First, the new S2 (1B) defines ‘dormant account’ as one where a member has reached a prescribed age, prescribed circumstances exist, and he has not responded to the Board to confirm that he is alive. According to the new S 13 (7B), this dormant status would trigger off a count-down towards a transfer to General Moneys, where the member’s moneys will not attract interest payments.

There will be some concern about ensuring that elderly and frail CPF members, including those with stroke, dementia or who are illiterate, are not unfairly deprived of interest because they did not respond to the Board’s request. What sort of due diligence will the Board exercise before making the transfer to General Moneys? Would there be a link-up to nursing homes, welfare homes etc to account for those in care? Will there be personal visits by CPF Board officials to the member’s last known address?

Secondly, under Clause 16(a), the new S 27L(1A) provides that CPF members who have already paid premiums for CPF Life annuities when they reached 55, will be required to pay additional premiums just before they reach draw-down age (to be 65). These additional premiums will only be told to them 2 months before they reach draw-down age.

At age 55, the member would have made his selection of CPF Life annuity plan based on the premium and projections told to him then. To require him to pay additional premiums just before draw down age seems to be a retroactive requirement, since he cannot change his annuity plan unless he gets special permission then. Should the member not be given a choice whether or not to pay the additional premium?

–
Webmaster’s note: This speech was delivered in the Parliament on 16 Aug 2010

This Bill makes some progressive changes in 3 important areas: pre-trial disclosure framework, crime victims’ redress and community-based sentences.

Pre-Trial Disclosure Framework
The Bill provides for more balance between the state and the defence in preparing for criminal trials. The much-awaited statutory framework for pre-trial disclosure is now out. There will now be more disclosure between prosecution and defence in criminal cases – the prosecution will now be required to furnish to the defence all statements made by the accused at any time, even those only useful to the defence. This is an improvement from the current position when such important evidence may be withheld from the defence and the court. Likewise, the defence has disclosure obligations to reveal its defence before trial.

While the framework is a significant step forward, I have one concern about this. Under the new S 231, it is still possible for either side to call witnesses or produce exhibits not disclosed at the pre-trial disclosure conference, so long as `prior notice’ is given in writing to the court and the other parties to the case. It is not stated how much notice must be given. Will this be a loophole for either party not to disclose everything at the pre-trial conference and introduce new evidence at the last minute? If so, this will defeat the purpose of the framework.

Crime Victims’ Redress
For too long, the criminal justice system has focused on punishing the offender, and neglected the harm and damage caused to the crime victim. Thus, the crime victim has had to pay for medical treatment or replace his property with his own funds, and suffers inconveniences in having to attend at police stations and court hearings, with nothing in return.

The Bill has several provisions which recognize the crime victim as a stakeholder in a criminal case. It is now mentioned that a sentencing court can consider a Victim Impact Statement (the new S 228). This will enable the court to specifically consider the harm caused to the victim in determining the appropriate sentence. In addition, it will now be mandatory for a sentencing court to consider whether to also order the offender to compensate the victim for injuries or other losses (the new S 359). If used well, these provisions will make the process more meaningful for the victim and is a step closer to the progressive regimes in other developed countries such as Australia.

One concern about this is whether these provisions will end up simply being on paper and not actively used. For instance, I note that under the current practice, the Victim Impact Statement is not recorded by the police in the majority of cases. I would like Minister to clarify whether there is going to be any change to this practice i.e. will the VIS be recorded by the police in future in a wider variety of cases? If not, the court may not have the information readily at hand to adjust the sentence or to order compensation, which will undermine the purpose of the changes.

Community-based sentences
Increased options of community-based sentences are available in lieu of incarceration. As a general rule, keeping minor offenders out of jail is a good principle. However, we should be careful that we do not inadvertently end up processing more people through the system and leave more people with criminal records. This `net-widening’ could result if we start to prosecute people who would otherwise have been let off with a warning, just because we think there are `light’ sentences available.

Apart from these 3 areas, I have some other concerns about specific provisions in the Bill. These concern the composition of Penal Code offences, changes to the provisions on caning, the powers of the court on appeal.

Composition of certain Penal Code Offences
The Bill makes a significant change regarding offences which can be compounded by the victim under the Penal Code.

Under the existing law, certain minor Penal Code offences can be settled between the victim and the offender provided it is allowed by the Court. For example, in outrage of modesty cases, the victim may accept an offer of compensation and an apology, in exchange for an acquittal, provided the Court allows it. Such a route is only available for certain minor offences specified by Parliament – the CPC provides that for those offences, the victim is empowered to compound.

The new S 241 removes the Court as the approving authority and gives this role to the Public Prosecutor. The rationale for this, according to the MinLaw Consultation Paper 2008, is that the Public Prosecutor will have the public interest in mind when he exercises this power. However, it was not explained why it was felt that the power needed to be taken away from the Court.

There have been several local cases where the Court allowed an offence to be compounded, despite objections from the Public Prosecutor. In the reported case of PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995] 3 SLR(R) 105, the accused had been charged with voluntarily causing hurt. He had made an offer to the victim who was willing to compound the matter. The Public Prosecutor objected to the composition. The court found that there were no aggravating factors, the injuries were minor and the parties had patched up their differences, therefore there was no reason to re-open old wounds by going through with the prosecution. The High Court clarified then that the court was not a rubber stamp but had to make a judicial decision, apply the rules of reason and justice, and consider the public interest. In that case, it found no public interest element why the offence should not be compounded.

Past cases show that there are instances where the Court and the Public Prosecutor differ as to what the public interest requires. With due respect, what reason do we have to think that the Public Prosecutor is superior to the Court in this regard?

In addition, the Public Prosecutor is a party to all criminal cases, on the opposite side of the accused person. Since this is an adversarial system, it is better to have the Court, an independent party, to assess whether the composition should be approved. The prosecution can always make its views known to the Court before the Court makes its decision.

I also do not see any compelling reason to move this decision from Open Court to the Executive Government, resulting in a loss of transparency and clarity to the general public.

Changes to the Caning Provisions
We are one of the few countries which continue to have caning as a judicial punishment.

However, though certain offences attract caning, some people are unable to suffer it. There are 3 main circumstances. First, ineligibility – women, and men above 50 or sentenced to death, are not eligible for caning (new S 325). Secondly, serial offenders – a serial offender who is sentenced for several offences may be liable for more than 24 strokes, which is above the specified limit and illegal (new S 328). Thirdly, a caning which is discontinued – caning of an offender may have begun, but the caning is stopped halfway by a medical officer who finds that the offender is not medically fit to complete it (new S 332). In these 3 circumstances, I do agree that a question arises about fairness vis-à-vis other offenders who are able to suffer caning.

Under the current law (S233), when a caning was stopped halfway, the court could sentence the offender to additional imprisonment of up to 12 months to make up for the unexecuted caning. However, there was an express proviso to that section. Under S 233(2), the court could still not impose a term exceeding the accused’s liability under the law. In other words, if his offence attracts a maximum of 7 years jail, his original jail term plus the jail term in lieu of caning should not be more than 7 years. Neither was the Court allowed to exceed its sentencing jurisdiction under S 233.

The new provisions change that. For all the 3 situations I mentioned, the Court can add imprisonment of up to 12 months in lieu of caning. It is further stated that the aggregate imprisonment term after this addition may exceed the maximum jail term for the offence he committed and may even exceed the court’s sentencing jurisdiction.

While I can accept that imprisonment can be added in lieu of caning in all 3 circumstances, I have great discomfort in allowing the combined jail term to exceed the statutory maximum imposed by Parliament for the offence.

The maximum jail term prescribed by Parliament is there for a reason – to reflect how much loss of liberty should be suffered by an individual in the worst possible case. Furthermore, since the courts rarely impose the statutory maximum jail term when sentencing an offender, there will usually still be room for them to add imprisonment in lieu of caning while remaining within the statutory maximum.

Would Minister clarify why this change is needed?

Court Powers on Appeal
This issue concerns ensuring that accused persons have confidence in filing appeals.

I raised in MinLaw COS (Committee of Supply) debates 3 years ago. There have been cases where offenders appeal against their sentence being too heavy, and the prosecution does not appeal that the sentence is too light – yet the offender’s sentence was enhanced by the appeal court. This possibility of a boomerang on appeal will deter some offenders from appealing against their sentences, for fear of a worse outcome.

We should be concerned that people must feel free to exercise their rights of appeal in criminal cases, without jeopardizing themselves. It is still my view that the CPC should be amended to provide that when only the accused appeals against sentence, the court can either maintain or reduce the sentence, but not enhance it.

Two areas for future review
Finally, there are two other areas left unresolved which the government should review, if not now, then in the near future.

First, the question of access to counsel, as touched on by Member Alvin Yeo before me. As the current law stands, an arrested person will not be allowed to consult his lawyer until the police decide that their investigations will not be jeopardized. This is despite the fact that the Constitution provides the fundamental liberty that an arrested person shall be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of his choice.

The Constitution was amended last month to allow the police to apply for court orders to detain a person beyond 48 hours via video link. Therefore, it will no longer be required to bring the arrested person to the Court premises and produce him in person before the Magistrate. I argued then why this compromises the Constitutional liberties, as the custody will be extended while the person remains in the police facility, and the court does not have direct contact with the person under arrest to ascertain his condition.

Since that amendment has now been passed, the right to counsel as a check becomes all the more critical.

I urge the government to study seriously the possibility of setting a statutory time limit after arrest when counsel must be allowed to see the arrested person, say a few days or, at most, one week after arrest.

Lastly, pre-trial disclosure. The statutory framework in this Bill is a welcome improvement. Once this has been in operation for some time, the government should strive to go a step further – towards a best practice of disclosing evidence it has collected which it does not intend to use, which could be helpful to the defence. As the police are often the first at a crime scene with powers to seize evidence and take witness statements, what they gather at the time of the crime is likely to be reliable. By contrast, the defence is not empowered to compel such evidence.

Such disclosure is required in the United Kingdom where there are rules for Disclosure of Unwanted Material set out in their Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and Joint Operational Instructions issued to the Crown Prosecutors and Police.

The logic of this is straightforward. Reliable evidence should not be kept away from the Court.

I hope the government will look into these 2 areas in the near future.

Overall, some important improvements have been made to the CPC. However, there continue to be areas for concern and further review.

Increasing the number of NCMPs

This is connected with the Constitutional Amendment Bill debated earlier. I have already spoken at length under that Bill on the reasons why the Workers’ Party voted against the change. I will not repeat them but will focus on the change to introduce a cooling-off period.

The ‘cooling off’ period

The Bill seeks to introduce an additional day before Polling Day where campaigning is not allowed. This has been called the cooling-off day. On this day, no symbols or badges can be displayed (Clause 27); no election advertising can be published or uploaded (Clause 30); no canvassing is allowed (Clause 34) and no rallies can be held (Clause 35).

In our view, there is no convincing reason to show that, after all these years without a cooling off period, such a change is needed in the national interest. In addition, the change is open to abuse in the ruling party’s favour.

The first supposed rationale for introducing this, given by the Prime Minister some months ago, is the PAP government’s worry about irrational voters. The Minister also referred to this fear of irrationality in his speech earlier.

In proposing this change, the Prime Minister has underestimated the intellectual strength of Singaporeans and is signalling that Singaporeans are incapable of making rational judgments through the ballot box. These assumptions reveal the distrust that the PAP has of Singaporeans.

Furthermore, this fear of irrationality is arrogant. `Irrational’ by whose criteria? Nobody has the right to tell another person what amounts to a good or bad reason to cast a vote. Person A may be very affected by one issue while Person B finds it trivial. Each citizen’s vote is a valid expression of his own satisfactions or dissatisfactions, aspirations and disappointments.

It also makes no sense at all that the ruling party is now worried that Singaporeans will be irrational when we have, in fact, become more educated and have greater access to information today.

The second reason mentioned was fear of unrest.

In the first place, our General Elections have been run smoothly with no major incidents all this while. The government has already instituted measures to reduce the risk of disorder e.g. at the end of Polling Day when poll results are announced, no longer are supporters of different parties allowed to gather side by side at the announcement centre; instead, each party gathers with its supporters at different assembly areas to hear the GE results.

The government has always said that it does not blindly follow other countries, but does what works for us. Yet it has tried to strengthen its argument for a cooling off period by using other countries, when the circumstances in those countries are clearly different. Those countries had much longer campaign periods. As for Australia, the concern was not to allow rich parties the unfair advantage of buying up excessive media time at the critical moment – hence the blackout period. These concerns do not apply to Singapore, as our campaign period only lasts 9 days, and the campaign rules do not allow us to buy air time.

Besides the lack of justification, the cooling off period is likely to be abused in the ruling party’s favour.

Under Clause 30, the 24-hour ban on election advertising will not affect the mass media reporting election-related news. This itself is a tremendous loop-hole, which can be used in a biased manner. Allegations against opposition candidates, or attacks on opposition policy proposals, can be repeated on news programmes on cooling-off day, to drum up sentiment against the opposition and to discredit the opposition.

Though allegations may also be made against the ruling party policies, policy explanations by civil servants may not be deemed to be election advertising since the connection with campaigning is more indirect. For instance, if affordability of housing becomes an election issue, the Ministry or HDB could announce a change during the cooling-off period, thus taking some heat off the ruling party. By contrast, opposition parties will not be allowed to put out new responses as these will be deemed `election advertising’ as defined under the Act.

Though party political broadcasts are allowed to be aired on the cooling-off day, these are pre-recorded a few days before, and will not be able to address any issues which arose after the recording.

In other countries, experience has shown that cooling off periods are open to abuse by incumbents. In 1999, the Council of Europe published a Handbook on Media and Elections. It was noted that cooling-off periods may be observed according to the letter of the law, but breached in spirit. An example was given of the 1996 presidential elections in Russia; the incumbent Russian president used the state-owned media to create fear of voting for the opposition candidate by airing films that depicted gloom if the opposition candidate won. Instead of being a day for voter reflection, the campaign silence instead had a `distorting effect’.

Another way in which the cooling-off period can be circumvented is by showing government officials carrying out their ‘official duties’ on TV. During the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia, the EU’s Election Observation Commission noted that the state television company devoted disproportionate amounts of coverage to positive reviews of the incumbent president’s activities and achievements in office. Examples included showing a daily pro-government programme and advertisements for education reform.

One major problem of the cooling-off period is how to enforce the ban on canvassing, especially if done by word of mouth. In theory, Clause 34 provides that nobody is supposed to do any canvassing on the cooling off day and Polling Day, but how can conversations be effectively policed? Members of grassroots organisations can easily do house visits or organise block parties on cooling off day geared towards garnering support for PAP candidates. Even if violations are reported to police, police resources at that time will be spread very thin.

All in all, there is no convincing reason to introduce the cooling off period which will likely be abused to the ruling party’s advantage.

For these reasons, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.

The Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.

I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes.

Video-link for remand cases

Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation.

Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from the police lock-up facility to the court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer.

This physical removal from the police facility into a court, and being in the direct physical presence of the court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect’s physical condition, the way he walks, stands, and speaks, for signs of exhaustion, or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of 1st remand. This is unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by DPM Wong earlier who used video conferencing – in those countries, the right to counsel is much stronger, given even at the point of arrest, unlike in Singapore where it is deferred. This makes the court oversight here even more critical at this point when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case.

By allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes for concern.

We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to court to be a reason to derogate from their Constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to court.

Changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4).

I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament.

Entrenching Nominated MPs in the system

The Workers’ Party’s position on NMPs remains the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past, and we will oppose their entrenchment.

I wish to focus the rest of my speech on the change on Non-Constituency MPs.

Increasing the number of NCMPs does not make system more robust

Clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from 6 to 9.

The Workers’ Party will oppose the amendment on the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of the voters who supported opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system, and gerrymandering. Let me elaborate.

Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was “to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including opposition and non-government views”. He said that it would “generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation”. The “most important” reason for the change, according to him, was to “keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as the key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided.”

It is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be as a sort of feedback unit, or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament, an Organ of State, should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation, where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people, because the people have so elected?

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections, when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every 5 years to get a mandate. But instead of acting in the national interest, the PAP government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its own political ends.

Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten.

Changes to the system for the ruling party’s ends

The NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by Workers’ Party’s then secretary-general, the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority, and in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly at Potong Pasir with 60%. 1984 was the year when WP rejected the NCMP seat, not 1994 which DPM Wong said earlier.

In 1984 there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double whammy to secure its political power – GRCs, and gerrymandering.

The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE, despite the fact that minority candidates were defeating Chinese candidates at the prevoius GEs. The GRCs started with 3 member groupings. At that GE, WP’s team at Eunos GRC consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalit Baboo, secured 49% of the votes against a PAP team.

By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to 4 man teams. However, there were still 21 Single Member Constituencies (“SMCs”). At that election, voters elected 4 opposition MPs into Parliament in SMCs, including WP’s Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of opposition Members elected since the Barisan Sosialis walk-out in the 1960s.

In the following GE, 1997, GRCs were again expanded, to even 6 man GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation; instead, the excuse of economies of scale for Town Councils and Community Development Councils was used. Despite that, the Workers’ Party team in Cheng San GRC scored 45% with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong.

By this GE, the PAP’s expansion of the GRCs saw only 9 SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP’s need to dominate. This tiny number of 9 has been with us till today, such that when the PM announces an increase of SMCs from 9 to 12, we hail this as progress!

Over the years, the PAP has itself admitted that the GRCs serve its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped recruit PAP candidates, since “without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” Minister Mentor had commented then on GRCs being useful training tools, since the Health Minister who was with him in Tanjong Pagar since the previous GE “should be ready to lead his own GRC team”.

The other twin pillar of the double whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meeting published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempt to explain why certain single seats are retained while others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituency at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Co-incidentally, constituencies which showed strong opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos or Cheng San GRC.

A few days ago, the Prime Minister appeared on a TV interview with American journalist Charlie Rose and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with a moral right to govern?

Limitations of NCMP role

There are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations.

Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr JB Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a Parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP. In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs Minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and therefore the government departments would only respond to letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisors on behalf of residents in those areas.

I have my own experiences of this reality.

I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases, though I would very much want to.

In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP of a constituency will be in charge of the Town Council which controls the use of common space. As for the Community Clubs, these are in the hands of the People’s Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organize activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards, and received expected rejections. On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in opposition wards are appointed advisors to grassroots organisations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other government departments on behalf of residents!

It may well be that what the PAP wants is complete dominance, with non-PAP voices provided through NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party, through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected opposition members. This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people’s desires. Elected opposition members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party, not just in Parliament, but on the ground.

It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country becomes so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage. Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the PM should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people, which an SMC system would automatically cure.

In conclusion, Sir, let me summarise. By this Bill, the PM is trying to make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems, resulting in the imbalance in Parliament, are the abuse of the GRC system, and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people’s desires at the elections, and instead promoted the ruling party’s own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to cure. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore.

For these reasons, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill. The Member for Hougang will be voting against the amendment, as I cannot vote!

Visiting post office now can be quite an experience ever since the privatization and subsequent listing of SingPost on the Singapore Exchange. Over the years, Singpost has transformed itself into a multi service centre instead of just providing postal service.

To those who have not visited post office lately, let me give you a quick tour. Apart from postal service, you can buy software, computers, cameras, household appliances, and insurance. You can do remittance, get ezyCash, and borrow money from a guy named James. SingPost is even into pawn broking. You can get ‘Speedcash’ by pawning your gold jewellery. If you have no gold jewellery, you can try the outlets in Geylang and Chinatown Point. These outlets accept branded watches.

I understand the need for Singpost to move with the times to go beyond providing postal service. I also understand the listed company needs to be proactive in its commercial activities to remain viable and to create value for its shareholders, of which the Government, through Temasek Holdings, is a substantial shareholder.

However, my concern is whether Singpost is distracted by all these “higher value” services and has forgotten its Pledge of Service of providing ‘reliable, on-time, and value-for-money’ postal service.

I received feedback of long waiting time at some post offices for simple transaction of posting a registered mail or even buying stamps.

I have also received feedback that letters were not delivered to the correct address but to a neighbour’s home instead. Such incidents are not uncommon and we cannot always depend on the goodwill of our neighbours to return wrongly delivered mail.

And recently, to my surprise, even mail posted to PO box can be delivered late by a month or two.

I would like to know the role of the Government in regulating postal service and the benchmark it uses to assess the service standard delivered to the public.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 12 Mar 2010.)

By 2012, the re-employment legislation will require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching 62 years of age, up to age 65, and eventually to age 67. However, the Re-employment legislation will not replace the Retirement Act of 1999.

The Retirement Act allows an employer to reduce the wages of older employees up to 10% on or at any time after the employee attains 60 years of age.

The 10% pay cut at age 60 was recommended by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement and the justification then was to address the problem of the seniority-based-wage system.

With the Government’s call to increase productivity and the progress made in wage restructuring from a seniority-based wage system to a performance-based wage system, I would like to call upon the Government to review the Retirement Act of 1999 by removing the wage reduction option given to employers.

A wage system that moves away from seniority elements and towards job worth and performance is more than adequate to ensure an older worker is paid based on the value of the job and his contribution instead of his seniority. Given that the performance-based wage system will improve the cost competitiveness and employability of older workers, we should remove the wage reduction anomaly from the Retirement Act as older workers would have been paid market rate in the run-up to age 62.

Moreover, the Tripartite Committee’s recommendation that employer’s CPF contribution rate for employees aged 60-65 years be reduced from 7.5% to 4% and from 5% to 4% for employees aged above 65 years is sufficient to make re-employment worthwhile for employers.

Sir, any provision in our labour laws to reduce the wages of older workers upon reaching re-employment age will dampen the zeal of an ageing society to continue working beyond retirement age. 

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

As at June 2009, there were 87,400 resident employees on short term contracts of less than 3 months and 156,200 residents on part-time employment. About half of these employees are in the older age group and majority of them have lower educational qualification with a gross monthly income of below $1,000.

I am of the view that the number under this category of employees would increase over time because company wanted flexible manpower and being able to response faster to changing demand and cost variation as business environment changes. Secondly, as our society matures with an increased number of aging employees, more people may prefer such mode of employment as seniors may not want to work full time.

Contract and part-time workers may not necessary be low wage and low productivity. Some studies have shown that part-time workers can be as productive as full-time workers and companies employing part timer do not necessary suffer low productivity. I understand that in Netherlands in which a relatively large share of the workforce works part-time, achieve high labour productivity. Hence, I believe that there is much room for improvement in productivity and income of our contract and part-time workers.

Sir, given the current educational profile of the employees in this group, a targeted approach is needed to improve the productivity and income. ESC proposes to introduce a broad-based incentive scheme to encourage employers to send their workers for training & develop structured program to train and place low-wage workers in better jobs, I would like to know what are the detail mechanism and new initiatives to work in line with ESC’s recommendations & to raise the productivity of this group of worker.

Next, with the likely trend of short term contract and part time workers to increase in the future, I would like to know whether MOM will develop strategy to include such employees in the productivity upgrading process.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

There are currently no public transport concessions for the disabled.

The disabled here have low earning capacity. Many do not work; those who do, earn a few hundred dollars per month, spending up to a third on travel expenses.

The government has often said that we should build an inclusive society. It therefore should not take a back seat on this issue.

Other governments are proactive. In the UK, disabled persons qualify for a special “Railcard” which entitles them to travel throughout the UK at one-third off from the normal fare. In addition, disabled persons in London can travel off-peak for free on buses, the Underground and trains.

The government cannot wash its hands off the matter by saying that the public transport system is operated commercially and it is up to the public transport operators (PTOs) to decide. The disabled have no bargaining power against the big companies.

For instance, the Land Transport Authority, as regulator, can make it a licensing condition that the PTOs recognize disabled passengers for concession travel.

According to a 2001 MOH survey, less than 2 per cent of Singaporean adults below 60 have some sort of disability. Is the number of disabled too much for the PTOs? The PTO’s operations are reaping profits of tens of millions of dollars annually and this is part of their corporate social responsibility.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

I would like to ask if MOE will review this 30% target with a view to increasing it.

I note MOE’s concerns that we should not have sudden increases in graduate numbers which may leave many unemployed or under-employed.

However, since Singapore is prioritising innovation and greater productivity, the population as a whole has to raise its game, and the jobs of the future will require different educational qualifications from currently. We are also trying to encourage the growth of entrepreneurs to find their own niches. With globalization, Singaporean graduates also have more opportunities overseas, which will still benefit their families and Singapore, directly or indirectly.

As a matter of interest, according to the OECD Factbook 2009, the 25 OECD countries were expecting to graduate on average about 37% of an age cohort from Tertiary-Type A (typical degree level) education in 2006. It was stated that there was a strong trend in increasing their cohort participation rates in the last 15 years in line with producing highly-skilled labor forces.

I agree that we need to maintain standards in university admission. However, over the years, many students who were rejected by our local universities were admitted to reputable foreign universities and did well. But this route is available only to those whose parents could afford it.

I hope the Ministry will look into revising the cohort participation rate at our local subsidized universities beyond 30%.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 10 Mar 2010.)

华文B课程在2001年开始推行，之后在2004年接受了华文课程与教学法改革报告书的建议，做了一些更改。

政府在1999年宣布这项课程时，主要是针对学习华文有困难的学生，避免这些学生因为被强逼学习华文，反而对华族文化产生厌恶感。请问教育部长，华文B实施至今，有没有达到当初的预定目标？我也想知道从2001年开始至今，历年来修读华文B的学生人数是多少？及格率又是多少？

我所担心的是华文B是否会在一些情况下被滥用呢？例如，原本华文程度并不是太差的学生因为心理上排斥华文而不愿意认真学习，宁愿选择华文B这条捷径；或者为了不让学校普通华文的及格率降低而建议某些华文成绩不佳的学生选修华文B。我想知道教育部是否审查过华文B课程是否存在可能被滥用的漏洞？

国立大学中文系教授王昌伟发表过一篇文章，他说：
“利用富有创意的教学方式提高学生对华文的兴趣当然非常值得鼓励，但我们的错误，就在于以为降低要求是提高学生学习热忱的先决条件。从第二语文到华文B、到用英语教华文、到只需认字不必写字，这样一步步退让，也许当下能讨好学生，但等到学生日后需要运用华文的时候，他们是会恨我们耽误了他们的。“

我同意他的看法，也希望教育部重新检讨华文B课程的内容及其存在的利弊。

（2010年3月9日发表于国会拨款委员会辩论）