"Calling Singapore Home" on Al Jazeera's 101 East I was part of a panel on Al Jazeera's 101 East programme last week. The YouTube videos seem to have been making the rounds in the forums and blogosphere already, but here they are anyway.Part 1Part 2 Social Activism @ NTU This is a series of talks organised by the NTU Sociological Society. I will be speaking on 28 Jan.The Social Activism series seeks to analyze social issues from various sociological perspectives and draw links across concepts such as class, gender and globalization. Through the sharing sessions, we hope to raise awareness, understanding and discussion of upcoming social trends and to address misconceptions.As Singapore becomes more integrated into the global economy, new social trends arise and more people are falling behind. It is hence essential to discuss and understand about such trends as it helps people in making sense of the community that we live in. In addition, there is a need for proper understanding of social issues, since youths will be the future stewards of the country.Speakers & Venue:>>> 19th Jan: Asst. Professor Saidul Islam (NTU HSS Division of Sociology) - Socio-Environmental Activism (NTU LT12, North Spine)>>> 21st Jan: Mr. Jolovan Wham (Executive Director, Humanitarian Organization for Migratory Economics) - Migrant workers: Misrepresented, Misunderstood, Mistreated (NTU HSS Seminar room 8)>>> 26th Jan: Mr. Alex Au (yawningbread.org) (People Like Us) - “Feminism & Sexuality” Its relevance today: Innate? Choice? Sharing of differing viewpoints (NTU LT12, North Spine)>>> 28th Jan: Mr. Siew Kum Hong (MARUAH) (former-NMP Jan 07 - July 09) - New media and Political Participation in Singapore (NTU HSS Seminar room 8)Timing: 1730 - 1930hrsDirections can be found at: http://ntuss.blogspot.com/Programme Outline1730-1740 --> Guests to be seated1740-1745 --> Opening Address1745-1845 --> Discussion/Talk by Speaker1845-1915 --> Q & A1915-1920 --> Closing~ 1930 --> EndNote: Closed door session - NO video-recording unless allowed by speakerThis event is brought to you by NTU Sociological Society. whose Right is it anyway?: 31 October 2009 I received this in my inbox. Please note that the location is currently TBD -- while some other sites publicising this event list the location as SMU, I understand that the location will be changed. (Disclosure: I am a member of MARUAH, and will be moderating a session at this event. And the flyer is er courtesy of TOC!)Dear Friends,MARUAH, a local human rights advocacy group, is organising a youth human rights workshop together with UNYAS on the 31st October 2009, 9.00am to 5.30pm at [location TBD]. Entitled 'whose Right is it anyway?', some of you might be interested in attending this workshop.This workshop aims to raise awareness about human rights and sensitise young people to the everyday human rights issues surrounding them, and would feature well-known speakers along with specially designed small-group sessions to engage in human rights.What YOU can gain out of this: - Learn more about the basics of human rights and what it can mean to you.- Join in the interactive session and discussions on rights- Taking the step forward to get involved in the rights discussion that is slowly gaining momentum in our country.- Get the opportunity to meet other youths who come to the event with diverse point of views.Registration is required for this event. You can find out more about the event here: http://maruah.org/2009/10/08/yhrw/ or see the attached eflyer for details.Thanks! Consultation Workshop (22 Aug): “Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – The People’s Views”: 22 August 2009 Disclosure: I am part of MARUAH.When the ASEAN Charter was signed 2 years ago, it contained a clause requiring the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. This clause was deliberately kept short and vague, so as to get all the ASEAN countries to agree to it. There was no definition to the body, nothing on its scope, powers, and composition.Well, the Terms of Reference for the body (now called the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights) have been agreed. The next phase in this process is for the governments to appoint their representatives to the Commission.MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) is therefore holding a public Consultation Workshop on the Commission and the selection of Singapore's representative to the Commission, on 22 August, 8.30am to 3.45pm. All are invited and it is free. Online registration can be completed here. Please attend if you have any interest in human rights. National Day 2009: thoughts on being Singaporean The NDP organising committee asked me to contribute something to the NDP website. So I wrote this. It's been awhile since I've written something like this, so it took some time to get back into the groove.Also, when I first looked at the website, some of the articles (e.g. by Prof Tommy Koh and Viswa Sadasivan) were long and thoughtful, and I thought I'd better match up to those standards. I wanted this piece to be thoughtful and reflective, but more importantly I wanted it to be authentic and heartfelt, and not a cliched collection of stereotypical platitudes and jingoistic rhetoric.When I was done, I was unsure about it. It's a little bittersweet and not rah-rah at all. I'm sure some will even find it negative and a downer. In fact, I considered including Alfian Sa'at's quote ("If you care too much about Singapore, first it’ll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.") but decided that it went too far and also it was not quite correct -- what could break your spirit and heart is not the nation, but the government. But I make no apologies for feeling how I feel, and I really do believe that more Singaporeans agree with my sentiments than may appear to be the case.National Day 2009I wrote this after returning from a business trip. I've always found that being away helps to me to see more sharply, how I feel about Singapore and being Singaporean.I used to enjoy travelling out of Singapore; indeed, at one time I even wanted to emigrate. But it's different now. When I'm away without my wife, I look forward to coming home to her and our pets. When I'm away with my wife, we look at the pictures and videos of our pets on my cellphone. We even worry about the stray cats in our neighbourhood whom we help to feed, about whether the other cat-feeders are taking care of the strays. Nowadays, landing at Changi always brings the sense of comfort and relief of coming home.These sentiments speak to my roots in and my affinity to this country. The sense of acceptance and belonging here is central to the idea of being Singaporean. And I like to think that more Singaporeans share this feeling than not – even those who profess to feel alienated by certain policies in this country, do so because they care so deeply about her.I am currently reading President Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. He begins the book by discussing the deep divisions in American politics today, and then points out that Americans still have more in common than not.I firmly believe that it is the same for Singapore. Quite apart from the universal values shared by most or all human beings, such as hard work, thrift and fillial piety, there are more hopes and values that unite Singaporeans than we sometimes care – or dare – to admit.We are grateful for our amazing progress and growth since independence, which has lifted our standard of living with a speed experienced only in a few other countries. This is thanks to meritocracy and social mobility, which continue to form the bedrock of our system. And so we insist that ability married with hard work must be able to get one everywhere and that being born poor must not sound the death-knell for one's dreams. Because so many of us have benefited from the powerful force of social mobility, we understand the dangers of the growing stratification of our education system.We have an innate sense of justice and equality, of fairness and equity. We are all equal under the law and under the Constitution, and we cry foul at perceived unfairness and bullying tactics. And so we want the administration of our country to be guided not by pragmatism and political expediency but by justice and fairness, which is why we cheer the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang when they stand fast to these principles and resist the carrot and stick of lift upgrading.We have compassion for the less fortunate, and we empathise and sympathise with others. We know, that there but for the grace of God go ourselves. That is why when disaster strikes our unfortunate fellow human beings elsewhere, we do not stint on aid and support, as with the tsunami of 2004 and the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. That is also why we want the kinder, gentler society that was first mooted years ago, knowing that we are rich enough to do better than $330 per month of Public Assistance for single-person households, even though such households do receive a lot of other help.We value openness and transparency, because we know how important the absence of corruption in Singapore has been to our success, especially in light of the devastating effects of corruption in other countries. We also want to have more say in our destiny, because Singapore is our country and her future is intimately intertwined with ours. These are why we want greater accountability and transparency in how the country is run and how our investments are managed, so that we can be confident that our precious reserves are treated with the due care that they deserve.We need tolerance and understanding of one another and one another's differences, so that persons of faith can practise each of our religions and speak and act openly and freely. But we must all acknowledge the realities of the country we live in, and always stay mindful of other persons' sensitivities and opinions and respect the boundaries required of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.Most of all, we want a Singaporean Singapore. Just like how we wanted a Malaysian Malaysia and not a Malay Malaysia, we do not want a Chinese, Indian, Malay or Other Singapore. And so we want to celebrate the things that make us all the same and bring us together, and refrain from constantly emphasising our differences such as with the ubiquitous CMIO classification.These are truths and values that many, if not most or all, Singaporeans hold close to their hearts. They may sit uncomfortably with some amongst us. But they are what Singaporeans think and say, in private, in coffeeshops and on the Internet, and the more honestly we confront these hard truths, the sooner we will resolve them and turn these challenges for Singapore into strengths of Singaporeans.So this National Day, let's reflect a little on what really binds Singaporeans together, more than food and our undeniable love for it, the little details of our everyday existence like buying Toto and 4D, and shared experiences like National Service. Let's think about how we can, in each of our own little ways, contribute to making Singapore the happy, prosperous, progressive and democratic society based on justice and equality. And then let's make a start at converting thought into action. Because that is the true commitment of a Singaporean to Singapore.Siew Kum Hong is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009). Guest piece on Blogtv.sg: Speaker's Corner CCTV cameras This was published on Blogtv.sg earlier today. They asked if I was willing to write something on this, and I obliged. It was an easy decision -- the absurdity of the situation lends itself to criticism.“It was quite ridiculous” – Ex NMP Siew Kum Hong Speaks About Speaker’s Corner CCTV CamerasPosted at 9:44 am under UncategorizedI came to know about the installation of CCTV cameras at Speaker’s Corner on Facebook, when I saw it in my newsfeed. My immediate thought was: “what the…!”Singapore has always struggled with an image problem, in that it is seen as a very tightly controlled society, by both Singaporeans and foreigners. When Speaker’s Corner was first launched in 2000, that was seen as a step forward (albeit a baby step) in terms of expanding the space for public discourse in Singapore. And the Prime Minister’s announcement last year that the regulations governing Speaker’s Corner would be relaxed was also welcomed by most as another baby step forward.So the installation of CCTV cameras would seem to be a significant step backwards. The practical effect is that they may well deter people from speaking or demonstrating at Speaker’s Corner, or to even show up to attend events, for fear of being captured and somehow “marked”.It does not help that the explanations proffered by the police to date have been unconvincing, to say the least. In response to queries from TODAY and The Online Citizen, the police stated that “CCTVs are used to complement Police presence on the ground and to project a greater sense of security. … As part of an on-going initiative to enhance security in the neighbourhoods, Police have been extending CCTV coverage to other parts of the island. Hong Lim Park is one such area. These CCTVs do not record audio inputs and are installed for safety and security.”This response begs further questions, all unanswered. Why was Speaker’s Corner selected for the CCTV installation? And why now? After all, it is usually quiet, if not deserted. Have there been any incidents of crime to warrant a “projection” of a greater sense of security? Does not the police post adjacent to Speaker’s Corner already project a strong sense of security? In what way is that inadequate?When TODAY asked me to comment on this development, I told them that frankly, it was “quite ridiculous”. And I stand by that. We hold Speaker’s Corner up as a sign of how Singapore has opened up, to show that there is room for free speech and a place for demonstrations and protests in Singapore. The Prime Minister even said last year, “So I think there is no need for the police to get involved. … The overall thrust of these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future and we will progressively open up our system even more. …”And then we go and install surveillance cameras. How do you reconcile that most striking symbol of a police state, with the goal of free speech and liberalisation?My own suspicion is that the cameras were installed in advance of the upcoming APEC meeting in Singapore. During the IMF-World Bank meeting in Singapore in 2006, there was a public protest at Speaker’s Corner, as well as an attempt to march to the venue of the meeting. The film Speakers Cornered captured the events of that day. I can only surmise that the CCTV cameras are in anticipation of similar incidents. But at what cost to Singapore?Siew Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009), and currently an aspiring civil society activist. While in Parliament, he spoke on a number of issues including ministerial salaries and civil liberties, and he also submitted to Parliament a citizens’ petition bearing over 2000 signatures calling for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in October 2007. He was also involved in the recent events at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). Links for the day A couple of quick links for the day:text of the valedictorian speech by Loo Zihan, which was covered by today's STvideo of the valedictorian speech:moving tribute to Anthony Yeo (RIP) The free market does not protect consumers The Singapore Government is often said to be pragmatic in the extreme, perhaps even to a fault, and not in the least bit dogmatic or ideological. But I've always believed that when it comes to matters of consumer protection, it hews to an ideological adherence to corporatist free market ideals, preferring to leave things to the market instead of regulating to protect Singaporeans.Two recent incidents bring this into sharp focus. Firstly, the slap-on-the-wrist by the MAS on financial institutions over the misselling of structured deposits, which I've posted about. Secondly, the Brookes Business School incident, where it now turns out that RMIT had complained to MOE as early as 2007.The Brookes incident, and indeed all previous fraud cases involving private schools, fundamentally stem from MOE's previous reluctance to regulate the private education sector. Just like how MAS did not, and continues to decline to, closely regulate the sale of high-risk investment productsm, setting the stage for Singapore consumers to lose up to half a billion dollars. Just like how MND steadfastly refused to regulate property agents, until the sheer chutzpah of some ERA agents was exposed in court, and only then did the Ministry start talking about regulating the industry.These instances demonstrate that when it comes to consumer matters, the Government would very much prefer to leave things to the free market, which is as good as saying that the Government would prefer not to regulate to protect consumers, presumably in the name of avoiding imposing additional compliance costs on businesses.I've always wondered about that -- if they are not supposed to engage in prohibited conduct in the first place, then how much incremental costs would they incur, and should they not be incurring those compliance costs in the first place? The reasoning is just too unconvincing. It is nothing short of an abdication of a government's responsibility to protect consumers.If one firmly and sincerely believes in protecting consumers, then one would surely adopt a proactive stance in doing the right thing, and not wait for multiple cases to occur before taking action. As mrbrown tweeted so succinctly, "Must more people kena then act ah?" MAS and structured products A SMS message from a good friend (my best man and my proposer for NMP, actually) this past Friday reminded me that that was officially the last day of my NMP term. Well, as I've been telling people -- life goes on lah.And so will this blog. In the past, I've refrained from posting my quick thoughts here, because I preferred to articulate them in Parliament. Well, since that is no longer a consideration, I hope to post my thoughts more frequently.When MAS announced the outcome of its probe into the misselling of financial institutions and the consequent bans on FIs selling structured products, I felt so disappointed. For the past few months, MAS had been taking its time to complete its probe, while facilitating or even encouraging investors to go through its 3-step dispute resolution process to claim compensation.But it seems quite probable that MAS would have, at an early stage of its investigation, already come across evidence of breaches by the FIs leading to institutionalised misselling. That being so, should not MAS have suspended its 3-step process pending the conclusion of its probe, so that all investors would have the full facts before them before being asked to agree to the FIs' offers of compensation? Has MAS spared a thought for those investors who were offered partial compensation and decided to cut their losses and accept the offers out of exhaustion or desperation? Who should compensate them now? Do they have any recourse for MAS' delay and failure to act?More importantly, MAS' response to the misselling was to slap bans on the FIs in question. But as Leong Sze Hian has pointed out, they are now being prevented from selling products that nobody really wants to buy anyway. They have made their money, their employees have pocketed their bonuses from selling these high-risk products to low-risk-appetite consumers, and now many of their customers are stuck between the rock of partial or no compensation and the hard place of litigation. Once again, consumers end up holding the baby.Surely the better and more responsible solution would have been for MAS to order the FIs to compensate -- in full -- those customers who had purchased structured products from them, in those cases where the FIs had been in breach of the rules. MAS does have the power to do so, under Section 58 of the Financial Advisers Act. That would be the just and equitable thing to do.It would have provided real deterrence to FIs. A comparison with the punishments meted out by the UK's Financial Services Authority in cases of misselling shows very clearly just how inadequate the punishments imposed by MAS are. So much for a world-class supervisory and regulatory regime. No To Rape Parliament debated the Penal Code amendments in 2007. That debate was dominated by the non-repeal of Section 377A. But another important issue was the partial abolition of the marital rape defence, under which it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. My thoughts on this injustice are in my speech.A few Singaporeans have now started a campaign to repeal the remainder of the marital rape defence that remains on the books. I signed the petition earlier today, and I would encourage everyone to join me in expressing your disagreement with the Government's stand that in most situations, it is actually OK for husbands to force their wives to have sex against their wives' consent. NMP results are out I received a notice from Parliament a couple of hours ago -- it was the Second Report of the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament, which I've reproduced below. In short, I was not re-appointed, and the new NMPs (who will be sworn in on 20 July) are:Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee Mr Terry Lee Kok HuaMrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng MeiAssoc Prof Paulin Tay StraughanMr Teo Siong SengMr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan Mr Laurence Wee Yoke ThongMs Audrey Wong Wai YenMs Joscelin Yeo Wei LingI am of course disappointed that I was not re-appointed; I felt and continue to feel that I could contribute meaningfully to Parliament for a second term, which is why I applied for it in the first place. Having said that, I am glad that I had the opportunity to serve, and I hope that I had contributed to Parliamentary debate (as the NMP scheme was intended to). Beyond that, it is really for Singaporeans to judge my time in Parliament for themselves.I do want to make one point. There have been some who have said that I misconducted myself as an NMP during the AWARE episode, and/or that my involvement in AWARE was unwise. I am sure that they will say that again, now that the results of the NMP process are out.I have said this before, and I will repeat it here: my involvement in AWARE was in my personal capacity and not as an NMP, and in any case I do not think that I did anything wrong, improper or inappropriate at all. Presumably, those who feel that I was unwise, thought so because of the adverse impact that my public involvement in AWARE would have on my chances for re-appointment.Well, I would like to think that if I had not been re-appointed because of the AWARE incident, and I had known that things would turn out this way, I would still not have done anything differently.From day one, I've promised myself that I would not say or do anything, or refrain from saying or doing anything, simply because it would or might affect my chances of a second term as an NMP if I wanted to re-apply. I felt that that would have defeated the purpose of being an NMP. I wanted to be true to myself, and I did not want to pull any punches. So just as I did not allow the possibility of offending the Government stop me from asking tough questions and making difficult points, I also did not allow the possibility of adverse publicity stop me from my involvement in civil society causes and organisations that I believed in.So my answer to these folks who thought I was unwise, is that perhaps it reflects more on you and your readiness to compromise, than it does on me and my naivete. It is not that I did not think of the possible consequences of my actions; I was fully aware, and I consciously chose to do what I believed -- and continue to believe -- was the right thing.Finally, I would like to wish the new NMPs all the best in their term, and hopefully they will enjoy their time in Parliament as much as I did!SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SELECT COMMITTEEON NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTAS NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT The Special Select Committee, appointed pursuant to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to nominate persons for appointment by the President as nominated Members of Parliament, has agreed to the following Report:Introduction1 On 14 November 2006, Parliament resolved in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore that there shall be nominated Members of Parliament during the term of the Eleventh Parliament. On 18 January 2007, the President, on the nomination of the Special Select Committee of Parliament, appointed nine persons as nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years. The term of service of the nine nominated Members of Parliament will expire on 17 July 2009 and, under section 4(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the vacancies that will arise shall be filled by the President by making appointments on the nomination of the Special Select Committee.2 The Members of the Special Select Committee were nominated by the Committee of Selection, with Speaker as ex-officio Chairman. The Committee comprised the following:Chairman: Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Speaker)Members:Mrs Lim Hwee Hua Mr Low Thia Khiang Mr Mah Bow Tan Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM Mr Michael Palmer Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong Mrs Josephine TeoInvitation to the General Public to Submit Names of Persons for Consideration by the Committee3 Under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the Special Select Committee decided that an advertisement inviting the general public to submit names of persons for consideration by the Committee be inserted in the Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu and The Straits Times on 6 April 2009. Publicity to the information was also given in a press release.4 Submission of names was required to be made on forms obtainable at the office of the Clerk of Parliament. Each form had to be signed by a proposer and a seconder and by not less than four other persons, all of whose names shall appear in a current register of electors. The person to be proposed was also required to complete a curriculum vitae form in which, inter alia, he was required to write an essay on the kind of contribution he hoped to make as a nominated Member of Parliament and to submit written references from two referees sealed in separate envelopes to the Committee. The closing date for the submission of names was 11 May 2009.Formation of Functional Groups5 The Committee decided that it would continue the practice of inviting the six functional groups, namely, business and industry, labour, the professions, tertiary education institutions, social and community service organisations, and media, arts and sports organisations, to submit names of suitable candidates for the Special Select Committee to consider.6 The names of the coordinators appointed by Mr Speaker for each functional group and an invitation to organisations identifying themselves with any of the functional groups to contact the coordinators to propose their nominees were publicised by the Committee in a press release issued on 5 April 2009.Consideration of Persons Proposed7 By the closing date, the Committee received a total of 46 proposal forms (including those from the functional groups) of which 3 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.8 Section 2(3) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution provides that, before making any nomination for appointment by the President as nominated Member of Parliament, “the Special Select Committee shall, wherever possible, consult other Members of Parliament in such manner as it thinks fit”.9 On the advice of the Committee, the Speaker wrote to all the elected Members of Parliament on 19 May 2009, informing them of the names of the persons proposed for consideration as nominated Members of Parliament and asking the Members of Parliament if they had any comments on these persons and if they knew of any reason why any of them should not be considered for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament.10 The Committee assessed the suitability of all the 43 eligible candidates. In assessing their suitability for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament, the Committee took into account the criteria set out in section 3(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which provides that the persons to be nominated by the Special Select Committee “shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement; and in making any nomination, the Special Select Committee shall have regard to the need for nominated Members to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible”.Nominations of the Committee11 The Committee found many of the candidates to be well qualified to be appointed as nominated Members of Parliament. However, as stipulated under section 3(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, not more than nine nominated Members of Parliament can be appointed. The Committee has therefore nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament:Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee Mr Terry Lee Kok HuaMrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng MeiAssoc Prof Paulin Tay StraughanMr Teo Siong SengMr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan Mr Laurence Wee Yoke ThongMs Audrey Wong Wai YenMs Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling Speech on the President's Address: 25 May 2009 [UPDATED: videos added, and see transcript of PM's speech here]I spoke today in the debate on the President's Address in opening this new session of Parliament. Parliament was prorogued last month, meaning the previous session of Parliament was ended and a new session would begin. It does not mean that Parliament was dissolved, and is not related to the calling of a general election. It also does not mean that my term as a NMP is over, as the duration of my term is fixed at 2.5 years (or until Parliament is dissolved), and is not affected by the prorogation.The video and the text of my speech are below. I had to scramble this morning after reading the reports of the Senior Minister's remarks on changes to the political system, basically re-writing a big chunk of my speech. But I think it was good, because his comments provided a reference point for what I wanted to say.Motion of thanks on President's Address: 25 May 2009Part 1Part 21. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.Economic situation2. It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism . While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something we all need to give some thanks for.3. Now that there is greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister had, in his Budget speech in January, already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise, and demonstrated much foresight.4. Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses if any.5. At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so – but we can still only point to the same few examples like Singapore Airlines, most or all of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President.Principles governing political system, and changes to the system6. Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging, even implicitly, that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”7. The Senior Minister has set out three fundamental principles for these changes: firstly, they must be fair to all contesting parties and not be biased in favour of any party; secondly, they must result in a strong and effective Government, and not a weak coalition Government; and thirdly, they must facilitate representation for diverse views in Parliament, including Opposition views.8. Sir, I have three comments on these principles laid down by the Senior Minister. Firstly, it seems to me that these three principles implicitly accept that fairness in the electoral system is critical for its legitimacy, and also that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a diversity of views in Parliament, including Opposition views. I applaud the Senior Minister, and the Government, for taking this stance. The rules must be fair, and must be seen by Singaporeans as being fair, for the electoral system to have the necessary legitimacy and for the elected Government of the day to have the moral authority to rule.9. My second comment is that any principles that we seek to apply to the electoral system must be limited to principles on the ground rules and the processes and procedures for elections. These principles should not prescribe outcomes in Parliamentary representation, which should be determined through the ballot box.10. Taking the second principle, about the system resulting in a strong and effective Government, I would agree with it to the extent that it argues against pure proportional representation. But we need to understand, and to accept, that even in a first-past-the-post system, it is possible to have an outcome where no single party wins an absolute majority, thereby necessitating a coalition government.11. We should also remain open to the possibility of a hybrid system, where the majority of seats are determined by a first-past-the-post system, but with a limited number of seats allocated by way of proportional representation. Such a system would be consonant with the Senior Minister's third principle, of facilitating diverse views in Parliament, and would do so in a manner based on voting patterns, which makes it more consistent with democratic principles than a scheme like the Nominated MP scheme.12. My third and final comment, Sir, is that these principles should be applicable to the system as a whole, and not just to the changes that will be unveiled this week. These are important principles that go to the fundamentals of our system, and hence should permeate the entire system. Fair and just changes tacked onto a system viewed as lacking in legitiamcy, would not save the system itself.Political apathy and disengagement13. But before we go into the changes themselves, we should first examine why we are seeking to change the political system. The President has explained that it needs to evolve, to respond to changes in circumstances and goals. I think globalization may have made our longstanding problem of political apathy and disengagement amongst Singaporeans so critical, that we now have no choice but to squarely address them.14. Why is it a problem, that Singaporeans are apathetic about and disengaged from the political process? To begin with, Singapore is, and must be, fundamentally for Singaporeans. That being so, Singaporeans have to be responsible for shaping the Singapore story. We cannot leave it to anyone else to do so. And to shape the story, Singaporeans need to participate in politics.15. We can import workers and professionals: construction workers, domestic workers, nurses, IT professionals, engineers, bankers, even CEOs. But we cannot import our politicians and our leaders. We are an immigrant nation, but we are also a sovereign nation. We can take advice from foreign advisers and consultants, but only we ourselves are capable of truly understanding the unique challenges facing our country and making the right decisions for Singapore. The destiny of Singapore has to lie in the hands of Singaporeans, and of Singaporeans only. There are only 4 million odd Singaporeans, and even one Singaporean opting out or being excluded from this collective process of decision-making called politics is one too many.16. Today’s globalised world has made it easier for Singaporeans to pack up and leave this country. People leave for a combination of reasons, and economic opportunities are certainly a key consideration. But some research has shown that the perceived political climate in Singapore is also a relevant factor. More importantly, only Singapore can truly give Singaporeans a sense of political rootedness and full participation in the political process, and such a sense of political stakeholding could go a long way towards keeping them here.17. Meanwhile, technology has made it easier and more tempting for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, to plug in and tune out. We have to engage these Singaporeans and help them understand the importance of staying anchored in the offline world, so that they can have a say in moulding the Singapore that they want to live in, one that provides them with the freedom, stability and security needed for their continued immersion in online social networks, computer games and Internet video, if they so choose.Changes to the GRC system18. So what can we do? What changes should we look at?19. I think there are many things that can be done, and there is no single magic bullet. But in this speech, I will touch only on the most fundamental act in a democracy: the vote.20. The act of voting represents the core of democracy and political participation. Yet, a large number of Singaporeans do not get to vote at each election, thanks to the prevalence of walkovers. Many Singaporeans have told me about their dismay at never having voted in their lives. While there may be other reasons for walkovers being so common, the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies is obviously a key reason. We cannot deny that the incidence of walkovers has been accompanied by the proliferation of five- and six-member GRCs.21. For many Singaporeans, past changes in electoral boundaries, often pertaining to electoral wards that have just witnessed a close contest in the preceding elections, have also undermined the sacred act of voting. The oddity of Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC is merely the most striking example of such changes. I must point out that the changes to electoral boundaries leading up to the 2006 elections were not so egregious, and for that I thank and commend this Government. I hope that there will again not be any drastic changes when it comes to the next general elections, whenever they may be called.22. Even if we accept that GRCs are necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament, which is consistent with the Senior Minister’s third principle about diverse representation, there is nevertheless room for reducing the size of GRCs. I believe that there is also room to introduce more Single Member Constituencies, above the Constitutional minimum of 9 SMC wards. These moves, together with clear commitments to refrain from the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries and to openly publish the reasons and justifications for any such re-drawing, will all go a long way towards restoring Singaporeans' respect for the political process in Singapore, and hence increasing their desire to participate in and engage with the political process. The act of voting embodies participation in democracy, and seeing and experiencing the potential for impact imbued in their vote will naturally lead to renewed political consciousness and empowerment amongst citizens.23. The process of awakening Singaporeans' political consciousness and getting them to become more politically engaged is a long-term undertaking, and there are many things that can and need to be done. But given the central role played by voting in a democracy, that has to be the starting place if we truly want Singaporean politics to evolve and Singaporeans to participate. The sheer symbolism of a reduction in the size of GRCs and the introduction of more SMCs will go a long way towards convincing Singaporeans that the PAP is serious about political change, even if it may potentially put its absolute dominance of this House at risk.24. Sir, the next elections have to be called by 2011. Even as we work on overcoming the economic difficulties facing us, we cannot run away from the immutable reality of the electoral timetable, and we should not close our eyes to the long-term challenges facing Singapore as a society, a polity and a nation. There is no better time to start facing up to them than with the next elections, and I urge the Government to make the right choice for Singaporeans, even if it may be at a potential cost to the ruling party. Only then, can we truly fulfill the Singapore Promise, and create our Home, our Future and our Singapore.25. Sir, with that, I support the motion. The line has been crossed The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.While I have not previously taken any action in response to the attacks to me on the Internet, I feel that this latest attack crosses the line and goes beyond any attacks that I am willing to countenance as being fair game for a public figure. I do not think that it is appropriate or acceptable for any MP, including an NMP, to accept any funding, whether local or foreign.Accordingly, I made a police report on this matter tonight. I have also requested those forums that I am aware are currently hosting these falsehoods, to take them down.In the interests of full transparency, I did meet with certain Swedish gentlemen recently. Details of those meetings are set out in my statement to the police. I met them at their request, just as I have met other foreigners from time to time, including staff from the various High Commissions and embassies in Singapore (such as from Australia, the US, the UK and other EU countries) and visiting foreigners, such as academics doing research on aspects of Singapore. At these meetings, we discuss matters related Singapore, in particular current affairs and the political situation in Singapore. From my perspective, these meetings are to help the foreigners obtain a better understanding of Singapore. I do not think that there was anything wrong with those meetings, and I have nothing to hide.While I continue to believe that it is, on the whole, beneficial for Singaporeans to speak up for what they believe in, and I certainly hope that this wish and desire will continue and extend beyond the current discussions around the NMP re-nomination process and homosexuality, I also do believe -- and have always believed -- that rights and freedoms have limits.I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet. TODAY article tomorrow (well, Friday) There will be an article in tomorrow's (Friday's) TODAY. This article will be about what is essentially a complaint to the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, insinuating that my actions in relation to the AWARE EGM had breached the Legal Profession Act.I gave some comments to TODAY, and I only want to reproduce the following in point form:I hope that this complaint is not part of the ongoing organised campaign targeting me.I am confident that my actions did not breach the relevant provision of the LPA. My conscience is clear and I sincerely believe the law is on my side.I am currently considering whether to write to these 4 groups, to clarify my position.It's been a long day and it's late. So I'm going to sleep on this tonight, before deciding what/whether I will do anything else. Much as I want to move on with life, it seems that some folks simply cannot put what happened with AWARE behind them. Observations of a lapsed citizen Someone forwarded this to me, and I thought it was well-written and well-thought-through. The writer describes herself as a "lapsed citizen" -- not that she had let her citizenship lapse, but that she has ceased to be active in civil society. She was quite active in the late 90s and early 00s, but I had not heard from her for many years, until she sent me these observations last week.Also, unless another significant event takes place that I want to write about, this will be my last post on what happened with AWARE.-------------------------------------------------------------------There are many lessons to draw from the AWARE episode. While areas like steeplejacking or religious versus secular space in NGO are pertinent but I see also other more interesting aspects from my perspective of a "lapsed citizen"'. 2 worlds of Singaporeans collided at the Aware EGM. Not religious versus secular but 2 types of citizenry and their differences were so glaring it was blinding. Legitimacy and authorityJosie, TSM, and their supporters were clearly more deferential to authority and hierarchical in their approach in life. Josie and the exco first expected to be shown this deference by their official position and by their credentials (as opposed to their passion, conviction or clarity of their own views whatever those are). I have read some comments by others that this is a miscalculation on their part. I dont think its a miscalculation, They may genuinely think their credentials alone would remove any doubts on their capabilities and were caught off guard when it did not resonate with the crowd. Some of the original AWARE members have equally impressive credentials but I dont think that is how they define themselves. Josie and co are certainly not alone in this view of what gives them legitimacy. Verifiable or otherwise, it is widely accepted that Singapore society values academic excellence as a proxy for intelligence, success, wealth and therefore a higher right to rule and to lead over others. Josie and co assumed their official postions allowed them to dictate how the meeting will be conducted without taking into account the original impetus for the mtg - that more than half of the original April AWARE membership had petitioned for their removal and that was the nature of the EGM they were presiding over. The underlying arrogance resulted in a team that was clearly unprepared to manage the meeting, mount their own offense/defense or even plan for an unfavourable voting outcome. When their legitimacy was not accepted by the crowd (exasperated by their own mismanagement early in the mtg), they clearly crumbled and did not know how to regain any semblance of control of the EGM - the task of controlling the crowd ceded to the petitioners who ended up stepping into a void and took over to try to marshall and calm the crowd from the floor. TSM make a similar mistake as Josie and her team, perhaps only amplified by the higher expectations on her given her self outed role as the puppetmaster. They were very Singaporean in their view of how they thought the world should work and where is their rightful place in the world. It was just that there are apparently more than one definition of being Singaporean. Submissiveness and (overly) respectful of hierarchy While impassioned speakers come to the mic one after another and spoke their mind, Josie and the exco repeatedly asked for the "right of reply, coz its only fair" instead of just taking the mic time they had to actually reply! They were strangely waiting for the crowd to give an ok signal for them to start replying. I was amazed - it was perversely submissive behaviour. None of Josie's exco look or behaved like they were comfortable leading in any environment other than in a hierarchical manner where they can govern by official authority or within clear structural framework. They spent more mic time asking for the right of reply than actually seizing the opportunity to respond to any of the criticism leveled at them. Not hearing a reasonable defence from them is probably the anticlimax of the whole afternoon. By their behaviour, they strangely deferred to the crowd which became the more dominant force in the room. Josie and team effectively bowed to authority and waited for permission to speak, a permission that never came. They were meek as sheep in spite of their daring coup de'tat that culminated in the need for an EGM. I doubt many of the people who spoke or were in the crowd would have quietly sat there if the roles were reversed. We would have fought back instead of being cowed. They were meek like what Singaporeans were supposed to be. Again, the Singaporeans on the floor provided the contrast that not all Singaporeans are meek. Individuals and the Independent SpiritThe supporters of the petitioners were boisterious and of independent spirit. The original petitioners thru We Are Aware had sent information ahead of time requesting that supporters let the petitioners lead and raise topics at the EGM. I read that as they were asking us to refrain from going to the mic and give the mic time to the official petitioners. I recall having an instinctive resistance to the idea of anyone telling me not to speak or presuming to speak on my behalf. From the queue of people going to the mic, I was glad to see that many other people at the meeting were ignoring that suggestion. I queued for about an hour and 45 mins to get into the hall. I also had my queue broken up once and had to rejoin another part of the queue before finally making it into the room. People came singly or in groups of about 2 to 3. Anecdotally, most do not seem to know any of the original AWARE members. They were individuals. They supported the original AWARE's position on the vote but they did not necessarily deferred to their authority either. They cheered when they hear familiar names (and then strained their necks to see the faces coz they dont seem to be able to recognize the familiar AWARE faces) but were not about to sit quietly and only let the "old" AWARE speak on their behalf. They had something to say and they were making a beeline to queue for the one open mic on the floor. For those of us who had hosted and sat through countless meetings/conferences where we beseeched people to ask questions at the mic, it was remarkable how the queue of people who wanted a turn at the mic never seem to end. They queued, spoke their mind and were more eloquent than anyone could have hoped or expected. For civil society to continue to develop, our citizens need to participate in a contest of ideas and be willing to (re)imagine what is the society they want to live in and that they wish their children to inherit. The ability and willingness to step forward to express themselves as individual citizens who have a collective stake is key for ideas to surface and to persuade others to coalesce around a definition of society acceptable to all. I was reminded by sharp contrast public figures and politicians in Singapore who could not articulate their views or form arguments with clarity, passion or conviction, let alone persuade and inspire citizens. Individual citizens rising beyond the concerns of daily bread and butter issues to bother about something that does not hit the pockets directly. I was reminded of the energy you find in schools, energy and passion we are often expected to lose as we graduate to adult life and hunker down to focus on earning a living. The lapsed citizen in me always believed such Singaporeans exist in sufficient quantities because it is in the human spirit, I just never experienced an occasion of physical gathering of such scale (campus society, hall meetings and electionns not withstanding). AWARE has been handed a great gift - the gift of potential renewal if they can harness the energy of these new members. The lessons though I think are all political. In the larger political sphere, where they are not just women but Singapore citizens, what do they care about, who represents and leads these citizens and who can represent and lead them? Something that may be making the rounds This was forwarded to me by an acquaintance. I have partially anonymised the only name that appears in this email.In particular, it appears that I am now being singled out for targeting. I will only make these 3 points:As I said at the EGM, I have been an AWARE member since last year, pre-dating most or all of the Josie Lau exco. I got involved because I wanted to restore the society to the values that I supported when I joined, and I was involved in my personal capacity, as an associate member of AWARE, and not as an NMP. At no time did I mention or seek to rely on my position as an NMP.The sheer hyperbole used to describe the day's events are astonishing. "Disorder and mayhem"? I've never seen a queue forming, in the scenes of "disorder and mayhem" that I've seen (on TV). Repeating an exaggeration does not make it true.The rules at a meeting of a society are open for determination by the members in a general meeting. The exco has no right to dictate the rules for the EGM, in the face of expressed disagreement from the majority of members present. I think many members did express their disagreement with the house rules that Josie Lau and Lois Ng tried to impose, at least with respect to whether I was allowed to sit with the original members. It does seem that some people, who keep harping on this point, simply do not wish to accept the reality of the law and practice of meetings.Apart from the above points, I have no further comment on this email, and will leave readers to form their own opinions. This also means that I will not respond to any comments made (and to pre-empt any trolls, my non-response does not mean any admission or agreement to any comments that may be made).---------------------------------------------------------Dear all,I was at the AWARE EGM and it was rude shock to me that such bully and hooliganism behavior from the old guard and their supporters could be allowed in such a civilised society like Singapore. Below I attach a letter from Ms XX written to the prime minister on the incident. Many of you who were there witnessed it with your own eyes also. I heard this was the biggest gathering of lesbians and gays at the EGM of a civic society in Spore.We want to complain to the govt that an NMP Siew Kum Hong was not only openly taking sides in this internal affair of a secular organisation, but was part of the orchestrated disorder and mayhem on that day. He showed no regard for protocols until challenged by a member from the floor.We also want the govt to know that Straits Times has been blatantly stroking the religious flame and deceiving all their readers when the real issue was about homosexualism and not about a religious `takeover' of a secular association. For the record, I have since cancelled my subscription to the newspaper. Why should I pay to be told half-truths and be insidously `persuaded' to their point of views?I urge all those who were there that day to write to our PM, to MHA, REACH and ISD to tell them what you witnessed on that day. Let your voice be heard before it is taken away one day right before your eyes!PS: The PM's email address is: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg---------------------------------------------------------Dear all,It is indeed time for concerned individuals to play their part in shaping the future of our nation.Below, I attach a letter I have sent to the PMO.Cheryl XX---------------------------------------------------------Dear Prime Minister,I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the 'overflow area' in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.b) We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.d) There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.e) Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.I question the cover-up in the press.In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information. What I took away from 2 May A lot has been said and written about the AWARE EGM last Saturday. And by now, I'm sure everyone has seen videos of the key moments on YouTube. So I'm not going to get into the familiar details of what happened that day.Instead, I'm just going to post a few thoughts from the EGM, and also talk about some aspects that I have not seen mentioned.Affirmation of valuesFirst and foremost, I walked away from the EGM proud to be Singaporean. I saw the result as an affirmation of the values that we hold dear (openness, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity and secularism) and a rejection of those that, well, we should not (dishonesty, non-transparency, exclusiveness, intolerance, divisiveness and oppression/bullying).While I do not see the EGM as a watershed or a pivotal moment signalling any sort of significant change in Singapore politics (as at least one journalist has tried to posit to me), it does stand as a milestone marking some sort of progress towards a more active and passionate civil society. The willingness of all these people to stand up and be counted, to invest all that time and effort for a cause that they believed in, gave me hope that Singaporeans are not as passive or apathetic as we are often said to be, and that it really takes the right cause to spark us into action.Importance of passionMy second point relates to the fiery passion demonstrated by so many folks in the audience. Some have sought to portray this as a shameful lack of civility, as a disgusting show of rude bullying tactics, as a terrible indictment of the supporters of the so-called old guard (I prefer "original members"). I beg to differ.To begin with, I question whether these critics (well, those who are not supporters of the ousted Exco) were even there at all, to see for themselves what had happened. Did they see the way that the ousted Exco had started the meeting? Did they understand the context that contributed to this atmosphere of anger?It was clear from the outset that the ousted Exco was trying to create a tilted playing field. When I arrived just past 11am, and tried to take the escalator from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor, three of the ousted Exco's supporters blocked the escalator, claiming that I was not allowed to go up. I was a little taken aback, and proceeded only when a volunteer for the original members told them to let me pass because it was a public area and they had no right to block me. This came on the heels of another of their supporters, who had greeted me on the 3rd floor with a big plastic smile, and then furiously whispered "SKH! SKH!" into her radio as I passed her.Was all this necessary? Was there a need to play these sort of games?It did not get better when the meeting began. I was the lightning rod that first drew their ire. Jenica Chua had already been informed earlier that I was a legal advisor for the original members -- and yet, when a member of the audience (a VIP as designated by the Josie Lau exco, whom none of us recognised) specifically asked for me to move to the associate members' section, Josie Lau simply ordered me to move. She even directed security to escort me out of the ordinary members' section (either to the associate members' section or out of the hall, I can't remember which). My wife later told me that she was worried about the security guards forcibly manhandling me.It only got worse, when the meeting got underway. The mics on the floor were not switched on. Whenever an original member got to a mic and tried to speak, the sound person would deliberately shut down that mic. It was no accident and not faulty sound -- it was a deliberate attempt to prevent us from speaking.Those who are familiar with the law and practice of meetings will know that points of order have precedence, and whoever is speaking has to yield the floor to someone making a point of order. But with the mics switched off, it was impossible to raise a point of order properly. Even after the lawyer from Rajah & Tann said that the mics should be switched on, this was not done properly or consistently. When folks on the floor protested, the ousted Exco's first response was to threaten ejection from the hall, even though it is established law that the chairperson's right to eject members may be exercised only upon repeated, severe disorder, not as a first resort.That was how the entire meeting started. What sort of note did these heavy-handed tactics adopted by the ousted Exco strike? One of the leading legal textbooks on meetings states that the effect of a fair chairperson is often under-estimated. I would certainly say that the ousted Exco was not interested in conducting a fair meeting in accordance with the rules governing meetings, but only a meeting on their terms.Faced with this, with a hostile chairperson seeking to exercise her powers in an unfair manner, what was the floor to do? The floor's only weapon, only response, is its voice. And in this case, we used that weapon to full effect. To do otherwise, to be as meek as these critics seem to want us to be, would have played into the ousted Exco's hands.Those who criticise the behaviour of our supporters miss the point. They overlook the nature of such EGMs, which are invariably contentious affairs with emotions running high. They buy into the myth of an orderly debate, which simply does not exist when the ground rules are unfair and stacked against one side. They ignore the important role of passion in advocacy, blindly emphasising rote obedience of rules while missing the positive aspects of passionate advocacy.So no, I will not apologise for the behaviour of our supporters. Instead, I am proud of this rare display of passion in public discourse. Indeed, I only wish that we see more of such passion in future.Planning, planning, planningThis article in The New Paper says it all: these unsung heroes provided the platform for all the speakers to shine. The amazing work of folks like Alex, Serena, Ching-Wi, Jolovan and Schutz made the result possible. I salute them.Their planning was immaculate. Thanks to their immense efforts, we did not have to worry about logistics at all in the lead-up to and during the EGM. I also believe that the early arrival of our supporters paved the way for our success. We were able to occupy the seats nearest to the stage, which also turned out to be nearest to the only mic that was switched on throughout the entire EGM. This proximity to the stage and to the mic probably allowed us to neutralise Josie Lau's advantage as the chairperson.Passion vs passivenessI've already mentioned the passion exhibited by our supporters. In stark contrast, the supporters of the ousted Exco were surprisingly passive, preferring to clap furiously whenever the ousted Exco spoke (regardless of the substance of their comments) instead of taking to the mic. Few of their supporters spoke up, and of these, too many failed to make the most of their time on the mic. Some of the more bizarre speeches of the day came from their supporters.More surprisingly, so many of their supporters seem to have left early. I cannot confirm this, but it felt like they had started leaving even before the results were announced. And when the members voted to remove the ousted Exco from office because it looked like they were not coming back, there were only two objections -- presumably because their other 700 supporters had left by then.I cannot explain why, although Alex Au has speculated on this. But I did haer that their supporters arrived in buses, and did not seem to really know what was going on. So perhaps they had been bus-ed in, having been simply told to vote, without much more. If that was true, then no wonder they did not speak up.Thank youFinally, I want to thank the ladies who came to me for advice just after the AGM on 28 March. I got involved in all this because of them, and I am glad that I did. It gave me a ringside seat to everything that happened, and I would not have missed it for the world. I'm only happy to have had the chance to contribute to their success in some small way.And of course, I have to thank every woman and man who turned up to be counted, for affirming those values that Singaporeans hold so dear. Without you, nothing would have happened. With you, everything becomes possible. We won :) As many of you may know by now, I have been advising the original members of AWARE in their (successful!) battle to remove the Exco headed by Josie Lau. So the past few weeks, especially this past week, has been crazy busy.I have so many thoughts to share, but for now I only want to say that it has been a real honour and privilege to have been part of such a historic moment, and that I feel so heartened by the turnout and the way the voting went as well as public discourse in the past week as more facts came out -- it is such a strong affirmation by Singapore of the values that AWARE stands for: inclusiveness, diversity, openness and transparency. Today, I am so proud to be Singaporean. For All Women - Sign Up, Turn Up, Be Counted AWARE EGM on 2 May now at SUNTEC CITY HALL 402 UPDATE: THE EGM VENUE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SUNTEC CITY HALL 402!!I received this announcement in my inbox earlier this afternoon (yes, I've been an AWARE member since last October or so, way before the AGM in March).27th April 2009To: AWARE MembersEXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETINGTO BE HELD ON 2ND MAY 2009Notice is hereby given that:1. The venue of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Association of Women for Action & Research (“AWARE”) to be held on Saturday, 2nd May 2009 , from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. is hereby changed as follows:Singapore EXPO Hall 21 Expo Drive, #01-01Singapore 486150Admission and registration would be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd May 2009.It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.2. Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE’s legal advisors to attend the EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE’s constitution and meeting law and procedure.By Order Of The Executive CommitteeJenica ChuaHonorary SecretaryAssociation of Women for Action & Research MOE Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools Hot off the press, from MOE. Please do circulate this far and wide. Most importantly, please circulate not just to those who already support the original members, but those who have expressed concern about the unsubstantiated allegations of the new exco and TSM. This needs to go outside of fellow travellers, to reach those who have a misunderstanding of what AWARE has been doing but are still willing to listen to reason.Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools1 We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.2 Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.3 Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.4 Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.5 AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.6 The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.7 In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.8 If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore. TWC Statement on AWARE: 27 April 2009 TWC2 is very concerned about the AWARE leadership takeover. AWARE has been an important important partner in our work to improve the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore and champion for their rights. AWARE has ensured that issues of discrimination against migrant domestic workers are not left out in the CEDAW report and has consulted us in preparing the shadow reports. We have also joined hands with AWARE through its White Ribbon Campaign to raise awareness of the issue of violence against migrant domestic workers. As an established organisation that runs an effective and structured helpline for women in distress, AWARE has been generous in sharing its expertise with nascent organisations such as TWC2. AWARE's social worker and volunteers have helped us in training our volunteers to staff our helpline service for migrant workers. In addition, AWARE has also taken on issues concerning the vulnerabilities of foreign brides in Singapore and the trafficking of women and children for cross-border sex trade.The above examples, show that AWARE is far from being a single-issue organisation obsessed with promoting homosexual issues. AWARE is a dynamic organisation that has stayed true to its core mission of championing for the rights of women underpinned by values such as inclusiveness. By advocating the issues concerning migrant domestic workers, foreign brides and trafficked women and children, AWARE has shown that it understands the multiple forms in which discrimination and marginalisation of women can take place as Singapore becomes more globalised. This is largely attributed to a competent leadership that truly understands the multiplicities of gender inequality and the complex social processes that underpin gender discrimination. If AWARE's future stand to be shaped by a group of individuals that do not have a solid understanding of gender inequality and whose motivation is driven by a single-issue objective, we risk losing a valuable partner in our work. Singapore may also stand to lose as more than two decades of advocacy work that aim to tackle the roots of gender inequality may be lost because of a lack of vision. Speech on the Films (Amendment) Bill: 23 March 2009 In March, Parliament debated the amendments to the FIlms Act. This was another bill that I felt compelled to vote against. When I started reading and thinking about the bill, I had only decided that I needed to speak on it, but I had not yet decided how I would vote. But by the time I started writing my speech, I already knew I had no choice but to vote no.Films (Amendment) Bill23 March 2009Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker Sir, this Bill is being introduced in the wake of the report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). AIMS made a total of 26 recommendations to the Government, including recommendations relating to sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act. In particular, AIMS recommended that section 33 be repealed in phases.These recommendations pertaining to the Act were rejected by the Government. Instead, the Government announced some limited changes to the scope of section 33, while declining to amend Section 35 at all. This Bill introduces those limited changes to the scope of section 33.Sir, my own view is that AIMS was fundamentally correct in recommending that section 33 be repealed. I am not sure if I agree with AIMS that the repeal should be conducted in phases, but that is now moot. Section 33 prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films. Section 2 adopts a broad definition of “party political film” that is overly-inclusive, that seeks to censor films based on their format and not on their substantive content, and this results in a potential chilling effect on film-makers. I remain unconvinced by the reasons for singling out film, when the printed word is equally capable of distortion and deception, when a well-written commentary can be even more powerful than a poorly-made film.This prohibition on party political films is also easily and widely flouted in today’s Web 2.0 world, and maintaining such an unenforceable prohibition simply promotes disrespect for the rule of law, which is an unhealthy state of affairs with insidious, far-reaching repercussions. Finally, Singaporeans are today far more sophisticated and media-savvy than before, and should be trusted to judge the merits and demerits of films for themselves.Be that as it may, the Government has made it clear that section 33 will not be repealed. Instead, this Bill seeks to make what seems like an incremental liberalisation, with an expanded list of films that are deemed not to be party political films.However, even as the list seems to be expanded and longer, an important exception has been removed. The existing section 2(3)(a), which will be repealed, provides that films made by anyone solely for the purpose of reporting current affairs are not deemed to be party political films. This has been replaced by four specific, limited exceptions, namely, films made solely for the reporting of news by a licensed broadcasting service; films recording "live" the whole or a material proportion of a lawful performance, assembly or procession that does not depict any event, person or situation in a dramatic way; films designed to provide a record of a lawful event or occasion, for its participants or persons connected with its participants; and documentary films without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate, non-dramatic account depicting actual events, persons or situations, which does not include unscripted or reality-type programmes.To my mind, these four specific exceptions are narrower in scope than the existing section 2(3)(a). For instance, what is the justification for limiting the exception for the reporting of news, to licensed broadcasters only? This seems completely incongruent with the Senior Minister of State's recognition of the realities in today’s Web 2.0 world, and seems designed to inhibit the work of new media and citizen journalists and bloggers.More importantly, these four specific exceptions do not seem to represent a true liberalisation of the position on party political films, and in fact could narrow the scope of what is permissible. In particular, the prohibitions on recordings of unlawful events and occasions seems odd. This was not an issue that was canvassed at any point during AIMS’ deliberations. The holding of an unlawful event is prohibited under other existing laws, and it is not clear why the creation of a video recording of such an unlawful event should be illegal.It is also likely to create what can be called a nation of innocent criminals, eg, bystanders watching an assembly or procession may whip out their mobile phones to record videos of the event. They may not know whether the event was being held in accordance with the law. If it was not, then they would be creating an illegal party political film. If they upload it to a website like YouTube, they would be distributing an illegal party political film. This is the precise problem that AIMS was constituted to address: laws that are out-of-sync with the times and that will invariably be ignored and flouted. So, why are we going out of our way to institute new legislation that we know will be disregarded and broken?It is arguable that the exception regarding documentary films that accurately depict actual persons and events, including unlawful events, could apply to the situation that I have just described. Yet, the term “documentary film” is not defined, and its use suggests that this exception requires the film to be something more than a mere video recording, since the term “documentary film” must necessarily be something more limited in scope than a “film”, which is the term used in the other exceptions. This exception is also problematic - documentary-makers will invariably have to edit their raw footage, but such editing could potentially remove them from the scope of this exception.The new exceptions are also difficult from a lawyer’s perspective. Prof. Thio has very ably and cogently pointed out the difficulties with section 33 from a constitutional perspective. On a more technical level, these amendments introduce terms that are not defined, in a way that makes their application of uncertain scope. I have already mentioned the term “documentary film” in the new section 2(3)(e). Other new terms of ambiguous scope include “depiction in a dramatic way” as used in the new sub-sections (3)(c) and (3)(e)(ii), and “dramatic elements” as used in the new sub-sections (3)(f) and (3)(g). It would have been preferable to define what they mean, so that courts seeking to interpret these terms will have some guidance.The final point I would make on this Bill, is that it does not amend section 35, as recommended by AIMS. Section 35 allows the Minister to ban any film that he considers to be “against the public interest”, without giving any reason. AIMS had recommended that the permissible reasons for banning films under section 35 be spelt out clearly, that an independent advisory panel be formed to advise the Minister before a film is banned under Section 35, and that the Minister be obliged to give reasons for the ban. All three proposals have been rejected.The status quo gives the Minister broad powers to ban films, while not making him accountable for any decision banning a film. This is wholly imbalanced and does not pay sufficient respect to Singaporeans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech. While we all accept that limitations on constitutional rights do exist, we should also accept that such limitations must be calibrated and limited, and also transparent and accountable. Most of all, they must be constitutional, and limiting the grounds upon which films can be banned under section 35 as proposed by AIMS would go a long way towards ensuring the constitutionality of this provision and its use by the Minister.True, in the only known instance of a ban under section 35, the Minister did give his reasons for doing so. But giving reasons is at the discretion of the Minister. My view is that since this is a limitation on a constitutional right, the proper position is to require the Minister to justify any ban under section 35, with an exception where the very disclosure of the justification could prejudice national security, in which case the Minister has to explicitly state that and give reasons where practicable.Sir, I would normally welcome any liberalisation on matters of free speech. But these amendments to the Films Act do not seem to represent a material or true liberalisation of the current position, and they are also potentially problematic in their phrasing. The objective in constituting AIMS was to review existing legislation in the face of advances in digital technology, and to suggest necessary updates to the law. As I have said, it is not healthy to have laws on the books that are consistently and openly broken by Singaporeans. This is the reality with the existing regime under the Films Act. My belief is that it will also be the case with these present amendments, in which case, why bother?The Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the prohibition on party political films has an offline aspect as well, and that is true. But implicit in that, is the acceptance that the amended prohibition on party political films will continue to be ignored online, and an admission that enforcement will continue to be absent in the online environment. But this is then an unjustifiable and unfair discriminatory practice against the offline population, in a sense that the prohibition is applied against them but not to the online citizens.Because of this, I cannot support this Bill. It is bad law, it would not fix the problems that need to be fixed, and I cannot in good conscience support such a piece of legislation.Sir, with that, I oppose this Bill.The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): [...]Let me touch on sections 33 and 35 because I think many Members have spoken out and raised issues regarding these two particular areas. Prof. Thio Li-ann, Mr Zaqy Mohd, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Ms Sylvia Lim, amongst others, spoke on section 33, why are we not decriminalising the making of party political film as recommended by AIMS. Our position is that the Government is only disallowing what would be dramatised, sensationalised and emotive party political films which will do harm to rational and objective political debate. And so we feel that there is strong reason to maintain the sanction against the making of such films. But bear in mind also that while we retain this clause and we have always had this clause since the inception of the Bill, we have not prosecuted anyone for the making of a PPF to date. That is an important point, that while it is retained, it is there and has been there over the last 10 years, there has been no move to prosecute anybody. So moving forward, whether or not a film-maker will be prosecuted for the making of a PPF, it is not an automatic process but it will have to depend on the facts and the significance and the merits of each case.Section 35; Again, same members have raised their issues and comments on section 35. Let me clarify a misconception that this is a so-called backdoor way to catch the rest of the films that would otherwise have passed, because section 35 is not against PPFs; it is not to be used against party political films. PPFs, unless they fall under the exceptions, will already be banned from the onset, and there is no need to apply section 35 to such films. Section 35 is meant and reserved for serious situations where due to the circumstances of the day, the possession or distribution of the film would actually be contrary to public interest - presenting a threat to national security, danger to racial or religious harmony, and perhaps affecting even the very fabric of our multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Members have noted that so far, we have only used section 35 once and that was on "Zahari's 17 Years", and the Minister had come up with a press statement to fully explain why he issued the ban. We did not want to impose on the Minister the need to make such a press statement or to have to explain every time he exercises the jurisdiction to impose such a ban. But, where possible, he will indeed do so. But for those who have forgotten what "Zahari's 17 Years" was all about, the film was a revisionist attempt to have a distorted and misleading portrayal of Zahari's arrest and detention. It was an attempt to exculpate himself from his involvement in communist activities against the interest of Singapore. He had posed a security threat for which he was detained under the ISA, and he now wanted to exploit the use of film to project false and distorted picture of his past actions, and that is why the ban was made. It was not a political film.There were also comments as to whether this signals any change with regard to the way we view the Internet. Let me explain our position with regard to films on the Internet. First of all, the Films Act governs both offline and online films. But the Government had decided to adopt a three-pronged approach towards regulating the Internet. First, we say we will take a light-touch approach via the class licence scheme. Second, that we will couple this with public education and, indeed, we followed up on one of the AIMS' recommendations to have inter-ministry cyber-wellness taskforce. Because we recognise that public education really would lay the foundation for further moves to expand the political space in this area, and to make sure that people exercise the right degree of discernment, judgement, to view things not in isolation but to be able to see things in totality, to recognise the larger picture and not to be misled by seductive arguments narrowly focused on a particular area. And the third limb, besides light touch and public education, was industry's self-regulation and co-regulation. And, basically, we will not deviate from this, going forward. Films that are available on the Internet will have to continue to abide by the class licence scheme as in the past.[...] Speech on the Public Order Bill: 13 April 2009 Last week, the Public Order Bill was read for the second time (meaning it was debated) in Parliament. 12 MPs in all spoke on it. In the end, 3 MPs voted against it -- Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and myself. There was quite extensive press coverage on the bill, but not so much on the points that I made in my speech. I've said everything I wanted to say in my speech, so I won't editorialise any more here.The videos of my speech are here (again, thanks watchtowerv!) with the text transcript (including my exchange with the Minister) below them. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the Ian Tomlinson case, may want to watch the videos at these links:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/14/g20-police-action-tomlinson-memorialhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-policehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-death-video-twitterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-videoPart 1Part 2Part 3Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the name suggests, this Bill deals with public order. In particular, it seeks to regulate public assemblies and public processions; to deal with the control and protection of special events in Singapore; to introduce the move-on powers that I spoke about in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year; and to criminalise the filming of law enforcement activities in certain circumstances.I will first touch on the proper framework for considering laws such as this Bill, that curtail Singaporeans' civil liberties in the name of ensuring security and public order, before considering the provisions of this Bill in greater detail.Sir, this Bill will have the effect of introducing new limitations on the constitutional rights of Singaporeans. So the starting point in considering the Bill must be the Constitution.I start with Article 13(2), which provides that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout Singapore, subject to any law relating to security, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders. This Bill clearly purports to be such a law.Article 14(1)(b) provides for another right, the right of Singaporeans to assemble peaceably. This right is subject to such restrictions as Parliament considers to be necessary or expedient, in the interest of security or public order.So even as the Constitution provides for Singaporeans' rights to freedom of movement and freedom of peaceful assembly, it nevertheless recognises that those rights are not absolute and that there can be a legitimate need to limit those rights in the interest of security or public order. A balancing exercise is therefore necessary and I am glad to note that the Minister acknowledges the need for a calibrated, balancing approach.When we debate legislation that purports to limit Singaporeans' constitutional rights in the name of security and public order, we have to consider whether the law in question strikes the correct balance between these competing interests. To my mind, due and proper respect for our fundamental liberties in the Constitution requires Parliament to ensure that the law curtails Singaporeans' rights to the minimal extent necessary to ensure security and public order, and no more. Anything further, any overly broad wording that could permit actions not required by legitimate security or public order concerns, is not justifiable and goes too far.With these principles in mind, I will now touch on the provisions pertaining to the objectives of the Bill.Sir, Part II of the Bill seeks to regulate public assemblies, which includes public talks and lectures, and public processions. In principle, I do not agree with the premise that all public assemblies and processions should require prior approval from the authorities. This emasculates our constitutional right of peaceful assembly - how can it be a right, when it is subject to the approval by a bureaucrat? A right to do something necessarily means that the person entitled to the right can do the thing, without having to ask for prior approval. Otherwise, it is not a right. A system based on prior approvals and permits does not strike the correct balance in terms of respecting Singaporeans' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.Furthermore, this system of permits and prior approvals opens the door to perceptions and allegations of abuse for political purposes. Singaporeans have strong reservations about how this system has operated in the past, and I must confess that I share at least some of these reservations.Ms Sylvia Lim has already mentioned an example that was debated in this House last September. Let me just elaborate a little. I had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rules governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties. Ms Sylvia Lim filed a related PQ. The Senior Minister of State, responding to my and Ms Lim's PQs, reiterated that the police will not grant permits for outdoor political events, on the basis of the risk of public disorder inherent in such events. The Senior Minister of State then explained that an outdoor event organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) was not viewed by the police as an outdoor political event, and hence was permissible, even though the PCF is an arm of the PAP and the guest-of-honour was the Prime Minister, and other PAP politicians were also present. With all due respect to the Senior Minister of State, I - and I believe many, if not most Singaporeans - do not find that distinction convincing in the least. It may comply with the technical letter of the law but certainly is difficult to accept as being true to the spirit of freedom of movement and assembly.If we want to have a proper balance where Singaporeans' right of peaceful assembly is respected and preserved, while remaining mindful of the need for public order and security, then the starting point should be that all assemblies and processions are by default permissible, unless they fall into some prohibited categories, unlike the current system which is the opposite. So the organisers of an assembly or procession should provide advance notice to the Police with appropriate details, not for approval, but to allow the Police to assess the public order and safety implications of the march and its proposed route of the assembly, and to require the organisers to find an alternative venue, or to take an alternative route where reasonably necessary to preserve public order. The only permissible exceptions should be with respect to special events - and we will come to that shortly - or where an assembly or procession promotes an unlawful cause or is unjustifiably provocative, or is reasonably likely to lead to violence. Anything further would simply render Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution an empty shell.The Minister has referred to events in other countries, such as the unfortunate events in Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend to justify this Bill, which has resulted in a country where such events simply do not take place. I do understand the attraction in such an argument. But there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, and I do believe that by requiring all public assemblies and public processions to be subject to prior police approvals, we have gone too far in the past and we continue to go too far in undermining our constitutional rights.Be that as it may, the Bill before us today preserves this system of prior approvals, for better or for worse. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why the exemption for indoor meetings and talks, in other words, indoor public assemblies, that have only speakers who are Singaporeans, is not explicitly set out in the Bill itself.Sir, Part III of the Bill relates to the security of special events, which are events that the Minister declares to be such having regard to their nature, the number and kind of expected attendees, Singapore's obligations for holding the event, and other relevant matters. The upcoming APEC summit in November this year would be an example of such a special event.Members would have seen the shocking footage from Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend. No doubt, the political divisions in Thailand contributed the problems there. In particular, the reluctance of Thai security forces to enforce the law had aggravated the severity of the situation. But it does provide a timely reminder that if special events go wrong, they could irreparably damage a country's image and reputation. So I would support the principle that special events could justify extraordinary measures and temporary restrictions on Singaporeans' rights of free movement and peaceful assembly provided they are limited to the minimum extent, period and area necessary to prevent disruption of the event and to protect individuals involved in the event.And in this regard, we have done well in the past. It is a testament to this country's, and, yes, this Government's organisational and security capabilities that we have in recent years held major international events here with minimal or no disruption. So I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why it is necessary to introduce this new Part III of the Bill when the existing system based on the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act has worked. Just looking at last year, the ASEAN Regional Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel, the National Day Parade, the National Day Rally and the Formula One race were all declared as protected areas under that Act, and all of them were events that went off without any security problems.Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the scope of the powers to declare an event to be a special event is too broad. I am concerned with the new section 21(3)(b)(iv) in particular, which allows the Minister to declare an event to be a special event where “there is a reasonable likelihood that the event because of its nature might be at risk of an act of terrorism”. That is a very broad definition, and any large gathering of persons in Singapore could potentially be seen as being at risk of an act of terrorism. The Explanatory Statement on section 21 does expand on the relevant factors for determining whether an event should be declared as a special event. But I hope that the Minister could specifically clarify whether the intent is to allow a large gathering of persons to be declared as a special event, simply because there are many people present.My last point on Part III, Sir, relates to the new sections 21(5) and (6). The declaration of a special event must be gazetted, and sub-section (5) requires the Minister to publish a notice of the making of the declaration “in such manner as will secure adequate publicity for the declaration”. The Minister has to do this, within seven days of the making of the declaration and before the date the declaration comes into force. The Explanatory Statement helpfully explains that this includes the publication of the notice in newspapers.But sub-section (6) then goes on to state that failure to comply with sub-section (5) does not invalidate the declaration itself. It is easy to fathom the rationale for sub-section (5), but difficult to understand the reason for sub-section (6). Where an event is declared to be a special event, various restrictions on Singaporeans' fundamental liberties come into force. So Singaporeans naturally have a strong interest in knowing that such a declaration has been made. This makes absolute sense. But why then have sub-section (6), which renders sub-section (5) nugatory? Because, then, the Minister could simply ignore sub-section (5), without having to justify his actions and without any consequences. The Minister is given plenty of time, seven days, in fact, to publish the notice in the newspapers. So I hope that the Minister can explain the reasoning behind section 21(6).I now turn to the new move-on powers, which I had spoken about in the Committee of Supply this year. Given that such powers limit citizens' right to freedom of movement, they have to be limited to the bare minimum extent necessary to preserve public order. We also have to bear in mind, that an abuse or a wrongful use of these powers will result in irreparable loss and damage to citizens. For instance, if a person is unlawfully ordered by a police officer to move on, then that person has lost the opportunity to be present at a certain place at a certain time, and it is impossible to remedy that loss.In the first place, it does not seem to me that there is a convincing justification for the introduction of these new powers. In an interview published in The Straits Times in January this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had sought to justify these move-on powers on the basis that the police needed new powers to deal with political activists engaged in civil disobedience. But let us look closely at the acts of civil disobedience that we have seen in Singapore to date. They have taken a form of either an assembly or a procession which would be regulated under Part II of this Bill. In this regard, I note that the offences under Part II of this Bill are seizable offences. So there is no lacuna in the police's powers. These move-on powers will be necessary only if there are some loopholes or gaps in the provisions on public assemblies and processions that need to be plugged. But I see no such loopholes.The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there was a gap in police powers between post and incident investigations and arrest while the incident is on-going. But, practically speaking, it is always open to Police Officers to give a verbal warning to cease and desist before arresting a person. And I presume that that is what they will usually do in practice. The only thing that these powers do with respect to civil disobedience activists is to add a further offence to the list of offences committed, but ensuring a multiplicity of offences and hence penalties is not a legitimate reason for introducing yet another offence.In any case, the move-on powers extend far beyond what is needed to deal with civil disobedience. Section 36, as currently worded, with its reference to disorderly behaviour, could extend to situations like teenagers loitering around a void deck, or even the skateboarders and inline-skaters who hang out at the underground plaza at the Esplanade on weekends. They generally cause no harm to anyone. But an overzealous Police Officer may seek to clamp down on what is, in truth, simply boisterous teenage behaviour. Given the ease and expediency with which move-on orders may be given, this is an undesirable outcome that is sadly almost inevitable.Be that as it may, these move-on powers will become law. In the Committee of Supply debate, I made some suggestions which have unfortunately not been taken up. At the time, the Minister had said that it was premature to deal with those issues, as the Bill was not before the House. That being the case, I hope that the Minister will now explain why these suggestions have not been accepted. I will briefly recap those suggestions.Firstly, I had stated that the legislation in question should target the objectionable conduct of a person, and not the mere fact that he was in a certain location. And I note from the Minister's speech that he has stated the same position. But if that is the case, if a person behaved offensively in a certain location, and a police officer directs him to move on, and the citizen then ceases the offensive conduct, then the move-on order should cease to have effect. While the new section 35 makes it clear that the subject of a move-on order has to be behaving objectionably before the order can be issued, there is no corresponding provision to state that the move-on order ceases to have effect if the objectionable behaviour ends. Instead, the subject of an order has to leave the vicinity; otherwise he commits an offence. This is regardless of how he continues to behave.Secondly, I note that the new section 36(1) requires move-on orders to be in writing, which is what I had suggested in the Committee of Supply debate. That is positive. But I did make another suggestion, for all move-on orders to be recorded in a public register, as is the case in Australian territories, like in Queensland, which the Minister has stated was used as a model. This suggestion has not been taken in. But a register is useful to ensure transparency and accountability in how Police Officers use their move-on powers. We have said that we are following the Australian example in introducing such powers, yet studies in Australia have shown a history of abuse of these powers by Police Officers. An official register recording the use of such powers, that is open to the public, could provide a powerful tool for ensuring accountability and for allowing Singaporeans to satisfy themselves that these powers are not being abused, by subjecting the exercise of these powers to public scrutiny.Thirdly, I had proposed an appeal mechanism, where any person aggrieved by a move-on order can challenge it. But the Bill does not provide for any such mechanism. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of a complaint to the Commanding Officer. But that would presumably trigger an internal investigation at most, which is not transparent and may not be perceived as being fair and independent. In the Straits Times' interview that I referred to earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the need to ensure that aggrieved persons are able to seek redress from the Minister or the Attorney-General's Chambers. Unfortunately, that need has not been met in the present Bill, in respect of the move-on powers.I come to the final part of my speech, on the new section 38, which deals with the filming of law enforcement activities. This provision has been justified on the basis of the media coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks last November, where the terrorists themselves were able to watch law enforcement operations unfold on Indian TV stations. That is obviously an undesirable state of affairs, and I would support a law to prevent that situation from taking place in Singapore.Preventing what happened in Mumbai means preventing footage, or indeed any news, about ongoing security operations from being disseminated, where such footage or news could jeopardise the success of the operation or otherwise compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. This objective cannot be objectionable to anyone.But even as we try to protect law enforcement, we have to ensure that citizens are not prevented from legitimate filming, and especially filming of law enforcement officers engaging in abusive or unlawful behaviour. Ms Sylvia Lim has referred to the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson. So I will not speak further on that.If there are abuses by law enforcement officers, then surely citizens have the right to know, and to film and record these acts as evidence. The case from London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson shows the importance of this, to prevent cover-ups from taking place. If the other passer-by had been prevented from filming the pushing incident, who knows whether or when the truth would have come to light? I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that the filming of law enforcement abuses is not prohibited by this provision. Yet, there are no explicit controls or checks on how law enforcement officers may exercise that power under section 38, and as with the move-on powers, no formal avenue of recourse for citizens aggrieved by an order made against him.Imagine a situation such as that of Mr Tomlinson in London. In the midst of a riot, an abuse takes place against an innocent bystander. The duty officer demands that a bystander who films the incident surrender his camera, claiming that the film shows his identity and therefore threatens his safety. What, then, is this innocent bystander to do? The offence in section 38(4) does not contain a defence of reasonable excuse for not complying with an order, unlike in section 37 in relation to non-compliance with move-on orders. In such a situation, the person who made the film of the abuse by law enforcement would have no choice but to surrender the film, otherwise he runs a very likely risk of being charged and prosecuted.Indeed, section 38(2)(a) empowers law enforcement to require a person to delete the film that is made - but if that is the case, then how is that person, or the police itself, able to subsequently evaluate or verify whether the deletion had been lawfully ordered, without knowing for sure what the content was? It should be adequate that the film be seized, to prevent it from being disseminated.Furthermore, the new section 38(3) very clearly goes beyond what is legitimately necessary for the objective of protecting law enforcement activities. Section 38(3) permits law enforcement to forfeit any film equipment that has been seized, and to destroy it or dispose of it in such manner as the Commissioner of Police may decide. While seizure of equipment may further the objective of avoiding a compromise of on-going security operations, the forfeiture and destruction of equipment after the fact do not. Instead, it is simply punitive, and hence is not reasonable at all. It, therefore, seems to me that section 38, as currently worded, overreaches and goes far beyond what is needed to prevent media coverage from compromising ongoing law enforcement activities and the safety of officers.Sir, I have taken great pains to point out the flaws in this Bill as I see them. I do think that they are major flaws, with the potential to greatly affect Singaporeans' lives and their constitutional rights for the worse. That being the case, I would propose that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration.When this House amended the Penal Code in late 2007, there had been extensive public consultations, even though Members would remember that I had strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill and eventually voted against it. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had recently undergone a public consultation. In contrast, there was no public consultation at all on this Bill, even though it directly affects Singaporeans' fundamental liberties under the Constitution and also has the potential to greatly impact our day-to-day lives, especially in relation to the new move-on powers. The fact that 12 Members of this House have decided to speak on the Bill shows that it is of immense public interest. Yet, it has only been three weeks or so, since the Bill was first made available to the public after its first reading in Parliament. Because of all this, it would make great sense for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to comment on the Bill.Sir, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in my speech, I have no choice but to oppose the Public Order Bill in its present form.[...]The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam):[...]Mr Siew Kum Hong said the right of assembly being subjected to permits emasculates that right. It is again a surprising point because if you accept that, at present, permits are required, then all they are doing is continuing with the same regime. If the right has not been emasculated until now, how does the POA represent a new emasculation? He also referred to the PAP cycling event, which my colleague had answered in some detail before and I will not deal with it.Mr Siew also wanted to know if a large gathering of persons can be gazetted as a special event, the answer is "no". It is not a large gathering of persons per se but a special event as the Act describes and as I have set out in my speech.Mr Siew also acknowledges that there exists now a gap between seizable and non-seizable offences, but he says the Police do not really need the power to deal with the gap because now when they give friendly advice, most people accept the advice and move on, so why do you need move-on powers? But the point is, if everyone was as reasonable as Mr Siew, there would be no problem. The one thing that we all know in society is that there would always be a group which would engage in what I described as farcical antics, and would deliberately go out there and engage in a degree of lawbreaking, and we want to cover that situation as well.He also suggested, why not have a register where all instances of move-on powers exercised, will be listed. The answer is, we are really trying to keep the move-on powers in a very low-key way; we do not want to make it an offence, we do not want to even keep a register of people who have been subjected to these move-on powers. It is something that is exercised on-the-spot and we move on from it.Sir, I think I have covered all the points or the points that I can recall. I know that Prof. Thio has made a number of drafting suggestions, and what I would say is that we take her suggestions seriously. We have gone through this Bill very carefully. We will look at the points that she made. If anything needs to be done further later on, we will always consider it. We may even check with her as to what some of the points were.[...]Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I have four clarifications for the Minister.My first clarification, Sir, is that he mentioned my point about the right to freedom of assembly having been emasculated. I just want to clarify that, in my view, it has been emasculated even under the current system. So I take his point that there is no difference between the MOA regime and the new POA regime, and that is why it continues to be emasculated.Sir, my second point. The Minister has referred to a group of persons who insist in engaging what the Minister has described as farcical activities, and he has taken that as a reason to explain why move-on powers are required. Sir, my question is: how will move-on powers actually change their behaviour. Let us just think through the scenarios. If this group of persons are engaged deliberately in civil disobedience - by definition, "civil disobedience" means deliberate flouting and contravention of laws, committing an offence that they disagree with - then they are already breaking the law and are committing an offence. And it is perfectly open for the Police to issue a warning to them to cease and desist, failing which they will be arrested and charged for the offence. If they are not committing an offence, then what is the harm in allowing them to continue to do what they do? The introduction of the move-on powers instead creates an offence. If they are doing something which does not constitute an offence right now and yet they are issued with a move-on order, and then they do not move on, then they would have committed an offence. So, Sir, the loophole is not in the enforcement powers of the Police, the loophole is in the substantive offences that are out there. So I would just like the Minister to clarify that point when he says that there is a loophole in the enforcement powers, when I think it is really a loophole in the substantive offences.Sir, my third clarification. In my speech, I did propose that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee given that it has only been three weeks since it was first published and first made available to the public until the second reading today. So I hope the Minister can respond to that.My last point, Sir, is that the Minister has stated that films that are seized can be destroyed only by order of the Commissioner. I think he said that twice in his response. From my reading of section 38, that position is correct only insofar as the films were seized in the first place under section 38(3). However, Sir, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to section 38(2)(a), and if I may just read it out, Sir, an officer may "direct the person reasonably believed to be making, exhibiting or communicating a film or picture, or about to do so, to immediately cease making, exhibiting or communicating the film, and either to immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy the film or picture, or to surrender the film or picture to the officer". In short, Sir, what section 38(2)(a) says is that an officer has the power at the immediate point to compel a person to destroy the film. And in that scenario, how would we know what the film was, and on what basis can aggrieved person make a complaint?Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, whether it continues to be emasculated or being newly emasculated, I hope Mr Siew will be generous enough to accept that I made the point that since 2000, there have been a series of changes that have substantially liberalised the political space. He also fails to acknowledge the impact of the Speakers' Corner and how useful it has been for those with a genuine cause. The real difference between Mr Siew and ourselves is that, really, as a matter of philosophy, people should be allowed to demonstrate whenever they like, without permits, because that is a fundamental right, and that is a fundamental freedom. I think even those who have expressed some concern about this provision will sound very extreme, and they have said so. For example, Prof. Thio acknowledged that you cannot have these rights in vacuo, without concomitant responsibilities. That is a fairly basic point that most lawyers will appreciate.Second point - Mr Siew asked what is the problem if four persons or fewer come together and carry out activities, which are not illegal per se. I gave a specific example in my responses to the MPs, which is during the ASEAN Summit in 2007, we had this farcical group - groups of four - who played catch-and-mouse game with the Police while the Police were engaged in very high security operation of protecting and making sure the Summit was successful. As Singaporeans, do we really want to face up to this? Or do we want to give the Police the power to ask these people to move on? It is as simple as that. We have to live in a real world with people who do those things.Mr Siew asked if the Bill is going to be sent to a Select Committee - I think if the answer was not clear to him - it is not going to be sent to the Select Committee. We do not see a need to.Finally, as regards his point on section 38, the answer I was giving was to the question as to what happened if the film was taken by the Police and there it could be deleted only on the order of the Commissioner. Mr Siew is referring to a situation where the Police is not on the ground to direct the deletion. Sir, I explained the dilemma that we had. These are sometimes fast-moving operations, and the police officers have to make decisions on-the-spot because a film that is taken of an operation that is on-going, if left alone without being seized, could very easily go throughout the world within a matter of minutes. So, it is always this balance that we have to worry about. And when looking at this legislation - people like Mr Siew look at all the extreme possibilities where there could be abuse by the Police - we also have to look at all the other situations where there could be abuse by the individual, and then we have to draw a line somewhere. This is where we have drawn the line. I hope Members can appreciate that these are all difficult situations, and we have to protect both the society and the Police and not look at every Police action as possibly being illegal.Mr Siew Kum Hong: May I make two points? My first point, Sir, is with the Minister's explanation on the powers under section 38(2)(a). He mentioned that is to address a difficult decision the officer has to make on the ground. Will the Minister not agree then that in every scenario, a smart officer - and I hope all our officers are smart - will then demand that a picture be deleted, instead of seizing it and then submitting it for the Commissioner to decide what to do. Because if he orders for the film to be deleted on the spot, then he does not have to run the risk of being second-guessed subsequently or being found out to have made a wrongful order. That is my first question for the Minister.My second point, Sir, is with reference to the Minister's response to my first clarification where he says I take an extreme view. I think if the Minister reviews my speech, he will find that I do not think I took an extreme view, in fact, it is a nuanced view. If I may just reiterate, it is not an absolute right to demonstrate anywhere at any time, as Singaporeans please. I advocate a position where Singaporeans have the right to demonstrate but they have to notify the Police and there are certain prohibited classes of processions/assemblies which should not be permitted. If there are any public safety or law and order concerns, then the Police can ask for changes to be made. That is a position which I do not think is extreme at all.Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, I think there is a fundamental disagreement. Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They will be smart and they will direct deletion because they do not want a record of what they have just done. I come from the opposite perspective. We come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest. It does not mean that no abuses ever take place, but they are fundamentally honest and I do not believe that each time an officer will direct the deletion on- the-spot to prevent a record from existing, And, do not forget, the Act sets out the criteria on which these directions can be given - an officer has to justify why did he direct the deletion on-the-spot as opposed to preserving the evidence.Second, as regards Mr Siew's point about whether he is being extreme, I think the fact is that he comes from the philosophy that there must be a right to demonstrate and a right to assemble wherever one likes, subject to some restrictions. And he is fundamentally opposed to an imposition of a permit regime where if you want to do so outside of the prescribed areas, you have to apply for a permit. That is where we differ philosophically , and I am not sure I can take the debate much further. Running to stand still So it's almost 2 months to the day since my last post. Someone pointed out that I might expect more visitors to this blog today (thanks to this article in TODAY and an interview in ST which I don't currently have a link to), so I thought I should post something.Since my last post, I've been busy -- first getting married ("finally!" some would say) and then swamped at work. But the super-busy period looks to have abated somewhat, so I hope to spend more time on NMP work.I know I have a real backlog for this blog, covering my speeches from this year's Budget debates, my speech last month on the Films Act amendments, and some stuff from last year. I will endeavour to start reducing that next week -- after the upcoming Parliamentary sitting next Monday, when I will speak on the Public Order Bill. More thoughts on Jobs Credit scheme After listening to Minister Tharman's round-up speech on the Budget Statement, here are my final thoughts on the Jobs Credit scheme:It is clear to me, from the Minister's speech, that the direct intended outcome of JCS is essentially to give money to businesses, for them to spend as they desire. It is, as I said in my speech, a handout for businesses. If we accept that our reserves are so precious, then there is a valid question as to whether it is right to just give them out to businesses like that. Also, many, like I, would question the fairness of giving handouts for businesses, but not Singaporeans.The Minister cited some examples of how the funds could be used, ranging from keeping workers to paying suppliers on time. But other possible uses include dividends for shareholders, bigger bonuses for CEOs, spending on incentive trips and remitting back to foreign headquarters for MNCs. In other words, saving jobs is only one possible use, and there is no direct correlation between JCS and saving jobs. I think this is quite different from how JCS was first portrayed when it was announced, and that mis-portrayal was one of the key reasons for my decision to focus on JCS.The consequences of JCS include a stimulation in demand (as is implicit in the Minister's references to the multiplier effect from JCS), and retention of jobs through keeping businesses afloat. But the Government has repeatedly pointed out that demand stimulation in Singapore is of limited utility, due to the high leakage in our open economy. So I would not place so much weight on that as a benefit of JCS. As for retention of jobs through keeping businesses afloat, that is a very indirect outcome that is subject to many dependencies, including sufficient demand as I mentioned in my speech.The Minister and many MPs have cited anecdotal evidence of businesses saying that JCS would affect their retrenchment decisions. I may be cynical, but I would take those statements of support with a big pinch of salt. If Santa Claus asks a kid who has just received a great big present for Christmas whether he was happy, would the kid say no? Especially when there is the prospect of another such present next year? In fact, I have received a lot of support from folks in the private sector agreeing with my speech privately. One even described the reasoning in my speech as being exactly identical to how his management team thinks through such issues.Finally, it has been suggested that JCS will make businesses more ready to retrench foreigners as opposed to locals. This may not be quite right. The employers' CPF contribution rate for most locals (excluding older locals, etc.) is 14.5%. JCS equates to a 9% point reduction in that rate. So local employees are still 5.5% more expensive than foreign employees. An employer who is minded to think this way, of axing the cheapest employees, will still look to retrench locals first, since they are still more expensive even with JCS. The exception would be older workers, since the employers' contribution rate is lower. With JCS, the Government would actually be subsidising the business for employing these older workers.These reasons are why, even though I thought Minister Tharman delivered a really solid speech, I remain unconvinced about the merits of JCS. But like I said, I hope I am wrong. This just in: do welfare benefits really erode the work ethic? Someone just sent this to me -- it is an Economist article titled "British attitudes to work: Can't or won't?" Very interesting, very timely, I only wish I had it 30 hours ago. This is how it starts:THAT mythical beast, homo economicus, is utterly clear about the purpose of work: to get paid. He is keener on leisure than on work, and if money can be got without effort, he downs tools. If real people feel the same, then bountiful out-of-work benefits should be found in the same places as work-shy citizens.Yet a cross-country comparison of benefits and attitudes to work published on January 28th finds precisely the opposite pattern. Video: Speech on Budget Statement 2009, 3 February 2009 The TOC folks seem to have beaten me to it -- here is the video of my speech in 3 parts. The exchanges with PAP MPs are in Part 3. Thanks watchtowerv!Part 1Part 2Part 3 Budget 2009: Speech on Budget Statement, 3 February 2009 This is the final prepared text of my speech on this year's Budget. The version that I actually delivered may have some minor changes, but this is fairly definitive.Right now, it looks like this speech may be under some sort of media blackout. The only media coverage I've seen is limited to the points I made about the use of the reserves, and the desirability of having the President publish details of his deliberations in approving the use of the reserves.To me, those were self-evident and entirely uncontroversial. I think the points I make about the Jobs Credit scheme are much more interesting and newsworthy. Yet, I have dim hopes of them being covered by the MSM with fairness or in detail.After I completed my speech, four PAP MPs stood up to question me. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it was really quite intimidating and unnerving. I really had to think on my feet. I hope I acquitted myself well.When Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke earlier in the day, he had six PAP MPs stand up to question him, and that is being covered in the MSM, including the CNA website and on TV. Curiously, the CNA and TV coverage absolutely omits any mention of my exchanges with the PAP MPs. ST does have a short reference to my disagreement with the Jobs Credit scheme, but with very little detail. It also looks a little odd, that they used my photo to lead the story but there is only a one-line reference to my speech. I'll wait and see what is published tomorrow. [update 1: I thought the coverage in ST and TODAY turned out to be, on the whole, quite fair]I'll try to get my exchanges with the PAP MPs transcribed. In the meantime, I'm trying to get the video uploaded -- Youtube has rejected the entire speech (plus questions) because the single clip is too long. [update 2: the video is now available here]Budget 20091. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the Budget Statement. I will touch on three aspects of this Budget: the use of the reserves, the Jobs Credit scheme, and the amount of help for the retrenched and unemployed.Using the reserves2. First, the unprecedented use of our reserves, to fund the Jobs Credit scheme and the Special Risk-sharing Initiative. I applaud the Government for taking this step.3. Our reserves have always almost bordered on the mythical: Singaporeans speak of them proudly and reverently, but we know so little about these fabled reserves. Using them now sends the right signal about just how dire the situation is. It assures Singaporeans that the reserves are not sacrosanct, that they are not being accumulated for the sake of accumulating them, and that they will be used when it is necessary to do so. If the worst economic crisis the world has seen in six decades does not merit the use of the reserves, then nothing ever will.4. But I have some concerns about the process in which the use of the reserves is being approved. We have always been told that the reserves are a hard-earned strategic asset of Singapore, and that the Elected Presidency is necessary to safeguard them. And yet, there has been precious little information about the deliberations of the President or of the Council of Presidential Advisers, in giving in-principle approval to use the reserves.5. The Government should ask the President and the Council to publish detailed reasons for their decisions. This is the first time we are using the reserves. It is therefore a golden opportunity to define the principles for doing so. The Elected Presidency is all about the process for using the reserves – so it is important to ensure that the process in this instance is transparent and clearly articulated.6. The Government has stated some principles for using the reserves, but principles articulated by the Government do not -- and more importantly, should not -- bind the President. After all, the President is supposed to be the independent check on the Government in its use of the reserves. The President is the guardian of the so-called second key to the reserves. It would therefore be helpful for the President, and the Council of Presidential Advisers, to publicly explain to Singaporeans why they approved the use of the reserves, and what principles they intend to adopt moving forward. Doing so would buttress the institution of the Elected Presidency.7. These principles and guidelines do not have to be legally binding or even binding on subsequent requests to use the reserves. But they would certainly provide helpful guidance if we ever want to use the reserves again. Now is the time to set a sound foundation for the future.8. This is all the more important, given that this Government has actually accumulated sufficient reserves during its term to fund the Jobs Credit and SRI schemes. The Government should therefore ask the President to explain whether and why he is satisfied with the Government’s reasons for not using its accumulated reserves.Jobs Credit scheme9. I now turn to the Jobs Credit scheme. It is one of the lynchpins of the Budget, and it seems to have caught the imagination of Singaporeans. Call it what you will, but it is fundamentally a wage subsidy for employers. It equates to a 9 percentage point cut in the employers’ CPF contribution rate. It will cost taxpayers S$4.5 billion dollars, and will be funded by our reserves.10. The objective of this scheme is to save jobs. But how effective will it be?11. Clearly, the effectiveness of the scheme for each employer will depend on the proportion of its costs attributable to wages. If wages form just 10% of an employer’s overall costs, then the Jobs Credit scheme will reduce its total costs by up to 0.8%. On the other hand, if 70% of costs are wages, then the scheme will reduce total costs by a maximum of 5.5%. These are theoretical maximums, based on improbable assumptions of 100% local employees, all earning $2500 per month or less.12. The Minister has explained that the global economic crisis is caused by a worldwide collapse in demand. Simply put, there is massively reduced demand for the goods and services produced by our economy.13. Last week, the EDB released a report on the manufacturing sector’s business expectations for the next six months. This report paints a shocking picture of just how dire things are expected to get. An across-the-board negative outlook for the first half of 2009 for manufacturing, with similarly negative forecasts for output and employment for Q1. For instance, 92% of data storage firms and 81% of precision engineering firms predict a drop in output.14. When demand falls off a cliff like this, many businesses will face a drop in revenue far exceeding 8%. Businesses will have no choice but to cut costs to stay afloat.15. In this context, I suspect that the Jobs Credit scheme will turn out to just a band-aid. Yes, it will provide a temporary cushion for businesses, especially SMEs. Yes, it will make employers a little bit more reluctant to lay off locals. Yes, whatever protection it creates will probably benefit the low-income more than the high-income. But it will still only be a band-aid at best, in stopping job losses.16. And what a very expensive band-aid it will be. Citigroup’s head of Singapore research Dr Chua Hak Bin has pointed out that if the Jobs Credit scheme helps to save 50,000 jobs, then the cost of saving each job is $90,000 – three times the median annual salary of each job in Singapore. Even if it helps to save 100,000 jobs, the cost of saving each job is $45,000 – still 50% more than the median annual salary.17. And contract workers, who are probably most at risk when a business cuts staffing costs, may not benefit from the Jobs Credit scheme. Contractors are usually hired by employment agencies and farmed out to companies. The agencies will receive the subsidy. They have no incentive to pass it on to the companies. Unlike with property tax rebates, the Government has not exhorted these agencies to pass the savings on to their customers. And so, the scheme could make contractors, who form a growing proportion of the workforce, even more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.18. I agree with people like NUS professor Shandre Thangavelu, who has said that the Jobs Credit scheme will only have a short-run impact on the retrenchment behaviour of employers. Even the MOF team who designed the scheme is unable to predict just how many jobs it will help to save, and for how long. Mr Poon Hong Yuen, who led the team that put the scheme together, said:“If just because of this they rethink (retrenchments), then I think it’s already quite an achievement.”19. I would praise the Ministry for its willingness to take a chance on the Jobs Credit scheme. I think this sort of policy risk-taking is important and helpful. But I don’t think the risk will pan out in this case. And I think Mr Poon sets a surprisingly modest target. At $4.5 billion, I would expect more.20. The Jobs Credit scheme will end up benefiting capital owners disproportionately. It will reduce business costs, but I do not expect it to save very many jobs, and even then not for very long. It is essentially a special transfer to capital owners, such as business-owners and entrepreneurs. And considering that around 50% of the Singapore corporate sector is foreign-owned, a big chunk of this transfer will leak out of Singapore.21. Today’s Straits Times Forum carried a letter from someone who works in an SME, praising the Jobs Credit scheme. But if you drill into the details, it is clear that the business was not considering retrenchments in the first place. Instead, it is considering using the Jobs Credit funding to invest further in its business. In these times, that is not a bad thing. But it clearly shows up the limitations in the scheme’s ability to achieve its stated goal of saving jobs.22. The Jobs Credit scheme will have, at best, a marginal impact on businesses’ decisions on whether to retrench. Businesses facing collapsed demand will still retrench. Businesses doing well will reap a windfall benefit. MNCs will still, by and large, follow their corporate headquarters’ directions on retrenchments.23. True, the Jobs Credit scheme is not meant to be the complete answer. It is not a panacea. It is one piece of the puzzle, albeit a big centrepiece, and there are many other measures to reduce business costs and help businesses through this difficult period. But the question must be whether spending $4.5 billion on the Jobs Credit scheme produces the most bang for the buck for Singaporeans.24. This is a hand-out for businesses. But we have always opposed hand-outs for Singaporeans. Why are businesses different? In giving all this money away to businesses, are we somehow being psychologically held hostage to the ideological dogma that the best way to help Singaporeans is to help businesses, instead of helping Singaporeans directly?Lack of help for the retrenched and unemployed26. That brings me to my third point. This Budget does little for the retrenched and the unemployed.27. The various elements that made up the GST offset package first announced in 2007 have been enhanced. The amount of GST credits for each household has been doubled, and there are additional S&CC and rental rebates.28. But let us be honest with ourselves. These are mostly enhancements of measures previously announced to alleviate the pain from the GST hike in 2007. But the coming storm will inflict much more pain and much more suffering than the GST hike of two percentage points did. To equate the two is to severely understate the impact on Singaporeans in the coming year. They are simply incomparable. It is inconceivable to me, that the exact same tools used to soften the impact of the GST hike could be enough to address the worst recession the world has seen in 60 years.29. In the past few weeks, various ministers have spoken about the need to save jobs. Rightly so. Saving jobs has to be the #1 priority. I may disagree on the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit scheme in achieving this goal, but I do not argue with the goal itself. And I would argue that helping those who have lost their jobs deserves to be the #2 priority.30. Prevention is better than cure, so the saying goes. “Better than”, not “instead of”. When prevention fails, we still need a cure. Saving jobs is only one side of the coin; the other side of the coin must surely be to help those whose jobs were not saved. This Budget seems to have produced the singular oddity of a one-sided coin, where we concentrate so much of our efforts on saving jobs, but do so little to help those who do lose their jobs.31. It is almost as if the retrenched are being dealt a double-whammy: the first hit is the loss of their jobs, and the second hit is the lack of assistance for them.32. To be fair, SPUR have something for the unemployed. An unemployed, low skilled Singaporean who attends training courses to learn new skills can get an allowance of $4 per hour. A PMET who undergoes a PCP – a professional conversion programme -- can get an allowance of up to $1000 per month.33. But SPUR is not without problems in implementation. It adopts the co-payment requirement of so many government measures. This strict insistence on a 10% co-payment of course fees means that trainees must still fork up an upfront fee. This can be difficult for many, since they by definition have no source of income. We should provide trainees with interest-free loans for the co-paid amount, with repayments in instalments and possibly interest-bearing after the trainee finds a job, which can be monitored through the CPF system.34. Also, the PCPs will be unattractive to most retrenched PMETs. Some retrenched PMETs will have skills that are obsolete, and PCPs will be appropriate for them. But the majority of retrenched PMETs will have skills that are not obsolete; they are retrenched not because they are in sunset industries, but because their companies needed to cut costs.35. Their skills will be in demand when the economy picks up again. They do not need and they do not want retraining for a new profession, because they will in all likelihood continue doing the same thing once the economy recovers. And in most cases, that is the rational choice, if only because retraining for a new profession means starting all over again at entry-level pay, wasting their accumulated experience in their existing profession.36. For these retrenched PMETs, SPUR does not provide meaningful assistance. For these retrenched PMETs, the Budget has little else. For these retrenched PMETs, there is little help forthcoming.Suggestions38. I spoke about the Government’s approach to helping Singaporeans in my Budget speech last year. I spoke about my disappointment at how we put so much more emphasis on GDP growth than on helping less fortunate Singaporeans. I criticized this Government’s approach to social assistance, of being willing to let Singaporeans suffer rather than risk any wastage of public funds in helping them.39. This year’s Budget again does not risk any wastage of public funds in helping Singaporeans. But it does risk wasting public funds in helping businesses. Even in these tough times, we do not give away money with no strings attached to individual Singaporeans. But it seems that these tough times justify giving away money with no strings attached to businesses, regardless of whether they are prospering or despairing.40. Last year, I was criticized for being reckless and dangerous. At the risk of being called the same or worse this year, I will have to press on. I continue to believe that it is possible to craft targeted social assistance schemes to help the unemployed, that minimize the risk of eroding the work ethic. I have a few suggestions, and I hope I can articulate them clearly enough.41. I ask the Government to introduce some form of unemployment insurance. In 2007, we introduced social risk-pooling for longevity risk, which is the risk of living longer than we expect or can afford to. Why not social risk-pooling for retrenchment? Not unemployment as such, but targeted for retrenchment with low benefits. This can be restricted so that only workers who are retrenched with payouts below a certain stipulated amount, say the lower of three months of the last-drawn salary or a stipulated quantum, get a few hundred dollars for so long as they remain unemployed up to six months, provided they seek re-employment during this period. This is targeted and limited. This will not sustain long-term unemployment, but is intended to tide over those who have been retrenched while they find another job. The pay-out will be small, but the assurance to those retrenched could mean so much.42. And if the Government will not introduce unemployment insurance on a permanent basis, then I ask it to consider unemployment benefits for the retrenched, just for this year. It can be limited to workers who were retrenched since last November or who are retrenched this year. The amount can be limited to the lower of half of the last drawn salary or $1000 per month, capped at 6 months of payments. Just like the Jobs Credit scheme, it is a one-off scheme in light of the worst recession in 60 years.43. But I know that realistically, both of these options will not be acceptable to this Government. And so I ask the Government to introduce a temporary assistance loan scheme, loosely modeled after the UK’s social fund. It should be made available to unemployed Singaporeans including the recently retrenched, to provide small loans for certain approved purposes. We can call this the No Jobs Credit scheme.44. Examples of approved purposes could include medical expenses that are not covered by insurance, Medishield or Medifund for whatever reason, and expenses not covered by Comcare for whatever reason. To avoid abuse or misuse, the loan amounts could be disbursed directly to the persons charging for these bills and expenses. The loans should be interest-free and payable in small instalments once the borrower starts working again, perhaps by deductions from salaries through the CPF framework. Such a scheme would reduce the incidence of folks in desperate need for cash going to loan sharks or maxing out their credit cards, which would result in a downward spiral of crippling interest at a time when they could least afford it.45. I also ask the Government to introduce more special transfers to the low-income. The doubling of GST Credits and the additional SC&C and rental rebates are helpful, but they are small in size. Inflation hit 6.5% last year, and even in this recessionary environment, there will be a time lag before prices go down. More special transfers in the first half of this year will help the low-income cope, until such time as disinflation kicks in. This will also provide a helpful fiscal boost, given that the MAS’s own Monetary Model of Singapore shows that direct transfers to the low-income has a high fiscal multiplier for the Singapore economy.46. Sir, I do not see these suggestions as reckless or dangerous. I do not think they will necessarily result in a bloated bureaucracy. And even if they require some more resources on the part of the Government for implementation, that should not, in and of itself, automatically rule out policies that could benefit Singaporeans. Maintaining a lean government is a means to an end, and cannot be the end itself.47. I know that there is Comcare, and it plays an important role in helping needy Singaporeans. Today’s edition of the TODAY newspaper carried a useful reminder of that scheme. But it is an ad hoc scheme that is highly discretionary, and only intended for 3 to 6 months of assistance. That timeframe may be too short for retrenched workers in this recession. The discretionary element does not give workers the all-important assurance and security that a formalized scheme provides. These times are already so uncertain, why add to the stress of retrenched workers by making assistance uncertain as well?48. I think we can, and we must, do more and do better for Singaporeans who lose their jobs. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated for his second term as US President in 1937, he said in his inaugural address:“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”49. This year, there will be many amongst us who will have too little. Economists have forecast anything between 30,000 and 300,000 jobs lost over the next 1 to 2 years. But this Budget does little to provide for them. What then is the extent of our progress? Singaporeans will have to judge for themselves. Speech at media launch of U60 festival, 2 December 2008 The U60 Organising Committee kindly invited me to be the Guest of Honour at the media launch of the U60 festival, which celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was coverage in The Straits Times today, and also on The Online Citizen. In fact, TOC filmed the event, so they may be putting up videos of the event soon.The prepared text of my speech is below.Speech at media launch of U60 festival1. Your Excellency, Holger Standerstskjold, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Singapore, distinguished guests, good afternoon. Thank you for taking time out from your busy schedules to attend this event.2. I would like to start by congratulating the U60 Organising Committee, their Organising Partners MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) and The Online Citizen, and the various participating organizations, including the European Commission, for successfully putting together this festival of events to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would also like to thank the U60 Organising Committee, for inviting me, as a Nominated Member of Parliament, to be the guest of honour at this event.3. The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. It resulted from the horrors of World War 2, and was the first international instrument to spell out the rights to which all human beings are entitled, simply by virtue of being human beings.4. As the name suggests, the rights are universal in nature, cutting across all national, racial and ethnic lines. Countries from both East and West, including Burma, China, India, the Philippines and Thailand, voted to adopt the Universal Declaration. That in itself should have been sufficient to dispose of the smokescreen that was the “Asian Values” argument in the 1990s. Thankfully, this argument has long since been laid to rest.5. But while human rights are universal, they have relevance in different ways to different contexts. Singapore is often criticized for alleged deficiencies in the protection of civil liberties. I happen to think that some of those criticisms have force. But I also believe that these criticisms are often unfair and one-sided, especially when they fail to note the tremendous progress that has been made in this country in the 43 years since independence. This success is real, and we cannot deny it. We see it, we experience it and we benefit from it every day, and it would be wrong to emphasise the negatives while ignoring the positives.6. Still, the overall thrust of these criticisms is that we are not yet where we should be in the area of human rights, and that is something that I think many, if not most, Singaporeans would agree with. We may be moving in the right direction, but the pace could definitely be faster.7. Some Singaporeans ask, why are human rights important to us? After all, we have done well so far, in a system where our human rights are given far less shrift than our responsibilities as citizens. Public discourse in Singapore frequently emphasizes our obligations and responsibilities, but seldom mentions our rights, whether as citizens, residents or just human beings. This does Singaporeans a disservice, and overlooks the roots of our existence.8. Let us go back to the start of the story of Singapore as a modern, independent nation, in the 1950s when we were struggling for our independence. What was the basis of our claims to independence? Simply put, it was the notion that people have the right to self-determination. This right is embodied in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 1 of both Covenants read:“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”9. So the very birth of our nation is rooted in human rights. If not for human rights, we could still be an English colony. This nation might not even exist. Do we still need to question the need for human rights in Singapore, or the relevance of human rights to Singapore?10. And in these times of economic trouble, human rights remain just as important. Human rights are not luxuries reserved for times of prosperity; they are equally relevant and necessary in tough times. Workers need to be protected from exploitation by employers, while civil liberties ensure that all stakeholders’ interests are represented. As my Parliamentary colleague Professor Thio Li-Ann said a few months back:“Where the Singapore model of law development is concerned … the idea is that economics must come first; no point having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I would disagree because if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry. I would also like to say that the economic policy is bad.”11. Human rights are not a panacea to all problems, and they will not in and of themselves ensure a better tomorrow for us all. But they are an important and necessary ingredient in the evolution of Singapore, in our progress towards becoming, to quote Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech last year, “a City of Possibilities and a home for all of us”, where everyone belongs and is valued, and more importantly feel that they belong and are valued. If we want to be a place where creativity and innovation fluorish, where diversity is valued, then we have to do a better job of understanding, acknowledging and respecting human rights.12. I know this is a cliché, but there is so much fear in Singapore when it comes to human rights. When many Singaporeans hear about human rights, there is a knee-jerk reaction grounded in fear and apprehension. It is as if human rights are by definition controversial, provocative and subversive. I cannot explain why, but I can say with certainty that this attitude exists, and pervades our society.13. That is a real pity. This state of affairs retards, perhaps even prevents, the continued development of human rights in Singapore, when it does not have to be so. It is entirely unnecessary. I firmly believe that in Singapore, so long as one acts honestly and sincerely, and there is no transgression of the law, there is nothing to be afraid of.14. Moreover, institutions in Singapore have a responsibility to be more open and receptive to the cause of human rights. It is a form of corporate social responsibility, if you will. Institutions in positions of power and authority have a moral duty to allow individuals to realize and actualize the full extent of their rights, or at least not stand in their way as they seek to do so. It would not be right to block the exercise of rights, or efforts to advance human rights, simply out of a fear of shadows.15. And so I come to this group of young people in the U60 Organising Committee. They set an excellent example that we can all learn from. They understand the importance of human rights for Singapore, but more importantly they are sensitive to the existing landscape here and the need to navigate it carefully and creatively. And so, they have embarked on this effort to help Singaporeans understand better the relevance of human rights to them, to “mainstream” human rights if you will.16. The activities under the U60 umbrella are varied and innovative. We have the exhibition here, which seeks to present a basic introduction to human rights with a particular focus on Singapore. There are forums, talks, and a short film showcase. There is a walk to raise awareness on violence against women, and even story-telling sessions. It is truly a party to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.17. I am proud to be associated with U60. Again, I congratulate the U60 team and the various organizations involved for their fine efforts. They show, very clearly, that the topic of human rights does not have to be controversial, provocative or taboo in Singapore, and that human rights are not only about civil liberties and are not the domain of activists only. Instead, human rights are relevant to everyday life, to you and me, to all of us. Human rights are universal. 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration, this is a timely reminder.18. I wish everyone a fruitful U60 festival. Thank you, Your Excellency, Holger Standerstskjold, esteemed speakers, ladies and gentlemen.