1 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked \tthe Minister for National Development (a) for the past three years, how many applicants for HDB flats are unable to secure a loan from HDB because they had taken two HDB loans previously; (b) whether HDB can review this policy; and (c) what is the financial cost to the Government for providing an HDB loan.
Page: 1192
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, from January 2010 to September 2012, there were nearly 178,000 applications for HDB loans. Among these, 3,500 applications, or 2%, were rejected because the applicants had previously taken two or more HDB loans.
Two HDB loans are generally sufficient to meet the life-cycle needs of each flat buyer. The first loan helps buyers purchase their first home, while the second loan helps them right-size as their needs change. Flat buyers also have the option of taking a bank loan. Nonetheless, for buyers in exceptional circumstances, HDB may assist them by providing them with another HDB loan on a case-by-case basis.
Over the past 20 years, HDB's interest rate has been, on average, 1.5%-points lower than the market rates. That is why we need to restrict the number of HDB loans, in order to manage our limited loan subsidies.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. The feedback is that there are residents who are trying to get a third loan because they have one transfer in-between, that is, between relatives. Therefore, that is not, strictly speaking, a second loan. There are also residents who have to change their flats because of divorce. The feedback is that they have difficulty getting another loan because of the two-loan policy. In view of HDB's principle of providing affordable quality homes, would HDB be prepared to review this policy so that we can try to allow as many residents as possible to own their homes, when they are trying their best not to be stuck with a rental flat, and instead buy their own home?
\tPage: 1193
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, as I said, the rejection rate is rather low – 2%. In any case, we do exercise discretion and respond with sympathy where we can. I have been watching the success rates of appeals. The last I saw, for appeals to HDB for house mortgage matters, the success rate is pretty high – 36%. I think this is quite good.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, as Members of Parliament, we often encounter instances where the applicants are unable to get a loan from commercial banks due to their income levels. Yet, they are also unable to get HDB loans for various reasons. For example, their income levels could be too high to qualify. Their incomes could also be too high to qualify for HDB rental flats. They end up paying market rentals, which are way above what they would have paid to service their mortgages. I would like to ask the Minister whether such situations are desirable. Should we not help or facilitate these applicants to own their own flats, so that there is some secured retirement financing and, in a way a hedge against rising property prices?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, home ownership as a social objective is something highly desirable, and which we strive to achieve. At the same time, it must be underpinned by prudence. Let us not forget the huge problem created in the US by the sub-prime loan crisis. While we will try to make sure that everyone who can afford it can own a home, the outcome that some Members are hoping for – 100% for everyone who puts up his hand will get a loan – is a little unrealistic because if we push beyond prudence, potentially, we can have a sub-prime crisis, as did the US.
\tPage: 1193
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prices in HDB Resale Flat Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of \tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah –\t
2 To ask the Minister for National Development in light of HDB resale prices rising to a high in the third quarter of this year (a) whether the HDB resale market has shown any signs of stabilising; (b) whether there is any cause for concern; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing measures to moderate the prices of resale flats.
\tPage: 1193
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Question No 2, Sir.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, the HDB resale market has shown signs of stabilising. Yearly Resale Price Index (RPI) growth has come down from 14.1% in 2010 to 10.7% last year and to 3.9% in the first nine months of this year. Nonetheless, the uptick in quarterly RPI growth to 2.0% in the third quarter shows that while things are improving, we still have some way to go.
\tPage: 1194
We have implemented a number of measures but they will take some time to work their way through the market. For example, the global low interest rate environment will take some time before it returns to its normal level, and the huge local supply of new housing units will only be available over the next two, three years.
\tPage: 1194
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ethnic Quota Policy in HDB Resale Blocks","subTitle":"Review of limit for Malay ethnic group","sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the ethnic limit of 25% for the Malay ethnic group at the block level in all HDB rental flats has been reached and, if so, when; (b) whether HDB has plans to increase this limit for the Malay ethnic group at the block level; and (c) whether HDB will consider allocating rental flats on a strict needs basis only to avoid rejection or delay as a result of the applicants' preference of rental zone.
\t
\tPage: 1194
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) limits are reviewed from time to time to reflect Singapore's demographic changes. Currently, about 60% of HDB's public rental blocks have reached the EIP block limit of 25% for Malay households. We are in the midst of reviewing the EIP limits for rental flats, to take into account the demand from the various ethnic groups.
Applications for a rental flat are assessed and approved on a strict needs basis. As for allocation, rental applicants may prefer certain locations, which are nearer their workplace or their children's school. We allow them the flexibility to choose the location zone, so that we are better able to meet their needs. HDB will advise them on the estimated waiting time for their preferred zone as well as the zone with the shortest waiting time, so that they can make an informed decision.
\tPage: 1194
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cleaning Fee Hikes at Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with regard to the cleaning fee hike at nine hawker centres (a) what is the justification for the quantum and timing of the increase; (b) how are the hawkers protected from unexpected increases and whether there is a cap on the quantum of such increases; (c) how is the cleaning services procurement process conducted; and (d) how much of the increased fees goes towards the cleaners' pay.
\t
\tPage: 1195
The Second Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Sir, NEA currently manages the contracts for table-top cleaning and collection of crockery at the 25 MEWR-owned hawker centres. When the previous cleaning contract expired, an open tender was called on 16 August 2011 and three bids were received. The bids were evaluated on price and quality, and the new cleaning contract was awarded in accordance with best sourcing practices.
The last contract was secured more than three years ago. Since then, the cost of providing cleaning services has increased due to, among other things, higher manpower costs. NEA's role in this contract is to consolidate the cleaning needs of the centres and to ensure compliance with cleaning standards. NEA does not levy any additional charges for managing the cleaning contract.
Hawker centres that are not managed by NEA would usually award the cleaning contracts collectively and directly to the cleaning service provider through the Hawkers Association with each stall-holder paying his share of the actual cost of cleaning.
We are mindful of the impact of the increase of cleaning charges on stall-holders. After consultations with the Hawkers Associations in the affected centres, MEWR has decided to phase in the table-cleaning charges in two steps at four-month intervals for six of the nine centres. The increases faced by the remaining three centres are of a smaller quantum – less than $200 per month – and would, therefore, be implemented in a single step. The hawker representatives have accepted our proposal to mitigate the impact of the increase on their stall-holders. I would like to emphasise that this move should not be misread as a subsidy since all the hawkers will eventually have to pay the full cleaning costs.
Mr Baey asked about the impact on cleaners' salaries. I would not be able to provide details on the extent to which the increases in fees would benefit the cleaners since this will depend on the operations of each cleaning service provider. However, under the prevalent Government procurement process, NEA prescribes the terms and conditions for best sourcing and ensures that there was transparency and competition in the tender process for effective procurement.
The tender stipulates that the contract will only be awarded to cleaning companies accredited under the Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme which requires cleaners to be provided basic statutory benefits stated under the Employment Act, including CPF contribution, paid public holidays, and so on. With effect from 1 April 2013, the Government will require all tenderers of new Government cleaning contracts to be accredited under the Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme which has since been enhanced on 1 November 2012 to incorporate the recommendation of the Tripartite Committee on Cleaners on progressive wages, among other enhanced criteria. These changes signal that the Government is taking the lead in improving the employment conditions, training and development provision and career progression of the cleaning industry.
\tPage: 1196
The most sustainable solution to the moderation of cleaning charges for the hawkers is for all of us – the patrons and stall-holders – to help keep our hawker centres clean. It is not possible for us to infinitely increase the number of cleaners at our centres to clean up after our mess. Thus, our tagline for our Clean and Green Singapore campaign this year: every action counts. Please help us and our hawkers to keep Singapore clean.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, I thank the Second Minister for the answers. I have the following supplementary questions. The first is: I recognise that the contracts were called at different times for different hawker centres. So, my first supplementary question is whether the quantum of any increase in cleaning fees is clearly stated in the contracts. Going forward, I think that it is important to make such provisions clear from the onset. My second supplementary question is: would the cleaning fees at the other hawker centres be expected to rise, going forward? Next, with these increases, can we expect cleaning services to improve, and in what ways? Finally, with the on-going push for the Tray Return scheme – which all of us are fully supportive of – what would the impact be on the efficiency and productivity of these cleaning services at these hawker centres and whether these factors will be taken into account in any new cleaning fee increase?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. First of all, on the first question, on whether the increase in fee is stated in the tenancy contracts, the answer is yes. There are provisions in the tenancy contracts on cleaning fees that could change from time to time. Sometimes, the stall-holders may not expect and would not be able to anticipate the movements in the pricing of the cleaning contracts, but I think they are aware that these are some of the business risks that they have to manage, just as they are managing other risks, such as cost of utilities, and so on.
As far as whether cleaning fees would increase in other centres – let me say that at this point in time, the cleaning industry is going through some changes. First of all, there is accreditation that the Government will be insisting on. Secondly, there is also some impact coming from the tighter foreign workers dependency ratio. Also, the hours of working and operations in the centres may vary from time to time and from centre to centre.
These are all factors that could have an impact on cleaning charges, and part of the effort in having an enhanced accreditation is to try to move the industry towards one that has better standards, takes better care of its workers through training, development and progressive wages, and where there are greater economies of scale, and therefore, in a better position to invest in productivity measures, such as improvements in the use of equipment, investments in mechanisation, and so on.
\tPage: 1197
The industry is actually characterised by a large number of low-skilled workers, lowly educated, sometimes not in a very good position to know their rights. Sometimes, they do not know how to look for information on training, and so on. So, it is time for the society and the Government to take a holistic view and try to improve the working conditions as well as career prospects for this group of workers. It is through the accreditation system that we hope to achieve these objectives.
Whether there will be improvements, as I said, we hope so. We hope that by putting in criteria for best sourcing that there are better standards required of the cleaners. With better training, we hope that each of the cleaners will be in a better position to do their jobs better. More importantly is also the need to mitigate the lack of workers because we know that this is not an industry where many Singaporeans would jump on the band wagon and will look for a career here. So, we recognise that we have to achieve more with fewer workers, going forward. This is where looking at processes, looking at improvements in the equipment, looking at better mechanisation will be a longer term solution towards mitigating the cost of increase, going forward.
This is the thinking behind the return of trays. At the moment, when we look at the Tray Return effort, we are looking at it from the point of view of promoting social graciousness, a responsibility amongst Singaporeans to pick up after ourselves and not to leave work behind for others. This is also a more sustainable way for all of us to work towards reducing our reliance on workers, particularly foreign workers. We will have to monitor the progress of Tray Return scheme and continue it on a process of reviewing the work processes, discussing with the service provider, and also looking at how we can make the work of the cleaners a more satisfying and progressive one.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, I have three hawker centres in my constituency. The feedback from the Hawkers Associations is that they are ill-equipped to manage the calling for contracts for these cleaning contractors. Would MEWR consider consolidating cleaning contracts for all hawker centres so that we can assist the Hawkers Associations who do not know how to call for cleaning contract tenders, as well as for better economies of scale, so that we can, perhaps, with more hawker centres covered under one contract, there can be more cost savings?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I am glad to hear that the Hawkers Associations see NEA as a good partner for calling of cleaning contracts. This is also a call that has been made by other Members in this House. We will consider NEA's role in the management of hawker centres. We would like to take a more cautious view because I think there is a balance to be made between centralising greater economies of scale versus more autonomy, more room to decide how cleaning should be undertaken in the various hawker centres.
\tPage: 1198
When we approached the nine affected hawker centres, the feedback from some of them was that they wanted to be more involved in the process. When they meet with an increase in cleaning costs, that is when they will start applying their mind to how to make the work better, or to be less reliant on cleaners. Some of them are even considering undertaking some of the cleaning works themselves. This is where there is always tension, whether we should want to leave the calling of the contracts and tenders to an agency, or does the Hawkers Association want to take it upon themselves and manage the risk better.
We will be happy to get into a conversation with the three hawker centres in the Member's ward, but we will like to take things one at a time. Right now, our focus is on the centres that are currently managed by NEA and would like to see how the enhanced accreditation scheme works before we consider taking on more hawker centres.
\tPage: 1198
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Framework for Settling Disputes between Neighbours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Law (a) whether he can provide details of a legal framework that can be instituted to deal with disputes between neighbours; and (b) how this framework can work alongside community mediation and the spirit of give-and-take amongst neighbours so that disputes can be first resolved with mutual understanding.
\tPage: 1198
\tThe Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I think Members can agree that neighbour disputes are not infrequent. We live in close proximity, people cherish their quiet time and space, and when that is infringed, disputes arise. How should the law deal with such disputes or should it deal with it at all?
If an offence is committed, you can get prosecution, and punishment meted out. If there are wrongful acts, you can get civil action for damages or injunction. The trouble is that the traditional legal framework may not always be the most appropriate or adequate. The legal process itself can be long drawn out. It is adversarial in nature, and it is not often easy to get amicable solutions. The proceedings may themselves also not be the most cost effective to deal with day-to-day disputes between neighbours.
\tPage: 1199
So, if you want to think of an effective framework, it has to go beyond what is traditionally available in the law. I think one important component of our current framework is community mediation where volunteers are trained as mediators. They try and bring parties together to reach common understanding. The process is voluntary. There is a good rate of success − about 70% of the cases are successfully mediated, and a few hundred cases have been mediated every year since 2009. The weakness or the drawback of mediation is that it is voluntary. If one party does not want to come for the mediation, there is not much you can do. So, the question is, how can we improve on this framework as we go forward?
It is really at a very conceptual stage, and we are considering, firstly, strengthening the mediation process where we get people to mediate their disputes, and then getting them to abide by the understandings that have been reached. The second approach is to try and develop norms of conduct between neighbours which need to be specific enough to be meaningful, but also take into account the complexities of urban life and that includes close proximity. And then encourage the residents to abide by these norms, and introduce effective and properly calibrated sanctions if the norms are breached.
We are assessing whether these ideas are workable and feasible, and we will update the House. I think we have got to be realistic in that legislation and regulation can only do so much. Ultimately, the responsibility for creating a neighbourly and pleasant living environment lies with each individual.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, by and large, we know that most of our neighbours observe the acceptable social norms. However, there will always be a very small minority that would cause a significant social nuisance to their neighbours on a prolonged basis. Sometimes, really, no amount of mediation, education or grassroots engagement can change the behaviour of such neighbours. So, would the Minister agree that, perhaps, we need some form of local regulation, maybe some powers devolved to the local agencies to impose some form of penalty? In Hong Kong, there is a demerit point system for the public housing. I would like to ask the Minister whether that will be suitable for Singapore.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Sir, the essence of my answer was that we are considering some form of framework. The precise framework is not settled. There are other countries which have this, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, as the Member mentioned. That is being studied, as I have pointed out in my answer. It is at a very conceptual stage and no decisions have been reached. We have to be satisfied with what is workable before we can do anything.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har, last question, please.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): I would like to ask a simple supplementary question. Is there a time frame that the Minister is looking at for this conceptual framework and whether it is possible to be implemented in Singapore soon?
\tMr K Shanmugam: The Member will appreciate first that this is not under either of my two Ministries. I am answering the question because I was foolish enough to put it on my Facebook, thinking aloud. [Laughter] And so the Ministry has asked me to respond to the Member. I think time limits are going too far. The Member should ask the Minister concerned.
\tPage: 1200
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Higher Bill for Downtown MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will provide a breakdown of the costs arising from the major changes from the original plan for the Downtown Line that have led to the huge increase in the construction budget; and (b) what are the lessons learnt in terms of budgeting, planning and structuring of contracts for future train lines.
7 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) which stage of the Downtown Line (DTL) contributed the most in the $8.7 billion cost spiral; (b) which contractor filed the most claims in additional cost; (c) why are the DTL contracts structured to subject LTA to fluctuation risk in construction cost; and (d) are the contracts for the Thomson Line structured the same way as well.
\tPage: 1200
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 6 and 7 together.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, we announced an original budget of $12 billion for the Downtown Line in early 2007. Subsequently, we revised the budget upwards to $20.7 billion.
Approximately half of the increase is due to the increase in construction costs from late 2007 onwards, because of the sharp growth in overall construction demand in Singapore. The prices of construction materials also increased significantly. For example, market prices for key materials, such as steel bars and concrete, spiralled upwards by 60% and 14% respectively from late 2007 to mid 2008. Actual tender prices were therefore higher than what we had originally envisaged in early 2007, when we planned the $12 billion budget, and we had to revise the budget upwards.
The increase in budget was also required to make enhancements to the line that was initially based on a set of preliminary engineering and planning parameters drawn up in 2006-2007. For instance, the original alignment was extended from 40 km to 42 km and an additional station was added. Also, for several of the stations, we decided to improve their design to provide for more entrances and underground links to improve connectivity and access for commuters and pedestrians.
Sir, let me explain that the initial planning for the Downtown Line, including the original $12 billion budget, was based on preliminary studies. Detailed engineering and architectural plans were finalised only later, as is typically the case for such major projects. These detailed plans also took into account URA's long-term land use plans which were updated after 2007, and, hence, resulted in some significant changes to the original plans for the Downtown Line. Overall, when compared to the original $12 billion budget, most of the increase in the revised budget can be attributed to Downtown Line 1.
\tPage: 1201
Sir, Mr Png also asked about risks for fluctuating construction costs. As is the practice for LTA's major construction tenders, price fluctuation clauses for key materials were included in the Downtown Line tenders. This will also be the case for the Thomson Line contracts. In these clauses, LTA would bear the downside risk for any increase in the cost of key materials from the tender price. At the same time, LTA would also enjoy the upside savings should the cost of the materials come down. Moreover, because LTA bears this risk associated with the cost of key materials, which is beyond the contractors' control, tender prices would be lower because the contractors would not need to factor in this risk premium in their tender. This approach is in line with best practices across other Government agencies and across the world.
For example, the material costs for Downtown Line 3 were higher than tendered because market prices for materials went up subsequently. However, LTA enjoyed some savings for DTL1 and DTL2 contracts compared to the tendered prices, through the price fluctuation clauses, as the prices of key materials came down somewhat after the tenders were awarded. In case there is confusion, let me point out that these subsequently reduced market prices were still higher than in early 2007, when we planned the original $12 billion budget, but if the prices of materials remain at around current levels, then we should expect to see some savings from the revised budget of $20.7 billion.
Finally, Sir, let me assure Members that we are prudent in managing public funds. For all development projects, we ensure thorough scrutiny and review at various stages, and work closely with the Ministry of Finance on cost management and value maximisation. LTA also adopts best practices in its tendering and contracting processes, reaps economies of scale through bulk supply contracts, where possible, and attracts overseas international contractors to tender for rail projects as well, in order to keep prices competitive.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, how many of the contracts were actually awarded to the lowest bidder? Second, in 2007, the ex-Minister of State for Transport said in Parliament that LTA was reviewing whether some stations required more than one entrance and making stations more user-friendly and handicap-friendly, and that any enhanced standards would also apply to the Downtown Line. Immediately after that, Downtown Line Stage 1 was started in about 2008. So, were those changes made known or incorporated into the tender?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, if I may explain a little bit more about the tender process. Basically, it is a two-stage process. We, first of all, evaluate the tender returns based on the quality of the returns and thereafter we open the envelope to review the prices, and we take into account the composition between quality as well as the price of the tender in order to decide on which is the most suitable and appropriate bidder for that particular stage of the project.
\tPage: 1202
Secondly, with regard to provision for more entrances, I believe that part of the additional cost that I mentioned earlier came about as a result of an increase in about 30 entrances that we incorporated into the existing Downtown Lines. So, there were about 30 entrances that were built into the various stages of the Downtown Line.
\tMr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the answers. I have a supplementary question. I noted that in the press report, it says that one of the measures that LTA is taking is to invite more firms to bid for the projects, to make it more competitive. I would like to ask whether that was done so previously, as in how many companies took part in the earlier bids and how competitive were these bids.
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The answer actually depends on when the tender was put out. So, more recently, because of the lack of work around the world and also in the Middle East, we have actually seen more responders to the tenders that we have put out. And we hope that in this way, we also get more competitive pricing. But as much as possible, we try to make sure that for such major projects like this, we cut it up into many chunks of different sizes and in this way, we allow different-sized companies, including some of our local ones which may not be as significantly capitalised as some of the international companies, also the chance to participate in the tender.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png, last question.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: The Minister said that most of the cost overrun came from Downtown Line Stage 1, and that is actually the shortest line with six stations. Can the Minister explain this?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: If I may give a little bit more clarity on the total cost overrun. From an initial budget of about $12 billion, it went up to $20.7 billion. So, it is about $8.7 billion in total. If we take away the GST component for this $8.7 billion, it comes up to an increase of about $8 billion. Seventy-five per cent of that increase came about as a result of either construction cost, technical requirements or the improved connectivity that I was talking about. Why I said that Downtown Line 1 attributed to a larger part of this increase in cost is because of the time when the tender was called. And if Members recall, from 2007 to 2008, construction prices as well as material prices went up significantly.
\tPage: 1203
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Elderly Singaporeans to Sign on for MediShield","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health given that the maximum entry age for MediShield coverage will be removed from 1 March 2013, how does the Ministry intend to encourage the 35% of elderly Singaporeans aged 76 to 85 who are not insured under MediShield to enrol in the scheme.
\tPage: 1203
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, we recently announced the lifting of the maximum entry age for MediShield, which will take effect from 1 March 2013, along with other MediShield enhancements. This change was in response to feedback received during the public consultation on the proposed MediShield changes.
We will encourage eligible, uninsured Singaporeans to apply for MediShield coverage through public outreach efforts, such as the public talks run by the CPF Board. MOH will also be tapping on the Health Ambassadors' network of the HPB and other grassroots organisations to spread the message within the community about the benefits of MediShield through our various activities, including those targeted at our older citizens. We also encourage children to apply on their elderly parents' behalf.
Beyond MediShield, the elderly can also receive help for their healthcare costs. All elderly Singaporeans will continue to enjoy Government subsidies of up to 80% for subsidised healthcare treatment at our public healthcare institutions, regardless of their insured status. Under the GST Voucher scheme, the Government will also provide annual Medisave top-ups for the majority of elderly Singaporeans to help with their medical expenses. Those who still face difficulties can approach the medical social workers at our public healthcare institutions for financial assistance, including through Medifund Silver, which is a targeted assistance scheme for the elderly. Since 2007, Medifund Silver provided about $61 million to help elderly patients with their healthcare expenses.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, what are the main reasons why such a high percentage of this age group is not insured? We are looking at 35% of them who are not insured compared to only about 8% of the general population.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: The Member was asking why they were not insured. There are a variety of reasons. Some of them have their own insurance schemes and some of them may have pre-existing conditions where insurance may not be feasible or may not be the most efficient protection for them, because insurance, including MediShield, operates on a risk-pooling basis. When the total pool of the insured becomes smaller, especially those like the elderly group, the risk pooling may not be effective. Among those in the elderly group, a significant number of them may already have pre-existing conditions. Even if they are included in the MediShield, these existing conditions may be excluded from the coverage and, therefore, it may or may not be efficient for them. So, it is on an individual case-by-case basis. We make MediShield available for the elderly beyond 75 years old primarily because of the feedback that some of them may be healthy and they may want to opt in. We open up the scheme to allow them to opt in to MediShield but some of them may already have pre-existing conditions that make insurance not practical for them. We will look at how we can help these people who may not be covered by MediShield in a different way. As I mentioned, we provide assistance and generous subsidies in our public healthcare institutions for all patients, including the elderly. On top of that, we have introduced the Medifund Silver specifically targeted at these elderly, as we understand that they have specific needs, to help them with the medical expenses.
\tPage: 1204
We help these elderly patients through a variety of ways – some through insurance; some through Government broad-based subsidy and some through specifically targeted programmes to help them.
\tDr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. With MOH's intention to extend the maximum age of MediShield coverage from 85 to 90, there will be a corresponding rise in the premium for those above 85. Will MOH consider raising the upper limit in Medisave quantum for paying the premium for this group of elderly such that there is no need for out-of-pocket cash payment? Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the public consultation on MediShield for congenital diseases.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the Member that we are, indeed, looking at adjusting the Medisave withdrawal limits to be in line with the adjustments in the premiums to make sure that adjustments in the premiums will continue to be affordable to Singaporeans. With regard to the congenital and neo-natal conditions coverage under MediShield, we have considered it at length and we feel that it is part and parcel of our efforts to provide healthcare protection for our children. It is also part of our overall effort to encourage marriage and parenthood. That is why we have surfaced this for discussion at Our Singapore Conversation, to allow Singaporeans to participate in the discussion on what kind of a healthcare system we want for the future, and what kind of protection we like for our children. We will also be discussing this as part and parcel of a debate on marriage and parenthood. In due course, at these various avenues, we will discuss the issue before we make a final decision.
\tPage: 1204
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"House Break-ins and Thefts Committed by Foreigners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) for the first 10 months of 2012, whether foreign individuals or groups have been engaged in housebreakings and thefts from dwellings in landed properties in Singapore; (b) if so, on what entry permits did these individuals enter Singapore and whether the Police and immigration authorities have specific strategies to deal with this phenomenon.
\tPage: 1205
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Member has asked about foreign criminals who break into private properties to commit theft. Such an act is classified as housebreaking by Police. For the nine-month period of January to September 2012, a total of 428 housebreaking cases were reported. This is a 15% decrease when compared to the same period in 2011.
In the first nine months of 2012, Police solved 91.6% of the cases reported. A total of 189 persons were arrested for housebreaking, of which 34, or 18%, were not Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. This is 19% lower than the January to September 2011 period. Of the 34 persons arrested in 2012, 17 were on Social Visit Passes, 16 were Work Permit Holders and one was an illegal immigrant.
Police adopts a holistic approach in crime fighting, comprising intelligence, enforcement, public education, community involvement and international cooperation. The community also plays an important role in crime prevention, by taking proactive measures to safeguard their properties and keeping a lookout for suspicious characters in their neighbourhood.
Police has been monitoring the situation closely together with ICA, and will act firmly against foreign criminals who attempt to commit crime in Singapore.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, some supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I am sorry that the Senior Minister of State's answer came very quickly, so maybe I did not hear him correctly. My question was about the first 10 months of 2012, and the first part of his answer dealt largely with the first nine months, so I wonder whether he could clarify that.
Secondly, the Police has made it public that they noted a surge in housebreaking cases committed by Latin Americans recently. I would like to ask specifically about this phenomenon, for these housebreaking cases which are committed by professional burglar groups, how many cases are there? Are they geographically spread out in Singapore or are they concentrated in certain areas? For this group of Latin Americans, could the Senior Minister of State tell us how they entered Singapore, as in, did they fly in directly from their home countries or did they come by land, for example, from some neighbouring countries?
Lastly, I wonder whether the Government is considering the conditions of Social Visit Passes for certain groups of people. I know it is a difficult area but, right now, I think most people can enter Singapore for one month which also allows these professional burglars to plan and the time to commit serious cases. So, I wonder if at some point in time, the Ministry would look at restricting the number of days that people can stay in Singapore, perhaps on a case-by-case basis, or based on certain originating countries.
\tPage: 1206
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the question. Unfortunately, I only have the statistics up to September because those for October are not ready. For the other specific questions on Latin Americans, these were not alluded to in the question, so I do not have the numbers with me. But if the Member would like to file a parliamentary question (PQ) on it, I will be happy to answer it.
On the operational issues, unfortunately, many of the things that the Police and ICA are doing are very sensitive and we cannot divulge them. In our Crime Watch series, we can see cases being solved in just half an hour, but really a lot of work and intelligence are being put into it. I assure Members that we will take a very strong stance against anyone coming into Singapore to commit crime. We will turf them out when we can, and work with international authorities as much as possible.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: A supplementary question again for the Senior Minister of State. In the news reports so far that we have seen, there were reports in June and also in October about these burglaries committed by foreign groups. I think in July as well, the Police issued a media release talking about the fact that they had managed to foil a group from Hong Kong which was on a transnational housebreaking operation. That was announced publicly. I would like to ask whether the Government is concerned that the choice of Singapore as a housebreaking destination by foreign groups is something that we should be concerned about. Is there a trend of concern?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In general, the Police is very concerned about any crime that is perpetrated on our citizens or their properties. Therefore, we will take all measures to ensure that this particular trend that will affect us, we will try and stem it as quickly as possible. We do not see yet a surge in the number of foreign syndicates coming into Singapore. They know clearly that we are very strong in solving our cases, as I mentioned to the Member – 91.6% of these cases were solved and we have deterrent sentences against them. I hope those are strong enough messages to any foreign elements who think that they can easily break into our houses and not get detected. But more importantly, it is essential for all of us to take the prerequisite proactive measures to ensure that our houses, properties and ourselves are properly protected. Take proactive measures to put burglar alarms, cameras, in addition to the enforcement actions that are being taken on the part of the Police.
\tPage: 1206
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age-related Fertility Decline","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Tan Su Shan asked \tthe Minister for Health in light of most women marrying later in life (a) how are Singaporean women being educated on age-related fertility decline; and (b) whether the Women's Health Advisory Committee (WHAC) can be expanded to fully include fertility issues.
\tPage: 1207
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, encouraging marriage and parenthood is a key Government priority to address the population challenge. The Government provides a broad range of measures to support Singaporeans' aspirations of getting married and having children.
There is already general awareness among Singaporeans that fertility declines with age. The 2007 Marriage and Parenthood survey of about 3,000 married respondents showed that 94% were aware that it gets more difficult for couples to conceive as they get older, up from 89% in 2004.
More can and must be done to strengthen awareness of fertility issues and to transform awareness into changes in attitude and behaviour, so that couples are encouraged to get married and have children earlier. These messages are best woven into marriage and parenthood promotion efforts by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), previously known as MCYS, in a holistic manner.
MSF has been working with voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to promote fertility awareness, which provides couples with fertility facts and information to help them make informed parenthood decisions and encourage them to plan early. This is done through public education programmes and activities, including talks, workshops, road shows, resource guides, as well as the sharing of real-life stories through publications and online media. It has also gone upstream to engage youths in tertiary institutions to raise the awareness of age-related fertility decline and the risks of late pregnancies. For couples already planning or expecting a baby, both MSF and HPB conduct programmes to equip and prepare them for pregnancy, as well as caring for their newborns.
We recognise that having babies is not a woman's sole decision, and involves a considered decision between husband and wife, taking many factors into consideration. Hence, MSF plays a leading role in promoting parenthood. However, to complement the efforts of MSF, the focus of the Women's Health Advisory Committee (WHAC) to promote the health of women could also include health issues related to sub-fertility in women, as part of a holistic women's health programme.
\tMs Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the Minister of State. My supplementary question is this: some countries now consider age-related decline in fertility as a medical condition and, hence, they allow egg-freezing. There is growing evidence that eggs frozen from a woman below age 35 have a higher chance of a successful pregnancy or birth. Will the Ministry, therefore, be open to considering egg-freezing as an option available to more women, including single women before they marry? This may enable more Singaporean women to preserve their fertility till they marry, thereby increasing their chances of a successful pregnancy after marriage.
\tPage: 1208
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Firstly, let me say that I share the Member's concerns about age-related fertility as more men and women delay marriage and parenthood. However, it must be noted that advanced technology, such as IVF, can help women solve their fertility-related problems only to a certain extent. It is not a foolproof or guaranteed solution. Besides the conventional IVF, as the Member has rightly pointed out, there has been an increase in interest in vitrification or ultra rapid egg-freezing, which is a new technology. It is a technique that can help unmarried women to freeze their eggs and store them for future use to overcome the reproductive or ovarian ageing problem.
Currently, MOH only allows egg-freezing for medical reasons, such as women who have to undergo certain treatment, for example, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which will damage their fertility. There are various reasons why egg-freezing has not been allowed other than for such medical reasons, and they include the fact that there are inherent risks to the women who undergo the egg-freezing procedure, such as ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome, bleeding and infection.
Furthermore, because the technology is relatively new, there is limited information available on the perinatal outcomes of the procedure, for instance, the success rate, live births, pregnancies, and so on. There is also no information on the long-term effects on children born through AR using vitrified eggs.
Besides these medical implications, there are also potential social and ethical implications, for example, the misconception of the use of egg-freezing as guaranteed fertility preservation as well as over-commercialisation. Notwithstanding this, MOH is reviewing the medical, scientific and ethical implications of egg-freezing with the aim to establish a policy position to develop a regulatory framework with the necessary safeguards, if the eventual policy position is to allow social egg-freezing. Having said that, it is still important to reiterate that egg-freezing, like other AR-related techniques, is really not a foolproof or guaranteed solution.
There is no better substitute to natural child-bearing within marriage for women when they are relatively young and healthy. Lest the men in this House think that age-related fertility problem is a women's issue, let me say that the men are also not spared the ticking of the biological clock and they do suffer from age-related fertility problems.
\tPage: 1208
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discounted Rentals for Local Arts Groups ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Janice Koh asked \tthe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what subsidies or preferential rates are given to non-profit and for-profit local arts groups to help offset the venue rental cost of spaces run by the Esplanade and other Government agencies; and (b) what more can be done to help these groups alleviate the cost of such rentals.
\tPage: 1209
\tThe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, subsidised and preferential rates are extended to both not-for-profit and commercial local arts groups, for spaces run by agencies, such as The Esplanade Co Ltd and The Old Parliament House Ltd.
The Esplanade, for example, tiers its venue rental rates according to the different forms of hire. Public performances by local commercial arts groups enjoy preferential rates starting from 35% off the rates charged for private hire and non-arts use. Local not-for-profit arts groups are the main beneficiaries, as they are offered subsidies of at least 60%.
At the Goodman Arts Centre (GAC) and The Arts House (TAH), both of which are arts centres run by The Old Parliament House (TOPH) Ltd and supported by the National Arts Council (NAC), public performances by local arts groups are entitled to rates that are less than 50% of those compared to private hire rates.
Other for-hire venues, such as the Drama Centre, similarly accord preferential rental rates to local arts groups that are approximately 30% to 40% lower compared to private hire rates.
In addition to subsidised and preferential rates for venue rental extended to our local arts groups, NAC's support under the Arts Spaces Framework and the Arts Housing Scheme also provides highly subsidised spaces for artists and arts groups to create work, rehearse, or even perform or exhibit in. Under these schemes, arts groups, such as The Necessary Stage (TNS), Theatreworks, Singapore Repertory Theatre (SRT) and The Substation, enjoy performing arts spaces which are highly subsidised by between 80% and 90%. We encourage our arts spaces and arts housing tenants to explore sharing such resources with other artists, wherever appropriate and available.
Apart from looking at financial assistance, MCCY is also cognisant of the need to broaden our support by expanding the range of arts venues and facilities that are available. This will allow our arts groups more opportunities to find the right spaces that they can afford and which suit their needs.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the Acting Minister. I have three supplementary questions. NAC's current funding guidelines support no more than 30% of an arts group's total production budget. On average, the rental costs paid by arts groups who do not have access to their own performing spaces, for these arts groups to rent venues like the Drama Centre, which is run by The Esplanade, the rental costs vary between 20% and 35% of their total budget. In this scenario, many of the non-profit funded arts companies have expressed to me that they are literally receiving Government funding from one public agency and handing over the whole amount as rental to another public company. It puts immense pressure on these groups to find the remaining 70% to 80% of their budget from other sources, such as box office revenue and corporate sponsorships, which are hugely uncertain in this economic climate.
\tPage: 1210
My first question to the Acting Minister is: in view of the Ministry's push to bring the arts to a wider public, and to nurture the arts and culture as a way of developing Singapore's soul, would his Ministry consider reviewing its rental rates to local arts groups, to not only create a conducive environment for them to develop original work and new artistic talent, but also to ease the financial pressure that is eventually passed on to the Singapore public through high ticket prices? Secondly, are public companies, such as The Esplanade and The Old Parliament House, under any expectation or pressure from the Government to profit or break even from running these theatre venues which might explain why rental rates and manpower costs for these venues are so high? Thirdly, does the Ministry have plans to develop more mid-size theatres like the Drama Centre, which is now insufficient for the needs of local arts groups.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and I share her concerns and desire to provide more support for the arts groups in Singapore. On the first question, NAC is indeed doing a review of its grants framework and one of the items being reviewed is the guideline of funding of 30% of operating costs. For the review, NAC has been talking to arts groups, having consultations with the groups, getting their feedback. NAC will design a new framework, a new grant scheme or new items in the grant scheme which will provide more support for the arts groups, and I think the arts community will find it a positive move when the announcement is made.
On the second point about rental rates charged by The Esplanade and other agencies, I did a check on the rental rates and actually the rental rates by The Esplanade have not increased since the day it started operations. So, it is not as though the rental rates have been repeatedly raised in order to recover costs or to charge higher profits. They have not increased the rates since the day it started operations. Be that as it may, I understand the concern from the arts groups about rental costs. It is indeed a significant part of their operating costs and one way in which we can help them is with the grant that NAC provides, and that is why I have alluded to earlier that NAC has been doing a review of its grants framework. And I believe with the new grants framework, more support will be provided to the arts groups.
On the third point about additional mid-size theatres and additional venues, that is something that the Ministry will be committed to do. We are looking at expanding our institutions and spaces for performances. One of the things that we have done is to look at quality arts infrastructure and how we can expand that. We do look forward to the reopening of the Victoria Theatre and the Victoria Concert Hall, and that would be some time in the first quarter of 2014. We are also looking at upgrading facilities in other community nodes. So, we are mindful of the need for more spaces, and we will be looking to expand the possibilities and the spaces that we can have for performance venues.
\tPage: 1211
\tMs Janice Koh: Sir, I thank the Acting Minister. I just want to clarify that based on my supplementary question on rental rates, I was referring to some of the venues that The Esplanade runs, not just necessarily within the Esplanade, but, for example, the Drama Centre, which in 2008/2009, the rate collected was something like 12% of gross box office takings, and by 2010/2011, that had increased to 15% of gross box office takings. Similarly, in 2008/2009, if the venue was not used, the Dark Day Rate would be $750 and by the following year, it had increased to $1,400. So, there have been increases in the venue rental rates, not necessarily within The Esplanade but at the external venues run by The Esplanade.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the increases may happen from time to time. I mentioned The Esplanade. In the other spaces, there may be some rental increases. These have to cover some costs. The agencies that rent out these venues do not do this for profit. They are doing this to ensure that their finances are sustainable. So, we will do several things, as I mentioned. One, continue to manage the costs and ensure that the rents are affordable; two, do whatever we can to better utilise these status so that they are well optimised, in terms of utilisation rates; and, three, through the grants framework that NAC provides, ensure that sufficient support is given to our arts groups.
\tPage: 1211
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds Disbursed Under Multi-million Dollar Award Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how much funds have been given out under the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme since its inception as a programme for rewarding medals won at major sporting games; and (b) what is the breakdown of the medals won.
Page: 1211
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme (MAP) is an initiative of the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC), and it is fully funded with the support of sponsors. Since its inception in 1991, a total of $21.76 million has been awarded under the MAP, of which $20.43 million went to the athletes while $1.33 million to National Sports Associations to further the development of their sports.
Prize monies are awarded for gold medals at the SEA Games and for gold, silver and bronze medals at the Commonwealth, Asian and Olympic Games. In total, prize monies were given out under the MAP for a total of 483 medals. This comprises 336 SEA Games medals, 62 Commonwealth Games medals, 82 Asian Games medals and three Olympic Games medals.
\tPage: 1212
\tMr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, one supplementary question for the Acting Minister. I think the sports scene has changed since the MAP was first introduced to where we are now with more Singaporeans being asked to dedicate themselves to sports excellence. My question pertains to whether or not the Ministry would consider encouraging SNOC to look at, perhaps, scrapping the MAP completely and moving away from a transactional nature when it comes to encouraging our athletes to dedicate themselves to sports.
I think a lot of young athletes these days still view the fact that representing the country and winning for Singapore is an honour and a reward in and of itself. Front-loading the support from the MAP to the training and preparation process will be a more practical way of supporting a sportsman and Sports Associations and also give greater assurances to athletes, coaches, Sports Associations and the families, that the support will be coming in a very structured way from the start, more akin to giving somebody the petrol to drive from A to B, rather than saying, \"When you reach there, I will give you the petrol then\". This will signal to more stakeholders and sponsors that holistic kind of support framework is needed, and is more beneficial to the sports community.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. It is something that I think we will be happy to discuss with SNOC and with the sports community in general. I think the Member will be aware that there is a differentiation between what the Government funds to SSC and MAP which is an agreement between the SNOC and its sponsors, principally the Tote Board and Singapore Pools, and other private sponsors. The agreement between SNOC and its sponsors is subject to review from time to time – I think every four years – and this present agreement would be due for review in 2015 after the SEA Games. That is an agreement between SNOC and its sponsors.
On the Government side, the idea that the Member mentioned about whether or not some of these private sponsorships can be brought over to supporting athletes in their training and development, rather than be provided as an incentive or as a reward for their achievement, I think that balance is something we will be happy to discuss and have a conversation on, not just with SNOC, being mindful that it has a separate agreement with its sponsors, but also with the sports community at large. And with Singaporeans to see where that balance should be. That is something we will be happy to facilitate.
\tPage: 1212
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permanent Residents Leaving Singapore Prior to NS Enlistment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Defence in the past five years, what is the number of male Permanent Residents who leave Singapore within the two years leading up to enlistment for National Service and later return to Singapore on a student pass/Employment Pass or on PR status.
\tPage: 1213
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, Permanent Residents who are liable for National Service but who leave Singapore before enlistment and fail to register or enlist for National Service have committed an offence under the Enlistment Act. They are NS defaulters. Under the Enlistment Act, NS defaulters shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both. They would have to fulfil their National Service obligations thereafter.
None of them are allowed to return on student passes or work passes or on PR status, without resolving their NS offence and serving out their NS liability.
\tMrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the answer. I have one supplementary question to ask the Minister: whether the Ministry will allow male foreigners below the age of 40 who did not have to do NS, to be made to serve community service for an equivalent period of 24 months?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, as I said and it stands, those who default on their NS liabilities or fail to register or enlist are NS defaulters, and that is in our Enlistment Act, and that Act stands.
\tPage: 1213
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Education for Social Mobility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of \tMr Zaqy Mohamad –\t
14 To ask the Minister for Education in light of the Ministry's report on the performance of students in the national examinations from 2002-2011 (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of our education system being a promoter of social mobility over the past 10 years; (b) what is the number of students making it to post-Secondary education; (c) what are some of the key trends; and (d) whether the Ministry has studied factors such as the background of parents, the socio-economic status of the families of students who are more successful and of students who are not able to achieve the desired results.
\tPage: 1213
Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Question No 14, Sir.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Education): Sir, our education system seeks to provide strong support to all students to enable as many as possible to complete 10 years of general education, and to go on to post-Secondary education, via multiple pathways.
Our system recognises that students differ in their interest, aptitude and pace of development. Through the building of good foundations, and through providing multiple pathways and curricular options, our students can progress through appropriate development routes to successfully complete secondary schooling and progress further to post-Secondary institutions. For instance, at the Secondary level, Normal (Technical) and Normal (Academic) students are offered elective modules to enrich their learning experience through practice-oriented approaches. To further enhance the link between Secondary and post-Secondary education, we have introduced additional pathways, most recently, the Polytechnic Foundation Programme and the Direct Entry Scheme to Polytechnic for Normal (Academic) students which will begin next year.
\tPage: 1214
For weaker students, we have customised teaching and assessment methods to help them build a good foundation early. For instance, at lower Primary, our Learning Support Programmes (LSP) provide specialised support in literacy and numeracy for students who need it. At upper Primary, subject-based banding enables students to offer a combination of Standard or Foundation subjects based on their strengths.
Today, less than 1% of the Primary 1 cohort did not complete Secondary education, an improvement from 4% 10 years ago. Moreover, some 94% of the Primary 1 cohort, or about 46,000 students, progress to post-Secondary education institutions. This is an increase from 86% 10 years ago. These are significant achievements. Further, consistently over the last 10 years, more than 40% of students from the lowest socio-economic quintile progressed into our Polytechnics or Universities, and this has increased to 47% for the latest cohort.
Many factors affect the performance of students. Worldwide, one important factor is the socio-economic and education background of parents. Other factors include the presence of positive peer influence, the commitment of parents to their children's education and the support from schools and the broader community.
For these reasons, our efforts to help students make progress need to be multi-pronged, and to involve parents and the broader community.
To help needy students, we have enhanced the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme this year. We have also, since 2011, enhanced the scholarships and bursaries provided for ITE, Polytechnic and University students. MOE is also expanding student care centres in Primary schools to provide additional supervision and guidance after school for students who may require stronger learning support.
MOE's efforts have been well supported by parents and volunteer groups who provide additional support, such as reading and remedial lessons. Community self-help groups, such as CDAC, MENDAKI and SINDA, also provide strong support in various ways. It is important that we continue our multi-pronged approach so that we can continue to help students progress better.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Sir, I have one supplementary question. I wonder whether MOE has analysed the reasons for the decline in the passing rate for Mother Tongue and what can be done to arrest the decline further.
\tPage: 1215
\tMr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, this is not quite related to the performance of students from low-income families. So, I would suggest the Member file a specific question on it.
\tMr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, with regard to the social mobility question, recently, we read in the newspapers the report that about 40% of students living in HDB flats are studying in the top schools. Knowing that more than 80% of our population are living in HDB flats, is this trend worrisome for MOE? Have we seen more of the students living in better conditions progressing into top schools as an indication of difficulty faced by the low-income families?
\tMr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, on the contrary, we should be happy to see that many of our students from low-income families progress through their education, complete their Secondary education, and move into post-Secondary institutions. Instead of looking at the development the way the Member had, I would suggest that we look at it this way. About one in two students from the bottom third SCS families scored in the top two-third at PSLE. This proportion has remained stable over the past decade.
Second, about one in six students from the bottom third SCS families scored in the top third at PSLE. This proportion has also remained stable in the last decade. It basically means that students from lower SCS families have made good progress and have moved into the different Secondary school level or post-Primary, based on their interest and ability. But, broadly, I would say, we should have a broader definition of social mobility and move away from purely academic or monetary achievements. Rather, I would say, the social mobility is about striving for each successive generation to have more opportunities to pursue their interests and aptitudes and, in so doing, realise their full potential and to live better and more fulfilling lives than their parents. I think all of our students, irrespective of their social background, have made progress and do better than the current generation. In general, I would say, we are doing well.
\tPage: 1215
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Funds in Post-Secondary Education Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr David Ong –
15 To ask the Minister for Education (a) over the last two years, what is the number of requests for the use of the Post-Secondary Education Account; (b) how many of these were for education at non-approved institutions; and (c) whether the Government will ease the restriction and allow students to upgrade themselves in their post-Secondary education at local and overseas private institutions.
\tPage: 1215
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Question No 15, Sir.
\tPage: 1216
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Education): Sir, on average, about 84,000 Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) holders withdrew monies from their accounts in 2010 and 2011 each year to pay for expenses at approved institutions. MOE received about 20 appeals per year for the use of PSEA monies at non-approved institutions.
The PSEA scheme provides financial support for Singaporeans' post-Secondary education at our publicly-funded institutions. These are institutions with good track records and which are accountable to MOE through established frameworks, so that the Government can be more assured of quality and outcomes.
There exists in the private education sector today a large number of course offerings of uneven quality. The value that these courses bring to students and the outcomes that they support are not uniformly clear as these tend to vary by institution and course. Hence, the use of the PSEA is currently limited to local publicly-funded institutions. As with other policies, this is reviewed from time to time.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. May I know what is the outcome from the deliberation of the Committee on University Education Pathways, particularly on the issues of affordability and financing of University education at the autonomous or private institutions? My second question is: would the Ministry consider allowing individuals to use their CPF monies for undergraduate degree programmes at our local Universities, whether publicly-funded or private ones?
\tMs Sim Ann: Sir, the Committee on University Education Pathways Beyond 2015 has already submitted its report and recommendations, and its report does address the issues of affordability. Essentially, the Ministry continues to be committed to look at ways and means of improving affordability of education, particularly for post-secondary education of all pathways.
As for CPF monies, on this particular issue, the Member would be familiar with the current policy stance on the use of CPF monies. The primary use of CPF monies is for retirement. Therefore, in considering the further expansion for other uses, a careful balance has to be struck with particular regard to the adequacy of retirement savings. This remains our policy position for the time being.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I have a supplementary question. For the CPF, the citizens can actually apply to use the CPF monies if it is a local university, that is, take it like a loan. But it is not applicable for those who pursue their tertiary education in a private institution. Would it be possible to extend that to them as well, but with the requirement that they put it back into their CPF accounts after their graduation and after they have started working? That will really give flexibility and more options for Singaporeans who wish to pursue high aspirations, but do not have the means to do so at that point in time.
\tPage: 1217
\tMs Sim Ann: Sir, as with all policies, this is subject to review from time to time. As I have mentioned earlier, the important consideration here is the adequacy of CPF monies for the purpose of retirement. Therefore, any consideration of further policy reviews will have to take into account retirement adequacy.
\tPage: 1217
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending HOPE Scheme Coverage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of women who have joined the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) scheme this year; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider relaxing the criteria for the scheme to include mothers between 35-40 years old and/or have up to four children.
\tPage: 1217
\tThe Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) scheme was introduced in January 2004. It is a voluntary scheme for young low-income families who choose to keep their families small. Beneficiaries are provided with help for a head-start in the form of cash grants as well as funding in housing, training and children's education. They also receive mentoring support.
There were 222 families who joined the HOPE scheme in the first nine months of this year. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will review the HOPE scheme as part of our regular programme reviews. We will look into whether it should be refined to better meet its objectives. We note Mr Ang's specific suggestions on the scheme.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Sir, I thank the Acting Minister for the reply. When I do the weekly house visits, I encounter quite a few families where the mothers have three or more children, and they are pregnant. They really hope to join the HOPE scheme. If we do not help these mothers, they will have problems bringing up the children. Without additional help, these children may not be able to do well in school and subsequently may not do well in society. This could create a vicious cycle. So, I hope the Acting Minister can review it earlier, rather than later.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we note Mr Ang Wei Neng's suggestion. I would like to share with Members that if Members see that there are families who require help to manage their finances or bring up their families, whether it is the HOPE scheme or other schemes, they can always refer them to MSF, and we will see how best we can help them, either through the HOPE scheme or some other ways.
\tPage: 1218
The original intention of the HOPE scheme is to help our young families to keep their families small, and provide them with the mentoring help, in order for them to bring up their families better. But if there are other people who require help and do not qualify for the HOPE scheme, we can always look at some other ways to help them.
\tPage: 1218
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recurrent Funds Disbursed to Non-profit Childcare Anchor Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how much recurrent grants have been disbursed to each of the non-profit childcare anchor operators for each year since the scheme started; (b) how the amount to be disbursed to each anchor operator in each year is determined; (c) what Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are used to determine on-going eligibility of anchor operators for recurrent grants; and (d) whether these operators are required to submit a regular report on how the recurrent grants have been used and how they measure up to the KPIs required.
\tPage: 1218
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, the anchor operator scheme is aimed at enhancing the affordability, accessibility and quality of childcare in Singapore. Since 2009, a total of $69 million has been disbursed to the anchor operators.
The grants are determined based on the number of centres developed and the manpower to support the centres and their capacity. The disbursement of grants is performance based, and the level of funding depends on the standards met by the operator. Anchor operators are required to submit regular reports and audited statements on the utilisation of the grants.
Since the scheme was introduced, the two anchor operators currently on the scheme have built a total of 132 childcare centres. Apart from expanding capacity, the anchor operators are required to keep childcare programmes fees at these centres affordable, below that of the industry median. Anchor operators also need to meet quality targets. These quality indicators cover areas such as teachers' qualification, kindergarten class size as well as centre quality.
\tMr Yee Jenn Jong: I thank the Acting Minister for the answer. I noted some statistics that have been shared in the press and in previous parliamentary answers. Thirty-nine out of 330 PCF centres are Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) accredited. Twenty-seven PCF and NTUC Centres, out of the approximately 210 combined centres, are SPARK-accredited. That is about 12% of all the centres that are owned by these anchor operators. This is way short of the target of 85% of the centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, as shared in this House in November 2010. The first supplementary question that I would like to ask the Acting Minister: does he feel that these statistics show that the anchor operators have also not met the kind of quality standards that are expected by MCYS?
\tPage: 1219
The second supplementary question: should there be a greater link between the grant disbursement and certain published objectives? For example, one of the intentions is that the grant allows operators to recruit and retain better staff. But from earlier answers, I have also gathered that there is no direct link between how much they have to spend on various parts of the targets to be met. I hope that the Acting Minister can clarify this.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, in response to the first supplementary question on the SPARK-standards, for those who are trying to achieve the SPARK-accreditation, and that is if they have not met it, we will work with them to see how best they can meet it. We do want to encourage more of our centres to meet the accreditation required.
On the second question, for those centres that do not meet the requirements, we have withheld funding from them until they do so.
\tPage: 1219
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sexual Harassment Recourse in Workplace Safety Guidelines for Healthcare Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council's specific guidelines to the healthcare industry can specifically include sexual harassment and sexual abuse; and (b) whether there are plans for the WSH Council's guidelines to apply to all industries beyond only the healthcare industry which it now currently covers and when this extension will take place.
\tPage: 1219
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, developing a progressive and pervasive Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Culture in the workforce is critical to our efforts to improve WSH standards in Singapore. WSH Council's CultureSAFE programme is designed to help businesses in this endeavour. The programme measures and benchmarks an organisation's WSH culture. It also identifies gaps and develops programmes to help the organisation better manage all work-related risks, including psychosocial risks. As the programme has just been launched, WSH Council will be gathering feedback and, when appropriate, review and improve the programme.
Ms Faizah suggested specifically addressing sexual harassment and sexual abuse in the WSH Council's Guidelines for the healthcare industry. These guidelines already touch on violence and workplace harassment. They were added following industry feedback that workers in healthcare were more susceptible to psychosocial risks. These guidelines can also apply to risks associated with sexual harassment.
As for incorporating psychosocial risk recommendations into additional WSH guidelines, the Ministry of Manpower will work with the WSH Council to consult relevant stakeholders. It is important that such guidelines are meaningful to the associated industries.
\tPage: 1220
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos 19, 25-26, 28-31, 33-34, 41, 43-44, 46, 50, 52-54 and 56 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 1295-1308). Question Nos 20-24, 27, 32, 35-40, 42, 45, 47-49, 51 and 55 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 15 November 2012.]
\tPage: 1220
\tPage: 1220
The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I intend to make a Ministerial Statement to the House at the conclusion of proceedings on item 1 on today's Order Paper. As such, I beg to move,
[(proc text) That, under Standing Order 10(2), a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Defence be taken immediately after item 1 on the Order Paper for today. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, under Standing Order 10(2), a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Defence be taken immediately after item 1 on the Order Paper for today.\" (proc text)]
\tPage: 1220
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"\tPage: 1220
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [12 November 2012], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\". – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members of the House for their strong support of the Government's stand against drugs. Our stand on drugs is clear. Drug use is harmful to the individual, his family and society, and is undesirable. We must, therefore, continue our zero tolerance approach against drugs, and I am happy that the community is also behind us in this. We must not go the way of other countries that have given up the fight to suppress demand.
Mr Speaker, the Task Force on Drugs completed its work in April this year and recommended a comprehensive approach to address the drug situation covering targeted prevention, strong deterrence and enforcement and upstream intervention for young abusers, rehabilitation and supervision to prevent relapse and active engagement of families and the community to support the fight against drugs.
\tPage: 1221
Mr Desmond Lee asked about the status of implementation of the Task Force on Drugs' recommendation and I will cover this in my speech today.
In the area of strengthening the deterrents and enforcement, the Task Force recommended having stiffer punishments for repeat traffickers and those who target the young or vulnerable, creating a new offence for arranging and planning drug gatherings, taking new psychoactive substances out of circulation through the temporary listing of these drugs as well as enhancing our detection and deterrence through the introduction of hair analysis. The legislative amendments will give effect to these recommendations.
Mr Desmond Lee asked whether hair analysis results would be used as a basis for consumption charges. The Bill proposes that the hair analysis will be used for placing persons under drug supervision. But we will explore the possibility of using hair analysis to complement urine testing for prosecution of drug abusers in future. We will also learn from the experiences in other countries, such as South Korea and Japan, as we build up our own capabilities in hair analysis. If hair analysis is used as a basis for prosecution in future, we will establish the necessary safeguards to ensure a fair and robust system for determining whether someone has abused drugs.
Mr Lee also suggested making the importation or trafficking of any new psychoactive substance a residual offence. We have to proceed carefully as these are substances which may have psychoactive effects but also have legitimate medical or other uses. We therefore have to undertake thorough research and industry consultation before we decide on the controls to be placed on the substance and whether to criminalise its possession and trafficking. But we will take Mr Lee's suggestion on board and move quickly if we see these substances intentionally and widely distributed or abused for their psychotropic effect.
On the new offence of arranging or planning drug gatherings, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the intent of clause 4 would be to include situations where there had been the intention to bring drugs or consume them at a gathering, but for some reason such intention had not been carried out.
As Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned in his speech, clause 4 is intended to criminalise the arranging or planning of a gathering by those who have the knowledge that a controlled drug would be consumed or trafficked at such gathering. The basis for this offence is that the gathering must have taken place and the persons arranging or planning the gathering must have the knowledge that a controlled drug would be consumed or trafficked. However, there is no requirement for the drugs to be actually consumed or trafficked for the offence to be complete. Apart from the amendments that give effect to the Task Force's recommendations, some amendments will also provide greater clarity in terms of processes, such as the amendments to allow CNB discretion to decide whether to submit urine samples for testing by the Health Sciences Authority in cases where the instant urine test is negative.
\tPage: 1222
In relation to Mr Lee's question about how the CNB will exercise this with discretion, this will be based on the holistic assessment of the case, taking into account various factors like the presence of circumstantial evidence at the point of arrest and whether the person has admitted to drug consumption.
Beyond the legislative amendments, I would also like to speak about other measures we are taking to comprehensively address the drug situation.
Dr Intan Azura, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Ms Faizah Jamal are right in saying that preventive drug education, or in short PDE, is critical in preventing our young from getting caught in a vicious cycle of drug addiction.
Mr Desmond Lee has asked whether our preventive education efforts have been effective. CNB has done well in reaching out to students in Primary and Secondary schools. The PDE modules are already integrated into schools' syllabus and curriculum. In addition, close to 80% of Primary and Secondary schools participate in PDE programmes and activities.
In recent years, we have adapted our outreach strategies to go beyond school-based talks to reach out to youth through social media and interest-based activities, such as outdoor games, sports and dance, to spread the anti-drug message. Other countries have commended us on our approach with preventive education and expressed interest in the materials produced by the CNB. The Task Force recommends that the CNB should broaden its reach to include at-risk youth, post-Secondary youth and national servicemen to prevent them from even experimenting with drugs in the first place. This is currently being done. We have also improved upstream intervention for youth drug abusers. Since January 2012, CNB has established a dedicated reporting centre for young drug supervisees on the Urine Supervision Scheme. This means that they report to a separate centre for the regular urine test, different from those where adult drug supervisees report to. This segregation reduces opportunities for young ex-drug abusers to be influenced by experienced older abusers.
CNB is also working with MSF to enhance the Direct Supervision Order (DSO), for low-risk youth abusers. The new scheme to be implemented in 2013 would include compulsory case work and counselling. With this Bill, we will also be enhancing the rehabilitation regime for new young abusers. A Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) will be established as a step-down arrangement for them after they have served a short period of detention in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC). This will constitute one DRC admission and render the abuser liable for the long-term imprisonment regime if he is arrested for drug abuse after a second DRC admission. This is, therefore, no different from other drug abusers admitted to the DRC for the first time. During their initial stay in the DRC, these young abusers will undergo the same regime as other drug abusers. The eventual transfer to the CRC is meant to enhance the rehabilitation upstream while facilitating their education or employment. However, these young abusers will still have to adhere to the rules and regulations of the CRC and, should they commit major breaches, they will be transferred back to the DRC.
\tPage: 1223
Mr Faisal Manap asked about the involvement of religious and voluntary welfare organisations in the CRC regime.
Besides undergoing drug intervention programmes which aim to help them address risk factors for relapse, these young abusers will also participate in programmes conducted by voluntary welfare organisations engaged by the Prisons service. These programmes cover areas, such as rebuilding family relations, inculcating life skills, engaging in community service activities and fostering positive peer relations. They will also be allowed to attend religious services and activities conducted by religious volunteers as appropriate to their respective religions.
Mr Speaker, our rehabilitation and supervision framework will be enhanced to reduce abusers' risk of relapse. Prisons currently conduct psychological-based programmes to address risk factors which are likely to lead to re-offending.
To Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Desmond Lee's questions on the effectiveness of rehabilitation, these programmes have shown some positive results through the achievement of programme goals, such as reduced criminal attitudes among offenders who attended the intervention programmes. However, more can be done.
Previously, DRC-intervention programmes mostly only address drug abuse and addiction. The Task Force found that within the DRC regime, higher-risk DRC inmates may also have other criminogenic risk factors that need to be addressed, such as anti-social thinking. As such, we will implement a new intervention programme in the DRCs to help these inmates address their multiple risk factors. These efforts will be complemented by a compulsory after-care regime to enhance the supervision of DRC inmates upon release to reduce the risk of relapse into drug abuse. Given that about 2,000 repeat abusers who are sentenced to Long-Term Imprisonment (LT) will be released over the next two years, we must also do more to reduce their risk of relapse and enhance their potential for reintegration. In this regard, Prisons started a Pre-release Centre Pilot in April 2012 targeted at offenders with higher risk of relapse. This will also allow more time and opportunities for family members and counsellors to engage soon-to-be released offenders and help them to better reintegrate into society upon their release.
\tPage: 1224
Since 1 November 2012, all LT offenders assessed to be at high-risk of relapse must also undergo enhanced supervision upon their release. About 500 high-risk inmates will be emplaced on the regime next year. Apart from the regular urine supervision, there will be additional restrictions, such as strict curfew hours and electronic monitoring. They will be required to go through a programme of intensive compulsory counselling and case work provided by Prisons counsellors. This will cover referrals for employment and shelter as well as equip them with practical life skills. These additional requirements aim to reduce their risk of relapse and support their rehabilitation efforts.
The enhanced supervision regime is part of the comprehensive approach to address the drug addiction situation recommended by the Task Force on drugs to strengthen our overall rehabilitation and supervision regime for repeat abusers. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1312-1313.] In principle, the Government's approach is to treat drug abuse as a national problem. Drug abuse is dangerous and affects the abusers, their families and the community. However, we have to come to terms with the fact that Malay abusers continue to form the majority of abusers arrested in 2011, comprising more than 48% of all drug abusers. Last year, the number of Malay abusers arrested increased by 16.5% from 1,376 in 2010 to 1,603 in 2011. Although this is worrying, it is still a significant improvement compared to the height of the drug problem in 1994 when there were more than double the abusers arrested.
We are now particularly concerned about the rising trend of new, young abusers below the age of 21 years old. The number of young Malay drug abusers arrested in recent years has quadrupled from 41 in 2007 to 166 in 2011. A majority of these young abusers abuse methamphetamine or \"Ice\" which is a synthetic drug that has toxic effects and will cause extensive damage to their brains. These young abusers view the taking of drugs with their friends as a \"fun\" activity but later find that they cannot extricate themselves from the vicious and painful cycle of addiction.
This problem requires a concerted approach across the Government, the community, families and the abusers themselves. Hence, even though the Task Force to review the issue of drug abuse has completed its job, I will still head the Coordination Committee which will monitor the follow-up actions and suggestions made. It will include Government agencies and relevant community groups. This will pitch this effort at an appropriate level, which is at the national level.
I think that Mr Faisal Manap's suggestion to form a Malay Leadership Committee to manage this drug problem is not in line with the demands of the community and Malay/Muslim organisations like AMP, and I do not want it to be a signal that this is a Malay problem specifically.
\tPage: 1225
In fact, it is clear that the Malay/Muslim community and organisations have been very involved in helping the families of inmates and ex-inmates. Some have implemented programmes to help them with temporary accommodation, so that those who have been released can have shelter and to re-adjust themselves as free persons.
What we need is a more concerted effort, not another new committee. Through the coordination committee, the Malay community and all other communities will be able to make use of national resources, and the Malay/Muslim community and organisations, who are both helping, are given the support that suits their respective strengths and contributions. These efforts have helped much to reduce the rate of recidivism, including those who have been imprisoned for drug offences.
Mr Speaker, we have to take a preventive approach and, hence, our community has to increase their vigilance. Only when every family shows concern, educates and protects our children from the influence of drugs, will they see drugs as something that is revolting and not as something that they should try. We must not allow the drug abuse problem to worsen like what happened in the 1970s, when drug abuse was widespread and drugs were easily obtained. We have seen the negative effects of drug abuse on the addicts, their families and the community. We must maintain a firm stand of zero tolerance on drugs and work together to bring down the numbers further.
To address the issue of young abusers upstream, the Government will be improving upstream intervention by enhancing the Direct Supervision Order scheme where, apart from urine supervision, casework and counselling will be made compulsory for these abusers. We will also establish a Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) which will be a step-down arrangement for young abusers of moderate risk, after they have served a period of detention in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC). This will allow them to continue to go to school or work, minimise disruption to their daily lives and reduce the risks of being influenced by repeat abusers in the DRC.
To reduce the risk of relapse of drug abusers in the DRC and among those who are placed under the Long-Term Imprisonment regime, we will also improve their rehabilitation and supervision framework. However, the community needs to support the process of re-integration of ex-drug abusers so that they will not relapse into drug abuse when they are released.
(In English): As Dr Intan rightly pointed out, there are many helping hands in the community to support ex-abusers who are committed to staying on the path of rehabilitation. MHA will strengthen our collaboration with key partners, such as the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA), the Singapore After-Care Association (SACA), halfway houses, and other voluntary welfare organisations, including religious organisations, to build capabilities in the community to support ex-abusers and their families. Under the community befriending project, we also match volunteer befrienders with inmates so as to provide positive peer support and role modelling to them even after they are released.
\tPage: 1226
However, while support is provided by the Government, the community and the abusers' families, ex-abusers have the responsibility to take charge of their lives and use every opportunity to rehabilitate and change. I think I cannot but reiterate that the onus is on the ex-abusers to make the effort otherwise all these measures would become opportunities missed.
We will make changes to the system over time, where appropriate, and I would be happy to receive suggestions and feedback from Members on how to further strengthen the anti-drug regime.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal with some of the issues raised relating to the death penalty, in particular questions on \"substantive assistance\", and questions on the diminished responsibility test.
Members who spoke agreed that the drug problem is a serious one. Mr Laurence Lien is opposed to the death penalty on principle. All the other Members and NMPs agreed that the death penalty is appropriate to deal with the drug problem. So, in this House, we have near unanimous agreement on the death penalty, but some differences in how it should be applied.
Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Asst Prof Eugene Tan have urged for more judicial discretion on application of the death penalty. These suggestions are well-intentioned.
My view is this. The starting position is that the courts should have discretion in sentencing – that is eminently correct, and sensible and right. Most of us will agree with that. If you want to make a sentence mandatory, and remove the discretion of the court, there must be good reasons.
How, then, should we approach the question of the death penalty for serious drug offences?
If we focus only on the trafficker, and ask if mercy should be shown, the answer is obvious – it must be yes. No one can disagree.
But that is not the only question, or even the primary question. The correct questions are: what is the nature of the drug menace – what is the nature of the beast? What are the risks we face as a country, and as a society? How do we deal with these risks? What is our approach? What happens if we completely remove the mandatory death penalty and replace it with a death penalty to be imposed at the discretion of the Courts? Are we prepared for the trade-offs and the risks? The answers depend on the level of risk and the cost to society that you are prepared to accept.
\tPage: 1227
What is the context against which we assess those risks? Globally, the number of drug users has increased from 180 million to 210 million in the last 10 years. The number of deaths due to drugs has increased from around 100,000 to over 260,000. The mean age for deaths due to drugs is in the mid-30s.
The fight worldwide against drugs is being lost. In Central America, levels of violence are rising, fuelled by transnational organised crime and drug trafficking. The region is now home to the highest homicide rates in the world. In Afghanistan, development is being hindered by the highest rates of opiate prevalence in the world. For West and Central Africa, about half of the cocaine trafficked through the region now remains there, jeopardising hard-won gains in sustainable development and good governance. All this is from the UN Secretary-General.
The regional situation is also not pretty. In Malaysia, the number of drug abusers stand at 350,000, and is expected to exceed 500,000 by 2015. In Indonesia, 1.3 million 10- to 19-year-olds have experimented with drugs, and more than 500,000 use drugs on a regular basis.
Drug labs are proliferating in the region – Deputy Prime Minister spoke on this. Drug syndicates are sophisticated MNCs – well financed, international networks, very smart people at the helm, making huge profits, access to people who are willing to act as couriers.
Singapore is a highly attractive destination. We are a rich country. People can pay for drugs. We are a transport and tourism hub – 500,000 persons pass through or enter Singapore each day; 182 million each year. It is logical to use Singapore as a drug hub.
The impact of drugs in Singapore − two thirds of the local prison population are drug offenders. Eighty percent have drug antecedents. This is the same everywhere – drug offenders usually commit other crimes. There is also the impact on families, victims of offenders, on society at large. Tens of thousands every year. The number of youth abusers is increasing, worryingly.
We take comprehensive measures against both supply and demand, as explained by the Deputy Prime Minister. We have education, early intervention for young abusers. Strict border controls, tough enforcement. A tough regime for first and second time abusers, where they receive counselling and rehabilitation. After the third time, they are sent to long-term imprisonment. The CLTPA regime deals with syndicate members where witnesses are fearful to testify. Across the board, we have draconian punishments: caning, imprisonment, the death penalty.
\tPage: 1228
The result: we are one of the few countries in the world where the drug menace has been fought reasonably successfully – not won, you can never say that these fights are won – but reasonably successfully, and certainly not lost. The number of drug abusers has gone down since 1994, even discounting the Subutex effect – these are lives saved, families saved, which are all the more remarkable if you consider the global trends of increasing abuse rates. Global trends are going up, ours is downward. Drug kingpins avoid Singapore; there is no substantive production here. Couriers think twice before trying their luck, and they try to keep below the capital threshold – we know this from intelligence. We are not a transhipment hub, despite our connectivity. Drug prices are comparatively high; purity levels comparatively low.
This is the context. The question of whether the mandatory death penalty is needed has to be seen in this context. We must ask ourselves: why do drug kingpins avoid Singapore? Why is it difficult to get people to traffic into Singapore? Why is it that traffickers often and deliberately keep below the limits for capital punishment? We are a lucrative target. Remove the mandatory death penalty, and what will be the consequence? Would there be more people willing to be couriers?
Remember, we are dealing with drug lords who are very smart people with lots of money, no scruples, and who will mercilessly exploit others. Our stance on the death penalty is widely known – in Singapore, traffickers face the death penalty. That is a powerful message. That creates a difficulty in recruiting couriers. It will not be easy to get people to willingly risk their lives. Not impossible, but not easy. When you remove the mandatory death penalty, you remove that fear. Are we willing to take the risk of many more becoming willing couriers? You have seen the data. We potentially have millions in the region who could be persuaded to traffic drugs to Singapore. Lots of drug addicts, lots of people who need the money.
On this point, a couple of Members, I think it is Ms Lim and Mr Singh, have cited the views of the former Attorney-General, Prof Walter Woon, which were made at a forum on death penalty. At that forum, Prof Woon made some remarks about the mandatory death penalty and how it warps prosecutorial discretion, and both Members referred to that. He went on to describe the prosecution as having a heavy burden in determining the appropriate charge when a person is killed.
I have specifically asked Prof Woon about his comments and he has confirmed the following in writing: (a) he was illustrating a general point about the responsibilities of the prosecution; (b) he has always drawn a distinction between the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in drug cases from that in murder cases; (c) he has stated this previously in public, in interviews and talks; (d) his view is that for murder cases under section 300, it is better that the Courts have the discretion.
\tPage: 1229
For drug cases, Prof Woon's view is that the discretion is better placed with the Public Prosecutor for the following reasons: (a) the assessment would have to be made on intelligence not within the knowledge of the court or often inadmissible in court; (b) the Public Prosecutor will be better placed to take note of broad public policy considerations; (c) it is often the case that an accused is willing to plead guilty, but will not do so if the charge carries the possibility of capital punishment, even if it is discretionary.
Prof Woon did express himself in broad terms during the forum, and he did not specifically draw the distinction between drugs and homicide when making those comments. But he has since told me that his precise views are as he has set out to me, and that he has always held these views and continues to hold these views now. He confirms that his views have been expressed previously, in public. And he emphasises that his remarks at the forum were directed at murder, not drugs, though he did not explicitly say so.
Prof Woon, when he was the Attorney-General, had expressed similar views to me in the context of the Public Prosecutor's discretion in dealing with drug cases. This is a topic on which we have had several discussions, because as I have said to this House before, MinLaw and MHA constantly look at the death penalty, and the Courts and the AGC are people we consult regularly on this issue. And the current Attorney-General and the current Chief Justice also take similar views.
In the context of drugs, the suggestion to give discretion to judges looks attractive at first sight: maintain the death penalty for deterrence, but allow for mercy in individual cases.
As I said earlier, this is something that concerns us deeply because, like the Members who have spoken on this, our preference is also to give more discretion to the Courts. We have looked at this carefully and discussed it with the agencies and the Attorney-General.
We have also consulted Chief Justices Chan Sek Keong and Sundaresh Menon, to see if this can be done, if it is possible, if it is practicable. Their view is this. If Parliament deems it necessary to make a drug offence punishable with the death penalty, it is preferable that the statute sets out as clearly as possible the circumstances under which the death penalty ought to be imposed. While the Courts will of course exercise any discretion in a principled and consistent manner, their view is that it is best that the legislature define in the clearest possible terms when the ultimate punishment is justified. That is the responsibility of the legislature, which is elected by the people.
I think Members can understand why the Judiciary is asking that that should be the framework. So let us take it from there. How would we craft the statute to give more discretion to the courts?
\tPage: 1230
First, the quantum, 15 grams of diamorphine – do we agree this is a serious threshold, or do we say it should be some other threshold? Once you agree on the threshold, and if the elements of offence are made out, that is, trafficking over 15 grams, then how would you have the court exercise discretion? I will be happy to hear Members' views on this. Can we conceive of a discretionary sentencing approach which maintains the deterrent value of the death penalty across the whole spectrum of drug trafficking activities?
With the best of intentions, it will be difficult – I think it is impossible. That is the view which we came to after discussing and considering the matter carefully, with the agencies, with the various Attorneys-General, and with the courts.
Consider what factors you will set out for exercise of discretion: would you say age, youth? Would you say young mothers? Would you say impecuniosity? Would you say, see if the trafficker was baited with love? Or would you look at other family circumstances?
You set out the criteria, whatever they are, and the drug lords will send you any number who will satisfy those criteria, who will perfectly fit the profile. This is because you are looking at background factors; the circumstances of the crime become less important.
So, while it is attractive in broad terms to talk about giving discretion, look at it in detail and see whether it is workable. For murder, yes. You can look at it to see if it's a crime of passion, you can look at the motive, you can look at the circumstances. How do you do that for drug trafficking? How do you do it in a way that does not affect the fundamental deterrent effect of the death penalty?
So, let us be very clear. You go down this route – in effect you might have de facto abolition of the death penalty. So, pose the question in realistic terms: do you want a complete elimination or at least a substantial reduction in the deterrent value of the death penalty? I am not saying you cannot put forward that position. But let us be clear-minded and hard-headed about this, and look at the hard issues: on the one hand, the drug issues and the risks which we face, and on the other hand, whether we have the death penalty.
You weigh the risks, you decide. Prof Woon said at the same forum I referred to: \"Judges very seldom go for the maximum. In this, they are like University lecturers who never give you the maximum marks. They sort of hover around the centre. There is a tariff for most cases.\" Quite understandable – Judges are reluctant to impose the ultimate sentence. And you also have the drug lords sending you the couriers who fit the criteria for not imposing the death penalty. What is the result? De facto abolition.
\tPage: 1231
So, those are the terms of the debate. And in these terms, then, the question for Members is: is this a risk you are prepared to take, to remove a key component of our strategy, in light of the global situation?
And a word about couriers. There are many misconceptions about this. Let us be clear. They do this for money. They know what they are doing is wrong. They hide the drugs in secret compartments, all sorts of places, and try and traffic through our checkpoints. Fifteen grams is not little. It is 2,200 straws – you can feed the addiction of 300 abusers for a week.
Let me now move on to cooperation, a question that has been raised by quite a number of Members. This is the first exception – the couriers who have substantively assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities could be spared capital punishment.
In looking at this, if the question was, and again looking at the speeches, it seems to me that Members may have asked themselves the question: what can we do to help couriers avoid capital punishment? If that was the question, we do not need to make these amendments. The solutions are very easy.
The issue is not what we can do to help couriers avoid capital punishment. It is about what we can do to enhance the effectiveness of the Act in a non-capricious and fair way without affecting our underlying fight against drugs. Discretionary sentencing for those who offer substantive assistance is the approach we have taken. For those who cannot offer substantive assistance, then the position is as it is now.
Some Members have asked: would it be better to say that the courier has done his best, that he has acted in good faith − should he not qualify? I think Mr Edwin Tong, Mr Alvin Yeo, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Mr Laurence Lien, Mrs Lina Chiam, Ms Faizah Jamal, all made this point.
The short answer is that it is not a realistic option because every courier, once he is primed, will seem to cooperate. Remember we are dealing not with an offence committed on the spur of the moment. We are dealing with offences instigated by criminal organisations which do not play by the rules, which will look at what you need, what your criteria are and send it to you. So, if you say just cooperate, just do your best, all your couriers will be primed with beautiful stories, most of which will be unverifiable but on the face of it, they have cooperated, they did their best. And the death penalty will then not be imposed and you know what will happen to the deterrent value. Operational effectiveness will not be enhanced. Will we be better off? Will we be worse off?
As I started out saying, in these things, it is not as if there is one clear answer one way or another. It is what we in this House consider to be important for our society, after weighing the costs and the benefits. If you believe that couriers, even if they tell us stories, ought to go free, then that is a choice we make. But when you make that choice, do not fool yourself that there are no trade-offs.
\tPage: 1232
Mr Edwin Tong, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Desmond Lee have also asked: are drug couriers in a position to provide substantive assistance? Fair point. It is a point that was raised extensively during our consultations. Let me throw back the question. Assuming the couriers are not able to help, what should be the penalty? That goes back to the fundamental question: should there be the death penalty for couriers? That is the first hurdle you have to cross. It is a difficult question, but I think Members other than Mr Lien have agreed that there should be the death penalty for couriers. Once you say that, then you will see this change as making an exception to that position. So, only those who qualify for that exception can be spared the death penalty. You then need to be careful about making the exception so wide that the rule itself is seriously qualified.
In any case, CNB's operational assessment is that couriers can give substantive assistance in some cases. Also, the very existence of the mechanism adds friction to the entire drug trafficking network. Every arrested courier is now potentially a lead back to the syndicate. That will make it difficult for the entire organisation. Let us not underestimate the syndicates. They will of course try to work around this in innovative ways. The question for this House is, should we therefore not try this approach?
Mr Desmond Lee also asked if we should recognise substantive assistance in other areas of law enforcement. Substantive assistance by couriers is especially useful in the context of drug trafficking, because of their links back to the syndicate. By contrast, couriers are not uniquely or especially able to assist on combating drug consumption and so on.
Next, on the issue of who decides cooperation and by what criteria. The Bill provides for the Public Prosecutor to assess whether the courier has substantively assisted CNB.
I think Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Pritam Singh, Mrs Chiam and Ms Faizah Jamal have concerns here. Their view is: it is an issue of life and death – the discretion should lie with the Courts to decide on cooperation.
First, the cooperation mechanism is neither novel nor unusual. Other jurisdictions, like the US and UK, have similar provisions, operated by prosecutors, to recognise cooperation for the purposes of sentencing. For example, Title 18, section 3553(e) of the United States Code provides:
[(proc text) \"Limited Authority To Impose a Sentence Below a Statutory Minimum – Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Such sentence shall be imposed in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code.\" (proc text)]
\tPage: 1233
The Courts decide questions of guilt and culpability. As for the operational value of assistance provided by the accused, the Public Prosecutor is better placed to decide. The Public Prosecutor is independent and at the same time, works closely with law enforcement agencies and has a good understanding of operational concerns. An additional important consideration is protecting the confidentiality of operational information.
The very phrase \"substantive assistance\" is an operational question and turns on the operational parameters and demands of each case. Too precise a definition may limit and hamper the operational latitude of the Public Prosecutor, as well as the CNB. It may also discourage couriers from offering useful assistance which falls outside of the statutory definition.
Ms Lim suggested that if there are concerns about confidentiality, why not have it in camera, although I am not quite sure she used that phrase. The real point is this. Just imagine the scenario. In a case, the defendant argues that he rendered substantial assistance – it is CNB's fault for not dismantling some organisation overseas, it is something which CNB did or did not do, what intelligence agencies and officers did and did not do. And you put the officers on the stand and cross-examine them on their methods, their sources, their thinking. Ask yourself whether that is the best way of dealing with this question. Is that helpful?
Again, is there a risk? Obviously, if you give such powers, there is a risk. But which is the bigger risk? This is something you have to ask yourself. If, over a period of time, the entire modus operandi of the CNB is effectively in the public domain, does it do us any good?
In similar vein, I think Ms Lim, Mr Singh, Mrs Chiam and Ms Jamal, raised or implied the possibility of abuse, or at any rate that the Public Prosecutor may refuse to issue a certificate even though substantive assistance has indeed been provided.
As I said earlier, I accept that the risk identified of course exists.
What we have to assess is: overall, are we better off, if we reduce this risk and the issue is transferred to the Courts? That is a judgement call that is to be made. Is society better off? Which route has greater risks? And take into account the fact that the Public Prosecutor's discretion is not unfettered. It is subject to judicial review, either on bad faith or malice, which is expressly provided for, and of course, unconstitutionality, which goes without saying.
There are also significant institutional incentives for the Public Prosecutor to exercise his discretion properly. Over time, if the Public Prosecutor consistently recognises cases where substantive assistance has been provided, that will obviously encourage more cooperation by couriers. On the other hand, if the Public Prosecutor acts capriciously or inconsistently, the system cannot work. So, over and above the judicial checks, it is really in the Public Prosecutor's interest to operate the system with integrity.
\tPage: 1234
This is not just the position in Singapore. I have mentioned the US position earlier. Section 3553(e)'s constitutionality has been upheld by a number of federal Courts of Appeals. In the case of US v Huerta (1989), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had this to say:
[(proc text) \"We believe that whether a defendant's cooperation has risen to the level of \"substantial assistance\" to the government is self-evidently a question that the prosecution is uniquely fit to resolve. Nor do we perceive any danger of misuse of this power. There are significant institutional incentives for the prosecution to exercise sound judgment and to act in good faith in deciding whether to make a Section 3553(e) motion. The government has an interest in encouraging defendants to cooperate with law enforcement efforts. The reasonable use of substantial assistance motions for those who cooperate will make others more likely to do so in the future.\" (proc text)]
Let me now move on to the question of false information. Mr Desmond Lee questioned whether couriers may give false information to implicate others. That is one of the reasons why assistance given must be substantive. Any information given will not be used against others unless the Public Prosecutor and CNB are satisfied as to its reliability.
Asst Prof Eugene Tan asked whether the mechanism creates a risk of self-incrimination? There is that risk. But let me throw back the question: what does that mean? Should we, therefore, not have this exception?
If we believe that the DP should be abolished, then I can understand Professor Tan's argument. But if that is not argued, and he is not arguing that, then you have to weigh between sticking to the current position – you prove the actus reus and the mens rea, trafficking in 15 grams or more, and the person faces capital punishment unless he provides substantial assistance. Should you not give him that option?
I think Asst Prof Tan also makes the point: would CNB officers pressure the accused to self-incriminate? That raises questions outside of issues that we are discussing today, as to whether we should or should not have such an exception.
So, really the question is: if the accused knows something, and has to decide between trying to run a false defence that he knows nothing, and telling the truth and assisting the CNB – I do not think Members will argue against giving him an incentive to tell the truth, to help us, and to help himself.
\tPage: 1235
Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Desmond Lee asked whether those on death row be given a chance to offer substantive assistance. The answer is yes. The Public Prosecutor will assess what is to be done, in consultation with CNB.
On the second exception on diminished responsibility, some Members spoke on this.
The law in this area has recently been set out by the Court of Appeal in Ong Pang Siew v PP [2011] 1 SLR 60. Our view is that the law has been set out and commonsensical judgments have to be made on the facts. Genuine cases of mental disability are recognised, while, errors of judgements will not afford a defence. And the law is also capable of taking into account the progress of medical science in understanding mental conditions.
Mr Christopher de Souza said the law must be interpreted strictly in its application to drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is a highly purposive and coordinated activity. The legal principles remain the same, however, in assessing whether diminished responsibility is made out.
Ms Jamal and Ms Lim asked: how will low IQ be dealt with? And Ms Lim asked whether we can broaden the defence such that an accused, who does not qualify for a strict definition of diminished responsibility, but who is still vulnerable enough to be exploited, can qualify.
The position is that sufficiently low IQ will constitute an abnormality of mind. As to what level of IQ is sufficiently low, cases have focused on the mental retardation threshold. Whether medical science will move further and whether Courts will accept that, I think that is really not something where I want to pre-empt any development.
Our basic position is that there should be a partial defence for those who suffer from a mental condition which substantially impairs their responsibility and, of course, the Public Prosecutor retains his discretion in borderline cases.
Mr Speaker: Order. Minister, please allow us to extend time under the Standing Orders.
\tPage: 1235
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Speeches","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"\tPage: 1235
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) in respect of the reply to be made by the Minister for Law and the Deputy Prime Minister – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
\tPage: 1236
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"\tPage: 1236
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: It is not our intention to extend this to those who do not suffer from a recognised and proven psychiatric condition.
Sir, let me conclude by making some broad points. I have spoken several times about weighing the consequences in realistic terms, before deciding what we do. Let us look at some real cases to see what I mean.
First, the case of \"Nonoi\". In 2006, Mohd Johari was charged for the murder of his two-year-old step-daughter, Nonoi. Her photograph was all over the newspapers. He admitted to slapping her and repeatedly immersing her in a pail of water. He was a father at 17, a marijuana smoker, cough syrup abuser, an immature, deficient parent. He said that he sometimes brought Nonoi home with him as he thought that she would help him avoid detection by CNB. She is a victim, maybe he is also a victim, of the drug traffickers and the drug lords. The question for this House: how many Nonois do you want?
Then look at \"Tony\", aged 51. Long history of drug abuse. First admitted to DRC at age of 16. Eight subsequent DRC admissions. Lived with his mother, who took out a protection order against him for violent behaviour. Imprisoned in 2007 for breaching the order. Later imprisoned for drug trafficking and causing grievous hurt. He often beat up his father, who committed suicide. He was picked up for vagrancy in 2010, and now lives in a welfare home. This is typical of the many, many cases we deal with.
Look at \"Nelly\" and \"Rose\". Nelly, aged 6, was placed under foster care after her mother, uncle and grandfather were arrested for drug consumption. She had been cared for by multiple caregivers. She witnessed her mother taking drugs. Her sister, Rose, a newborn baby, was also placed under foster care in 2010.
Look at \"Ricky\". Nine years old. Referred to MCYS in 2007 when his mother and stepfather were imprisoned for drug offences. Both had a long history of drug abuse. His father was also a drug abuser. Ricky was admitted to a children's home, with emotional issues and suicidal tendencies. His father was released from prison recently, but has now defaulted on his urine tests.
Last case: \"Girl A\". Arrested at the age of 16 for possessing methamphetamine. The drugs were given to her by her half-sister, now in jail for drug consumption, and also her mother's boyfriend. When her mother's boyfriend was caught, she turned to her mother, who gave her heroin regularly. She has three half-brothers now doing time for drug consumption. Five of her mother's friends are also in, for consuming drugs at her half-sister's home. A group of 12 in total, caught in the snare of drugs.
\tPage: 1237
We want to show mercy and compassion to the traffickers. But we also need to show mercy and compassion to the Nonois, and the Roses, and the Nellies, and the Rickys in this world, and thousands of others like them. Young lives, full of promise, destroyed in their prime. None of us, really, is here cheering for the death penalty or the mandatory death penalty. It has to be a careful calibration of the risks that society faces and the punishment that can be imposed. If we want to go a particular route, let us do it without hiding the truth from ourselves, and without assuming that nothing else will change, while we change certain penalties. When we change certain penalties, there will be consequences. Ask yourselves if we are prepared for the consequences. And if we honestly are prepared for the consequences, then we change.
I would suggest we ask whether the changes we make are going to help the victims, or if they are going to hurt the victims. Approach the question with firmness, clarity of purpose and compassion, to both offenders as well as the victims. [Applause]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all 16 Members who have spoken on the Bill. I am heartened by their strong support for the Bill and, more importantly, for their support for the tough stance that we take against drugs.
Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam, has earlier addressed the legal issues that Members have brought up and also the consequences of the decisions that we make in this House. Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, has also addressed issues related to implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce on Drugs.
Having listened carefully to Members' speeches on Monday, there was a number of recurring themes which I would like to now address in broad terms.
First, should Parliament change the law to do away with the mandatory death penalty and leave the discretion to the Courts?
Second, has the mandatory death penalty been effective in helping to curb the drug menace?
Third, do the amendments to the mandatory death penalty send a wrong signal that we are softening our stance against drugs?
And finally, can the \"substantive assistance\" provision really be effective?
But let me take a step back and re-focus ourselves on the challenges that we are facing, and the policy objectives that we are aiming for in tabling these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is with this overall perspective in mind that I will take us through each of these points before wrapping up by taking a look at our holistic approach to combating the drug scourge.
\tPage: 1238
First, should Parliament do away with the mandatory death penalty for drug offences and leave the discretion with the Courts?
Sir, when Parliament sat in 1975 to consider the drug problem, they were faced with a serious drug situation which was threatening to overwhelm Singapore. They weighed the damage that drugs and those who traffic in drugs were doing to our society. They decided to institute tougher laws and penalties, coupled with strong enforcement.
Severe penalties were introduced, including the mandatory death penalty for those trafficking significant amounts of drugs. Even though the penalties were severe, they were instituted in a measured and calibrated way, with only those convicted of trafficking substantial amounts of drugs subject to the mandatory death penalty. In the case of heroin, for example, the threshold amount for capital punishment is set at 15 grams of pure diamorphine. This may not sound like very much, but it is, in fact, equivalent to the pure diamorphine content of some 2,200 straws of heroin, with a current street value of $66,000. This is enough to supply one straw per day to more than 300 addicts for a week.
Trafficking in amounts below the threshold amounts where capital punishment applies, is also subject to mandatory minimum penalties and, in this case, long prison terms and caning.
Sir, as Mr Shanmugam has pointed out, it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide what acts should be criminalised, and the importance and emphasis to be placed on each crime. Based on the seriousness of the crime, and the damage it does to society and to the victims, Parliament then provides an appropriate penalty framework. For some serious crimes, due to the potential harm that they cause and to register society's disapprobation, it is necessary to send a deterrent signal by providing for minimum or mandatory sentences. This, by their nature, limits the degree of discretion that the courts have in deciding on sentences. Severe penalties are not something which the Government chooses to impose lightly, but only after careful consideration of the nature of the act and the consequences of doing so.
And this is especially so in the case of the mandatory death penalty. Parliament bears the heavy responsibility of deciding whether an offence is serious enough and the damage to society severe enough to make the death penalty the only available sentence for that offence.
In his tribute to former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong on Monday, the Minister for Law stated that Chief Justice Chan believed that the function of Judges was to interpret and apply the law, and not to legislate or make policy in the guise of adjudication. Which offences carry the mandatory death penalty and which do not is, therefore, clearly a matter of policy which Parliament, and not the Courts, has to decide, in the interest of our society.
\tPage: 1239
Parliament took that responsibility for making this policy decision and sending this strong signal in 1975 after careful and serious consideration. This, together with the other measures that Parliament decided on then and over the years, has provided the basis for our success in tackling the drug problem that has overwhelmed so many other countries.
On Monday, Members of this House unanimously welcomed the setting or raising of penalties for those who target youths or vulnerable persons in drug offences and this included mandatory minimum sentences. When Members of the House pass this amendment into law, this would be another example where Parliament has taken a policy decision and is prepared to send a strong signal, which requires the courts to subject persons convicted of such offences involving young persons or vulnerable persons in drug offences, to mandatory minimum sentences.
Let me now deal with the second and third themes: has the mandatory death penalty been effective in helping to curb the drug menace? Do the amendments to the mandatory death penalty send the wrong signal that we are softening our stance against drugs?
A number of Members, including Ms Sylvia Lim, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Mrs Lina Chiam and Ms Faizah Jamal, has asked whether the mandatory death sentence has been effective. As several Members have already pointed out, it is not easy to prove a counter-factual conclusively. But it is instructive to take a look at the approaches that other jurisdictions have used to combat drugs and the corresponding outcomes.
In some jurisdictions, the legal regime is not operating properly and the enforcement is not effective. The drug situation is completely out of control and drug cartels rule the roost. We read about them in the newspapers and thank our lucky stars that we are not there or in one of those countries. Then, there are jurisdictions where laws are strict, at least theoretically, but enforcement is not effective. They also face problems, which demonstrate that strict laws and severe penalties are not sufficient by themselves; good enforcement and effective Courts are needed too.
And there are also jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies are effective, but drug laws are liberal, allowing drugs to become commonplace. In such countries, we have all heard of, or seen for ourselves, the easy availability of drugs, for example, in legalised so-called \"coffee shops\", or being passed around at parties, or caught a whiff of drugs being smoked while walking down the corridors of college dorms. We might also have encountered drugged-out persons \"shooting themselves up\" in side streets in the night, or seen the detritus of discarded hypodermic syringes in public parks and underpasses during a morning jog. It strikes me, Sir, that families from these countries with more liberal drug regimes and drug laws find that one of the key attractions of living in Singapore with their families is that their children are much safer from drugs and crime. And I think there is a lesson, an important one, to learn from there.
\tPage: 1240
So, Sir, we have to ask ourselves what type of society we want. There may be no death penalty or mandatory death penalty, but the human toll is great. Drug wars take the lives of thousands – innocents, law enforcement officers and members of drug cartels. Daily, people die of overdoses or adverse drug reactions, including young people, and sadly, people whom young people idolise – pop stars, movie stars and even sports personalities. Lives and futures are destroyed, families are left destitute and in despair. The fabric of society is weakened, safety and security for its citizens compromised, and children put at risk.
Sir, the mandatory death penalty is an important part of our comprehensive anti-drug regime. The regime does not just depend on one element, but it depends on all of them. The regime is a multi-pronged one – it involves education, strong enforcement, severe penalties for trafficking, strict rehabilitation for drug abusers, and long-term imprisonment for repeat abusers. The deterrence message is strong and clear. We send the signal that drugs are bad – bad for abusers, their families and society. People who take drugs do so at their own peril. They should expect to be caught eventually. Drug traffickers should also beware; there is high certainty of being caught and punished. Punishment is severe, including capital punishment.
The mandatory death penalty strengthens this deterrent message. The incidence of kidnapping and firearms offences fell sharply after the mandatory death penalty (MDP) was introduced for these crimes. From 38 kidnapping offences in 1959, the number of offences fell significantly after the death penalty was introduced for kidnapping in 1961 to just one case and has remained low since then. For firearms offences, the number fell from 174 in 1973 to 97 in 1975 after the introduction of the death penalty in 1973. This has since dropped steadily and there have been no firearms offences since 2007.
For drugs, the war is on-going. We want to give our drug enforcement officers the tools they need to do their jobs, to keep us safe. We know that the mandatory death penalty has a deterrent effect because drug traffickers deliberately try to keep the amounts they carry to below the capital punishment threshold. So, you can say, they are clever, they can get away with it. But there is an operational effect on the drug syndicates, and a benefit to Singapore. This complicates their supply chain, raises their costs and their risks. This ultimately helps to restrict drug supply in Singapore and helps keep our drug situation under control.
Several Members of Parliament, including Mr Edwin Tong, Mr Alvin Yeo, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Dr Intan Azura, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Christopher de Souza have cautioned that we do not send out the wrong signals with the changes that we are making. And I agree wholeheartedly with them.
\tPage: 1241
Sir, this is not the signal that we want to send at this point of time, when, as I had said in my speech on Monday, we are facing serious and new challenges on the drug front.
If we went the way that some Members are advocating, by doing away with the mandatory death penalty, as Mr Pritam Singh suggested, or doing away with the death penalty altogether, as Mr Laurence Lien mentioned, we would be sending the wrong signal that the risks of drug trafficking into Singapore have now been lowered, that the society is now more accepting of drugs. They have looked at this from the point of view of the drug trafficker who has been apprehended. We also have to look at abolition from the point of view of society and the victims of drugs.
Would Singapore and Singaporeans be better off as a result? I do not think so. Not if our deterrence is weakened and more people might be tempted to try to smuggle in significant quantities of drugs. Not if more of them try, get caught, and spend the rest of their lives in prison. Not if more victims fall into the downward spiral of drug abuse because more drugs enter into Singapore. Not if our enforcement officers are overwhelmed by a greater number of traffickers and drug abusers and are not able to get on top of the situation. These are real risks we face if we weaken our deterrence and the message that we are sending. And this is a responsibility that the Government has to bear, and which I, as Minister for Home Affairs, have to bear.
I can understand Mr Lien's point of view and the nobility of his motives and his cause. We need people like Mr Lien in our society to try to save every wrong-doer and to give him more chances. But we must also, as a Parliament, carry the responsibility of putting in place an overall system that minimises the number of those who will take the chance and end up becoming wrong-doers in the first place, by sending an unequivocal deterrent signal that this is a serious crime and the consequences are severe, and do not even think about going down that line.
As Members of Parliament, we have to reconcile the two – attend to the concerns of those of our constituents caught on the wrong side of the law and do our best to help them within the constraints of the law. But we also bear the responsibility of putting in place a legal and policy framework that minimises the temptations for people to commit crime and cause damage to others, thinking they can get away with it lightly. Members like Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Desmond Lee, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap understand this as they have seen the despair and destruction that drugs cause. And I did not hear them call for the abolition of the mandatory death penalty.
\tPage: 1242
As Parliament, we must establish a system that not only provides fairness, justice and protection to wrong-doers; we must provide fairness, justice and protection to victims and society as well.
The fourth issue I would like to address is: can the \"substantive assistance\" provision really be effective? Minister for Law has already addressed the issues related to how this will operate legally, Public Prosecutor and so on. Let me talk about the policy considerations.
But before I do so, let me speak about the sentencing discretion for the death penalty for drug couriers with an abnormality of mind which satisfies the diminished responsibility test. While there is strong support for the mandatory death penalty, there is also a legitimate concern that it may be applied without sufficient regard for those accused persons who might be suffering from an abnormality of mind.
The policy intent is for this exception to operate in a measured and narrowly defined way. We want to take this into account, where an accused can show that he has such an abnormality of mind that it substantially impairs his mental responsibility for his acts in relation to his offences. Such cases are worthy of special consideration. However, in Mr de Souza's words, we do not want to inadvertently \"open the backdoor for the offender to escape harsh punishment notwithstanding his or her understanding of the consequence of the crime\".
We do not want the application of the mandatory death penalty in such cases to call into question the appropriateness of applying the mandatory death penalty regime on traffickers in general. But we do not want to open the doors wide. Otherwise, we would have undermined our strict penalty regime and its deterrence value. And as Mr Shanmugam has pointed out, we might even encourage drug syndicates to recruit more couriers who think they can easily escape the gallows by claiming any condition without medical evidence.
The exception for drug couriers who provide substantive cooperation serves a different purpose.
Some Members, including Mr Edwin Tong, Ms Sylvia Lim, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Mr Laurence Lien and Mr Desmond Lee have asked whether couriers who are low in the hierarchy within drug syndicates will be able to provide useful information to substantively assist the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities. The CNB feels that there is potential for useful information to assist them. They also asked whether it is fair that those couriers who know little about the drug network may not be able to benefit from this, while couriers who are more knowledgeable about the drug network may be able to cooperate and thus avoid the death penalty.
\tPage: 1243
As Mr Shanmugam said, we must be clear about what the policy intent is. The policy intent of this substantive cooperation amendment to our mandatory death penalty regime is to maintain a tight regime – while giving ourselves an additional avenue to help us in our fight against drugs, and not to undermine it.
Couriers do play a key role in the drug network. In fact, they are often our key point of contact with the drug network. Let me explain why. Illicit drugs are not manufactured or grown in Singapore because of our tough laws and enforcement. All our drugs, therefore, have to be couriered into Singapore. Thus, couriers are a key part of the network which has to be vigorously targeted and suppressed in order to choke off the supply to Singapore. And they are the main link to the suppliers and kingpins outside Singapore.
Earlier in my speech, I made the point that the mandatory death penalty is applied only to those who traffic in large quantities of drugs, enough to bring misery in that one act, to hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Every such convicted courier has thus already crossed the threshold of culpability under our laws and is subject to the death penalty.
What we are proposing is that where the Public Prosecutor has certified that substantive cooperation has been provided, judges will have the discretion to sentence them to life imprisonment with caning, rather than death.
We cannot be sure how exactly couriers or the syndicates will respond to this new provision. But we have weighed the matter carefully and are prepared to make this limited exception if it provides an additional avenue for our enforcement agencies to reach further into the networks, and save lives from being destroyed by drugs and, hence, make our society safer.
Syndicates may now be forced to re-organise their operations to more tightly compartmentalise the information. Or they may have to stop using experienced couriers who may have, through several trips, gleaned more information about the networks. They may have to look for new couriers, which will make their supply chain less reliable. All in all, it will create an atmosphere of risk and uncertainty in the organisation, because they do not know if one of them gets caught, whether he will reveal secrets that will then cause problems for all of them. Our intent is to make things as difficult as possible for the syndicates and to keep them and drugs out of Singapore.
We expect that after these changes, the syndicates will continue to evolve their operations, and we, too, will have to watch and assess and adapt our strategies. If we are able to get substantive information that enables us to disrupt the networks, we will have gained in our war on drugs. If couriers are unable to provide us with substantive information, we would at the very least have increased the risks and complications for the syndicates.
Sir, the drug challenge remains a serious one. As at the end of September this year, as pointed out several times during this debate, drug offenders made up more than two-thirds of locals in our prisons. About four out of five of the local prison population had drug antecedents. Mr Vikram Nair spoke about the higher recidivism rates for those with drug antecedents. And this is so. For prisoners who were released in 2009, the recidivism rate over two years for those with drug antecedents was 36% – more than one in three. This is almost double the 20% recidivism rate for those without drug antecedents. This is how the long tail of drug addiction destroys lives and families.
\tPage: 1244
We must, therefore, continue our comprehensive approach to tackling the drug challenge, dealing with both demand and supply. This Bill, which has taken in the recommendations of the inter-ministry Taskforce on Drugs chaired by Senior Minister of State Masagos, strengthens our ability to do so, at all parts of the drug eco-system.
It starts with public education, but we have also put in place strict laws with severe penalties, coupled with strong enforcement. The new measures proposed in this Bill will enable us to help drug abusers who themselves have shown commitment to get off drugs and stay away from drugs. And we are introducing new offences and increasing penalties for those who target the young and vulnerable, so that we do not create another generation who are enslaved to drugs. Offenders have a high certainty of being caught, and of facing severe punishment, including death. We are maintaining the mandatory death penalty for the drug offences where it currently applies, but are making measured and carefully defined exceptions to allow for the Courts to impose life imprisonment instead for couriers in cases of abnormality of mind or where substantive cooperation has been provided.
Let me state categorically that we are maintaining our \"zero tolerance\" stance against drugs. Taken in totality, these amendments will make our regime tougher against repeat offenders, introduce new offences, especially against those who target the young and vulnerable, and enhance the effectiveness of the death penalty regime. We will also give CNB officers more power to deal with emerging threats and improve their monitoring capabilities.
Beyond what Government does, in partnership with the community, what we do as individuals, and as a society, matter too. I listened carefully to what Asst Prof Eugene Tan said on Monday. He said that he sensed from questions he had posed to his students that \"societal attitudes towards drugs are perhaps softening, especially among the young\". And he gave some examples.
Sir, I do hope that Asst Prof Tan not only posed questions to his students, but also helped his students come to their own conclusion that experimenting with drugs is dangerous and has no socially redeeming qualities. Experimenting with drugs is not like trying bungee jumping or sky-diving – drug taking is illegal, and it can only lead down the path of addiction, and damage to one's health, one's mind, as well as one's future and family. Beyond the impact on the individual, taking drugs outside of company time can have a serious impact on work and society. Surely, one would be concerned if a train driver or an airline pilot were to take drugs, even outside of his working hours. So, one should similarly have concerns, if his lawyer or accountant or financial advisor, the type of students that Asst Prof Tan's university trains, is on drugs recreationally.
\tPage: 1245
Sir, several Members, including Dr Intan, Ms Ellen Lee, Ms Faizah Jamal, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and Mr Zainal Sapari, have called on the Government to put more resources into public education and public outreach. We will do so. But we need the public to help us magnify the voice and send the right signal.
All of us have the responsibility of spreading the message about the harmful effects of drug abuse – whether as parents, teachers, university lecturers, workmates, schoolmates or friends. This is not just the role of the Government. We should all be prepared to help shape societal attitudes in positive directions, and away from negative ones – for the benefit of our society and our children.
Sir, this was what our parliamentarians did in 1975 in moving to stem the tide of drug abuse that was sweeping across the Western world and threatening to overwhelm us. Parliament set the tone and sent a strong signal that galvanised our nation to work together and reverse the tide in Singapore against the tide in the world.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans should have no illusions about the challenge we are facing. We are in this for the long haul. The war against drugs will not be won today, or next year, or even in the next 10 years. But it can be lost very quickly, as we have seen in many other countries. We have gradually and steadily managed to bring the situation under control in Singapore compared to the 1970s. The measures we have taken have kept the drug problem in Singapore in check in spite of the serious global and regional situation. But the war is still on. We must continue to have the determination and resolve to take the measures needed, tough but unfortunately necessary ones, to keep our streets free from drugs, and ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure home for ourselves and our children. Let me once again thank the Members for their support of the Bill. [Applause.]
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I would like to ask for clarification. I am not sure which Minister will answer this question. I think none has addressed my alternative of providing for presumptive death sentence for drug cases. So, I would like to ask whether the Government would look at this possible device where the Courts are told that the usual sentence is death but there may be circumstances where the Court looking at the offence or the offender can depart, but these will be exceptional cases. One example that comes to mind was a case which I brought up in my speech where an educationally subnormal accused was entrapped by CNB to deliver the drugs. This is just an example I can think of, but I would like the Government to address that.
\tPage: 1246
Mr K Shanmugam: If I may, I will take those two points, or one point in two tranches. Could she tell me the name of the case where CNB officers —
Ms Sylvia Lim: Rozman bin Jusoh.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Court made a finding of entrapment?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam : Let me check the facts and come back to her. Now, on the presumptive death sentence, this goes back to the point I made in my speech. Our instincts are similar in that we want to try and find the way in which we can on specific facts do more justice or show more compassion to the accused.
But let me walk through this with the Member. Presumably, you will have to say death sentence applies \"unless\". And then you would have to set out, and what would you set out? I think I gave Members some idea of what we might have to set out: youth, family circumstances, maybe young unwed mothers, impecuniosity, and you know what the consequences of setting that out would be? You will get a lot more traffickers who fit that profile. Effectively, you will get a qualification to the deterrent effect.
So, you see, it is unlike a violent crime or a murder where you can say there could be different circumstances under which the crime is committed. Here, you have to understand the crucial distinction between the manner of committing the crime which is fairly straightforward – you hide the drugs, you bring them across the causeway, you traffic them, they are above a certain limit. And that is to be contrasted with the background factors which do not change. Once we legislatively set the background factors which will displace the death penalty, then you will get a lot more traffickers fitting that profile. And we have to think whether that is what we want. That is the difficulty. It is not something that we rule out but we must accept that it is a serious difficulty.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, on the issue of the presumptive sentence, what has happened in other jurisdictions is that they allow the Judges to decide when the offenders' circumstances merit a departure from the usual sentence. I heard what the Minister said earlier about the Judges' preference for it to lay it out, but my preference is actually to have a general clause because we cannot foresee all the circumstances that could arise in each case. And I think the Judges would be appropriately placed to assess the merits of each case as it unfolds before them in the Court. And I appreciate if the Minister could at some point in time come back on the entrapment issue when he looks at the case.
\tPage: 1247
Mr K Shanmugam: On the point about giving a broad discretion to the Courts. In a sense, if I may suggest, that is passing the buck to the Courts, because somebody has to make a decision when it comes to the death penalty. It really ought to be Parliament. If you give broad discretion to the Courts, first of all, I think Members have heard me say that it is quite unlikely that the Courts will then take it upon themselves to say that in these cases, the death penalty is justified; and in these other cases, that it is not justified. That is the first problem. The second problem is, if they try and define criteria − because that is the way the common law works and that is the way the Courts work − it cannot be palm tree justice. It has to be based on precedents, and over a period of time, precedents will build up. You go back to the same problem.
I think Members will appreciate that this is a very difficult problem. We have tried looking at it from many different angles, and Members are welcome to make suggestions. Philosophically, we are ad idem, but, in the context of drugs, as I said, as long as you give the Courts broad discretion, you will find that, de facto, you will have a serious qualification to the deterrent value of the death penalty. Which is why I was happy to hear suggestions at the end of my speech. If there are other suggestions, I am happy to hear them as well. But, in reality, we have consulted extensively before we put this Bill up. We looked specifically at this quite comprehensively. We spoke with the agencies, we spoke with the Courts, we spoke with the Attorney-General's Chambers and the result we have come to – which is the result every time we look at it over the last several years, we have always come to − is that the structure we now have is probably the most effective for the problems we now face. If the situation changes, then we must relook at the facts.
Mr Speaker: Mrs Lina Chiam, last clarification.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like the Minister to clarify the point I made yesterday about one section – that is, whether section 33B(2)(a) of the Bill covers offenders who are found to have participated in acts such as packing, storing or safekeeping drugs, as their culpability may be similar to those who are involved in transporting, sending or delivering the drugs and should not be excluded for consideration for discretionary sentencing. Can I get his clarification?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: They are not couriers, so they are not covered by the exception that is provided, unless Mrs Chiam thinks that they are couriers.
Mrs Lina Chiam: No, they are not couriers.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.15 pm until 3.35 pm.
\tPage: 1248
Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, this is on the case of Public Prosecutor v Rozman bin Jusoh. I have looked at it. This was actually among the cases that were considered quite extensively in the run-up to our changes and the way we have tried to work out a structure. So, we looked at diminished responsibility and that is why low IQ at a certain level could potentially become such that the Court makes a finding that the person did not know or could not distinguish between right and wrong.
Specifically, in the context of Rozman's case, I should quote a few paragraphs, with your leave, Sir, from the Singapore Law Reports, 1995 − paragraphs 32 to 35 are the key paragraphs – and then we can go through it and see what it says. The Court of Appeal said:
[(proc text) \"It seems to us that the core of the learned judge's reasoning for reaching the conclusion, as he did, is (a) his acceptance of the assessment by Ms Wuts [the clinical psychologist for the defence] that Rozman being intellectually disabled could be easily manipulated into committing the offence, and (b) the active operation of entrapment carried out by the CNB operatives. On the basis of Ms Wuts' assessment of the intellectual capacity of Rozman, the learned judge's crucial findings were: that Rozman was subnormal and ‘may not be able to discern right from wrong' and could be easily manipulated and that he was a ‘guileless simpleton' and ‘would not have embarked upon this expedition for a mere $100 … if not for his feeble mind which seemed to have been overborne by the CNB agent and the CNB operative.' Having made these findings, he held that these factors affected or lessened ‘the degree of guilt' of Rozman with respect to the charge of trafficking and as a result ‘a grave doubt arose as to whether he could be criminally responsible to warrant the mandatory death sentence'. With the utmost respect, we think that the learned judge has confused the presence of mens rea, which is an essential element in a criminal offence, with the mitigating factors in the punishment for the offence.\" (proc text)]
If I may skip the next few sentences, I am going to paragraph 33:
[(proc text) \"We think that it is absolutely essential to bear in mind the facts, primary and inferential, that have been established. In relation to the first charge, the following facts have been established and are not really in dispute. On the afternoon of 24 November 1993, Tan [a CNB agent] met Rozman at Rochor Centre and negotiations took place between them for the sale and purchase of cannabis. Rozman agreed to sell one kilogram of cannabis [that is a pretty substantial amount] to Tan at the price of $1,800 with delivery taking place on the following day. On 25 November 1993 they met again at Rochor Centre at about 5.30 pm and further discussion took place. It was agreed that they should meet later at the bus stop opposite Bukit Timah Shopping Centre. Later, Razali as the rider of the motorcycle with Rozman as the pillion rider brought the drugs to a spot near the bus stop. There Tan and Rozman met again, and it was agreed that the drugs would be delivered at the KFC restaurant at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre. Soon thereafter, Rozman turned up at the KFC restaurant where Tan had been waiting and brought along bundle A in a paper bag and pointed the content of the bag to Tan with a view to effecting delivery. Now, what clearly emerged from these facts were as follows: first, Tan and Rozman, notwithstanding that each did not speak the language of the other proficiently − the learned judge gave little credence to the conversations which Tan alleged had taken place − had made themselves understood to each other, whether using Malay, English or Hokkien or a combination of them, and arrangement had been made for the sale and delivery of one kilogram of cannabis to Tan; secondly, Rozman knew what he was doing: he negotiated with Tan on the price for one kilogram of cannabis and thereafter acted consciously and purposefully to procure the cannabis to sell to Tan; and thirdly there was no force or coercion exerted on Rozman such that his will was overborne by the CNB operatives. Indeed, there was no evidence to show that Rozman had either been manipulated by the CNB operatives or that they had taken an active role in persuading Rozman to sell the drugs without his willing and active participation. In particular, there was no evidence that Tan had taken an excessively active and overpowering role in persuading Rozman to sell the drugs. Rozman might have been easily induced or instigated by Tan and the agent informant at the first meeting to sell the drugs to Tan; he might have benefited only in a small way from this transaction and in that respect he might have been made use of and exploited by his supplier (whoever he might be) who would receive the bulk of the profits. However, these considerations whether singly or collectively do not constitute a defence to the charge; nor can they in any way be said to eradicate Rozman's mens rea in trafficking in the drugs which he had agreed to sell to Tan.\" (proc text)]
\tPage: 1249
And at paragraph 35, the Court of Appeal said:
[(proc text) \"Rozman was not of unsound mind, nor was he mentally retarded at all material times. He may be a person of low intellect or subnormal intellect. But, as the learned judge held, and we agree, low or subnormal intellect is not unsoundness of mind and is not a defence to a criminal charge, and an educationally subnormal person can be criminally culpable for his actions. Now, even accepting the assessment of Rozman as given by Ms Wuts, Rozman was not really so intellectually disabled as to be incapable of knowing the nature of his act or of discerning that the act was either wrong or contrary to law. True, Ms Wuts expressed the opinion that Rozman might not have been able to discern right from wrong. But this opinion is itself inconclusive; it seems to be neither here nor there. On the contrary, on the evidence, including his own evidence, Rozman knew it was contrary to law to sell drugs; he knew the consequences that would be visited on him if he sold drugs. In our judgment, Rozman's ‘low intellect' and his disposition of being easily susceptible to manipulation by others is not a defence to a criminal charge. Nor can such low intellect and malleable disposition diminish or eradicate the presence of mens rea.\" (proc text)]
Members would know that each case turns on its own facts. These are the facts as the Court of Appeal has set them out. The Court of Appeal said he knew what he was doing. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and that the low intellect in that case was not of a level for the Court to conclude that he did not know what he was doing. It is difficult, without having gone through, say, the detailed case notes and so on, to go into minute analysis. We have to go by what the law report says. But, as I said earlier, Rozman's case, as well as many other cases, was considered when we were developing the framework which is before the House. And that framework permits the Court to impose life imprisonment in cases of diminished responsibility.
\tPage: 1250
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 1250
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Service Training Deaths","subTitle":"Statement by the Minister for Defence","sectionType":"OS","content":"Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to report to this House the findings from the Committees of Inquiry (COI) that were convened after the deaths of two full-time National Servicemen in separate training incidents in April and May this year. Before I begin, I want to offer my deepest condolences to the families of PTE Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron and 3SG Tan Mou Sheng. The SAF and MINDEF are deeply sorry for the untimely and tragic loss of PTE Lee and 3SG Tan and the anguish and distress it has brought to their families. I will now ask the Clerk to distribute the facts of these two cases [copies of factsheet were distributed to hon Members].
The COIs were convened by the Armed Forces Council to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of PTE Lee and 3SG Tan. COIs are chaired by senior civil servants outside MINDEF. Members also include one or two medical specialists, who would be able to provide professional expertise. The COI has full powers and access to information and personnel to independently investigate fully the circumstances leading to death, to determine the contributory events or persons and make recommendations to rectify lapses, if any. MINDEF and the SAF treat COI reports with utmost seriousness so that we can avoid similar occurrences.
In the cases of PTE Lee and 3SG Tan, their respective COIs have uncovered clear breaches of training safety regulations in the events that led to their deaths. I will now brief the Members of this House on their key findings, and the follow-up measures the SAF will take in response.
First, on PTE Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron. The main substantive findings from the COI report on PTE Lee. On 17 April 2012, PTE Lee participated in an exercise at the Murai Urban Training Facility at Lim Chu Kang. Smoke grenades were thrown outside a building. PTE Lee entered one of the rooms of that building, and experienced breathing difficulties after exposure to the smoke. He was immediately accompanied away from the smoke but lost consciousness outside the building. He received Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation on the spot and was evacuated in a safety vehicle to the Sungei Gedong Medical Centre, before being sent to the National University Hospital (NUH) in an SAF ambulance. Resuscitative efforts by an SAF medical officer continued throughout the journey and at NUH. The COI found that \"the medical aid rendered was timely, adequate and proper\". Regrettably, however, PTE Lee was pronounced dead after these attempts failed.
Page: 1251
The cause of death was certified by the forensic pathologist of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to be due to an \"acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes\". Zinc chloride is a primary component of smoke grenades currently used in the SAF.
The COI found that the number of smoke grenades used in the exercise exceeded the limit specified in training safety regulations. The Training Safety Regulations (TSR) stipulate that the minimum distance between each thrown smoke grenade should be not less than 20 metres and that the minimum distance between troops and the thrown smoke grenade should not be less than 10 metres. Based on the exercise layout, not more than two smoke grenades should have been used, but the Platoon Commander had thrown six grenades instead. The COI opined that \"if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident\" and that \"reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.\" The COI concluded that \"the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident\".
The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it.
PTE Lee's pre-enlistment medical screening records revealed that he had a history of asthma. The COI found that PTE Lee's medical classification and vocational assignment were appropriate, based on the severity and control of his asthma condition. The COI was unable to establish with certainty if PTE Lee's history of asthma was a contributory factor to his death. First, the COI noted that the specific effects of zinc chloride fumes on asthmatics had not been reported in medical literature. Second, adverse reactions to zinc chloride can occur even in individuals without asthma. Third, the other platoon mates with asthma had developed only mild symptoms after the exposure to the zinc chloride fumes in the same exercise.
\tPage: 1252
To prevent a recurrence, the COI recommended measures to ensure compliance with TSRs through strengthening the role of the Safety Officer and educating commanders and troops on the Training Safety Regulations.
Sir, I have concluded the findings and recommendations from the COI and would like to now brief Members on SAF's and MINDEF's measures in acting on the report.
First, on the use of smoke grenades in training. Sir, smoke grenades which produce zinc chloride fumes have been in use by the SAF since 1970s. They are also used by other militaries and agencies, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea militaries, because in acceptable concentrations of exposure, these smoke grenades are safe. Lung injury following exposure to zinc chloride fumes, and even deaths, have been reported in international literature but the numbers are few and mainly occur after exposure to high concentrations of zinc chloride fumes. In fact, PTE Lee's death directly attributable to zinc chloride inhalation is the first on SAF's records.
To update our TSR for smoke grenades, MINDEF had in 1998 commissioned the Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine of the National University of Singapore to conduct a detailed technical evaluation of smoke grenades. Specifically, concentrations of zinc chloride fumes were measured at different distances from the thrown smoke grenades to determine the safety parameters. The findings of that study now form the TSR for smoke grenades that I have previously detailed.
Smoke grenades, which have zinc chloride fumes, are still safe to use if the TSRs are observed. However, despite these assurances, I can understand the anxiety of our soldiers and their families, arising from this isolated incident of a death due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes. So that our soldiers can train with confidence, MINDEF would like to address these concerns directly.
Following PTE Lee's death, the SAF has suspended for training exercises the use of the smoke grenades which produce zinc chloride fumes. The suspension will continue as the SAF is studying using smoke grenades which do not produce zinc chloride for training exercises. For missions, we will continue to use zinc chloride smoke grenades as they are judged still to be the most operationally effective.
The second public concern arising from this case is due to asthma, as a significant proportion of National Servicemen – one in five – have asthma, albeit often in a mild form. The SAF convened a Respiratory Medicine Specialist Advisory Board, consisting of five senior respiratory medicine specialists to address this issue, taking into account the COI report. The Advisory Board concluded that the SAF medical classification on asthma is relevant, up to date and in line with national and international standards. It is still safe for servicemen with a history of asthma to undergo training with smoke grenades if the TSRs are followed. I thank the COI and the Board for their valuable work.
\tPage: 1253
MINDEF has relieved the exercise Chief Safety Officer, Captain Chia Thye Siong, and the Platoon Commander who threw the smoke grenades, Captain Najib Hanuk Bin Muhamad Jalal, of their duties. They have been re-deployed to assignments which do not oversee soldiers in training or operations. Following procedures and due process, the Chief Military Prosecutor will determine if these personnel should be subject to a General Court Martial (GCM), to establish their degree of culpability and, if found guilty, to mete out the appropriate punishment. Police investigations are also ongoing to determine whether to prosecute the personnel involved in Civil Court.
Let me now present the COI findings on the death of 3SG Tan. 3SG Tan was an instructor of a Reconnaissance Commanders' Course held at the Marsiling training area on 11 May this year. He was travelling with other instructors in a scout jeep and seated at the rear of the jeep. When the jeep overturned, 3SG Tan was thrown out and pinned under the jeep. 3SG Tan was extricated, attended to by a medic and evacuated in a safety vehicle to the Nee Soon Camp Medical Centre. The duty Medical Officer immediately accompanied 3SG Tan to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital via SAF ambulance. 3SG Tan underwent emergency surgery but, despite this, succumbed to his injuries. According to the Health Sciences Authority, the cause of death, as certified by the forensic pathologist, was \"haemorrhage from severe pelvic crush injuries\".
The COI was of the opinion that specific instances of individual negligence and breaches of safety had contributed to 3SG Tan's death. First, the jeep driver was not licensed to drive. The Conducting Officer had assigned the jeep driver to drive without checking if he had a licence. Neither did the assigned jeep driver highlight to his superior that he was not licensed to drive a jeep. Second, the two rear passengers, one of whom was 3SG Tan, were not wearing helmets or lap belts. The Vehicle Commander did not ensure that the jeep passengers wore their helmets or lap belts.
The COI found that Combat Intelligence School (CIS), the school in question which conducted this training package, had a weak safety culture. In the course of its investigations, the COI uncovered other previous instances of unlicensed driving. The vehicle management system was also not satisfactory, with lax access to vehicles by servicemen in the field during training.
Shortly after the incident, MINDEF removed the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Combat Intelligence School, Lieutenant-Colonel Vincent Lam Fei Liong, from his command and appointed a new Commanding Officer. Other personnel in the Combat Intelligence School have also been relieved of their duties:
(a) The Head of the Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Wing, Major Poon Chen Song;
\tPage: 1254
(b) The School Sergeant Major, 1st Warrant Officer Lim Ser Wei;
(c) The exercise Supervising Officer, Lieutenant Marcus Koh Men; and
(d) The exercise Conducting Officer, Master Sergeant Lee Kong Kean.
All these SAF personnel have been re-deployed to assignments where they will not be supervising soldiers for training or operations.
As in the previous case, the Chief Military Prosecutor will determine if these personnel should be subject to a General Court Martial (GCM). Police investigations are also ongoing to determine whether to prosecute the personnel involved in Civil Court. This includes the unlicensed driver of the jeep, 3SG Cavin Tan.
The vehicular management system in the CIS has been tightened. The SAF has also reviewed other units to ensure that unauthorised driving does not occur during field training. It is now mandatory for drivers to display their driving licence visibly on the vehicle dashboard. All SAF units have now tightened control over the use and movement of vehicles so that the keys of that vehicle are not inadvertently handed to unlicensed drivers.
While the SAF has a robust training safety system in place, these two incidents show that more needs to be done. The SAF is determined to put things right and correct any inadequacies uncovered. More importantly, we want to ensure that these lax attitudes toward training safety remain isolated instances and do not take root in our system.
Specifically, after these two incidents, we have already tightened the control and management of SAF vehicles in units and during field training. We will explore safer alternatives to the existing type of smoke grenade for use in training. We will reinforce measures to ensure safe management of servicemen with a history of asthma. We will also ensure that the TSRs are adhered to on the ground.
But beyond the specific measures, the SAF will also make three key systemic changes to strengthen training safety across the whole SAF. First, we will deploy more safety officers on the ground. They will be designated as full-time Unit Safety Officers whose primary role will be to ensure that units and servicemen comply with safety measures. Second, an Army Safety Review Board (ASRB), chaired by a senior civil servant outside MINDEF, has been set up to review the Army's overall safety structure, processes and culture. Third, the SAF will set up an SAF Inspectorate, reporting directly to the Chief of Defence Force. The SAF Inspectorate will set the safety culture across the entire SAF and oversee the individual inspectorates of the three services. In this way, it will promulgate best practices and ensure the robustness of safety-related policies, that they are up to date and sound throughout the SAF.
\tPage: 1255
Mr Speaker, Sir, every Singaporean son is precious and any injury or death in the SAF is one too many. But to prevent injuries and death, our commanders and soldiers must observe training safety regulations. Any commander who ignores safety regulations, whether wilfully or negligently, puts his soldiers at risk, and is not fit for command. Our soldiers can train realistically and safely. There need not be a compromise. Indeed, the more we ensure that conditions are safe, the greater confidence our soldiers will have in training. These two deaths could have been avoided if safety instructions had been followed. The SAF will learn from the incidents, correct any inadequacies and punish those who disregarded safety regulations. I am happy to answer clarifications.
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for MINDEF, Foreign Affairs, as well as for Members of this House, I would like to express our condolences to families of PTE Lee and 3SG Tan who were involved in the accidents during the SAF training. We were very saddened by the loss. Both their cases remind us that we should never take safety for granted, and complacencies always creep in after a long period of non-fatal accidents. We welcome the Minister's statement which demonstrates MINDEF and SAF's claims to be open and transparent, as well as the follow-up measures that have been put in place to strengthen the SAF's safety system.
I wish to ask Minister two clarifications. One, on the trend of the fatal accidents during the training in the SAF, what has been the trend like in the last 10 years? Two, how is SAF going to ensure that the cycle of complacency does not creep in again?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, let me give a direct response to Ms Ellen Lee's question on the trends of training-related deaths for National Servicemen. We have, on average, a handful of deaths. On average, two over the last decade for training deaths involving National Servicemen.
Now, Sir, when I give that number, I do not want to give the impression that we are satisfied with the number. But having said that, one recognises that our safety standards are fairly high, comparatively. Again, I am not saying that that is a figure we accept. We are always striving towards zero injuries and deaths, but that is the figure as it is. The two-per-year is to be taken in the context of how many servicemen we have in training. We have 40,000 full-time National Servicemen. Each year, about 180,000 NSmen come back for their In-Camp Training for a few days to a few weeks. We will continue to strengthen the safety system, so that we can keep the numbers to as low as possible.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, I welcome the Ministerial Statement on the Report of the COI. This is a sign that SAF is being more transparent. Sir, I have one clarification to make. In the case of PTE Lee, at that grenade-throwing training session, was there the presence of a safety officer? If it is so, when the platoon commander breached TSR, was he advised accordingly?
\tPage: 1256
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is, yes. There was a safety officer. The Committee of Inquiry ascertained and asked the platoon commander did he know of the Training Safety Regulations. The platoon commander who threw the grenade said he was aware of the training safety conditions, but did not comply with them.
Mr Nicholas Fang: Mr Speaker, I join the Minister and other Members in expressing my condolences to the two families. I have two supplementary questions. The first: especially in the case of the smoke grenade, it does appear that an error in human judgement was exercised on the part of the commanders. Do we have an indication of the timeline as to when a decision on whether further proceedings, General Court Martial will be carried out on the responsible personnel, given that deaths occurred? There is a need to re-assure the public, other servicemen and their families that SAF does take this very seriously. The fact that they were re-deployed to non-command positions is a good step forward, but I think families and parents would appreciate knowing that the people who are responsible are held to task.
My second question pertains to the fact that a huge raft of measures are put in place to ensure that TSRs and the safety culture are improved and maintained. How is the Ministry going to ensure that this then balances against training realism, and the need to ensure that training is kept up to certain standards to maintain the effectiveness of the SAF?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, with regard to the first question, it will follow due process, where the Chief Military Prosecutor will decide, based on the investigations, if the case is to be put to the General Court Martial. In an independent track, on the parallel track, the Police investigations will then be submitted to decide whether there will be civil prosecution. In addition, the coroner may decide to hold an open inquiry, and that will take its course. So, while we want closure to the aspects, I think we want to also ensure that due process is followed.
For the second question: here, we have been very clear, as I have said in my statement, that we do not want to send the impression that realistic training needs to be dangerous training. In fact, that is not the message. It is a false dichotomy. If we look at these two incidents, they are not high-risk training aspects – driving in a jeep, clearing a room in an urban training set-up. Within the SAF, we do much riskier exercises, in that sense – live-firing, we jump off helicopters, we take deep dives. And it is not the risk of that activity that sets the people at risk. It was just disregard for safety instructions. And the message to commanders is, if you disregard safety instructions, you put men at risk, you are not fit for command. Two, realistic training does not have to be unsafe training. In fact, the opposite is true. If you make training conditions safe, soldiers will train with greater confidence.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: I have a few clarifications for Minister. The first is the TSR breaches. I wonder whether Minister could share with us what the trend has been in SAF, with regard to TSR breaches. Secondly, I also hope that beyond instilling the safety culture in SAF, I would like to suggest that the SAF also encourages a system of reporting near misses. Through that, there is a lot of useful lessons which could help SAF minimise future accidents from happening.
\tPage: 1257
Regarding the weak safety culture in the Combat Intelligence School (CIS), I would like to ask whether, beyond CIS, what is the record like in other units? And is this isolated or also the case in some other units? Finally, one of the things that Singaporeans are very proud of is a strong SAF, and also, for the parents and sons, a safe SAF. There must also be steps to restore these two pillars of what the SAF means to Singapore and to Singaporeans.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, the Member asked about what the trends were. I do not have all the figures here. Let me just say that it is related to the second question on the open reporting culture, which means that not only do we want to encourage them to be conscious of safety regulation breaches, but even when they have followed safety regulations and there are near-misses, as the Member said, in countries or agencies with good safety culture, that an open reporting system is, indeed, the hallmark of one. And we have started that. The Army established a safety hotline in November 2011, where soldiers can ring the hotline and report safety problems. And since then, in nearly a year, we have received about 100 calls. They report, exactly as the Member said, unsafe practices, near misses or safety hazards. So, we will continue to encourage that. In addition to the Army hotline, there are \"1800\" numbers, so that we want to have an open reporting system.
The Member also asked if what happened in the Combat Intelligence School was a systemic one, and that was the question we ourselves asked in MINDEF. Was this just an isolated incident or was this one example of a systemic problem? The Chief of Army has assured me that this is an isolated problem. His assurance or his judgement is based on the Army Safety Inspectorate that does routine inspections. My other source of assurance is the fact, in terms of our training or vehicle accident rate, it is fairly low, it is something in the order of 0.5 to 0.6 accidents per 100 thousand kilometres. Now, that is not a sure sign, and I know some Members will say maybe, \"They do not report it\". But be that as it may, it gives you a rough gauge of the accident rate, which is fairly low. And also, my fourth assurance is what the COI uncovered. In this particular incident, there were two jeeps for the second incident. The jeep which 3SG Tan was in had an unlicensed driver, and they did not wear any helmets or lap belts. The jeep in front of them, all four wore helmets, lap belts and a licensed driver. So, I think, it is an isolated incident but, nonetheless, we want to continue to step up checks and make sure that that kind of lax attitude towards safety regulations does not spread.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I would like to take up the point on whether this incident or incidents will spur us from accident reporting to incident reporting and near-misses. I know the Minister has replied to that saying, \"Yes, it will\". My further question is whether that can be shared between the services. For example, in the Army where there is a safe land movement unit and they have a good safety record, would they be willing to share with the Air Force or the Navy, where there are less land movement exercises to be performed – cross-service sharing of best practices and near-misses, arising out of the new inspectorate?
\tPage: 1258
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Indeed that is one of the main tasks for the SAF Inspectorate. The SAF looked at it, and decided it needed an inspectorate that reports directly to the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) for accountability and responsibility, that oversees the three services, and, first of all, inculcates and embeds a high safety culture within the SAF and that inculcates safety habits into individual commanders and men, as well as − what the Member Christopher de Souza has suggested − to just share best practices across Services.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I, too, extend my deepest condolences to the family of 3SG Tan and PTE Lee. My question for the Minister is what were the other findings that led the COI to conclude that the Combat Intelligence School had a weak safety culture, because that is a very serious accusation?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The COI concluded this from interviews with servicemen. It was on various aspects. One, in terms of the vehicle safety management. It was in response to whether conducting officers checked whether drivers were licensed in the first place. Two, their procedures in terms of vehicular movements in the training field. And I would agree with the COI in terms of that conclusion. Independently, the Army Safety Inspectorate has done a review of that, and recommended to SAF, MINDEF, the removal of certain personalities from command. And as I have mentioned, the SAF has acted on that.
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I join the House in offering condolences to the families of PTE Lee, 3SG Tan, as well as the other servicemen who have passed away this year.
As an active reservist and having been on two reservist stints this year, I think there have been improvements. Drivers are now required to show their driving licence whenever they board their vehicles. I would like to ask two supplementary questions and make one observation. One, is that in 2010, there were no accidents or deaths reported; 2011, there were three; and in this year alone, there have been five fatalities. I would like to ask the Minister whether there have been any COI or BOI findings that the overall safety awareness in the SAF may have fallen? And what steps will be taken to address this?
The second is: will the SAF consider making BOI and COI findings, the investigation findings, public? We are a largely citizens army, not a professional army, and so the sharing of information through the public media may be helpful for us, the wider public, to understand the lessons learnt.
\tPage: 1259
The third observation is that based on a cursory count since 2001 till todate, 16 SAF servicemen have passed away or encountered accidents on Fridays. This is the highest daily fatality rate of any given day within the week. Is it possible that safety has become lax due to the fact that this is the last training day of the week, and whether any measures should be taken to address this?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, the Member asked if there has been any study conducted to suggest the trend that safety standards have dropped. No, there is not, but I do not need the study to act. I think once we have an incident, we put in place these measures that I talked about. The Member's point about Friday, I would have to check that up, but if that is true, I think that is a useful point. The Member also talked about the number of deaths, whether we could make the release of BOIs and COIs routine.
I would have to say that of the two deaths that I talked about each year, the majority of them are not in these cases where there are clear breaches of safety instructions. Some of them were really medically related. For example, cardiomyopathy or viral infections – which when after the COI has ascertained all the facts and whether we could have done anything different, and we have asked the medical specialist board – the answer is, no. That is the extent of our technological ability and its inability to just determine before the incident whether anything could have been done to prevent it. Some were acts of God, for example, like the tree falling on the soldier outside the training grounds, and completely unforecasted or hard to predict. But when it comes to cases which are of public interest and significance, the SAF and MINDEF will share these cases, as I am doing for these two cases in this House.
Mr Png Eng Huat: As a point of clarification, is it a standard protocol that all injured and national servicemen will be sent to a military medical centre before they are sent to the hospital, regardless of how serious the injuries are, because, sometimes, time is of the essence?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is, no, it is not a matter of procedure. The overriding principle is one of fastest evacuation to a facility that has the capabilities to resuscitate the injured. The Member would, of course, be aware that time is of the essence. For example, whether they are bleeding or they have an airway obstruction. And some of the trips back to, say a hospital, may take a longer time. And so the principle is they will be evacuated to the nearest either medical centre or hospital facilities which can provide that resuscitation.
Sir, I want to just comment that while we have shared these findings with the House, we know that the loss of any servicemen is deeply distressing, and what we say here will never fully comfort their grieving families. I think it will be especially difficult when servicemen lose their lives under circumstances that could have been prevented. I want to assure this House and members of the public that – some Members mentioned restoring confidence and I think Member Seah Kian Peng made that point – the first step is, as Member Low Thia Khiang said, to be open, to be transparent, to leave no stone unturned to discover why and how it happened. And then correct the lapses and continue to report to the public and to families the measures that we have taken and the progress of these measures. I know that this is not a one-off exercise that we conduct; this is a long-term exercise that we need to inculcate a better safety culture. I want to assure this House that SAF will learn from this and put things right. After all that is said and done, I think what will show is what happens on the ground that will give confidence to our men. And we want to assure the families that we give safety top priority so that their sons, husbands and brothers can return to them safely after their NS training.
\tPage: 1260
Mr Speaker: Let us move on to the next order of business.
\tPage: 1260
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penal Code (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, in July this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I made two statements in this House announcing proposed changes to our laws on drug control and murder. The amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which had just been passed, implement the changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will implement the changes announced by me.
Sir, murder is defined in section 300 of the Penal Code, which is taken from the Indian Penal Code of 1860, as culpable homicide committed with one of four mental states: (a) the intention to kill; (b) the intention to cause injury, coupled with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death; (c) the intention to cause injury, and the intended injury is objectively sufficient to cause death; and (d) knowledge that the act by which the death is caused is so eminently dangerous that death is virtually certain or likely to result.
Section 302 provides that murder shall be punished with death. Clause 2 amends section 302 such that murders committed in a manner other than as set out in section 300(a) will hereafter be punished with death or life imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. In addition, where the court orders life imprisonment, it is also given the discretion to order caning. For consistency, clause 3 repeals and re-enacts section 304 to remove the option of a fine when life imprisonment is ordered for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In other words, when the court orders life imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it can still order caning but not a fine.
Page: 1261
Let me explain the rationale for these changes, Sir. It was set out in July. We are making the changes in the context of the homicide rate in Singapore which is low – 0.3 cases per 100,000 population. In these circumstances, we think it right to introduce more judicial discretion in deciding whether the death sentence ought to be imposed for murder. That, as Members will appreciate, is our starting point, as I stated in the earlier debate on the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. Where possible, where practical, where it is realistic, and where it does not substantially impact our crime control framework, we must move towards giving greater discretion to the courts. In fact, that is the case for the vast majority of our laws. Mandatory sentences are and should be the exception.
Sir, in this process of changing our laws, we have consulted a number of academics and criminal law practitioners. Their names are set out in the Annex to my speech. We are grateful for their contributions. After these amendments, all accused persons will be eligible for sentencing in accordance with the amended law.
The transitional provisions are in clause 4. They work as follows. The court which last heard the case will clarify the limb of murder under which the accused is guilty. Before the court does so, the prosecution or the accused may apply to the court to adduce further evidence as to the limb of section 300 under which the accused is guilty. After the court clarifies that, it will affirm the death sentence for section 300(a) cases. For section 300(b), (c) and (d), there will be re-sentencing by the High Court, which will decide whether to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment, and whether there should be caning in the latter case. The High Court's re-sentencing decision can be appealed against. Those who have not exhausted their appeals against conviction can also bring an appeal at the same time. The new requirement for the Court of Appeal to confirm sentences of death which will be introduced by the next Bill, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, will also apply to these transitional cases. At the end of the appellate process, those still under a sentence of death will go through the clemency process.
Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code centre on the introduction of the judicial discretion to not impose the death sentence for non-intentional killing. This marks a significant change to the former penalty regime where all forms of murder were punished with the mandatory death sentence.
Page: 1262
I welcome this change. There is a difference between someone who intends to commit murder who will still be sentenced to death and one who does not but should know that the injury he intends to inflict may very well cause death. Although still wrong, it reflects a lower level of culpability which should, in the appropriate circumstances, be met with something less than the ultimate sentence of death. Sometimes, judges are faced with the moral dilemma of whether to apply the law in its strictest sense, and convict someone who did not intend to kill or murder, knowing it will attract the harshest sentence on our Statute books. This has sometimes led to the occasional odd result where the criteria for the accused to be convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter, which does not carry the mandatory death penalty, to be applied in an uncharacteristically liberal way. This is not to criticise our courts as, in such cases, both prosecutor and defence counsel can perceive the horns of the dilemma that the courts are perched on. The proposed amendments would, hopefully, put an end to such quixotic decisions.
In the debate on the Misuse of Drugs Bill – which also introduced a judicial discretion to not impose a death sentence – in that case, for the less serious forms of drug trafficking, there were calls by one Member of the House to do away with the death penalty altogether. Another Member pressed for the removal of mandatory sentences generally, arguing that the courts should have full discretion to mete out punishment according to the facts of each case. I respect those views coming from Members who are speaking from their conscience but I do not agree with them. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law, in their responses on the Misuse of Drugs Bill, spoke powerfully and eloquently on those topics, and allow me to add my brief comments to that debate.
First, whether we should continue to have the death penalty. We are not the only country to have such a penalty and certainly not the only developed nation which has this on our Statute books. It is said to be barbaric, based on medieval concepts of retribution, and that we should temper justice with mercy in not putting the worst offender to death.
But I believe that justice and mercy are a two-way street. While we should rightfully have concern for the position of the convicted murderer or drug trafficker, what about their victims? Are they not entitled to protection under the law as well? Does this protection not require that the punishment fit the crime? And does this protection entail that the punishment be severe enough to deter others from going down the same lawless route? It is, afterall, deterrence, not retribution, that guides modern sentencing policy, and the paramount objective is to protect future victims from suffering a similar fate.
Seen against that backdrop, the death penalty serves a vital purpose of deterring by simply scaring would-be criminals from carrying out the most serious of crimes. In that regard, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the sharp drop in offences for kidnapping and firearms after the mandatory death penalty was introduced. In my view, it continues to be relevant to this very day.
Page: 1263
What about mandatory sentences and whether we should give judges unfettered discretion to impose the particular sentence for each case? In a parliamentary sovereign nation like Singapore, it is for Parliament to enact the laws of the land and the courts to apply them. If Parliament considers something important enough that it should require a breach of the law to be punished in a certain way, it not only can but should do so.
The paradigm example is the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking which has engaged this House in vigorous debate from Monday to today. In my view, it has played an integral part in our overall zero-tolerance approach to drugs that has kept Singapore largely drug-free, especially compared to other developed nations and even some of our neighbours in the region, and the Minister for Law had some sobering statistics to refer to in his reply on the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
Yet, another example, lest one thinks that mandatory death sentences are only confined to death penalty, is the mandatory imprisonment for rape offences. Many of us would have come across cases in other countries where convicted rapists walk free with a fine or suspended sentence because the particular judge felt there that that was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Amidst all the outrage and protests that such decisions provoke, one cannot help but think that the problem would have been averted if judges did not have that much discretion.
What lies at the heart of mandatory sentences is the interest which Parliament deems so important to protect that it cannot be left to the discretion of individual judges. Hence, we have mandatory death sentences for drug trafficking because Parliament considers the serious damage that drugs can cause to many, many victims, including their families, demands that wrongdoers pay the ultimate penalty. Similarly, the mandatory sentences for rape and sex crimes against children are underpinned by the regard, the concern for their welfare and the imperative of deterring criminals who seek to prey on them.
We do not have those sensational outcomes that you read about from other countries where perpetrators walk away from a serious crime unscathed in part because Parliament has seen fit to mandate the punishment to fit the crime. This is not to say that all mandatory sentences are good things and I was heartened to note that the Minister for Law, in his opening speech on the Penal Code amendments, said that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. One may recall the attempt to clamp down on the harbouring of illegal aliens by imposing jail terms. This was under the Immigration Act on offenders even when they have been misled by the illegal aliens as to their credentials. Unless the persons who had led them into their home had checked his original passport and work permit, the courts had no choice but to sentence them to jail. And among those who suffered imprisonment before the law was changed were a priest and an elderly grandmother. So, I do hope that the Ministry of Law not stop at the mandatory death sentences for murder but carry out a wholesale review of the mandatory sentences in our Penal Code and other penal statutes to see if they are properly calibrated for the interest they seek to protect or simply to see whether or not some of them may have outlived their usefulness.
Page: 1264
At the end of the day, the empirical data shows that Singapore has a significantly lower crime rate, especially for serious crimes. A lower recividism rate for ex-convicts, a lower rate of drug addiction and abuse. Our criminal justice regime includes the death penalty and mandatory sentences as key features. We would temper with that at our own peril. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Ellen Lee (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1314.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Personally, I feel it is a timely move.
A few years ago, the United Nations General Assembly proposed to vote on a resolution to suspend the death penalty globally. We voted against the resolution. The Third Committee in charge of social and humanitarian affairs passed the resolution with 104 votes for, 54 votes against and 29 votes abstaining. The resolution called for the death penalty to be suspended, with the hope that the death penalty would eventually be abolished altogether.
The United Nations had discussed this issue way back in 1994 and 1999. During that time, member nations had diverse views on the issue. Mr Ban Ki-Moon, the current UN Secretary General, once said that the UN is against the death penalty, as it respects each individual's right to life.
Then why did Singapore cast the objection vote to this resolution? Singapore's Ambassador to the United Nations pointed out that the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not ban the death penalty. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has also stipulated that countries which have yet to abolish the death penalty can impose the death penalty on the most serious crimes. He said, in many countries, death penalty signifies criminal justice, it is not an issue of human rights. We believe that every Singapore citizen has the right to live in a safe environment, free from the threat of crime.
From what I know, some Singaporeans feel that people who have been sentenced to death, whether they are murderers or arsonists, all have one thing in common – that is, they have caused great harm to society or have caused substantial economic losses to society. Imagine the pain that the victim's family has had to go through, it is something that cannot be easily forgotten. Then, why should society be merciful to the murderers?
Page: 1265
Many Singaporeans are not aware that the law under section 300 of the Penal Code defines \"culpable homicide\" as an act that takes place when there is:
(a) the intention to kill;
(b) the intention to cause injury, coupled with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death;
(c) the intention to cause injury (with the intended injury being objectively sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death); and
(d) the knowledge that the relevant act is so imminently dangerous that death is virtually certain or likely as a result.
At the moment, our judicial system is still not perfect. Under definitions stipulated in section 300, it is very difficult for the court or the prosecution to prove whether the accused had clear intention to cause the death of the victim. And some academics observed that there have been inconsistencies in sentencing.
Under this amendment Bill, only in cases where the accused has clear intention to cause death will the mandatory death penalty be carried out. In other words, if the court rules that the offence is committed under circumstances stipulated in section 300(a), the mandatory death penalty will be carried out.
According to some academics, the Court appears to worry about the fact of death above all and that it matters little if the injury is serious or not serious. With the amendments, the Court will have the discretion to sentence the accused to death penalty or life imprisonment, and the death sentence will no longer be mandatory. I think this will help to rectify some views which are less than objective. For example, the view that the Singapore legal system is too stringent, and the penalties are too harsh, and it is not appropriate. On the contrary, these amendments prove that our society has held a consistently clear view of the law – our laws provide a safe, crime-free environment for our citizens, but we also seek consistency in the application of our laws, and will continue to do our best to improve in this aspect.
Singapore law is people-oriented, we safeguard human rights and equality. As such, we have to let every Singaporean understand this. I would like to ask the Minister, whether various methods or channels would be used to help Singaporeans fully understand the implications of this amendment Bill, so that they are fully aware that our society will not become less safe, neither will they be subjected to the threat of crime.
Page: 1266
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill makes an important and overdue change regarding the sentencing of homicide cases. Overall, this is good step towards a more just sentencing regime for homicide, and I support it. Nevertheless, there are still serious issues requiring law review which I believe the Government should look into in due course.
Sir, it is overdue but very welcome that the Government recognises that the existing definition of murder under section 300 of the Penal Code is just too wide to justify the death penalty in every case.
For instance, section 300, limb (c), has long been much criticised by academics for attracting the death penalty mandatorily. Under this limb, a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally inflicts an injury which causes death, not necessarily knowing that the injury is of a fatal nature. A classic example is a stab wound to the thigh, which many people do not realise is usually sufficient medically to cause death due to a severance of the femoral vein. In such cases, the accused person may not have intended death and may not have even known that death was likely to result from the injury. It was clearly too harsh to have mandatory death in such cases.
Accordingly, I am happy to note that the death penalty will no longer be mandatory for murder under section 300(c) and also for section 300(b) and (d), where the accused did not have a specific intention to kill. The alternative of life imprisonment gives the judge some room to give weight to the circumstances of each case. This is a progressive step to give some discretion to the courts, so that any mitigating circumstances can be taken into account.
Next, should the mandatory death penalty be maintained for section 300(a)? During the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) debate, I had touched on the mixed nature of studies which tried to ascertain the deterrent effect of the death penalty on homicides. I had also spoken then about how the mandatory death penalty shifts power away from the Courts to the Public Prosecutor, enabling him to determine the outcome of the case through the choice of charge. I note the Minister's earlier statement during the MDA debate that former Attorney-General Walter Woon's reservations about the mandatory death penalty shifting power to the Public Prosecutor applied particularly in the context of homicide cases.
Now that the Bill retains mandatory death for section 300(a), it is necessary to ask whether mandatory death is justifiable as retribution for intentional killing. Having an intention to kill is clearly more blameworthy than the mental states required under sections 300(b), (c) or (d) – after all, the accused in section 300(a) intended to bring about the death of the victim. However, a closer examination of situations coming within section 300(a) will show that an intention to kill can be present in a wide range of circumstances, which, I submit, should not be lumped together for the same sentence of death.
Page: 1267
At one end of the spectrum, taking the most evil of circumstances, we have mercenaries hired under contracts to kill, intending to profit from committing murder. We have also had groups who rob and kill hard-working taxi-drivers with deadly weapons. Moving to the other end of the spectrum, we find more multi-faceted scenarios where the accused is not inherently a killer. For instance, an accused finds a childhood friend whom he discovers has been having a long affair with his wife behind his back, in his matrimonial bed, and is unable to get over the betrayal despite a lapse of time. Another example is where a person who kills under a threat that his child will be killed if he does not do so, will be guilty under section 300(a), because the defence of duress does not apply to murder. An intention to kill can also be formed on the spot. There is no requirement for premeditation or any pre-arranged plan to kill under section 300(a), whereas in some other jurisdictions, murder which is not pre-meditated is classified as murder in the second degree.
Do all accused coming within section 300(a) deserve to die, without exception? At the lowest, there would be a split of opinion on the matter. If I could borrow a phrase from the judgment of then Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon, now our Chief Justice, in PP v Lim Ah Seng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 957: \"Every killing is utterly tragic; but this does not mean that every killer is to be punished in the same way.\"
Sir, it is true that persons charged with murder under section 300(a) will not hang if they can prove that they have a valid defence under the Penal Code. For instance, if the accused can prove that he acted in self-defence, this is a full defence leading to acquittal. If he can show that he was provoked by something sudden and grave, he may have a partial defence which would reduce his sentence to a long jail term. However, these defences will only succeed if the accused is able to prove them in Court on a balance of probabilities. Because the burden of proof is on him, he must convince the Court and, preferably, find witnesses to support his case. There could well be a conflict of expert evidence, for example, on whether the accused has some mental illness which would diminish his responsibility for his actions, forcing the court to choose one expert over another. In addition, defences are strictly worded and sometimes expect a person to behave in very measured ways. For example, for the partial defence of provocation, the accused must not have had time to cool off, which is construed strictly.
Sir, we can all agree that society should be clear that killing someone with an intention to kill ranks amongst the most serious crimes. I would argue that this will still be achieved if the death sentence was available to the judge, especially since a wide range of circumstances are caught under section 300(a). As a second alternative, I repeat my suggestion that the Government could consider phrasing the death penalty as the presumptive sentence for section 300(a).
Page: 1268
There are precedents elsewhere for this. For instance, in the Criminal Code of Western Australia, it is provided under section 279 that an accused found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless \"that sentence would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and (when) the person is unlikely to be a threat to the safety of the community when released from imprisonment\". We should consider employing such a device here, which would still send a strong signal to society about the seriousness of the offence of murder and yet allow Judges to depart if the circumstances of the case warrant it. Some factors which could be considered by the Court for such departure include whether the accused acted under duress, whether the murder was premediated or not, and if the accused did not carry any weapons to the scene.
Sir, next, I shall move on to Law Reform. While I acknowledge the significance of the changes this Bill brings, I believe further reform of our homicide provisions is desirable. For instance, it remains a mystery why section 300(c) should still be classified as murder, when the accused need not have intended death nor known that death was likely. Even after this amendment Bill, the Judge could still impose death for section 300(c), which is not easy to justify. It seems more appropriate to move such situations lower down the seriousness ladder to a lesser category of homicide which does not attract death.
Sir, as a wider law reform exercise, the Government may also wish to look at the broader structure of the homicide provisions. We inherited our Penal Code from our colonial days, and the drafting of the homicide provisions has been criticised by no less than an eminent jurist, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who drafted our Criminal Procedure Code. He labelled our homicide provisions as the \"weakest\" part of the Penal Code, calling them \"obscure\" and \"not fully thought out\". His criticisms were several. Homicide itself has not been defined in the Penal Code, except in the context of culpable homicide; murder is a species of culpable homicide; the definitions of murder and culpable homicide also closely resemble each other, such that it is difficult to distinguish between them. For instance, a person intending to cause injury which is sufficient to cause death is a murderer, but a person intending to cause injury likely to cause death commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This may be why the Member before me, Mr Alvin Yeo, classified the situation as \"chaotic\".
Sir, there has also been criticism from the judges of the Federal Court of Australia who had to apply our Penal Code to a homicide which took place on Christmas Island, which used to be part of Singapore territory The case is Chong Wooi Sing & Toh Yuh Teng v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 22. Arising from this, a law academic, Prof Stanley Yeo, has urged the Singapore legislature to act to improve the clarity of these provisions.
Sir, one option the Government may want to consider in due course is re-drafting the homicide provisions to exclude overlapping offences and have mutually exclusive categories. There are precedents from other countries to study, for example, the Australian states, and the UK, which both had law reforms in this area. The Americans have first and second degree murder, and then manslaughter. If a review is done to remove the overlap between culpable homicide and murder, I believe the law will be clearer; and the public will also better understand the homicide provisions.
Page: 1269
Sir, in conclusion, the Government is moving in the right direction by this amendment Bill, to give the judges sentencing discretion for murder cases. It should continue to do more law reform, in particular, remove the mandatory death sentence from murder and make it discretionary. The Government should also consider law reform to improve the homicide provisions.
Mr Alvin Yeo: A point of clarification. My reference to the decisions was actually \"quixote\" as in Don Quixote, rather than \"chaotic\", as in chaos. I apologise for my poor enunciation.
Ms Sylvia Lim: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I must have misheard the Member.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this important Bill that provides that, in cases of murder where killing is not intentional, the Court will have the discretion to sentence the accused to either death or life imprisonment. The court may also order caning in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment.
This move to a Discretionary Death Penalty (DDP) regime for certain types of murder is significant. Although Singapore is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Singapore's position is that the death penalty should only be imposed for the \"most serious crimes\". Indeed, in January 2004, in response to an Amnesty International report on the death penalty, the Government asserted that Singapore \"imposes capital punishment only for the most serious crimes\". It is also not in doubt that murder, particularly of the kind envisaged in section 300(a), is a most serious crime.
Sir, the Penal Code provisions on murder, however, are wide and extend beyond intentional killing, that is murder falling within the meaning of sections 300(b), (c) and (d) of the Penal Code. For instance, for a section 300(c) murder, it is irrelevant whether or not the accused person intended death or knew that death was likely. Put more bluntly, the applicable mens rea is the intention to cause injury, and nothing more.
We inherited our Penal Code from British India and, while it was a revolutionary piece of legislation in the nineteenth century, it is time for us as an independent state to ensure that the provisions, the assumptions, and the presumptions that undergird the Penal Code are relevant and in keeping with the needs of our nation and evolving societal norms. In this context, it is right that the mandatory death penalty is to apply only where there is a clear intention to kill.
Page: 1270
Sir, the Government has always insisted that the Mandatory Death Penalty (MDP) has helped to keep Singapore safe. Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining features of our society. While we could choose to retain the mandatory death penalty, I am heartened that the Government has taken the important first step of determining that the mandatory death penalty is not needed for all types of murders. I do not see this shift to a discretionary death penalty regime for murders as signalling that we are no longer tough on crime and that we are letting up on murders in particular.
Instead, this shift to a discretionary death penalty regime is necessary if we are to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our administration of criminal justice. Giving our Supreme Court judges the discretion in sentencing in cases of conviction under section 300(b), (c) or (d) is an imperative if we are to temper justice with mercy. This judicial discretion is necessary in order for judges to weigh the relevant factors, the mitigating circumstances, and to individualise sentencing. In so doing, we are also able to give offenders a second chance in appropriate cases.
Sir, our execution figures, based on Ministry of Home Affairs data, showed that execution has declined significantly since the 1990s. Yet, the overall crime situation has not worsened; in many respects, the crime situation has improved. It may well be that our tough stance on crime can continue to work even without the death penalty. It is also possible to argue that even before the amendments this week to the Misuse of Drugs Act and, now, to the Penal Code that is before the House, we already do have a de facto discretionary death penalty regime through the availability of prosecutorial discretion where the Public Prosecutor may opt not to proceed on capital charges in appropriate cases.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are making a necessary and important first step in moving towards the discretionary death penalty with these proposed amendments to the Penal Code. This continues the similar move to the discretionary death penalty regime under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which this House passed the relevant amendments earlier this afternoon. I welcome this calibrated move to a discretionary death penalty regime. On this note, I support the Bill and look forward to regular and robust reviews to determine the need and use of the death penalty as an integral part of the administration of criminal justice in Singapore.
Page: 1271
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I thank all the Members who spoke. I think all support the amendments. I think that is a fair summary of their speeches.
Mr Yeo suggested that the Ministry of Law review all mandatory sentences in our books and I think he made particular reference to the mandatory sentence that is imposed on landlords who rent out their properties to illegal immigrants. Mr Yeo may know that, when I was a backbencher, I was one of those who were very uncomfortable with the mandatory nature of that sentence and spoke up against it. That has been my own philosophy, and we try to put that in place where possible, but I have to tell Mr Yeo that it is beyond my purview to look at all legislation, most of which are not under the Ministry of Law or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But I will pass his message on to the Ministries concerned, and I thank him for his suggestion. I think that it is, in principle, a sound policy and one which we try to institute. We regularly look at our criminal legislation, particularly those which carry severe penalties, not just the mandatory death penalty, but severe penalties. So, we thank him for that suggestion and we will remind ourselves of the importance of that approach.
As for Ms Lee, I think the question at the end of her speech was whether we can educate Singaporeans to understand the nature of the amendments and that our society and country will continue to be safe and secure. We will try. We will do our best. I think our citizens' understanding of safety and security issues depends on a whole framework of factors, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, I am sure, will continue to pass the message on crime rates and how we keep ourselves safe and how these amendments impact society.
I think Ms Lim was also supportive of the amendments and welcomed them. She made a number of points.
First, on section 300(a). It is a fair point to say that many different types of cases can fall within section 300(a). A cold-blooded, deliberate, planned, gangster-style execution on the one hand; on the other hand, someone who finds out that his wife had betrayed him and then goes out and decides to kill. But the fact is, even in the latter situation, it is deliberate, cold-blooded, intentional killing. If it is done out of provocation, on the spur of the moment, there is a defence. Ms Lim knows that. And there are other defences as well: self-defence and so on. But I can see that another approach is to have a presumptive death sentence and let the accused show why it should not apply. That is a possible approach. On balance, looking at section 300(a) today, our assessment is that society sees this as extremely serious – intentional, cold-blooded, deliberate killing – and that in such situations, the mandatory death penalty should apply. But for section 300(b), (c) and (d), we are making a significant change. The balance is a question of judgment, I accept that.
On the suggestion that there should be further reform, we continuously review these areas. Specific to section 300(c), I do know that it has attracted a lot of commentary and a lot of attention. Likewise, it has received a lot of attention from us as well and the group of people we consulted. I think the list has been circulated. Let me make three points on section 300(c).
\tPage: 1272
The first is, when we consulted, the submission that the academics gave was that the repeal of section 300(c) is not likely to, in any significant way, affect the manner in which homicide offences are dealt with. I quote: \"While it is true that a great majority of murder convictions since 1972…has been technically based on section 300(c), a study of the relevant facts and circumstances reveal that in almost all of them, a conviction under one of the other three subsections (section 300(a), (b) and (d)) would have been likely.\" That, of course, is not a complete answer to why you should keep section 300(c). I accept that and, in fact, there was a significant body of opinion among those we consulted that section 300(c) ought to be deleted or moved to some other place.
The second point is, in the short period between the completion of the latest review in July and putting up the Bill now, I did not think we should take such a major step. The key reason is that we are now giving the Judges the discretion to impose life imprisonment. So, a High Court Judge who decides to impose the death sentence in a section 300(c) case would, in fact, have been satisfied that the death sentence, as opposed to life imprisonment, was warranted on the facts. That is a significant factor to bear in mind when we talk about section 300(c).
The third point I want to make is, yes, we are looking at a number of provisions, including section 300(c). If we believe that it ought to be moved or amended in some way, we will let the House know. Senior Minister of State, Ms Indranee Rajah, has been asked by me to look at section 300(c).
Now, I think Asst Prof Tan accepts section 300(a) as it stands now. Our assessment is that most people in society also believe that for cases which come within section 300(a), the mandatory death penalty should apply. That said, and as I have said on more than one occasion, while we look at what the majority of the society want, we also look at what is right. In this case, for the reasons that I have given, we believe that it is also right at this time to keep section 300(a) as it is, and I thank Asst Prof Tan for his views. I am not quite sure if he had any specific questions. I think he encouraged us to continue with law reform, which we will do.
Sir, in conclusion, I have said in July that the changes we are making will ensure that our sentencing framework will better balance the various objectives – justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused and, in appropriate situations, mercy to the accused as well. We hope that we are on the right track to try to achieve that.
\tPage: 1273
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 1273
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill makes two key changes to criminal procedure. The first is to the appellate procedure. Clause 10 amends section 374 to provide that no appeal can be filed against a conviction until sentence is passed for that offence. Clause 11 amends section 377 to provide that the time for filing an appeal against conviction, or against conviction and sentence, starts running from the date of the sentence. These two amendments ensure that appeals against conviction and sentence are brought and heard together, consistent with what is already the practice today. Also, with the amendments, an accused no longer has to file a notice of appeal against conviction while waiting for sentence to be passed, but can instead wait until sentence is passed before making a decision.
The second key change is to require confirmation by the Court of Appeal before a sentence of death can be carried out. Clause 12 amends section 383 to provide that sentences of death shall not be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal in an appeal by the accused; or a petition for confirmation by the Public Prosecutor where there is no appeal.
This petition for confirmation is a new procedure created by clause 13 which introduces a new Division 1A in Part XX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The process is triggered when no appeal is filed within the time allowed for an appeal, and 90 days have expired after the time allowed for appeal has elapsed. Once the process is triggered, the Public Prosecutor will be required to lodge a petition for confirmation.
The Court of Appeal will then examine the record of proceedings and the grounds of decision to satisfy itself of the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction for which the death sentence is imposed; and of the imposition of the death sentence, where this is discretionary. The Court of Appeal may choose to hear parties if it deems that to be necessary. After examining the record, the court will either confirm the sentence of death passed upon the accused; or set it aside, and it can make such further orders as it deems fit.
Page: 1274
Clause 7 makes a related amendment to section 313, to provide that the warrant of execution must be issued by the Court of Appeal. This need for appellate confirmation was suggested by our current Chief Justice, Mr Sundaresh Menon, when he was the Attorney-General, as an avenue to provide another safeguard in our capital punishment regime.
The remaining clauses make minor and technical amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Ellen Lee (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1315.] Mr Speaker, I support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill.
The saying goes, \"A human life is of greater value than anything else.\" According to the amendment Bill, even if the accused who is sentenced to death did not appeal, the Court of Appeal will still automatically initiate the appeal proceedings. Under the new proceedings, the Public Prosecutor must lodge a petition for confirmation with the Court of Appeal after sentencing. The Court of Appeal will then review the correctness, legality and propriety of the death penalty decision. Without confirmation from the Court of Appeal, no death sentence shall be carried out.
This amendment is significant. Many developed and democratic countries have abolished death penalty out of respect for life. Singapore still retains the mandatory death penalty, which appears not in line with the norms of a civil society. Our leaders have always emphasised the importance of building an ideal home, a caring and harmonious society, then why not abolish the death penalty?
The most important reason is that the situation in Singapore is different. Singapore maintains the death penalty because it can deter crimes effectively; it is also widely supported by the public. The Government is reviewing the death penalty to ensure that Singapore's judicial system is able to strike a balance between different objectives, so that both the victim and the accused are treated fairly. I believe this move demonstrates respect to each individual life. Sir, I support the amendment Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides for the Court of Appeal to automatically review all death sentences passed, in cases where the accused does not lodge an appeal. I welcome this additional check by our highest Court, which will confirm whether each death sentence was correctly imposed before we send anyone to the gallows.
Page: 1275
I would like to seek two clarifications on the Bill. First, clause 7 amends section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding what is to be done after a death sentence has been passed by a High Court Judge. The proposed change to section 313(c) will now provide that the trial Judge must produce a report stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason why the death sentence should be carried out. By contrast, the current provision states that he should give his opinion whether there is any reason why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. I would like to know why the Judge now no longer needs to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence should not be carried out. I think his opinion on this is still highly relevant, since we are still retaining offences where the death penalty is mandatory, such as intentional killing under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, and for drugs and firearms offences. I note that the trial Judge's opinion on whether the death sentence is justified will later be read by the President, who has the prerogative of mercy. There may be strong mitigating circumstances which the trial judge noted, but due to the mandatory provisions, he had no choice but to impose the death sentence. However, the President can still do something about it by exercising his prerogative of mercy.
My second clarification concerns the provision at section 394D. It is provided there that no party has the right to be heard in a petition of confirmation, but the court may, if it thinks fit, hear any party either personally or by advocate. If the presence of the parties is still to be discretionary, I think it is important that, if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear from one party, the other party must be present as well. This will enable the other party to respond, if necessary, to any new matters which are raised, and make this last Court appearance fair to all parties before the death sentence is confirmed.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Sir, the thrust of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code means that no sentence of death can be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal whether on appeal or through review. This amendment provides an additional safeguard in our capital punishment regime.
Sir, this Bill recognises the irreversibility of the death sentence once it is executed. Since a life is at stake, it is of central importance that there is no doubt as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction when a sentence of death is passed.
The overriding concern with substantive justice is just as crucial even as we move from a mandatory death penalty regime towards one where we give our Judges a limited discretion.
Page: 1276
Sir, I regard the combined effect hoped for from the limited discretionary death penalty regime and a more robust procedure relating to the execution of sentences of death is one that seeks to continue secure buy-in and build confidence in the legitimacy of our death penalty regime.
As such, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider re-introducing the requirement of having two High Court Judges to hear cases involving capital offences. Sir, the Minister would agree with me that it is at the trial stage that important findings of fact are done. An appellate Court is loathed to disturb a finding of fact, given that it did not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence first-hand and also of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. Given such deference, having two Judges at the trial level can enhance the public's confidence and that of the accused person in the trial processes. We no longer have the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court level and should be able to deploy two High Court Judges in capital offence cases.
I also seek the Minister's clarification on the role of the President in clause 7 of the Bill. My understanding is that the President will have to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, and that the President has no discretion in this matter under the proposed new procedure relating to the execution of death sentences. As such, would it not be better not to bring the President into the framework, given that his role is apparently a procedural formality? I fear that this may reinforce the perception that the President is a mere \"rubber stamp\".
Sir, even as we, as a society, strive towards a criminal justice framework that seeks to properly balance, on the one hand, the cardinal objectives of keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe, and, on the other, that those convicted receive a punishment that is appropriate to the severity of the crime committed, we must not miss the underlying collective significance of this Bill before us today and the amendments passed by this House to the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well as the Penal Code. And what is this significance? Well, collectively they urge Members of this House and Singaporeans to appreciate the value and sanctity of life. On this note, I support the Bill.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I thank the Members who spoke. Ms Lee welcomes the amendments, as do Ms Lim and Asst Prof Tan.
Ms Lim had a couple of questions. For the first question, I am not sure I followed very carefully. The current requirement is that the trial judge must, within a reasonable time after a period had lapsed, send to the Minister, a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial with a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there are any reasons and, if so, what are the reasons why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. What is now happening is that the Court of Appeal is inserted in the middle because even if there is no appeal, the matter must go to the Court of Appeal.
Page: 1277
The new requirement under subsection (c) is that \"the trial Judge who tried the accused must, within a reasonable time after the sentence has been pronounced, prepare a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial and a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason (and, if so, particulars of the reason) why the death sentence should be carried out.\" The trial Judge must forward to the Court of Appeal the notes of evidence and report referred to in paragraph (c) within a reasonable time and so on. It is just a question of syntax, there is no substantive change.
Can I know what the second question was, please? As I was following the first point, I forgot what the second point was.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, would you like to clarify?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Sir. If I may be permitted to clarify my first point about section 313(c). As the Minister read out just now, the current section requires the trial judge to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence which he imposed should or should not be carried out. But under the Bill, now he is only restricted to saying why the sentence should be carried out. And my question is: the omission of the second part appears to me significant because even though he, the trial judge, decided to impose the death sentence, he could have done so under circumstances where it was mandatory. That is why his opinion on whether there are any circumstances why it should not be carried out would still be relevant under the current regime as it would be read later by the Cabinet in advising the President to exercise his prerogative for mercy. That was my first query.
Mr K Shanmugam: There was no intention of changing that. That is why I say it is syntax: whether it should be carried out includes whether it should or should not be carried out. I have said that openly here in Parliament. I know that it reads \"whether it should be carried\". The Member's concern is, previously, it was slightly broader in language. I can confirm that there is no intention of changing that.
Ms Sylvia Lim: So, can I just clarify with the Minister that the trial Judge can give his opinion about why the sentence should not be carried out?
Mr K Shanmugam : Absolutely.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Okay. My second query actually relates to section 394D, the new section that is being introduced. It provides that no party has a right to appear in the petition of confirmation but the Court of Appeal can decide to hear any party. My point was that if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear one party, I think it is only right that the other party also should be present because this is the last court appearance. The presence of both parties would enable the other party to respond to any new matters which may be raised. Since this is the last hearing before the death sentence is confirmed, I think that would be a fair way to go about it.
Page: 1278
Mr K Shanmugam: I think we want to give the broadest possible flexibility to the Court of Appeal. If you have a strict requirement that the Court of Appeal should hear both parties, in a situation where neither party has filed an appeal, that could frustrate what the Court of Appeal is trying to do. Here, what we are trying to do is something good, which is to introduce an additional safeguard, and I am sure that the Court of Appeal will observe the rules of natural justice and, where it is necessary, hear both parties. Sometimes, it may not be practicable or possible to hear both parties. But I think we can leave that to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Our intention is to give the Court of Appeal a broad discretion with the understanding, of course, that the Court of Appeal will act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. You have seen the framework.
As for Asst Prof Tan, if I follow him rightly, the point he made was whether we can go back to the system of two Judges. This was something which we changed at the request of the Courts – to have one trial Judge instead of two. We have certainly not had a request from the Courts to revert to the old system. The last time we reviewed it, we were of the view that it is adequate to have a system with a single trial Judge whose verdict is reviewed by the Court of Appeal. We have not seen anything to change that view but we will keep in mind what you have said.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Would the Minister be able to clarify the role of the President in the review process?
Mr K Shanmugam: The processes in the Bill which involve the President are technical in nature. Asst Prof Tan has used phrases like \"rubber stamp\" and so on. But it is the Constitution that sets out the role of the President, including that on these issues. The Constitution provides that he acts on the advice of the Cabinet and that has a very specific technical meaning, which is, perhaps, not often understood by laypersons but which Asst Prof Tan would well appreciate. It means that the President has to act in accordance with the advice given by the Cabinet and not in his discretion. Where the Constitution intends to give the President specific powers to act in his own discretion, it says so expressly. There is no intention of changing that, nor would we be able to change that through ordinary legislation. The President will continue to act on the advice of Cabinet in deciding clemency petitions, as required under the Constitution.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
Page: 1279
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Page: 1279
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"\tPage: 1279
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2012 covers both the income tax changes announced in the 2012 Budget Statement and other changes arising from the regular review of our income tax system.
The draft of the Bill was released for public consultation from 24 July to 13 August this year. MOF has revised the Bill to incorporate the suggestions accepted for implementation.
Sir, most of the tax changes in this Bill have already been debated in this House following their announcement in the 2012 Budget Statement. Let me highlight the key changes.
First, the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme has been enhanced with special consideration to the needs of small businesses. The cash reimbursement for up to $100,000 of PIC expenditure was doubled from 30% to 60%. We are allowing the cash payout to be paid in a more timely manner, on a quarterly rather than yearly basis. To help more SMEs qualify for training support, we are also removing the requirement for certification by the Workforce Development Agency and Institute of Technical Education for in-house training which cost up to $10,000 per Year of Assessment (YA). Clauses 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 32 and 51 of the Bill provide for these changes.
Second, a one-off SME cash grant of up to $5,000 has been provided. This grant gives the SME-recipients a very high degree of flexibility to invest in areas that are most helpful to their coping with the changing business environment. This is provided for in clause 47.
Third, the Renovation and Refurbishment Deduction Scheme has been made a permanent feature of our income tax code. These enhancements are particularly helpful to small businesses in the retail and Food and Beverage sectors which number some 20,000. Further enhancements include the doubling of the existing cumulative expenditure cap to $300,000 over three years. Clauses 18 and 31 provide for these changes.
\tPage: 1280
Fourth, the new tax provisions will give businesses certainty on the non-taxation of gains on disposal of qualifying equity investments. This will help facilitate corporate restructuring, minimise compliance costs and enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a place for business. This is provided for in clauses 11 and 51.
Fifth, the earned income relief and handicapped earned income relief will be doubled for older workers aged 55 years and above, to support and encourage them to stay employed. This is provided for in clause 35.
Sir, I shall now deal with the other tax changes covered in this Bill that arise from our ongoing review of the Income Tax Act. Let me highlight three of these changes.
First, we will exempt Workfare payments from income tax. Workfare payments are currently taxable even though most recipients would not need to pay income tax, given that their wages fall below the threshold for liability for income tax. This change has been introduced to provide certainty of non-taxation. The exemption will apply retrospectively from Year of Assessment 2006 when Workfare was first introduced. This is consistent with Workfare's policy objectives, which are to supplement the wages of older low-wage workers, and encourage them to find work or continue working. Clause 3 provides for this.
Second, with effect from 1 January 2011, eligible entities have been able to prepare their financial accounts using the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards (SFRS) for Small Entities. MOF and IRAS have assessed that the resultant change in accounting treatment does not require changes to existing tax rules except for financial instruments. We propose amending the Income Tax Act to allow small entities the option of aligning the tax treatment to the SFRS for Small Entities. This is provided for under Clause 25.
Third, the CPF Minimum Sum Topping-Up Scheme has been enhanced to extend tax deductions on cash top-ups made to the CPF Special or Retirement account of parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. These changes will take effect from 1 January 2013. Clause 35 provides for this.
The remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Income Tax Amendment Bill. I would like to touch on two key areas today. One, the need for greater support for families with stay-at-home mothers. Two, SMEs and the enhancements to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme.
\tPage: 1281
The latest changes in the Bill have certainly provided greater consideration to the elderly, handicapped and low-income families. However, I wish to highlight the need for greater support for stay-at-home mothers, a group whose work and contributions deserve greater recognition and sustenance.
While working mothers enjoy support in the form of the Working Mothers' Child Relief (WMCR), stay-at-home mothers do not receive any tangible relief or support for the income loss they suffer as a result of stopping work to care for their children. I understand the good intentions behind WMCR, that is, to encourage a higher level of women's participation in our workforce, an important factor in resource-constrained Singapore, especially with today's tight labour market. However, mothers who stay at home to care for their children, whether by choice or circumstances, should not be unduly disadvantaged. The private, unpaid, 24-hour care-giving work of stay-at-home mothers should receive greater support from the Government.
Currently, families with stay-at-home mothers are seemingly being disadvantaged by decisions to put the family before career. Why do I say that? Because, in general, everything else being equal, a single-income family that earns the same amount as a dual-income family ends up paying more in taxes. If Members could look at this slide [a slide was shown to hon Members]. In this slide, scenario A, excluding all reliefs, a family with a single breadwinner earning $70,000 would pay $1,950 in income tax, while in scenario B, a dual-income family with husband and wife working, each earning $35,000, would pay $195 in income tax. In this example, coincidentally, the income tax paid by the dual-income family is 10% that of the amount paid by the single-income family.
To level the playing field, can I suggest for the Ministry to review and strongly consider increasing the current Spouse Dependency Tax Relief of $2,000. Currently, I understand that individuals who are supporting spouses and who earned not more than $4,000 in annual income in the preceding year are eligible for this relief. Could the Ministry consider, number one, increasing the Spouse Dependency Tax Relief from $2,000 to $7,000, to be on par with that of parent relief? Secondly, increasing the current income cap criteria of $4,000 to provide greater tax relief to families and husbands of stay-at-home-mothers with children under 18 years old. This could provide additional savings to households relying on a single income, especially those belonging to the sandwiched group of lower-middle and middle-income families that have to support and care for the young as well as the old.
When contemplating marriage and children, many young unmarried women have expressed their apprehension and dilemma between the desire to be a stay-at-home mother at some point in time for a few years, and the opportunity cost that could come with a single-income family. While the state cannot make all things equal, it can certainly create an environment that is hugely pro-family and supportive of the women's role, be it at work or at home. So, in essence, we need tax measures that are not only pro-family and pro-children, but also pro-women. If Singapore's mothers decide to devote themselves to caring for the family, we should not only extend them our respect but we should also try to extend them longer purse strings.
\tPage: 1282
The other key area I wish to highlight is with regard to the enhancements to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme in relation to SMEs. The SMEs collectively contribute to half of Singapore's GDP and 70% of employment. They are certainly critical to Singapore's economic growth. With increased global competition and shorter business cycles, SMEs face enormous pressure to differentiate themselves through innovation. However, we all know investments into R&D take time to bear fruit – from an idea to proof of concept, to getting market traction and, eventually, building a good viable business and revenue model. Even as the process of R&D takes place, SMEs face the constant challenge of maintaining a healthy cash flow. Therefore, our SMEs need significant support in this area.
The move to raise the cash payout rate from 30% to 60% for up to $100,000 of qualifying PIC expenditure for each Year of Assessment is a good one. The PIC covers activities, such as Training, Automation, Design, Acquisition and Registration of IPR, as well as R&D. However, in addition to raising the cash payout rate, could we also look into the possibility of increasing the limit of $100,000 on these PIC payouts, specifically for R&D expenses?
In Australia, for example, SMEs are eligible for a tax credit of 45% of R&D expenditure, which is equivalent to about 15 cents per dollar of R&D expenditure. This puts money back into the SMEs – an important factor for their healthy cash flow and viability. If I could refer Member to this example [a slide was shown to hon Members], a Singapore company making investments of $600,000 into R&D and, similarly, in Australia, an Australian company making $600,000 of investment into R&D. In Australia, that company, would be eligible to receive $90,000 in cash payout while the Singapore company will receive a payout of $60,000. In Australia's case, there is no limit placed on the R&D cash payout.
In fact, if Members could look at the slide over here [a slide was shown to hon Members], as this slide indicates, as the amount of R&D investment increases, the difference between what an Australian company would receive in cash payout, compared with a Singapore company, would be much larger. So, while the new increase in cash payout rate to 60% is significant, the ceiling of $100,000 would still make SMEs think twice about investing heavily – the keyword here is \"heavily\" – into R&D.
So, as the SMEs go through the pain of a labour crunch and global economic slowdown, they would need all the help they can get to raise productivity. Some of them may even be making losses. For such cases, the 400% tax deduction on qualifying expenditure may not even be an attractive incentive. So, if we are serious about getting SMEs to raise productivity, we need more aggressive measures to put more cash directly back into the SMEs' pocket for immediate effect.
\tPage: 1283
This brings me to my next point on the PIC. The new measure to include non-certified in-house training expenditure up to a cap of S$10,000 per Year of Assessment is a welcome development. However, this amounts to 2.5% when compared to the overall cap of $400,000 for training expenditure. Due to the $10,000 cap, the total tax benefit for a company's spending on training non-certified in-house training would be $6,800 a year. To spur more training by SMEs, I hope the Ministry would be open to considering increasing the $10,000 ceiling so as to encourage more internal training activities by SMEs which may be non-certified in nature. Why is that so? This is because internal training activities are often more affordable, flexible and easily carried out. Due to their size and operations, SMEs face many constraints in releasing their staff for training – from scheduling constraints to costs issues to manpower needs, especially in today's tight labour market. A higher ceiling for non-certified internal training would provide SMEs with more flexibility and opportunities for courses conducted and customised to their needs, pace and budget.
The slew of measures announced at Budget 2012 has certainly enhanced the platforms for enterprises to tap on to raise their productivity. While the SMEs acknowledge the leg-up, they have also expressed their desire for more help. In fact, the recent SIM Management Monitor survey conducted by the Singapore Institute of Management revealed that one in two SMEs wished that the Government could \"help support businesses become more productive\". I hope the Ministry can review the present ceilings on PIC to spur more SMEs into raising their productivity. On this note, I support the Bill.
Mrs Lina Chiam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only a few points of clarification from the Minister of State which I would like to make in regard to the amendments in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.
I refer to clause 50, which provides for tax relief for a married woman, divorcee or widow who maintains a child who dies. This is a long overdue move. In fact, I wish it would go further. How about divorced men or widowers who had supported the maintenance of a child who died? Surely, they should be entitled to the same benefits, if he faces the same situation as a woman would under this clause. I do not have the figures with me, but I would think that the number of men in the situation of maintaining a child alone is increasing.
As a clarification, could the Minister tell us if there is any age criterion for who would qualify as a child under this clause?
\tPage: 1284
I would also like to ask the Minister the rationale behind the pattern of increment of the tax relief for the parent of a child who dies, for example, 15% for the first child, 20% for the second child and 25% for the third child. I understand this is how most tax relief schemes generally work, but the situation is really something quite different. A death is a death, regardless of being the first, second or third in the family. The amount of stress and pain is always felt.
Going further on the issue of allocating tax relief to the citizens who would rightly benefit from it, has the Minister considered implementing tax relief for NSmen performing reservist training? I believe this would be the right way to acknowledge the service they render to our country, while sacrificing time and effort from their work. I think it is a more befitting way to do so than the \"hongbao\" of $50 to $100 vouchers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank both Ms Low and Mrs Chiam for supporting the Bill.
I should first highlight that in response to Ms Low's questions on spouse relief, the subject actually is not under review in this round of amendment but, nevertheless, I will respond briefly to her. I fully agree with her that stay-at-home mothers – actually stay-at-home spouses in general – make very important contributions to the family, enabling the working spouse to continue doing so with peace of mind. With regard to the slide which Ms Low has shown, I thought it would be useful just to make a small point on the example that she raised. She has talked about a couple, one of whom stops working and then the person who remains working is able to earn the same income that the two of them used to earn together. And as a result, because the household income is unchanged – the combined income is unchanged – more taxes are being paid. I think they are actually not quite comparable simply because it is more likely that there is going to be a loss of total income in any case which even a reduced tax bill does not make up for. This reduced tax bill, especially even if we were to make the reliefs much higher, would not make up for the loss of income. I think we should recognise that.
Of the group of lower to middle-income families which Ms Low, in fact, said was trying to benefit through any increase of such reliefs, they would benefit less compared to higher-income families. And that is why the Government does not look at tax reliefs alone but takes a holistic approach to supporting families, and there are several substantive forms of assistance to families that are given, whether the mothers are in the workforce or at home. This includes the Baby Bonus, infant care and childcare subsidies. The Baby Bonus, for example, is the same amount, regardless of the work status of the mother. The childcare subsidies are differentiated, but for stay-at-home mothers they amount to $1,800 a year if they send their children to childcare centres. So, on a total package basis, such help extended to families with stay-at-home mothers is much larger than the tax benefit of spouse relief. Nonetheless, we will bear in mind Ms Low's point on spouse relief in future reviews.
\tPage: 1285
Ms Low has brought up the example of how the Australians support research and development (R&D). For the benefit of the Members of the House who are perhaps less familiar with how the Australian system works, companies with turnover of less than $20 million can enjoy a 150% tax deduction on an unlimited amount of R&D spending. They can also get a 45% refundable tax credit, which is simply a cash conversion, because the corporate tax rate in Australia is 30%. For companies with more than $20 million in turnover, they can enjoy a 133% tax deduction on R&D spending, but there is no cash conversion option for this group. In comparison, the tax deduction for Singapore companies can be up to 400% for the first $400,000 expenditure, regardless of the company's size. And R&D spending above $400,000 also qualifies for a 150% tax deduction. In other words, overall, Singapore's tax deduction for R&D spending is actually more generous, especially for smaller businesses. In terms of cash conversion, the PIC offers a higher conversion rate of 60 cents for every dollar of R&D expenses, whereas Australia offers 45 cents for companies with less than $20 million in turnover. However, while the PIC has a cap of $100,000 expenses for cash conversion, there is no cap in Australia. So, I understand Ms Low's concern about whether this cap constrains our SMEs in their R&D efforts. I would like to assure her that, in fact, based on the latest claims that have been submitted, most SMEs have not exceeded the $100,000 expenditure cap on all types of activities and not just R&D. In other words, the cap is not a constraint in most cases.
Every country decides on its tax policy to meet its own objectives and, therefore, we can see that the Australian R&D cash refund is targeted at smaller businesses, specifically those with R&D spending. Singapore's PIC cash conversion, on the other hand, aims to help all SMEs that invest in productivity and innovation, of which R&D is just one avenue.
Ms Low further suggested that we consider raising the $10,000 ceiling on in-house training so as to spur more training by the SMEs. She cited that due to their size and operations, SMEs face many constraints in releasing their staff for training. We agree that this is something that is very important and we have to encourage as many SMEs as possible to take training seriously and as a means for uplifting the quality of their workforce. But I should clarify that the expense ceiling of $10,000 is for in-house training that is not certified by WDA or ITE. Training expenditure in excess of the $10,000 cap can still qualify for PIC if the in-house training courses are certified by WDA or ITE, and there are quite a large number of such courses available. Based on the Year of Assessment 2011, PIC claims for training, SMEs incurred an average of $9,000 for in-house training. Therefore, for the time being, a $10,000 threshold is adequate. Let me assure Ms Low that we will monitor the expenditure trends very closely and adjust the PIC parameters to meet the needs of SMEs.
\tPage: 1286
Mr Speaker, I turn briefly to Mrs Lina Chiam's comments. I think she has raised the question of why the working mother child relief is differentiated according to the birth order of the child even after the child passes away. I should clarify with her that this amendment that we are making in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill this time round is to equalise the treatment for women whose children have unfortunately passed away in the basis year. So, the treatment in terms of the working mother child relief will no longer depend on whether the child passed away or is still around, and that was the purpose of the change.
The Member has also asked whether this relief could be made available to divorced men and fathers. Thank you very much for raising this as a suggestion. It is right now the working mother child relief, so as it stands right now, I think men cannot be mothers. So, we will take a look at the intent of the Member's proposal and when there is an opportunity to review, we will take a look at it.
On the Member's point about National Service, I did not catch it in full but I think the Member meant to say whether tax reliefs can be provided to NSmen. That is precisely what we were trying to do. For the National Service recognition award, which is quite significant, we have made it such that it would be exempted from tax, and that is what this amendment seeks to do.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members again for their comments and suggestions.
Mrs Lina Chiam: I am sorry. Can I just clarify with the Minister of State on one point? I was asking about implementing the tax relief for NSmen performing reservist training. Is it included in there?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Does the Member mean the allowance that they received during their reservist training? Well, in fact, all allowances paid to NSmen form part of their income. Whilst they are doing their National Service, very often, these young men will not meet the income threshold for income tax liability. If the Member is talking about men who are doing their reservist training, I think their allowances are not a very large amount but I should qualify that, and I would check and get back to the Member separately.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 1287
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax Voucher Fund Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"\tPage: 1287
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
In his Budget Statement 2012, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced the permanent GST Voucher Scheme. The Scheme helps lower-income Singaporeans offset the GST they pay on their daily expenses.
Since the GST was introduced in 1994, the Government has cushioned its impact by providing various rebates to households. Over the last five years, for instance, households in the bottom 20% would have received an average of about $340 per household member, or about $1,300 for a family of four, in temporary GST offsets per year. For a family that spent about $1,500 each month on daily necessities, this would have offset all of their GST expenses. Among median income households, the average amount is smaller, at about $230 per household member, which would have helped to partially offset their annual GST bills as well.
In this year's Budget, we introduced the GST Voucher to give certainty to lower-income Singaporeans that they will get continued help to cope with their GST expenses. The Government will also establish a Goods and Services Tax Voucher Fund from which payouts will be made in the coming years.
We are setting aside $3.6 billion as part of Budget 2012 and expect this amount to be sufficient to finance the first five years of the GST Voucher Scheme. About $680 million will be drawn down for the GST Voucher payments made in Fiscal Year 2012. The Government will inject the remaining monies, currently estimated at $2.95 billion, into the Fund upon its establishment.
This Bill provides for the establishment of the Fund and its administration.
Sir, I shall now highlight the main features of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill sets out the purposes for which monies in the GST Voucher Fund may be used. Part III of the Bill places the general responsibility for the management and administration of the Fund on the Minister for Finance and provides for the presentation of annual financial statements and Auditor's report to Parliament. Parts IV and V of the Bill contain general provisions, including regulation-making, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the GST Voucher Fund Bill, and the proper conduct of officers exercising functions under the Bill.
\tPage: 1288
Sir, the GST Voucher Scheme is an important feature of our system of taxes and benefits. This system ensures overall progressivity, allowing lower-income Singaporeans to pay considerably lower taxes while receiving significantly more benefits than higher-income citizens.
The Government is also committed to making the GST Voucher a permanent feature of our fiscal system. By setting up the GST Voucher Fund, we provide greater certainty of payments which will otherwise be subject to budget availability, depending on economic conditions and other competing priorities in any year. The Government intends to make appropriate injections into the Fund to carry on financing this permanent GST Voucher Scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, one of the common concerns and criticisms of tax on consumption is that it is a flat tax and, therefore, regressive in nature. It takes up a higher proportion of the pay from the lower income groups.
However, unique to Singapore and notwithstanding the GST, our overall taxation system is still progressive; taking into account the other Government subsidy programmes, such as Workfare, housing, education and healthcare. These assistance schemes typically require means testing and are specifically structured to favour the lower and middle-income groups so that they receive more subsidies.
The newly introduced GST Voucher is another addition to the suite of social transfers and is an effective way to mitigate the regressive nature of GST by directly assisting lower and middle-income households to cope with the GST. In some groups, such as the lower income seniors, the GST Voucher would more than offset the GST they pay.
When the scheme was announced in Budget 2012, what caught my attention is the word \"permanent\". The GST voucher is a permanent system of offsets as opposed to the earlier schemes which were one-offs and depended on the immediate budget position. The permanent nature of the scheme is a comforting assurance.
Cost of living is amongst Singaporeans' top concerns. Hence, this permanent scheme will go a long way towards addressing the concerns of the lower and middle-income households on the impact of GST on their available disposable cash.
\tPage: 1289
This is a major commitment by the Government, with $3.6 billion being set aside for the next five years to fund this scheme. The Government will make additional injections to the Fund as and when the budget position permits.
So, today's Bill will allow the establishment of the Goods and Services Tax Fund to finance the payment of the Goods and Services Tax Vouchers (GSTV). And this will ensure that there is funding available for the GSTV Scheme, regardless of the economic conditions in the next five years.
In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how the GSTV will be funded beyond the five years when it is due? The outlay for the GST voucher is estimated to be about $680 million for FY2012 and the fund will mostly be depleted in about five years' time. Would the appropriation from the Consolidated Fund be substantially reduced if we are faced with a prolonged downturn that significantly impacts the Government's revenue?
Next, on the eligibility of the GSTV scheme, starting July this year, Singaporeans and households who qualify for GST Voucher would have received notification and the payout.
I have received some feedback with regard to the eligibility of the scheme. I agree that using household income and value of the home are, by and large, a fair attempt to ascertain those that need help from the GSTV scheme. However, it does leave out some people who may need help.
There are two segments that I would like to highlight with regard to this question of eligibility for the Cash and Medisave component of the GST Voucher. Firstly, the retirees and older Singaporeans who are aged 65 years and above, who own and live in homes that fall above the annual value criterion of $20,000. Secondly, older Singaporeans aged 65 years and above who do not have an income or property but are living with their children or relatives in properties that are above the annual value criterion of $20,000.
Annual property values have risen in recent years and may continue to rise. Would that mean that more Singaporeans will not be eligible as more home values could rise beyond the $20,000 annual value criterion? Such an increase in annual values is non-cash items for the occupier and may not necessary mean they would correspondingly be better able to cope with the higher cost of living.
While we encourage individuals to turn to their families for support, it may not be accurate to assume that those who live with families in properties above the $20,000 value do not require support or assistance. To an extent, it does seem that we are penalising those that live with their families.
Separately, I have also received feedback with regard to the eligible age of 65 to qualify for the GSTV scheme. I understand this is in line with the new retirement age of 65 under the new re-employment law. The question is: how many Singaporeans are, indeed, able to secure re-employment after 62 and whether the new terms of contract, often at lower salary, would still enable them to cope with the cost of living, including GSTs?
\tPage: 1290
Also, the assessable income used to determine the GSTV payout for 2012 is based on assessable income for Year of Assessment 2011; in other words, based on income earned in 2010 or two years ago. Would the lag be too long and can this be shortened so that it is more responsive to their needs?
For the above scenarios, I would request that a review and a further work be done to refine the eligibility criterion. Finally, I support this legislation which places the Fund under the purview of the Minister for Finance, and will ensure that the money set aside in the Fund is to provide financial assistance to eligible persons under the GSTV Scheme. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which is of importance to many Singaporeans.
The Bill is designed to help financially needy Singaporeans with GST costs and this is useful as it helps cope with rising costs of living in Singapore. Although reports have suggested that the inequality gap has widened here in Singapore, transfer payments from the Government have actually helped narrow this gap, and this Bill is another example of how the Government can help further plug this gap.
As costs of living in Singapore have increased over the years, at a pace that is faster than the rate of income growth for most Singaporeans, there have been calls to look at how these financial burdens may be alleviated. The Goods and Services Tax is one area in which some of the public attention has focused on, especially since the rate of GST has increased gradually in line with the Government's public finance policy of a greater shift to indirect taxation from direct tax. Such calls have asked to exempt low-income Singaporeans from paying GST on basic necessities.
While I do not think that this would be a productive or effective move, I recognise that the emotion behind this argument has been fuelled by a view that the GST is an additional burden on this group of Singaporeans. In light of that, this Bill is timely and relevant as it is a more direct and effective way in helping low-income Singaporeans deal with the GST costs. There are some points though that I would like to raise in relation to this Bill.
First, I would have hoped that the Bill stipulated the criteria through which the beneficiaries of this Bill would be defined. It would have been a good opportunity to determine, which Singaporeans would qualify for this assistance and which would not. If these criteria are intended to dovetail any existing criteria stipulated in other schemes or regulations, then this should be made explicitly clear.
\tPage: 1291
One of the reasons I feel that it is important to specify these criteria clearly and explicitly in the Act, is so that a more accurate number of Singaporeans who fall under these guidelines may be determined and, therefore, a better estimate of the amount of payment likely to be paid out can be made. This will make the fund more efficient, the size of which would be better estimated.
Touching on the size of the fund, it may be also useful to stipulate how this would change in accordance with the rate of GST. Should the GST rate be increased in the future, for example, would this then lead to a larger size of a fund, to reflect a larger quantum of financial assistance that may be needed to be paid out in future? Theoretically speaking, it should, but it should be useful to have this enshrined.
Since the fund may be used for investment, the incomes of which would help grow the initial fund size, I think it may be useful to also provide more clarity and guidelines on the nature of investments the fund may engage in. I would think, given the use of the fund, it would be prudent to ensure that the fund's risk-appetite is not that large. It would be better for the fund to be invested in less risky investments. This should be stipulated, especially since a third-party may be engaged for the purposes of managing these investments of this fund.
As this fund is also public money, there should be little tolerance of any attempt to cheat or mislead the system to benefit from the financial assistance being meted out. As such, I feel that the sentences being meted out to those whose actions are intended to cheat the scheme, should be harsher so as to create a strong deterrent. On the whole, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr R Dhinakaran for their support of the GST Voucher Fund Bill.
Mr Dhinakaran highlighted how the GST Voucher Scheme can help lower-income Singaporeans. Indeed, the GST Voucher − Cash and Medisave – has benefited close to 1.4 million Singaporeans while the GST Voucher − U-Save has benefited about 800,000 HDB households. One such family is that of Mdm Noorashikin, a homemaker living with her husband and two school-going children in a 4-room HDB flat. The family estimates that they spend about $1,300 each month on daily necessities which means that they pay about $85 in GST. In August this year, Mdm Noorashikin's family received a total of $500 in GST Voucher – Cash. This in addition to the $220 in GST Voucher U-Save that they will receive annually. Their total GST Voucher of $720 means that about 70 cents of every dollar they paid in GST will be covered. With more resources in hand, the family was able to celebrate Hari Raya Puasa comfortably and put aside a little something for the children's education.
\tPage: 1292
The GST Voucher is also designed to help retiree households with more modest assets. For example, a retiree household living in a 3-room flat is likely to pay less GST than the amount of GST Voucher they receive this year.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa has raised certain scenarios under which retirees may not be able to benefit from the GST Voucher. This is because some of them live in homes with Annual Values above $20,000, or live in homes which have appreciated over time to above $20,000. However, that does not translate into income for the retirees.
The eligibility criteria for the GST Voucher are set to target those who need it most. Today, we have used a combination of income and property Annual Value as the best available proxies of financial strength. The Annual Value of $20,000 means that 80% of homes in Singapore are covered, including some private property. Our existing criteria already benefit one in two adult citizens and eight in 10 citizen-households. About 85% of all elderly Singaporeans can also expect to receive the GST Voucher – Medisave each year.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if Singaporeans aged 62 to 65 have been successful in securing re-employment, and if they earn enough to cope with the cost of living. This is a valid and important question which would be more appropriately addressed by the Minister for Manpower.
Mr Liang asked if the time period between the GST Voucher payment and the income assessment period can be shortened. I would like to explain that the eligibility criteria aim to be practical. Using this year as an example, for Singaporeans to receive their GST Voucher by August, we must determine the payout based on the latest available Assessable Income, which is for Year of Assessment 2011 based on income earned in 2010. If we were to use income earned in 2011, it would mean delaying payouts until December, after all the tax assessments have been completed.
Nonetheless, Singaporeans facing extenuating circumstances can write in to the Ministry of Finance. We will take into account their more recent income situations and consider their applications on a case-by-case basis.
We will also continue to explore avenues to refine the eligibility criteria to target those who will benefit most from the GST Voucher, and we will take into account changes in property Annual Values and incomes in our reviews. In the meantime, I encourage Members to look out for needy individuals and households who may not qualify for the GST Voucher and refer them to other channels of assistance, for example, the Community Development Councils. Schemes, such as ComCare, have some degree of flexibility which can offer help to such families.
\tPage: 1293
Mr Dhinakaran has raised three points which I would like to respond to. The first is that the criteria for defining the intended beneficiaries of this Bill should be spelt out, so that the number of beneficiaries can be estimated more accurately.
The second related point is that the Fund size will need to be adjusted in the event of a GST rate increase. I believe the Member's concern is whether the funds set aside will, indeed, be sufficient. This was a point also echoed by Mr Liang. The Members are right to counsel prudence in the way we estimate our financial commitments in the GST Voucher Scheme. Let me assure the Members that the Government takes this commitment seriously. It is the reason we have set aside a very significant $3.6 billion for a start, which is expected to provide for five years of the Scheme. Additional injections to the Fund will be made as and when the Budget allows. And this must, of course, be predicated upon the continued health of our public finances.
Mr Dhinakaran suggests that the size of the Fund in relation to the GST rate be enshrined in the law. This is a very interesting suggestion which merits further consideration.
To Mr Dhinakaran's question, monies in the GST Voucher Fund will be invested with the Government which will pay a fixed return to the Fund annually. This is the same for other funds, such as the National Research Fund.
The Member's third and final point is that there should be little tolerance for those who seek to defraud public monies. He will be pleased to know that the penalties under the GST Voucher Fund have been benchmarked against those for similar offences, as laid out in the Medical and Elderly Care Endowment Schemes Fund Act and the Community Care Endowment Fund Act.
Once again, I thank the Members for their thoughtful comments and their support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr R Dhinakaran: I would like to check with the Minister of State if the interest is a fixed interest, or whether the Fund income is fixed income from other Government investments. If that is the case, what is the revenue estimated for the five years on this Fund, whether that is already included into the Fund? What is the total amount of that income?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the Member's question on the GST Voucher Fund, it is co-mingled with other funds and managed by the Government on a consolidated basis. What is committed to the Fund is that the Government will give it a fixed annual return. So, from the Fund's perspective, there is actually no risk that is being borne.
\tPage: 1294
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 1294
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12 noon tomorrow.\" – [Mr Heng Chee How]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.26 pm.
\tPage: 1295
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Orchard Road Underground Pedestrian Links","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the progress on the scheme that provides incentives for building owners to build underground pedestrian links; and (b) how the proposed underground pedestrian links in the Orchard area can help to improve the vehicular traffic flow along Orchard Road.
Page: 1295
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The URA has planned a comprehensive network of underground pedestrian links for the Marina Bay, the Central Business District and the Orchard Road areas. This is for the convenience of pedestrians as such links provide all-weather connectivity.
For the Marina Bay and the CBD areas, we have been able to require the developers to implement underground links through land sale conditions imposed on the Government Land Sale sites. For example, developments, such as One Raffles Quay, The Sail and Marina Bay Financial Centre, are all connected to one another as well as to the Raffles Place MRT Station and to the upcoming Downtown MRT Station via underground pedestrian links. Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort, which is directly connected to the Bayfront MRT Station, is also connected by an underground link to Gardens by the Bay.
For the Orchard Road area, progress has been slower because there are existing developments. We were able to realise some critical links to surrounding developments from the Orchard and Somerset MRT stations for ION Orchard and 313 Somerset, as they were former GLS sites. However, it has been more challenging to extend the network to older developments. Understandably, building owners prefer to carry out such works only when they intend to either undertake major works or redevelop their buildings.
To encourage such development, URA has introduced a Cash Grant Incentive Scheme. The URA grant is intended to cover a large proportion of the construction costs for the underground links. However, building owners may still have other concerns, for example, the loss of business during the construction period and the loss of lettable space due to space needed for the links. The take-up rate has thus far been low. Nevertheless, we will continue to work closely with owners and developers to enhance the underground pedestrian networks, as we strive to make Singapore pedestrian-friendly.
Such underground links can potentially ease the flow of vehicular traffic as more people may choose to take the MRT instead of driving to their destinations along Orchard Road. In addition, there may be less pedestrian crossings and pedestrian-related traffic incidences at Orchard Road.
Page: 1296
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Secondary School Streaming","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will (a) review streaming at the Secondary school level and consider removing the current academic streams (Express, Normal Academic and Normal Technical); and (b) put in place the flexibility for students to do either academic or vocational subjects, or a combination of both, similar to that at the Primary school level where students do either standard or foundation subjects, or a combination of both.
\tPage: 1296
Mr Heng Swee Keat: MOE regularly reviews and refines our approaches towards customising learning for our students so as to support our students to achieve their fullest potential. MOE will continue to do so.
The different academic streams are designed with different curriculum and pedagogies, to cater to our students’ different learning pace, learning aptitudes and learning styles. This allows our schools to provide the appropriate support to all students to build a strong foundation for lifelong learning. Students are allowed to transfer between streams, and such transfers are assessed by schools on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, within each stream, students have the flexibility to take subjects that are pegged at a higher level from their stream if their schools assess that this is in their best interest. For example, about 4,500 (or 35%) of Secondary 4 N(A) students offered one or more subjects at the GCE \"O\" Level in 2011. Some Secondary 4 N(T) students also take up to two subjects at the N(A) level. So, what Dr Intan is suggesting is already taking place to some extent. Nevertheless, we are studying how we can provide even greater flexibility to students.
More importantly, we will continue to ensure that each pathway can lead to opportunities for subsequent academic or skills upgrading.
\tPage: 1296
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Advertising Ban for Unhealthy Food","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for Health in light of recent measures to ban advertising of unhealthy food to children, whether the ban will be extended to include the installation of fizzy drink vending machines in schools.
\tPage: 1296
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I am happy to inform Ms Faizah that we have already been providing guidelines on the sugar content of drinks dispensed by vending machines in schools through the Healthy Eating in Schools Programme (HESP).
HESP, introduced in 2003, provides schools with a set of healthier food service guidelines so that students and staff will have convenient access to healthier food and beverage choices. Commercially-prepared sweetened drinks offered in vending machines or sold in canteens in participating schools must have the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) logo. Drinks under the HCS programme contain less sugar than similar drinks. In addition, to discourage students from consuming sweetened drinks, participating schools are expected to have two drinking water coolers within the canteen area to provide an even healthier option. We intend to step up our efforts with schools to encourage students to consume water instead of sweetened drinks.
\tPage: 1297
My Ministry will continue to study and implement a range of initiatives designed to encourage a healthier eating habit amongst our children and youth, and review existing practices, including the installation of vending machines offering sugared drinks in our schools, to ensure that our efforts remain effective and relevant.
\tPage: 1297
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Setting Income Criteria for S Passes and Employment Passes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how are the qualifying income criteria for S Pass and Employment Pass holders determined without disadvantaging our local workforce, especially new entrants to the labour market; (b) what kinds of PME jobs are considered not available or in short supply in Singapore for approval to be given to Employment Pass holders; and (c) what is being done to ensure that our local diploma and degree holders are able to secure employment and earn fair wages upon their graduation.
\tPage: 1297
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Singaporeans aspire to secure good jobs and wages, and they have many different aspirations. Being a dynamic and attractive business location for local and foreign companies plays a critical role in helping to meet our people’s needs. We want to keep the labour market tight even as we create good jobs and we want to ensure that our Singaporeans are equipped with competitive skills to take up these diverse job opportunities.
In fact, it is more than creating jobs. We want to provide resilience in employment and growing a diversified economy at a sustainable rate of growth provides this. We will bring in good, higher value-add industries while developing our local companies continuously. We have a small local workforce. New industries and growing companies will inevitably need to be supplemented with a foreign labour force at various levels. This would also mean competition for our young graduates.
We will ensure that young foreign entrants compete on a level playing field as local fresh graduates. As such, we have adjusted the Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries to take into account local wage progression. For instance, in January 2012, we raised the qualifying salary for young foreign graduates from $2,800 to $3,000 to keep pace with the increase in the median starting salary of local university graduates, which was $2,900 in 2010. We have also raised the EP qualifying salaries for the older and more experienced foreigners so that they do not compete unfairly with our locals, both fresh graduates and those with work experience. We have also tightened up the qualifications criterion. These steps help ensure that the quality of EP holders is progressively raised over time.
\tPage: 1298
Let us be clear. Businesses are here in Singapore because there are advantages, relative to being elsewhere. Many are competing regionally and beyond. Costs and capabilities are never local because the playing field goes beyond the domestic economy. Businesses are looking at building capable and diverse teams, and are tapping the whole range of skill sets and global networks to complement our local workforce. These efforts ensure that the businesses grow in Singapore and remain globally competitive. There will be competition for jobs but, ultimately, our main objective is that good jobs are created for Singaporeans. In reality, when companies move elsewhere, the jobs will also move and it would ultimately impact on our people and the opportunities available for them. It is a fair and valid concern as to how this balance is struck. We will continue to monitor the employment situation closely and make further refinements to our policies where necessary.
At the same time, we must help ensure that our local diploma and degree holders have the necessary skills for these jobs, not just upon graduation but throughout their working life. Therefore, we focus a lot of attention to build up a strong higher education system and Continuing Education and Training (CET) system. These are guided by Advisory Councils comprising different stakeholders, such as industry representatives and sector champion agencies, so that the curriculum imparts industry-relevant knowledge and skills.
To help fresh graduates make informed choices and maximise their employment opportunities, MOM also disseminates labour market information regularly. We have launched a series of employability interventions through the Singapore Workforce Development Agency which fresh graduates can tap on, including CaliberLink, a one-stop service point that integrates training assistance and career services for PMEs.
The impact of a globalised economy is being felt in many countries. Unemployment and youth unemployment are very high in a number of other developed countries. Our unemployment rate for Singapore Citizens remains low at 3.0% in September 20121, while over nine in 10 graduates from our Polytechnics and Universities last year found a job within six months from graduation. Those who have joined the workforce have enjoyed rising incomes; we have seen real median gross monthly incomes of full-time employed citizens rise by 2.5% per annum from 2006 to 2011. These are positive outcomes and suggest that our general approach is sound. We do recognise that competition for jobs will occur and that it is important to keep the playing field level while we create these good opportunities for our people.
\tPage: 1299
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Preliminary figure."],"footNoteQuestions":["28"],"questionNo":"28"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Worker Enclaves in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a quota policy similar to the Ethnic Integration Policy to manage the concentration of foreign workers renting HDB flats or rooms in HDB estates; and (b) if not, what measures will HDB employ to prevent the formation of foreign worker enclaves in HDB estates.
\tPage: 1299
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We do not have the equivalent of the Ethnic Integration Policy in the management of the number of foreign workers renting HDB flats or rooms. This is because the renting of a flat or a room is a temporary housing arrangement.
However, I am sympathetic to the concerns of an over-concentration of foreign workers in some HDB estates. We are mulling over how best to address such concerns.
\tPage: 1299
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mother Tongue Language Exemption for Primary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students in the 2012 Primary school cohort are exempted from taking their mother tongue language; (b) what is the breakdown of the reasons for these exemptions; and (c) how will these students be managed in terms of their PSLE scores compared to their peers who take all four PSLE examinable subjects.
\tPage: 1299
Mr Heng Swee Keat: About 1,600 students (3%) of the 2012 Primary school cohort were exempted from taking their mother tongue languages. Of these students, about half entered our schools mid-stream and have not studied any of the mother tongue languages. The rest of the students were exempted on medical grounds as they have learning disabilities.
For the PSLE, a pupil exempted from mother tongue is assessed based on his performance in English, Mathematics and Science. The total score of these three subjects is statistically adjusted so that it reflects an aggregate score comparable to those of his peers who offer mother tongue and have similar total scores for these three subjects.
\tPage: 1299
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breach of Employer CPF Contribution Rules","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of employers who violate the CPF Act by failing to contribute the due CPF contributions for their employees in 2012; (b) what is the profile of employees affected by such breaches; and (c) what are the reasons for non-compliance.
\tPage: 1299
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: From January to September this year, about 2,700 employers, or about 2% of all active employers, had not paid or underpaid their employees' CPF. Around 6,600 employees were affected. In addition, an average of about 3,000 employers each month pay CPF contributions late.
\tPage: 1300
About 80% of these errant employers were small companies hiring 10 or fewer employees, in line with the proportion of small companies in our economy. The incidence of non-compliance was higher in the cleaning, food & beverage (F&B), retail and security industries. Workers affected tend to be in the lower income group.
Some employers do not comply with the CPF Act because they are ignorant or have a wrong understanding of CPF Act obligations. For instance, some employers have the misconception that CPF is not payable for part-time and casual employees. But there are other employers who wilfully flout the law to reduce business costs.
No matter what the reason is, we treat non-compliance with the CPF Act seriously. Singaporeans save for their retirement through the CPF. The CPF also helps them pay for housing and healthcare expenses. In addition, the CPF is a key conduit through which the Government channels financial assistance to the more economically vulnerable Singaporeans. If a low-income worker is outside the CPF net, he will lose out on receiving Workfare Income Supplement, and occasional top-ups that the Government contributes to his CPF account.
We, therefore, enforce the CPF Act rigorously. There are heavy penalties – failure to pay CPF in accordance with the law attracts a fine of up to $2,500 per charge for the first conviction and up to $10,000 per charge for repeat offenders; this means up to $10,000 per worker per month. The directors, managers, secretaries or officers of the companies may also be prosecuted for CPF offences.
From January to September this year, more than 5,200 employers had their offences compounded and paid about $1.7 million in fines. Close to 100 employers with more serious infringements were convicted in court, and fined more than $200,000 in total.
All employers who fail to make CPF contributions are required to make good the CPF contributions owed, with interest.
MOM and CPF Board recently launched the WorkRight programme to step up compliance with the CPF Act, as well as the Employment Act. There are two prongs – education and enforcement.
Through education, we aim to raise awareness among employers and employees of their obligations and rights under the CPF and Employment Acts. Some of you would have come across the WorkRight advertisements in the papers, on TV, or over the radio.
Stepping up of enforcement activity will begin this month. Inspections will increase ten-fold, from 500 to 5,000 each year. Most employers are responsible. But for the minority who are not, they would do well to take heed and get their house in order.
\tPage: 1301
Everyone can play their part. If you come across employees not receiving their CPF or are being denied their employment rights, please contact the WorkRight hotline or email. All information provided is confidential.
\tPage: 1301
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Impact of China-Japan Islands Dispute on Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there is any economic impact on Singapore as a result of the economic standoff between China and Japan over their dispute on the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands.
\tPage: 1301
Mr K Shanmugam: China and Japan are the second and third largest economies in the world respectively. Both are also bound to the largest economy, the US, by intimate and complex ties of interdependency. Any prolonged period of political tensions between China and Japan that affect their economic relationship is, therefore, bound to have an eventual impact on the world economy and thus on all countries, including China, Japan and, of course, Singapore. At this point, the extent of the impact is as yet uncertain. But given the fragility of the world economy, we hope that they will settle their differences as soon as possible. This is in their own interests and in the interests of the international community as a whole.
\tPage: 1301
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Security Assessment of Foreign Telecoms Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the US House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee's report on Chinese telecommunications companies posing a security threat to the US corporate and government interests; (b) what is the current risk to Singapore and how pervasive is the use of these technologies within the Government and other telecommunications infrastructure; and (c) whether feedback has been received from multinational corporations with regard to such security concerns.
\tPage: 1301
Mr Teo Chee Hean: In early October 2012, the US House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee published a report on the potential security risk to US corporate and government interests posed by two particular non-US telecommunications companies. The report made a number of recommendations for US government agencies, Congressional Committees, and the two non-US companies to consider. We are monitoring the developments.
Singapore takes the issue of cybersecurity seriously. A trusted, secure and resilient information and communications (or infocomm) infrastructure is critical to Singapore's national security and economic interests. MHA works closely with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) to put in place robust measures to secure our Government and national infocomm infrastructure. This is done by identifying the security threats, assessing the attendant risks, and implementing controls to mitigate the risks. Our approach does not differentiate between products or suppliers by brand or country of origin.
\tPage: 1302
Within the Government sector, infocomm infrastructure is evaluated for compliance with security requirements before deployment. Additional security safeguards are put in place where needed. The infrastructure is also regularly monitored, tested and reviewed to ensure that it continues to meet stringent security standards.
For the telecommunications sector, IDA has also taken steps to strengthen the security of our Internet Infrastructure. In February 2011, IDA issued a mandatory Code of Practice to designated Internet Access Service Providers (IASPs). The Code requires information on threats and vulnerabilities to be shared with IDA to enable effective mitigation measures to be taken. MHA is also working with IDA to put in place additional risk mitigation measures to prevent our infocomm infrastructure from being compromised by foreign governments or other groups or individuals acting against Singapore's interests. Periodic audits on the designated Providers will be conducted and IDA will impose penalties if they fail to comply with the security requirements.
We will continue to work with stakeholders to strengthen our security regime to ensure the integrity and resilience of our infocomm services, taking into account new technologies and risks.
\tPage: 1302
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Curbs on Media during Hougang By-election Campaign in May 2012","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government had exercised any control or influence over the media during the Hougang by-election campaign in May 2012.
\tPage: 1302
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: It is in the interest of the media to exercise professional integrity in its reporting, more so in this age of the Internet when the people have access to diverse sources of information. Be it the Hougang by-election or any other issues, it is of critical importance for the media to ensure that its coverage is fair, objective and credible. Otherwise, the people will just turn away from them and go to other sources.
The mainstream media in Singapore have done well. Findings of the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer, which measures trust in four key institutions, including the media, show that 65% of the \"informed public\" in Singapore trusted the media, an increase from 59% in 2011. Our media have performed better than the media in other developed countries such as the US, UK and Australia, where the trust levels were between 37% and 45% in 20122.
\tPage: 1303
The strength of our media in Singapore lies in being credible, fair and objective in their reporting, and they must maintain this important attribute to stay relevant in this increasingly competitive media environment.
\tPage: 1303
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["2 : 45% of the \"informed public\" in the US said they trusted the media; it was 37% in the UK and 43% in Australia."],"footNoteQuestions":["41"],"questionNo":"41"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Freeze on Government Fee Increases to Limit Inflation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Laurence Lien asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the persistently high inflation rate, whether the Government will consider more aggressive measures like a short-term freeze on Government fee increases, price increases for new HDB flats and public transport fare hikes.
\tPage: 1303
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): We share Mr Lien’s concerns over the rise in inflation. Over the past nine months, CPI-All Items increased by 4.8% on a year-on-year basis. However, a large part of the increase in CPI-All Items was due to imputed, rather than actual housing rentals and a surge in the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums for private cars. COEs contributed 0.9 percentage points to the increase in CPI-All Items.
Other Government fees and charges have not experienced large increases. Indeed, they accounted for only 0.2 percentage points of CPI inflation over the past nine months. Over the same period, public transport costs similarly contributed only 0.2 percentage points to CPI inflation. The Government will continue to invest heavily in improving public transport, which will help to keep transport costs in check.
The Government is committed to keep public housing affordable. It has taken significant steps to boost the supply of new Build-to-Order (BTO) flats. In terms of pricing, BTO flats enjoy substantial market discounts, and the subsidies are regularly reviewed to ensure that HDB flats are affordable, especially for first-timer buyers. The Government has also implemented a number of demand management measures, and will continue to monitor the public housing market closely.
In addition, the Government has taken a few initiatives to directly help households with their costs of living. For example, we have provided subsidies for healthcare, child-care and education, all of which benefit lower-income families more. Public transport vouchers are also given to needy families to offset bus and MRT fare increases. The GST Voucher Scheme, which was introduced in this year's Budget, will also benefit lower-income households significantly. For instance, a retiree household staying in a HDB 3-room flat will receive $960 on average each year from the GST Voucher Scheme.
\tPage: 1304
The Government will continue to monitor inflation closely, and is prepared to introduce additional measures if necessary.
\tPage: 1304
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Treatment for Babies with Congenital Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider measures to (a) subsidise the healthcare costs of babies who suffer from congenital disorders or congenital diseases; and (b) expand the Medishield cover of the parents to include cover for congenital disorders or congenital diseases for babies.
\tPage: 1304
Mr Gan Kim Yong: All Singaporeans, including families with babies who suffer from congenital conditions, can already benefit from significant Government subsidies of up to 80% when seeking subsidised healthcare treatment in our public hospitals. Those who still face difficulties managing their healthcare bills can apply for financial assistance from our medical institutions, such as via Medifund. We are mindful that the cumulative costs incurred by those with congenital conditions may be a burden even for middle or higher income families, and will take these into consideration when assessing the patients' eligibility for financial assistance.
We understand that parents have concerns regarding healthcare costs for their children. To provide parents with greater peace of mind, we will be conducting a broader review on how to better support them in providing for their children’s healthcare needs. The extension of MediShield to congenital conditions is being considered, along with other ideas as part of the on-going deliberation on encouraging marriage and parenthood as well as the \"Our Singapore Conversation\" (OSC) taking place to shape a consensus on the future we want for Singapore. The Government will announce more details when ready.
\tPage: 1304
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Singaporeans' Retirement Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Laurence Lien asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of Singapore's ranking of 17 out of 18 countries in the Adequacy section of the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2012, whether there is a need to review if new batches of retirees, particularly middle-class Singaporeans, have enough replacement income at retirement to sustain the quality of life they were accustomed to while working.
\tPage: 1304
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Comparing pension systems across countries is not straightforward as pension systems are designed to fit the social context of each country and can be highly varied. Many international indices on social security are designed with European models in mind, and these are quite different from Singapore's CPF system.
In other countries, social security contributions do not have components equivalent to the Special Account, Ordinary Account and Medisave Account, as we have in Singapore. Hence many international measures, including the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, disregard how CPF Ordinary Account balances contribute to retirement adequacy in Singapore.
\tPage: 1305
International indices generally place much emphasis on a universal basic pension as a means to achieve financial security in old age. In Singapore, our approach is different, with greater focus on self-reliance and less on universal entitlements. We help Singaporeans own a home, so that they do not need to worry about where they will live when they retire, and these homes also serve as valuable assets which can be monetised if necessary. We boost CPF balances of those with lower incomes through Workfare and CPF top-ups. For those who need more help, we have ComCare and Medifund. Again, international indices on retirement adequacy are not comprehensive enough to factor in how home ownership is an important pillar of retirement adequacy in Singapore. Mercer has acknowledged that the CPF is designed to address a broader range of needs, such as home ownership and medical costs, than their index seeks to measure.
International indices do not account for the uniqueness of how we achieve retirement adequacy in Singapore. These indices do not accurately measure how we fare, and they should be interpreted carefully with these limitations in mind.
We recognise that it is important for the public to have assurance that the CPF can provide adequately for their retirement. MOM recently commissioned an independent study by NUS academics to compute the level of retirement income that the CPF can provide for young Singaporeans entering the workforce today. The study finds that such new entrants will be able to save enough in their CPF to provide a reasonable level of income in retirement, as long as they work consistently. The median male earner will be able to replace about 70% of his pre-retirement earnings through his CPF savings, whereas a female median earner is able to replace almost 65% of her pre-retirement earnings. In other words, using a methodology that factors in the uniqueness of our CPF system, the study found that income replacement rates in Singapore are comparable to those seen in the pension systems in many developed countries, and within the recommended range by the World Bank. The study has just been released.
The Member also asked about the current generation of older Singaporeans. This issue was given some focus in MOM's Committee of Supply debate in March this year. Older Singaporeans generally have lower CPF balances due to lower incomes and greater leeway to use CPF for housing in the past. But the CPF has helped them own their homes, and they have benefited from the healthy appreciation of their homes over the decades. Such older Singaporeans have the option to tap on their housing asset to supplement their retirement income if they wish to, and we will provide avenues, such as the Silver Housing Bonus and the enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme, to help them do so.
\tPage: 1306
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hoarding in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases of excessive hoarding in HDB flats did the Ministry receive for the past three years; (b) what is the action taken by HDB for all these cases; and (c) whether such action by HDB has been effective.
\tPage: 1306
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: From 2009 to 2011, HDB received 57 cases of feedback on hoarding in the flats.
Upon receiving feedback, HDB will carry out site inspections. Where there has been excessive hoarding, HDB will advise the residents to remove the items that are fire hazards, and to keep their flats tidy. Generally, the residents have been cooperative.
For some residents, compulsive hoarding is a behavioural problem. They may require professional help. In such cases, HDB will bring in the local social workers, grassroots leaders and even the Singapore Civil Defence Force to render appropriate counselling.
\tPage: 1306
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applicants who Fail to Complete Purchase of Selected BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last two years, how many applicants have successfully selected their BTO flats but failed to complete the purchase; (b) what were the reasons given; and (c) what measures does HDB intend to take to minimise such cases that can lead to a distortion of the subscription rate of newly launched BTO flats.
\tPage: 1306
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2010 and 2011, there were 43,000 bookings for new HDB flats. To date, about 3,000 applicants, or 7%, failed to complete the purchase after they had successfully selected their flats.
The three main reasons were (a) financial difficulties following a job loss; (b) break-up in family relationship; and (c) a change in preference for the location.
Currently, we require all flat buyers to pay a non-refundable booking fee when selecting a unit. For those who fail to complete the purchase after signing the lease agreement, 5% of the purchase price of the flat will also be forfeited. In addition, flat buyers who fail to complete the purchase after selecting a flat will be debarred for one year from participating in HDB sales exercises, or receiving housing grants for purchase of a resale flat.
\tPage: 1306
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mountain Bikes on Bukit Timah Nature Trails","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development (a) what enforcement measures are put in place by NParks to ensure that mountain bikers riding at night with bike lights and headlamps through the Bukit Timah Trails do not cause disturbance to nearby residents and wildlife; and (b) whether there is a need for stricter measures and enforcement in view of the sport's growing popularity and, if so, what are these measures.
\tPage: 1307
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Bukit Timah Nature Reserve is a gazetted nature reserve. Mountain biking is only allowed at one designated trail which hugs the perimeter of the nature reserve. This trail does not run through the core conservation areas where the richest biodiversity resides. Other trails within the nature reserve are meant for walking, hiking and jogging, but not cycling.
The National Parks Board (NParks) has put up \"No Cycling\" signs at various parts of the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve to inform the public on trails where cycling is prohibited. Enforcement action in the form of summons is taken against those who do so.
To encourage responsible cycling behaviour along the designated trail, NParks works closely with the mountain biking community to educate cyclists on proper etiquette when cycling on the designated trail. This includes the proper use of lights and headlamps at night for safety reasons, and taking care not to shine in the direction of the neighbouring residences and the core of the nature reserve.
NParks is monitoring the night cycling activity at the designated trail, but see no need to impose stricter measures for night cycling at this juncture.
\tPage: 1307
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Barrier-free Accessibility Programme","subTitle":"Update on implementation","sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development if he can provide an update on the implementation of the barrier-free accessibility programme in (a) public housing estates and (b) other non-public housing and common public areas.
\tPage: 1307
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We have made good progress in making Singapore barrier-free.
Within HDB estates, basic barrier-free accessibility is now available in all HDB estates. The outdoor upgrading works included retrofitting existing estates with barrier-free features, such as ramps, railings and levelling of steps, for enhanced accessibility. A total of 7,791 HDB blocks benefited from our Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) programme which was finally completed this year.
Going forward, the Town Councils may continue to incorporate more BFA features if they wish to do so. For example, through the on-going Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and improvement works by the Town Councils, more ramps can be provided, in tandem with new amenities and facilities.
\tPage: 1308
As for new HDB estates, they will all be built with BFA features. They form part of the Universal Design which BCA mandates for all new buildings, both in the public and the private sectors. Universal Design will help make Singapore liveable for all ages, including those with physical disabilities.
The BCA Code on Accessibility specifies the minimum standards for barrier-free provision in buildings, as well as outside buildings. This includes public walkways and parks, and ensures better interconnectivity between buildings and amenities, such as MRT stations, bus-stops and taxi-stands.
To date, close to 100% of public sector infrastructure which are highly frequented by the general public, such as hospitals, polyclinics, markets and hawker centres, have achieved at least the basic level of barrier-free accessibility. These include ramps to the entrance of the facility, wheelchair accessible lifts and toilets at the ground level.
Private sector building owners can tap on BCA's $40 million Accessibility Fund to upgrade their buildings with accessibility features. A total of 110 building projects have successfully applied for this fund. This has led to key areas in Singapore, such as Orchard Road, achieving barrier-free accessibility.
BCA will continue to work with building owners and other Government agencies to improve the accessibility of our built environment.
\tPage: 1308
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Approval Limit for Revitalisation of Shops Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider approving the Revitalisation of Shops Scheme (ROS) as long as 75% of the shop owners in the town centre or neighbourhood agree to sign up instead of the current 100% requirement.
\tPage: 1308
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: HDB helps shop owners revitalise their shops and improve their business by co-funding the upgrading of common areas under the Revitalisation of Shops Scheme (ROS). As these upgrading works benefit all shop owners, it is reasonable to expect each of them to co-pay their share of the upgrading costs, and not allow a few non-contributing shop owners to free-ride on the contributions of others. It is, therefore, important that the local Merchant Associations (MAs) lead this collective effort and obtain the support of all the shop owners.
\tPage: 1309
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Public Service Employees on Flexible Work Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister what is the current percentage of employees in the public service, as categorised by seniority and work areas, who are on (a) flexible work arrangements (b) reduced-hour work week and (c) work-from-home arrangements.
\tPage: 1309
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Flexible work arrangements help our public officers better manage their work and personal needs. There are three main types of flexibility that public officers might require: flexi-place, flexi-time and flexi-load.
Flexi-place, or telecommuting, allows public officers to work remotely, usually from home. About four in five public agencies have a telecommuting scheme. Eighteen percent\tof public officers who responded to a survey by the Public Service in January 2012 indicated that they telecommute at least once a month.
Flexi-time allows public officers to determine the time when they are at work in the course of a day, as long as they fulfil the minimum of 42 hours of work required a week. Almost all public agencies offer staggered work hours, a form of flexi-time, where officers can choose the time to start work that best suits them, typically between 7.30am and 10am.
Finally, flexi-load allows public officers to opt to work fewer hours per week on part-time employment, with prorated salary and benefits. All public agencies offer a part-time employment scheme. As at 31 December 2011, there were 1,094 or 1.4% of Division I public officers working part-time; and 321 or 0.6% of non-Division I public officers working part-time.
\tPage: 1309
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Singapore Citizenship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister (a) from 1991 to 2010, what is the annual number of new citizens who were granted citizenship without first being permanent residents; (b) for the periods 1991 to 2000 and 2001 to 2010 respectively, what is the average length of permanent residency before conversion to citizenship; and (c) what is being done to encourage more permanent residents to apply for citizenship earlier.
\tPage: 1309
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): From 1991 to 2010, an average of 1,600 persons annually were granted citizenship without first being permanent residents (PRs). These were minors who registered for citizenship after they were born overseas to Singapore Citizens, as well as minors of successful citizenship applicants. Under the Constitution, minors do not need to obtain permanent residence status first in order to be eligible for citizenship.
Over the period of 1991 to 2010, most PRs who took up citizenship did so within six years of becoming PRs.
\tPage: 1310
Taking up citizenship is a serious commitment which is ultimately a personal decision. While we welcome qualified PRs who have decided to make their future here to consider applying for citizenship sooner rather than later, this is best served by ensuring that Singapore Citizens are well looked after. To reflect the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and to acknowledge Singapore Citizens' commitment to Singapore, Singapore Citizens receive more support and benefits in the areas of marriage and parenthood, housing, healthcare and education. Over the past few years, we have widened the differentiation in benefits accorded to Singapore Citizens and to PRs. We should also continue to be a society that is open and gracious. How welcoming and accepting we are of newcomers will also impact on their decision to sink roots here permanently.
\tPage: 1310
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-taxable Capital Gains from Sale of Properties, Shares and Financial Instruments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each of the last five years, what is the total non-taxable capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments that are reported to IRAS.
\tPage: 1310
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Singapore does not have a capital gains tax. Taxpayers are, therefore, not required to report their capital gains to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
\tPage: 1310
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Test-Bedding of Solar Photovoltaic Installations","subTitle":"Results and lessons learned","sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the results and lessons learned from the test-bedding of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in HDB housing estates and in public institutions, such as Ngee Ann Polytechnic; (b) whether the Government will scale up the experimental test-bedding to have PV installations beyond the targeted 3% of HDB blocks; (c) whether the Government will consider deploying PV installations on all Government buildings and public schools; and (d) whether doing so would set an example to the private sector for the viability and cost-effectiveness of PV installations.
\tPage: 1310
Mr S Iswaran (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Over the years, we have supported various research, pilot and test-bedding programmes to strengthen our capabilities in solar PV. For example, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) is leading the $31 million Solar Capability Building Scheme, a nationwide solar pilot programme on public housing blocks. Since 2008, HDB has been progressively installing solar PV in both new and existing HDB precincts. To date, about 100 blocks have been installed with solar PV systems. From HDB's pilot programme, we seek learning points on the feasibility and performance of various solar PV technologies in Singapore’s densely built tropical environment, as well as best practices for implementation and systems integration of solar PV.
\tPage: 1311
Another initiative is the Economic Development Board’s (EDB's) Clean Energy and Research and Test-bedding (CERT) Programme, which offers opportunities for companies to test-bed clean energy technologies using locations provided by Government agencies, including Government buildings and public schools. The CERT programme also aims to encourage R&D and build research capabilities in solar PV in our local research institutes. Projects supported under the CERT programme include National Parks Board's (NParks') Gardens by the Bay, PUB's Marina Barrage, the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA’s) Zero-Energy Building, and installations in Singapore Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
Our HDB solar PV systems generate an average of 3,200 to 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month per housing block. This largely goes towards powering each block's common services, such as elevators, water pumps and corridor lights, thus reducing common areas' energy consumption from the grid.
Going forward, we will continue to support such test-bedding efforts. To meet the energy demands of Government-owned buildings, we remain open to all energy technologies and options. These could include buying electricity from the grid, installing solar PV to augment electricity supply, or installing energy-efficient technologies to reduce energy consumption. The Government could take the lead in installing solar PV where it makes economic sense to do so.
The private sector would similarly need to weigh the costs and benefits in deciding whether to deploy solar PV installations. The Government will continue to facilitate this by supporting technical infrastructure for better integration of distributed energy sources, and reviewing our market regulatory rules and policies.
\tPage: 1311
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relative Performance of PSLE Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education what is the relative performance in the middle three quintile performance bands of Primary 6 boys and girls who sat for the Primary School Leaving Examination between 2001 and 2011.
\tPage: 1311
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Between 2001 and 2011, boys and girls were relatively evenly distributed in the middle three quintile performance bands at the PSLE. In 2011, the proportions of girls scoring in the second, third and fourth quintiles were 20%, 20% and 21% respectively, while the corresponding percentages of boys were 20%, 20% and 19%.