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

The following 13 Council members were also elected to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) : (in alphabetical order)

SMS Grace Fu said the Lift Upgrading Program would add to the responsibilities and operational costs of town councils. However, we are talking about estate maintenance here. In the context of the TCMR, operation cost is not measured. In fact, newly installed lifts are less likely to break down and will have lesser maintenance issues. In any case, I am not aware of any town council that would embark on an upgrading exercise in its estate, such as building a swimming pool, under the IUP or MUP to significantly increase its responsibilities and potential maintenance issues.

I have been talking about Interim Upgrading program (IUP), Main Upgrading program (MUP) and CIPC funding for projects on this issue in relation to estate maintenance thus far. To clarify the issue, SMS Grace Fu should let the public know how much each town council has benefitted from the above upgrading programs cumulatively since the inception of these programs up to 2009.

I have asked in Parliament, and again in my press release of 14 June, for the information on the amount of funding each PAP Town Council received from the various upgrading programs to be made public. I am disappointed that MND has kept silent on this.

Based on MND’s written reply to my question in Parliament, the budget for the IUP was $4,000 per flat and the followings are the distribution of the IUP precincts by Town Councils:

However, the above funding is only part of the story. There are also other types of upgrading programs like MUP and IUP Plus, as well as CIPC funding for projects carried out by PAP TCs.

What I know is that the PAP government has spent huge sum of monies over the years to upgrade HDB flats in PAP constituencies, which in turn has benefitted the PAP TCs immensely. They could have saved substantial sum of expenditure in cyclical works and routine maintenance as a result. The savings would have contributed to the operating surplus and higher sinking fund over the years. These savings, when invested, would have further generated investment income for the TCs.

The public should know how much additional funding is given to PAP TCs directly or indirectly via the upgrading programs. Singaporeans can then judge for themselves whether this could affect the outcome of the town management and financial position of the town council.

The same press report stated that “only few arrears are written off”. However, I noted that in FY 2007/08, Jalan Besar, Tampines, Holland-Bukit Panjang and Hong Kah town councils wrote off $240,090, $172,468, $103,560 and $106,307 respectively. What is the cumulative figure of the SCCC arrears written off by each PAP TC over the years?

She was quoted in today’s press report to have said that “criteria for HDB’s upgrading programmes are clear and not all PAP wards qualify too.” And that “upgraded estate also faces maintenance issue as covered walk-way, for example, could need more effort to maintain than a clean patch of grass”.

SMS Grace Fu is sidetracking the issue I raised and attempting to mislead Singaporeans to believing that the PAP government is fair to all Town Councils including those managed by opposition parties. Is she saying that upgrading programmes has no impact and implication on estate maintenance?

Upgrading programmes such as IUP and MUP do not just build additional facilities like covered walk-ways as she mentioned. The upgrading programme also include upgrading of common areas like re-screeding of common corridor and replacement of lift lobby tiles as well as upgrading of playgrounds etc. One will not expect to find missing or worn off screws, nor floor mat being ripped off in new playgrounds. If the staircase railing is replaced with stainless steel railing instead of the existing mild steel railing inherited from the HDB as part of the upgrading program, one will not expect the railing to become rusty and corroded to become a maintenance issue.

SMS Grace Fu also said that “not all PAP wards qualify for upgrading programme” and that “how much a town council gets from the government depends on the number and types of flat, not whether it is run by PAP or the opposition.” The funding she is referring to is SC/CC grants. What I am referring to in my statement is funding received by the PAP TCs via upgrading progamme.
I have filed questions for written answers in Parliament twice, one in November 2009 sitting and another in April 2010 sitting asking for the amount of funding each benefitting PAP Town Council received from the various upgrading programmes. The answers given were the number of precincts upgraded at each PAP TCs and the estimated cost of the upgrading per unit. I am puzzled by this.

It is time the Ministry of National Development let the public know how much additional funding each PAP TC has received through the various upgrading programmes funded by the national budget or has benefitted from the programme up to the financial year 2009 so that Singaporeans can have a clear idea of which PAP TC did not qualify for the upgrading program as mentioned by Grace Foo. The public should know how much additional funding is given to PAP TCs via the upgrading programs and hence can judge for themselves whether it could affect the outcome of town management.

On the issue of SCCC arrears where the opposition TCs had exceeded the criteria set by the MND on TCMR. I noted that although MND had issued a “guideline” on writing off of SCCC arrears in 2008. PAP TCs had written off SCCC arrears. When SCCC arrears are written off, it is incomes written off and it will affect the bottom line. PAP TCs can do it perhaps they have more surpluses and are in a better financial position due to additional funding received through upgrading program? This is also why some PAP TCs are then able to use their own TC funds to help residents to pay SCCC arrears to reduce the number of months in SCCC arrears by way of offering part time employment. However, the more serious question is whether this is fair to other residents who pay promptly.

I would suggest two more new criteria for TCMR for MND’s consideration. They are funding either directly received or indirectly benefitted from government programmes to improve and upgrade common areas managed by town councils; and amount of SCCC arrears written off by town councils. Band 5 being for the most funding and SCCC amount written off.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, when he was the Prime Minister once threatened voters not to vote for opposition candidates as opposition wards would become slum overtime. Both Potong Pasir and Hougang have not become slums today after more than a decade managed by opposition parties and the PAP must be rather disappointed with the outcome. The result of TCMR is a consolation prize to them.

The power of Parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote.

The Vote18 Campaign is a public campaign organised by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing which seeks to raise awareness, advocate and kick-start a public discussion on the lowering of the legal voting age from 21 to 18.

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing believes that this is a meaningful and constructive cause to advocate as any change to the legal voting age will have wide-ranging implications on Singapore’s political system as well as the nation-building process.

Understand
You can find out the basis for the call by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing to lower the existing legal voting age from I am 18. Where’s my vote?

Participate
You can participate in this campaign now by taking a survey designed to find out your views on this issue.

If you believe that Singaporeans at the age of 18 should have the right to vote, to determine their future and to chart the path of Singapore’s future, this campaign is for you.

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing looks forward to your interest and support for this worthy cause.

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.

Readers who have not been able to get a physical copy of the Hammer can view the electronic copy below.

The Workers’ Party is of the view that it is time for employers to reward workers for the sacrifices made during the economic crisis in the past years. The National Wage Council should review the current wage structure and propose an upward wage revision. The reduced employers’ Central Provident Fund contribution rate should also be restored.

It is noted that the Ministry of Manpower statistics show the employment situation has improved and the outlook is promising. However, the widening income disparity and upgrading of lower income workers to improve their skills and wages remain a challenge.

Although the government has pledged to improve the income of workers through a productivity drive and training, the workers must see real improvements in their employment prospects and incomes rather than simply being put on a treadmill of attending course after course.

Creating value-added jobs which will pay workers better is a key outcome of a successful productivity and training effort. In the long term, the only sustainable way to create value-added jobs is not just about enhancing productivity, but that of supporting continuous innovation.

To this end, having innovation and business incubators to house fledgling firms and ply them with ideas and contacts with financiers has proven successful in other countries to grow new companies and create jobs. For instance in the USA, at the University of Texas, the non-profit Austin Technology Incubator’s 20-year record grew more than 150 companies and created thousands of jobs. As Singapore’s economy moves, continuous innovation through new businesses must be supported, and facilitated by the government.

The Workers’ Party also notes that the conscious effort by the government to modify its policy and slow down the inflow of foreign manpower has somewhat eased the anxiety amongst Singaporeans. It has also reduced the tension and resentment on the ground. However overpopulation is still a concern. This is because it causes stress on our infrastructure and social facilities. Furthermore overpopulation also leads to unfair competition for the Singaporean Worker. WP will continue to monitor these issues.

In the midst of a positive outlook and relative optimism, the Workers’ Party salutes the Singaporean Worker who has again braved the economic storm and weathered the dark clouds by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We should move forward together as a nation towards a brighter tomorrow.

The Workers’ Party wishes all a Happy Labour Day!

Eric Tan Heng Chong
Treasurer
The Workers’ Party

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.