We will update this page once a WP rally is confirmed.

Dear Supporters of the Workers’ Party,

If you would like to join us to support the Workers’ Party on Nomination Day (16 May 2012) for the Hougang By-election, kindly note the following:
- Meeting Point: Blk 704 Hougang Ave 2 (void deck, common area beside Residents’ Corner, facing Serangoon Junior College)
- Meeting Time: 10.30am
- Attire: Light-blue top

Thanks and see you there!

The Workers’ Party

The Workers’ Party announced Mr Png Eng Huat as its candidate for the Hougang By-election at a press conference held at the Party HQ on 10 May 2012.

Png Eng Huat

Age: 50
Posts in WP:
• Chairman, Hougang Constituency Committee
• Member, Central Executive Committee
• Deputy Webmaster
• Member, Media Team

Education:
• Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Singapore Polytechnic
• Bachelor of Science (Radio-TV-Film), University of Texas, USA

Occupation:
Businessman

Marital Status:
Married with a daughter and a son

Background:
Eng Huat grew up in a large family on the notorious streets of Tanjong Pagar in the sixties. Although he remembers the occasional gang fights sweeping from one end of Duxton Road to the junction of Neil Road, the one thing that impacted him the most as a young boy was the experience of living in abject poverty.

Most of his siblings had to quit school early in their teens to help put food on the table. Being the youngest, he was given the chance to finish school. Like many youngsters living in one of the poorest quarters in town then, Eng Huat had only simple ambitions in life, one of which was to finish school fast, get to work, and never go to bed hungry again.

To help pay for his overseas education, Eng Huat worked as a waiter, a cook, a restaurant manager, and a postal service worker throughout his student days in the USA.

Eng Huat started his internship at KLRU-TV, a Public Service broadcasting company in Austin, Texas, doing production work on live and taped shows. On his return to Singapore, he had a rich and diverse career in multimedia designing & programming, data broadcasting, and business development. He has worked in various firms, from small joint venture companies to big companies like Philips Singapore and NTUC Income. Currently, he is semi-retired and managing some own and partnership businesses.

Eng Huat joined the Workers’ Party in 2006 and helped the party in the General Elections that year. He then joined the Hougang Constituency Committee the following year, helping to organise grassroots activities and to take care of the needy residents in Hougang.

Philosophy:
Eng Huat participates actively in church-based and ad-hoc social and community work. He likes to gather friends and like-minded people together to help the underprivileged in Singapore, and is a firm believer in the Child Sponsorship programme.

Eng Huat believes that political diversity is one of the key building blocks of any vibrant first world country, and he hopes to do his part in giving a voice to the ‘silent’ majority in Singapore. He hopes to help build a diverse, mature, and vibrant political landscape in Singapore.

Believing in the pursuit of simple solutions to life’s complexities, Eng Huat enjoys art, music, social work and quality family time.

工人党于5月10日举行的记者招待会上宣布代表工人党参予后港补选的候选人：方荣发。

方荣发

年龄: 50岁

工人党职务:
• 工人党网站副站长
• 后港选区委员会主席
• 工人党中央执行委员会委员
• 工人党传媒组成员

教育:
• 新加坡理工学院电气工程文凭
• 美国奥斯汀德特萨斯州大学理学士 (电台/电视/电影技术编制)

职业:商人

婚姻状况: 已婚, 育有一子一女

简历:
荣发在60年代的丹戎巴葛成长,他出生在一个大家庭里。对他影响最深刻的并不是儿时所目睹的 自达士登岭一直殴斗到尼路路口的帮派火拼,而是在贫困环境里生活的经验。

荣发的兄弟姐妹都必须辍学来帮补家用。身为家中的老么,在家人的支持下,荣发才有机会完成 学业。当时,荣发就像许多生活在贫困中的孩子们一样,一心想尽快把书念完,趁早踏入社会工 作,以确保自己和家人不必再晚上饿着肚子上床。

后来,荣发到美国留学。为了能念完大学,荣发在美国留学期间当过侍应生,厨师,餐馆经理和 邮政服务员等。

荣发在大学时曾在德克萨斯州内的奥斯汀的一间公共广播公司实习,从事现场和预先录制节 目的制作。在回国的时候,荣发已累积了许多有关媒体设计,程序设计,广播和商业发展等 的经验。他的工作经验非常广泛,从中小型企业到本地及海外的跨国企业。这些公司包括职 总英康和飞利浦(新加坡)。目前,他已半退休但仍继续管理一些私人及合伙生意。

荣发在2006年加入工人党,并于该年的大选中协助党的竞选活动。他在随后加入了后港选区委员 会,帮忙举办社区活动及照顾后港区内较不幸的居民。

信念:
荣发积极参与由教会主导和有固定目标的社会工作。他喜欢网罗志同道合的朋友私下帮助面对困 境的国人; 他也是“儿童资助计划”的笃信者。

荣发相信政治上的多元性是建立一个朝气逢勃的世界级国家不可或缺的要素。他希望能够为大多 数沉默国人提供一个发言的渠道尽一份力;也希望能为促成建立一个成熟,多元化和富有朝气的 政治景观做出一点贡献。

荣发认为人可以在复杂的人生旅途中寻求解决困难的简单方案。他在闲暇时喜爱欣赏文艺和音 乐, 也热衷社会工作,同时特别珍惜与家人共聚的时光。

Dear Supporters of The Workers’ Party,

The Writ of Election for the Hougang By-election has been issued, the Nomination Day will be on 16 May 2012 (Wed) and the Polling Day will be on 26 May 2012 (Sat).

We will need supporters to be at the Nomination Center (Serangoon Junior College) on 16 May 2012, and also to help in many ways during the campaign.

If you are able to help out, kindly leave your information at the form found at http://bit.ly/Volunteer-HGBE2012 and we will contact you on the details.

Once again, thank you for your continuous support of The Workers’ Party, and we will work as hard as we can to defend Hougang SMC!

The Workers’ Party

The Workers’ Party wishes all a Happy Labour Day.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh

Mr Speaker, before I begin, I declare that I am a practice trainee at an international arbitration and construction practice in a local firm.

Sir, the changes proposed to the International Arbitration Act by this Bill are likely to buttress Singapore’s position as an international arbitration hub. Specifically, the amendment of the International Arbitration Act to accommodate aspects of the 2006 amendments to the Model Law, which has moved away from the requirement that an arbitration agreement must be in writing – as proposed in the First Schedule of the Bill – a helpful indicator to the market that Singapore intends to keep its arbitration regime in line with the arbitral norms around the world. The careful and calibrated inclusion of certain aspects of the 2006 Model Law amendments to our international arbitration regime bodes well in Singapore’s drive to maintain its premier Asian arbitration hub status.

A second amendment, the judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings has provoked a little more uncertainty among some segments of the arbitration community, especially since it opens the curial prospect of reversing an arbitral tribunal’s ruling that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute. In this regard, Singapore is moving ahead even though there is no international consensus with regard to erroneous negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal. However, allowing the judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings is persuasive for a variety of reasons, many of which were laid out in paragraph 12 of the Report of the “Law Reform Committee on the Right to Judicial Review of Negative Jurisdictional Rulings” published in January 2011.

In this regard, the Law Ministry’s willingness to move ahead of the Model Law when the situation deems it appropriate also speaks well for the continued and organic development of the international arbitration space in Singapore, and it should continue to attract the confidence of the international legal community. I also note the Ministry’s willingness to adopt provisions from other jurisdictions, specifically the tribunal’s powers to award interest, with s 20 the Bill based on s 79 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance 2010 which came into force last year.

To conclude Mr Speaker, I note in the public consultation brief for this Bill that the Ministry is assessing and requesting for additional inputs on the waiver of a right to set aside an award and third party funding. This commitment to constant review and revision of our arbitral laws is likely to have a positive effect on the development of international arbitration in Singapore in the years to come. And this is timely as we are already seeing other seats of arbitration in the region slowly but surely stepping up their efforts to attract international parties and clients to their shores.

I support the amendments in the proposed Bill.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim

Water Tariff
The Minister in his Second Reading speech explained that our water supply system is becoming more sophisticated. I am concerned about Clause 5 of the Bill regarding the water tariff. This introduces some new provisions concerning the pricing of water which arouse suspicion that water prices are going to rise.

The new S 20(1A) ominously states that when the PUB is pricing water, it may take into consideration “all costs incurred in enabling it to…supply the water, included but not limited to collection and purchase of water, storage, treatment of water and maintenance and security of the water supply system.” In the current Public Utilities Act, the factors taken into account in pricing water are not spelt out. However, I recall that in the recent Committee of Supply debates for MEWR, Minister responded to Member for Aljunied Mr Low Thia Khiang’s cut on Water Tariff by mentioning some of the items now in 20(1A) as going into water pricing.

The insertion of S 20(1A) is particularly worrying as it is stated to be “subject to S 14” of the Act, which provides that the PUB must ensure that its total revenues are sufficient to meet its total outgoings as well as a reasonable proportion of the cost of developing the Board’s services.

Will Minister clarify whether this amendment is meant to signal any change in the way water is priced? Specifically, is the PUB intending to apportion more of the cost-sharing to consumers? What assurances do Singaporeans have that water supply will be affordable in the future?

Maintenance of water service installation
Under S 45(2) of the Act, a person responsible to maintain a water service installation which has a master meter and cisterns is to engage a professional engineer to inspect and maintain the system once in 60 months (5 years). This is to ensure that such systems on residential, commercial and industrial property are fit and safe for use, and free from contamination and leakage. Under Clause 15, the frequency of once in 5 years will be removed, giving the PUB discretion as to when to require the inspections. Though the explanatory note says this removal is to give flexibility to the PUB on the frequency of inspections, what is the intention behind the amendment? Will there be installations where inspections will now be carried out less frequently, and would there be an increased risk to public health?

Other Statutory Boards / Other Person to be involved / enhanced powers of investigation
Under Clause 4 of the Bill, the PUB will be able to appoint and authorise officers and employees of “any other statutory board” to be authorized officers, giving them duties and powers under the Act. It can also appoint “any other person” to perform duties or tasks under the Act. Under Clause 21, new sections 55A and 55B give authorised officers or persons vast powers of investigation including compelling witnesses to attend, taking statements, and entry into premises to search and seize evidence.

Tasks such as forced entry into premises, conducting searches and doing investigation work are confrontational by nature and have a lot of grey areas and decision points where discretion needs to be exercised in a lawful manner.

I would like to ask which other statutory boards or persons will be involved in performing such functions. In addition, what assurances will the public have that they are properly trained and accountable for the exercise of such powers?

by NCMP Gerald Giam

Mr Speaker,

As an industrialised economy which consumes its fair share of energy, Singapore must play its part to reduce its carbon footprint and combat climate change. One way of doing this is to be more efficient in the use of our limited energy resources. Doing so is not only environmentally friendly, but is also economically beneficial to our companies.

The introduction of the Energy Conservation Bill (or EC) is a welcome development to signal our nation’s commitment to improving energy efficiency.

The key objectives of the Bill are to give the practice of energy management greater focus within companies that are large energy consumers, and to build industry capability in energy management. This is expected to help reduce Singapore’s energy intensity by 35% by 2030, from 2005 levels. Improving the energy performance of companies will make them more competitive in the global economy. The Bill is also expected to complement existing schemes and capability building programmes which provide support for companies that invest in improving their energy efficiency.

Energy intensity targets

I would like to ask the Minister how the Government arrived at its 35% target for reduction in energy intensity. Is this meant to be a stretch target that will need measures like the EC in order to achieve, or is this likely to be achievable with the improvements in technology expected over the next 20 years, even without an EC?

South Korea aims to cut its energy intensity by 46% between 2007 and 2030. Both our countries are highly industrialised economies, that are dependent on external sources of energy. Both are large energy consumers. Why are we not being as ambitious as the South Koreans?

Energy labelling

The Bill establishes the framework for the energy labelling of certain “registrable” goods. Energy labelling is currently targeted at only household electrical appliances. Only refrigerators, air-conditioners and clothes dryers now require energy labels to be affixed on them.

I would like to suggest that energy labelling would be a more effective tool to achieve energy conservation, if it were expanded beyond household appliances to equipment used by industry and businesses. This is because the industrial, commerce and services sectors consume 71.9% of all electricity in Singapore, while households consume only 16.7% .

Common business machines such as computers, monitors, printers and photocopiers should be gazetted as registrable goods. The energy efficiency rating of these machines could then be better integrated into the energy management systems of companies.

For example, as part of its energy efficiency improvement plan, a company could aim to increase its proportion of energy efficient computers by, say, 25% within 5 years.

Energy Efficiency Certification

The proposed regulations will require companies that consume more than 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy annually to maintain an energy management system. These include keeping records and reporting on their energy use, submitting energy efficiency improvement plans to the Government, and appointing a qualified energy manager.

However, the vast majority of companies will not come under the radar of the EC, and hence will not be required to implement these energy management systems.

Could the Government consider drawing up an “Energy Efficiency Certification” scheme under which all Singapore companies can voluntarily apply to be assessed on their energy efficiency practices?

The Energy Efficiency Certification could complement the existing Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (or EASe) by providing an incentive for companies to follow through the energy services company’s suggestions for improvement. They will also have an added incentive to apply for EASe, as they can get rewarded if the appraisal is positive. I will explain more about possible tax incentives later.

This Energy Efficiency Certification scheme would be similar in structure to the People Developer (PD) Certification scheme, which is used to assess a company’s training management practices. Like the PD Certification, companies attaining the Energy Efficiency Certification could be given public recognition of their excellent energy management practices.

This could help create a culture of good energy management practices throughout companies in Singapore, and not just a few large energy consumers. Would the Minister agree that the more companies that implement programmes to improve their energy efficiency, the greater the cumulative benefits to the nation’s economy?

Tax incentives and tiered tariffs

Since improving energy efficiency will reduce companies’ electricity bills and hence improve their profitability, it should be in their business interest to improve energy efficiency. We need to make it even greater business sense for them to do so.

I would like to build on the Hon. Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong’s suggestion for tax incentives to be extended to companies which adopt good energy management practices.

The EC requires registrable corporations to submit their energy efficiency improvement plans and targets, but makes no requirement for them to achieve their targets.

Firstly, I would like to propose that tax rebates be extended to companies which achieve their energy efficiency improvement targets.

Secondly, if the Energy Efficiency Certification scheme, which I suggested earlier, is introduced, then companies which attain the Certification could also be given tax rebates as an incentive.

Thirdly, disincentives could be introduced for companies which use electricity inefficiently and hence consume more.

Currently, large energy consumers already enjoy several benefits which smaller consumers and households do not. These include contestability of their electricity suppliers, lower electricity tariffs and much lower off-peak period tariffs. In short, there are currently limited financial disincentives for them to reduce their electricity use.

I would like to add to a suggestion made in this House in 2008 by the Hon. Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, to introduce tiered electricity tariffs, such that those who consume more electricity pay for additional units at a higher rate. Ms Lim’s suggestion is even more relevant today, given the push for energy conservation.

Introducing tiered tariffs could result in large energy consumers paying a higher bill, and smaller consumers paying less, while remaining revenue-neutral overall.

This price mechanism will impact large energy consumers the most. It will therefore force them to innovate and improve their energy efficiency, in ways that an energy management framework alone cannot.

Conclusion

In summary Sir, I support the introduction of the energy management framework in the EC. I have proposed that this could be complemented by:

Firstly, tax incentives for companies which meet their energy efficiency improvement targets;

Secondly, disincentives for high usage of electricity, like a higher tariff for large users;

Thirdly, an Energy Efficiency Certification scheme that extends to all companies, not just the biggest energy consumers;

Fourthly, energy labelling of business equipment; and

Lastly, aligning energy labelling with companies’ energy management systems.

If these complementary measures are in place, I believe Singapore can aim for a more aggressive reduction in our energy intensity over the next 20 years.

More importantly, these measures will contribute towards creating a stronger culture of energy efficiency in Singapore and encourage companies large and small to innovate and invest in this area. This will improve these companies’ economic competitiveness, while at the same time preserving our environment for generations to come.

Thank you.

by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong

Mr Speaker, the Energy Conservation Bill aims to bring about a 35% improvement in our energy intensity by 2030 and to improve the energy performance of our companies in the industry and transport sectors.

Sir, I welcome this Bill. As a developed nation, we should be more energy efficient, both for the purpose of allowing our companies to become competitive globally as well as to signal our commitment to good use of a scarce global resource.

The Bill sets out the minimum energy management standards. This includes the appointment of energy managers, reporting of energy use and submission of energy efficiency improvement plans for large users of energy. I noted that the Government recognises that these are “minimum” standards, which implies that it is aware that more needs to be done and companies can be encouraged to do more. I like to point out some implementation matters for consideration as well as to offer suggestions on what more can be done.

First is in the area of energy management practices. We are generally supportive of making energy management plans mandatory for heavy energy users. There are however potential issues concerning governance that we anticipate with the proposed energy management practices.

The Bill gives extensive flexibility to the Director-General and to the Minister to subsequently introduce by-laws, regulations and standards via gazette. The Minister is empowered to gazette by-laws, but no guidelines have so far been given. It is left to the subsequent discretion of the Director-General.

Therefore, I like to ask the Minister to give more indications of the by-laws, regulations and standards the ministry intends to gazette, so that Parliament can debate these. What guidelines do the ministry intend to use? Can the Minister share the time-frame guidance on when the by-laws may be gazetted? I believe these are necessary to prevent inconsistency in the implementation and enforcement of the proposed Bill.

Drawing a parallel from the practices in the building industry, there are the Building Control Act or BCA and Building Control Regulations, or BCR. The BCA and BCR have been in use for more than 20 years in Singapore and are very detailed. Does the Minister anticipate that the by-laws, regulations and standards will take a form like that of BCA and BCR?

Second is in the area of the Energy Managers that large companies must now employ and auditors to monitor for compliance. We noted that there have been recent programmes which are supported by E2Singapore and EDB to train auditors and energy managers. How many have been trained and how sufficient are these programmes to ensure that there will be sufficient qualified officers to fulfill our needs? Are there guidelines on the qualification and experience of such Energy Managers?

Third, I like to cover an area I believe will be increasingly important for both Singapore and for the world; which is renewable energy. I think a gap in the Bill is that it does not seek to promote renewable energy. A comprehensive energy conservation effort must include renewable energy as a component. South Korea is aiming for 11% share of renewables in total energy consumption by 2030. Another heavy energy consumer country, Belgium, is aiming for 12% share of renewables for electricity suppliers in 2012. Japan, the energy intensity of which is comparable to the EU, is aiming for 10% by 2020. Denmark, already a leading energy efficient country in the world, is aiming for 13% by 2020.

According to statistics from Singapore’s Energy Market Authority, in 2010, 79% of electricity in Singapore is produced from natural gas, 19% is from petroleum products (i.e. fuel oil and diesel) but only under 3% is from renewables.

This gap is made more pronounced by the fact that our National Climate Change Strategy commits Singapore “to do our part in the international effort to address climate change”. We have promised to play our part by “improving the energy efficiency of our major energy sectors, namely power generation, industries, transport, buildings and households” and “to the global research effort on climate change and energy technologies”, particularly solar energy and green buildings. The Strategy states, “The objective of our research efforts … is to improve the current state of technology, and to bring down production costs to a level that would make large-scale adoption commercially viable”.

The Government is conscious of the need to signal to the international community our national commitment to the international climate change effort. The factsheet in this Bill concludes, “Establishing energy efficient standards across sectors under an Energy Conservation Act will also send a strong signal to external parties that Singapore is serious in undertaking mitigation actions to meet its international responsibilities”.

Therefore, I like to know the progress of our development in using more renewable energy. What are our current plans to significantly increase the use of renewables? I like the Government to be more proactive to signal to the international community of our commitment to international efforts to address climate change by setting a target share of renewables in total energy consumption to be achieved by a specific year. Using the four benchmark countries’ targets as reference, how far can we push for a target of say 10% share of renewables in total energy consumption by 2030.

Lastly, I like to cover another area which I feel can be promoted more aggressively to drive energy conserveration practices, which is having an integrated system of financial incentives and disincentives. A comprehensive energy conservation policy, especially for a liberalized energy market such as in Singapore, should include such a financial system to support volunteer agreements with corporations on energy efficiency targets.

In terms of financial systems, the developed world could be divided into three zones: EU and UK, AAC (America, Australia, Canada) and Asia (Japan, Korea, Singapore). AAC offers both financial assistance to promote energy management and tax incentives to encourage achievement of energy efficiency targets. EU and UK use carbon emission market “cap and trade” to promote energy efficiency, but individual countries use a variety of other instruments, including financial assistance, tax incentives, and green taxation. Asian countries, including Singapore use only financial assistance.

We can look more aggressively at using tax and cash incentives to encourage the achievement of energy efficiency targets set for different industrial sectors in consultation with stakeholders. Currently the energy efficiency initiatives of E2Singapore are mainly support schemes for implementing programmes. Only the Greenmark scheme gives out cash incentives for hitting targets. I am interested to know how effective Greenmark has been, and if effectiveness of all our schemes have been indexed and tracked. I am also interested to know the utilisation rate of existing schemes listed in E2Singapore and if the Minister thinks these have been effective in promoting energy efficiencies.

Calling current assistance schemes as “incentives”, is also a misnomer as they do not really measure actual achievement of targets. Besides current support schemes, I hope the ministry can look at providing real incentives for hitting energy efficiency targets.

My colleague the Hon. Member Gerald Giam will elaborate further on suggested taxation and incentive schemes that can be considered.

In summary, I support the Bill in its intent to bring about a more energy efficient Singapore. I hope the implementation issues and other suggestions that I have raised can be considered by the Minister to more aggressively set the pace for Singapore to be a global leader in energy conservation and energy technology.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim

This cut is about whether some of our most vulnerable children – those caught up in acrimonious divorces – are being alienated from their parents due to inadequate government resources being channelled towards administering court orders. It is also about whether their parents’ rights as enshrined in court orders are being honoured or not.

In acrimonious divorces, the Family Court may order that the parent who does not have care and control of the child gets access under supervision or that the transfer process for access be supervised. The supervising party is usually a Family Service Centre (FSC).

I have received feedback from parents that the court orders take months to be implemented and, even when they are, there are compromises on the access given to these parents.

I understand that after the court issues the order, it takes about one month for the FSC to process it. Thereafter, both parents have to be interviewed by the FSC, which could take another month. It could then take an additional 1 to 2 months before a suitable date for access can be found. Thus, a total of 3 to 4 months passes before the parent with access gets to see the child. After a few sessions, a report is sent to the court for review, after which a final order is made, which may take another month. I am told that it is not uncommon that parents in such situations only see their children 2 to 3 times in 6 months. In addition, I understand that in cases where the court orders liberal access e.g. several times a week, the FSCs were not able to cope with the workload and had advised parents to accept access only once a week.
Sir, because of the delays and infrequent contact, the child may then become alienated from the access parent, which may be very difficult to remedy and even be irreversible.

While some part of the delay is probably caused by the parents, how far do resource limitations at the FSCs aggravate the delays? Should more resources be given to the FSCs, or can other suitable third parties be found to supervise such cases? The well-being of these vulnerable children deserves our attention.