the human spirit, I just never experienced an occasion of physical gathering of such scale (campus society, hall meetings and electionns not withstanding).

AWARE has been handed a great gift - the gift of potential renewal if they can harness the energy of these new members.

The lessons though I think are all political. In the larger political sphere, where they are not just women but Singapore citizens, what do they care about, who represents and leads these citizens and who can represent and lead them?

Something that may be making the rounds

2009-05-10T23:37:00.004+08:00

This was forwarded to me by an acquaintance. I have partially anonymised the only name that appears in this email.

In particular, it appears that I am now being singled out for targeting. I will only make these 3 points:

As I said at the EGM, I have been an AWARE member since last year, pre-dating most or all of the Josie Lau exco. I got involved because I wanted to restore the society to the values that I supported when I joined, and I was involved in my personal capacity, as an associate member of AWARE, and not as an NMP. At no time did I mention or seek to rely on my position as an NMP.

The sheer hyperbole used to describe the day's events are astonishing. "Disorder and mayhem"? I've never seen a queue forming, in the scenes of "disorder and mayhem" that I've seen (on TV). Repeating an exaggeration does not make it true.

The rules at a meeting of a society are open for determination by the members in a general meeting. The exco has no right to dictate the rules for the EGM, in the face of expressed disagreement from the majority of members present. I think many members did express their disagreement with the house rules that Josie Lau and Lois Ng tried to impose, at least with respect to whether I was allowed to sit with the original members. It does seem that some people, who keep harping on this point, simply do not wish to accept the reality of the law and practice of meetings.

Apart from the above points, I have no further comment on this email, and will leave readers to form their own opinions. This also means that I will not respond to any comments made (and to pre-empt any trolls, my non-response does not mean any admission or agreement to any comments that may be made).

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I was at the AWARE EGM and it was rude shock to me that such bully and hooliganism behavior from the old guard and their supporters could be allowed in such a civilised society like Singapore. Below I attach a letter from Ms XX written to the prime minister on the incident. Many of you who were there witnessed it with your own eyes also. I heard this was the biggest gathering of lesbians and gays at the EGM of a civic society in Spore.

We want to complain to the govt that an NMP Siew Kum Hong was not only openly taking sides in this internal affair of a secular organisation, but was part of the orchestrated disorder and mayhem on that day. He showed no regard for protocols until challenged by a member from the floor.

We also want the govt to know that Straits Times has been blatantly stroking the religious flame and deceiving all their readers when the real issue was about homosexualism and not about a religious `takeover' of a secular association. For the record, I have since cancelled my subscription to the newspaper. Why should I pay to be told half-truths and be insidously `persuaded' to their point of views?

I urge all those who were there that day to write to our PM, to MHA, REACH and ISD to tell them what you witnessed on that day. Let your voice be heard before it is taken away one day right before your eyes!

PS: The PM's email address is: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

It is indeed time for concerned individuals to play their part in shaping the future of our nation.

Below, I attach a letter I have sent to the PMO.

Cheryl XX

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the 'overflow area' in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b) We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d) There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e) Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

What I took away from 2 May

2009-05-06T00:07:00.002+08:00

A lot has been said and written about the AWARE EGM last Saturday. And by now, I'm sure everyone has seen videos of the key moments on YouTube. So I'm not going to get into the familiar details of what happened that day.

Instead, I'm just going to post a few thoughts from the EGM, and also talk about some aspects that I have not seen mentioned.

Affirmation of values

First and foremost, I walked away from the EGM proud to be Singaporean. I saw the result as an affirmation of the values that we hold dear (openness, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity and secularism) and a rejection of those that, well, we should not (dishonesty, non-transparency, exclusiveness, intolerance, divisiveness and oppression/bullying).

While I do not see the EGM as a watershed or a pivotal moment signalling any sort of significant change in Singapore politics (as at least one journalist has tried to posit to me), it does stand as a milestone marking some sort of progress towards a more active and passionate civil society. The willingness of all these people to stand up and be counted, to invest all that time and effort for a cause that they believed in, gave me hope that Singaporeans are not as passive or apathetic as we are often said to be, and that it really takes the right cause to spark us into action.

Importance of passion

My second point relates to the fiery passion demonstrated by so many folks in the audience. Some have sought to portray this as a shameful lack of civility, as a disgusting show of rude bullying tactics, as a terrible indictment of the supporters of the so-called old guard (I prefer "original members"). I beg to differ.

To begin with, I question whether these critics (well, those who are not supporters of the ousted Exco) were even there at all, to see for themselves what had happened. Did they see the way that the ousted Exco had started the meeting? Did they understand the context that contributed to this atmosphere of anger?

It was clear from the outset that the ousted Exco was trying to create a tilted playing field. When I arrived just past 11am, and tried to take the escalator from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor, three of the ousted Exco's supporters blocked the escalator, claiming that I was not allowed to go up. I was a little taken aback, and proceeded only when a volunteer for the original members told them to let me pass because it was a public area and they had no right to block me. This came on the heels of another of their supporters, who had greeted me on the 3rd floor with a big plastic smile, and then furiously whispered "SKH! SKH!" into her radio as I passed her.

Was all this necessary? Was there a need to play these sort of games?

It did not get better when the meeting began. I was the lightning rod that first drew their ire. Jenica Chua had already been informed earlier that I was a legal advisor for the original members -- and yet, when a member of the audience (a VIP as designated by the Josie Lau exco, whom none of us recognised) specifically asked for me to move to the associate members' section, Josie Lau simply ordered me to move. She even directed security to escort me out of the ordinary members' section (either to the associate members' section or out of the hall, I can't remember which). My wife later told me that she was worried about the security guards forcibly manhandling me.

It only got worse, when the meeting got underway. The mics on the floor were not switched on. Whenever an original member got to a mic and tried to speak, the sound person would deliberately shut down that mic. It was no accident and not faulty sound -- it was a deliberate attempt to prevent us from speaking.

Those who are familiar with the law and practice of meetings will know that points of order have precedence, and whoever is speaking has to yield the floor to someone making a point of order. But with the mics switched off, it was impossible to raise a point of order properly. Even after the lawyer from Rajah & Tann said that the mics should be switched on, this was not done properly or consistently. When folks on the floor protested, the ousted Exco's first response was to threaten ejection from the hall, even though it is established law that the chairperson's right to eject members may be exercised only upon repeated, severe disorder, not as a first resort.

That was how the entire meeting started. What sort of note did these heavy-handed tactics adopted by the ousted Exco strike? One of the leading legal textbooks on meetings states that the effect of a fair chairperson is often under-estimated. I would certainly say that the ousted Exco was not interested in conducting a fair meeting in accordance with the rules governing meetings, but only a meeting on their terms.

Faced with this, with a hostile chairperson seeking to exercise her powers in an unfair manner, what was the floor to do? The floor's only weapon, only response, is its voice. And in this case, we used that weapon to full effect. To do otherwise, to be as meek as these critics seem to want us to be, would have played into the ousted Exco's hands.

Those who criticise the behaviour of our supporters miss the point. They overlook the nature of such EGMs, which are invariably contentious affairs with emotions running high. They buy into the myth of an orderly debate, which simply does not exist when the ground rules are unfair and stacked against one side. They ignore the important role of passion in advocacy, blindly emphasising rote obedience of rules while missing the positive aspects of passionate advocacy.

So no, I will not apologise for the behaviour of our supporters. Instead, I am proud of this rare display of passion in public discourse. Indeed, I only wish that we see more of such passion in future.

Planning, planning, planning

This article in The New Paper says it all: these unsung heroes provided the platform for all the speakers to shine. The amazing work of folks like Alex, Serena, Ching-Wi, Jolovan and Schutz made the result possible. I salute them.

Their planning was immaculate. Thanks to their immense efforts, we did not have to worry about logistics at all in the lead-up to and during the EGM. I also believe that the early arrival of our supporters paved the way for our success. We were able to occupy the seats nearest to the stage, which also turned out to be nearest to the only mic that was switched on throughout the entire EGM. This proximity to the stage and to the mic probably allowed us to neutralise Josie Lau's advantage as the chairperson.

Passion vs passiveness

I've already mentioned the passion exhibited by our supporters. In stark contrast, the supporters of the ousted Exco were surprisingly passive, preferring to clap furiously whenever the ousted Exco spoke (regardless of the substance of their comments) instead of taking to the mic. Few of their supporters spoke up, and of these, too many failed to make the most of their time on the mic. Some of the more bizarre speeches of the day came from their supporters.

More surprisingly, so many of their supporters seem to have left early. I cannot confirm this, but it felt like they had started leaving even before the results were announced. And when the members voted to remove the ousted Exco from office because it looked like they were not coming back, there were only two objections -- presumably because their other 700 supporters had left by then.

I cannot explain why, although Alex Au has speculated on this. But I did haer that their supporters arrived in buses, and did not seem to really know what was going on. So perhaps they had been bus-ed in, having been simply told to vote, without much more. If that was true, then no wonder they did not speak up.

Thank you

Finally, I want to thank the ladies who came to me for advice just after the AGM on 28 March. I got involved in all this because of them, and I am glad that I did. It gave me a ringside seat to everything that happened, and I would not have missed it for the world. I'm only happy to have had the chance to contribute to their success in some small way.

And of course, I have to thank every woman and man who turned up to be counted, for affirming those values that Singaporeans hold so dear. Without you, nothing would have happened. With you, everything becomes possible.

We won :)

2009-05-03T01:35:00.002+08:00

As many of you may know by now, I have been advising the original members of AWARE in their (successful!) battle to remove the Exco headed by Josie Lau. So the past few weeks, especially this past week, has been crazy busy.

I have so many thoughts to share, but for now I only want to say that it has been a real honour and privilege to have been part of such a historic moment, and that I feel so heartened by the turnout and the way the voting went as well as public discourse in the past week as more facts came out -- it is such a strong affirmation by Singapore of the values that AWARE stands for: inclusiveness, diversity, openness and transparency. Today, I am so proud to be Singaporean.

For All Women - Sign Up, Turn Up, Be Counted

2009-04-29T15:23:00.003+08:00

AWARE EGM on 2 May now at SUNTEC CITY HALL 402

2009-04-28T16:53:00.003+08:00

UPDATE: THE EGM VENUE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SUNTEC CITY HALL 402!!

I received this announcement in my inbox earlier this afternoon (yes, I've been an AWARE member since last October or so, way before the AGM in March).

27th April 2009

To: AWARE Members

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 2ND MAY 2009

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The venue of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Association of Women for Action & Research (“AWARE”) to be held on Saturday, 2nd May 2009 , from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. is hereby changed as follows:

Singapore EXPO Hall 2
1 Expo Drive, #01-01
Singapore 486150

Admission and registration would be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd May 2009.

It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.

2. Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE’s legal advisors to attend the EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE’s constitution and meeting law and procedure.

By Order Of The Executive Committee

Jenica Chua
Honorary Secretary
Association of Women for Action & Research

MOE Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

2009-04-28T16:45:00.002+08:00

Hot off the press, from MOE. Please do circulate this far and wide. Most importantly, please circulate not just to those who already support the original members, but those who have expressed concern about the unsubstantiated allegations of the new exco and TSM. This needs to go outside of fellow travellers, to reach those who have a misunderstanding of what AWARE has been doing but are still willing to listen to reason.

Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

1 We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.

2 Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.

3 Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.

4 Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.

5 AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.

6 The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.

7 In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.

8 If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore.

TWC Statement on AWARE: 27 April 2009

2009-04-27T18:07:00.001+08:00

TWC2 is very concerned about the AWARE leadership takeover. AWARE has been an important important partner in our work to improve the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore and champion for their rights. AWARE has ensured that issues of discrimination against migrant domestic workers are not left out in the CEDAW report and has consulted us in preparing the shadow reports. We have also joined hands with AWARE through its White Ribbon Campaign to raise awareness of the issue of violence against migrant domestic workers. As an established organisation that runs an effective and structured helpline for women in distress, AWARE has been generous in sharing its expertise with nascent organisations such as TWC2. AWARE's social worker and volunteers have helped us in training our volunteers to staff our helpline service for migrant workers. In addition, AWARE has also taken on issues concerning the vulnerabilities of foreign brides in Singapore and the trafficking of women and children for cross-border sex trade.

The above examples, show that AWARE is far from being a single-issue organisation obsessed with promoting homosexual issues. AWARE is a dynamic organisation that has stayed true to its core mission of championing for the rights of women underpinned by values such as inclusiveness. By advocating the issues concerning migrant domestic workers, foreign brides and trafficked women and children, AWARE has shown that it understands the multiple forms in which discrimination and marginalisation of women can take place as Singapore becomes more globalised. This is largely attributed to a competent leadership that truly understands the multiplicities of gender inequality and the complex social processes that underpin gender discrimination. If AWARE's future stand to be shaped by a group of individuals that do not have a solid understanding of gender inequality and whose motivation is driven by a single-issue objective, we risk losing a valuable partner in our work. Singapore may also stand to lose as more than two decades of advocacy work that aim to tackle the roots of gender inequality may be lost because of a lack of vision.

Speech on the Films (Amendment) Bill: 23 March 2009

2009-04-22T19:57:00.002+08:00

In March, Parliament debated the amendments to the FIlms Act. This was another bill that I felt compelled to vote against. When I started reading and thinking about the bill, I had only decided that I needed to speak on it, but I had not yet decided how I would vote. But by the time I started writing my speech, I already knew I had no choice but to vote no.

Films (Amendment) Bill
23 March 2009

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker Sir, this Bill is being introduced in the wake of the report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). AIMS made a total of 26 recommendations to the Government, including recommendations relating to sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act. In particular, AIMS recommended that section 33 be repealed in phases.

These recommendations pertaining to the Act were rejected by the Government. Instead, the Government announced some limited changes to the scope of section 33, while declining to amend Section 35 at all. This Bill introduces those limited changes to the scope of section 33.

Sir, my own view is that AIMS was fundamentally correct in recommending that section 33 be repealed. I am not sure if I agree with AIMS that the repeal should be conducted in phases, but that is now moot. Section 33 prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films. Section 2 adopts a broad definition of “party political film” that is overly-inclusive, that seeks to censor films based on their format and not on their substantive content, and this results in a potential chilling effect on film-makers. I remain unconvinced by the reasons for singling out film, when the printed word is equally capable of distortion and deception, when a well-written commentary can be even more powerful than a poorly-made film.

This prohibition on party political films is also easily and widely flouted in today’s Web 2.0 world, and maintaining such an unenforceable prohibition simply promotes disrespect for the rule of law, which is an unhealthy state of affairs with insidious, far-reaching repercussions. Finally, Singaporeans are today far more sophisticated and media-savvy than before, and should be trusted to judge the merits and demerits of films for themselves.

Be that as it may, the Government has made it clear that section 33 will not be repealed. Instead, this Bill seeks to make what seems like an incremental liberalisation, with an expanded list of films that are deemed not to be party political films.

However, even as the list seems to be expanded and longer, an important exception has been removed. The existing section 2(3)(a), which will be repealed, provides that films made by anyone solely for the purpose of reporting current affairs are not deemed to be party political films. This has been replaced by four specific, limited exceptions, namely, films made solely for the reporting of news by a licensed broadcasting service; films recording "live" the whole or a material proportion of a lawful performance, assembly or procession that does not depict any event, person or situation in a dramatic way; films designed to provide a record of a lawful event or occasion, for its participants or persons connected with its participants; and documentary films without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate, non-dramatic account depicting actual events, persons or situations, which does not include unscripted or reality-type programmes.

To my mind, these four specific exceptions are narrower in scope than the existing section 2(3)(a). For instance, what is the justification for limiting the exception for the reporting of news, to licensed broadcasters only? This seems completely incongruent with the Senior Minister of State's recognition of the realities in today’s Web 2.0 world, and seems designed to inhibit the work of new media and citizen journalists and bloggers.

More importantly, these four specific exceptions do not seem to represent a true liberalisation of the position on party political films, and in fact could narrow the scope of what is permissible. In particular, the prohibitions on recordings of unlawful events and occasions seems odd. This was not an issue that was canvassed at any point during AIMS’ deliberations. The holding of an unlawful event is prohibited under other existing laws, and it is not clear why the creation of a video recording of such an unlawful event should be illegal.

It is also likely to create what can be called a nation of innocent criminals, eg, bystanders watching an assembly or procession may whip out their mobile phones to record videos of the event. They may not know whether the event was being held in accordance with the law. If it was not, then they would be creating an illegal party political film. If they upload it to a website like YouTube, they would be distributing an illegal party political film. This is the precise problem that AIMS was constituted to address: laws that are out-of-sync with the times and that will invariably be ignored and flouted. So, why are we going out of our way to institute new legislation that we know will be disregarded and broken?

It is arguable that the exception regarding documentary films that accurately depict actual persons and events, including unlawful events, could apply to the situation that I have just described. Yet, the term “documentary film” is not defined, and its use suggests that this exception requires the film to be something more than a mere video recording, since the term “documentary film” must necessarily be something more limited in scope than a “film”, which is the term used in the other exceptions. This exception is also problematic - documentary-makers will invariably have to edit their raw footage, but such editing could potentially remove them from the scope of this exception.

The new exceptions are also difficult from a lawyer’s perspective. Prof. Thio has very ably and cogently pointed out the difficulties with section 33 from a constitutional perspective. On a more technical level, these amendments introduce terms that are not defined, in a way that makes their application of uncertain scope. I have already mentioned the term “documentary film” in the new section 2(3)(e). Other new terms of ambiguous scope include “depiction in a dramatic way” as used in the new sub-sections (3)(c) and (3)(e)(ii), and “dramatic elements” as used in the new sub-sections (3)(f) and (3)(g). It would have been preferable to define what they mean, so that courts seeking to interpret these terms will have some guidance.

The final point I would make on this Bill, is that it does not amend section 35, as recommended by AIMS. Section 35 allows the Minister to ban any film that he considers to be “against the public interest”, without giving any reason. AIMS had recommended that the permissible reasons for banning films under section 35 be spelt out clearly, that an independent advisory panel be formed to advise the Minister before a film is banned under Section 35, and that the Minister be obliged to give reasons for the ban. All three proposals have been rejected.

The status quo gives the Minister broad powers to ban films, while not making him accountable for any decision banning a film. This is wholly imbalanced and does not pay sufficient respect to Singaporeans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech. While we all accept that limitations on constitutional rights do exist, we should also accept that such limitations must be calibrated and limited, and also transparent and accountable. Most of all, they must be constitutional, and limiting the grounds upon which films can be banned under section 35 as proposed by AIMS would go a long way towards ensuring the constitutionality of this provision and its use by the Minister.

True, in the only known instance of a ban under section 35, the Minister did give his reasons for doing so. But giving reasons is at the discretion of the Minister. My view is that since this is a limitation on a constitutional right, the proper position is to require the Minister to justify any ban under section 35, with an exception where the very disclosure of the justification could prejudice national security, in which case the Minister has to explicitly state that and give reasons where practicable.

Sir, I would normally welcome any liberalisation on matters of free speech. But these amendments to the Films Act do not seem to represent a material or true liberalisation of the current position, and they are also potentially problematic in their phrasing. The objective in constituting AIMS was to review existing legislation in the face of advances in digital technology, and to suggest necessary updates to the law. As I have said, it is not healthy to have laws on the books that are consistently and openly broken by Singaporeans. This is the reality with the existing regime under the Films Act. My belief is that it will also be the case with these present amendments, in which case, why bother?

The Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the prohibition on party political films has an offline aspect as well, and that is true. But implicit in that, is the acceptance that the amended prohibition on party political films will continue to be ignored online, and an admission that enforcement will continue to be absent in the online environment. But this is then an unjustifiable and unfair discriminatory practice against the offline population, in a sense that the prohibition is applied against them but not to the online citizens.

Because of this, I cannot support this Bill. It is bad law, it would not fix the problems that need to be fixed, and I cannot in good conscience support such a piece of legislation.

Sir, with that, I oppose this Bill.

The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew):
[...]

Let me touch on sections 33 and 35 because I think many Members have spoken out and raised issues regarding these two particular areas. Prof. Thio Li-ann, Mr Zaqy Mohd, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Ms Sylvia Lim, amongst others, spoke on section 33, why are we not decriminalising the making of party political film as recommended by AIMS. Our position is that the Government is only disallowing what would be dramatised, sensationalised and emotive party political films which will do harm to rational and objective political debate. And so we feel that there is strong reason to maintain the sanction against the making of such films. But bear in mind also that while we retain this clause and we have always had this clause since the inception of the Bill, we have not prosecuted anyone for the making of a PPF to date. That is an important point, that while it is retained, it is there and has been there over the last 10 years, there has been no move to prosecute anybody. So moving forward, whether or not a film-maker will be prosecuted for the making of a PPF, it is not an automatic process but it will have to depend on the facts and the significance and the merits of each case.

Section 35; Again, same members have raised their issues and comments on section 35. Let me clarify a misconception that this is a so-called backdoor way to catch the rest of the films that would otherwise have passed, because section 35 is not against PPFs; it is not to be used against party political films. PPFs, unless they fall under the exceptions, will already be banned from the onset, and there is no need to apply section 35 to such films. Section 35 is meant and reserved for serious situations where due to the circumstances of the day, the possession or distribution of the film would actually be contrary to public interest - presenting a threat to national security, danger to racial or religious harmony, and perhaps affecting even the very fabric of our multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Members have noted that so far, we have only used section 35 once and that was on "Zahari's 17 Years", and the Minister had come up with a press statement to fully explain why he issued the ban. We did not want to impose on the Minister the need to make such a press statement or to have to explain every time he exercises the jurisdiction to impose such a ban. But, where possible, he will indeed do so. But for those who have forgotten what "Zahari's 17 Years" was all about, the film was a revisionist attempt to have a distorted and misleading portrayal of Zahari's arrest and detention. It was an attempt to exculpate himself from his involvement in communist activities against the interest of Singapore. He had posed a security threat for which he was detained under the ISA, and he now wanted to exploit the use of film to project false and distorted picture of his past actions, and that is why the ban was made. It was not a political film.

There were also comments as to whether this signals any change with regard to the way we view the Internet. Let me explain our position with regard to films on the Internet. First of all, the Films Act governs both offline and online films. But the Government had decided to adopt a three-pronged approach towards regulating the Internet. First, we say we will take a light-touch approach via the class licence scheme. Second, that we will couple this with public education and, indeed, we followed up on one of the AIMS' recommendations to have inter-ministry cyber-wellness taskforce. Because we recognise that public education really would lay the foundation for further moves to expand the political space in this area, and to make sure that people exercise the right degree of discernment, judgement, to view things not in isolation but to be able to see things in totality, to recognise the larger picture and not to be misled by seductive arguments narrowly focused on a particular area. And the third limb, besides light touch and public education, was industry's self-regulation and co-regulation. And, basically, we will not deviate from this, going forward. Films that are available on the Internet will have to continue to abide by the class licence scheme as in the past.

[...]

Speech on the Public Order Bill: 13 April 2009

2009-04-20T23:11:00.005+08:00

Last week, the Public Order Bill was read for the second time (meaning it was debated) in Parliament. 12 MPs in all spoke on it. In the end, 3 MPs voted against it -- Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and myself. There was quite extensive press coverage on the bill, but not so much on the points that I made in my speech. I've said everything I wanted to say in my speech, so I won't editorialise any more here.

The videos of my speech are here (again, thanks watchtowerv!) with the text transcript (including my exchange with the Minister) below them. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the Ian Tomlinson case, may want to watch the videos at these links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/14/g20-police-action-tomlinson-memorial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-death-video-twitter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-video

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the name suggests, this Bill deals with public order. In particular, it seeks to regulate public assemblies and public processions; to deal with the control and protection of special events in Singapore; to introduce the move-on powers that I spoke about in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year; and to criminalise the filming of law enforcement activities in certain circumstances.

I will first touch on the proper framework for considering laws such as this Bill, that curtail Singaporeans' civil liberties in the name of ensuring security and public order, before considering the provisions of this Bill in greater detail.

Sir, this Bill will have the effect of introducing new limitations on the constitutional rights of Singaporeans. So the starting point in considering the Bill must be the Constitution.

I start with Article 13(2), which provides that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout Singapore, subject to any law relating to security, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders. This Bill clearly purports to be such a law.

Article 14(1)(b) provides for another right, the right of Singaporeans to assemble peaceably. This right is subject to such restrictions as Parliament considers to be necessary or expedient, in the interest of security or public order.

So even as the Constitution provides for Singaporeans' rights to freedom of movement and freedom of peaceful assembly, it nevertheless recognises that those rights are not absolute and that there can be a legitimate need to limit those rights in the interest of security or public order. A balancing exercise is therefore necessary and I am glad to note that the Minister acknowledges the need for a calibrated, balancing approach.

When we debate legislation that purports to limit Singaporeans' constitutional rights in the name of security and public order, we have to consider whether the law in question strikes the correct balance between these competing interests. To my mind, due and proper respect for our fundamental liberties in the Constitution requires Parliament to ensure that the law curtails Singaporeans' rights to the minimal extent necessary to ensure security and public order, and no more. Anything further, any overly broad wording that could permit actions not required by legitimate security or public order concerns, is not justifiable and goes too far.

With these principles in mind, I will now touch on the provisions pertaining to the objectives of the Bill.

Sir, Part II of the Bill seeks to regulate public assemblies, which includes public talks and lectures, and public processions. In principle, I do not agree with the premise that all public assemblies and processions should require prior approval from the authorities. This emasculates our constitutional right of peaceful assembly - how can it be a right, when it is subject to the approval by a bureaucrat? A right to do something necessarily means that the person entitled to the right can do the thing, without having to ask for prior approval. Otherwise, it is not a right. A system based on prior approvals and permits does not strike the correct balance in terms of respecting Singaporeans' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.

Furthermore, this system of permits and prior approvals opens the door to perceptions and allegations of abuse for political purposes. Singaporeans have strong reservations about how this system has operated in the past, and I must confess that I share at least some of these reservations.

Ms Sylvia Lim has already mentioned an example that was debated in this House last September. Let me just elaborate a little. I had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rules governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties. Ms Sylvia Lim filed a related PQ. The Senior Minister of State, responding to my and Ms Lim's PQs, reiterated that the police will not grant permits for outdoor political events, on the basis of the risk of public disorder inherent in such events. The Senior Minister of State then explained that an outdoor event organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) was not viewed by the police as an outdoor political event, and hence was permissible, even though the PCF is an arm of the PAP and the guest-of-honour was the Prime Minister, and other PAP politicians were also present. With all due respect to the Senior Minister of State, I - and I believe many, if not most Singaporeans - do not find that distinction convincing in the least. It may comply with the technical letter of the law but certainly is difficult to accept as being true to the spirit of freedom of movement and assembly.

If we want to have a proper balance where Singaporeans' right of peaceful assembly is respected and preserved, while remaining mindful of the need for public order and security, then the starting point should be that all assemblies and processions are by default permissible, unless they fall into some prohibited categories, unlike the current system which is the opposite. So the organisers of an assembly or procession should provide advance notice to the Police with appropriate details, not for approval, but to allow the Police to assess the public order and safety implications of the march and its proposed route of the assembly, and to require the organisers to find an alternative venue, or to take an alternative route where reasonably necessary to preserve public order. The only permissible exceptions should be with respect to special events - and we will come to that shortly - or where an assembly or procession promotes an unlawful cause or is unjustifiably provocative, or is reasonably likely to lead to violence. Anything further would simply render Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution an empty shell.

The Minister has referred to events in other countries, such as the unfortunate events in Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend to justify this Bill, which has resulted in a country where such events simply do not take place. I do understand the attraction in such an argument. But there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, and I do believe that by requiring all public assemblies and public processions to be subject to prior police approvals, we have gone too far in the past and we continue to go too far in undermining our constitutional rights.

Be that as it may, the Bill before us today preserves this system of prior approvals, for better or for worse. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why the exemption for indoor meetings and talks, in other words, indoor public assemblies, that have only speakers who are Singaporeans, is not explicitly set out in the Bill itself.

Sir, Part III of the Bill relates to the security of special events, which are events that the Minister declares to be such having regard to their nature, the number and kind of expected attendees, Singapore's obligations for holding the event, and other relevant matters. The upcoming APEC summit in November this year would be an example of such a special event.

Members would have seen the shocking footage from Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend. No doubt, the political divisions in Thailand contributed the problems there. In particular, the reluctance of Thai security forces to enforce the law had aggravated the severity of the situation. But it does provide a timely reminder that if special events go wrong, they could irreparably damage a country's image and reputation. So I would support the principle that special events could justify extraordinary measures and temporary restrictions on Singaporeans' rights of free movement and peaceful assembly provided they are limited to the minimum extent, period and area necessary to prevent disruption of the event and to protect individuals involved in the event.

And in this regard, we have done well in the past. It is a testament to this country's, and, yes, this Government's organisational and security capabilities that we have in recent years held major international events here with minimal or no disruption. So I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why it is necessary to introduce this new Part III of the Bill when the existing system based on the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act has worked. Just looking at last year, the ASEAN Regional Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel, the National Day Parade, the National Day Rally and the Formula One race were all declared as protected areas under that Act, and all of them were events that went off without any security problems.

Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the scope of the powers to declare an event to be a special event is too broad. I am concerned with the new section 21(3)(b)(iv) in particular, which allows the Minister to declare an event to be a special event where “there is a reasonable likelihood that the event because of its nature might be at risk of an act of terrorism”. That is a very broad definition, and any large gathering of persons in Singapore could potentially be seen as being at risk of an act of terrorism. The Explanatory Statement on section 21 does expand on the relevant factors for determining whether an event should be declared as a special event. But I hope that the Minister could specifically clarify whether the intent is to allow a large gathering of persons to be declared as a special event, simply because there are many people present.

My last point on Part III, Sir, relates to the new sections 21(5) and (6). The declaration of a special event must be gazetted, and sub-section (5) requires the Minister to publish a notice of the making of the declaration “in such manner as will secure adequate publicity for the declaration”. The Minister has to do this, within seven days of the making of the declaration and before the date the declaration comes into force. The Explanatory Statement helpfully explains that this includes the publication of the notice in newspapers.

But sub-section (6) then goes on to state that failure to comply with sub-section (5) does not invalidate the declaration itself. It is easy to fathom the rationale for sub-section (5), but difficult to understand the reason for sub-section (6). Where an event is declared to be a special event, various restrictions on Singaporeans' fundamental liberties come into force. So Singaporeans naturally have a strong interest in knowing that such a declaration has been made. This makes absolute sense. But why then have sub-section (6), which renders sub-section (5) nugatory? Because, then, the Minister could simply ignore sub-section (5), without having to justify his actions and without any consequences. The Minister is given plenty of time, seven days, in fact, to publish the notice in the newspapers. So I hope that the Minister can explain the reasoning behind section 21(6).

I now turn to the new move-on powers, which I had spoken about in the Committee of Supply this year. Given that such powers limit citizens' right to freedom of movement, they have to be limited to the bare minimum extent necessary to preserve public order. We also have to bear in mind, that an abuse or a wrongful use of these powers will result in irreparable loss and damage to citizens. For instance, if a person is unlawfully ordered by a police officer to move on, then that person has lost the opportunity to be present at a certain place at a certain time, and it is impossible to remedy that loss.

In the first place, it does not seem to me that there is a convincing justification for the introduction of these new powers. In an interview published in The Straits Times in January this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had sought to justify these move-on powers on the basis that the police needed new powers to deal with political activists engaged in civil disobedience. But let us look closely at the acts of civil disobedience that we have seen in Singapore to date. They have taken a form of either an assembly or a procession which would be regulated under Part II of this Bill. In this regard, I note that the offences under Part II of this Bill are seizable offences. So there is no lacuna in the police's powers. These move-on powers will be necessary only if there are some loopholes or gaps in the provisions on public assemblies and processions that need to be plugged. But I see no such loopholes.

The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there was a gap in police powers between post and incident investigations and arrest while the incident is on-going. But, practically speaking, it is always open to Police Officers to give a verbal warning to cease and desist before arresting a person. And I presume that that is what they will usually do in practice. The only thing that these powers do with respect to civil disobedience activists is to add a further offence to the list of offences committed, but ensuring a multiplicity of offences and hence penalties is not a legitimate reason for introducing yet another offence.

In any case, the move-on powers extend far beyond what is needed to deal with civil disobedience. Section 36, as currently worded, with its reference to disorderly behaviour, could extend to situations like teenagers loitering around a void deck, or even the skateboarders and inline-skaters who hang out at the underground plaza at the Esplanade on weekends. They generally cause no harm to anyone. But an overzealous Police Officer may seek to clamp down on what is, in truth, simply boisterous teenage behaviour. Given the ease and expediency with which move-on orders may be given, this is an undesirable outcome that is sadly almost inevitable.

Be that as it may, these move-on powers will become law. In the Committee of Supply debate, I made some suggestions which have unfortunately not been taken up. At the time, the Minister had said that it was premature to deal with those issues, as the Bill was not before the House. That being the case, I hope that the Minister will now explain why these suggestions have not been accepted. I will briefly recap those suggestions.

Firstly, I had stated that the legislation in question should target the objectionable conduct of a person, and not the mere fact that he was in a certain location. And I note from the Minister's speech that he has stated the same position. But if that is the case, if a person behaved offensively in a certain location, and a police officer directs him to move on, and the citizen then ceases the offensive conduct, then the move-on order should cease to have effect. While the new section 35 makes it clear that the subject of a move-on order has to be behaving objectionably before the order can be issued, there is no corresponding provision to state that the move-on order ceases to have effect if the objectionable behaviour ends. Instead, the subject of an order has to leave the vicinity; otherwise he commits an offence. This is regardless of how he continues to behave.

Secondly, I note that the new section 36(1) requires move-on orders to be in writing, which is what I had suggested in the Committee of Supply debate. That is positive. But I did make another suggestion, for all move-on orders to be recorded in a public register, as is the case in Australian territories, like in Queensland, which the Minister has stated was used as a model. This suggestion has not been taken in. But a register is useful to ensure transparency and accountability in how Police Officers use their move-on powers. We have said that we are following the Australian example in introducing such powers, yet studies in Australia have shown a history of abuse of these powers by Police Officers. An official register recording the use of such powers, that is open to the public, could provide a powerful tool for ensuring accountability and for allowing Singaporeans to satisfy themselves that these powers are not being abused, by subjecting the exercise of these powers to public scrutiny.

Thirdly, I had proposed an appeal mechanism, where any person aggrieved by a move-on order can challenge it. But the Bill does not provide for any such mechanism. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of a complaint to the Commanding Officer. But that would presumably trigger an internal investigation at most, which is not transparent and may not be perceived as being fair and independent. In the Straits Times' interview that I referred to earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the need to ensure that aggrieved persons are able to seek redress from the Minister or the Attorney-General's Chambers. Unfortunately, that need has not been met in the present Bill, in respect of the move-on powers.

I come to the final part of my speech, on the new section 38, which deals with the filming of law enforcement activities. This provision has been justified on the basis of the media coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks last November, where the terrorists themselves were able to watch law enforcement operations unfold on Indian TV stations. That is obviously an undesirable state of affairs, and I would support a law to prevent that situation from taking place in Singapore.

Preventing what happened in Mumbai means preventing footage, or indeed any news, about ongoing security operations from being disseminated, where such footage or news could jeopardise the success of the operation or otherwise compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. This objective cannot be objectionable to anyone.

But even as we try to protect law enforcement, we have to ensure that citizens are not prevented from legitimate filming, and especially filming of law enforcement officers engaging in abusive or unlawful behaviour. Ms Sylvia Lim has referred to the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson. So I will not speak further on that.

If there are abuses by law enforcement officers, then surely citizens have the right to know, and to film and record these acts as evidence. The case from London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson shows the importance of this, to prevent cover-ups from taking place. If the other passer-by had been prevented from filming the pushing incident, who knows whether or when the truth would have come to light? I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that the filming of law enforcement abuses is not prohibited by this provision. Yet, there are no explicit controls or checks on how law enforcement officers may exercise that power under section 38, and as with the move-on powers, no formal avenue of recourse for citizens aggrieved by an order made against him.

Imagine a situation such as that of Mr Tomlinson in London. In the midst of a riot, an abuse takes place against an innocent bystander. The duty officer demands that a bystander who films the incident surrender his camera, claiming that the film shows his identity and therefore threatens his safety. What, then, is this innocent bystander to do? The offence in section 38(4) does not contain a defence of reasonable excuse for not complying with an order, unlike in section 37 in relation to non-compliance with move-on orders. In such a situation, the person who made the film of the abuse by law enforcement would have no choice but to surrender the film, otherwise he runs a very likely risk of being charged and prosecuted.

Indeed, section 38(2)(a) empowers law enforcement to require a person to delete the film that is made - but if that is the case, then how is that person, or the police itself, able to subsequently evaluate or verify whether the deletion had been lawfully ordered, without knowing for sure what the content was? It should be adequate that the film be seized, to prevent it from being disseminated.

Furthermore, the new section 38(3) very clearly goes beyond what is legitimately necessary for the objective of protecting law enforcement activities. Section 38(3) permits law enforcement to forfeit any film equipment that has been seized, and to destroy it or dispose of it in such manner as the Commissioner of Police may decide. While seizure of equipment may further the objective of avoiding a compromise of on-going security operations, the forfeiture and destruction of equipment after the fact do not. Instead, it is simply punitive, and hence is not reasonable at all. It, therefore, seems to me that section 38, as currently worded, overreaches and goes far beyond what is needed to prevent media coverage from compromising ongoing law enforcement activities and the safety of officers.

Sir, I have taken great pains to point out the flaws in this Bill as I see them. I do think that they are major flaws, with the potential to greatly affect Singaporeans' lives and their constitutional rights for the worse. That being the case, I would propose that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration.

When this House amended the Penal Code in late 2007, there had been extensive public consultations, even though Members would remember that I had strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill and eventually voted against it. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had recently undergone a public consultation. In contrast, there was no public consultation at all on this Bill, even though it directly affects Singaporeans' fundamental liberties under the Constitution and also has the potential to greatly impact our day-to-day lives, especially in relation to the new move-on powers. The fact that 12 Members of this House have decided to speak on the Bill shows that it is of immense public interest. Yet, it has only been three weeks or so, since the Bill was first made available to the public after its first reading in Parliament. Because of all this, it would make great sense for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to comment on the Bill.

Sir, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in my speech, I have no choice but to oppose the Public Order Bill in its present form.

[...]

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam):

[...]

Mr Siew Kum Hong said the right of assembly being subjected to permits emasculates that right. It is again a surprising point because if you accept that, at present, permits are required, then all they are doing is continuing with the same regime. If the right has not been emasculated until now, how does the POA represent a new emasculation? He also referred to the PAP cycling event, which my colleague had answered in some detail before and I will not deal with it.

Mr Siew also wanted to know if a large gathering of persons can be gazetted as a special event, the answer is "no". It is not a large gathering of persons per se but a special event as the Act describes and as I have set out in my speech.

Mr Siew also acknowledges that there exists now a gap between seizable and non-seizable offences, but he says the Police do not really need the power to deal with the gap because now when they give friendly advice, most people accept the advice and move on, so why do you need move-on powers? But the point is, if everyone was as reasonable as Mr Siew, there would be no problem. The one thing that we all know in society is that there would always be a group which would engage in what I described as farcical antics, and would deliberately go out there and engage in a degree of lawbreaking, and we want to cover that situation as well.

He also suggested, why not have a register where all instances of move-on powers exercised, will be listed. The answer is, we are really trying to keep the move-on powers in a very low-key way; we do not want to make it an offence, we do not want to even keep a register of people who have been subjected to these move-on powers. It is something that is exercised on-the-spot and we move on from it.

Sir, I think I have covered all the points or the points that I can recall. I know that Prof. Thio has made a number of drafting suggestions, and what I would say is that we take her suggestions seriously. We have gone through this Bill very carefully. We will look at the points that she made. If anything needs to be done further later on, we will always consider it. We may even check with her as to what some of the points were.

[...]

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I have four clarifications for the Minister.

My first clarification, Sir, is that he mentioned my point about the right to freedom of assembly having been emasculated. I just want to clarify that, in my view, it has been emasculated even under the current system. So I take his point that there is no difference between the MOA regime and the new POA regime, and that is why it continues to be emasculated.

Sir, my second point. The Minister has referred to a group of persons who insist in engaging what the Minister has described as farcical activities, and he has taken that as a reason to explain why move-on powers are required. Sir, my question is: how will move-on powers actually change their behaviour. Let us just think through the scenarios. If this group of persons are engaged deliberately in civil disobedience - by definition, "civil disobedience" means deliberate flouting and contravention of laws, committing an offence that they disagree with - then they are already breaking the law and are committing an offence. And it is perfectly open for the Police to issue a warning to them to cease and desist, failing which they will be arrested and charged for the offence. If they are not committing an offence, then what is the harm in allowing them to continue to do what they do? The introduction of the move-on powers instead creates an offence. If they are doing something which does not constitute an offence right now and yet they are issued with a move-on order, and then they do not move on, then they would have committed an offence. So, Sir, the loophole is not in the enforcement powers of the Police, the loophole is in the substantive offences that are out there. So I would just like the Minister to clarify that point when he says that there is a loophole in the enforcement powers, when I think it is really a loophole in the substantive offences.

Sir, my third clarification. In my speech, I did propose that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee given that it has only been three weeks since it was first published and first made available to the public until the second reading today. So I hope the Minister can respond to that.

My last point, Sir, is that the Minister has stated that films that are seized can be destroyed only by order of the Commissioner. I think he said that twice in his response. From my reading of section 38, that position is correct only insofar as the films were seized in the first place under section 38(3). However, Sir, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to section 38(2)(a), and if I may just read it out, Sir, an officer may "direct the person reasonably believed to be making, exhibiting or communicating a film or picture, or about to do so, to immediately cease making, exhibiting or communicating the film, and either to immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy the film or picture, or to surrender the film or picture to the officer". In short, Sir, what section 38(2)(a) says is that an officer has the power at the immediate point to compel a person to destroy the film. And in that scenario, how would we know what the film was, and on what basis can aggrieved person make a complaint?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, whether it continues to be emasculated or being newly emasculated, I hope Mr Siew will be generous enough to accept that I made the point that since 2000, there have been a series of changes that have substantially liberalised the political space. He also fails to acknowledge the impact of the Speakers' Corner and how useful it has been for those with a genuine cause. The real difference between Mr Siew and ourselves is that, really, as a matter of philosophy, people should be allowed to demonstrate whenever they like, without permits, because that is a fundamental right, and that is a fundamental freedom. I think even those who have expressed some concern about this provision will sound very extreme, and they have said so. For example, Prof. Thio acknowledged that you cannot have these rights in vacuo, without concomitant responsibilities. That is a fairly basic point that most lawyers will appreciate.

Second point - Mr Siew asked what is the problem if four persons or fewer come together and carry out activities, which are not illegal per se. I gave a specific example in my responses to the MPs, which is during the ASEAN Summit in 2007, we had this farcical group - groups of four - who played catch-and-mouse game with the Police while the Police were engaged in very high security operation of protecting and making sure the Summit was successful. As Singaporeans, do we really want to face up to this? Or do we want to give the Police the power to ask these people to move on? It is as simple as that. We have to live in a real world with people who do those things.

Mr Siew asked if the Bill is going to be sent to a Select Committee - I think if the answer was not clear to him - it is not going to be sent to the Select Committee. We do not see a need to.

Finally, as regards his point on section 38, the answer I was giving was to the question as to what happened if the film was taken by the Police and there it could be deleted only on the order of the Commissioner. Mr Siew is referring to a situation where the Police is not on the ground to direct the deletion. Sir, I explained the dilemma that we had. These are sometimes fast-moving operations, and the police officers have to make decisions on-the-spot because a film that is taken of an operation that is on-going, if left alone without being seized, could very easily go throughout the world within a matter of minutes. So, it is always this balance that we have to worry about. And when looking at this legislation - people like Mr Siew look at all the extreme possibilities where there could be abuse by the Police - we also have to look at all the other situations where there could be abuse by the individual, and then we have to draw a line somewhere. This is where we have drawn the line. I hope Members can appreciate that these are all difficult situations, and we have to protect both the society and the Police and not look at every Police action as possibly being illegal.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: May I make two points? My first point, Sir, is with the Minister's explanation on the powers under section 38(2)(a). He mentioned that is to address a difficult decision the officer has to make on the ground. Will the Minister not agree then that in every scenario, a smart officer - and I hope all our officers are smart - will then demand that a picture be deleted, instead of seizing it and then submitting it for the Commissioner to decide what to do. Because if he orders for the film to be deleted on the spot, then he does not have to run the risk of being second-guessed subsequently or being found out to have made a wrongful order. That is my first question for the Minister.

My second point, Sir, is with reference to the Minister's response to my first clarification where he says I take an extreme view. I think if the Minister reviews my speech, he will find that I do not think I took an extreme view, in fact, it is a nuanced view. If I may just reiterate, it is not an absolute right to demonstrate anywhere at any time, as Singaporeans please. I advocate a position where Singaporeans have the right to demonstrate but they have to notify the Police and there are certain prohibited classes of processions/assemblies which should not be permitted. If there are any public safety or law and order concerns, then the Police can ask for changes to be made. That is a position which I do not think is extreme at all.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, I think there is a fundamental disagreement. Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They will be smart and they will direct deletion because they do not want a record of what they have just done. I come from the opposite perspective. We come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest. It does not mean that no abuses ever take place, but they are fundamentally honest and I do not believe that each time an officer will direct the deletion on- the-spot to prevent a record from existing, And, do not forget, the Act sets out the criteria on which these directions can be given - an officer has to justify why did he direct the deletion on-the-spot as opposed to preserving the evidence.

Second, as regards Mr Siew's point about whether he is being extreme, I think the fact is that he comes from the philosophy that there must be a right to demonstrate and a right to assemble wherever one likes, subject to some restrictions. And he is fundamentally opposed to an imposition of a permit regime where if you want to do so outside of the prescribed areas, you have to apply for a permit. That is where we differ philosophically , and I am not sure I can take the debate much further.

Running to stand still

2009-04-08T11:00:00.002+08:00

So it's almost 2 months to the day since my last post. Someone pointed out that I might expect more visitors to this blog today (thanks to this article in TODAY and an interview in ST which I don't currently have a link to), so I thought I should post something.

Since my last post, I've been busy -- first getting married ("finally!" some would say) and then swamped at work. But the super-busy period looks to have abated somewhat, so I hope to spend more time on NMP work.

I know I have a real backlog for this blog, covering my speeches from this year's Budget debates, my speech last month on the Films Act amendments, and some stuff from last year. I will endeavour to start reducing that next week -- after the upcoming Parliamentary sitting next Monday, when I will speak on the Public Order Bill.

More thoughts on Jobs Credit scheme

2009-02-09T01:19:00.003+08:00

After listening to Minister Tharman's round-up speech on the Budget Statement, here are my final thoughts on the Jobs Credit scheme:

It is clear to me, from the Minister's speech, that the direct intended outcome of JCS is essentially to give money to businesses, for them to spend as they desire. It is, as I said in my speech, a handout for businesses. If we accept that our reserves are so precious, then there is a valid question as to whether it is right to just give them out to businesses like that. Also, many, like I, would question the fairness of giving handouts for businesses, but not Singaporeans.
The Minister cited some examples of how the funds could be used, ranging from keeping workers to paying suppliers on time. But other possible uses include dividends for shareholders, bigger bonuses for CEOs, spending on incentive trips and remitting back to foreign headquarters for MNCs. In other words, saving jobs is only one possible use, and there is no direct correlation between JCS and saving jobs. I think this is quite different from how JCS was first portrayed when it was announced, and that mis-portrayal was one of the key reasons for my decision to focus on JCS.
The consequences of JCS include a stimulation in demand (as is implicit in the Minister's references to the multiplier effect from JCS), and retention of jobs through keeping businesses afloat. But the Government has repeatedly pointed out that demand stimulation in Singapore is of limited utility, due to the high leakage in our open economy. So I would not place so much weight on that as a benefit of JCS. As for retention of jobs through keeping businesses afloat, that is a very indirect outcome that is subject to many dependencies, including sufficient demand as I mentioned in my speech.
The Minister and many MPs have cited anecdotal evidence of businesses saying that JCS would affect their retrenchment decisions. I may be cynical, but I would take those statements of support with a big pinch of salt. If Santa Claus asks a kid who has just received a great big present for Christmas whether he was happy, would the kid say no? Especially when there is the prospect of another such present next year? In fact, I have received a lot of support from folks in the private sector agreeing with my speech privately. One even described the reasoning in my speech as being exactly identical to how his management team thinks through such issues.
Finally, it has been suggested that JCS will make businesses more ready to retrench foreigners as opposed to locals. This may not be quite right. The employers' CPF contribution rate for most locals (excluding older locals, etc.) is 14.5%. JCS equates to a 9% point reduction in that rate. So local employees are still 5.5% more expensive than foreign employees. An employer who is minded to think this way, of axing the cheapest employees, will still look to retrench locals first, since they are still more expensive even with JCS. The exception would be older workers, since the employers' contribution rate is lower. With JCS, the Government would actually be subsidising the business for employing these older workers.

These reasons are why, even though I thought Minister Tharman delivered a really solid speech, I remain unconvinced about the merits of JCS. But like I said, I hope I am wrong.

This just in: do welfare benefits really erode the work ethic?

2009-02-04T15:52:00.002+08:00

Someone just sent this to me -- it is an Economist article titled "British attitudes to work: Can't or won't?" Very interesting, very timely, I only wish I had it 30 hours ago. This is how it starts:

THAT mythical beast, homo economicus, is utterly clear about the purpose of work: to get paid. He is keener on leisure than on work, and if money can be got without effort, he downs tools. If real people feel the same, then bountiful out-of-work benefits should be found in the same places as work-shy citizens.

Yet a cross-country comparison of benefits and attitudes to work published on January 28th finds precisely the opposite pattern.

Video: Speech on Budget Statement 2009, 3 February 2009

2009-02-04T09:37:00.003+08:00

The TOC folks seem to have beaten me to it -- here is the video of my speech in 3 parts. The exchanges with PAP MPs are in Part 3. Thanks watchtowerv!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Budget 2009: Speech on Budget Statement, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T23:27:00.005+08:00

This is the final prepared text of my speech on this year's Budget. The version that I actually delivered may have some minor changes, but this is fairly definitive.

Right now, it looks like this speech may be under some sort of media blackout. The only media coverage I've seen is limited to the points I made about the use of the reserves, and the desirability of having the President publish details of his deliberations in approving the use of the reserves.

To me, those were self-evident and entirely uncontroversial. I think the points I make about the Jobs Credit scheme are much more interesting and newsworthy. Yet, I have dim hopes of them being covered by the MSM with fairness or in detail.

After I completed my speech, four PAP MPs stood up to question me. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it was really quite intimidating and unnerving. I really had to think on my feet. I hope I acquitted myself well.

When Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke earlier in the day, he had six PAP MPs stand up to question him, and that is being covered in the MSM, including the CNA website and on TV. Curiously, the CNA and TV coverage absolutely omits any mention of my exchanges with the PAP MPs. ST does have a short reference to my disagreement with the Jobs Credit scheme, but with very little detail. It also looks a little odd, that they used my photo to lead the story but there is only a one-line reference to my speech. I'll wait and see what is published tomorrow. [update 1: I thought the coverage in ST and TODAY turned out to be, on the whole, quite fair]

I'll try to get my exchanges with the PAP MPs transcribed. In the meantime, I'm trying to get the video uploaded -- Youtube has rejected the entire speech (plus questions) because the single clip is too long. [update 2: the video is now available here]

Budget 2009

1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the Budget Statement. I will touch on three aspects of this Budget: the use of the reserves, the Jobs Credit scheme, and the amount of help for the retrenched and unemployed.

Using the reserves

2. First, the unprecedented use of our reserves, to fund the Jobs Credit scheme and the Special Risk-sharing Initiative. I applaud the Government for taking this step.

3. Our reserves have always almost bordered on the mythical: Singaporeans speak of them proudly and reverently, but we know so little about these fabled reserves. Using them now sends the right signal about just how dire the situation is. It assures Singaporeans that the reserves are not sacrosanct, that they are not being accumulated for the sake of accumulating them, and that they will be used when it is necessary to do so. If the worst economic crisis the world has seen in six decades does not merit the use of the reserves, then nothing ever will.

4. But I have some concerns about the process in which the use of the reserves is being approved. We have always been told that the reserves are a hard-earned strategic asset of Singapore, and that the Elected Presidency is necessary to safeguard them. And yet, there has been precious little information about the deliberations of the President or of the Council of Presidential Advisers, in giving in-principle approval to use the reserves.

5. The Government should ask the President and the Council to publish detailed reasons for their decisions. This is the first time we are using the reserves. It is therefore a golden opportunity to define the principles for doing so. The Elected Presidency is all about the process for using the reserves – so it is important to ensure that the process in this instance is transparent and clearly articulated.

6. The Government has stated some principles for using the reserves, but principles articulated by the Government do not -- and more importantly, should not -- bind the President. After all, the President is supposed to be the independent check on the Government in its use of the reserves. The President is the guardian of the so-called second key to the reserves. It would therefore be helpful for the President, and the Council of Presidential Advisers, to publicly explain to Singaporeans why they approved the use of the reserves, and what principles they intend to adopt moving forward. Doing so would buttress the institution of the Elected Presidency.

7. These principles and guidelines do not have to be legally binding or even binding on subsequent requests to use the reserves. But they would certainly provide helpful guidance if we ever want to use the reserves again. Now is the time to set a sound foundation for the future.

8. This is all the more important, given that this Government has actually accumulated sufficient reserves during its term to fund the Jobs Credit and SRI schemes. The Government should therefore ask the President to explain whether and why he is satisfied with the Government’s reasons for not using its accumulated reserves.

Jobs Credit scheme

9. I now turn to the Jobs Credit scheme. It is one of the lynchpins of the Budget, and it seems to have caught the imagination of Singaporeans. Call it what you will, but it is fundamentally a wage subsidy for employers. It equates to a 9 percentage point cut in the employers’ CPF contribution rate. It will cost taxpayers S$4.5 billion dollars, and will be funded by our reserves.

10. The objective of this scheme is to save jobs. But how effective will it be?

11. Clearly, the effectiveness of the scheme for each employer will depend on the proportion of its costs attributable to wages. If wages form just 10% of an employer’s overall costs, then the Jobs Credit scheme will reduce its total costs by up to 0.8%. On the other hand, if 70% of costs are wages, then the scheme will reduce total costs by a maximum of 5.5%. These are theoretical maximums, based on improbable assumptions of 100% local employees, all earning $2500 per month or less.

12. The Minister has explained that the global economic crisis is caused by a worldwide collapse in demand. Simply put, there is massively reduced demand for the goods and services produced by our economy.

13. Last week, the EDB released a report on the manufacturing sector’s business expectations for the next six months. This report paints a shocking picture of just how dire things are expected to get. An across-the-board negative outlook for the first half of 2009 for manufacturing, with similarly negative forecasts for output and employment for Q1. For instance, 92% of data storage firms and 81% of precision engineering firms predict a drop in output.

14. When demand falls off a cliff like this, many businesses will face a drop in revenue far exceeding 8%. Businesses will have no choice but to cut costs to stay afloat.

15. In this context, I suspect that the Jobs Credit scheme will turn out to just a band-aid. Yes, it will provide a temporary cushion for businesses, especially SMEs. Yes, it will make employers a little bit more reluctant to lay off locals. Yes, whatever protection it creates will probably benefit the low-income more than the high-income. But it will still only be a band-aid at best, in stopping job losses.

16. And what a very expensive band-aid it will be. Citigroup’s head of Singapore research Dr Chua Hak Bin has pointed out that if the Jobs Credit scheme helps to save 50,000 jobs, then the cost of saving each job is $90,000 – three times the median annual salary of each job in Singapore. Even if it helps to save 100,000 jobs, the cost of saving each job is $45,000 – still 50% more than the median annual salary.

17. And contract workers, who are probably most at risk when a business cuts staffing costs, may not benefit from the Jobs Credit scheme. Contractors are usually hired by employment agencies and farmed out to companies. The agencies will receive the subsidy. They have no incentive to pass it on to the companies. Unlike with property tax rebates, the Government has not exhorted these agencies to pass the savings on to their customers. And so, the scheme could make contractors, who form a growing proportion of the workforce, even more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.

18. I agree with people like NUS professor Shandre Thangavelu, who has said that the Jobs Credit scheme will only have a short-run impact on the retrenchment behaviour of employers. Even the MOF team who designed the scheme is unable to predict just how many jobs it will help to save, and for how long. Mr Poon Hong Yuen, who led the team that put the scheme together, said:

“If just because of this they rethink (retrenchments), then I think it’s already quite an achievement.”

19. I would praise the Ministry for its willingness to take a chance on the Jobs Credit scheme. I think this sort of policy risk-taking is important and helpful. But I don’t think the risk will pan out in this case. And I think Mr Poon sets a surprisingly modest target. At $4.5 billion, I would expect more.

20. The Jobs Credit scheme will end up benefiting capital owners disproportionately. It will reduce business costs, but I do not expect it to save very many jobs, and even then not for very long. It is essentially a special transfer to capital owners, such as business-owners and entrepreneurs. And considering that around 50% of the Singapore corporate sector is foreign-owned, a big chunk of this transfer will leak out of Singapore.

21. Today’s Straits Times Forum carried a letter from someone who works in an SME, praising the Jobs Credit scheme. But if you drill into the details, it is clear that the business was not considering retrenchments in the first place. Instead, it is considering using the Jobs Credit funding to invest further in its business. In these times, that is not a bad thing. But it clearly shows up the limitations in the scheme’s ability to achieve its stated goal of saving jobs.

22. The Jobs Credit scheme will have, at best, a marginal impact on businesses’ decisions on whether to retrench. Businesses facing collapsed demand will still retrench. Businesses doing well will reap a windfall benefit. MNCs will still, by and large, follow their corporate headquarters’ directions on retrenchments.

23. True, the Jobs Credit scheme is not meant to be the complete answer. It is not a panacea. It is one piece of the puzzle, albeit a big centrepiece, and there are many other measures to reduce business costs and help businesses through this difficult period. But the question must be whether spending $4.5 billion on the Jobs Credit scheme produces the most bang for the buck for Singaporeans.

24. This is a hand-out for businesses. But we have always opposed hand-outs for Singaporeans. Why are businesses different? In giving all this money away to businesses, are we somehow being psychologically held hostage to the ideological dogma that the best way to help Singaporeans is to help businesses, instead of helping Singaporeans directly?

Lack of help for the retrenched and unemployed

26. That brings me to my third point. This Budget does little for the retrenched and the unemployed.

27. The various elements that made up the GST offset package first announced in 2007 have been enhanced. The amount of GST credits for each household has been doubled, and there are additional S&CC and rental rebates.

28. But let us be honest with ourselves. These are mostly enhancements of measures previously announced to alleviate the pain from the GST hike in 2007. But the coming storm will inflict much more pain and much more suffering than the GST hike of two percentage points did. To equate the two is to severely understate the impact on Singaporeans in the coming year. They are simply incomparable. It is inconceivable to me, that the exact same tools used to soften the impact of the GST hike could be enough to address the worst recession the world has seen in 60 years.

29. In the past few weeks, various ministers have spoken about the need to save jobs. Rightly so. Saving jobs has to be the #1 priority. I may disagree on the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit scheme in achieving this goal, but I do not argue with the goal itself. And I would argue that helping those who have lost their jobs deserves to be the #2 priority.

30. Prevention is better than cure, so the saying goes. “Better than”, not “instead of”. When prevention fails, we still need a cure. Saving jobs is only one side of the coin; the other side of the coin must surely be to help those whose jobs were not saved. This Budget seems to have produced the singular oddity of a one-sided coin, where we concentrate so much of our efforts on saving jobs, but do so little to help those who do lose their jobs.

31. It is almost as if the retrenched are being dealt a double-whammy: the first hit is the loss of their jobs, and the second hit is the lack of assistance for them.

32. To be fair, SPUR have something for the unemployed. An unemployed, low skilled Singaporean who attends training courses to learn new skills can get an allowance of $4 per hour. A PMET who undergoes a PCP – a professional conversion programme -- can get an allowance of up to $1000 per month.

33. But SPUR is not without problems in implementation. It adopts the co-payment requirement of so many government measures. This strict insistence on a 10% co-payment of course fees means that trainees must still fork up an upfront fee. This can be difficult for many, since they by definition have no source of income. We should provide trainees with interest-free loans for the co-paid amount, with repayments in instalments and possibly interest-bearing after the trainee finds a job, which can be monitored through the CPF system.

34. Also, the PCPs will be unattractive to most retrenched PMETs. Some retrenched PMETs will have skills that are obsolete, and PCPs will be appropriate for them. But the majority of retrenched PMETs will have skills that are not obsolete; they are retrenched not because they are in sunset industries, but because their companies needed to cut costs.

35. Their skills will be in demand when the economy picks up again. They do not need and they do not want retraining for a new profession, because they will in all likelihood continue doing the same thing once the economy recovers. And in most cases, that is the rational choice, if only because retraining for a new profession means starting all over again at entry-level pay, wasting their accumulated experience in their existing profession.

36. For these retrenched PMETs, SPUR does not provide meaningful assistance. For these retrenched PMETs, the Budget has little else. For these retrenched PMETs, there is little help forthcoming.

Suggestions

38. I spoke about the Government’s approach to helping Singaporeans in my Budget speech last year. I spoke about my disappointment at how we put so much more emphasis on GDP growth than on helping less fortunate Singaporeans. I criticized this Government’s approach to social assistance, of being willing to let Singaporeans suffer rather than risk any wastage of public funds in helping them.

39. This year’s Budget again does not risk any wastage of public funds in helping Singaporeans. But it does risk wasting public funds in helping businesses. Even in these tough times, we do not give away money with no strings attached to individual Singaporeans. But it seems that these tough times justify giving away money with no strings attached to businesses, regardless of whether they are prospering or despairing.

40. Last year, I was criticized for being reckless and dangerous. At the risk of being called the same or worse this year, I will have to press on. I continue to believe that it is possible to craft targeted social assistance schemes to help the unemployed, that minimize the risk of eroding the work ethic. I have a few suggestions, and I hope I can articulate them clearly enough.

41. I ask the Government to introduce some form of unemployment insurance. In 2007, we introduced social risk-pooling for longevity risk, which is the risk of living longer than we expect or can afford to. Why not social risk-pooling for retrenchment? Not unemployment as such, but targeted for retrenchment with low benefits. This can be restricted so that only workers who are retrenched with payouts below a certain stipulated amount, say the lower of three months of the last-drawn salary or a stipulated quantum, get a few hundred dollars for so long as they remain unemployed up to six months, provided they seek re-employment during this period. This is targeted and limited. This will not sustain long-term unemployment, but is intended to tide over those who have been retrenched while they find another job. The pay-out will be small, but the assurance to those retrenched could mean so much.

42. And if the Government will not introduce unemployment insurance on a permanent basis, then I ask it to consider unemployment benefits for the retrenched, just for this year. It can be limited to workers who were retrenched since last November or who are retrenched this year. The amount can be limited to the lower of half of the last drawn salary or $1000 per month, capped at 6 months of payments. Just like the Jobs Credit scheme, it is a one-off scheme in light of the worst recession in 60 years.

43. But I know that realistically, both of these options will not be acceptable to this Government. And so I ask the Government to introduce a temporary assistance loan scheme, loosely modeled after the UK’s social fund. It should be made available to unemployed Singaporeans including the recently retrenched, to provide small loans for certain approved purposes. We can call this the No Jobs Credit scheme.

44. Examples of approved purposes could include medical expenses that are not covered by insurance, Medishield or Medifund for whatever reason, and expenses not covered by Comcare for whatever reason. To avoid abuse or misuse, the loan amounts could be disbursed directly to the persons charging for these bills and expenses. The loans should be interest-free and payable in small instalments once the borrower starts working again, perhaps by deductions from salaries through the CPF framework. Such a scheme would reduce the incidence of folks in desperate need for cash going to loan sharks or maxing out their credit cards, which would result in a downward spiral of crippling interest at a time when they could least afford it.

45. I also ask the Government to introduce more special transfers to the low-income. The doubling of GST Credits and the additional SC&C and rental rebates are helpful, but they are small in size. Inflation hit 6.5% last year, and even in this recessionary environment, there will be a time lag before prices go down. More special transfers in the first half of this year will help the low-income cope, until such time as disinflation kicks in. This will also provide a helpful fiscal boost, given that the MAS’s own Monetary Model of Singapore shows that direct transfers to the low-income has a high fiscal multiplier for the Singapore economy.

46. Sir, I do not see these suggestions as reckless or dangerous. I do not think they will necessarily result in a bloated bureaucracy. And even if they require some more resources on the part of the Government for implementation, that should not, in and of itself, automatically rule out policies that could benefit Singaporeans. Maintaining a lean government is a means to an end, and cannot be the end itself.

47. I know that there is Comcare, and it plays an important role in helping needy Singaporeans. Today’s edition of the TODAY newspaper carried a useful reminder of that scheme. But it is an ad hoc scheme that is highly discretionary, and only intended for 3 to 6 months of assistance. That timeframe may be too short for retrenched workers in this recession. The discretionary element does not give workers the all-important assurance and security that a formalized scheme provides. These times are already so uncertain, why add to the stress of retrenched workers by making assistance uncertain as well?

48. I think we can, and we must, do more and do better for Singaporeans who lose their jobs. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated for his second term as US President in 1937, he said in his inaugural address:

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

49. This year, there will be many amongst us who will have too little. Economists have forecast anything between 30,000 and 300,000 jobs lost over the next 1 to 2 years. But this Budget does little to provide for them. What then is the extent of our progress? Singaporeans will have to judge for themselves.

Speech at media launch of U60 festival, 2 December 2008

2008-12-03T20:32:00.003+08:00

The U60 Organising Committee kindly invited me to be the Guest of Honour at the media launch of the U60 festival, which celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was coverage in The Straits Times today, and also on The Online Citizen. In fact, TOC filmed the event, so they may be putting up videos of the event soon.

The prepared text of my speech is below.

Speech at media launch of U60 festival

1. Your Excellency, Holger Standerstskjold, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Singapore, distinguished guests, good afternoon. Thank you for taking time out from your busy schedules to attend this event.

2. I would like to start by congratulating the U60 Organising Committee, their Organising Partners MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) and The Online Citizen, and the various participating organizations, including the European Commission, for successfully putting together this festival of events to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would also like to thank the U60 Organising Committee, for inviting me, as a Nominated Member of Parliament, to be the guest of honour at this event.

3. The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. It resulted from the horrors of World War 2, and was the first international instrument to spell out the rights to which all human beings are entitled, simply by virtue of being human beings.

4. As the name suggests, the rights are universal in nature, cutting across all national, racial and ethnic lines. Countries from both East and West, including Burma, China, India, the Philippines and Thailand, voted to adopt the Universal Declaration. That in itself should have been sufficient to dispose of the smokescreen that was the “Asian Values” argument in the 1990s. Thankfully, this argument has long since been laid to rest.

5. But while human rights are universal, they have relevance in different ways to different contexts. Singapore is often criticized for alleged deficiencies in the protection of civil liberties. I happen to think that some of those criticisms have force. But I also believe that these criticisms are often unfair and one-sided, especially when they fail to note the tremendous progress that has been made in this country in the 43 years since independence. This success is real, and we cannot deny it. We see it, we experience it and we benefit from it every day, and it would be wrong to emphasise the negatives while ignoring the positives.

6. Still, the overall thrust of these criticisms is that we are not yet where we should be in the area of human rights, and that is something that I think many, if not most, Singaporeans would agree with. We may be moving in the right direction, but the pace could definitely be faster.

7. Some Singaporeans ask, why are human rights important to us? After all, we have done well so far, in a system where our human rights are given far less shrift than our responsibilities as citizens. Public discourse in Singapore frequently emphasizes our obligations and responsibilities, but seldom mentions our rights, whether as citizens, residents or just human beings. This does Singaporeans a disservice, and overlooks the roots of our existence.

8. Let us go back to the start of the story of Singapore as a modern, independent nation, in the 1950s when we were struggling for our independence. What was the basis of our claims to independence? Simply put, it was the notion that people have the right to self-determination. This right is embodied in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 1 of both Covenants read:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

9. So the very birth of our nation is rooted in human rights. If not for human rights, we could still be an English colony. This nation might not even exist. Do we still need to question the need for human rights in Singapore, or the relevance of human rights to Singapore?

10. And in these times of economic trouble, human rights remain just as important. Human rights are not luxuries reserved for times of prosperity; they are equally relevant and necessary in tough times. Workers need to be protected from exploitation by employers, while civil liberties ensure that all stakeholders’ interests are represented. As my Parliamentary colleague Professor Thio Li-Ann said a few months back:

“Where the Singapore model of law development is concerned … the idea is that economics must come first; no point having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I would disagree because if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry. I would also like to say that the economic policy is bad.”

11. Human rights are not a panacea to all problems, and they will not in and of themselves ensure a better tomorrow for us all. But they are an important and necessary ingredient in the evolution of Singapore, in our progress towards becoming, to quote Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech last year, “a City of Possibilities and a home for all of us”, where everyone belongs and is valued, and more importantly feel that they belong and are valued. If we want to be a place where creativity and innovation fluorish, where diversity is valued, then we have to do a better job of understanding, acknowledging and respecting human rights.

12. I know this is a cliché, but there is so much fear in Singapore when it comes to human rights. When many Singaporeans hear about human rights, there is a knee-jerk reaction grounded in fear and apprehension. It is as if human rights are by definition controversial, provocative and subversive. I cannot explain why, but I can say with certainty that this attitude exists, and pervades our society.

13. That is a real pity. This state of affairs retards, perhaps even prevents, the continued development of human rights in Singapore, when it does not have to be so. It is entirely unnecessary. I firmly believe that in Singapore, so long as one acts honestly and sincerely, and there is no transgression of the law, there is nothing to be afraid of.

14. Moreover, institutions in Singapore have a responsibility to be more open and receptive to the cause of human rights. It is a form of corporate social responsibility, if you will. Institutions in positions of power and authority have a moral duty to allow individuals to realize and actualize the full extent of their rights, or at least not stand in their way as they seek to do so. It would not be right to block the exercise of rights, or efforts to advance human rights, simply out of a fear of shadows.

15. And so I come to this group of young people in the U60 Organising Committee. They set an excellent example that we can all learn from. They understand the importance of human rights for Singapore, but more importantly they are sensitive to the existing landscape here and the need to navigate it carefully and creatively. And so, they have embarked on this effort to help Singaporeans understand better the relevance of human rights to them, to “mainstream” human rights if you will.

16. The activities under the U60 umbrella are varied and innovative. We have the exhibition here, which seeks to present a basic introduction to human rights with a particular focus on Singapore. There are forums, talks, and a short film showcase. There is a walk to raise awareness on violence against women, and even story-telling sessions. It is truly a party to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

17. I am proud to be associated with U60. Again, I congratulate the U60 team and the various organizations involved for their fine efforts. They show, very clearly, that the topic of human rights does not have to be controversial, provocative or taboo in Singapore, and that human rights are not only about civil liberties and are not the domain of activists only. Instead, human rights are relevant to everyday life, to you and me, to all of us. Human rights are universal. 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration, this is a timely reminder.

18. I wish everyone a fruitful U60 festival. Thank you, Your Excellency, Holger Standerstskjold, esteemed speakers, ladies and gentlemen.

WPQ 17 November 2008: Foreign Workers on Special Passes

2008-11-26T22:49:00.001+08:00

I asked some questions about foreign workers back in October, including the number of foreign workers on special passes. Acting Minister Gan did not have the figures on him. So I followed up with a written question last week.

I think to be fair, the number of complaints as a percentage of the total number of foreign workers here is quite low. But be that as it may, even one case is one case too many. These are after all human beings and human lives that we are talking about, with knock-on consequences for the workers' families at home. Just like workplace safety, we should have a zero-tolerance approach to the exploitation of foreign workers.

WPQ

FOREIGN WORKERS ON SPECIAL PASSES
(Numbers)

6. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many foreign workers are currently on special passes because they are assisting the Ministry in investigations; (b) of these special pass holders, how many of them have employment under the Temporary Job Scheme; and (c) for each of the previous 5 years, how many special passes have been issued and what was the average duration of validity.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the course of investigations, MOM will assess whether a foreign worker’s continued presence in Singapore is required in the event of a trial. If the foreign worker’s assistance is no longer needed and he is no longer being employed, he will be repatriated. If his assistance is required, he will be issued with a Special Pass for the period of investigations. During this period, MOM will facilitate the worker’s employment under the Temporary Job Scheme (TJS).

Since 2005, there has been on average about 2,500 foreign prosecution witnesses on Special Pass at any one time. As of October 2008, there are 537 foreign workers employed under TJS and another 1,598 foreign prosecution witnesses on Special Pass. Of the latter group, most have indicated to MOM that they do not need the TJS as they have alternative means of subsistence and accommodation. Nevertheless, if the foreigners are unable to find work under TJS and have no means of subsistence, MOM would assist them with housing and upkeep, or expedite their repatriation where possible.

The average time taken for investigations to complete is 3 months but this period could vary depending on the complexity of the cases. Cases that require prosecution may also take a longer time to conclude. While MOM makes every effort to speed up investigations involving these workers to allow them to return home as soon as possible, it is also important to ensure that each case is thoroughly investigated.

OPQ 21 October 2008: Employment of Foreign Workers Without Jobs

2008-11-26T00:42:00.002+08:00

A while back, there were some media reports about foreign workers being brought into Singapore without sufficient work being present for them. They would have incurred a mountain of debt to get here, yet once they get here, they don't get paid what they were promised, because there's just not enough work for them. In a nutshell, the workers are being cheated by unscrupulous local companies.

I'm told by NGO activists in this area that this is how the gravy train works. The worker pays a large upfront sum (up to USD10k) to an agent in his home country. The agent keeps some of that as his cut, and sends the balance to Singapore, either to another agent here or to the would-be employer. If there is an agent here, the local agent takes his own cut, and the balance of the upfront sum goes to the employer.

The worker is comes to Singapore. The employer puts up the worker at the employer's cost, which is what the regulations require. However, the employer does not really have work for the worker. The worker works a couple of days a week. Instead of being paid the monthly salary he should be getting, the worker only gets paid on a daily basis, for those days he works. He goes without work, and pay, for the other days.

The employer funds all this, out of the balance of the upfront sum received from the worker's agent. After a couple of months, the employer tells the worker that there is no more work. The worker either goes home, or files a complaint with MOM. If you follow the money, it seems that the employer is funding all this, not with a proper project, but with the upfront payment from the worker. And of course, the agent(s) always makes money.

In the meantime, the cycle starts again with another unsuspecting victim.

The rules are meant to prevent this sort of abuse, by requiring employers who want to bring in foreign workers to certify that they have a project and require workers for that project. However, the grapevine suggests that this system is being manipulated, and somehow employers who do not really have projects -- normally, entities who pass themselves off as sub-contractors -- are able to bring in workers. This is something that Baey Yam Keng alludes to in his question. When they are complained against, some simply close shop and then the people behind them set up new companies. And then the gravy train resumes.

I don't know how true the above is. But it sickened me when the activists explained it to me. It disgusted me that there are actually people amongst us who would do this sort of thing, exploit their fellow human beings, vulnerable persons like migrant workers at that. Once again, this is the free market at work.

So when this subject came up in Parliament, I chimed in with a few questions. I was gratified to see my fellow MPs filing these questions and speaking up, which is why I am posting the exchanges in full. They are good people. I'd also like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to all of you who had helped me out on this issue -- you know who you are. Kudos and keep up the good work.

OPQ

EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS WITHOUT JOBS
(Enforcement action against errant employers)

3. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) why are manpower agencies allowed to bring in foreign workers when there are no proper jobs for them to do; (b) what safeguards are in place to prevent the exploitation and abuse of foreign workers who come to Singapore; (c) whether there is a need to tighten the rules for bringing in foreign workers to ensure that jobs are available before they are brought in; (d) how many employers have been prosecuted for offences relating to the employment of foreign workers over the past one year; and (e) what were the penalties imposed and how much was recovered for these foreign workers.

4. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many complaints have been received from foreign workers on work permits that they had no or little work or no pay each year, over the last five years; (b) what protection do foreign workers have, given the companies' ability to terminate their work permits if foreign workers complain to MOM; and (c) whether there are loopholes in the system that companies are exploiting to bring in desperate foreign workers.

5. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how pervasive is the reported practice of foreign workers brought to Singapore on work permits but without ready or regular work; (b) since 2005, how many complaints per year has the Ministry received from work permit holders about lack of regular work; and (c) how can the Ministry ensure that work permit applications are approved to address real manpower demands for the purpose of supplementing the local workforce.

6. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies have been penalised for exploiting foreign workers by not giving them work or pay over the last five years; (b) what were the penalties imposed on these companies; and (c) whether the penalties should be reviewed and increased.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3 to 6 together as they are related.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me put things into perspective. The vast majority of foreign workers who come to Singapore have work and are being paid their salaries. The number of foreign workers that came to MOM each year to seek assistance for salary arrears has remained low at less than 0.2% of foreign workers on average. We do not capture specific data on foreign workers who have come to Singapore without work as such complaints comprise a very small number. As an indicator, the incidence of illegal deployment of foreign workers last year constituted less than 0.05% of foreign workers. This suggests that most workers do have work when they come here.

Nevertheless, the Ministry takes a serious view of employers who do not give their foreign workers work and those who do not pay their salaries. Under the Employment Act, employers who fail to pay salaries can be fined up to $1,000 per charge for first time offenders or face a jail term not exceeding six months or both. For repeat offenders, the fine is up to $2,000 per charge, or a jail term not exceeding one year or both. Up to September this year, we have prosecuted and fined nine employers for non-payment of salaries, out of which two cases involved foreign workers. Members may recall that earlier in 2007, this House passed changes to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to increase the penalties for offences under the Act. The Employment (Amendment) Bill tabled for First Reading yesterday will also increase the penalty for non-payment of salaries.

MOM has put in place measures in the work pass approval process to minimise the possibility of workers being brought in without jobs. For example, construction and marine companies need to show documentary proof that they have on-going projects before work permits are issued to them. For subcontractors, an endorsement of work is also required from their principal contractor. We will take action against errant employers but we should be mindful that we are dealing with a minority of errant employers. It is unwise to impose disproportionate restrictions in the work pass system to deal with the errant minority and as a result create unnecessary rigidity and inconvenience for the majority of responsible employers and their employees.

Ms Irene Ng raised the concern that employers may terminate the work permits of foreign workers and repatriate them if they complain to MOM. In such instances, MOM may allow these workers to change employers and continue to work here on a case-by-case basis if MOM determines that they have not committed any offence. Foreign workers who are needed as prosecution witnesses would be issued special passes which will allow them to continue to stay in Singapore. They are also allowed to be employed by another employer under the Temporary Job Scheme (TJS). In some cases, it may be in the best interest of the workers to return to their home countries, especially when there is no suitable work for them.

With regard to the media reports early this month about foreign workers of three marine companies not being provided with work and were not paid their salaries, my Ministry started investigations into the complaints earlier in September when the workers approached us. Preliminary findings show that these workers have work and were paid for the work done. Nonetheless, there are some irregularities detected in the payment of salaries and we have told the companies to rectify them. As investigation is still on-going, I would prefer not to discuss specific details of these cases at this point in time.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to remind employers that they should ensure foreign workers they bring in are gainfully and productively employed. When the services of the workers are no longer required, the employers should terminate the contracts and facilitate the workers to return to their home countries.

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I heard of a practice of employers who use their foreign worker quota as entitlement to bring in foreign workers. How does the Ministry prevent them from subsequently becoming foreign worker agents who sublet these extra workers and giving other employers the ease and flexibility of interim and immediate foreign labour? Such a practice still gives the foreign workers work but at the same time offers the second group of employers the ease and also convenience of foreign labour. I would like to ask the Minister how does the Ministry prevent such a practice, so that Singaporean workers are not discriminated because they are usually more expensive, and especially the low-income and contract workers in our population.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, we have different practices for different sectors of the industry because of the nature of the industry. In the construction sector, for example, projects tend to be lumpy and they vary from time to time, so there will be periods in between projects that contractors may not have jobs. And it is important for us to facilitate these contractors who have workers with them, whether local or foreign, to be able to provide subcontract work for the main contractors. There will be some flexibility that we will have to allow but we regulate that by ensuring that these contractors, before they employ the foreign workers, do have sufficient work. So we look at their job orders, the contracts that they have in hand, to ensure that they have sufficient work. But, again, as I said, these jobs will fluctuate from time to time, and when they are in between jobs, we need to ensure that there is certain flexibility. But in other sectors, manufacturing and services, for example, the employers have to employ their foreign workers in the job that they have specified in the work permit, so it is quite clear and specific. If the foreign workers want to change employer, they actually have to terminate the work permit and apply for a new work permit with the new employer.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, I have four supplementary questions for the Acting Minister, but they are all related. The first question: the Acting Minister has referred to special passes for workers who are required to stay to be prosecution witnesses. I would like to ask the Acting Minister at any given time, approximately how many workers will be on such passes, and of these workers, how many of them actually do manage to make use of the temporary work pass to find alternative employment.

My second question is this: of these workers who are asked to stay behind to be prosecution witnesses, are there any special provisions to assist them with housing? Because there will be a period of time where they are looking for alternative employment, and so they will not have accommodation, and what assistance will we be giving to them, given that we are asking them to stay in Singapore?

The third question relates to the workers who are not required to stay as prosecution witnesses. My understanding is that they are then repatriated back to their home country. Is there any allowance to help them look for alternative employment because, as I understand it, all these workers want to stay in Singapore to work to pay off their debts incurred when they come here.

And that leads me to my final question, Sir. Does the Ministry intend to relook the industry structure because all of these workers are vulnerable because of the debts that they incurred when they come to Singapore, which is why they want to stay? Does the Ministry intend to investigate this and look into how the industry can be better structured, so that the workers are not saddled with very high debts before they start work?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the total number of special passes at any time in Singapore is very small. I do not have the specific numbers with me but usually they are given special passes because they are assisting the Ministry in investigation.

For those that are stranded or those foreign workers who are given special passes or temporary job permits, when they find employment, the new employer will be responsible for their housing. While they are waiting for new employment, if they are still holding the work permit issued by the former employer, the former current employer will be responsible for their housing. And if they are in between, ie, their work permit has been terminated and they are in the meantime looking for employment, the Ministry on a case-by-case basis does help them, together with the various organisations, to provide housing for them. So it is in the Ministry's interest to ensure that their welfare are looked after. In certain circumstances, we also work with the foreign embassies who are here to provide for them to ensure that their well-being is being taken care of.

The third question Mr Siew asked is whether the Ministry helps them with alternative job employment in Singapore. It is really not the core purpose or the core mission of the Ministry to help these foreign workers to find jobs. But the Ministry does, on a case-by-case basis, as I mentioned earlier, help these employees find jobs. Recently, for example, we helped a group of foreign workers who have lost their jobs partly because the company has run into trouble. We helped them find alternative employers within a short period of time. But, as I said, eventually, if there is really no job, we really have to find ways to repatriate them, and the employers are responsible for repatriating them.

The last question is about the debt that they incurred. Very often, we find that some of these debts were incurred in their home countries, and these were amounts of monies that were paid to the agents in their home countries. And because they are outside Singapore's jurisdiction, what we can do is to work with the foreign missions/embassies here to share with them our information, so that they can in turn put in place structure and regulation in their home countries to prevent manipulation and exploitation of their own workers. But when they come to Singapore, our employment agencies are regulated. I think, a few months ago, I mentioned in this Parliament that we are also tightening the regulation on employers receiving rebates from employment agents. So these are being put in place and we are working with the employment agents to see how we can further improve the framework and structure here.

Speech on Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill: 25 August 2008

2008-11-05T21:43:00.000+08:00

I made a total of 3 (short) speeches on 25 August 2008, and this was one of them. Quite apart from the high(er) profile issues like the recent motion on by-elections and last year's petition to repeal Section 377A, and asking questions on hot topics of the day like the misselling of structured products, I also try to speak on more routine issues and prosaic legislation.

Despite its subject-matter, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill is one such piece of legislation. It's one of those things that I think of as "keeping the lights on" -- legislation to keep the wheels of government turning. And it is just as important to keep one's eyes on them and speak on them, as the other stuff.

The video and text of my speech, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister's responses to my points, are below.

I had wondered about whether to make the suggestion for the Government to fund polling agents to attend at overseas polling stations. When I did, I could hear some surprised titters rippling through the House. I suspect that at least some MPs saw it as a call for Goverment-funded junkets for politicians, especially Opposition party members.

But I think that view misses the point, as does the DPM's reply, that the actual process of vote-counting in Singapore is seen as fair and impartial, because of the safeguards built into the process, including the opportunity for all parties to monitor the vote-counting process. Whether or not the Opposition parties have sufficient manpower for that, is a different question. The principle remains valid. And if so, then why should there be a difference between local and overseas polling stations? The emphasis on frugality suggests that there can be a price to the integrity of the vote-counting process -- I disagree and I think it is short-sighted and sends the wrong message.

The DPM also suggested that I had said 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."

I think that is an overly-simplistic representation of what I had said. I believe that qualitatively, there is little difference between five days of campaigning and nine days of campaigning -- in my view, both are inadequate, and many if not most Singaporeans would have made up their minds already anyway. And like I said, consistently limiting campaigning to the statutory minimum of 9 days is not consistent with wanting to maximise the amount of time available, or as the DPM said, "I think we all want to have as much time as possible to put our views across."

Video of speech:

Speech on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

This Bill seeks to refine the Act by implementing changes that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year. These refinements are positive and much welcome. Having said that, I have three points for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration.

Sir, of all the amendments, the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for an overseas voter is the most significant. A Singapore citizen must now spend an aggregate of 30 days in the past three years in Singapore to qualify for overseas voting. It removes the previous eligibility criteria which had been heavily criticised. This will have the effect of enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote. It also means that at the next general elections, overseas polling stations are likely to receive many more overseas voters than in the 2006 elections.

Section 39 of the Act specifies that the Presiding Officer of a polling station, which includes an overseas polling station shall exclude from the polling station all persons except voters allotted to that polling station, the candidates, the polling agents of each candidate and other persons involved in the functioning of the polling station. My question is whether the Government will make special provision to enable polling agents of candidates to be present in overseas polling stations.

While the Act, as it now stands, permits parties to send their polling agents to overseas polling stations, the reality is that travel costs would be so high as to make this prohibitive and unrealistic. That being the case, I propose that the Government should fund the travel of one polling agent from each political party involved in the elections to each overseas polling station where overseas voters in respect of constituencies contested by that party are registered to vote so that all parties would be able to appropriately monitor the various overseas polling stations. This would ensure that the same degree of transparency and accountability applies to both local and overseas polling stations and preclude any allegation of vote rigging, foul play or other unfairness.

My second point relates to early voting for overseas voters. Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this issue in last year's COS and I think she has mentioned this slightly earlier. Sir, at COS this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had answered that there are many implications to early voting which make it unfeasible, including the fact that overseas Singaporeans would then only witness four to five days of campaigning from overseas before voting which may not be enough for them to form a conclusion on whom to vote for. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider this and to permit early voting for overseas voters.

The concern raised by Ms Lim is certainly true that there is a valid concern about anonymity in some wards, in particular single member constituencies. It seems to me that there is little qualitative difference between five days of campaigning and nine days of campaigning. I believe that the benefits of permitting early voting for overseas voters far outweigh the potential problems. And certainly, if the Government was keen to give Singaporeans more time to come to an informed conclusion, then it should provide for much longer campaign period than the statutory minimum of nine days which has been the practice in past elections.

Also, in this year's COS, Mr Matthias Yao had raised the question of contingency plans to deal with possible disruptions to the smooth conduct of elections, such as severe weather on Nomination Day and Polling Day. The Deputy Prime Minister's response then was that the Elections Department was looking into this and legislative amendments would be introduced to address such situations. The Bill currently before this House does not appear to address this issue. I therefore hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can update this House on the status of the Elections Department's work on contingency planning and the proposed legislative amendments that he had referred to in this year's COS.

Sir, the Amendment Bill before this House is a well-balanced piece of legislation that preserves the principles of democracy by enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote than is presently the case. This keeps our general elections relevant in today's globalised world. I believe that the refinements I have suggested would improve the Act even more.

With that, I support the Bill.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): 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.

[...]

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. 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. 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.

Yes, we can

2008-11-05T17:57:00.005+08:00

I watched the victory speech by President-Elect Obama. It was moving and stirring and almost life-affirming.

I have in the past heard and read criticisms that his speeches tend to be full of rhetoric -- implying that they are empty and substance and somehow not worthy. But rhetoric has a place, it has its value. I think the value of rhetoric is severely under-estimated in Singapore, contributing to the chronic challenge of apathy.

Someone sent this to:

"Watching the Obama win makes you feel that democracy does work in the end, and change does come even if it is overdue."

This was my reply:

"re obama -- his success should remind all Sporeans that public service is a higher calling, and that politics can and should be more than just about jobs, GDP growth, dollars and cents. it can also be about changing the status quo, inspiring people from all walks of life, galvanising folks into positive action. his example can be the antidote to the deadening effect of technocracy and the suffocating crush of apathy."

OPQ 21 October 2008: Recent Deaths of National Servicemen

2008-11-04T21:14:00.002+08:00

I filed this OPQ in light of the recent death of a NSF PTE Foo Wei Rong, the third serviceman (and I stand corrected by the Minister, PTE Foo is the second NSF, 2LT Lam having been a regular) to die in training this year. There were no surprises in the answer given by the Minister (and in fact I quite expected it), but what I really wanted to do was to ask about the outcome of the 2 earlier deaths.

It will be cold comfort to the families, but I suspect that it would have been reassuring to parents to find out the causes of those two deaths, that they ultimately resulted from circumstances and factors that were not systemic or attributable to any inadequacy in the medical examinations undertaken by the SAF (and in particular, the SAF's continued decision not to conduct stress ECGs as a standard test). This is a clear instance where greater transparency and forthrightness by MINDEF would have been beneficial for all, and it should not have required a PQ to extract this information.

RECENT DEATHS OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN
(Additional preventive measures)

14. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence in view of the three deaths of National Servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Siew Kum Hong asked, in view of the death of three servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths. At the outset, perhaps I should clarify that Mr Siew asked about three national servicemen. In fact, out of three servicemen, two of them were national servicemen and one was a regular serviceman.

Let me recap the steps that have been taken. Immediately after the deaths of REC Andrew Cheah (a full-time national serviceman) and 2LT Clifton Lam (a regular serviceman) on 10th and 11th June this year, the SAF took a 3-day time-out to review its training safety systems. The review established that the systems are good and sound. As for the recent death of PTE Foo (a full-time national serviceman) on 30th September this year, a Committee of Inquiry has been convened and investigations are ongoing.

I want to assure Mr Siew and Members of this House that the safety and well-being of our servicemen is taken very seriously. At the last parliamentary session, I explained to the House in some detail our medical screening processes. These medical screening processes are in line with good international clinical practice and are continually reviewed by independent panels of medical consultants and specialists, and where there are improvements that can be made, we will do so.

Safety of our servicemen doing training is also taken very seriously. Training is progressive and graduated. Over and beyond having sound training systems, there is command emphasis to ensure that our soldiers are well prepared for training and strenuous exercises. For example, the training schedule is designed so that before any strenuous activity, servicemen do get sufficient rest and follow a proper hydration regime. An attending medic will be on-site during the conduct of the strenuous activity to deliver prompt medical care. In the event of a medical emergency, there are proper and established procedures to deliver prompt and appropriate medical attention to the serviceman.

Apart from this, commanders look out for servicemen who show signs that they are not feeling well. Such servicemen would be excused from training to seek medical attention. Servicemen are also reminded to tell their commanders should they feel unwell during or after any training activity. This is important as it is sometimes not easy or possible to know if someone is not feeling well unless the soldier himself tells his commander.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that the well-being of our soldiers is always a priority in the SAF. We have to train our soldiers hard so that they have the ability to fight, and to defend Singapore should the need arise, and it will help to ensure success on the battle-field and that they return home safely after that. So the SAF provides tough and realistic training to our soldiers but the SAF also maintains high safety standards to ensure that safety is not compromised.

I think both Mr Siew and I know that, despite our best efforts to reduce risk in training, it is not possible to guarantee that there will never be injury or death arising from it. Nevertheless, I can assure this House that the SAF will continue to do its best to look after our servicemen and servicewomen in terms of medical screening, proper training systems, training safety procedures and medical coverage during training activities. They are, after all, our sons and our daughters and every life is precious to us.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his response and assurances to this House.

I only have one supplementary question, which is to ask the Minister what is the status of the inquiries by MINDEF into the deaths of the late 2LT Clifton Lam and the late REC Andrew Cheah, and, given the public interest, will the results be made public.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of 2LT Clifton Lam, the Higher Board of Inquiry convened by MNIDEF has been completed and the cause of 2LT Lam's death is heat stroke.

For all training activities, trainees are constantly reminded to hydrate themselves. There are water breaks and water parades when trainees drink water. In the event when there is an exercise where the trainee is required to take responsibility for himself, such as the training that 2LT Lam was undergoing, which was a three-day jungle confidence course, they were given safety briefings and, in this case, he was provided with four litres of water and purification tablets to purify stream or river water for drinking.

The HBOI, unfortunately, established that 2LT Lam may not have hydrated himself adequately during this period of training. The HOBI looked into the SAF's safety systems and was satisfied that these were in place and that there was no safety breach, neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.

In the case of REC Andrew Cheah, the Committee of Inquiry investigation has been completed. Based on the autopsy report, the cause of REC Cheah's death is acute pneumonitis. I should point out that in neither case was the cause of death linked to medical screening as such. So the case of REC Cheah's death was determined by the autopsy report as acute pneumonitis. This is an acute infection causing extensive inflammation of the lungs. The typical symptoms are cough, phlegm, fever, pain in the chest, body aches and difficulty in breathing.

However, it is possible, the doctors tell us, for a person to suffer from lung infection and yet not develop cough or fever, and this was indeed the case of REC Cheah. The infection must have been abrupt and caused his condition to deteriorate rapidly.

REC Cheah told his section mates before the two-kilometre walk that he felt a little breathless; and during the walk, his instructor who was walking with REC Cheah, observed that he looked tired and was breathing hard. However, he had no other observable symptoms such as cough or fever. In these circumstances, it was difficult for his instructors or platoon mates, or indeed for REC Cheah himself, to have known that the breathlessness was caused by acute pneumonitis and not simply fatigue.

The instructor had asked REC Cheah whether he was not feeling well, REC Cheah replied that he was just tired. Hence, the instructor allowed REC Cheah to continue with the walk around the stadium in Pulau Tekong camp and did not pull him out as REC Cheah was able to converse with him, answer his questions with clarity in speech and in thought.

The COI concluded that the instructor's decision to let REC Cheah continue with the walk was not unreasonable. The COI concluded that there was no safety breach and neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.