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

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.'

NMP results are out

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:

1. Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee
2. Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua
3. Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei
4. Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan
5. Mr Teo Siong Seng
6. Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan
7. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong
8. Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen
9. 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:

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

Speech on the President's Address: 25 May 2009

[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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Video: Speech on Budget Statement 2009, 3 February 2009

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

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.