Speech on "Parliamentary Elections": 27 August 2008 As most or all of you would know, Prof Thio Li-Ann and Dr Loo Choon Yong filed a motion to ask Parliament to call on the Government to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act, to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. This was a Member's motion, not an adjournment motion. I will explain the difference in greater detail, as well as talk about what happened in Parliament today, in a later post.But for now, the videos of my speech are below (courtesy of TOC), with the prepared text of my speech which I have updated to reflect the actual delivered speech as closely as possible (although I know I made some other changes on the fly which are not reflected here) below them. Also, the results of the TOC street poll can be found here.Part 1:Part 2:Speech on the motion on by-elections filed by Nominated Member Prof Thio Li-Ann and seconded by Dr Loo Choon Yong1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the motion.2. This motion was filed by Professor Thio and Dr. Loo, in the wake of the passing away of Dr. Ong Chit Chung, an elected Member for Jurong GRC. The Government has indicated that it will not be calling for a by-election in Jurong GRC. Instead, the other elected Members in the GRC will take turns to cover the duties of Dr. Ong. This was the same approach taken in 1993, when Dr. Tay Eng Soon, then an elected Member for Eunos GRC, passed away, and in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Khiang of Jalan Besar GRC resigned.3. The motion has three parts. Firstly, it calls upon this House to affirm the importance of representative democracy. Secondly, it proposes a fine-tuning of the electoral system, to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. Finally, it calls for all by-elections to be called within 3 months of the date of vacancy, unless general elections are imminent.Representative democracy4. Sir, the first part of the motion on the importance of representative democracy must surely be beyond doubt and beyond debate. We are a parliamentary democracy, and the elected Members of this House represent the people. The people have voted the Government into power, and that is where the Government draws its legitimacy from. Without representative democracy, the Government would have zero legitimacy, and that is the source of the Government’s right to rule.5. I cannot imagine any Member disputing or disagreeing with the importance of representative democracy, and I cannot imagine any Member not agreeing with this first part of the motion. Indeed, any elected Member who is reluctant to affirm the importance of representative democracy should consider whether he or she should continue as a Member of this House.Time-frame for calling a by-election6. I will now touch briefly on the third part of the motion. As I cannot do better than the learned Professor Thio here, I will simply say that I fully endorse her speech on this aspect.7. The Nominated member has described to this House the different approaches of a number of countries. With such a divergence of practice, the proposed 3-month timeframe seems to me eminently reasonable, especially when the motion also envisages the need for an exception where general elections are imminent. So I also support this third part of the motion.8. Mr Hri Kumar points to the UK, and says that the 3-month timeline cited by Professor Thio is only a convention. Well, as Mr Hri Kumar no doubt knows, the UK does not have a codified, written Constitution, and Westminster conventions are regarded as being as good as law.When a by-election should be called9. I now move on to the second part of the motion, which in my view represents the meat of the motion. This second part asks this House to call on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system, by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act requiring a by-election in certain stipulated circumstances. These circumstances are where a Member of a GRC belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; where half or more of the elected Members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or where the elected Members for a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason.10. Sir, my own view is a little different. I firmly believe that a by-election should be called whenever there is any vacancy in a GRC, not just when the vacancy is left by the minority Member, or when half or more of the elected Members vacate their seats. I would therefore argue that a by-election should be called in Jurong GRC, as a result of the vacancy caused by the passing away of Dr. Ong Chit Chung.11. It does seem from the previous speakers’ speeches, that I may be alone in this House in this regard. And I also recognize that this specific point, of whether there should be a by-election where there is a single vacancy in a GRC, has been debated in the past. Nevertheless, I ask for the indulgence of this House, while I spend a few minutes on what I call the “3 Ps” – Principle, Practicality, and the People.The first P: Principle12. Sir, the starting point must surely be the principle of representative democracy, as recognized in the first part of the motion. This principle is the first P. I think Mr Hri Kumar said that there is no universal definition for this. But I disagree. I see this very simply.13. In Singapore, the people elect their representatives to Parliament. Where the seat in a single member constituency is vacated for any reason, the people cease to be represented. To avoid this situation, a by-election should be called.14. The logic is simple and clear for single member constituencies, and I think there should be no dispute or disagreement insofar as the motion calls for a writ for by-election to be issued in the event of a vacancy in a single member constituency for any reason.15. The situation is muddied somewhat by the GRC scheme, because there would remain other elected Members for that GRC. And that is the nub of the issue here.16. As I have said, elected Members have the legitimacy of the people’s endorsement, of representing the will of the people. The mandate from the people is fundamental to a functioning democracy.17. So when the electors in a GRC elect a team of candidates, what is the mandate being given? Well, in the 2006 general elections, I was a voter in Ang Mo Kio GRC, voting for a team of candidates. And to me, the mandate was to the team as a whole.18. I think the mandate is for the team of candidates, as elected by the voters, to represent the GRC in Parliament. And if the composition of the team changes for any reason, then it by definition becomes a different team. It ceases to be the team elected by the voters. In that situation, surely a fresh mandate from the voters is necessary.19. Jurong GRC was uncontested in the 2006 general elections, and so the team there entered Parliament by way of a walk-over. But this does not change the fact that the team today is different from the team that was nominated, and that entered Parliament, in 2006.20. So on principle, I would say that a by-election is required in Jurong GRC.The second P: Practicality21. I think that the principle of representative democracy should by itself settle the issue. But some have cited reasons based on practicality, in arguing against having a by-election. In the first place, I do not think that practical considerations should ever be allowed to trump a principle that is so fundamental to the concept of democracy. But even if we are to accept that this second P of practicality is relevant to the discussion, to my mind, it also points in favour of a by-election.22. The first reason that some may cite to justify not calling for a by-election, is that the law does not require it. Well, Professor Thio has spoken on what the law is, and she has done so far more ably than I ever could.23. But I do not believe that this House should feel bound by what the law today says. This House makes law for Singapore. It would be odd – no, it would be nothing less than sheer abdication of Constitutional responsibility -- for this House to say that it is bound by existing law and to stop there, instead of considering what the law should say, and then changing the law to say that.24. The law should reflect correct principle, and we should not distort principle to accommodate existing law or contort our thinking to justify incorrect law. If the law is unclear or just plain wrong, then this House is duty-bound to clarify or correct it, instead of hiding behind such an unclear or wrongful law and perpetuating an undesirable state of affairs. So I would not place too much weight on the fact that the existing law does not require a by-election.25. Another reason that has been cited is that a by-election would distract Singaporeans from the pressing issues posed by a slowing economy and rising inflation. This was also the reason cited when Dr. Tay Eng Soon passed away in 1993.26. Sir, surely this argument cannot stand. It implies that voting and elections are luxuries, that they are really just so much fun and games to be left for good times, and inappropriate and unnecessary in bad times. It suggests that the right of voters to be represented by the team they have elected, is in reality a privilege and not an entitlement. It means that the principle of representative democracy is not fundamental to our society, and can be waived by the Government of the day when deemed inexpedient.27. I think that cannot be right. Either a by-election is necessary, or it is not. Either the people have a right to be represented by the team they have elected, and hence the right to select a fresh team if the elected team changes, or they do not. Either the principle of representative democracy is important, or it is not. The prevailing economic conditions should have no role to play in this, and certainly should not be allowed to trump these considerations.28. A third reason that is often cited is that the remaining Members in the GRC can cover the duties of the Member who has vacated his or her seat, and so voters are none the worse off.29. Sir, this argument belittles the contributions of elected Members. Exactly as Professor Thio has said, ever since my own appointment as a Nominated Member, I have come to appreciate the heavy duties and burdens of elected Members. I, as an unelected Member of this House, am utterly dismayed by the suggestion that it is perfectly all right for the remaining Members in a GRC to cover the duties of a Member who has vacated his or her seat, and that nobody should think twice about it. It trivializes and downplays the contributions of elected Members, in a way that I think is unfair and unjustified. Do the elected Members of this House really stand for this view? What are they saying about what they do? So I do not accept this argument either, and I urge my elected colleagues not to accept it either. I therefore echo the call of Dr. Loo for the Whip to be liefted, so that the elected Members can vote freely on this.30. Furthermore, as Professor Thio and Dr. Loo have said, how can Parliamentary duties be covered by other Members? Are those who rely on this argument, saying that all elected GRC Members in this House are interchangeable?31. Instead, I would argue that practicality demands a by-election, and certainly in Jurong GRC. Of the four remaining Members, two are full Cabinet ministers, one is a Senior Minister of State in two ministries, and the fourth is a veteran backbencher with numerous appointments. It is a question mark whether they can adequately discharge the duties in connection of the vacated seat. Even trying to do so, will impose a tremendous burden on them. Just as an example, do we really want to risk over-burdening the Minister of Finance in these trying economic times? Surely it would be more practical to call for a by-election, to ensure a full complement of elected Members in Jurong GRC.The third P: the People32. Sir, my third P refers to the people. Much has been said about the question of whether a by-election is required in Jurong GRC, whether in the press, on the Internet, and in this House today. But what do the people themselves think?33. Madam Halimah, who is from Jurong GRC, has talked about the MPs’ discussions with the grassroots leaders in Jurong GRC. But the grassroots leaders are not the people.34. The Singapore blogsite The Online Citizen decided to find out what the people thought, from them directly. It conducted a street poll last Saturday, to find out whether Singaporeans, and in particular residents of Jurong GRC, think there should be a by-election. I was one of the volunteers who helped conduct the poll, and as I understand it, the results were published a short while ago today.35. The question asked was a simple one:Dr. Ong Chit Chung passed away recently. Do you think that there should be a by-election in Jurong GRC?36. A total of 478 Singapore citizens were polled, of which 312 were residents of Jurong GRC and 166 were non-residents. Of these 478 respondents, 122 or 25.5% did not know. Of the remainder, 214 respondents, or 60.1% of respondents who had an opinion either way, felt that a by-election should be held in Jurong GRC. 142 respondents, or 39.9% of respondents who had an opinion, disagreed.37. So much for Singaporeans as a whole. What about Jurong GRC residents? Well, of the 312 residents polled, 85 or 27.2% did not know whether a by-election should be held. 129 residents, or 56.8% of residents who had an opinion, thought that a by-election should be held, while 98 residents, or 43.2% of residents who had an opinion, did not think so.38. This was a street poll. It was anonymous, it was random, and it does not purport to be statistically valid or representative of Singaporeans or any other group.39. But I think the results are nevertheless very interesting and very instructive. Putting aside all those respondents who did not have an opinion -- and here I must say it was a disturbingly high number -- the majority of Singaporeans, and the majority of Jurong GRC residents, felt that a by-election should be held. Even including those respondents who did not have an opinion, it is quite clear that more Singaporeans and more Jurong GRC residents wanted a by-election, than those who did not.40. Sir, we are here today to debate the nature of democracy in Singapore. Democracy is about the people, about how they have the power. And the people have spoken. They have spoken, their voice rings loud and clear, and they want a by-election.41. So on principle, on practicality and on the voice of the people, based on these 3 Ps, I believe that a by-election should be held for a GRC, whenever there is even a single vacancy, regardless of whether it is the minority Member or not.The motion42. Be that as it may, the issue of whether a by-election should be called when there is a single vacancy in a GRC has been debated before in this House, and I do not expect the Government to change its position today. The motion before this House also advocates a different position.43. Nevertheless, I support the motion. My position is more expansive than this motion, and so my position encompasses this motion. There is no inconsistency. Just as I believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC, I also believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC caused by the minority Member vacating his or her seat, and I also believe that there should be a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats. I see the motion as positive movement in the right direction, and so I am comfortable supporting it.44. To me, this motion is fundamentally about setting in place the right principles for calling by-elections when there are vacancies in a GRC, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Government of the day. The motion goes about this in a deliberate and measured manner. It calls for a by-election when it is the minority Member who vacates his or her seat. It also calls for a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats. Both are eminently reasonable.45. It is important to lay these foundations now, so that we do not scramble or leave things to discretion if and when the situations envisaged in the second part of the motion arise. We profess to be a forward-looking state. Well, this is too important an issue to not look forward on. We should set the policy now, so that we have a consistent approach to such situations moving forward. When the day comes, we will know what to do, and nothing is left to discretion or chance.46. Professor Thio has outlined an explanation grounded in logic and in law, for why a by-election is required when a minority Member in a GRC vacates his or her seat. That must surely be so, given that the fundamental justification and purpose of GRCs is to ensure some minimum amount of minority representation in Parliament. I disagree with Mr Hri Kumar’s comments on this. I cannot see how any other position can be sustainable, as it would severely undercut and undermine the foundations of the GRC scheme.47. Ms. Sylvia Lim, Madam Halimah and Mr Hri Kumar have spoken about the potential for a single member in a GRC team to hold the rest of the team, or even the Government, to ransom. My short response to that, is that the political parties have to select their candidates carefully. Extending their argument further, a group of elected Members can get together and blackmail their party. Where do we stop? Party discipline is the mechanism to address this issue, not an imperfect law.48. Similarly, where half or more of the elected Members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason, then surely there can be no doubt that it is no longer the team that electors have voted for. And surely it cannot be argued that the remaining Members can perform the duties of the other Members who have vacated their seats. It would stretch reason and credulity to argue that a by-election is not necessary, even if half or more of the elected Members for a GRC have vacated their seats.Conclusion49. Sir, this motion presents an opportunity for this House to advance the cause of representative democracy in Singapore. I support it, even if it does not go as far as I would like it.50. Sir, with that, I support the motion. More on National Day Rally 2008 So in response to some comments on my previous post, here are my thoughts on the National Day Rally speech:- I did not expect much in the way of additional assistance to be announced, and I was proved right.- PM rightly acknowledged the economic difficulties. I think fundamentally, the widening income gap is a challenge facing economies the world over, and it is a difficult problem that requires a long-term solution. Retraining, re-skilling and skilling-up workers is a big part of that solution. However, that cannot be all of the solution -- because some simply don't or can't work, others can't (for whatever reason) retrain or re-skill or skill-up, still others need help while they are retraining or re-skilling or skilling-up, and yet others have retrained or re-skilled or skilled-up but to little or no avail. So I believe more immediate, direct assistance is necessary. That has not really been forthcoming. Workfare is an important step in that direction -- but in its efforts to avoid gaming of the system and also because this is a new scheme that is being tried out, I fear that Workfare as currently implemented may fall short.- Re Anonymous Craven's query on whether I agree that the government has not done enough of a PR job -- well, I don't think that there has been insufficient PR. Anybody who can recall the MSM coverage 6 months back will realise that the MSM -- in particular the Straits Times -- was going to town and back and then to town again, with what a huge hongbao budget this was. And I am not so sure that people do not see the link between their increased strains and the indirect assistance given. Ultimately, people must be feeling worse-off on a "net-net" basis, which is why they are complaining.- I think it is untenable to say that the assistance received by people is more than the increased expenditure due to inflation. Firstly, the numbers provided are abstract, and represent at best the average (if not the maximum). There will be many, many households who receive less than the numbers thrown up. Furthermore, it is legitimate for people to expect their standard of living to improve over time -- so if on a "net-net" basis, after accounting for assistance, there is little or no improvement, they will of course feel strained and unhappy. This is especially so, when the Government had until recent months kept telling people that the economy was doing well -- all thanks to the Government.- on the baby stuff, I think the measures announced are welcome but inadequate. They represent incremental steps in the right direction, when our continued inability to lift TFR meaningfully implies that more radical surgery and more innovative measures are required. The repeated comparisons with Sweden in the run-up to the Rally would only have raised expectations, so in a way, they set people up for disappointment. I think there are some things that the Government cannot do (e.g. the repeated calls by singles for the Government to help them meet people, e.g. to make it easier for them to use dating agencies, are just a little bit too much for me), but there remain a lot of things that the Government can do, which it has not done.- on the Internet liberalisation, I think they represent positive progress. But it is incremental and not fundamental. There is no paradigm shift. So even though we inch a little further up, we still fall very far short of what I believe the ideal position to be. What was more interesting and significant to me, was the way that PM chose to phrase things -- that there are valid concerns, but they are not good reasons to outright ban party political films and films during Parliamentary elections. While some may say (and haveahacks has said) that the Government has no choice, I still regard that explicit acknowledgment as significant. Because don't forget, PM could very well have said that we will retain those bans for their symbolism -- much as we have done with the 100 porn sites blacklist and Section 377A. National Day Rally 2008 I just attended the National Day Rally tonight. The English speech has been embargoed until it is telecast tomorrow night, so the media will only report on it on Tuesday. All this is of course for a good cause -- our first Olympic medals in 48 years. While the NDR is always politically significant, I would encourage in particular everyone with an interest in the Internet and freedom of expression to watch it tomorrow or read the reports on Wednesday. And that's all I can say for now. WPQ 21 July 2008: Issuance of Employment Passes, S Passes, Dependant's Passes and Long Term Social Visit Passes I filed this question in a continuing quest to -- in the absence of any freedom of information legislation in Singapore -- get into the public domain statistics that I am interested in, which the Government may not otherwise release. Immigration statistics are one such area.Comparing this reply with a previously asked WPQ, it seems that there may be over 600,000 work permit holders (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled foreign workers) in Singapore. What would be even more interesting, would be the breakdown between EP and S Pass holders -- something that the Government declines to provide.[Update: upon further reflection, this 600,000 figure is almost certainly incorrect -- the EP and S Pass figures below reflect the passes that are issued annually, whereas the 756,000 figure cited in the previously asked WPQ is a cumulative figure.]WPQISSUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT PASSES, S PASSES, DEPENDANT’S PASSES AND LONG TERM SOCIAL VISIT PASSES(Statistics)Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower for each of the past 5 years (a) how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued; (b) how many Dependant’s Passes have been issued to dependants of Employment Pass and S Pass holders; (c) how many Long Term Social Visit Passes have been issued; (d) wh at is the average duration of the Long Term Social Visit Passes issued; and (e) how many Long Term Social Visit Pass holders have been issued with work passes.Mr Gan Kim Yong: See Table below for the detailed statistics.Year2004200520062007Number of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders80,00090,000110,000143,000Number of dependants of EP and S pass holders on Dependant Pass/Long Term Social Visit Pass53,00059,00060,00069,000Number of Long Term Social Visit Passes issued51,00058,00062,00064,000The stock of Employment Passes (EP) and S Passes has generally increased in the last few years in tandem with the robust economic growth and job creation. As of December 2007, there were about 143,000 EP and S Pass holders.Foreigners on EP and selected S passes may apply for Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes for their dependants, such as spouses and children below 21 years of age. As of December 2007, there were about 69,000 dependants on Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes.Long Term Social Visit Passes are also issued to other groups of foreigners such as family members of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. In 2007, there were about 64,000 Long Term Social Visit Passes issued. Long Term Social Visit Passes can be issued for up to 5 years.Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders must apply for work passes to work in Singapore. The number of these pass holders working in Singapore is not high. As of December 2007, there were about 6,600 Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders with work passes. WPQ 21 July 2008: GIC Investment in UBS There has been a barrage of very bad press around UBS in recent months. Quite apart from the mounting write-offs (I've lost track of how many billions to date) and plummeting share price, there have also been stories about how it is being probed and sued in the US for helping rich clients evade US income tax and fraudulent dealings in selling a type of investment called auction-rate securities. To its credit, the local MSM has done a pretty good job of covering these developments, tellingly by way of syndicated articles from newswires and foreign press.Given the very significant presence of UBS in Singapore, in particular the size of its private bank her, and how GIC's investment in UBS was expected to embed UBS even more deeply into Singapore, I thought it relevant to ask this question. After all, we should ensure that any fraudulent and criminal practices in UBS' US operations do not exist here.I asked the question even though I had already anticipated the answer. I was not disappointed in that the answer was exactly what I had expected -- this is, after all, not the first time such questions have been asked of our investments -- but I certainly do not think the answer is adequate. At the very minimum, as the owner of the funds being managed by GIC, I would expect the Government to have a view on how its investments are doing, even if it does not interfere in the actual investment decisions.WPQ GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION INVESTMENT IN UBS(Implications from Ongoing Investigations)Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Senior Minister whether the ongoing investigations in the US into allegations that UBS’ private bank helped clients evade taxes and that UBS had defrauded its clients who had purchased auction rate securities have any implications for the investment by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation in UBS and for Singapore’s aspiration to be a global financial centre and a private banking hub.Mr Goh Chok Tong: Singapore's success as an international financial centre is built on a track record and reputation for integrity, high standards of financial regulation and rigorous supervision and strict enforcement. MAS requires all financial institutions operating in Singapore to abide by the relevant laws and regulations in Singapore and their home jurisdiction.The investment in UBS has nothing to do with our effort in building Singapore as an international financial centre. This investment is made by GIC and Government does not influence or intervene in GIC’s specific investment decisions. GIC makes these decisions on its own, and has explained the reasons for its investments in UBS. Need to refine deferment policy? I wrote this for TODAY upon their suggestion. I suppose it was logical for me to do this, since I had written about Melvyn Tan a while back. It seems to me that NS as an institution is being increasingly questioned by Singaporeans. I see that as a positive thing, in that it demonstrates a more questioning and thinking citizenry, that is not prepared to simply take the Government's statements at face value. As I write below, I firmly believe in the need for NS -- but I also believe it can be tweaked, and more importantly, it needs to be refined and updated to maintain its relevance and legitiacy in the minds of Singaporeans. Otherwise, resentment against NS will simply grow, and that will ultimately undermine its legitimacy as an institution. And there can be no sacred cows in this process. I had originally included an additional point, that it is actually more disruptive to an enlistee's NS experience, to allow him to disrupt NS to go for university studies (as many Government scholars do), than to have the enlistee enter NS later. If the Government is prepared to allow that, then it seems inequitable to me to prevent young men who have already started their undergraduate studies from completing those studies before starting NS, and especially so if they are overseas. They should still be young enough when they get their degree. Unfortunately, this point was cut by the editor for space reasons. Need to refine deferment policy? Increasing number of young Singaporean males are growing up and studying overseas Tuesday • August 12, 2008 SIEW KUM HONG THREE years after pianist Melvyn Tan was fined $3,000 for not fulfilling his National Service (NS) obligations, the issue of National Service defaulters is in the spotlight again. This time, two young men were convicted for staying outside Singapore without an exit permit. Mr Shantakumar Bannirchelvam, 19, was initially placed on six months’ probation and ordered to do 40 hours of community service. Upon appeal by the prosecution, he was fined $1,500. Judge of AppealV K Rajah noted the need for a fine “as a matter of policy and ­precedent”. On the other hand, Mr Amit Rahul Shah, 23, was jailed for three months. It is not clear why he received such a severe sentence, considering the benchmark of a $3,000 fine. Perhaps it was because he had not applied for a deferment, unlike Mr Shantakumar. What is clear is that both men had voluntarily returned to ­Singapore to serve NS, with full knowledge of the charges they would face. In other words, they were essentially punished for not doing NS at the appointed time, and not for evading NS completely. In response to a recent question in Parliament, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated the policy of calling up NS-liable males when they turn 18, and the key principles of maintaining universality and equity in granting deferment from full-time NS to pre-enlistees still pursuing their studies. In the Ministry of Defence’s view, all should be given the opportunity to attain their ‘A’ Levels, International Baccalaureate, polytechnic diploma or equivalent qualifications before enlistment, but not higher educational qualifications such as university degrees. But is this policy outdated, in a globalised world with a growing Singaporean diaspora? As more Singaporeans and their families settle down in other countries, whether due to overseas postings or otherwise, an increasing number of young Singaporean males will be growing up and studying overseas. It would be unrealistic to expect the educational systems in those countries, or their educational paths, to accommodate our enlistment policy. Let me be clear: I am a strong advocate of the central role of NS in the Singapore psyche. In 2006, I wrote a piece in Today criticising the portrayal in some quarters of Mr Tan as a “lost son of Singapore”. I firmly believe in the desirability of having all fit Singaporean men perform NS, and punishing those who do not. NS is a compulsory obligation, and we must ensure its continued legitimacy amongst Singaporeans. Even as I agree with Mindef on the principles of universality and equity, I wonder whether its deferment policy can be refined such that it remains relevant in a globalised world, without undermining those key principles. Failure to do so may result in Singaporean males resenting the institution of NS, which could then undermine its legitimacy. Of Scholars and NS timing If we were to ask Singaporean men what the true sacrifice of NS is, how would they answer? I dare say it would be the two years of full-time NS and the subsequent reservist obligations. I also dare say the timing of those two years — whether they are served before or after one’s undergraduate studies — would be far less important. As it is, the Government itself allows some scholars to disrupt full-time NS to go for undergraduate studies. It seems arbitrary to say that scholars should be allowed to disrupt their NS, but non-scholars already in undergraduate studies should not be allowed to defer their enlistment. Yesterday, for example, it was reported that Mindef rejected a Singapore Institute of Management student’s appeal to defer his enlistment for three months to sit for his first-year exams first. I believe we should distinguish between those who are unable to return at 18 years because of certain commitments or opportunities but do so upon the conclusion of those commitments or opportunities — such as Mr Shantakumar — and those who never return and do not evince any desire to complete their NS obligations, such as Mr Tan. If a Singaporean male had gone overseas as a child — for instance, before he turned 15 — and upon turning 18 is undertaking or about to commence undergraduate studies, perhaps we should allow him to defer enlistment until he completes those undergraduate (but not postgraduate) studies, so long as he undertakes to return to Singapore and enlist at that time. We can also require a guarantor if needed. This would strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the universality and equity of NS, by having all Singaporean males complete full-time NS by their early 20s, and allowing Singaporeans who grow up overseas to pursue their goals without undue disruption. And I think most, if not all, ­Singaporeans would be perfectly fine with this. The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity. Where do we go from here? This article, as well as the reply from MHA, appeared in TODAY quite some time back. Sze Yong had helped prepare it for posting here, but I've only just gotten around to publishing it. It should be read in light of my speech on security lapses and my OPQ on the sudden deaths of NSmen.Where do we go from here?Weekend • June 21, 2008news@newstoday.com.sgLAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.The best of systems are not immune to human failuresFriday • June 27, 2008Letter from TOH YONG CHUANDirector (Corporate Relations)Ministry of Home AffairsI REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent. OPQ 21 July 2008: Sudden Deaths of National Servicemen I filed this question primarily because of a burning sense of inequity, at how NS is compulsory for all, and yet certain tests that are acknowledged as being "useful" are essentially the reserve of the privileged few only. I know full well that when I was at the age of enlisting for NS, my family would not have been able to afford these "useful" tests for me.While it does seem that the SAF's tests are at least adequate for testing NS enlistees on a mass scale, and certainly the numbers appear to bear out its approach which is comforting, it remains a little difficult to shake off this sense of inequity. This is especially so if doctors are sending their own children for these additional tests. The Italian study I referred to also suggests that medical opinion may evolve further on this issue.SUDDEN DEATHS OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN(Outcome of investigations)16. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the outcome of his Ministry's investigations into the sudden deaths of Recruit Andrew Cheah Wei Siong and Second Lieutenant Clifton Lam Jia Hao; and (b) whether the investigations indicate the need for any consequential action to be taken by the SAF, such as more stringent or different pre-enlistment medical screening.17. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many cases of sudden cardiac deaths have occurred in the Singapore Armed Forces since 1965; (b) of these, how many have occurred amongst Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and how many may have potentially been detected through the use of exercise ECGs or echocardiograms; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to introduce additional screening for NSFs such as exercise ECGs or echocardiograms.The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Question Nos 16 and 17 by Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong are closely related, may I have your permission to address them together?Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and the late REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.MINDEF treats every death of a serviceman with utmost seriousness. For each case, we conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause and also to enable us to take all necessary preventive measures in the future. MINDEF has convened two separate inquiries to investigate the deaths of the two servicemen. As the investigation process has yet to be completed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their outcomes at this point in time.Ms Indranee Rajah asked about the need for any consequential actions to be adopted by the SAF. Sir, the SAF did not wait for the outcome of the investigations but, in fact, took immediate action by imposing a three-day time-out for all physical and endurance training to review their systems, processes and procedures. The review provided an opportunity for units to confirm that the systems are good and sound, and that proper processes and procedures are in place and are being followed. The time-out allowed both commanders and soldiers themselves to refocus on safety.Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong asked about medical screening in the SAF. I should first say that it would be premature to draw conclusions about whether medical conditions that might have been detected in pre-enlistment medical screening were factors in the incidents, as the investigation process has not yet been concluded. Nevertheless, since there has been quite a lot of interest in the medical screening processes of the SAF, let me take the opportunity to describe these processes.The SAF carries out medical screening of our servicemen carefully. Medical screening takes place at several key junctures: before enlistment, before attending specialised courses, before strenuous training or deployment and, periodically, after the age of 25.The screening is comprehensive. There are 14 medical speciality areas, including eyesight, hearing, cardiovascular, muscular-skeletal conditions. Let me take the screening for cardiac conditions as an example. A 12-lead resting electrocardiogram (ECG) screening is conducted for all pre-enlistees, and the SAF has 28 different protocols to address the different cardiac conditions based on these ECG findings. If abnormalities are found, the pre-enlistees will be sent for additional testing, which may include the stress ECG test or the 2D echo-cardiogram and referral to a cardiologist.The 12-lead resting ECG screening was introduced in November 2000 on the recommendation by the SAF's panel of medical experts. The panel of medical experts concluded that the findings of a study published in 1998 on the screening of competitive athletes in Italy were appropriate for the SAF and ought to be adopted by the SAF. The comprehensive study showed that resting ECG was a reliable tool for screening for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM), which is one of the more common causes of sudden cardiac death among young adults. HCM is a disease of the heart muscle in which a portion of the muscle is thickened.Sir, the introduction of this 12-lead resting ECG screening is an example of how the SAF keeps up with the best and most appropriate screening practices. The SAF is guided by an independent panel consisting of top medical consultants and specialists in Singapore that sits regularly to review the entire medical screening regime. In a recent review concluded last September, the SAF medical screening protocols were found to be comprehensive, robust and in line with good clinical practice. In fact, the SAF's routine screening for heart disease in pre-enlistees is equivalent to the standards recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and International Olympic Committee, and higher than the standards recommended by the American Heart Association. The SAF's screening protocols are also more comprehensive than those used by many other established armed forces.Mr Siew Kum Hong asked for figures on sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) in the SAF since 1965, and how many of these were Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). Sir, I am unable to give the figures since 1965, but I am able to provide the figures from 1995. Specific data on SCD for the years before 1995 was not systematically collected, as SCD itself, in young adults then, was not a well understood phenomenon in the medical community. The figures for 1995 to 2008 show that there were a total of 23 SCD cases in the SAF. Seven of them were of Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), three of which occurred during training.Mr Siew also asked whether any of these could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms, and whether the SAF was going to introduce additional screening such as these. Of the seven NSFs who died from SCD both during training and not during training, six were due to conditions that were most unlikely to be picked up by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This is what the doctors have told me. The remaining one had a condition that could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This death occurred in 1999, a year before the SAF began conducting ECG screening for pre-enlistees. His condition could have been picked up by the 12-lead resting ECG that was introduced in 2000, and this pick-up would have led to him being referred to a cardiologist and subjected to an exercise ECG or echocardiogram.Sir, MINDEF will continue to review our medical screening procedures, and amend the protocols or adopt new procedures should the SAF's panel of medical experts advise that it is appropriate to do so.Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, which I think would have given Singaporeans some comfort. Nevertheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.Firstly, the Minister has said separately that additional screening in the form of the exercise ECGs or echocardiograms is "helpful". If that is the case, then why is this "helpful" screening not made available to NSFs who serve the nation by performing National Service and so the nation should serve them by taking all the measures that are helpful, instead of leaving it only for those who can afford to pay for these additional testing.My second question, Sir, is that the Minister has said that MINDEF has a panel of leading doctors who say that the existing tests are sufficient but a cardiologist in private practice has publicly stated that many of his colleagues who agree with this publicly, nevertheless, send their own children for additional screening. Can the Minister then confirm whether this panel of leading doctors send their own children who are required to serve NS for additional tests?My third question, Sir, is that a recently published study by the Institute of Sports Medicine in Florence, Italy, tested over 30,000 people including 23,500 men, using both resting ECG and exercise ECG. The resting ECG test found a previously undetected heart anomaly in 1.2 % of those screened. This rose to 4.9% for the exercise ECG. In light of this study, does the Ministry still stand by its decision not to introduce additional screening for NSFs?Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think that if the individuals or parents want to go for additional medical screening and tests, that is entirely their right to do so and they may do so if they wish to. But whether they do so or not, I think that they and their parents should be assured that when they come for National Service at the pre-enlistment stage, the SAF will give them a comprehensive medical screening whether they have gone for one themselves or not. So that is our commitment, and that is important. The medical screening protocols are audited and recommended by the SAF medical panel of specialists. There are about 50 of them covering 14 medical specialities and areas. I can only go by what they recommend to us and if there are doctors, individuals who feel that there are practices supported by good evidence and research which will be helpful for SAF servicemen, we will be happy to receive such research reports and reviews supported by good evidence. The medical panel will be happy to consider them and if they are appropriate for application in the SAF, we will be happy to do so. I would invite Mr Siew or doctors in public or private practice or individuals who have such information, who feel that it is relevant to us, to please do so and send it to us. But I do assure the public and parents that the SAF medical panel itself does comprehensive literature searches, they are experts in their field, and they do look out for the best practices available. The example I gave was that of a study that was concluded in 1998. The panel looked at it very quickly after the study was completed, found that it was a study which was useful and valid to us, and we brought it into effect by the year 2000. And we will be happy to receive any other studies or information which the panel may, by some chance, have missed. Speech on Singapore Totalisator Board (Amendment) Bill: 21 July 2008 I know this is a fairly technical and arcane bill to speak on, since it was really a bill to streamline the regulatory regime over Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club. The primary reason why I was interested in speaking was because when I was in private practice (a lifetime and a half ago), I did quite a lot of gaming-related work, so I had some familiarity with and professional interest in this area.On the whole, the changes implemented were quite positive. The law in this area had been riddled with gaps, loopholes and uncertainties, and this bill basically sought to regularise everything, which is good.The only comment I have on the Senior Minister of State's reply is that she got the law wrong, in relation to the existing minimum legal age for betting. That was one of the loopholes that needed plugging, because the Act pre-amendment only prescribes the minimum age of 18 for participating in approved totalisator schemes, which has a very technical meaning and does not include the usual betting or lottery activities such as sports betting, 4D or Toto (see Section 15 of the Act). This is why the Act post-amendment specifically mentions "lottery, betting or game activity", in addition to totalisators.Like I said, this is a fairly technical and arcane area.Speech on Singapore Totalisator Board (Amendment) BillMr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the Bill.Sir, this Bill is intended to rationalise the workings of the Tote Board, which is now responsible for regulating gaming and betting in Singapore and to address certain gaps in the law that currently exist. As such, I only have two points to make.Firstly, clause 10 of the Bill repeals the existing section 15 of the Act and introduces a new section 15, which essentially provides that it is lawful for any person of or above the age of 18 years to participate in licensed gaming or betting. This is a relatively lower age and is of some concern, given the trend of Singaporeans starting to gamble at a young age. A survey released by the Government in May this year found that a quarter of respondents started gambling when they were less than 18 years old, up 10% from 2005. Setting the legal age for gambling at 18 years risks exacerbating this problem. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify and explain why and how this age of 18 years old was decided upon, especially when this is lower than the age of 21 years which is required for entry into the upcoming casinos under the Casino Control Act.On a related note, this new section 15 now makes it explicitly clear that those who are 18 years and above may lawfully gamble with licensed operators, which is something that was previously not so clear. So, this is positive. This also means that, by implication, those who are below 18, who somehow manage to gamble with licensed operators are committing an offence under the Betting Act or the Common Gaming Houses Act. But neither of this Act nor the Betting Act, nor the Gaming Houses Act, imposes any liability on licensed operators if they allow those who are below 18 to gamble. That seems to be a lacuna in the law which should be plugged, so as to drive home to licensed operators the seriousness of their responsibility not to allow young persons under the age of 18 to gamble.Secondly, Sir, clause 14 of the Bill introduces a new section 20B that empowers the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from any or all provisions of the Act through Gazette notifications. There is no statement as to the purposes for which such exemptions may be granted. Sir, the debate on casinos shows that gambling remains a sensitive issue in Singapore, which many Singaporeans are greatly concerned about. This broad power to the Minister to grant exemptions is worrying because it potentially deprives Parliament of the opportunity to review and debate proposed exemptions. If the Minister is of the view that this power to grant exemptions is administratively and operationally desirable and necessary, then I would suggest that, at the minimum, the new section 20B should be amended to explicitly state the purposes for which exemptions may be granted.Sir, with that, I support the Bill.Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: [...] As for Mr Siew Kum Hong's point about the age limit, let me just clarify that the current Tote Board Act actually already stipulates the age limit for gambling as 18 years. The objective of clause 10 is really not to set the age limit but to make a consequential amendment because of the removal of the Scheme from the subsidiary legislation. And as he has noted, the age limit applies to all gambling activities, except casinos which have a higher limit of 21 years. Eighteen years, if I may add, has been adopted as the age limit for gambling in many other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. It is also incidentally the same age limit set for the consumption of alcohol and tobacco in Singapore.As regards the operators' responsibility towards the age limit, Singapore Pools and Turf Club have actually taken very concrete steps to ensure that the products are not offered to the underage. This is part of the commitment towards responsible gambling. In fact, all the frontline staff and employees are required to undergo training in terms of executing these gambling measures. So, they will do physical control checks and checks of IDs as well. But I take his point that while this has worked thus far, there may be a case to consider making these responsibilities explicit in the legislation. So, we will study this further.As for his point about clause 14 on giving the Minister the power to exempt any person or class of persons from all the provisions, let me assure the House that the Ministry does not intend to abuse the authority provided for by this new section. As I have commented earlier on, any decision taken is really a balance of all the different points. We should note that the gambling industry is a fast-changing one. The illegal gambling operators continue to pose a major challenge today and, therefore, this new provision will enable the Turf Club to be able to respond quickly with once-off exceptional exemptions to be made by the Minister in a timely manner. SYINConnect workshop: Human Rights in Singapore 101 I spoke at the SYINConnect conference yesterday (Saturday 26 July). My workshop was titled "Human Rights in Singapore 101", and there were around 30 participants. Syinc shot a video of the workshop so that may become available at some point -- if so, I will publish it here or at least a link.Anyway, as I promised the participants, I have published the presentation slides and a list of URLs to reference material used. The presentation can also be accessed below. Speech on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence": 21 July 2008 Parliament sat today, and I spoke on an adjournment motion filed by Dr Teo Ho Pin on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence".An adjournment motion is a motion filed by an MP, which can be anything under the sun so long as it relates to a matter within the control of the Government. Technically speaking, it is a motion that is made when the Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan) moves to adjourn the day's sitting, and has to be wrapped up within 30 minutes unless the House resolves to extend the time limit. The time limit is why my speech was as short as it was -- I was given only 2 minutes by the Speaker.The video of my speech on Youtube is embedded below, while the prepared text of the speech is further below. After my speech, I have reproduced the text of an OPQ I had filed, and the response of the Second Minister for Home Affairs.I wrestled with this speech a little. Firstly, I was not sure what would have been covered during Question Time, which would then obviously affect my speech on the adjournment motion. As will be evident, that was not a problem.Secondly, I was not sure what to say. Ultimately, the subject-matter of the motion lent itself to the content of my speech. Public confidence is shaken, and what would restore public confidence? Full and frank acknowledgment of fault and facing up to the facts.After the sitting, a Straits Times reporter called for my reaction to the speech, given that it was the Minister's maiden speech as a Cabinet minister. I could only tell him that I was disappointed, given that Mr Shanmugam neither touched on the subject of an apology (and I am somewhat sceptical of the MSM covering that part of my speech) nor answered parts of my OPQ (for instance, on the question of security audits conducted after Mas Selamat escaped) in his reply (which I trust will be covered extensively by the MSM tomorrow) as he had said he would.Speech on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence"1. Mr Speaker Sir, we have been repeatedly told that the three security lapses this year were due to human error, and that no system can completely eliminate human error. That may be so. But this seems to imply that human error is unavoidable and hence inevitable. This is difficult to reconcile with the Government’s previous calls to Singaporeans to be ever-vigilant, because we have to win against the terrorists every time, but they only have to win once.2. The inescapable fact remains that we have had three lapses across three different departments within the short span of four months or so. One would have expected the Home Team to be extra-vigilant after the escape of Mas Selamat, and that there would at least have been no more human errors in the period immediately following his escape. As we all know, that was not the case. I daresay Singaporeans’ confidence in the Home Team has taken a serious knock.3. So I think there is a very legitimate question as to whether three lapses in three different agencies in four months is enough evidence of a wider problem in MHA. MHA has consistently focused on individual officers’ omissions and how even the best-designed systems are susceptible to human error, but has not acknowledged any fault as an organisation. If there are human lapses in different agencies within the Ministry, then there is a valid question as to whether the Ministry itself has done enough to inculcate a culture of zero-tolerance for human errors across the entire Home Team as a whole.4. Furthermore, in the month or so since the Changi Airport slip-up, there has to date been no apology from MHA to Singaporeans for these lapses. The public would be forgiven for thinking that MHA is in denial, at least publicly.5. I think an apology is the least that the Ministry could do. And I believe that a clear, unreserved, unqualified apology is a necessary first step towards the restoration of public confidence in the Home Team, because it demonstrates that MHA is squarely confronting the issue. The failure to apologise suggests that it is downplaying the seriousness of these incidents, and denying responsibility. Unless and until this happens, it will be difficult to expect public confidence in the Home Team to be restored.OPQRECENT SECURITY LAPSES(Preventive measures to address)Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why have there been repeated serious security lapses across the Ministry over the past few months; (b) what measures have been taken to prevent a culture of complacency in the Ministry; (c) what measures will the Ministry take to assure the public that there is no such culture of complacency; and (d) whether the security audits of detention facilities carried out after Mas Selamat's escape had addressed the risk of human error.The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will be responding to Dr Teo Ho Pin's Motion of Adjournment on security lapses and public confidence, and the Question raised by Mr Siew will be answered then. Live by the sword, die by the sword? The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute has released a report that roundly criticised Singapore's human rights record. There is a nice round-up of relevant links on MARUAH's website.I know it is all a very serious matter, but I was nevertheless amused by the incident. The reason for my amusement? Well, given that the Minister Mentor had just cited the IBA's praise for Singapore's judiciary in court (even though MM mistakenly claimed that it was in a letter, when it was really a public speech), it was the height of irony for an IBA body to issue such a stinging attack on our system.Indeed, as if to show that the MSM does sometimes dare to flash a sense of humour, this Straits Times article juxtaposes it very nicely. The ThinkBox by AWARE presents "Sex, Power and Office Politics" Mr Siew Kum Hong will be chairing a public forum on sexual harassment in the workplace, organised by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). Details can be found below. Date and Time: Monday, 14 July 2008, 7:00 PM – 9:30 PMVenue: The Box at SMU (Li Ka Shing Library, 70 Stamford Road, Basement One)FREE AdmissionThe ThinkBox by AWARE is a public forum series that encourages open dialogue between professionals, academics, and students about current events. The upcoming session, “Sex, Power, and Office Politics,” will cover how sex can make or break you in the workplace, and why that’s a bad thing. Professional panelists will review the recent findings of an AWARE report on workplace sexual harassment, and discuss how companies, the government, organizations, and individuals can work together to overcome this problem. The goal of this ThinkBox is to give the public an opportunity to become part of the solution to eradicating sexual harassment from Singapore. SYINC conference SYINC is organising a conference for youths named SYINConnect. Mr Siew Kum Hong will be speaking at the conference. More details below.Want to meet like-minded people who are passionate about making a difference?Want to learn from respected and experienced community leaders and social entrepreneurs?SYINConnect is a one-day youth conference that connects participants to urgent social issues, and what people are doing about them in Singapore. Participants will get the opportunity to meet the community leaders making change in our society today, and build the skills, networks and confidence to be effective agents of change.Saturday, 26th July 20088.00 am – 6.30 pmRepublic PolytechnicIf you have any further queries, do not hesitate to contact us at syinconnect@syinc.org Talking Point: Sunday 15 June, 10.20pm on CNA CNA is starting a new segment as part of its Singapore Tonight news bulletin on Sunday nights. Every fortnight, there will be a 10-minute segment featuring Debra Soon and P.N. Balji with a guest.I'm honoured to be the guest for the inaugural show. It will be broadcast tomorrow (Sunday) night on CNA, as part of Singapore Tonight at 10pm (so the segment itself will be around 10.20pm). The CNA blurb is below. Do tune in and let me know what you think (of what I said, the segment, the concept and execution, whatever).Talking PointNominated MP Siew Kum Hong joins Debra Soon, Chief Editor of MediaCorp News, and PN Balji, Editorial Director of MediaCorp Press, in a discussion about the hot issues of security lapses at the SubCourts and the SAF's unprecedented three-day stop of all physical training. Sun, Jun 15, 2200hrs (Singapore time). Human Rights in Everyday Life The Online Citizen asked me to contribute a piece to their Human Rights series, and then I started thinking about what I could write on.We frequently hear proponents of The Singapore Way talk about how Western liberal societies are all about rights, to the exclusion of responsibilities. It often feels to me that in Singapore, we are the reverse -- the public discourse is all about our responsibilities, and very little about our rights.At the same time, and perhaps as a result of this focus on responsibilities over rights, many if not most Singaporeans seem to conflate human rights with civil and political rights. That's a mistake, because human rights permeate much more of mundane, everyday life than we think. So I obliged with this one, which was published on 10 June 2008.Human Rights in Everyday Life10 June 2008Siew Kum HongWe have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights.I came late to activism, and later to human rights activism. Although I’ve always firmly believed in the importance of human rights, I never really delved into the subject, other than some scratching of the surface during my law school days. Like so many other Singaporeans, I took subjects that were more “practical” and “relevant” to my future professional career.Serves me right then for the steep learning curve I am now experiencing, just when time is at a greater premium than at any other point in my life, because I now understand that human rights are at least as practical and relevant to my life as a whole as anything else out there.The most profound realisation that has struck me since I started taking baby tip-toes into the sea of human rights activism is how human rights permeate so many aspects of life. Many, if not most, Singaporeans mistakenly associate the term with the lofty ideals of civil and political rights, such as the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.But it is a mistake to limit one’s conception of human rights in such a manner. They might be the most headline-grabbing, but they fail to do justice to just how many aspects of daily life human rights are concerned with.After all, human rights include social, cultural and economic rights as well. For example, Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.Agreement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pre-condition to membership in the United Nations. Singapore as a UN member-state therefore has the obligation to comply with Article 25. I think we fall at least a little bit short, especially on the second part of the article.Here are two other examples of how seemingly mundane matters that were recently in the news in Singapore can be re-cast as human rights issues when analysed through the prism of human rights.Firstly, the 1 June edition of the Sunday Times carried a story about how children were not having meaningful school holidays at all, what with tuition and enrichment classes galore. Well, Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Singapore has acceded to, provides:1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.I certainly agree that parents acting in the best interest of the child and with due respect for the views of the child should be entitled to decide whether the child should go for an endless stream of classes during their precious school holidays.However, I think it is valid for us to question the role of the state, and specifically the education system, in facilitating, encouraging and perpetuating such a state of affairs, and whether the state should institute changes for better compliance with its obligations under the CRC.Secondly, we do not require foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to be given a mandatory day off (whether weekly, monthly, or even at all). Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which Singapore has not signed) provides for the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular … (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.Article 25 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which Singapore (and to be fair, most other receiving countries) has not signed, provides:1. Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals of the State of employment in respect of remuneration and:a. Other conditions of work, that is to say, overtime, hours of work, weekly rest, holidays with pay, safety, health, termination of the employment relationship and any other conditions of work which, according to national law and practice, are covered by this term; …2. It shall not be lawful to derogate in private contracts of employment from the principle of equality of treatment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present article. …Meanwhile, Singapore has acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), but ironically with a reservation that withholds the labour rights under the Employment Act from FDWs. So much for elimination of discrimination.What I have sought to do in these examples is to illustrate that many issues not commonly associated with human rights can and do have a human rights element. What is lacking in Singapore is the knowledge, awareness, willingness and desire to analyse issues from a rights-based perspective.Yes, there are many who do not know better. But there are many who do know better, but dare not articulate a rights-based discourse for fear of a negative reaction from officialdom. As a result, they tip-toe around the human rights elephant in the middle of the room.I think we have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights. The emergence of a rights-based discourse in Singapore is long overdue. There are many different ways in which one can work towards this. I am hopeful that, in my own small way, I am part of this effort. Human rights in Singapore I have been busier than usual lately, so this is a little outdated. Thanks to Shu for her work on this post.On 29 May, the Attorney-General Professor Walter Woon made a speech at the launch of the Law Society's new Public and International Law Committee. This was extensively covered in the press, both in and outside Singapore (I'm told it even made the New York Times).I thought TODAY's coverage was very good. I was indeed not present at the talk, but I was told by someone who was that the press reports did not misquote or place his comments out of context.At a MARUAH meeting subsequent to that, the group decided to write to the press in response. I sent in two letters, one to TODAY and the other to The Straits Times (who had also covered the event). They were basically the same letters.While the letter did not appear in the ST Forum, it did appear in TODAY's Voices section. The AG replied subsequently. Both my letter and his reply are reproduced below.I know I may not have clearly articulated this in my letter, but human rights are, by definition, universal to all human beings. The United Nations, by making membership conditional upon acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, makes it clear that this recognition is a fundamental requirement for acceptance into the community of civilised nations.There may be some rights that are contentious and disputed by different groups. But the issue there is whether these rights belong to the family of universal human rights, and not whether human rights are universal. And as I pointed out in my letter, the conception of human rights does change as society evolves. But the universality of human rights does not. The issue therefore should not lie in whether human rights are universal, but in the identification of what constitutes human rights.I fundamentally agree that what human rights entails should not be defined by any single group -- and that includes officials, which to me is a greater and more realistic possibility in Singapore than the possibility of any non-governmental group imposing their views on the rest of Singapore.It will not be possible to define human rights by unanimous consensus -- a broad agreement on whether something should be protected as a human rights should suffice. On this basis, it seems to me that there are many aspects of human rights that are non-controversial to most people including Singaporeans.So instead of dwelling on the controversies at the margins, it seems to me more appropriate to focus on ensuring that Singapore is up to the mark on what is non-controversial to most. I do not think we are there on all such aspects, and so I do not agree with the constant focus on the controversial by officials. We can and should agree to disagree on those, and work on those that we do agree on, instead of constantly pointing to the disagreements and letting that slow or even stop us.This is my letter.TODAY, 6 June 2008: "Keep our door open to ideas"I refer to the article “Politics, law and human rights ‘fanatics’: AG Walter Woon” (Today, 30 May 2008).The Attorney-General, Prof Walter Woon, reportedly said that human rights has become a “religion among some people” for whom “it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism”, that we should not confuse public law with politics, and that some people assume that their definition of human rights is the decision of the rest of humanity.As a group that seeks to work on issues related to the establishment of the ASEAN human rights body from a Singapore perspective, MARUAH finds the A-G’s reported statements regrettable. Such a dismissal of sincerely-held views, even those expressed immoderately, is not helpful to engagement between a government and its citizens.History tells us that ardent campaigners who were highly controversial in their day must be thanked for much of today’s social progress. While controversial causes are not necessarily right, our progress as a society depends on us keeping the door open to ideas, and not peremptorily dismissing ideas and their proponents with pejorative language.MARUAH also believes that no single group of persons – including officials – has the right to conclusively define human rights for the rest of society. The definition of human rights evolves as society changes.This evolution is stunted if dissentients are cast as troublemakers pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights. Rather than criticizing dissentients, we should see them as making a positive contribution to our understanding and conceptualization of what human rights means to Singaporeans.Finally, it is not helpful to view public law in complete isolation from politics. After all, politics must be conducted within the framework of the law, and political decisions must be lawful. Similarly, the law does not exist in a vacuum divorced from the politics of the day.Siew Kum HongMember, Pro-Tem CommitteeMARUAHThis is Professor Woon's letter.TODAY, 9 June 2008: "No One Solution"I REFER to the letter “Keep our door open to ideas” by Siew Kum Hong (June 6).Mr Siew has misunderstood me. I surmise from his letter that he was not present at my talk.In my address at the launch of the Law Society’s Public and International Law Committee, I said that for some people human rights has become a religion. This religion, like so many others, has its fanatics who display all the hypocrisy and zealotry of religious bigots.They believe that there is only one permissible view of human rights — theirs. They assume that when they decide what human rights are, that decision is for the rest of humanity.I gave the example of those who think that the right to free expression means that one can insult the Prophet of a great religion with impunity. I asked rhetorically, can we accept this in our society?I pointed out that all our moral codes emphasise obligations rather than rights: The rule is “thou shalt not steal” and not “thou hast a right to property”.I also said that the balance between rights and obligations is one for each society to decide.Let me make my position clear lest I be misunderstood again. Human rights are a key component of good governance. But there is no consensus on where the line is to be drawn between the rights of an individual and the good of the society as a whole.Human rights fanatics think that their opinion is the standard to which the rest of humanity must conform to and that they are entitled to issue reports criticising those who hold a different view. These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.There is no one solution that will fit all societies.I took pains to say that we must decide for ourselves where we draw the line between individual rights and the common good, because if we get it wrong, it will be our children who will pay the price. But that is a debate for us, not for those who know nothing of our history, culture or values and who do not have our interests at heart.I have never dismissed the sincerely-held views of anyone who is genuinely interested in dialogue. A constructive debate about our obligations to our fellow citizens and the guests who live among us is healthy.That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Law Society’s initiative in creating a Public and International Law Committee and having a series of lectures on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Help is at hand! So this blog has seen a serious deterioration in posting frequency this year. There have been a few reasons, some work-related, others personal, but all related to my finite bandwidth.I've finally gotten some help in place. I've now got Mr Lee Sze Yong in as a part-time Legislative Assistant, to help with my Parliamentary work and other activities including maintaining this blog. Sze Yong, who is also a member of and the part-time secretariat for MARUAH Singapore, has extensive civil society experience (certainly more than me!) including 3+ years with AWARE and counting, and maintains two personal blogs at opsw.blogspot.com and sgwatchdog.blogspot.com. I daresay he is over-qualified for this role.Ms Phua Shuyan, a law student in a US university, has also asked to be my intern. Given that I run my NMPship from my head and a notebook, it's been a little challenging figuring out how to make this meaningful for her. But we're going to make it up as we go along, and hopefully things will turn out fine.So finally, I can say with some confidence: watch this space! An ASEAN Human Rights body: A Milestone in the 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Talk and forum on the ASEAN human rights mechanismMaruah Singapore and the Asia-Europe Foundation are pleased to jointly present a lecture on:An ASEAN Human Rights body: A Milestone in the 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?Speaker:Prof. Dr. Vitit MuntarbhornCo-Chair of the Civil Society Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights MechanismDate and time: Wed, 11 June 2008, 4:00 to 5:30 pmVenue: Asia-Europe Foundation 31 Heng Mui Keng Terrace (Off Pasir Panjang Road). Free admission.You are cordially invited to a reception after the lectureAbstract This year is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key UN declaration regarded as the bedrock for setting human rights standards worldwide. The year also coincides auspiciously with the possible establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights “body”, a mechanism referred to in Article 14 in the recently adopted ASEAN Charter and currently in the process of ratification. How will that body be established substantively and to what extent will it respond to the aspirations of the Universal Declaration? Will it bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality? Furthermore, what impact will the establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights body have on Asia-Europe dialogue? These are some of the issues the speaker will address during his presentation.This lecture takes place on the sidelines of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism meeting, on the 12 of June 2008 in Singapore.Profile of SpeakerVitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor of Law at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. He is currently UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the DPR Korea. He is also Co-Chair of the Civil Society Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism.Professor Muntharbhorn is an eminent expert in human rights with more than 1000 publications and combines the qualities of a scholar, an educator, a policy-making adviser and a grass-root human rights activist. He has served in various capacities for the United Nations system. In 1990-1994, he was Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. He was awarded the UNESCO Prize for Human Rights Education in 2004.About Maruah SingaporeMaruah Singapore is a group of individuals who have made a commitment to the process of facilitating for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. We believe that such a process will be good for the region and for Singapore. We come from all backgrounds professionals, students, homemakers, academics, activists, lawyers, doctors, writers united in our desire to make a difference on the ground and at policy-level.Maruah means “Dignity” in Malay, Singapore’s national language. We are keen to impress that Human Rights is all about maintaining, restoring and reclaiming one’s dignity at the individual, regional and international level.For further information, please visit http://www.maruah.org/About the Asia-Europe FoundationThe Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) advances mutual understanding and collaboration between the people of Asia and Europe through intellectual, cultural, and people-to-people exchanges. These exchanges include conferences, lecture tours, workshops, seminars and the use of web-based platforms. The major achievement of ASEF is the establishment of permanent bi-regional networks focussed on areas and issues that help to strengthen Asia-Europe relations.Established in February 1997 by the partners of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)[1], ASEF reports to a board of governors representing the ASEM partners. ASEF is the only permanent physical institution of the ASEM process. Since 1997, the Foundation has initiated projects engaging 14,000 individuals from Asia and Europe. ASEF works in partnership with other public institutions and civil society actors to ensure its work is broad-based and balanced among the partner countries.This particular lecture is organised under ASEF’s governance pillar. ASEF reinforces the role of civil society in good governance with Asia-Europe exchanges that benefit the peoples of both regions.Our programmes:- Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights - engenders groundbreaking government-civil society dialogue on various dimensions of human rights.-Democratisation and Justice Series - platform to explore differences, similarities and challenges of democratisation processes, particularly in countries undergoing political transition in Asia and Europe.For further information, please visit http://www.asef.org/ Public forum on 24 May 2008: Understanding the implications of inflation on your investments and the labour market The Society of Financial Service Professionals (Singapore), MARUAH, TWC2 and T.I.A. Conferences are jointly organising a public forum on 24 May 2008. Some details are below, a detailed programme is available on the T.I.A. site. This is a walk-in seminar and prior registration is not required.Understanding the implications of inflation on your investments and the labour marketDate and Time: 24 May 2008 (Saturday), 2pmVenue: National Philanthropic Centre, 6 Eu Tong Sen Street, The CentralTopics1. Investing in the Singapore market (Mr Lyndon Chew)2. Inflation and its implications on the economy and your portfolio (Mr Leong Sze Hian)3. Our policies on inflation and labour rights (Ms Braema Mathi) Mas Selamat and Government Responsibility I was away the past few days on a business trip, and so missed the sittings this week. Much has been written and said in response, and I will highlight three pieces that I came across which I thought were particularly well-written and well-reasoned (disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything they say though):TOC Editorial: Government’s lack of accountability bad for the PAP, worse for Singapore on theonlinecitizen.comThe great hunt: more management failures than guards' lapses on Yawning BreadBeyond witch-hunts to sanction for lapses by Chua Mui Hoong (yes, on The Straits Times -- read it first before snorting in disbelief. I must admit I was surprised.)I like the TOC piece because it rightly pointed out some flaws in the process. And remember, when it comes to transparency and accountability, process is at least as important as outcome. Having said that, its tone is perhaps a tad strong, but that is probably an indicator of just how angry the ground (and I believe not just the blogosphere) really is on this matter, notwithstanding ST's piece today downplaying the anger.I like Alex Au's piece because it places into context the possible lapses further up the management chain (plus, he took the trouble to watch the videos, which is a truly admirable effort). To pin the blame squarely and solely on the folks at WRDC is inappropriate. So the WRDC supervisor did not carry out audits -- did his manager ask about audits? Did Director ISD ask about audits across the department's facility?Finally, I like Chua Mui Hoong's column because it comes very, very closest to my own thoughts on government responsibility and accountability. I never believed, and I still do not believe, that the DPM should automatically be fired or asked to resign because of what had happened.What I do find unsatisfactory has been the apparent reluctance to simply say, "People in the Ministry of Home Affairs made errors, I lead the Ministry, and so I take responsibility for it and I am sorry." Step up, say it, accept it. Only then is it right to move on.Chua Mui Hoong rightly pointed out that the actual words said -- "This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has." -- fall short of actually accepting responsibillity. In her words:"["This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has."] expresses regret at an incident happening ... ["We made a mistake and I'm sorry for the mistake"] accepts institutional and personal responsibility."She calls it a "small detail". I would go further than her. When viewed together with the comments about who is responsible and who will have action taken against them, and how those comments have been articulated, it does seem that there has been no clear and unequivocal acceptance of institutional responsibility for Mas Selamat's escape.Ministers and top civil servants will never be the ones actually executing and implementing policies on the ground. Does this mean that they will only be held accountable for the policies and high-level decisions that they take? If that is the case, then unless policies are presented to them in excruciating minutiae, it will be well-nigh impossible for them to ever be held responsible for mistakes. Because the mistakes can almost always be pinned down to an error or omission by someone down the line.Leadership is not management. If you view a minister purely as a manager, then he (and here I consciously chose not write he/she) is responsible for the performance of his direct reports, and his direct reports are responsible for the performance of their direct reports, and so on.Leadership is different. The leader of an organisation is responsible for the entire organisation. Leadership requires one to take ownership of the group that one leads. Just as one takes credit for the achievements of the group, one must also take responsibility for the failings of the group, including those of individual group members. To be honest, the next time that the Government tries to claim credit for our security situation and attributes it to its policies, how credible would those claims be to Singaporeans?What has been said about government responsibility, seems to frame the entire discussion around ministers being managers. But ministers are leaders as well. They are our leaders. And they have to demonstrate leadership, to retain the moral authority that leaders need to have.Conceptually, accepting responsibility is different from the consequences of the occurrence of the failing. Accepting responsibility does not necessarily require the person to also resign or offer to resign. They are separate issues. That is why I, like Chua Mui Hoong, do not believe that it is necessary for the DPM to resign or offer to resign. And if the DPM clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says that he takes responsibility for what had happened, I believe that that would go a long way towards addressing the discontent of most Singaporeans.The continued absence of a clear, explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility and apology will make it difficult for Singaporeans to accept what has been said and to move on. And that is a huge pity. It was a chance to set an example of true accountability and transparency to the world, and I think we let that chance slip. Mas Selamat I normally don't blog during office hours, but this got me all excited. I just received a Notice Paper from Parliament (No. 85 of 2008) with the following contents.NOTICE FOR THE SITTING ON 21 APRIL 2008MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS1. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs:Committee of Inquiry Findings on Mas Selamat Kastari’s Escape.2. Prime Minister:Government Responsibility.Unfortunately, I will be in Hong Kong for business next week, and have already applied for leave from the Parliamentary sittings next week. I've asked whether there will be a debate on the statements and when that will take place. Budget 2008: MICA, 29 February 2008 I decided to speak on this topic after my abortive attempts at getting immigration and citizenship figures last year. It's no secret that the Government guards its secrets jealously, and uses official information to its strategic advantage, especially in responding to critics.I'm not convinced that, in this day and age, this is the best way to go. Indeed, this may even be unhealthy for Singapore in the long run. A book on the civil service last year (the title escapes me right now) highlighted the danger of "group think" in the civil service, but it is well-nigh impossible to have a diversity of rigorously-researched views or analyses in the absence of adequate information to do research or to analyse.The Senior Minister of State mentioned how MOM had published two papers on that day, about the employment of Singapore citizens, PRs and foreigners, and the quality of employment creation for Singapore citizens. I think that, far from supporting the SMS' argument, the fact that these papers were only published then, despite repeated requests by so many people -- not just myself -- really drives my point home. Why was the information not released earlier? Also, will it take a "cut" every Budget debate for such data to be released, or will MOM update and release this information regularly?The SMS also referred to a survey by Transparency International. Someone pointed out to me that this was actually TI's Corruption Perceptions Index, and not transparency as such. He questioned whether it was deliberate obfuscation, or lazy incompetence by a staffer. I have no answer to that. But it should be clear that while transparency is an important component of the standard policy prescriptions on fighting corruption, this particular survey is really not relevant to what I was saying.Finally, a couple of weeks after this exchange, the Straits Times ran an article on this issue. Hard to argue with its conclusions.Ministry of Information, Communications and the ArtsOfficial Information 29 February 2008Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, the Government collects and holds a lot of information. Yet, much, if not most, of that is unavailable, even to researchers for research purposes. The Government controls how much data to release, and how and when. Available data is sometimes presented differently at different times, making comparison difficult.Even MPs, it seems, are not able to obtain certain data. I know, because I have asked for citizenship and PR figures in Parliament, but I have been told by MHA that it is "unable to provide this specific data requested." No reasons were cited. And it seems parliamentary convention permits this.Meanwhile, we simply do not record some types of data. Most notably, when MOM tracks resident employment data, it does not differentiate between citizens and resident foreigners. I think most Singaporeans would consider that essential information if only to better understand how their country is changing. This Government fiercely prides itself on its transparency and accountability.I therefore ask the Government to be more proactive in collecting and publishing official statistics. Any official data that does not invoke national security or similar concerns should be made available. Indeed, I urge the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act to set the rules under which Government information is made available to the public as of right.In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution describing freedom of information as a fundamental human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which forms part of customary international law, explicitly provides for the right to seek and receive information. The right to information is therefore a fundamental human right. It is timely for Singapore to have its own Freedom of Information Act. Such legislation promotes transparency and accountability. It allows citizens to understand their governments better. It facilitates independent research. It enriches the history of the nation.Today, over 70 countries around the world have such legislation. Even China, a Communist state, is implementing a statute on access to government information. It will come into force on 1st May 2008. It is time for Singapore, as a developed country, to take its rightful place within that group of countries.The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): [...]Let me now turn to Mr Siew Kum Hong’s concern about freedom of information, which was a subject of discussion in this House at least twice before. Sir, Singapore is plugged into the globalised world and thrives on a free flow of information. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) in its Asian Intelligence Report’s assessment of economic statistics noted that for Singapore, "a wide range of topics are quickly compiled and made available to researchers on a regular basis". The range, coverage and availability of our economic and social statistics compare very favourably to those compiled and disseminated by more statistically developed countries, for example, US, UK, Australia and Hong Kong. The IMF, in its annual Article IV consultations, has also consistently assessed Singapore’s economic statistics to be timely, credible and reliable.Mr Siew also asked about the availability of information such as employment data differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. In line with national statistical practice, MOM regularly publishes employment figures by residents (Singapore citizens and PRs) and non-residents (foreigners). MOM has also released two papers today retrievable on their website - the first on the employment of Singapore citizens, PRs and foreigners, a subject that Mr Siew showed interest in, and the second on the quality of employment creation for Singapore citizens.Similarly, the Department of Statistics publishes regular demography statistics according to this breakdown, in addition to other economic and social statistics. In fact, all Government agencies regularly provide updated information on matters of public interest, such as health, education, and finance through the media, publicity campaigns as well as the Internet.The National Archives of Singapore is also a rich repository of historical data that is invaluable to researchers. As stipulated by the National Heritage Board Act 1993, most archived public records are made available for public consultation after a 25-year period.The lack of legislation on Freedom of Information has not prevented Singapore from doing well in international studies of transparency. In 2007, Transparency International ranked Singapore fourth in an international survey, above the United States, which does have a Freedom of Information Act.That Singapore is a financial, information and economic hub, and that the people’s trust in our Government remains high, is proof that the system we have today is working well. Speech by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan: 5 March 2008 Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, spoke in Parliament on 5 March 2008, when he rounded up the Committee of Supply debate on MCYS. He touched on my speech, and the relevant excerpts leading up to and following that reference are reproduced below.I'm not quite sure what the reference to a "debating speech" was all about. I prefer not to speculate. In any case, whether or not a speech is a debating speech, is quite beside the point -- ultimately, what should matter is the content.I will say though, that not all lawyers are debaters, and I most certainly am not and was not one. I must admit that part of me was both amused and secretly chuffed at the apparent suggestion that I'm a good debater, because the most I ever did was an intra-class debate in secondary school, and that was more than enough to show that I was quite lousy at it. The Minister is the debater, as he mentioned.There is quite a lot of truth and merit to what the Minister says, about the causes of poverty. But even a casual reading of my speech will show that I did not advocate a bloated bureaucracy, as the Minister seems to suggest I did. I will, in a subsequent post, write a bit more about some post-Budget thoughts I have.Speech by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan5 March 2008[...]My current angst, when I talk about young people, is whether our children or our grandchildren, born in the midst of plenty, spend more time thinking about how to spend their inheritance. And sometimes even in this House, we hear debate that we are a rich country, we can spend more even if it means being wasteful. Instead of coming back to the basics that, yes, we do need safety nets, but we have to start with the family, and we have got to be self reliant, disciplined and hardworking. Because we must remember that, at the end of day, even when we talk about MCYS, money is important. Anyone who has been poor, directly or indirectly, will tell you money is very, very important. But money is also not enough. All the wealth in the world will not buy you happiness and success, nor will it eliminate all the social problems which we face. Those of us who do regular meet-the-people sessions, we see people coming with problems. Let me ask Members: do you really think their most fundamental problem is the lack of money? Is it a poverty of material wealth? Or is it usually a poverty of relationships? I think those of us who have been in this and lived long enough will agree that the real and bigger problem is the poverty of relationships.So we all need families and we do need a compassionate society. And if we look around us, and we look at a child, we will know that the greatest predictor for failure is a dysfunctional family, if his parents are not there, if his parents do not care or do not know how to care, or his parents are physically in prison or because of addiction, gambling or whatever, and not there to provide that ballast and the emotional stability for the child.But we also know that it is not just about families, because we all want a more compassionate, caring, a "softer" society. However, Singapore will fail, if our society degenerates into nothing more than a collection of successful individuals just achieving success and earning money for themselves and looking for pleasure and satisfaction for themselves. If we have no shared values, no shared ideals and no dreams, the Singapore experiment will fail, even if we have money and even if we have reserves.One point I want to come back to in today's debate is I want Members to remember Mr. Sam Tan's brilliant speech last week. I was not here because I was overseas with the President, but I read his speech three times. He talked about how it is not a dilemma between the young and the old. It is not even a dilemma between the rich and the poor, but between head and heart. He said that the head knows we cannot be overly generous; the head knows that we sometimes have to be cruel to be kind. And yet the heart wants the poor to be rich and the weak to be strong. And he said that it is better that now we are preparing for all these problems before they become insoluble problems; the time to do it is now.I also read with great distress Mr Siew Kum Hong's speech. I am a debater. That was a very brilliant debating speech. And I actually share his hopes when he said that he wants Singapore to be a more generous society that helps its most vulnerable members - beautiful words. But the danger was in the rest of his speech when he said, in order to fulfill this hope, we should be prepared to waste, we should be prepared to have a bloated bureaucracy, all in the name of helping people.I believe in getting all the different actors on the social stage to do what they are best at. I believe in a small, efficient, rational, even calculating Government, because that is what governments can and should do best. I believe in a social service sector, a voluntary welfare sector led by many champions, people like Ms Denise Phua, no matter how much I disagree with her on points, I will always respect people like her because they do what they believe in, and they care and they care passionately about it.When we say we want a more generous, compassionate, caring society, the lazy way out is to say, "We want the Government to be generous, compassionate and caring, and the Government can express that generosity, caring and compassionate by simply spending a lot of money." Raise taxes, spend a lot of money and pretend that we have achieved a generous society that helps people who are most vulnerable.Our model is a small, efficient Government, with low taxes, so that people like Dr Loo Choon Yong can still continue cheerfully paying his taxes, because they are actually very low than if he were to live anywhere else in the world. But more than paying low taxes, we want him and people like him to donate money, time and attention to social causes which they care about. So I was very happy when I saw his name and Mr Sim Wong Hoo's name mentioned in the Forbes list of philanthropists.What I am trying to spell to Members is a system in which individuals work hard, individuals look after their families, community organisations care and express the best parts of our heart, while the Government acts in the background carefully, rationally, logically and sensibly to make sure that the overall system functions. That is the context behind which I view every single policy, every single plan that my Ministry puts up.[...] Videos of Budget 2008 speech Here are the videos (in two parts) for my speech on the Budget statement on 26 February 2008, once again courtesy of Watch Tower V. Women and an ASEAN Human Rights Body: A commemoration of International Women’s Day I have been tardy in updating this blog, mostly because I took some personal time after the Budget debates and after that I have been focusing on work. Over the next few days, I will post some updates on my speeches during the Budget debates, and also try to figure out how to add Vodpod to this blog.In the meantime, MARUAH Singapore is organising a forum in partnership with AWARE, Unifem Singapore and the Society of Financial Service Professionals, to commemorate International Women's Day. Please do attend if you can.Date: Saturday 29th MarchEvent description:Singapore holds the chairmanship of Asean from July 2007-July 2008. During it’s tenure, Asean countries signed the Asean Charter. Article 14 of the Charter affirms Asean’s commitment to the ‘protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’. To promote these aims, Article 14 calls for the setting up of an “Asean human rights body”. Singapore was the first country to ratify this treaty.What is the current status of women’s rights in Asean and how can Article 14 make a tangible difference in advancing these rights? How much further does Asean have to go in the sphere of gender equality and human rights?Come down and listen to the views of speakers both local and regional on these questions and more.Please RSVP attendance to:maruahforum@gmail.comTime: 3-5pm (Registration begins at 2.30pm)Venue: Function Hall, 5th Storey Podium, URA Building Speech by Minister Tharman: 27 February 2008 Minister Tharman delivered his round-up speech today, on the debate on the Budget statement over the past couple of days. The text of his speech is available here, while the video will be available here for a limited time. I have reproduced his response to my speech below (from the prepared text, not checked against delivery).I have always maintained that my speeches must speak for themselves, must stand and fall on their own. So I will only make a few short comments:Minister Tharman did not say anything about the first part of my speech, about the benefits of GDP (not) going to Singaporeans.Someone (whose views I respect) told me that this was not one of my better speeches, that it was not constructive or different. Well, I think there is nothing constructive that can be said here about compassion -- either you believe in the idea of what I said, or you don't. It is about the idea, not about specifics.I did not advocate completely ignoring waste, deadweight loss and disincentives to work. Instead, I believe that in some situations, some wastage of public funds should be tolerated, if the overall benefit outweighs that wastage. While the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, not all good intentions lead to hell.I did not say anything that could possibly be construed as not caring about creating wealth at all, as the Zaobao columnist seems to have suggested. That is a strawman argument, and it's easy to debunk a strawman argument. Indeed, I do believe in and applaud the Budget measures aimed at our long-term competitiveness -- I merely chose not to include it in my speech.Finally, I suspect that as these things go, I got as mild a rebuke as I possibly could have. And I appreciate that.Speech by Minister Tharman27 February 20085.1. Mr Speaker Sir, the most important debate in the last two days has been about the basic ethic that we want to sustain in our society.5.2. We all aspire to help and uplift the less fortunate members of our society.5.3. Mr Siew Kum Hong made an impassioned speech. He says that the Government is only concerned about not eroding the work ethic, rather than caring for Singaporeans, and so we tend to provide the bare minimum to Singaporeans in need such that they have just enough to survive.(a) His description does not square with the reality of Government interventions to support the lower income group. Through Workfare, through our housing subsidies, through our CPF subsidies and top-ups, through the support we provide the poor with Medifund and through the many flexible schemes that ComCare offers, we are providing substantial support for lower income Singaporeans.(b) His desire to see nobody left behind is noble and shared by us all. But his exhortation that we should ignore waste, ignore deadweight loss, ignore disincentives to work is quite reckless.(c) As Chew Chu Ching pointed out in his ZaoBao column today, commenting on Mr Siew Kum Hong’s speech, “if a country does not care about creating wealth at all, it is big question whether it could survive in the real world." [cartoon from ZaoBao to the same effect](d) To be able to help the poor, we must first create wealth, grow our GDP and provide every incentive for Singaporeans to strive and work to improve their lives and that of their families.(e) If our policies harm that, for the noblest of reasons, we will be in serious trouble, as many other countries have found. Instead of helping the people we all want to help, we will be doing worse for them.5.4. The real issue is how we can keep our economy productive and vibrant, and how we can keep our society resilient and caring, not just now or for a few years, but for many years to come. Will it be achieved by Government giving more and more and handing out more and more goodies, which MPs like Mr Sam Tan, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mr Baey Yam Keng and Dr Lim Wee Kiak cautioned against?5.5. As Chua Mui Hoong put it in yesterday’s Straits Times, “it is timely to recall that the Finance Minister is not the God of Fortune, and that not all calls for spending have merit. Even if there is a $6.4b surplus”.5.6. Our basic philosophy has been and must remain what Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, Dr Lily Neo, Ms Lee Bee Wah, Mrs Josephine Teo and Dr Lim Wee Kiak expressed – we must keep alive the incentive for every Singaporean to strive and maximize opportunities to do better for themselves and their families.5.7. This Budget has given Singaporeans something to tide over their present difficulties. But far more important is what we do to help every individual upgrade himself through education and training, to stay in a job and keep advancing his skills, and to save for retirement.5.8. We have embarked on new initiatives, and there is much more work ahead. We will stay focused on this central task. As Mdm Halimah Yacob summed up, it is what we have to do so that this continues to be a place where everyone has the opportunity to fulfill his dreams through hard work and can look forward to the future with hope.5.9. This is the philosophy which will keep Singapore going through good years and bad, which will ensure that prosperity will last more than 3 generations as Mr Seng Han Thong hoped. And above all, which will make this a society where every Singaporean can be proud that they are playing their part, not just by doing better for themselves, but by contributing to Singapore. Budget 2008: Speech on Budget Statement, 26 February 2008 This is the prepared text of my speech. For the next few days, there will also be a video on CNA. The speech speaks for itself.Midway through my speech, Minister Tharman got up and went to discuss something with the Prime Minister. That was a little unnerving. I look forward to his response tomorrow.Budget 20081. Mr Speaker Sir, much has been said about this year’s Budget – much praise, many keen observations, and certainly, plenty of smart suggestions. I hope that this House will bear with me, as I add a few more comments.FY2007 surplus2. We had a surplus of $6.45 billion last year. This year’s Budget is projected to incur a deficit of $0.8 billion. There will remain a huge amount of funds from last year’s surplus that remains untouched.3. Singaporeans see last year’s unexpected surplus, as a windfall generated in large part by the increased GST rate, their overall increased consumption, and their property purchases. It is only then natural for Singaporeans to want to partake of this perceived windfall.4. The Government has argued in favour of prudence, of keeping something in reserve to meet unexpected contingencies. The other side of the coin, then, is that the Government must not hesitate to use this massive war chest to provide assistance if and when needed. I think if either the economy or inflation gets much worse over the course of the year, Singaporeans will rightly expect appropriate off-Budget measures from the Government.5. Perhaps more accurate forecasting and projections in future would go a long way towards avoiding the repetition of such surprises. After all, surprises on such a scale are not desirable.6. Thanks to this Government’s ability to consistently perform better fiscally than initially projected, many people have learnt to discount its forecasts. Even before we start the new fiscal year, economists have begun contradicting the official forecast of a deficit for this year. This state of affairs cannot be healthy.7. More importantly, improved accuracy in forecasting will ensure that we do not raise taxes like GST, or government fees and charges, unnecessarily, to make up for revenue shortfalls that do not materialize. Such increases impose a burden on the people, and as we have seen, have a strong inflationary effect.Who benefits from GDP growth?8. Sir, the Minister has attributed this massive surplus to an active property market and better-than-expected economic growth. But despite last year’s impressive real GDP growth of 7.7%, many Singaporeans still do not feel better off. Instead, in the face of the worst inflation experienced in 25 years, there is an extremely strong sense of being worse off amongst many Singaporeans. Why is that so?9. No less than Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has criticized the use of GDP growth as an indicator of progress. He noted that GDP growth does not measure environmental degradation or depreciation of natural resources. It can mask declines in quality of life, where GDP may go up but people’s income could be going down. He also pointed out that such a practice rewards governments only for increasing materialistic production. Well, Mr Stiglitz has been asked by the French President to head a panel, tasked with devising a new method of economic calculation that includes quality-of-life measures.10. Indeed, there is a view amongst some Singaporeans, that our stunning headline growth numbers do not tell the full picture. We are told that Singapore has done well, is doing well, and will continue to do well. Our blistering GDP growth in recent years supports this view. Even with the imminent slowdown, we are still expected to grow by between 4 and 6 percent this year – healthy by any standards.11. And yet, some questions persist. Who exactly has benefited from all this growth? How much have Singaporeans benefited from it?12. Sir, I will try to shed some light on those questions. Let me start with wages. Wages as a proportion of Gross National Income has stayed relatively stable, averaging 43% in the period between 1993 and 2007. It was 41% in 2007.13. We do not have official statistics on the breakdown of wages between residents and non-residents. But we do know that the majority of jobs created in the past three years went to foreigners.14. As at December 2007, there were 900,800 non-resident foreigners employed here, or one-third of our workforce of 2.73 million. This compares with 671,200 non-resident foreigners employed here as at December 2005, or 28.9% of the 2.32 million workforce then. The proportion of non-resident foreigners in the workforce has increased by 15% over the past three years.15. Unless most of the jobs that went to non-resident foreigners during the past three years were low-income jobs, which I certainly hope was not the case given how heavily our growth strategy relies on the attraction of high-quality foreign talent here, the increase in the proportion of non-resident foreigners in the workforce means that the share of wages going to foreigners has probably also increased in the past three years.16. And this is based on non-resident foreigners. Once permanent residents are factored in, the proportion of wages going to non-citizens would be even higher.17. In other words, in proportionate terms, non-citizens seem to be benefiting from our GDP growth more than Singaporeans are, at least in terms of wages. As our population moves towards 6.5 million in Year X, fuelled mainly by more foreigners coming to Singapore, this trend will only accelerate.18. Well, what about capital? Perhaps if Singapore-owned capital is benefiting from the economic growth, then we could make the case that economic growth has benefited Singaporean entrepreneurs and investors.19. Unfortunately, the picture may be even bleaker for capital. According to the Singapore Corporate Sector Report, in 1995, 30% of the paid-up shares in Singapore companies were foreign-owned. By 2005, this percentage had jumped to 45%.20. In other words, the proportion of foreign ownership in the Singapore corporate sector increased by 50% in the 10 years between 1995 and 2005. If I had to guess, I would say that this proportion has increased further in the three years since.21. Sir, even I would say that the statistics I have cited are not conclusive. There is a fair amount of inference and guesswork there. But I think it all shows that there are some very legitimate questions that can be asked, that need to be asked, about the true extent to which Singaporeans are benefiting from all this economic growth.22. I do not think it is enough to merely say that our economic growth has created jobs for Singaporeans, that the low resident unemployment rate serves as a proxy indicator of the benefits from growth. That is a purely quantitative measure. Quite apart from the point that the statistics available group both Singaporeans and permanent residents together, those figures do not shed any light whatsoever on the quality of jobs going to residents, on the extent to which residents have benefited.23. Sir, I do not mean to be xenophobic, or to argue against having foreigners here. I work in a US MNC, mostly with foreigners, and certainly I appreciate the many important contributions they make to our economy. But surely, Singapore’s economic growth should benefit Singaporeans more than others.24. Some Members have already questioned the so-called “grow at all costs” strategy, of growing the economy as much as we can in good times, to make up for the years of slow or no growth. This seemingly unrelenting focus on GDP growth alone does not take into account the quality or nature of that growth, or the distribution of its benefits.25. And I have to ask: why should Singaporeans continue to support this pursuit of GDP growth, when they pay the price for it in terms of higher inflation and more stressful and poorer quality of lives, and yet may not be reaping the benefits to an appropriate extent?The Government’s approach to helping Singaporeans26. Sir, a possible answer may be that even if Singaporeans are not benefiting as much as others, the Government does reap a fair amount of gains, which it then uses to assist needy Singaporeans.27. Certainly, the special transfers are welcome. I applaud the Government for its efforts to re-distribute all this money to the needy and the lower-income. And I must confess that it dismays me, when higher-income Singaporeans complain about getting less than their less well-to-do brethren.28. But special transfers are ad hoc in nature. Unless we tap on the reserves, they are conditional upon surpluses in past years. We need to make sure that there is protection for Singaporeans in bad times as well, which is exactly when the need for help is at its greatest.29. Sir, I do not intend to suggest specific measures for the Government to consider. Other Members have made many sound suggestions, and I am sure that many more will be made over the next two weeks.30. Instead, I propose to explore what seems to be the Government’s philosophy in helping Singaporeans. Its approach seems to be underpinned by three fundamental principles: avoid wasting public funds; avoid undermining the work ethic; and avoid creating a bloated bureaucracy by keeping things simple. Unfortunately, this approach will often clash with our basic human impulse for care, concern and compassion, and it wil